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 Bruce Miya, Dina Williams, El1izabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. William Damery, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Preservation P1lanning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller, Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:06 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Bruce Miya. Mr. Miya announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
PREVIOUS CASE
Case No. 016-96, at 501 East 900 South, by V. Mancini and Company, represented by Rob Childs of AJC Architecture. requesting final approval of a drive-through coffee bar.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that after reviewing the signage issues with the Zoning Administrator, Randy Taylor, he determined that the applicant would be allowed to have two flat signs (storefront orientation and general building orientation) on the street frontages. Ms. Egleston stated that since the proposed structure would face south on a corner lot the building would be allowed to have two signs on both the south and the west facades. However, she pointed out that no signs would be allowed on the east or north facades. She said that the window signs would be allowed. Ms. Egleston stated that Mr. Taylor also interpreted the coffee cup art work as signage.
Mr. Rob Childs from AJC Architects, representing the applicant, was present. He said that he concurred with the staff report. Mr. Childs indicated that he never considered the coffee cup art work as signage. He said that he considered them as graphics and an integral part of the design of the building. He said that without them, the building would be very bare. Mr. Childs circulated a colored rendering of the art work. He said the applicant proposed to place one sign, which would be approximately 12 square feet, on the south and west facades.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Miya led the discussion by inquiring about the signs which were shown on the site drawing as new signs. Mr. Childs said that two of them were menu boards. Mr. Miya asked if they were considered signage. Ms. Egleston said that she thought they would be considered signage. Mr. Childs said that directional and windows signs were allowed and he thought the menu boards would fit into that category. There was some discussion regarding the issues surrounding the menu boards on the proposed coffee kiosk in comparison with menu boards at other fast-food restaurants located in historic districts. Ms. Egleston said that those fast-food restaurants might be located in a higher intensity zone. Mr. Miya continued to ask about the new monument sign that was shown on the site drawing on the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Childs said that new low-ground monument sign was proposed but had not yet been designed. Ms. Egleston added that the applicant was allowed a monument sign on that corner. When Mr. Miya inquired about the light pole depicted on the site plan, Mr. Childs said that the light pole would be a down-lit type.
• Mr. Young asked about the panels that read, "Display by Owner," that were shown on the site plans on the west elevation. Mr. Childs said that he was not certain what the applicant planned to do on those panels. He said that the window displays would consist of coffee cups, donuts, and other related items, which were allowed under the zoning ordinance. There was some discussion in reference to the differences in window displays and signage.
• Mr. Cartwright further discussed the interpretation of the coffee cup art work on the fascia as being signs. He said that he would like to find a way to make the coffee cups an integral design of the building. He addressed a new building on Fourth South, where the signage became the parapet. Mr. Cartwright said that he liked the idea of having a piece of architecture as integral art which would depict what the building would be without the use of words. He used an example that when murals were sandblasted on a stone or a brick facade, they became integral parts of the architecture of the building. Mr. Cartwright added that when art was displayed on tin panels and applied on stucco buildings, they become signs rather than an integral part of the architecture of the building. He said that he would like to see the coffee cups integrated more into the exterior facade.
• Ms. Miller, who was absent for a few moments, stated that she had just conferred with one of the members of the Zoning Administrator's team, Randy Isbell, who said that a menu board, as they were presently located on the site plan, would probably be considered directional signs and would be allowed. She said that they had to be limited in size to 4 feet x 8 feet. Mr. Childs said that the menu boards would be free standing near the drive-through portions of the project. The discussion continued.
• Mr. Cerruti stated that he would like to have a further discussion regarding the menu boards because he said that he was not convinced that they could be defined as directional signs. He asked for the clarification of the signage placements. The signage placements, and interpretation of the menu boards as directional signs, were discussed. Mr. Cartwright also said that he was not certain that the panels which read "Display by Owner" were interpreted correctly.
• Ms. Williams inquired about the information that appeared to be missing in the packets. She indicated that there were no drawings or details for the enclosed dumpster or for the panels above the windows, which displayed the coffee cups. Ms. Williams pointed out that in the motion, which was made at the previous meeting, were clear instructions that the information was required and were to be submitted to Staff. Ms. Egleston stated that she was told that the dumpster would have a basic wood fence enclosure. Ms. Egleston indicated that this information had been received in the Planning Office. Mr. Childs concurred. Ms. Williams asked if the menu boards in the windows on the east facade would have to comply with the ordinance that only allowed 25% of the windows to be covered. Ms. Egleston said that it did.
Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Mr. Miya closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
Mr. Cerruti inquired further regarding the signage requests for the project and what would be allowed in the district. Ms. Egleston referred to the column "Sign Type, Size, and Height Standards" in the C-N Zoning District Table, which was included in the staff report. Ms. Egleston noted that the signage requests for this project were the following: 2- flat storefront signs; 1 -monument sign; 3- free standing menu boards, called directional signs; and 2- window signs. The discussion continued regarding the number of signs that were requested.
The discussion turned to the zoning for the subject property. Ms. Hatch inquired into the decision that drive-through coffee shops would fall into the realm of being permissible in a CN Commercial Neighborhood Zone. She said that she thought the idea was to keep low-impact traffic on the perimeter areas of a dense neighborhood. Ms. Egleston pointed out that she brought this issue to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, and it was decided that a drive-through coffee shop would be a permitted use; it was defined as a restaurant.
Ms. Hatch said that she was concerned that the neighborhood commercial had been extended in this community and she did not believe that was the original intent of the zoning ordinance. She thought there needed to be further study on the zoning issue. Mr. Paterson said that a drive-through restaurant in the CN Zone, like "Central Park" or "Swifty's", would have to be approved as a conditional use, but a drive-through coffee kiosk was a permitted use. He said that there were most likely some gray areas in that determination. Mr. Cooper reminded everyone that the zoning issues were not in the purview of this Commission. Ms. Hatch said that she believed the clarification of the zoning issues was important.
Mr. Cerruti added that he thought the Zoning Administrator or someone on the team should interpret that portion of the zoning ordinance to this body. Mr. Cerruti noted that if the new proposed building had been planned to be constructed in the same location on the site and keep the same configuration, as the original historic gas station, it would be more in keeping with the historic district.
The discussion again turned to the signage issue. Mr. Cartwright said that the signage was an inherent part of this building-type. He said that he would not mind if the project would become an enhancing "billboard" that one could drive through for coffee. Mr. Cartwright added that a small stucco "pillbox" with little signs and art work applied to the exterior elevations, would be chaotic. He pointed out that with creative intervention to the design of the structure, the building would read what it would intend to be. Ms. Hatch added that this was the direction the Commission had hoped the project would go; instead it went the other direction. She said by using applied elements on the band over the windows, the drive-through coffee kiosk could someday be replaced with another kind of business that could be totally unrelated.
There was much discussion regarding the wording of the motion at the Historic Landmark Meeting where the application was previously reviewed, so the motion was read: "Ms. Williams moved to grant conceptional approval to Case No. 016-96, based on the findings of fact included in the staff report, with instructions to the applicant to return to the Historic Landmark Commission with the following information: 1) details on the dumpster enclosure with the materials spelled out; 2) additional information regarding the material above the band of windows, be determined and clarified; 3) that the landscaping plan for the buffer be more clearly articulated, which should include the lighting solution; 4) that the metal panels, awnings, and other elements be more clearly defined as they related to the overall structure; and 5) that the material provided to the Staff and the Commission, needed to be documentation that would clearly define the intention of the applicant of what would be constructed." A copy of this previous motion was included in the staff report which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Several members of the Commission again expressed their opinions that the applicant had failed to submit the requested information, such as the drawings of the dumpster enclosure, clarification of the material above the band of windows, the articulation of the landscaping plan, the lighting, the metal panels, the awnings, the dimensions of the monument sign, and other elements.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the following issues:
The art work showing the coffee cups should be designed to be an integral part of the design of the building and not signage that is applied to the exterior of the building;
Questioning the decision to call menu boards directional signs, which were not reviewed previously on other drive-through coffee places;
Questioning the maximum signage allowed;
The north and east elevations would not be on frontage streets and questioning the signage on those facades; and
According to the "Sign Type, Size and Height Standards for the CN Districts table, under the "Number of Signs Permitted Per Sign Type" column, concerns were expressed that if the menu boards were called directional signs, there could be no limit to the amount of signs one private property would be allowed;
Mr. Cartwright suggested that canopy wings be structured and built to function as a shelter to someone driving through to get service, rather than having a little stucco box in the middle of the island on the corner property. He said that it would be a way to filter the light and would offer the opportunity of introducing other materials like wood, which might be more traditional and compatible to the neighborhood. Ms. Deal said that by introducing a canopy, there would be more opportunity for additional signage. Ms. Cartwright said he considered that possibility but suggested that a conventional approach might be more appropriate for the neighborhood.
Mr. Cooper talked about the lack of taking advantage of a creative opportunity to make the building into a nice little coffee kiosk in a residential neighborhood, rather than a little stucco box in which other centralized fast-food restaurants could eventually be located. Mr. Morgan said that the Commission was looking for a "duck" and the project, as presented, will not be a "duck."
The main vein of a lengthy discussion that took place, was the general consensus of how the Commission would vote on this project. Ms. Williams expressed her concerns by questioning the accuracy of the Staff's findings in the staff report by saying that the Commission had to make that determination.
Mr. Cerruti articulated the issues surrounding the requirements for new construction in an historic district, such as the following: 1) scale and form which encompasses height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape, and the scale of a structure; 2) composition of principal facades, which includes the proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and the relationship of materials; and 3) the relationship of street, which comprises the walls of continuity, the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, directional expression of principal elevations, and streetscape and pedestrian improvements. He inquired on which standards the Commission would make its findings to base its decision for this project.
Mr. Cooper pointed out that the Commission, after the previous review of the project, rendered a conceptional approval on the basis that a building would be created that would be an unusual piece of architecture, and the Commission believed that piece of architecture would enhance the neighborhood, if properly executed. Mr. Cartwright stated that the Commission made a judgment call, and it was not whether or not the Commission favored a stucco building, but the potential of the stucco building by integrating the signage into the architecture. Mr. Cartwright said that rather than making this project a special piece of architecture, which would allow a small stucco building to be a meaningful contribution to the neighborhood, the applicant failed to capitalize on that creativity. Some other members expressed their opinions by supporting those observations. The discussion continued.
Mr. Cooper moved that this project be tabled subject to further evaluation of the graphics package by this Commission. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
Ms. Williams said because the project's signage requirements met the zoning ordinance, this was a subjective motion and not based on the ordinance. She pointed out some of the problems surrounding the identification of the "graphics package" in the motion. Not all members agreed with that perception. However, Mr. Cooper amended the motion.
Mr. Cooper moved that Case No. 016-96 be tabled subject to the redesign of the art work which contributes to the articulation of the building. The second still stood by Mr. Young.
The discussion continued. It was suggested that the Commission members should concentrate less on the signage and more on the scale, form, massing, relationship to the streetscape, and other such issues on which the Commission should base its decision. Mr. Cooper, again, amended the motion.
Mr. Cooper moved that Case No. 016-96 be tabled because the signage, as presented, was not fully integrated with the building. Further, the applicant is requested to meet with the Architectural Subcommittee then return to the full Commission for final approval. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Mr. Cooper, Ms. Deal, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Hatch, and Ms. Williams were opposed. Due to a tie vote, Mr. Miya, the Acting Chairperson, broke the tie by casting his vote to support the motion. Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
The discussion turned to amending the text of the Sign Ordinance to define menu boards. Mr. Paterson assured the Commission that he would bring that issue to the attention of the Planning Director.
NEW CASE
Case No. 005-97. at 205 E. First Avenue. by Alan Sparrow. Headmaster of Rowland Hall/St. Mark's School. and Wallace Cooper of Cooper-Roberts Architects. representing the applicant, requesting approval of the design for a new classroom addition to the main building.
Ms. Cooper declared recusancy and removed himself from the Historic Landmark
Commission for this case.
Ms. Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the main building had undergone many changes since 1880, when the school first opened and referred to the history which was included in the staff report.
Ms. Miller said that, originally, the current proposal for the school was to demolish two homes on the southeast corner of the block to make way for a brand-new building. She said that fortunately, the school board was convinced to pursue another solution, which was the proposed concept being reviewed at this meeting.
Ms. Miller continued by saying that the plans would require an addition, which was added onto the main building in 1907, to be removed, and a new larger addition be constructed, which would better accommodate the needs of the school. She pointed out that the school was not increasing the number of students or faculty, but had simply been lacking classroom space for many years. Photographs and drawings were circulated of the campus. Ms. Deal inquired about the size of the signage that had been installed at the school. Ms. Miller indicated that the new signage had been reviewed at the Architectural Subcommittee and approved.
Mr. Alan Sparrow, Headmaster of Rowland Hall-St. Marks's School, the applicant, as well as Mr. Wallace Cooper of Cooper-Roberts Architects, representing the applicant, was present. Mr. Cooper stated that this proposal included a partial demolition of the main building which is a contributing building. He discussed the presentation which was given to the Avenues Community Council. Mr. Cooper indicted that the existing classrooms would be replaced, in the proposed addition, with ones that would be more adequate. He also said that a resource room for the teachers would also be added. He depicted the proposed materials and the color scheme, which he said would be consistent with the campus.
Mr. Cooper used a briefing board as he further explained the project. He pointed out which portion would be removed and illustrated how the proposed new addition would fit into the overall architecture of the building. This information was included in the staff report. Mr. Cooper said that ten parking stalls would be lost and discussed the parking agreement Rowland Hall/St. Mark's School had acquired with the officials of the LOS Church to use the parking lot of the LOS Ward building which is located across the street from the school.
Mr. Sparrow discussed some of the goals and objectives of the Rowland Hall/St. Mark's School and the future use of the proposed addition. He said that a major goal was to maintain the historical integrity of the entire campus. He expressed his concerns for the needs of the students for more space. Mr. Sparrow also addressed the need to make the building earthquake safe and to upgrade the campus. He talked about the 20-year Master Plan for the school.
Mr. Sparrow directed his comments to the issue of the school's finances. He indicated that this solution was the more expensive option. Mr. Sparrow said that the school would someday like to upgrade the existing historic homes on the campus, in the future, by installing sprinklers and other improvements.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by asking about the size of the new addition. Mr. Cooper said that the proposal called for a 56-foot-width of the building to be removed and the addition would be 56 feet wide, so it basically would be the same. The discussion continued regarding the location of the proposed addition and how it would sit on the site. Ms. Deal also expressed her concerns about the proposal by discussing the large elevations with no fenestration. She said that the many windows and fenestration are what made the rear of the existing building interesting. Mr. Cooper pointed out that in this initial design there was a proposed stairwell in one corner and explained that the proposed addition would sit on the property line. Mr. Cartwright agreed that the facades needed more fenestration and articulation. Mr. Morgan also agreed and made some suggestions. Mr. Cooper noted that he fully realized that the elevations needed more work. He said that the discussion at this meeting was to propose the idea of removing part of a building, and he was willing to work out the articulation details in future subcommittee meetings.
• Bruce asked if the applicant had additional documents illustrating the physical condition of the existing building, the parking lot, and the relationship of the proposed addition to the main building. Mr. Cooper indicated that he did not come prepared with more documents, at this time, but explained that the building and the parking lot were in good condition. Mr. Cooper said that there would be further documentation submitted before any work would be done.
• Mr. Cerruti expressed his concerns that a partial demolition of a contributory building would not be subject to the provisions of the demolition portion of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cooper indicated that there had been discussion with the Planning Director and the Deputy Planning Director regarding their interpretation of the ordinance, and he said he would address his perception of the ordinance. Mr. Cooper pointed out that this proposal for the school was not a wholesale removal of a building, but could be viewed as a partial demolition. Ms. Miller interceded by saying that the proposal was not a complete, 100 percent, demolition of a building so the demolition process would not be invoked. Mr. Cerruti questioned the source of that determination. Ms. Deal further addressed the demolition procedure by saying that she thought that if a demolition destroyed 51% or more of a building, it would be considered a complete demolition. Mr. Cooper noted that this proposal for partial demolition would not encompass that much of the main building.
• Mr. Young asked if the different additions to the main building were individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or was the entire site listed on the nomination. He further inquired if there was anything in that survey that indicated that the 1907 addition to the main building was contributory when that nomination was placed on the Register. Mr. Young was concerned about the significance of the addition that was proposed to be removed. Ms. Miller said that she found nothing in the Register nomination regarding the significance of that addition. A discussion followed regarding the Register nomination, the age of the addition, and description of the proposed new addition.
There was further discussion regarding the demolition procedures. Ms. Miller offered the following explanation: "The history of this building was one of such that it has been added onto over the years until it has become one large building. It encompasses nearly one-quarter of the entire block. What the applicant would like to do is remove a portion of that building, and replace the lost portion with an addition; not demolish the entire building. The Staff has worked with this kind of request quite frequently on residential structures. What the Historic Landmark Commission should be reviewing at this meeting is the concept of the proposal, reuse plan, and whether or not the proposed addition would meet the Commission's standards for additions."
Mr. Cerruti was persistent in his pursuance of the issues surrounding demolition. He read the definition of "demolition", which is found in subsection 21A.34.020 (B) (6) of the City's Zoning Ordinance: "Demolition. Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site other than solely interior elements." Mr. Cerruti said that the Commission members should determine if they support the Planning official's interpretation of the definition of "demolition." He continued by saying that if the members disagree with that interpretation, then the applicant would have to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservat1ion Overlay District and six out of the standards, found in subsection 21A.34.020 (L) (1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance would have to be met. Mr. Cerruti noted that he wanted to discuss this further, perhaps at another meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Paterson suggested obtaining a legal opinion from the City Attorney's office of the term, "demolition."
Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Mr. Miya closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session:
Executive Session
The discussion was directed to the many issues surrounding this project. Several members of the Commission raised questions pertaining to the following: 1) information that was not found in the staff report; 2) the demolition procedure; 3) comparing a demolition of the magnitude of the current proposal to an addition on the rear of a residence; 4) not allowing the Commission the opportunity to make the determination of whether or not the current proposal would be deemed a demolition or an alteration; 5) that this proposal was a better approach, from the community's standpoint, than the original proposal of demolishing two historic homes on the campus; and 6) because the elevations of the new addition seemed to be bland, and more articulation was necessary, which would be discussed in subcommittee meetings.
The demolition issues continued to be disputed.
Ms. Hatch stated that she was personally offended by the Staff's decision to interpret this proposal as an alteration and not as a demolition. Ms. Miller informed Ms. Hatch that the decision was not an arbitrary one, that she discussed the project with Mr. Paterson and Ms. Egleston and, mainly based on other similar proposals as well as the 1987 addition for Rowland Hall/St. Mark's School, that this was the proper way to process this request.
Ms. Williams noted the tools that the Historic Landmark Commission had in trying to resolve the controversial issues surrounding this proposal by reading subsection 21A.34.020 (G) (1 through 11) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. A copy of subsection 21A.34.020 (L through Q) which are the Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District was also filed with the minutes. Mr. Cerruti stated that the criteria was different than with the demolition issues. Ms. Williams suggested that there should be a continuation of the discussion of demolition versus alteration to a contributing structure. Ms. Williams stated that she was convinced that the Commission could not continue to discuss the Rowland Hall/St. Mark's proposal until the whole Commission could either support the decision made by the Planning Staff to call the proposal an alteration made to a contributing structure, or determine it as a demolition proposal. She said that she believed that issue should be resolved before the reviewed continued. She recommended analyzing the points of the above subsections of the City Zoning Ordinance and to revisit the site.
Mr. Paterson said that if the Commission wanted this discussion to continue, it was not necessary to comply to the 14-day notification requirement; courtesy notices could be mailed.
Ms. Williams moved to continue the discussion for Case No. 005-97 at the next Historic Landmark meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as the Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present, and Mr. Cooper was in recusancy. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion guidelines regarding alterations and demolition of accessory structures located within historic districts.
This discussion was postponed until the May 21, 1997 Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M.