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 Scott Christensen, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, and Alex Protasevich were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:07P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the May 1, 2002 meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 023-01, at 400 W. South Temple, by the Boyer Company, represented by Young Electric Sign Company (VESCO), requesting approval of a revised signage proposal for the east side of the Union Pacific Depot. The Union Pacific Depot is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the Boyer Company, represented by Young Electric Sign Company, returned to the Historic Landmark Commission for review of a revised signage proposal for the east (front) facade of the Union Pacific Depot.
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: The Commission previously approved two signs for the east side of the Depot, a sign for the west side of the Depot, and a signage package for the House of Blues, a prospective tenant at the north end of the building. The Depot is being renovated as part of the Boyer Company's Gateway development. The Depot and surrounding property is zoned G-MU, Gateway Mixed Use. The gateway districts are intended "to provide controlled and compatible settings for residential, commercial, and industrial developments, and implement the objectives of the adopted Gateway Development Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the mixed-use character of the area, and encourage the development of urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses, and high-density residential."
Mr. Knight said that the Commission last reviewed this case on December 19, 2001 and approved a V-shaped metal cabinet sign, spelling out "The Gateway", to be mounted under the front canopy at the main entrance of the Union Pacific Building. He added that the Commission had also approved the installation of non-illuminated, metal letters along the roof cornice of the Depot, similar to a sign shown on historic photos of the building. Mr. Knight reported that after the applicants reviewed the approved signage they decided not to add them to the building.
Mr. Knight presented the new proposal submitted by the applicants, as follows: In lieu of the two signs, the applicants now propose to install individual metal letters mounted on a framework affixed to the top of the entrance canopy. Overall, the sign would be 19'-8" long by 2'-4" high. "The Gateway" letters would be 4 inches thick, and would be fabricated with metal channels painted the same bronze color as was used on the sign on the west side of the Depot, and illuminated with one row (corrected to a double row) of clear incandescent bulbs mounted inside the letters at two-inches on center. The supporting metal framework would be painted to match the cornice behind it.
The applicants met with the Architectural Subcommittee on April 24, 2002 and the members suggested that the depth of the cabinet be reduced, and that the framework be painted a neutral color to help it fade into the background of the building. The members also believed that this proposal should be kept as light and airy as possible. These suggestions have been incorporated into the proposal.
Mr. Knight said that the findings that were made in the previous case were still applicable to the revised proposal.
Staff's finding of fact: The overall size of the sign is a reduction from the previously approved canopy sign, which as proposed would have two faces mounted at a 70- degree angle to each other, slanting toward the building. Each face would be 14 feet long by 2 feet high. The approved canopy sign also had several yellow and blue neon elements, which would not be part of this sign. Individual incandescent bulbs were approved for the hanging sign as the main method of illuminating the individual letters. Staff is of the opinion that the findings made by the Commission on December 19, 2001 are still applicable with this proposal:
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(11) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. “Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space, shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs."
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed sign complies with the requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Mr. Knight stated that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district. The Commission should use these criteria in determining whether the proposed signs are consistent with the historic character of the Union Pacific Depot, as required by the zoning ordinance. The criteria are listed below with an analysis and finding:
1. A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee considers the entire principal façade as the "sign" (i.e. in context.) Signs should relate to the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and the streetscape.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed sign complements the building in terms of size, location, materials, style, and color and illumination.
2. In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple,) the Committee encourages the use of low-key, sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character, etc. The Committee encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Backlit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The signs proposed are based upon historic antecedents, and are sophisticated and low-key to the extent that would be expected on a historic train station. No backlit plastic or animated signs are proposed.
3. The Historic Landmark Committee considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Committee [Commission]. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.
Staff's finding of fact: The sign is in keeping with the comprehensive sign plan for the building. Signage for a tenant in the south end would not be a part of the Commission's decision at this time and will be addressed later.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report, staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposed signs in lieu of the hanging canopy sign and the cornice wall sign previously approved."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Wilson inquired about the drawing that shows a double row of lights on the letters rather than only one row, as stated in the staff report. Mr. Knight said that the drawings are correct. Mr. Knight added that the size of the bulbs and the sockets would be reduced and would be more proportionate that what was requested previously.
Upon hearing no additional comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicants, Ms. Deanne Leatherman and Mr. Jeff Krantz of Young Electric Sign Company, were present. Mr. Krantz stated that color samples of the signage was discussed at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. He circulated samples of the material and color that was proposed for the lettering, as well as the inside and outside of the returns. He said it was more of a classic look. Mr. Krantz also circulated a sample of the light bulb and fixture that would be used and additional photographs showing samples of the same type lettering. He pointed out the Olympic rings in one of the photographs and said that idea gave the applicant a different perspective on mounting the signage. Mr. Krantz stated that the signage would not be attached to the cornice or brick. He added that it would "hover" over the cornice and would be lower and smaller than in the original proposal. Mr. Krantz indicated that it would be satisfactory in identifying the entrance.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Wilson led the discussion by inquiring about the size of the letters that is proposed compared to the signage on the west elevation. Mr. Krantz clarified that the letters for the east elevation would be about half the size. Mr. Wilson said that he thought it was a "wonderful" compromise. He said that he believed the applicants were getting what they wanted, and continued to show respect for the building.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the same finish for all the letters. Mr. Krantz said that all sides of the letters would be as the sample he displayed. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the color would change through time. Mr. Krantz said that the surface would be a DuPont chrome and base clear finish that is very tough against corrosion. When Mr. Parvaz commented about the size, Mr. Krantz said that the photo was to scale. Ms. Leatherman said that in proportion of the building, the signage would be small.
• Mr. Littig asked if it would set slightly back from the facade. Mr. Krantz said that it would, but the signage would not hover very much.
• Mr. Christensen inquired if the signage could be reversible. Mr. Krantz said that it could because there would be no attachments. He said that the signage would sit on top of a weighted framework. Mr. Krantz said that the installers would make certain that the triangular angle iron structures would handle the weight on top and spread the weight around.
• Mr. Young clarified that the signage would be weighted down and there would be no anchoring connection between the sign frame and the building canopy. Mr. Krantz the signage would be engineered for all the usual wind requirements. He indicated that the rectangular tubes would be filled with concrete.
In conclusion, Mr. Krantz said that the signage would be viewed from the TRAX station, which was needed for the entrance to "The Gateway". Ms. Leatherman commented that Mr. Knight, who was a volunteer during the Olympics, directed people through the building to reach the Gateway.
Mr. Simonsen excused the applicants and opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no additional discussion. Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 023-D1 at 400 W. South Temple, by the Boyer Company, represented by Young Electric Sign Company, to approve the implementation of the revised signage, as proposed, based on the findings of fact and staff's recommendation included in the staff report. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 019-01. at 340 South 600 East, pursuant to the decision of the Land Use Appeals Board consideration of reconvening the Economic Review Panel pertaining to a request from Overland Development Corporation to demolish the Juel Apartments.
Ms. Giraud presented the following memorandum:
On April 22, 2002, the Land Use Appeals Board heard Overland Development Corporation's appeal of the Historic Landmark Commission's decision of accepting the findings of the Economic Review Panel concerning the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East, located in the Central City Historic District.
The Land Use Appeals Board voted on the following motion: That the matter be remanded back to the Historic Landmark Commission with a request that an appraisal be obtained on the exact piece of property being considered under this application for demolition and a determination be made as to whether that additional information makes a difference in the economic hardship analysis."
As you might remember from my letter of April18, 2002 to the Land Use Appeals Board, two Economic Review Panel members found that the applicant would not suffer an economic hardship because Mr. Holman, the representative of Overland Development Corporation, presented figures based on an inflated acquisition price for the amount of land associated with the Juel Apartments. The Land Use Appeals Board members determined that the information Mr. Holman presented should be considered after an appraisal of the land was procured.
The ordinance required the Historic Landmark Commission to vote on the findings of the Economic Review Panel, but it is the Economic Review Panel that reviews the information presented by the applicant. After speaking with Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, I interpret the ordinance as requiring the Historic Landmark Commission to send Mr. Holman's application back to the Economic Review Panel. The Economic Review Panel will not entirely re-open the case, but will reconsider the application in light of the additional information provided in the appraisal.
Mr. Holman has hired Jeff Neese to prepare the appraisal; the Salt Lake City Planning Division will also hire an appraiser. In order to insure that the appraisers are working with the same amount of property, I have instructed the appraisers to work with only the amount of required land for a property of this size (24 units) in this zone (RMF-35), which is 38,000 square feet.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the findings of the two appraisers would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Giraud said that the Economic Review Panel will review and reassess the appraisals, then the Panel's findings will be reviewed by this Commission.
Ms. Rowland said that the appraisal would determine what the acquisition price for the land would be if the owner has to retain the apartments or restore the building. Ms. Giraud clarified that the Juel originally sat on a parcel of land which was over an acre in size. She added that in the RMF-35 zone an apartment building with 24 units would have to have a minimum lot size of 38,000 square feet. Ms. Giraud stated that there are other apartment buildings in the vicinity in the RMF-35 zone that sit on smaller parcels. Mr. Simonsen asked if it was a ratio requirement. Ms. Giraud said that it was the density requirement encouraging garden-style apartments.
Mr. Simonsen inquired about an application for rezoning. Ms. Giraud talked about the fact that the City could not predict what the Planning Commission and the City Council would do, so the Commission and the Economic Review Panel should look at it with the current zoning in place for that requirement and not base the proposal on a potential rezoning. She added that a rezone could either work as a reason for or against demolition. On one hand, the RMF-35 zone requires a large lot for a building of the Juel's size. If the zoning were changed to a zone that allowed greater density, a smaller lot size would be required, but the potential for a much taller building meant that a building like the Juel could be threatened.
There was further discussion regarding the developer's speculative risk associated with a project based upon a request to change the zoning to a higher density. Ms. Rowland said that if the appraisal comes back lower than the actual acquisition price, that difference would represent the amount the applicant would be willing to pay because of the potential rezoning. Mr. Giraud said that it was important that the appraisers consider the same size parcel of land.
Mr. Simonsen stated that one of the things with which he was struggling was valuing the land based on current zoning versus valuing the land with a proposed change in zoning.
Ms. Rowland said land cannot be valued based on potential use; it has to be appraised as it is in the current zone.
Ms. Giraud said that she would consult Mr. Pace, for the proper approach to this question.
Upon hearing no additional comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicant, Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation, was present. He stated that Ms. Giraud was correct in analyzing why the Land Use Appeals Board remanded the case back to the Historic Landmark Commission. He added that he would like to clarify some issues the Commission might have.
Mr. Holman said that one of the items that needed to be considered in a determination of economic hardship was a calculation of the return on an investment; whether or not a developer would have a positive return or a negative return by maintaining and improving a building. He added that the acquisition price was one of many elements related with making that determination because of the contract to purchase the larger tract of land that included several buildings. Mr. Holman said that part of the problem was determining how much land was needed for the Juel with its required parking.
Mr. Holman stated that the contention throughout the economic hardship process was determining the acquisition price for the Juel. He said that assuming that there is no wide variance with the two appraisers, they should come up with a number, based on the "as is" price. Mr. Holman stated that it would not have anything to do with speculation, investment risks, or any of those built-in factors, only on the fair market value for the piece of property, and whatever number that would be "plugged into this formula in determining economic hardship."
Mr. Holman stated that at the end of the process, a present value calculation over a period of years is done based on the income stream of that property. He said, "ten years down the road, that property gets sold and there should be some sale price associated with what that value would be ten years from now. That would get discounted back to come up with this return calculation. The appraisers have been asked to simply determine the 'as is' value of the acquisition price of the property. What its fair market value today and what its fair market value ten years from now based on rental projects, then we will plug that into the formula to make a determination whether we would suffer economic hardship or not."
Mr. Simonsen 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 saying that the determination may be made about today's fair market value, but Mr. Holman actually agreed to buy the property two years ago which might have an effect on the value of the land. Mr. Holman said that he has held the contract for two years in October. Mr. Holman said that Ms. Mickelsen has "thrown in a new twist". He added that it would be fine with him if the Commissioners want the value to be determined as of two years ago because the building was in worse shape than it is today. Mr. Holman suggested that the Commissioners pick a date. Ms. Mickelsen said that it probably would not make much difference. Mr. Holman said that there has not been a dramatic increase in property value or rents in the general area.
• Ms. Rowland asked how Mr. Holman originally determined the acquisition price. He said that the calculation was done several ways. Mr. Holman said that he paid $5.4 Million for the entire parcel, including the buildings, which comprised a total of 60 units. Mr. Holman said he considered the 24 units in the Juel and used that factor to come up with a value of $2.7 Million for the Juel but the opposing member of the Economic Review Panel did not agree with that number. Mr. Holman said he then based the acquisition price on the percentage of the entire acreage and came up with the number of $2.4 Million, but the opposing side did not like that number either. He indicated that Panel members finally agreed that the Juel building was worth approximately $800,000. Mr. Holman said that he hired an architect to make the determination of the square footage of the Juel and the required parking, and discarded any surplus land out of the equation. He said that he finally settled on a value of $1.1 Million, based on $800,000 for the building and $300,000 for the land, which was less than half of the original acquisition price. Mr. Holman said that the opposing member of the Panel was not in agreement with that figure either and said that a potential buyer would never pay more for a property than what the return would be for the same piece of property. He said that the opposing side "introduced this idea of investment risk saying that a portion of the property you would pay for and receive an economic return but anything that you would pay in addition to that would be considered an investment risk and we should throw it out. That was the theory that was very ingenious and one that I had never encountered before in my 25 years in the development business. So that became the contention".
Mr. Holman further discussed the decision made by the Economic Review Panel to deny him an economic hardship. He said that the appraisal was going to cost about $5,000 and the City would be spending an equivalent amount of money. Mr. Holman said that he was willing to spend the money because he believed whatever formula that is used to determine economic hardship, he would be successful in the final analysis.
The Commission had no additional questions or comments for Mr. Holman, so Mr. Simonsen excused the applicant. Since the case was reopened for additional information, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Simonsen reminded the Commissioners that they would determine whether or not the additional information from the appraisal may have an impact on economic hardship process and alter the decision made by the Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Christensen said he did not believe that the Historic Landmark Commission had any choice in the matter but approve the additional information because the Land Use Appeals Board requested the appraisal.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved for case No. 019-01 that the applicant would obtain the requested appraisal for the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East, as recommended by the Land Use Appeals Board, and refer the case back to the Economic Review Panel for further review. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 013-02, a request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. represented by the IBI Group. for review of draft design guidelines for the proposed commercial development located at 500 North and 300 West. in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The proposed guidelines will be reviewed by the RDA Board in June. and then be used to market the property to potential developers of the site.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He gave the following overview of the proposal: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is requesting review of draft design guidelines for its planned commercial node project, located on the northeast corner of 500 North and 300 West Streets. The proposed guidelines will be reviewed by the RDA Board (City Council) in June, and then be used to market the site to potential developers. Portions of the property are zoned CS-Community Shopping District and SR-1-Special Development Pattern Residential District. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
The 1999 Capitol Hill Community Master Plan was amended in 2001. It calls for development of a neighborhood commercial shopping node on this site. Pages from the master plan accompanied the staff report. The RDA has acquired properties at this site in order to develop a neighborhood scale commercial center. In January of 2000, the RDA applied for demolition of six contributing properties on this site.
Since that time, the RDA has attempted to market the property for sale and development but so far no developer has proposed an appropriate project. Last June, the RDA Board designated a subcommittee to review the overall development and marketing strategy for the commercial node property. In response to the limited interest from developers, the subcommittee recommended that the RDA proceed with preparing a reuse plan and possibly developing the property. If a developer was willing to develop the site as approved in the reuse plan, this strategy would still allow RDA to sell the property.
The RDA Board selected the IBI Group to manage a community-based design process and develop a reuse plan for the property. The RDA and IBI have hosted four open houses to receive comments and input from the community regarding the issues and proposed reuse of the site. A steering committee was formed to expand on some of the topics discussed. Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Simonsen, members of the Historic Landmark Commission, have served on this subcommittee.
IBI has prepared draft design guidelines to guide future development on the site. The design guidelines could then be presented to developers in hopes that the guidelines would eliminate the uncertainty associated with developing a project that will meet the expectations of the RDA Board, the Historic Landmark Commission, and the community. The expectations are that the design guidelines and site plan developed by the IBI Group would be used as a reuse plan for the development of the property.
Mr. Knight said that a representative from IBI would be presenting the Commission a "redline" version of the draft of the design guidelines.
The staff report included the following comments on the draft guidelines: Commercial Center Expressions:
• The Capitol Hill Master Plan provides policies on design for the commercial node that should be incorporated into these design guidelines, or explicitly referenced.
• The guidelines should include a description of the historic neighborhood, in order to provide a context for establishing appropriate scale, form, and style.
• Stone and cultured stone should be used in limited amounts, in such areas as window lintels and sills. Historically, ashlar (cut) stone is more appropriate than fieldstone when used for such elements.
• Alternative building materials such as Hardiboard and glass fiber reinforced concrete may also be appropriate.
• Storefront windows should provide views into activity areas inside the building, or display windows at least three feet deep, in order to maintain a lively pedestrian environment. Spandrel glass, false storefronts, and shallow display windows should be avoided.
• The design guidelines should address signage in the commercial areas. Signs should be compatible with the historic character of the Capitol Hill District. Flat wall signs and painted or metal-leafed window signs are appropriate. Projecting building signs are appropriate, but not allowed by city ordinance in this zone. Non-fluorescent, indirect lighting, such as metal "gooselamp" fixtures and neon lighting is appropriate. Backlit plastic signs and fluorescent signage are not appropriate. Pole signs and large freestanding signs are not appropriate
• The use of fabric, non-illuminated awnings should be encouraged where appropriate. Awnings should be slanted, not rounded.
Residential Expressions:
• The Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City provides extensive standards for new residential construction in historic districts, and should be incorporated into these design guidelines, or explicitly referenced.
• Uniformity of design and materials was often seen on historic buildings on Capitol Hill and on small residential courts such as Arctic Court, where multiple houses were often constructed speculatively at the same time, much as they are today. Staff recognizes the intent of requiring three distinct materials on each building, care must be taken to ensure that these principles are intelligently applied in order to avoid a jumble of illogical architectural elements. Likewise, a design incorporating only one principal wall material could be historically appropriate if properly designed and detailed.
• Unfinished wood, or wood treated with transparent stain, is not typically found on historic buildings in Capitol Hill.
• Stone wainscoting applied to the outside of a building was not historically found on residential buildings in the City, although the commission has approved its use on some new construction, such as at 447 N. Main Street.
• Split rail fences were not commonly seen historically in the city and are generally not approved for use in the historic districts.
• City ordinance allows a maximum fence height of 48 inches in the front yard.
• Staff suggests that the guidelines should require a front porch of some kind on each residential building. The draft guidelines require "an appropriate announcement of a building or unit entrance." This could be easily be interpreted into a minimal treatment, such as an address or unit number. Porches are both an appropriate historic element and provide social and security benefits for the neighborhood. Vinyl porch elements such as rails and columns should not be permitted.
• The Historic Landmark Commission has approved the use of vinyl windows and aluminum and vinyl clad wood windows on new construction. Divided light and simulated divided light Muntins are appropriate for multi-paned windows. Windows with metal or plastic grids between the glass are not appropriate.
Streetscape Expressions:
• The guidelines should incorporate stronger language requiring street trees along thoroughfares and in parking lots. The species selected should be appropriate for the streetscape and historic character of the neighborhood, and should be drought tolerant.
• Existing street trees along 500 North should not be removed. Urban Design Guidelines:
• Chain link fences are not appropriate for use in the historic district
• All public art in a historic district is reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, not just that mounted on a building or part of a structure. Art should be compatible with the character of the district, but very wide latitude is given to the artist with respect to style and subject matter. The requirements and design standards for public art established by the City's Art Design Bard should be referenced in the guidelines.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Staff's recommendation for the commission is to review the guidelines and provide feedback to RDA and IBI on appropriate revisions. Staff further recommends that the commission continue this case to the next meeting in order to provide time for the applicants to incorporate the revisions into a final draft. Staff further recommends that once the design guidelines are approved, the developer of the site shall return to the Commission with a proposed reuse plan for the property. The project shall proceed through the required HLC review for new construction, and any other required review processes. Final demolition approval shall not occur before the Historic Landmark Commission approves a final reuse plan for the site, and a permit for demolition of the buildings shall not be issued until the developer submits drawings for plan review and pays the required plan review fee."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Young pointed out some grammatical and word usage corrections that should be made in the final version of the design guidelines. He also stated that throughout the document, a variety of language is used in terms of "may/shall", and "should/would".
• Mr. Young suggested that the terminology reflect the latitude provided to the developer.
Upon hearing no additional comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicants, Mr. Danny Walz, representing the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, and Mr. Ray Whitchurch of the IBI Group, were present. Mr. Walz stated that the RDA wanted to receive comments from the Historic Landmark Commission, which would be incorporated into the final version of the design guidelines that would be presented to the RDA Board of Directors.
Mr. Walz passed out drafts of the design guidelines, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. Mr. Walz introduced Mr. Ray Whitchurch of the IBI Group.
Mr. Whitchurch stated that he addressed all of Staff's comments in the guidelines by highlighting them in red. Mr. Whitchurch said he would leave it to the discretion of the Commission how much time he would take to discuss those comments. He referred to the Residential Expressions section of the document and pointed out the comments where he disagreed with Staff are stricken in blue. Mr. Whitchurch read the following additional comment, which was printed in solid blue: "False Muntins and mullions are not acceptable on windows." He said that false Muntins and mullions would not be permitted in the development, so the guidelines would be more restrictive, rather than less.
Mr. Whitchurch stated that the only other comment received from Staff that should be discussed is in the same section that the "Awnings should be slanted, not rounded." Mr. Whitchurch said that it might be premature to make the decision on the look of the awnings because it depended on the final architectural design of the buildings. He added that curved awnings might be more appropriate. Mr. Whitchurch pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission would have the final review of those kinds of elements in the final design. He suggested that it would leave more options for the developer. Mr. Knight said that Staff was mostly concerned that back-lit display awnings would be prohibited on the project.
Mr. Whitchurch said that the new proposal has enhanced the landscaping requirements. He said that he would like to see a strong buffer between the commercial parking lots. Mr. Whitchurch displayed a larger drawing of the proposed site plan. Mr. Simonsen asked if he would give the Commission a brief orientation of the site plan.
Mr. Whitchurch talked about the property on 500 North and 300 West, which included Arctic Court. He pointed out the two different options. Mr. Whitchurch discussed the two options of the proposal in the following manner: 1) A strong street-based commercial with the buildings pushed up on 300 West; 2) Residential units over the commercial; 3) An interior courtyard for the apartments or townhouses; 4) Parking under the buildings to meet the parking requirements of the site. A secondary option shows the alleyway double loaded instead of single loaded. The reason for that is to allow opportunities to create more density on the site, which is an urban solution; 5) A green barrier between the residential and the commercial part of the property. There is another option on the section that shows the buildings pushed together with decking on both the back and the front that looks out onto the street or in the back area; 6) A plaza in the center; 7) Building breaks; and 8) A pedestrian sidewalk through the property to Arctic Court.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion about the clarification of true divided light versus the snap-in grid inside the window. Mr. Knight said that Staff's comments were referring to a simulated divided light where there was a spacer in the middle, which lines up with the outside grid. Ms. Giraud added that a lintel would be on the outside of the window. Mr. Whitchurch said that he would take it any direction that the Commission wants because his addition was more restrictive. Mr. Littig also commented that he wanted to thank IBI for the statement in the guidelines: "Public art shall conform to the design standards for public art established by the Salt Lake City Art Design Board and the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission." Mr. Littig said, "As an artist, I find it a little offensive when I am told that the arts should reflect the local culture, values and history." Mr. Whitchurch said that was called "block art". He thanked Mr. Littig for his comment.
• Mr. Christensen inquired about spandrel glass. Mr. Whitchurch explained that spandrel glass was opaque so objects could not be seen through it. Mr. Whitchurch recommended clear glass at the street level. Mr. Christensen asked if the Guadalupe district would be joined with the Capitol Hill district to make an easier access across 300 West. Mr. Whitchurch said that there has been a lot of ideas talked about, but unfortunately, that street is under UDOT's (Utah Department of Transportation) control. He pointed out that RDA owns the property close to directly across from this site, so it would be an opportunity in the future. Mr. Whitchurch stated that the applicant has proposed to push bulb outs trying to hook these two neighborhoods together, but the reality is that there is a seven-lane highway with speed signs showing a 40 miles per hour. However, he added, that everyone travels about 55 miles per hour and it is a dangerous street to try to cross. Mr. Whitchurch said the applicant would like to work out a solution for that location. He stated that there have been talks with City Council for Salt Lake City to assume control of 300 West, possibly trading it for another street. He added that the City Council said that proposal would be in a long-range plan, if it would happen at all. Mr. Christensen asked about the plaza on 300 West and 500 North that protrudes into the street. Mr. Whitchurch said it is in UDOT's right-of-way.
• Mr. Simonsen said that it may be worth suggesting something that could influence future decisions that UDOT may have. He noted that he has been involved with a number of similar projects that front on State highways. Mr. Whitchurch said that his preference was not to put a tree-lined boulevard down the middle of 300 West because it fragments one side from the other. He added that he did not know what the carrying capacity was for 300 West. Mr. Whitchurch said that opportunities exist and he would discuss the proposal with Mr. Walz. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that UDOT needed to review the City's ongoing plan for 300 West so an overall vision may be achieved.
• Mr. Wilson expressed his concern about offering guidelines and a ready to market site plan to developers. He believed it would "tie any developer's hands".
Mr. Walz said typically that would be true. He indicated that developers are usually given some parameters. Mr. Walz said that this site is within the historic district and developers have been "leery" of looking at the site because they do not know what they could or could not do with the property and do not understand the process. He pointed out that a developer would be responsible to make their project work within the design guidelines. Mr. Simonsen inquired if the RDA had the option of subdividing the property and if it would be more marketable subdivided. Mr. Walz said that was correct and the RDA may have to look at subdividing the commercial from the residential. Mr. Walz said that the goal of the RDA is to give a developer some kind of comfort level because the RDA had already been through part of the process. Mr. Wilson concurred that the guidelines would be defining a scheme, which had already met the layer of requirements in the approval process. Mr. Walz said that the RDA has tried to "step into the developer's shoes and take those few extra steps in the process. Ms. Giraud said that the final review and approval of a project would still be made by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Walz said that developers know more what works in the market so we may have some changes.
• Ms. Lew said that the design guidelines need to be something with which a developer can work, rather than requiring a developer to build the exact proposal if it was uncomfortable. Mr. Walz said the design guidelines would be an "envelope" in which the developer can work.
• Mr. Christensen said that the plans show individual family housing on Arctic
Court and the second floor housing over the commercial segment. He inquired if the houses would be sold individually, or would the developer continue to own all the residential on the entire project. Mr. Walz said that it is anticipated that the homes on Arctic Court would be single family lots sold for owner/occupancy. He added that the housing above the commercial could be rentals or condominiums, which would be the choice of the developer. Mr. Christensen asked the same question about the two historic properties on 500 North. Mr. Walz said that it is most likely that those would be sold for ownership. Mr. Christensen commented that two of the houses on Arctic Court are restorable and livable. He questioned whether or not a developer would be given that option, rather than demolishing them and building new houses with such small lots. Mr. Walz said that cannot be completely ruled out, but the intention was to demolish them. He stated that building seven new homes would help to return the residential character of Arctic Court. Also, he said that saving the buildings on 500 North was a compromise to the homes on Arctic Court. Mr. Simonsen said that option would have to be reviewed because it would be a deviation from the originally approved plans. He pointed out that the fulfillment of the demolition requirements have expired which was a one-year bona fide effort to market the property.
• Ms. Rowland said she believed the site plan requires more density than a lot of developers would consider. Mr. Walz said that the RDA hopes that a developer would build to the densities that have been specified to use as a base. He said that the number of units could be changed in terms of configuration and layout. Ms. Rowland asked about the number of housing units and the square footage of the commercial space. Mr. Walz said that the proposal calls for seven single- family homes, sixty apartments, and 27,000 square feet of commercial space. Ms. Rowland inquired if offices were planned in the complex. Mr. Walz said that the commercial could be for either office or retail. Mr. Whitchurch said that it is the hope to create a neighborhood services base, which was expressed by the community at the public open houses.
Mr. Whitchurch said that he was anxious to get the Commission's feedback on the design guidelines so they could be enhanced. He stated, "As you give me the comments, I would like to remind you that the idea is to give as much latitude as we can to the developer while still reassuring the Historic Landmark Commission and the community that they are going to reach their target goal for this site so we can have the broadest market as possible for the buyer." Mr. Whitchurch noted that the Capitol Hill Master Plan design guidelines are referenced very strongly in this document so there really is no shortcut on the detail and trying to capture the historic character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Simonsen inquired about the scheduled presentation to the RDA Board of Directors. Mr. Walz said the possible date would be Tuesday, June 11, 2002. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission would need a little more time to digest the information, having just received the redlines at this meeting. Mr. Whitchurch asked if the comments and suggestions be forwarded to him soon enough to allow him time to implement them into the design guidelines before the next presentation. Mr. Simonsen developed a timeframe for returning the Commission's comments to the IBI Group. The discussion continued regarding matters relating to the development of the proposed site.
Mr. Simonsen excused the applicants since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for them. Mr. Simonsen 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. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that the RDA and the IBI Group have worked very hard with the public open houses. She expressed her concern about the single-family homes on Arctic Court and the small yards. Ms. Gardner also talked about the lack of places for children to play, which would discourage families to move into the residential units. She added that the existing homes on Arctic Court have larger yards. Ms. Gardner stated that the community has experienced too many failures on the property site and she wants the development to be successful.
• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 Almond Street, stated that she is also a trustee on the Capitol Hill Community Council. She pointed out that the draft drawings of the proposal adhered to the guidelines in the Capitol Hill Master Plan with one exception. Ms. Mangold said that the council asked that deliveries and the principal access to the commercial development be from 300 West, but the drawings indicate most of that would be from 500 North. She added that the intent was to protect the residential nature of 500 North. Ms. Mangold asked that aspect be reconsidered in the final site plans. She also expressed her concern that landscaped center islands be constructed on 300 West, which also was not in the plans. Ms. Mangold said that would make 300 West much easier to cross.
She encouraged the City to continue discussions with UDOT to make "a great effort to swap 300 and 400 West between the State and the City". Ms. Mangold indicated that if the swap were to happen, 300 West would become a safer and have a more residential character. She added, "That is part of our idea in the community."
Upon hearing no additional comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by the members of the Commission, such as: 1) There are many small apartments in Capitol Hill that can accommodate single people or couples without children; 2) Family housing on Arctic Court is a wonderful idea, but seven houses would be "crammed" together with yards not large enough to encourage families with children. Suggested building fewer houses with larger yards; 3) The Historic Landmark Commission would be amenable to lower the density for the proposed site; 4) Materials were not pointed out in the design guidelines, but the developers would work with the Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City; 5) The property has been on the market for a long time; 6) The fear that the guidelines and the restrictive proposed development plans will also discourage developers; 7) Examples in other areas of the city of the lengthy process of demolishing historic buildings; 8) The City owns the land and the City has to provide an incentive to developers; 9) There has been much community support behind the development of the proposed site; 10) Create a positive approach for potential developers while marketing the property. Let the developer know what can be done with the property, rather than focusing on the restrictions; 11) A critical part is that the development is designed for mixed use and the Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City are guidelines for residential and not commercial; and 12) Just a commercial strip mall would not be approved. The Commissioners concluded their remarks by agreeing that the community supports the development, the City has provided incentives for a potential developer, and would not want to discourage a further delay in developing the proposed site.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved to continue Case No. 013-02 to the next meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
• Mr. Simonsen clarified that the case would continue on the June 5, 2002 agenda.
Case No. 014-02, a presentation by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), to solicit comments for listing the "Sarah Daft Home" at 737 South 1300 East on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Roger Roper of the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) to make a presentation on National Register of Historic Places sites. She stated that Mr. Roper is the Coordinator of the CLG (Certified Local Government) program. Ms. Giraud said that SHPO requests input from the Historic Landmark Commission for National Register of Historic Places nominations within Salt Lake City's boundaries. She added that the input is provided to the Board of State History, which votes on the nominations, then the nomination is then sent to the National Park Service, the federal organization responsible for the National Register. Mr. Roper said that the Sarah Daft Home would be included in the Bennion/Douglas National Register District, but is not proposed to be included in a local district.
Mr. Roper stated that the owners of the property requested that the Sarah Daft Home be individually nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. He said that the owners care about the building and believe that the listing would enhance their fund raising for the Sarah Daft Association, a non-profit organization, which subsidizes the facility. The structure is not only a very significant building but is historically significant for its social services in the Twentieth Century.
Mr. Roper gave the following narrative description of the Sarah Daft Home as slides were presented of the property: The Sarah Daft Home for the Aged was constructed in 1913 and has been in continuous operation since it was established. The building is located in a residential neighborhood on the east bench of the Salt Lake City. This was the first and most important of facility of its kind both in Salt Lake City and in Utah. There were no rest/nursing/retirement homes for the aged in the late Nineteenth Century and even the early Twentieth Century. When Sarah Daft, a well known and wealthy business woman in Salt Lake City, died in 1906, her large estate was left in the hands of four trustees. She left in her will provisions and funding to establish the home. Much of the money was used, however, in the legal battle among the executors of the will.
The building sits on an elevated site, approximately two acres in size, and is set back 75 feet from the street. The two-story building retains a high degree of integrity on both the exterior and interior, although it has been modified in a variety of ways over the years. The most notable alteration is the large rear addition (1980), which is smaller in height and much narrower than the original building. From the public view, the addition is virtually invisible behind the historic building.
The Sarah Daft Home, designed by W. H. Lepper, a local architect, is constructed of red brick and has a concrete foundation and wood trim. The architectural details are still evident even though some of the wood trim on the eaves has been covered in recent years by aluminum. The simple gable roof is broken up by a small rear cross-gable, the large projecting gable portico on the front. The two symmetrically placed dormers on both the front and rear roof slopes. The building's Colonial Revival style is evident with the symmetrical facade, dominant projecting portico, 10-over-1 clear leaded-glass windows on all facades, sidelights framing the doorway, and a Palladian window in the front pediment. Heavy modillions decorate the wide eaves.
In 1980, a large one-story brick wing was added in the back giving the building a “T" shape. A new elevator was added to the north side of the building using red brick to match the original as much as possible. The original elevator is still in the building, but is not used. A few rooms that were the original kitchen/dining room area were converted into an office/staff area. The kitchen/dining area is now included in the addition. The original portion of the building has retained its original plan and function. The addition did not alter the original character of the center. The interior and exterior retain their original authenticity. A window was added in the upstairs bathroom, and additional bathrooms were added upstairs. The window configuration is original but they have been replaced, with identical windows in about 1980. The original double loaded corridor plan on both floors has remained intact, as have almost all of the rooms, including the main floor reception room, which serves as the main living room for the residents. The original wood fireplaces, interior trim, and moldings are still intact.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for Mr. Roper. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring about the outside fire escape. Mr.
Roper said that the fire escape was not original to the building; it was added later. Mr. Roper indicated that a stair tower was added to the north end of the original building. Mr. Parvaz asked if the building complied with all the ADA requirements, and Mr. Roper said that it did comply. Mr. Parvaz asked about the roofing material. Mr. Roper said that asphalt shingles were on the roof of the historic building, as well as the addition. Mr. Parvaz had some questions about the nomination. Mr. Roper pointed out that the entire property would be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places because the buildings cannot be separated. He also said that a building has to be at least 50 years old to be listed, and most buildings have had some alterations. Mr. Roper said that it was really a matter of the Commission determining whether or not the alterations are dominant enough that the integrity of the historic building was lost. He added that the "general rule of thumb" when he is asked if a homeowner could list the home on the Register, he answers, 'Would the original owner recognize it today?" Mr. Roper said that the Sarah Daft home would be recognized from the street side of the building.
• Mr. Young asked if Mr. Roper knew who the architects were for the addition. Mr. Roper said that he did not know. Mr. Young inquired if the owl pinnacle on the front pediment was original. Mr. Roper said that it was not.
• Ms. Rowland inquired if Mr. Roper found any historic photographs of the building. Mr. Roper said that there were very few and they were of poor quality. She said she was curious if the front exterior stairs were original. Mr. Roper said that the railing wall around the porch has been rebuilt. Mr. Young believed that the two bulkheads on the front by the stairs had been added and not original. There was some further discussion regarding this issue.
• Ms. Giraud discussed the written nomination document. Mr. Roper said that the nomination was in a rough draft form and the final version of the document would include footnotes, as well as other pertinent information. Ms. Giraud also recommended that the nomination would be stronger for people doing research in the future if more information was included about Sarah Daft, such as she was one of several women during this time associated with the mining industry. She added that Sarah came to Salt Lake City with her husband who made a lot of money. After her husband died, she became a very successful business woman in her own right and built several buildings downtown.
• Mr. Parvaz cautioned that the nomination should be a complete package when it comes to the historic landmark commission for review.
Since the Commission had no additional comments, Mr. Simonsen excused Mr. Roper and thanked him for his presentation. Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no further discussion. Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 014.02 that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) that the Sarah Daft Home for the Aged at 737 South 1300 East be included on the National Register of Historic Places. Further, that the written nomination be more complete with additional information about Sarah Daft, and footnotes where applicable. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. No second was required. There was a
unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.