SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Minutes of the Meeting Room 326, 451 South State Street
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular session meeting held on November 17, 2011.
A regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission was called to order on Thursday, November 17, 2011, 5:37:16 PM at in Room 326 of the City and County Building, located at451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111.
Commissioners present for the meeting included, Vice Chair Polly Hart, Dave Richards, Arla Funk, Earle Bevins III, and Bill Davis. Commissioners Chairperson Anne Oliver, Sheleigh Harding and Stephen James were excused.
Planning staff present for the meeting included Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager, Janice Lew, Senior Planner, Carl Leith, Senior Planner and Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary. City Attorney Paul Nielson was also present.
FIELD TRIP 5:37:41 PM
No field trip was scheduled for this meeting.
DINNER 5:37:42 PM
Dinner was served to the Commission and staff at 5:00p.m. in Room 126. The Commission had no substantive business to discuss.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR 5:37:54 PM Nothing to report at this time
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:38:07 PM Nothing to report at this time
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 3, 2011 MINUTES 5:38:21 PM
Commissioner Richards stated language on page 15 and 16 needed to be changed to better reflect his statements.
MOTION 5:40:24 PM
Commissioner Bevins moved to approve the minutes of November 3, 2011 with the corrections. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Commissioners Richards, Bevins, Funk, and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 4-0 vote Vice Chairperson Hart did not vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS 5:40:55 PM No Public comment at this time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 5:41:19 PM
PLNPCM-00638, Commercial Design Guidelines -The Salt Lake City Planning Division drafted a new section for the design guidelines use by the Historic Landmark Commission to make design review decisions for properties with local historic designation. This supplemental information will provide guidance for commercial properties.
Ms. Janice Lew, Senior Planner reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report via PowerPoint presentation. She stated a working document was reviewed by the Commission on October 20, 2011 the draft included the reformatted rehabilitation and new construction sections. The Commission identified the following major issues
• It was important that the guidelines effectively present “why” the sensitive treatment of our historic resources was important to the community and to creating a sense of place.
• The new construction design guidelines should reflect a common sensitivity this was contextual
Ms. Lew stated the presented draft included all reformatted sections and reminded the Commission that the guidelines would be supplemented by separate appendices covering design review and glossary of terms. She stated in addition Staff had determined a communal introductory piece would be provided that would be applicable to the Residential, Commercial and the Sign Design Guidelines. Ms. Lew stated introduction would thoroughly address why there was a need for historic preservation. She stated this was Staff's first attempt to rework the language in the document and the new construction section had received the most attention with the result that it now incorporated more of the general design principles with a particular emphasis on context. Ms. Lew stated Staff would appreciate the Commission's comments on the approach as the previous language was geared toward compatibility with traditional Main Street type development which Salt Lake City had very little of. She said as Staff continued to make refinements they would also be working on the accompanying illustrations. She stated there would be more photographs included in the document and explained the photos and captions in the presented draft were not edited but would be in the next draft. She stated tonight the Commission should conduct a Public Hearing and provide Staff with any additional commentary on the presented draft. Ms. Lew stated Staff had received several inquiries about the design guidelines but had not received any specific comments.
Commissioner Richards asked if a sample of the ordinance was sent to the AIA for comment and feedback.
Ms. Lew stated it had not however, very early on in the review Staff had approached the AIA regarding the process.
Commissioner Richards stated the AIA may have an interest due to it addressing Commercial building regulations.
Ms. Lew stated Ms. Cromer was instrumental in getting one architect to review the proposed guidelines early on.
Vice Chairperson Hart referred to the photos and captions not being the same.
Ms. Lew stated the photos were not fully edited and would be edited closely in future updates. Commissioner Funk stated the information in the text did not reflect the captions for the pictures and was not consistent.
Ms. Lew stated those items would be addressed in future updates.
Commissioner Funk asked on P5, the third paragraph down on the left side, said structures must be occupied by owners or used as residential units and then later said it was only for residential purposes.
Ms. Lew stated the reason was that language was included in the Commercial Guidelines was because there are commercial buildings that had been converted to residential uses and for the State Tax credit.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated on P5, the section regarding the RDA, said the RDA would reimburse property owners for costs but then lower said the RDA would reimburse up to 50 % of the renovation costs. She asked for the first sentence to be clarified to say the RDA would offer partial reimbursement or something similar. Vice Chairperson Hart stated she thought the RDA gave grants up front and asked if that was true.
Ms. Lew stated she would research the process. She stated the language was reviewed and approved by the RDA.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated on page AS: 4 (architectural styles page 4) a picture of the old hotel on 300 South referred to the style as Colonial Revival but was actually Prairie style.
Commissioner Funk asked to address page 4, paragraph 1. She stated there was picture that said traditional steel casement windows were durable as well as characteristic. She stated that statement was true but steel casement windows were not user friendly as the Commission had discussed before. She asked if that language should be left out because she felt it was researched and found that steel windows were not a good option.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated the windows were unique.
Commissioner Funk explained the difficulty in repairing and operating the widows. Commissioner Davis stated there should be flexibility allowed when addressing steel windows.
Commissioner Funk stated she agreed and thought something different needed to be done with the regulation, possibly leave it out of the guidelines.
Ms. Coffey stated it was important and a specific guideline relating to steel windows was needed because it helped Staff. She stated leaving out the language would make it difficult to make decisions on cases of that nature. She recommended having a guideline in place to regulate the use of steel windows.
Commissioner Richards stated steel casement windows had a distinctive look that added to the character of buildings that exhibit them.
Commissioner Funk stated she agreed but the windows needed to be functional.
Commissioner Richards stated he agreed and thought the windows could be made functional.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated the Commission should encourage people to repair rather than replace windows. She stated the Commission had addressed cases where people have tried to repair windows and not been successful either because of cost or other reasons. She stated in these cases the Commission reconsidered and allowed the replacement of the windows. Vice Chairperson stated at least the Applicant was encouraged, those were not casement windows, but they were encouraged and tried. She stated she didn't think people should be discouraged from even trying to repair existing windows.
Commissioner Funk stated her opinion was based on experience with the casement windows and the difficulty to make them functional.
Commissioner Richards stated it was a similar issue with wood window repairs in that there are few groups of people who are able to repair them and there are probably fewer people that can repair steel windows but that didn't mean the windows were not repairable.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated just because someone didn't want to repair something didn't mean a guideline should not be written for the subject.
Commissioner Davis stated there should be guidelines but include a separate section on steel windows that allowed flexibility on how they would be address because steel windows are horrible although they do look distinctive.
Commissioner Bevins stated it was case sensitive because it would depend on the ability of the Applicant to replace or repair the windows.
Commissioner Richards stated people needed to try to fix the steel windows as steel was a natural material to work with. He stated another part was that the windows were classic features of the 1920's and international style and to change them would make the building look entirely different.
Commissioner Davis stated people should be encouraged to retain the steel windows and try to repair them but he was not willing to personally go to the carpet and force someone to keep the steel windows when they didn't work.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated she understood but she didn't feel the Commission ever forced anyone to keep anything the vast majority of the time. She stated it was the rare occasion when an Applicant that actually tried to repair a window was denied the ability to replace it if repairing it was not an option. Vice Chairperson stated the guideline was just asking Applicants to at least try to make repairs.
Commissioner Davis stated he was okay with that but was not willing to go to the carpet regarding steel windows and agreed with Commissioner Funk that they were horribly inefficient windows.
Commissioner Funk asked Staff to look at the section again with the discussion in mind and instead of praising steel windows, maybe soften it some way.
Commissioner Richards stated steel windows were more common in commercial buildings and storefronts, etc.
Commissioner Funk stated there were different kinds of steel windows and in commercial buildings it was a different design parameter where steel windows would work but in the apartment buildings she had they did not work. Commissioner Funk asked to address page 5.4 under 5.1.0 on the second line, the word should be continuous not continues. She read 8.1 bullet point 2, rear additions should not be readily visible from the street- and said there needed to be some softening because most rear additions were visible from the street to some extent.
Vice Chairperson Hart asked if Commissioner Funk would rather have it read prominently visible from the street.
Commissioner Funk stated that could work. She stated when an addition was constructed it was generally visible from the street to some extent.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated on page 8.2, the upper drawing seemed to show the addition on the front of the building where and addition was not allowed. She asked Ms. Lew if that was correct.
Ms. Lew stated that would be her interpretation.
Vice Chairperson Hart explained the angled line looked as if it was the street and needed to be clarified.
The Commissioners agreed the picture needed to be clarified to depict the front and rear of the structure.
Commissioner Funk read, on page 13.9 the first bullet point, the parking structure should incorporate ground level commercial store front space. She asked if the intent was for parking structures that faced a street. Commissioner Funk said the language should be clarified to read parking structures which front on a street should incorporate ground level commercial store space.
Commissioner Bevins read the new construction language in the document and asked if these guidelines applied to all new construction in a historic district.
Ms. Lew stated it would apply to commercial properties in the historic district. Commissioner Bevins stated it seemed to him that it trumped everything.
Ms. Coffey stated an applicant would work with these guidelines to build a new commercial structure in a Historic District, if a new residential structure were being built the residential guidelines would apply.
Commissioner Bevins asked if it would be a commercial building in a residential district.
Ms. Coffey explained it was in a historic district and some of the historic districts had properties that were zoned commercial.
Commissioner Bevins stated the language needed to be clarified to state new commercial buildings in a historic district.
PUBLIC COMMENT 6:04:45 PM
Vice Chairperson Hart opened the Public Hearing
Ms. Cindy Cromer, Resident, commended Staff for their work on the guidelines. She said she had two comments one, regarding the architectural type she referred to as “Ma and Pa” grocery stores which were referred to as House Stores in the text. Ms. Cromer reviewed the City Council's proposed changes to the small neighborhood zoning that would affect the nonconforming business properties, some of which were in historic districts. She said she was concerned that the proposed zoning changes would reduce the residential use of this architectural type and promote the demolition of the historic “Ma and Pa” grocery stores. She asked the Commission to weigh in on the issue as it moved forward with the City Council. Ms. Cromer stated her second concern was regarding historic buildings that did not originally have rain gutters. She said the appearance of rain gutters should be minimized and not distract from the historic fa9ade of a building.
Mr. Warren Lloyd, Resident, commended Staff for their work on the guidelines. He said the overall document was much improved and the illustrations would add to the usefulness. Mr. Lloyd stated steel windows were being used as a new window type in several existing projects and while the steel sash was not insulated the glazing could be insulated. He stated the reasons why it was important to have language regulating steel windows. Mr. Lloyd said there were cases in which steel window sashes could accept a glazing unit to be kept and although he didn't think steel windows would become a popular feature they were an appropriate window type in some areas. He said as the Commission continued to look at allowing additions to commercial structures the language was similar to the residential design guidelines form, height, mass, material and color. He stated the Commission needed to be thinking about how to approach a creative design solution for existing contributing buildings if it the building didn't meet the criteria because it happened and would continue to happen.
Vice Chairperson Hart closed the Public Hearing
EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:11:21 PM
Ms. Coffey stated the Commission should recommend tabling the issue to a later date if they were not ready to recommend adoption.
Ms. Lew stated if the Commission so desired the Public Hearing could be continued as well.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated if the Commission was not asked to take action, the Commission should not take action.
Mr. Paul Nielson, Salt Lake City Attorney, stated the item was listed as a Public Hearing.
Mr. Paterson stated the item was also listed on the agenda for the December 1st Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Vice Chairperson Hart asked for a motion.
MOTION 6:12:18 PM
Commissioner Bevins made a motion to continue PLNPCM2009-00638 until the December 1st meeting. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. Commissioners Richards, Bevins, Funk, and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 4-0 vote Vice Chairperson Hart did not vote.
6:12:55 PM
PLNPCM2011-00471 Revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and Landmark Sites - A petition initiated by Mayor Ralph Becker to revise the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regulated by the H Historic Overlay Zone. The design guidelines have been used since 1999 providing advice to owners and applicants, and serving as review and decision-making criteria for the public, the Commission and Staff. They will be revised to reflect historic preservation design guidelines best practice in organization, clarity and current issues.
Mr. Carl Leith, Senior Planner stated what was presented was the first draft of the guidelines. He reviewed the guidelines as outlined in the Staff Report and highlighted the following items on a PowerPoint presentation.
• Residential DGs Timeline
• The Organization of the propose Commercial Design Guidelines o Preservation in Salt Lake City
o Historical Context and Architectural Styles
o Rehabilitation Design Guidelines
o Design Guideline for New Construction
o General Design Guidelines
o Historic Districts
• History and Characteristics
• Goals and Key Features- Supplemental Guidelines
• Key Points
o Design Guideline Format and Into Explanation
o Into-Context, Rationale and How to Use o Current Sections and Page Design
o Little Further Change in Graphics for Last Chapter o Range of Comments Still to Include
o Some Policy Material to Include
o Common Resources-Procedure and Glossary o Historic Districts-Westmoreland in 2012
• Review Perspectives
o The Explanation of 'What' and 'Why'
o As an Information Resource
o As a Design Option and Review Resource
• Accessibility and Extent of Material
• For Information
• For Design Review
• Resources Beyond the Document
o For the Homeowner/Designer/Contactor
o What's Missing
• Key Issues
o The Building and the District-Character Focus o Additions-Types and Approach
o New Construction-Context and Scale
o New Construction-Compatibility
o Relevance as Resource for the Community
o Contributing and Non-Contributing Buildings
o Relevance of 'Time' in District Character o Graphic Material on Good Practice
• Residential DGs Timeline-To Come:
o HLC Sub-Committee- To Be Arranged o Public Open House- 12/1/11
o HLC Work Session- 1211111
o HLC Public Hearing- 12/150/11
Mr. Leith asked the Commission for any comments or questions.
Commissioner Funk stated she enjoyed reading the document and it contained a lot of great information although it was quite lengthy. She asked if some of the information could be supplemented by a chart of some kind. Commissioner Funk gave examples of how a chart or one page document could reflect the requirements for projects quickly and efficiently. She stated the Applicant could be told the chart was the baseline and that detailed information was available to reference. She said it needed to be summarized and simplified for the person that was coming in to apply for a permit. Commissioner Funk stated her other concern was the redundancy in that the same pictures were use repetitively. She reiterated that the material was well put together but she was concerned with the length.
Commissioner Richards stated he agreed and compared it to the manual that came with a new TV. He said there was always a quick setup guide at the front that gave the basics and referenced the detailed information.
Commissioner Funk said in the past a guide was published for the different historic districts and asked if something similar could be done with these guidelines.
Vice Chairperson Hart suggested the Residential Design Guidelines could be available as either an entire packet or in chapters.
Ms. Coffey stated Staff was working on how to market the guidelines for the public. She stated most likely the information would be read electronically more than in paper form. Ms. Coffey explained the guidelines would be broken down by subject with a reference video on the internet. She asked for clarification on Commissioner Funk's idea for making the guidelines similar.
Commissioner Funk explained if someone came to apply for something in the University Historic District, for example, it seemed there should be something available specific to that area such as a quick start guide that would also indicate more information was available. She said it
should be something that could be referenced quickly that indicated the steps to take to complete the process. Commissioner Funk stated that was why she suggested a chart that could reference the street pattern, allies and building mass and explain each standard for the district.
Mr. Leith stated what Commissioner Funk suggested was more of a summary of the key characteristics that should be paid attention too and retained.
Commissioner Funk stated it was important to make the information easy to understand as people consider a historic district onerous and complicated.
Ms. Coffee stated the first step was for the Commission to approve the guidelines and then Staff could determine the best way to market the guidelines to the public.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated she liked how each Historic District was addressed because each district was complex.
Commissioner Funk stated the change in the format and layout, regarding the headings, was a big improvement.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated the guidelines would be more manageable in smaller sections as suggested. She stated she agreed it was lengthy and a little over whelming but she thought it was well written.
Mr. Leith stated as Ms. Coffey stated Staff hoped to make the guidelines available in usable sections and offer a summary that encapsulates, at a glance, what one should be aware of if they live in a historic area. He said if the information was in digital form it could have links that would refer to the section of the packet that pertain to each issue.
Commissioner Richards stated there should be a printed form in room 215 and printed hyperlinks that would direct people to the sections of the document that pertained to their project.
Commissioner Bevins stated Staff did a good job explaining 'why' in the document as asked but people would still say they have never heard of it although they have lived in the Avenues for 20 some years. He asked what could be done to get the information out to people so they were aware of the guidelines and adhere to them.
Commissioner Richards stated that was why he would like to see a flyer such as the suggested quick start guide given to anyone that purchased a property in a historic district.
The Commissioner agreed that was a good idea.
Commissioner Richards stated it had to describe the positive aspects of living in a historic district and not be seen as a rule book. He suggested adding the tax credit information as a positive aspect.
Mr. Leith stated it was common to find people who lived in a historic district for years and that did not know of the regulations. He said it was Staffs and the Commission's responsibility to spread the information.
The Commissioners agreed the guidelines were well written and laid out but were too dense for proper public use.
Mr. Leith stated the guidelines were lengthy but as would be more user friendly online.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:42:52 PM
Vice Chairperson Hart opened the Public Hearing. She stated Mr. Warren Lloyd indicated he supported the petition and did not want to speak. She asked him if he wanted to speak on the issue.
Mr. Warren Lloyd, Resident, stated he was happy to see the development of the Residential Design Guidelines and complimented Mr. Leith on the work he put into the document. He stated he applauded the effort to create the neighborhood specific guidelines and appreciated seeing the goals for each district. Mr. Lloyd asked how the goals were decided and who decided them. He stated Staff needed to ask themselves how they gathered input and how the goals for the districts where decided. Mr. Lloyd stated it was something to keep in mind in for neighborhood and business district developments where they overlap. He stated although it may be difficult to keep the information current online it was important to have the guidelines available on the internet for public use.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, Resident, referred to the carriage houses on South Temple that would not be allowed currently. She stated she hoped the Commission would recognize that houses on South Temple were originally built with carriage houses that contained living space and space for two or three carriages. Ms. Cromer stated given the size of the houses a large accessory structure was appropriate but not allowed in the SR-I A and the zone on the north side of the street needed to be changed. She stated she was glad multiple family residential structures were addressed in the proposed guidelines but they needed to be addressed for the different historic districts. Ms. Cromer said Developers should not have to find out how to construct multifamily housing in the individual historic districts as should be addressed in the guidelines.
Vice Chairperson Hart closed the Public Hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:50:00 PM
Commissioner Funk indicated the location of photographs that were used multiple times in the document. She stated there needed to be different photos if possible and information should not be repeated.
Mr. Leith explained the intentional repetitive use of the picture but that he would make necessary changes.
Vice Chairperson Hart asked if Staff was looking for a recommendation on the guideline.
Mr. Leith stated he was looking to receive further comments from the Commission and the document was not final at this point.
Vice Chairperson Hart asked if the Commission should continue the Public Hearing.
Ms. Coffey stated Staff had a couple chapters to add before it was adopted and Public comment could be useful.
Commissioner Funk asked if it was worthwhile to ask the neighborhood community councils what they thought the goals were for each historic district.
Mr. Leith stated the material would be continually revised over the next couple of years and Staff would approach the Community Council to request their goals.
Commissioner Bevins asked if an index would be included.
Mr. Leith stated there was a table of contents at the beginning that would serve the same purpose and a glossary of terms would be included.
MOTION 6:55:29 PM
Commissioner Richards made the motion to continue PLNPCM2011-00471 to the December 1st meeting. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. Commissioners Richards, Bevins, Funk, and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 4-0 vote Vice Chairperson
Hart did not vote.
The meeting stood adjourned at 6:56:08 PM