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 Pete Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Lee White, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Lee White. David Fitzsimmons and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance 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.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if any Commissioners had to leave early. Ms. White said she had to leave at 6:00P.M. Ms. Mickelsen asked for the public's indulgence and announced that there would be a slight change in the items on the agenda. She asked if Ms. Giraud would like to make her presentation at this time.
OTHER BUSINESS
Workshop with Mr. Nore' Winter. Consultant.
Ms. Giraud talked about using the Certified Local Government (CLG) money available from the State to pay the consultant fee for Mr. Nore' Winter, who will be traveling to Salt Lake City to conduct a series of workshops with the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that the dates would be July 14, 15, or 16, 2003.
Ms. Giraud said that the funds would only pay for two sessions: one with the Historic Landmark Commission and another with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) staff. She pointed out that Mr. Winter would provide a preliminary assessment outlining issues with the Commission and the possible steps to take to resolve them.
Ms. Giraud polled the Commissioners and it was the general consensus that most members would be available on Monday, July 14, 2003.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze circulated copies of a memorandum, dated May 23, 2003, by Council Member Eric Jergensen to the City Council asking the Administration to review Salt Lake City's approach to historic preservation. A copy was filed with the minutes. Council Member Jergensen wrote, "As Council Member for District Three, I am requesting the Council's support for a Legislative Action Item. The preservation of historic buildings, structures, and landmarks within the city is of utmost importance in order to provide a historic legacy for future generations." Mr. Zunguze said that to clarify Salt Lake City's approach to historic preservation, Council Member Jergensen requested information such as the following:
1. A written summary of the historic preservation approach presently taken by the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC), including a review of the policies, assumptions, objectives and philosophies employed in the consideration of projects brought before the HLC. Please include guidelines, in addition to those listed in City ordinance, which provide the basis for such consideration, for example, federal guidelines, professional best practices, etc.
2. An assessment of the City's 1995 decision to change the Historic Landmark Commission from an advisory body to a decision-making body, including a review of the pros and cons associated with both approaches.
3. A review of the scope of the Commission's duties, as defined by ordinance, compared with duties that may be presently performed but are outside the ordinance and the efficacy of such "outside of scope" duties. (For example, the Council Office has received an inquiry about whether it is the role of the Commission to design or redesign projects that are before them for consideration).
4. An overall evaluation of the extent to which the current ordinances, policies, and processes are conducive to creating an effective balance between preservation of historic areas and the natural evolution and maintenance of vibrant neighborhoods as envisioned by the City's development goals. For instance, how does the Commission ensure that historic neighborhoods are provided sufficient flexibility to assure broad demographic retention and the provision of vital neighborhood services? If so, what changes to the ordinance are necessary to more effectively allow the Commission to create such a balance?
5. How many Planning Staff members are needed to carry out the duties and responsibilities associated with the preservation districts and what level of expertise is necessary?
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Preservation Staff now had the task to write a response to issues raised in the memorandum. He added that the City Council asked the members of the Commission not to respond through the media regarding the issues raised in the memorandum. However, he said that it was important that the Commissioners provide input on the issues. Mr. Zunguze said that the City Council had not given Staff a timeline in which to respond.
Mr. Zunguze inquired if the Commissioners wanted to reply, individually, or as a Commission. He commented that it would be more beneficial if the Commission responded as a unit. Mr. Zunguze said that he did not know how long it would take Staff to work through the issues. He advised the Commission to look at those issues very seriously because changes could arise from the results. Mr. Zunguze stated that Salt Lake City should still have historic preservation in a way that would benefit all communities, no matter what changes may occur in the future. Ms. Mickelsen and others agreed.
Ms. Mickelsen recommended waiting until the end of the public hearings to discuss this matter further.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2003 meeting, as amended. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. White abstained. Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 007-01 Cat 326 South 600 East. 334 South 600 East. 550 East 300 South. And 558 East 300 South. by Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation. requesting an extension to the previous approval for demolition of these buildings. which are located in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented her memorandum, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud gave the following overview: Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation is requesting an extension of time of the approval to demolish the following four structures in the Central City Historic District: 1) The Stephen Covey Apartments at 326 South 600 East; 2) The Mary Ann Mumford house, also known as the Eber Case house at 334 South 600 East; 3) the Mozart Apartments at 550 East 300 South; and 4) The Frederick Fail house at 558 East 300 South.
On March 21, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission denied Mr. Holman's request to demolish fourteen contributing structures located between 500 and 600 East, and 300 and 400 South. This decision required Overland Development Corporation, represented by Mr. Holman, to pursue the economic hardship process in order to receive approval from the Historic Landmark Commission to demolish the buildings. Mr. Holman requested that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt its previous findings of economic hardship relating to a previous application for demolition of the buildings and new development known as Winthrop Court, represented by American Housing Corporation, from 1997-1999. In that case, the Economic Review Panel found an economic hardship and the Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition of the structures. In 1997, prior to reviewing the findings of the Economic Review Panel for the Winthrop Court proposal, the Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition of the Fail house, and thus it did not have to go through the economic hardship process.
On May 2, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission voted to accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel pertaining to the Winthrop Court proposals, allowing Overland Development Corporation to move forward with demolition of the structures. The Historic Landmark Commission also voted that these findings did not apply to the Fail house, whose economic hardship status had never been reviewed. Mr. Holman appealed the Historic Landmark Commission's decision regarding the Fail house to the Land Use Appeals Board basing his appeal on the fact that in 1997, the Historic Landmark Commission found that the Fail house met six of the six standards of the ordinance, and thus demolition could not be denied. When reviewed on March 21, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission did not individually review each criterion for every structure proposed for demolition. Mr. Holman argued that the 1997 finding should apply. The Land Use Appeals Board heard this case on June 28, 2001, and overturned the Historic Landmark Commission's decision.
The Historic Landmark Commission heard a request from Mr. Holman to extend the demolition approval on April 17, 2002. Because the Fail house was one of several buildings in the demolition request, Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, stated that June 28, 2002 was the effective expiration date of the demolition approval. At the April 17, 2002 meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission voted in favor of the demolition approval extension to June 28, 2003.
Mr. Holman is requesting a second extension to June 28, 2004. Section 21A.10.1O{D) Extensions of Time of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states that extensions "shall not exceed twice the length of original period". Thus, this is the final extension for demolition approval of these properties that Overland Development Corporation can request.
Mr. Holman, in behalf of Overland Development Corporation, has filed a landscaping plan for these properties that will be reviewed at this meeting. Mr. Rob Fetzer of Overland Development Corporation is requesting the extension in order to insure that the demolition approvals do not expire while he secures a demolition permit from the City.
Ms. Giraud offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission grant a second extension, to June 28, 2004."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Littig inquired if certain maintenance was expected on these properties. Ms. Giraud said that the owner has to maintain it for weeds also has to make certain that the buildings are boarded effectively. Mr. Ashdown commented that the properties have not been maintained over the past years. Ms. Giraud said that should be an enforcement issue.
Ms. Rowland asked if the City requires a progress report of the development on this site. Ms. Giraud said that a reuse plan is required by ordinance and landscaping could be a reuse plan. She said that both the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission approvals have to be logged into the system when the permits are granted. The applicant has to keep making progress on either landscaping or the new construction project. Ms. Heid said that progress on the reuse plan did not seem very evident. Ms. Giraud that is the next step in the progression.
Ms. Rowland stated that there has been progress made on Phase I, but what about the other two phases. Ms. Giraud suggested asking the applicant. Ms. Rowland inquired if there were inspectors working for the City assigned to check on the progress of a project after the permits have been issued. Ms. Giraud said that the City can enforce landscaping if something is not built on the property.
Ms. Mickelsen clarified that the subject properties being reviewed at this meeting would be part of the second and third phases of the project. Ms. Giraud said that was correct.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Fetzer of Overland Development Corporation, representing the applicant, was present. He said that Mr. Holman was attending a Redevelopment Agency committee meeting and will arrive later.
Mr. Fetzer presented an update on the project. He said that Overland Development Corporation would be ready to apply for the appropriate building permits for Phase I of the Emigration Court project, as soon as the construction financing was completed, which should be in three to five weeks. He said that the applicant had met with Public Utilities and Building Services regarding some easements. He pointed out that construction would begin as soon as all the issues are resolved.
Mr. Fetzer said that the overall design review of the project has been through the Historic Landmark Commission. He added that as soon as the architects finalize the plans on Phase II and Phase III, they would again come before this Commission for final approval of the project.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion and inquired about the timeline for construction. Mr. Fetzer said that he was not certain because the applicant still has some restrictions on the rezoning approvals that have to be resolved.
• Ms. Rowland asked if Phase I was still going to include affordable housing. Mr. Fetzer said that that Redevelopment Agency (RDA) put some restrictions on the site after the underground parking was moved to surface parking behind the structure. He added that the RDA will not relinquish control and will not allow any rent restrictions on the site. Mr. Knight said the idea behind that was to encourage market-rate housing for City projects. Mr. Knight pointed out that at one time the RDA had a financial interest in a parcel of the property and when the land was re subdivided, the restrictions were extended to the entire property site until 2005. When Ms. Rowland inquired, Mr. Fetzer said after that date, the restrictions would be removed.
Mr. Ashdown stated that when the Commission drove by the subject properties on the ·field trip, he saw that some of the buildings were not boarded adequately because some windows were broken, weeds were thick, and tree roots had been uprooted and left on the property. He said that it looked like the properties had not been maintained at all. Mr. Fetzer said that the applicant has been working through Mr. Nole Walkingshaw, Enforcement Investigator for the City, and the properties had been maintained according to guidelines issued by Salt Lake City Corporation. Mr. Fetzer added that every week some of the buildings have to be re-boarded. He also said that the applicant has hired a maintenance crew to service the properties every other week.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen 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. Thomas Mutter, a resident of the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East, inquired if he could speak on behalf of the tenants and then speak for himself. Ms. Mickelsen said she understood that the Juel Apartments property was not included in the request for extension. Mr. Mutter pointed out that the Juel Apartment building was an adjacent structure. Ms. Giraud said that the Juel was not one of the four listed requesting an extension of time. After Mr. Mutter's intention had been clarified, he said that the tenants in the occupied building on 300 South have not been given notice when they needed to move. Mr. Mutter also said that the tenants now living in the Juel Apartments are also curious if they will be evicted before the first phase of the project is completed. He said that the tenants of the Juel were guaranteed that they could move into Phase I before the Juel is ready for demolition. Mr. Mutter stated that he recently saw the landscaping crew working on the property and mowing the lawns for the first time. He also reported that the structure two buildings to the north of the Juel Apartments caught on fire. Mr. Mutter said that he did not know what was causing it, but there was a terribly foul smell coming from the property, like a sewer line had burst. Mr. Mutter stated that no care had been given to the properties and it would be beneficial for the applicant to demolish the buildings and to "pretty up the site with landscaping to sell it again".
Ms. Mickelsen said she would like to address the eviction issue. Mr. Fetzer said that to his knowledge, only one unit was occupied in another building on 600 East and has been given notice that the rent would be on a month-to-month basis because the lease would not be renewed. He said that an asbestos crew would go in and abate the buildings in about thirty days, just as soon as the contractors could get their air quality application. Mr. Fetzer said that the tenants living in the Juel Apartments would be given ample notice. Ms. Mickelsen asked how much advanced notice would the tenants be given and Mr. Fetzer said at least thirty days. Mr. Mutter inquired further about the tenants of the Juel Apartments moving into Phase I of the project when it is completed so they would not have to find another place in which to live. Mr. Fetzer said that Phase I should take about fourteen months to complete. Mr. Fetzer noted that he did not know about the arrangement. He said, "We would love nothing more than to have them as tenants in the first phase." Ms. Heid inquired if that was feasible with the restrictions on affordable housing. Mr. Fetzer said they would have to be rented as market-rate units. Ms. Heid said that would be quite a different scenario when the tenants were led to believe there would be affordable units. Mr. Fetzer agreed, it is a different scenario than what the applicant thought. Mr. Fetzer indicated that the officials in the Fire Department believed that the fire in the Covey Apartments on 600 East was started by a transient, who accidentally set the back of the building on fire.
Mr. Holman arrived and Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for Mr. Holman, the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Ashdown inquired about the tenants being told they could move into Phase I of the project when completed before the Juel Apartment building is demolished. Mr. Holman said that he had no intention of tearing the Juel down for quite a while. He said, "Our request for demolition is including everything but the Juel."
Mr. Holman stated that he felt it was important that the Historic Landmark Commission understood both sides of the equation and some of the problems developers go through. He pointed out that Phase I of the project has turned out to be a real financing issue. Mr. Holman reported that he had a good tax-exempt bond purchaser for the project who would finance and provide a credit enhancement, which is a requirement for the issuance of the bond. Mr. Holman stated that it would be like a $19 Million letter of credit for the entire life of the bond. He said that financier believed that the housing market was "soft" right now and believed that the project would not produce market-rate rents so the financier trimmed four and one-half million dollars off the loan. He added that they wanted Overland Development Corporation to match that amount in cash. Mr. Holman said that the financier would own 99.99 % of the project in order to transfer the tax credits. He said that when the RDA imposed the affordable housing restrictions on the project, it was like the "death knell" for the possibility of applying for tax credits. Mr. Holman said that demographically 80o/o of the renters fall into the category of affordable housing, but that did not mean Overland Development Corporation would not provide affordable housing, it just means that they are not forced to provide affordable housing and take a huge hit on the non-affordable segment of the project. He talked about length of time it was taking to get through the process and how frustrating it was for him. Mr. Holman said, "If you can't finance it, it doesn't matter how pretty it looks or what you have committed to, you still don't have a project."
Ms. Mickelsen said that she remembered a long discussion at a Commission meeting regarding the space behind the building but could not remember the details about moving the parking structure. Mr. Fetzer said that it should work out very well; it would tie in together with the other phases of the project.
• Ms. Rowland asked if there had been any other changes to the plans for Phase I. Mr. Holman said there is an incentive for a developer to make the units small, especially building affordable housing for tax credits. He stated that he believed in quality so there have been no changes in the size of the units by converting the development to a market-rate project. Mr. Holman said that the proposed affordable housing units were going to be the same size as the other units, which would have been less feasible to do. He added that the project just did not work out as planned.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience or the Commission, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Corr1mission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Since there was no other discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, entertained a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 007-01 C that in accordance with the briefing the Historic Landmark Commission received and the memorandum dated May 27, 2003 from Ms. Giraud included in the packets, that the Commission grant Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation, a one-year extension to the previous approval for demolition of the properties at 326 South 600 East, 334 South 600 East, 550 East 300 South, and 558 East 300 South to June 28, 2004 and reaffirm the Commission's interest in the enforcement of City Code requirements for the continued maintenance for the subject properties. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the enforcement of the code requirements on the property. Ms. Giraud said that she would get an action report from Mr. Walkingshaw.
Case No. 013-03. at 326 South 600 East. 334 South 600 East. 550 East 300 South. And 558 East 300 South. by Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation. requesting approval of a landscaping plan as a reuse plan following demolition of the buildings on these properties. which are located in the Central City 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.
Ms. Giraud gave an overview of the project: Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation is requesting approval for a landscaping plan of the site on which 326 South 600 East, 334 South 600 East, 550 East 300 South, and 558 East 300 South are located. The Historic Landmark Commission voted to approve demolition of the structures on May 2, 2001. The Commission approved a time extension of the demolition approvals on April 17, 2002. Because of an appeal issue regarding the Frederick Fail house at 558 East 300 South the effective date of the time extension is June 28, 2003.
In all cases regarding the demolition of contributing buildings, Staff has not allowed demolition until plans for new construction are submitted to the Salt Lake City Building Services Division and the plan review fee is paid, or until the Historic Landmark Commission approves a landscaping plan and the necessary bond money is paid to the City.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(P) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Review of Post-Demolition Plan for New Construction or Landscape Plan and Bond Requirements for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition which requires Historic Landmark Commission to approve new construction or a landscape plan for a vacant site.
Ms. Giraud stated that the landscaping plan, attached to the staff report, depicted 25 feet of grass, several trees, and the necessary irrigation infrastructure. She said that in addition Section 18.64.040 Post-demolition use plan required, pertains to this application. No demolition permit shall be issued until one of the following requirements has been met:
A. A permit for the use replacing the demolished building or structure has been issued by the Building and Housing Division;
B. A landscaping plan for the site, showing the sprinkling system and planted areas, has been approved and a performance bond to assure timely and proper installation and maintenance of the landscaping has been filed with the City in a form acceptable to the City. In the event the building official determines that landscaping is impracticable or unnecessary given the characteristics of the site and the neighborhood, the landscaping requirement may be waived subject to the provisions of Section 18.64.070 below; and
C. In the event of a natural disaster, fire, or other similar event or where immediate demolition and clearing of the land is necessary to remove hazardous or blighting conditions, the building official may waive the landscaping requirement and order immediate demolition. [Ordinance 13-91 § 2 (part), 1991].
Staff's finding of fact: The submitted landscaping plan includes a sprinkling system and planting areas. It is in accordance with the requirements of Sections 21A.34.020.34.020 (P) and 18.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code. It would be an acceptable reuse plan in the event that the applicant could not build the second and third phases of Emigration Court.
Ms. Giraud offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant." Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Littig inquired if the City was taking a proactive part of xeriscaped front yards. Ms. Giraud said that Ms. Stephanie Duer of Public Utilities and Ms. Marilynn Lewis and Ms. Cheri Coffey in the Planning Office, are revising the park strip ordinance to include xeriscaping plans. She stated that xeriscaping has become a big issue due to the drought. Ms. Mickelsen said that drought tolerant turf species are mentioned on the planting notes on the drawings.
Mr. Christensen mentioned that only one box elder tree would be removed and the other existing trees would remain, according to the plans. He wondered if the propose trees to be planted are on the City Forester's approval list. Ms. Giraud suggested verifying that with the applicant.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Corr1mission.
Mr. Ken Holman and Mr. Rob Fetzer of Overland Development Corporation, the applicants, were present. Mr. Holman suggested that Mr. Fetzer answer the question about the landscaping. Mr. Fetzer said that the Landscape Architects diagramed the plan and met with the City building officials who checked their code to make sure that everything was conforming. Mr. Fetzer pointed out that the box elder tree has already been removed, since the City initiated that tree removal.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and con1ments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion and asked about the timeline on demolishing the buildings. Mr. Holman said that would be accomplished as soon as possible. He added that the City was enforcing the City code of keeping those buildings boarded so the buildings would not get in more disrepair than they already are. Mr. Holman believed that the demolition permits could be issued in about four to six weeks. Ms. Mickelsen clarified that the boarded buildings would not sit for another year. Mr. Holman said that they would not. Mr. Fetzer said that the partners are signing the appropriate contracts. Ms. Mickelsen said that on the one hand the Commission does not want to see historic buildings torn down, but these buildings are becoming a nuisance to the City and the neighborhood.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicants, Ms. Mickelsen 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. Thomas Mutter, a resident of the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East, stated that he appreciated the applicant's commitment to the landscaping, but wondered where the commitment was for the last few years. Mr. Mutter spoke of the lack of maintenance and the trash being collecting on the properties. He mentioned the debris caused by the trees that he said were cut down two years ago. Mr. Mutter said that the area use to be very nice. He stated that it did not seem Mr. Walkingshaw would even discuss the matter with him.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
Since there was no other discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, entertained a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved that the 1-listoric Landmark Commission approve Case No. 013-03, based on the findings of fact and Staff recommendation included in the staff report, and accept the landscaping and irrigation proposal, presented at this meeting, as an interim reuse plan for the sites located at 326 South 600 East, 334 South 600 East, 550 East 300 South, and 558 East 300 South. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Rowland commented that she could not accept a landscaping plan as a reuse plan and has voted against that type of reuse plan in the past. Ms. Mickelsen said that perhaps Staff should make a note to look more closely at the ordinance. Ms. Giraud said that she proposed a possible change to the ordinance, but was discontinued by the previous Planning Director. Ms. Giraud pointed out that landscaping as a reuse plan is a very standard proposal and is included in the ordinance by many cities across the country.
Case No. 012-03, at 170 So. University Street. by St. Catherine's Newman Center. represented by Mr. Myron Richardson of Brixen and Christopher Architects. requesting approval to add a worship space and underground parking to the existing building. which is located in the University Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Lew gave an overview of the project: St. Catherine's Newman Center is requesting approval to construct an addition that includes a new worship space with a parking structure located below the addition. The property is located in the University Historic District, which was locally designated as a historic district in November of 1991. The base zoning of the property is RMF-45, Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential, the purpose of which is to provide an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density.
The project had to go through the Conditional Use/Planned Development process and was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2003. A place of worship is listed as a conditional use in the RMF-45 zoning district. The Planned Development approval includes modifications to building setback and grade change requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The Newman Center consists of three parcels of property: 170 S. University Street, the site of the Newman Center; 169 South 1300 East, occupied by a historic home built in 1899; and 1317 East 200 South, containing a surface parking lot. The site is bisected by an alley located between 1300 East and University Street. The main structure on the property was built in the 1913 by the Episcopal Church. The property was purchased by the Catholic Church in 1950 and has provided a home for students and facility of the university community. The building was extensively remodeled in 1987. Seismic upgrades to the building included a total resurfacing of the exterior walls with a similar type of brick material. A small addition was added to the north of the building to accommodate a new alter. Original windows were also replaced. The National Register nomination lists the building as "non-contributing" due to these alterations. Significant character-defining features have been so altered as to make the original materials and details indistinguishable and thus irreversible. Ms. Lew circulated a colored rendering of the proposed alterations.
The two-story, shingle-style home at 169 South 1300 East was designed by Frederick A. Hale, a prominent Salt Lake architect, for Frank B. and Lunette S. Stephens. More recent alterations to the front of the building include a metal railing and concrete steps.
The applicant's proposal includes several improvements to the Newman Center property. The new worship space would be located to the east side of the Newman Center. The parking lot currently accessible from University Street will be removed to accommodate the new addition. The addition will add approximately 6,000 square feet to the building and provide seating for 380 people. Interior improvements to the Newman Center include converting the second floor residential spaces to classrooms. Student housing will then be relocated on the third floor of the center, which currently provides housing for the Newman Center priests.
At one time, the property owners considered building a parking structure to replace the existing surface parking lot, but are now proposing to construct a subterranean structure. In addition, the surface parking lot will be expanded to the north to increase the number of parking spaces from 14 to 28 in this area. The parking structure and the surface parking lot will be accessed from the alley.
The Stephens house will also be renovated as part of this project and be converted into a rectory to accommodate housing for the priests. Plans for the renovation work have been included with this staff report. Staff has determined that these improvements may be reviewed and approved administratively. Additionally, an existing accessory structure will be removed to accommodate five parking stalls. This structure is not considered a significant structure on the site and the zoning ordinance allows the issuance of administrative approvals to demolition accessory structures.
Ms. Lew stated that all proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district unless otherwise modified by the Planned Development review process. The applicant requested that the Planning Commission modify provisions of the zoning ordinance to 1) allow grade changes in excess of two feet outside of the buildable area of the lot; and 2) modify minimum yard standards to legalize existing non-conforming setbacks on the south and west sides of the Newman Center.
Ms. Lew said that the Historic Landmark Commission has design review authority with respect to this request. She indicated that in order to make a decision, the Commission must use the standards found in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. She pointed out that Staff evaluated this proposal in terms of Section 21A.34.020(H), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure, which states: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, 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. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: Developed as a self-contained community, the historic district neighborhood contains mostly residential buildings built around the University of Utah and incorporates commercial, public, and religious structures to support the residents within the area. The subject property, located west of the university, is on a block that consists of a similar mix of land uses. The residential architectural types and styles are typical of buildings constructed at that time in other areas of the city. Victorian, Bungalow, and Period Revival styles dominate the districts residential character. The small-scale commercial strip along 200 South, between 1300 East and University Street, consists primarily of one-story structures. Built in 1925, the LOS University Ward Chapel is located to the north of the Newman Center. Its scale and massing contribute to the historic character of the area as well. In addition, out-of-period buildings and alterations have also influenced the appearance of the neighborhood.
The addition incorporates a design and materials that reflect the character of the existing structure. The roof pitch will be similar to that of the existing Newman Center.
Staff's finding of fact: The influence of the University of Utah on the development of the neighborhood is reflected in its diverse architectural fabric. Public and religious buildings were typically larger in height, width, scale and proportion than the earlier residential structures, and thus the scale and form of the proposed project falls within the range of building forms found in the area. The proposed roof form of the addition is similar to that of the existing structure and compatible with surrounding buildings. The proposed project meets this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The solid-to-void ratio is consistent with that of other historic religious buildings, but is clearly more contemporary in terms of design. The large ornamental windows reflect the gabled roof forms of the building and are divided into horizontal and vertical panes of glass. Although the entrance does not have a typical linear alignment to the street, the design complements the corner orientation of the property. Materials that match the existing structure are proposed for the addition.
Staff's finding of fact: The rhythm and proportion of the openings are similar and in keeping with fenestration patterns seen on religious architecture in the University neighborhood and throughout the city's historic districts. The proposed use of brick is consistent with the existing structure and similar to what is seen historically on religious buildings. The main entrance is visually compatible with the configuration of the lot. The proposed project meets this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity
along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.
Staff's discussion: A typical "wall of continuity" is not characteristic of the street frontage along University Street nor is there a particular rhythm of spacing and structures because of the variety of land uses on the block. The architect has sited the worship space to the front of the parcel because the existing structure is setback considerably from University Street. Although inconsistent with the alignment of the residential structures on the block, this configuration is similar to that of the LOS University Ward Chapel directly to the north. The orientation of the main facade on University Street has not changed and is consistent with the streetscape.
Landscape and pedestrian improvements will be provided that complement the new orientation of the main entrance. New street trees will be planted along University Street and in the front yard. The landscaping around the surface parking lot will be enhanced to create a double row of trees between the parking lot and the adjacent street.
Staff's finding of fact: Larger scale public buildings developed among smaller scale commercial and residential structures during the historic periods in Salt Lake City's historic districts. This lack of continuity is characteristic of the University Street streetscape. In the context of this site, the proposed project is compatible with the rhythm of spacing of structures on the street. Pedestrian improvements will be made to enhance the main entrance to the building. The proposed project meets this standard.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion: The property owner has plans to consolidate the two parcels at 169 South 1300 East and 1317 East 200 South into one parcel.
Staff's finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff recommendation, "Based upon the above analysis, staff finds that the proposed project meets the standards specified in the ordinance and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) If the Commission finds that further refinement is necessary, the review shall be conducted at the Architectural Subcommittee level; and 2) This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if the shingles on the Stephens house were original. He thought they were added later on and through the years. Ms. Mickelsen said that she believed they were original. Ms. Lew said that to her understanding, they were original, but suggested directing that question to the architect.
Mr. Parvaz asked about the exact location of the entry into the underground parking. Ms. Lew also suggested directing the question to the architect.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Myron Richardson of Brixen and Christopher Architects, representing the applicant, was present. He used a briefing board to further describe the project. Mr. Richardson stated that Ms. Lew did a fine job of explaining the project. He pointed to different elements of the proposal.
Mr. Richardson described the proposal in the following manner:
1. The Newman Center proposal is to provide a contemporary building that still respected the old building;
2. The same scale and form would be used;
3. The slopes would be exactly the same;
4. The materials would be used, matching as closely as can be sixteen years later. All the materials and effects will be in sympathy and harmony with the older buildings;
5. Roof shingles on the new addition will match the existing building
6. The new windows and peak forms that echo the dormers of the old building would be picked up in the windows of the proposed new section of the building.
7. There would be a stone wall behind the curved area near the alter constructed of the same sandstone used on the walls of the University of Utah campus, across the street; and
8. The underground parking would be under the building and the plaza area and entered from the alley west of the existing building.
Mr. Richardson said that the project received enthusiastic support when reviewed by the East Central Community Council. He pointed out that the project had already gone through the development review process.
Mr. Richardson showed a larger drawing of the residence on 1300 East. He said that the house would be restored as close as possible to its original condition. Mr. Richardson said that as far as he knew, the shingles are original. He added that they had been worked on over time. He said that the front porch had been enclosed and the intent is to restore the original open porch, as much as possible. Mr. Richardson said that he did not have original plans to the house, just photographs.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by clarifying that the plans for restoring the house was not part of the review at this meeting. Ms. Mickelsen said that the renovation would be approved administratively. Mr. Richardson said that the house property would have new landscaping, matching the existing City trees, and the ornamental flowers in the planters will remain. Mr. Parvaz asked Mr. Richardson to describe the plaza area. Mr. Richardson said that the plaza would be the same level as the first floor of the building. He added that a conditional use approval was pursued because of the two-foot grade change. Mr. Parvaz inquired further into the proposed parking garage. Mr. Richardson said that the direction in the proposed parking structure goes from north to south and would be larger than the footprint of the building. Ms. Heid pointed out that the drawings needed to be flip-flopped. Mr. Parvaz clarified that inaccuracy. Mr. Parvaz asked if the bridge crossing would continue from the existing building to the new building. Mr. Richardson said that was correct. He added that special bricks would have to be used because they have to be a little taller than normal bricks, but still available in matching colors. Mr. Parvaz asked about the glazing on the doors and windows. Mr. Richardson said that some of the windows would be trimmed in white to match the windows in the existing building, and some would be trimmed using pewter color aluminum. He pointed out that the windows would be glazed with clear high-efficiency, insulated glass.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if there would still be a slope onto 200 South. Mr. Richardson said that there would be a five percent grade slope which would meet ADA (Americans Disability Act) requirements. Ms. Mickelsen wanted to clarify that there would be access from the parking structure to the lower level of the building. Mr. Richardson said that was correct but said that the drawings did not reflect that. He said that the parking garage would be below grade. Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the existing parking lot to the west will stay the same. Mr. Richardson said it would with some additional landscaping around the perimeter and a wooden fence on the north side of the lot. It would also be wider to accommodate two rows of vehicles, Mr. Richardson stated.
Mr. Littig asked about ventilation into the parking garage, pointing out ventilating problems that had happened in the past with other parking structures. Mr. Richardson said that the parking garage would be power ventilated with a baffled sound barrier so it would not disturb the people attending the LOS Ward Chapel to the north. Mr. Littig encouraged the use of berming in the landscaping as a barrier to hide the parked cars using the existing parking lot. Mr. Richardson said that the applicant did not want to do any extensive work to the existing parking area. However, he said he would do what he could to hide the vehicles.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested citizen, said that she was in favor of this project. She said that the development team, the Catholic Church put together, was superb with their presentation to the community council. She added that the team has kept the council informed of any changes. Ms. Cromer said that the original plans changed for the Stephens house, which was fortunate. She said that early in the design process, there was a possibility that the house would be moved onto a vacant lot within the University Historic District. Ms. Cromer said that she was in favor of the renovation plans. She also pointed out that the development team never used the word "demolition" when considering the Stephens house. Ms. Cromer pointed out that the area on 1300 East between 200 and 300 South as "restaurant row", and the area on 1300 East between 100 and 200 South as "architect row", because most of the buildings were created by famous architects of their time. She concluded by saying that she looked forward to the completion of the project.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion continued. Since there were additional questions for the architect, it was the general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting for public comment. Ms. Mickelsen reopened the meeting.
Mr. Parvaz asked about the material for the white trim. Mr. Richardson said that the white trim would be metal flashing to protect the brick and a similar detail would be repeated on the new part of the building. He said that it was his intent is to paint it a dull white and repaint the existing trim to match. When Mr. Parvaz inquired, Mr. Richardson said that the element was not actually a bell; it is called a lantern or skylight of clear glass with pewter color metal.
There were no additional questions, so Ms. Mickelsen reclosed this portion of the meeting and continued with the executive session.
Since there was no other discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, entertained a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Case No. 012-03 and accept the proposal as written with no further conditions, based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation. Ms. White seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms.
Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsirr1mons and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 010-03. at 550 North 200 West. by Mr. Jim Adamson. requesting approval to construct a new single-family house in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
There was a short discussion whether or not Mr. Knight should give an overview of the project because it was done at the last meeting. The Commission decided that since the overview was not reflected in the minutes, due to its postponement, and some members of the Commission were not in attendance to hear the report, even though the project was described in the staff report, Mr. Knight would proceed with the overview.
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.
Mr. Knight gave an overview of the project: Mr. Jim Adamson of A & K L.L.C. is requesting approval to build a new house, of approximately 1,286 square feet, on a corner lot at 550 North 200 West. The lot is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics, as pertained in Section 21A.24.080(A) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The lot is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
This lot is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of 200 North and Girard Avenue. The property has been vacant for some time, and has been used as a parking lot for the adjacent triplex to the north.
This project conforms to the base yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zone, which include:
1. Minimum lot area for a single-family house is 5,000 sq. ft. This lot is approximately 4,814 square feet. Minimum lot width is 50'-0". This lot is 57'-8". In this case, the lot size does not meet the minimum lot area. Since this lot was created before the current zoning was in place, it is considered a buildable lot, even if the lot does not comply with all the provisions of the existing ordinance.
2. Maximum building height in a SR-1 district is 30'-0" (measured to the midpoint of the roof) or two-and-a-half stories, whichever is less. The revised drawings show that the house is 26'-8" to the ridge of the roof. The proposed work meets this requirement.
3. Setback requirements in an SR-1 zone are 25 percent of the lot depth or 25'-0" in the front yard (whichever is less) (20.875 feet on this lot); 4'-0" on an interior side yard and 10'-0" on a corner side yard.; and 25 percent of the lot depth, but not less than less than 15'-0" and need not exceed 30'-0" in the rear yard (20.875 feet on this lot).
The proposed building has setbacks of 22'-0" in the front yard, 19'-8" on the interior side yard, 10'-0" in the corner side yard, and 31'-6" in the rear yard. The proposed work meets these requirements.
The design proposed is two stories and 26'-8" to the ridge in height. The proposed materials are fiber cement lap siding and shingle walls, a concrete foundation, and architectural grade asphalt shingle roofing. A wraparound wood porch is proposed for the front and south sides of the building. Metal clad wood casement windows with exterior grids and metal clad wood doors are proposed. The cross gable roof would have a 12:12 pitch on the front and a 7:12 pitch on the side.
The proposed landscaping is shown on the landscaping plan attached to the staff report. Existing landscape elements such as the rock walls and landscaped park strip will remain.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020 of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure, which states, in considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, 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. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Mr. Knight stated that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also provide standards for reviewing new construction.
Mass and Scale
11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:
- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.
- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.
- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.
- Using a solid-to-void that is similar to that seen traditionally and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.
11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.
11.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block.
The front shall include a one-story element, such as a porch. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than those of typical historic structures in the block. A single wall plane should not exceed the typical maximum facade width in the district.
Height
11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.
11.8 The back side of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.
Width
11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings. If a building would be wider overall than structures seen historically, the facade should be divided into subordinate planes that are similar in width to those of the context.
Building form standards
11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.
11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and fourplexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.
Mr. Knight indicated that the Design Standards for the Central City Historic District cite the standards for architectural standards.
13.18 Design a new building to be similar in scale to those seen historically in the neighborhood. In the Marmalade subdistrict, homes tended to be more modest, with heights ranging from one to two stories, while throughout Arsenal Hill larger, grander homes reached two-and-half to three stories. Front facades should appear similar in height to those seen historically on the block.
13.19 Design a new building with a primary form that is similar to those seen historically.
In most cases, the primary form for the house was a single rectangular volume. In some styles, smaller, subordinate masses were then attached to this primary form. New buildings should continue this tradition.
Staff's discussion: Nearby buildings are mostly residential structures. Generally, the buildings on the west side of 200 West are one story and 1-story structures, including single family houses, duplexes, and the former Schmidt's Bakery storefront. The buildings on the east side of the street are taller, due in part to the slope of the hill in this area. Many of the buildings are one and 1-stories, but have partially exposed basements. There is a three-story apartment building just east of the subject building site. Overall, the proposed building height of 26'-8" will be similar to the heights of the surrounding buildings. The 12:12 front roof pitch and the 7:12 side roof pitch are within the range of roof pitch suggested in the city's design guidelines, and are similar to surrounding buildings in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
The proposed building is approximately 1,286 square feet, on two levels, and would be 24 feet wide on the front side facing 200 West, and 30 feet deep along Girard Avenue. These dimensions are similar to other buildings on this block.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed new house is similar in terms of Height and Width, Proportion of Principal Facades, Roof Shape, and Scale to the surrounding structures and typical structures in this part of the Capitol Hill Historic District.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and' streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Mr. Knight described the applicable design guidelines:
Solid-to-void ratio
11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district. Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate in residential structures. Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows.
Proportion of building facade elements
11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood. The "overall proportion" is the ratio of the width to height of the building, especially the front facade. See the discussions of individual districts and of typical historic building styles for more details about facade proportions.
Rhythm and spacing
11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area. This is an important design standard because these details strongly influence the compatibility of a building within its context. Large expanses of glass, either vertical or horizontal, are generally inappropriate on new buildings in the historic districts.
Materials
11.15 Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block.
This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district.
11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically. They also must have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate. Metal products are allowed for soffits and eaves only.
13.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. Appropriate primary building materials include brick, stucco and painted wood.
Architectural Character
11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street. These include windows, doors, and porches.
11.18 If they are to be used, design ornamental elements, such as brackets and porches to be in scale with similar historic features. Thin, fake brackets and strap work applied to the surface of a building are inappropriate uses of these traditional details.
11.19 Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged. New designs for window moldings and door surrounds, for example, can provide visual interest while helping to convey the fact that the building is new. Contemporary details for porch railings and columns are other examples. New soffit details and dormer designs also could be used to create interest while expressing a new, compatible style.
11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. One should not replicate historic styles, because this blurs the distinction between old and new buildings, as well as making it more difficult to visually interpret the architectural evolution of the district. Interpretations of historic styles may be considered if they are subtly distinguishable as new.
Windows
11.21 Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged. A general rule is that the height of the window should be twice the dimension of the width in most residential contexts. See also the discussions of the character of the relevant historic district and architectural styles.
11.22 Frame windows and doors in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood. Double-hung windows with traditional depth and trim are preferred in most districts. (See also the rehabilitation section on windows as well as the discussions of specific historic districts and relevant architectural styles.)
11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape. Odd window shapes such as octagons, circles, diamonds, etc. are discouraged.
Staff's discussion: The proportion of openings and ratio of solids to voids on the east and west sides of the building are regular, and are in keeping with those seen on this street. There are far fewer windows proposed for the north and south sides of the building. Although these are secondary facades, they will be visible from the street due to the house's location on a corner lot and the wide spacing between the corner lot and the house to the north. Staff suggests that the Commission further discuss the possibility of adding additional windows to this side of the building. The applicant was amenable to this suggestion.
A raised wraparound porch is proposed for the southwest corner of the house, in the same location as the house that once stood on the lot. Wood turned columns support a hipped roof. The porch would also have turned wood banisters and balusters. A second uncovered porch is proposed for the back of the house. The applicant proposes to use a simple metal railing on this porch.
The proportion of openings and ratio of solids to voids on the south and west sides of the building remain regular, and are in keeping with those seen on this street. The proposed windows are vertical casement windows with a vinyl-clad wood casing and exterior dividing grids. The Commission has typically allowed similar windows on other new houses in the historic districts. The amount of glass in relation to wall material on the west and south sides is similar to that seen on historic buildings in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed house is visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape in terms of Proportion of Openings, Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades, Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections, and Relationship of Materials, with the exception of the north and south walls of the building. On these sides, the number of windows and the ratio of window to wall are not in keeping with similar historic buildings in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The south wall would be highly visible from Girard Avenue.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and
landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.
Mr. Knight pointed out the applicable design guidelines:
Setback
13.15 Maintain the traditional setback and alignment of buildings to the street, as established by traditional street patterns. Historically, the Marmalade district developed irregular setbacks and lot shapes. Many homes were built toward compass points, with the street running at diagonals. This positioning, mixed with variations in slope, caused rows of staggered houses, each with limited views of the streetscape. Staggered setbacks are appropriate in this part of the district because of the historical development. Traditionally, smaller structures were located closer to the street, while larger ones tended to be set back further.
13.16 Keep the side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition similar to those seen traditionally in the subdistrict or block. Follow the traditional building pattern in order to continue the historic character of the street. Consider the visual impact of new construction and additions on neighbors along side yards. In response, consider varying the setback and height of the structure along the side yard.
13.17 Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. Define the entry with a porch or portico.
Landscaping
12.7 Maintain established native or acclimated plantings on site. Established trees should be preserved on site when feasible. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replace damaged, aged or diseased trees. If street trees must be removed as part of a development, replace them with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
12.8 Incorporate indigenous plant materials in new landscape designs. Drought-tolerant varieties that are in character with plantings used historically are preferred. The use of gravel and other inorganic surface materials in front yards is prohibited in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. A list of drought-tolerant plants is available from the Salt Lake City Planning Division.
12.9 The use of traditional site structures is encouraged. Constructing retaining walls and fences that are similar in scale, texture and finish to those used historically is appropriate. See also Section 1.0.
Staff's discussion: Unlike the areas in the Marmalade neighborhood referenced in the Design Guidelines above, this portion of Capitol Hill has regular setbacks and rectangular lot lines, like much of Salt Lake City. Structures are placed squarely facing 200 West, with a more or less uniform setback along the street. The front yard setback of the proposed house lines up with the triplex immediately to the north and is similar to nearby structures along the street.
Most of the landscaping on the lot already exists; proposed additions include a concrete walkway around the building, a concrete patio in the back yard, and steps from the sidewalk off of Girard Avenue.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed house meets the standards of the ordinance in terms of directional expression of the principal elevation, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, and walls of continuity.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The Planning Director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a Landmark Site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: There are no subdivision issues in this case. This standard is not applicable.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation, "Based upon the findings of fact in this staff report and the information supplied by the applicant, Staff recommends conceptual approval of the design and referral to the Architectural Subcommittee for refinement of details, including the following:
1. Examine the possibility of adding additional windows to the north and south elevations;
2. That the final design be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee before Staff issues a Certificate of Appropriateness, and any exterior changes during construction be reviewed by Staff; and
3. Any other items raised by the Commission during its discussion."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Ms. White clarified that the proposed house is right next to a triplex and a ten-plex and stated that the subject vacant lot is used for parking because there is no other parking. Mr. Knight said that the lot has been used as parking for the triplex illegally. He added that there would be enough parking for the proposed structure. Mr. Knight pointed out that someone else owns the ten-plex and has nothing to do with the subject properties. Ms. White asked if the original plans for the triplex showed parking on the subject property. She also wondered if the building status had changed. Mr. Christensen seemed to think that the building was originally a four-plex because the basement under the porches is so extensive. Mr. Knight said that the applicant could verify that. He said that he could recall that this property went through a unit legalization process to legalize these dwellings where a multi-family dwelling had been converted and was not recognized by the City. Mr. Knight said that the owners were allowed to have three units after the process was finished. Ms. White expressed her concerns about the lack of parking for the triplex if a house was built on a vacant lot. Ms. Giraud said that this is the nature of an historic district and that Capitol Hill is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Ms. Giraud added that people were close to public transportation and close to downtown and did not need parking at that time. Mr. Knight explained that the City determined that the property was a legal building lot and could not be used for parking because of the off-site parking lot requirements.
Mr. Ashdown said that parking is an issue on 200 West, but did not see that lot filled at any time. Ms. Rowland said that this particular area in Capitol Hill does not have big parking issues.
Mr. Littig asked if there was an access to the parking area behind the building. Mr. Knight suggested directing that question to the applicant.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Jim Adamson and his partner Ms. Chrisie Klapakis, the applicants, were present. He stated that they were the owners of the triplex, as well. Mr. Adamson said that they were going to try to incorporate enough parking in the back so that at least one of the renters in the triplex can park. He said that the existing concrete pad is used as a patio. Mr. Adamson believed that there would be enough space for parking.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by clarifying that the proposed parking area would serve as the parking lot for both the triplex and the new building. Mr. Adamson said that was correct. Mr. Knight said that the City might have an issue with that plan. However, he said that parking issues are generally resolved in the site plan process with the Building Services Division.
Ms. Rowland asked if an easement for parking could be granted on that property and included in the purchase agreement for protection if the properties were ever split. Mr. Knight said there would be a right-of-way in the back to access the parking area.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the separation of the properties. Mr. Adamson clarified that the two parcels were separate pieces of property.
Mr. Littig said that he lives in a neighborhood that is heavily impacted with cars. He said that the ongoing battle is not to allow pavement in the entire back yard. Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant had looked at other surfaces besides concrete or asphalt and suggested using materials that would soften that parking area. Mr. Adamson said that they were in the process of planting a hedge and had no intention of filling the back yard with concrete or asphalt.
Mr. Christensen suggested setting the window casements back into the wall about four inches so they would not be flush to the walls of the house. Mr. Adamson said that the windows would be set back. Ms. Klapakis said that they were going to try to keep it like the triplex where the windows were set back. Mr. Christensen said that he was very excited to see a proposal for that corner, especially now that the ten-plex has been redone. Mr. Adamson talked about adding windows to the north and south elevations. There was a discussion regarding where to add additional windows. Mr. Ashdown said he believed that this would be more appropriately discussed at the Architectural Subcommittee. Others agreed. Mr. Christensen inquired if the cedar shingles planned to be used on the upper portions of the exterior walls. Mr. Adamson said that he did not know if it would be cedar. Mr. Christensen also asked if the home would be owner/occupied and Mr. Adamson said that it would be a rental unit.
• Ms. Rowland said that she questioned the railings on the plans. She believed having contrasting styles of railings on the front and the back would not be in the best interest in the design of the house. Ms. Rowland thought they should have something in common. Mr. Adamson said that they could make the railings the same. Ms. Rowland said that the architects on the Subcommittee might be able to give him some direction.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Since there was no other discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, entertained a motion. She also made some recommendations for the wording of the motion so it would include some of the issues that were discussed at this meeting.
Motion:
In the matter of Case No. 010-03, Mr. Littig moved to approve the general concept of the project, and referred the applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee for final approval, after the following refinements: 1) Window details; 2) Additional windows on the north and south elevations; 3) Details on the railings; 4) Detail on the surface of the parking lot; and 5) A landscaped barrier for the parking lot. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS (Continued) Continuation of the City Council response:
Ms. Mickelsen stated that the Commission would continue the discussion regarding the legislative action by the City Council. She said that the Historic Landmark Commission needed to decide the best way to formulate the response to Council Member Eric Jergensen. Ms. Mickelsen added that Mr. Zunguze expressed his opinion that the Commission should respond as a whole, rather than individually. She felt that there was a question of logistics and how does the Commission arrive at a response.
Mr. Ashdown stated that the Commissioners could still be contacted individually even if the Commission responded as a whole.
Mr. Zunguze said that the members of the Commission should expect a response from the Administration. He said that in reference Mr. Jergensen's comments, he wanted to make certain that he had a sense of the members of the Commission feelings regarding the issues that have been raised.
Mr. Ashdown said that he welcomed the review and said that Mr. Simonsen should be back to formulate a response. Mr. Ashdown suggested that the RDA also be reviewed. Ms. Giraud said are you saying that you are interested in the City Council initiating a letter of intent to review the RDA. Mr. Ashdown said that was what he said but was uncertain if the City Council could since they are the RDA Board of Directors. Mr. Zunguze suggested keeping those issues separate.
Mr. Littig stated that he was a little offended when he read that the Planning Staff was also under review. He suggested giving the City Council piles of minutes, staff reports, and other pertinent information to help answer the questions. Mr. Littig also said that he thought it was interesting that no date was set for a response.
Mr. Zunguze said that he shared Mr. Littig's sentiments. He said that he knows the amount of work that Staff does. He thought it was a lack of appreciation for the work that the Staff and the members of the Commission do for whatever reason. Mr. Zunguze suggested turning the entire matter over and taking a positive attitude about these issues.
Mr. Christensen said that he had a good visit with Mr. Jergensen and asked him specifically about the issue that Mr. Littig mentioned. He said that Mr. Jergensen said that he put the question in the memo after talking with Staff and some members of the Commission and was correctly led to believe that the Staff has too much to do. Mr. Christensen said that he hoped by this issue being in the document, it would open the door to hire additional people.
Ms. Giraud commented that Mr. Jergensen had informed her that he was going to initiate the legislative action. She said that Mr. Jergensen believed it was an opportunity to lay everything out, see how the Commission functions and where its strengths and weaknesses are. Ms. Giraud said that she thought he was supportive of the Commission. She added that he wants to know if there are staffing issues. She said that when she talked to planners in other cities she was surprised when three planners would make up the staff to review only 400 properties in historic districts. Ms. Giraud said with only that many, a thorough review could be given. She said that she felt Mr. Jergensen's intent was expressed but thought the questions were stated a little awkwardly.
Mr. Ashdown said that he was bothered by the comments in the newspaper article that sounded as if the Historic Landmark Commission was holding back development. He said that he did not believe the Commission ever held back development, only demolition.
Mr. Zunguze wanted it to be known that he did not want to take away the Commissioner's ability to communicate with the City Council directly. He added that Staff has been charged to evaluate the way Staff and the Commission functions. Mr. Zunguze said he would appreciate any comments the Commissioners want to make to be incorporated into the final draft.
Ms. Rowland said that one thing she hoped to convey in the Commission's response was that the Historic Landmark Commission tries to conform to the City's own ordinance and the memo was frustrating because the members are caught in the middle.
Mr. Parvaz suggested evaluating the way the Historic Landmark Commission works with statistics on the productive issues. He said that he felt that the Commission would take a defensive position. Mr. Zunguze said that the Historic Landmark Commission is not at stake here; it is not the Commission that is being evaluated. He said that the City Council is looking at the practice of preservation in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Zunguze also stated that the Historic Landmark Commission is the creation of the City Council and does not need to be defensive. He mentioned that the Planning Division just went through an audit of the entire Department of the Community and Economic Development. He added that there are good reasons why these things happen. Mr. Zunguze believed this was a good opportunity to stand up and say, "This is who we are; here is how we are doing things; and this is how we compare with other Staff and Commissions around the country." Mr. Zunguze again encouraged any incites and perceptions that the Commissioners would like to contribute to be incorporated into the response to the City Council. He said that there are many resources from which to draw.
Ms. Mickelsen said that corporate America calls what we will put together a "Vision Statement". She said that it was important for the Commissioners to be very clear with ourselves and with the City Council about the Commission's philosophy of preservation and what is guiding the individual's thinking process when decisions are made. Ms. Mickelsen stated, 'We are not absolutely dedicated to 'no change' in the neighborhoods, we are dedicated to 'rational growth and evolution of historic districts that does not totally destroy the district or the character of the buildings in it'. In other words, maintaining the districts as a viable place in which people can live, work, and raise their children and still be recognizable as historic." Ms. Mickelsen said that it was another chance to talk to the "City" about demolition which is the Commission's main concern.
(Ms. White excused herself and left the meeting at 6:15P.M.)
Mr. Zunguze said that the other thing that might be helpful is to look through these items in the memo and select certain issues on which to focus, like the review of the policies, assumptions, objectives, and philosophies might be more effective in speaking as a group.
Mr. Christensen believed that the Historic Landmark Commission needed a public relations person to talk to the press and point out the many successful projects the Commission has reviewed.
The Commissioners continued to discuss the issues confronting them with expressions of concern.
Ms. Mickelsen said that perhaps Mr. Nore' Winter, the consultant, would be useful to Staff in preparing this response. Ms. Giraud thought that he might be very helpful. In conclusion, Ms. Mickelsen suggested and the members individually consider these matters and submit a response to Staff for Mr. Winter's review. She believed that he would be a good resource.
Signage on the RDA property on 500 North.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that the signage for the old Safeway site at 500 North and 300 West, and the signage for the Arctic Court and 500 North properties that the RDA had placed on those properties publicly offering those for sale have disappeared. He was not certain if they were vandalized or if someone from RDA removed those signs having the belief that the signs were up long enough. He said that he would like to see them replaced.
The garage being constructed at 1127 E. Second Avenue.
Mr. Littig said that he had received calls from people living adjacent to the property where the garage is being constructed at this address. He said that the people said that it was very high and loom over the neighbor's property. Ms. Giraud said that is why Staff had the proposal come to the Historic Landmark Commission so the people in the neighborhood would receive the hearing notices. She said that no one spoke for or against the proposed garage at the meeting. Mr. Littig added that a few people were just outside the mailing list. Mr. Ashdown said that the proposed garage was to be constructed behind the house.
Electronic Historic Landmark Commission packets.
Mr. Ashdown suggested finding a way to E-mail the items in the packets to the Comrr1ission members, rather than delivering the hard copies. Mr. Knight said that the Planning Division probably has the software to do that. Mr. Zunguze said that he would look into the matter and report back to the Commission.
Documentation Subcommittee.
Ms. Lew asked if the Documentation Subcommittee could meet briefly after this meeting to review some of the documents received from the RDA on the historic properties that will be demolished on the RDA property site at 300 West at 500 and 600 North.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 6:40P.M.