SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
June 7, 2018
A roll is kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33:52 PM. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite time.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Charles Shepherd and Vice Chairperson Kenton Peters, and Commissioners Stanley Adams, Thomas Brennan, Rachel Quist and Esther Stowell. Commissioners Sheleigh Harding, Robert Hyde, Victoria Petro-Eschler, David Richardson and Paul Svendsen were excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director; Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Carl Leith, Senior Planner; Deborah Severson and Marlene Rankings, Administrative Secretaries; and Allison Parks, City Attorney.
FIELD TRIP NOTES:
•Visited the Vine Street Town Homes site and Staff answered factual questions.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR May 3, 2018
MOTION
Commissioner Peters moved to approve the minutes for the May 3, 2018 meeting. Commissioner Adams seconded the motion. Commissioners Adams, Peters and Stowell voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Shepherd noted that the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting is scheduled for July 19, 2018 rather than July 5, 2018 as indicated on the agenda.
Chairperson Shepherd also noted that a special Historic Landmark Commission meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2018 to review the Economic Hardship Review Panel findings for Bishop Place. He explained that the Commission’s role at that meeting will be to review the findings and determine if any errors were made in the Panel’s analyses and to accept or reject their findings.
Ms. Oktay added that other materials relating to the Review Panel will be forwarded to the Commission on or before June 14. Ms. Oktay invited the Commissioners to contact Amy Thompson if they have any questions or concerns relating to the review.
Chairperson Shepherd added that the Bishop Place review will also include a field trip.
Vice Chairperson Peters had nothing to report.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Ms. Oktay confirmed that the Commission will review the Economic Hardship Review Panel findings on June 28, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. A review of a proposed national register property will also be on the June 28 agenda. This item will be scheduled before the Bishop Place matter.
Ms. Oktay introduced the new Planning Division Administrative Secretary, Marlene Rankins. She then introduced Molly Robinson, Urban Designer, who was promoted to Planning Manager. Ms. Oktay also introduced Allison Parks from the City Attorney’s Office who will be substituting from time to time for Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Cindy Cromer voiced concern about the Economic Hardship Review Panel’s analyses and facts regarding the Bishop Place demolition. She asked the Commission to thoroughly examine the facts noting that the Review Panel operated from their own experiences rather than assessing the facts. She stated the outcome for Bishop Place will impact several places throughout the City for a long time.
Vine Street Town Homes New Construction and Demolition of a Noncontributing Structure at approximately 275 N Vine Street - Pierre Langue, Axis Architects, on behalf of owner Chad Spector, is requesting approval from the City to demolish an existing noncontributing structure and to build three new single-family attached dwelling in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The subject property has been determined uninhabitable in its current condition, has been vacant for some time, is zoned RMF-75 (High Density Multi-Family Residential District) and is located in City Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. This application must be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission because it is new construction in a local historic district. (Staff contact: Carl Leith at 801-535-7758 or carl.leith@slcgov.com)
a. New Construction – In order to build the proposed three single-family attached residences, a New Construction application must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Case Number PLNHLC2018-00219
b. Demolition of a Noncontributing Structure – In order to build the three single-family attached residences, the Applicant is requesting approval to demolish the existing noncontributing house on this lot. There is a public notice process to confirm noncontributing status, subject to which the application can be determined administratively, following that process for public consultation. The Planning Director concludes that it is appropriate to refer the proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission for their review and comments. Case Number PLNHLC2018-00258
Carl Leith, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the proposal as outlined in the staff report (located in the case file). Mr. Leith noted that the existing development along the west side of Vine Street is primarily larger scaled multi-family. The subject structure was determined to be noncontributing because of the large additions, and is currently uninhabitable. The structure adjacent to the south is a single-family dwelling and a contributing structure. Mr. Leith further noted that a proposal for demolition and new construction of a single-family dwelling was presented to the Commission in June 2015, and the Commission approved it. Planning Staff recommended approval for both this demolition and new construction. Mr. Leith then reviewed the Community Council and public comments that were received.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Driveway Configuration - The driveway runs along the south side yard (adjacent to the contributing structure) then circles around to the rear of the proposed units to tandem parking (garages).
•No special exceptions were requested for the proposal - the driveway meets side yard setback requirements, and the structure meets lot coverage standards.
•The status of the noncontributing structure. The status was determined in 2006, and no alternative findings have been made since that time. Ownership and possible enforcement issues relating to the structure.
•Sidewalk, traffic and parking safety issues which were collective concerns of the public.
•The continuation of the sidewalk on the west side of Vine Street. This issue was not raised by the Transportation or Engineering Divisions, nor was it a requirement for the proposal.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mike Mitchell, 328 N Center Street, stated that he was not opposed to the demolition and construction, but was opposed to the increase in density. He believed that it would cause an increase in traffic and off-street parking problems that already exist in the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to not only protect historic structures, but also protect the historic character of the neighborhood.
Cindy Cromer noted that the materials relating to the proposal do not include profiles of streetscapes especially next to the historic home. She asked the Commission to address streetscapes especially in historic neighborhoods.
The Commission and Pierre Langue (Applicant) discussed the following:
•No additional increase in density, no increase in height for the building and no relieve on setback requirements have been requested. Required parking will be provided. It was noted that the zoning ordinance allows three units on this parcel.
•Traffic Safety Issues – Mr. Langue said that he believed providing the parking at the rear would mitigate safety concerns. Backing onto Vine Street would be a safety hazard because the street is so narrow.
•Increased Traffic Concerns – Vine Street serves 300 to 400 dwelling units, and an additional three units would not cause a noticeable impact.
•Streetscape – Only one single-family dwelling along the block face which is adjacent to the proposal. The proposed driveway was located between the single-family dwelling and the development to mitigate material and visual impacts. Mr. Langue noted the streetscape plan that was included in the presentation.
•Compatibility – Scale and architecture are compatible with the neighborhood. Most development on Vine Street is more recent with very few historic structures.
•Front Façade – Recessed large curtain wall windows with a porch element (modern interpretation of a historic porch which is unusable and serves more so as a shading devise.)
•Exterior Design and Materials – Covered individual entrances for each unit. The front façade consists of dark gray brick, white stucco on the projecting porches with wooden porch walls. South (side) elevation will be gray brick and white stucco with inset wooden elements and shading devices. “Fins” between the units to provide privacy and shade. The front façade of each unit is stepped.
•Optional fenestration configurations. The floor to ceiling windows appear more commercial than residential. North and south façade openings designed to provide natural light. Tall, mature trees on the west side limit natural light.
•Barrier wall between the driveway on the south and the adjacent property. The Applicant was considering a fence, and is open to suggestions.
•Topography – Slopes about eight feet from front to rear. The existing grade will not be changed, and the driveway will follow the grade to the garages.
The public hearing was closed, and the Commission discussed the merits of the proposal, and compliance with regulations and design guidelines:
•Streetscape Context – The additional density and activity impacts are minimal relative to the balance of the neighborhood. The street was not developed for the vehicular element, but the project makes efforts to address this element with off-street parking.
•The proposed townhome development is compatible with the development pattern of the area.
•Locating the driveway along the south side provides buffering and shows respect to the adjacent development.
•The materials are modern, but contextually sensitive to existing development.
•Concerns regarding the amount of glass on the front façade. On the other hand, design strategies; such as the wing walls, provide privacy and shading.
•The grade change from east to west and the architecture; specifically, the large windows, extenuate the height of the building. The physical height itself is not a concern.
•The large windows and unusable porches (stoops) appear to cause disconnect from the street and neighborhood, and isolate the adjacent contributing single-family structure. It was noted that porches create street and neighborhood engagement which is typical in a historic district.
•Reviewed standards for balconies, porches and external stairs.
•The Commission encouraged the Applicant to create active space at the front of the building (between the street and units), and requested the Applicant to provide a detailed streetscape plan including topography to show how the proposed development interacts with the adjacent contributing structure.
•It was noted that the new Fire regulations may impact the location and design of the driveway. (Attachment H in the Staff Report also noted that Vine Street may be inadequate for fire emergency access.)
•Commissioner Adams voiced overall approval for the project, and recommended that the suggested design details be delegated to Staff for final approval. Chairperson Shepherd reasoned that the concerns regarding porch expression, streetscape interaction and potential Fire Department concerns and issues are important refinements and it would be appropriate for further review by the Commission.
•The Commission had no issues with demolition of the existing non-contributing structure.
In Case Number PLNHLC2018-00258 Demolition of an Existing Non-Contributing Structure, based on the analyses and findings listed in the staff report and the testimony and proposal presented, Commissioner Brennan moved for the Commission to approve the application for demolition of the non-contributing structure located at 275 N Vine Street subject to the confirmation of non-contributing status and confirmation of no substantial objections. Commissioner Adams seconded the motion. Commissioners Quist, Adams, Stowell, Peters and Brennan voted “aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION
In Case Number PLNHLC2018-00219 Construction of Three New Single-Family Attached Dwellings, Commissioner Brennan moved for the Commission to table the application to allow the Applicant to address concerns regarding the relationship of the building to the street; specifically, to address settlement patterns and neighborhood character within the district. Commissioner Stowell seconded the motion. Commissioners Quist, Stowell, Peters and Brennan voted “aye”. Commissioner Adams voted “no”. The motion passed with a 4-1 vote.
Chairperson Shepherd reviewed the appeal process as stated in the agenda.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:39:11 PM.