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 Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Doug Dansie, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Doug Dansie, Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Parvaz 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. Parvaz 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. Young moved to approve the minutes from the October 17, 2001 meeting, as amended. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 020-01, at 464 South 600 East, by Doug Holmberg of Total Property Asset Management, requesting to review the findings of the Economic Review Panel regarding the demolition of the Bill and Nada McHenry house, located in the Central City Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented his memorandum regarding the Economic Review Panel, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He said that the Economic Review Panel met and reviewed the application for economic hardship for the Bill and Nada McHenry house at 464 South 600 East. Mr. Knight said that the panel found that a hardship existed. A copy of the October 12, 2001 minutes and final report of the Economic Review Panel was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Knight referred to Title 21A.34.020.34.020(K)(c)(iii) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance which requires that: The Historic Landmark Commission decision shall be consistent with the conclusion reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission the Historic Landmark Commission finds by a vote of three-fourths majority of a quorum present that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous findings of a material fact.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should act on the Economic Review Panel's findings of fact. He said that if the demolition is approved, the Commission should take action on the submitted reuse plan (landscaping) and discuss the appropriate ways to document the building before its demolition, as outlined in Title 21.A.34.020(0) and (P) (1 and 2) of the City's Zoning Ordinance:
O. Recordation Requirement for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: Upon approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a Landmark Site or a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall require the applicant to provide archival quality photographs, plans, or elevation drawings, as available, necessary to record the structure being demolished.
P. Review of Post-Demolition Plan for New Construction or Landscape Plan and Bond Requirements for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: Prior to approval of any Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition, the Historic Landmark Commission shall review the post-demolition plans to assure that the plans comply with the standards of subsection H of this section. If the post demolition plan is to landscape the site, a bond shall be required to ensure the completion of the landscape plan approved by the Historic Landmark
Commission. The design standards and guidelines for the landscape plan are provided in Section 21A.34.020.48.050 of this Title.
1. The bond shall be issued in a form approved by the City Attorney. The bond shall be in an amount determined by the Zoning Administrator and shall be sufficient to cover the estimated cost, to (1) restore the grade as required by Title 18 of the Salt Lake City Code; (2) install an automatic sprinkling system; and (3) re-vegetate and landscape as per the approved plan.
2. The bond shall require installation of landscaping and sprinklers within six months, unless the owner has obtained a building permit and commenced construction of a building or structure on the site.
Mr. Knight said if the applicant submits a landscaping plan for the reuse plan, an automatic sprinkling system would have to be installed within six months from the date of demolition. He also said if the applicant submits a new construction plan within the six months, the Historic Landmark Commission would review those plans.
Mr. Knight stated that the applicant had submitted a sufficient recordation of the building, which included photographs, text, floor plans of the building, and other such documentation.
Mr. Knight introduced Ms. Susan Deal, who served on the Economic Review Panel and representing the panel at this meeting. He also introduced Mr. Doug Holmberg, the applicant, who also served on the Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Young pointed out a typographical error in the minutes of the Economic Review Panel; it should read NPV (Net Present Value), rather than NPD.
Mr. Parvaz referred to Page 9 of the Economic Review Panel minutes. He read the following: "Findings of fact: The marketability of the property for sale or lease was considered. It was determined that there was no viable marketability for sale or lease at this time." He asked what that meant. Ms. Deal said the property was not viable for sale because the applicant does not want to sell it, and according to the Deputy City Attorney, the applicant cannot be forced to sell the property. She added that the applicant had not been able to find a party interested in the building although it has been on the market for at last two years. Mr. Parvaz commented that if the applicant sold the property, there would be no economic hardship. Ms. Deal said that was correct, however the applicant could not sell the property for as much as he paid for it, although it appears that the applicant did not overpay for the property. Ms. Deal said that there was a set price for the property and the applicant could not negotiate that price.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if the marketable property included the Bill and Nada's Cafe parcel, across the street. Ms. Deal that the parcels are being handled separately.
Mr. Holmberg said that he paid $165,000 for the property. He said in order to bring the building up to a standard to make it usable for office, retail, or residential, the cost would increase to over $400,000. Mr. Holmberg said that the best appraisal for the property was at $350,000. He added that the numbers confirmed a negative rate of return.
Ms. Deal pointed out that she was not comfortable with a pending demolition of the McHenry house. She said that the panel members scrutinized the data given to them by the applicant and tried to create incentives to save the building. She said that Jeff Gouchnour, Property Manager for Gastronomy, was an excellent choice to chair the panel. Ms. Deal stated that she did not believe anyone could question Gastronomy's commitment to historic preservation.
Ms. Deal gave a brief history on the property by saying that she served on the Historic Landmark Commission in 1994 when the entire Fred Meyer block was reviewed. Ms. Deal stated, "That project was basically "shoved down our throats. We had no say in it whatsoever It was that project that led to the attempted strengthening of the demolition ordinance." Ms. Deal said that the members of the Historic Landmark Committee (Commission) asked themselves why they volunteered their time because they felt powerless to stop a developer from "wiping out a block." She said that Hermes could not acquire the Bill and Nada McHenry property at the time, because Bill McHenry was still living in his home. Ms. Deal said that under ordinary circumstances, the Historic Landmark Commission would never have approved a situation where a residence remained walled-in and surrounded by the developed parking lot. She added, "That would not have been an acceptable preservation solution".
Ms. Deal stated that she discussed the matter with three of the architects who served on the Commission at the same time she did. She said that the Commission members agreed that they would not have allowed the McHenry house to be walled-in if the intention was that it would stay. Ms. Deal said that the subject property should join the two parking lots like the original site plan showed. She pointed out that this matter was a great frustration to the Commission at that time.
Ms. Deal introduced the subject of redefining the boundaries of the Central City Historic District. She said that the 400 South commercial corridor should be excluded and more effort put into the housing stock north and south of 400 South. There was a short discussion relative to a boundary change. Ms. Deal said that the East Downtown Master Plan predicted the loss of one housing unit between 1995 and 2000, and she said she believed that the McHenry house was the housing unit. She added that there is no control over the situation.
Ms. Deal remarked that Mr. Holmberg had been very forthcoming with information and supplied the panel members with spreadsheets and other pertinent data. She further discussed this matter noting details the panel analyzed.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for Mr. Holmberg or Ms. Deal. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Heid led the discussion by inquiring if the McHenry property included the corner property and Mr. Holmberg explained that the corner property is not considered part of the McHenry property; it is a portion of the Fred Meyer parcel. Mr. Holmberg pointed out that the "for lease" sign, which is located almost on the corner, refers to the McHenry house property.
• Mr. Ashdown said demolishing the property and building something else, is not always a viable option to receive a return on an investment. Mr. Holmberg said that if the house is torn down and a larger building erected, an investor would get a reasonable rate of return on the property. There was some discussion of the square footage of the proposed building. Mr. Holmberg said that the proposed building would be 5,000 square feet, which would double the space in the McHenry house. He added that the square footage might vary, depending on the financing and the needs of the tenant.
(Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich arrived at 4:20P.M.)
• Mr. Simonsen said that commercial centers are important parts of a neighborhood. He pointed out that modern day commercial centers are much different than historic commercial centers. However, Mr. Simonsen said that there would be an opportunity, along with the development of the Bill and Nada Cafe property, to create a strong viable neighborhood center at the intersection of 600 East and 500 South.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if Ms. Deal was involved with the new design of the proposed building on the McHenry property site. Ms. Deal said that she was not; she was only involved, as a Commission member, with the Fred Meyer site plan.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused Mr. Holmberg and Ms. Deal and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquires, concerns, and comments:
• A gentleman from THA Investments, located at 424 South 700 East, addressed the Commission. He stated that there is a continuing deterioration of the neighborhood resulting from the vandalism and people who "hang out" on the property. He said he would like to see something productive done with the McHenry property.
Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting. Executive Session Ms. Rowland inquired about the reuse plan. Mr. Knight said that a reuse plan had been submitted. He said that the reuse plan is not part of the action that should be taken at today's meeting. Mr. Simonsen said that a demolition permit is contingent upon a reuse plan. A short discussion followed.
The discussion of the Commission turned to how the economic hardship ordinance can be strengthened. All Commissioners agreed that the outcome of an economic hardship review seems to be the demolition of an historic structure. Mr. Ashdown inquired if there had been a case of economic hardship that had not been met. It was agreed by the Commissioners that it seemed like the criteria were always met.
Mr. Parvaz said that the process itself has problems. He said that the zoning districts being changed to allow a higher density, has created the issues surrounding demolition of historic residential properties in the Central City Historic District.
Mr. Littig said that the economic hardship process seems to be the "trump card". He said, "I think this Economic Review Panel did a thorough job of analyzing the material before making a decision. I think the panels are becoming better, but the Historic Landmark Commission has not been able to prevent demolition."
Mr. Ashdown said that there should be more emphasis on prevention rather than
"coming up with a cure after the disease hits".
Mr. Knight said that in the past year the City has strengthened the Boarded Building Ordinance and made it very expensive to have a building boarded for a long time. He noted that the Boarded Building fee went from $15.00 to $1,200 per year. Mr. Knight said that as a result, more property owners are attempting to renovate buildings. He added that he believed the economic hardship process needed to be more rigid.
Mr. Wilson said that increasing the fees for boarded buildings would also encourage more demolition because an owner might find it cheaper to tear the building down rather than pay the boarded building fee.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested that the issues with the economic hardship process be discussed further at another point in this meeting or at another time.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 020-01 to accept the findings of fact of the Economic Review Panel for the Bill and Nada McHenry house, located at 464 South 600 East, based on Section 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c)(i through iii) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed. Mr. Christensen was not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen made a suggestion that the issues surrounding the economic hardship process be discussed in an upcoming Commission meeting and to give the subject a maximum time limit. Mr. Parvaz said that was a possibility because the details of the ordinance needed to be discussed and some conclusions made. There was further discussion regarding the pertinent issues regarding economic hardship.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 026-01, at 451 South State Street, by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, requesting to review the proposed installation of a water-wise demonstration garden, as part of the Washington Square Water Efficiency Project. The City and County Building with the surrounding Washington Square 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 and the accompanying documents were filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight gave a brief background of Washington Square, by saying that the grounds are also historically known as Emigration Square and Eighth Ward Square. He said that during the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s, the site was used as an open-air public market, a circus ground, and athletic and baseball fields. Mr. Knight pointed out that baseball games were halted after the many complaints from surrounding residents.
Mr. Knight said that the City and County Building was completed in December of 1894 and the surrounding square was laid out in a formal geometric pattern of angular walkways and circular planting beds. He said that a wide variety of trees were planted on the grounds. He added that a popular story attributes this diversity to the wide variety of trees brought by immigrants who camped on the square.
Mr. Knight stated that the Salt Lake City Department of Public utilities was requesting approval of alterations to the flower beds on the east side of Washington Square. He presented the following: The alterations would consist of new plants that would serve as a demonstration garden highlighting conservation techniques and native and low water-use plantings. The proposed garden would be located inside the parking circle on the east side of the building. Most of the new plantings would be in existing flowerbeds. Four sections of existing lawn would be removed and replaced with additional planting beds. The names, sizes, and number of each plant are shown on a list attached to the staff report. The applicants propose informational signage similar to the signs used in Hidden Hollow in Sugar House, as shown on a photograph attached to the staff report. The demonstration garden is part of a larger project that will increase the efficiency of water use within Washington Square Park, including an updated sprinkler system.
Mr. Knight said that Washington Square and the City and County Building are individually listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and are zoned PL- Public Lands District. He said that since the restoration of the building, projects that effect the building and grounds are reviewed by both the Historic Landmark Commission, for exterior projects, and the City and County Building Conservation Committee for interior, as well as exterior work; this proposal will be reviewed by both groups.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay
District, of the City's Zoning Ordinance:
G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following:
a. Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and
b. Any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials;
11. 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 of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined n Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46, Signs; and
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council
Staffs discussion: The proposed demonstration garden is intended to show that it is possible to have a garden that looks traditional but requires less water than conventional landscaping. The garden would occupy an existing planted area, although a portion of existing lawn would be removed for additional planter beds. The formal layout of the existing flowerbeds would be retained, and the new plantings would be arranged in a more or less formal pattern.
The majority of the new plants would be perennial and native species. Currently, these beds are planted with annuals, which are removed and replaced as the season changes, so no historic features would be removed. Staff does not believe that the size or height of the proposed plants to be an issue, although the proposed serviceberry trees could potentially block the uninterrupted vista from the street and the Library block to the steps of the building and the tower above. Similarly, a large number of signs or intrusive signage, combined with the two existing plaques in this area, could visually clutter this portion of the square. However, the additional signage and lights installed on the square for the current Allan Houser sculpture exhibition has not resulted in any intrusive clutter.
The Historic Landmark Commission has given wide latitude to residential property owners with respect to landscaping and plantings. In some cases, this latitude has resulted in yards that are not in keeping with the historic character of the historic district. With the recent emphasis in the city on water conservation, the number of complaints that Historic Landmark Commission staff has received regarding yards has increased as well-meaning residents have re-landscaped their yards for less water use. In lieu of enforcing on these owners, staff sees a demonstration garden in Washington Square as an opportunity to highlight wise water methods that preserve the character of the historic landscape.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed plantings are in keeping with the historic character of Washington Square, and will not have a negative impact on the City and County Building or the Washington Square landscape. The proposed plantings could be removed or easily reworked in the future without any negative effect on the integrity of the landscape. The garden will provide educational opportunities regarding water conservation and historically compatible landscaping.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the concept of a water-wise garden in this location and of the proposed planting plan. Further details regarding the proposed style, size and amount of signage, and any necessary revisions to ensure the protection of the east-west vista could be addressed at the Architectural Subcommittee or by staff as the design for the garden develops.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Ms. Heid inquired how the water would be regulated for the garden or if the sprinkling system would be on a timer. Mr. Knight suggested deferring those questions to Ms. Duer.
Since there were no further questions for staff, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Ms. Stephanie Duer, introduced herself as Salt Lake City's Water Conservation Coordinator. She stated that the intent of her presentation was to show that there is wondrous and vibrant alternatives to landscaping which would demonstrate a greater responsibility for the value use of the resources that would be aesthetically appealing. She indicated that the plan would be part of a larger project called, The Washington Square Water Efficiency Study, and in conjunction with the Salt Lake City Water Conservancy District. She said that grant money from the Central Utah Water Project (CUP) has been allocated for a full study of the entire Washing Square block.
Ms. Duer circulated photographs of some of the proposed plantings and referred to the list that accompanied the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She made the following presentation using a briefing board to further demonstrate the project:
1. The area on the east side of the City and County Building was selected because it was isolated from the other grassy areas. The irrigation system for the garden would be totally isolated from the other systems on the block with its own circuit and meter.
2. There will be many non-native species that will be incorporated into this garden.Plantings would be chosen that would save many resources such as water, fertilizer, pesticides, and insecticides.
3. The existing species of blue grass in the proposed garden area is not as water efficient as the other plantings, so the bluegrass would be removed and replaced with buffalo grass. Buffalo grass is a soft green color and sends out very deep roots during the wintertime. The species is called "Legacy" and is a female hybrid that was developed at the University of Nebraska. It will only get about 3 to 4 inches tall and very seldom would need mowing.
4. The chosen plants would have the longest season of attractiveness and would have good foliage, attractive bark, seedpods, or nuts.
5. The chosen plants would have an attractive fragrance, such as the scent of lavender in the air.
6. None of the plants would have sharp barbs, points, edges or bark, so it would not be painful if children touched the plants. There would not be any cactus plants.
7. The plantings would have a repetition of form and mass, but not be placed in formal symmetrical patterns. They would have low maintenance, once they are established. The garden should show people how to landscape with less effort involved.
8. The plantings would all be perennial. There would be woody perennials, evergreens that would stay green all year, bushes that would turn a beautiful color in the fall and drop their leaves, and flowers that would bloom at various times. The only months that would not have blooming plants, would be January and February. Crocus and miniature iris plants would be planted in the buffalo grass and bloom in early spring. They would be mowed down with the spring mowing.
9. There would be four serviceberry trees planted outside of the other plantings so there would still be a good site line to the building from across the street.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Young inquired about the photograph of the buffalo grass. Ms. Duer pointed out the photograph of the little "tufty" grass that had just been planted and not matured yet. She talked about how the mature plants would spread and fill in the bare areas.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the grass could be walked on and Ms. Duer assured the Commission that once it is established, it could be walked on. She said that buffalo grass is very hardy and can take an incredible amount of abuse; it is prairie grass that one can see across the plains. Ms. Duer said that it would be mixed with other grasses that would fill in quicker than buffalo. Mr. Ashdown inquired about the length of time it would take for the buffalo grass to become established. Ms. Duer said it has to be planted in warm soil in May or June and should be established by August.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired further about the trees that would be planted. Ms. Duer used the enlarged plan as she pointed out the placement of the trees. She said that the serviceberry tree is a very small, native tree that would only grow to be about 15 to 18 feet tall. She said that serviceberry trees are not dense and provide a berry for the birds to eat. She said the trees would create a little canopy over the park benches that she hoped to place under them, so people could face the garden as they occupy the benches. Ms. Duer pointed out that not all drought tolerant plants love the sun; some like shade. She added that the trees would provide that canopy of shade to those particular plants.
• Ms. Mickelsen was interested in the type of signage that would be scattered among the plantings. Ms. Duer explained that the signage would be some kind of dark colored metal material that would be very unobtrusive, but have a great amount of detail on them. Ms. Duer pointed to the copy of the photograph that accompanied the staff report.
• Ms. Rowland talked about the water conserving plants in her own yard that died and inquired if there would be information available. Ms. Duer said that the demonstration garden would be part of an educational program and brochures would be available for the public detailing the species and the needed care of the plantings. Ms. Duer said that she would like to have a sponsored water garden fair where educational classes would be held and booths set up where vendors could sell native or draught tolerant plants. She added that public education and outreach has much potential. When Ms. Rowland asked about the square footage of the garden, Ms. Duer said it would be approximately 2,000 square feet.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz thanked Ms. Duer for her presentation. He excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz 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. Simonsen moved for Case No. 026-01 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the plan, as presented. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen was not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 027-01, requesting input and a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and the Salt Lake City Council regarding Petition No. 400-01-48, which is a request by the Salt Lake City Council to create a Transit Oriented Zoning District, and Petition No. 400-01-12, a request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission to rezone the 400 South CC Commercial Corridor to Transit Oriented Zoning, between 200 and 900 East Streets.
Mr. Knight introduced Mr. Doug Dansie, a Principal Planner on the Planning Staff, who presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Dansie used a briefing board to pinpoint the boundaries of the area that was being discussed. He gave some background information and presented an overview of the issues. Mr. Dansie said that the two new zoning districts would replace the existing CC Commercial Corridor district along 400 South. He said that they have been named TC 75, which would allow buildings up to 75 feet tall, and TC 45, which would allow buildings only up to 45 feet tall. Mr. Dansie referenced the staff report which was a "strike and bold" edition as he further identified and analyzed the issues. He said that taller height maximums would be allowed adjacent to the 400 South corridor west of 700 East, and allow the shorter buildings between 700 and 1000 East. Mr. Dansie said that the only blocks that lie within the Central City Historic District are between 500 East and 700 East Streets along the 400 South corridor. He stated that there would be density limitations based on the square footage. Mr. Dansie said that he believed this 400 South corridor would be the only place where this TOD zoning would occur.
Mr. Dansie stated that historically many of the Salt Lake City neighborhoods have been "streetcar subdivisions", where the neighborhood developed in response to mass transit access (i.e. Forest Dale). He pointed out that many traditional commercial areas in the city have also been developed with transit and pedestrians as the focus. Mr. Dansie said that post World War II era, the automobile began to dominate the landscape and affected land use policies as new shopping areas were designed with the automobile as the primary focus. Mr. Dansie said that with the renewed focus on mass transit along certain corridors, it is the City's intent to increase densities and pedestrian orientation of these areas which had been automobile oriented.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by saying that usually transit districts encompass a one-quarter mile perimeter around a transit station, rather than a single corridor. He asked if the City had given that much consideration. He added that other zoning types were compatible with Transit Oriented Development. Mr. Dansie said that the City has considered that possibility. He pointed out that the mixed use zones allow non-residential uses on the ground. Mr. Dansie said that early on in the discussions relative to this matter, another planner proposed TOD areas within one-quarter mile of each light rail station and set them up as overlay districts. He said there were so many other neighborhood issues going on, such as automatically increasing the density or decreasing the parking for a single-family home that was not oriented into this transit corridor, that they caused consternation with some of the neighbors. Mr. Simonsen was concerned that the limited area would not be large enough to generate the desired outcome with the adjacent zoning. Mr. Dansie said that RMU already allows a 75 to 120-foot building.
• Ms. Giraud talked about the historic properties in the location where the proposed zoning change would take place and the surrounding areas. Mr. Dansie stated that the City would allow housing in commercial areas where housing was not allowed before; therefore, it would reduce the pressure to demolish single-family homes.
• Mr. Littig inquired about parking in the proposed zoning location. Mr. Dansie stated that there is a parking section in the proposed zoning ordinance for residential and retail purposes. Mr. Simonsen said that it would be interesting if the City could apply maximum limitations like in the downtown zone. Mr. Dansie pointed out that all parking requirements were listed in the tables accompanying the staff report and are reduced by 25% in the proposed zone. Mr. Dansie said that the City would not be forcing the owners to build parking lots. Mr. Littig said that it is a great idea in theory, but buildings such as the Brigham Street Apartments is suffering due to the lack of parking. Mr. Dansie indicated that 400 South will have light rail on this major corridor. Mr. Dansie stated that some lending institutions get "really nervous" about areas that do not "over park". He added that parking lots can become very expensive and the City does not want to discourage development because of the high cost of structured parking.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich referred to the glass requirement on the street level of buildings in specific zones. She spoke of a building on the corner of 200 South and West Temple where the street level windows have sheet rock walls right behind the mini blinds. Mr. Dansie agreed there should be a stricter ordinance requiring properties to have a greater interaction between the sidewalk and the building by using non-obscure glass. However, he said that there was no way to write a code addressing all possible permutations. There was much discussion regarding the grades and shades of glass that could be used as other buildings in the downtown area were pointed out where the interaction between the sidewalk and the building was prohibited. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she believed the code should address the opaqueness of the glass. Mr. Simonsen said that condition could be augmented by requiring 40% glazing, but 90% of that had to be transparent with a maximum shading percentage.
• Mr. Young said that department stores would not be allowed in the TOD zoning.
Mr. Dansie said that a department store is defined in the zoning ordinance as a building requiring 100,000 square feet with multiple department uses, such as Sears and Fred Meyer. There was some discussion regarding those outlets as well as others that were rumored to be in historic districts.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired how the change of zoning along the 400 South corridor would affect the historic overlay district. Mr. Dansie said that the overlay district would take precedence. Mr. Simonsen said that the proposed change would be more compatible with historic development patterns and would be a "huge improvement". Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any contributing buildings in the proposed TOD district and Ms. Giraud said that there were not. Mr. Parvaz introduced the subject of setback requirements in the proposed new zone. Mr. Dansie said that in some zoning regulations, a minimum setback requirement was eliminated, but along 400 South, the minimum setback would be 15-feet, with a 25-foot maximum. He added that 400 South would be a multi-lane highway with transit in the middle with only eight-foot sidewalks. Mr. Dansie indicated that the minimum and maximum setback requirement would be an extension of the sidewalk, which would create an open plaza area that would accommodate more outdoor dining for restaurants in the corridor. Mr. Dansie said that the Planning Commission could modify the language in the ordinance regarding the setback issue.
There were other issues discussed relative to height limitations and setback regulations. Mr. Dansie thanked the Commissioners for their ideas and suggestions. Mr. Simonsen commended the City for being pro-active, especially when the zoning change will follow closely to the completion of the light rail.
(Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich was excused at 5:30 P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.)
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
There was further discussion regarding the issues pertaining to the zone change. The conversation turned to the wording of the motion.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission for Petition No. 400-01-12 and 400-01-48. Mr. Young seconded the motion.
Mr. Ashdown suggested amending the motion to include a provision that would have some control about what goes on behind the glass.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission and City Council to approve Petition No. 400-01-12 and 400-01-48. Further, the approval should include a provision that is worded in such a way that the City would have some control about what is allowed behind the glass windows on the street level of a building. Mr. Young's second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion concerning Petition No. 400-00-52, Walkable Communities.
Mr. Doug Dansie, a planner on the City Planning Staff, also presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Dansie said that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition on January 18, 2001, but has not been transmitted to the City Council to be finalized. He indicated that he wanted to discuss how walkable communities would interface with historic preservation.
Mr. Dansie stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Petition No. 400-00-52 on January 18, 2001. He said that the petition would create design guidelines within specific zoning districts in order to facilitate a walkable community. Mr. Dansie noted that since the Planning Commission's action, several business owners approached the Administration and asked that the ordinance be slightly modified to allow for more design flexibility. He indicated that their specific request is to allow the planned development process to exempt proposals from specific design requirements if they met the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Dansie said that the Administration is requesting that the Planning Commission consider this proposal.
Mr. Dansie stated that the zoning districts that will be affected are RB, RMU, MU, CN, CB, CS, and SHBD. He added that industrial and general commercial districts would not be affected by the change. Mr. Dansie said that the districts were selected to discourage strip malls by adding a maximum 20-foot setback requirement, but for a parking lot, the maximum setback would be 30 feet. Mr. Dansie pointed out that a developer would have to pay less for landscaping when the parking is in the rear of a building. He also stated that there would be a 40% glass requirement on the ground level, which has already been included in several zoning districts. Mr. Dansie added that on downtown Main Street, the requirement is 60%. He said that one other requirement is a door in the building facing the street.
Mr. Dansie stated that when the Fourth South Market was developed on 400 South, the City did not have the strength in the zoning ordinance to require maximum setbacks so buildings would be built closer to the street.
A short discussion took place regarding the issues surrounding the walkable communities.
Mr. Parvaz thanked Mr. Dansie for his presentation.
Discussion of the upcoming Historic Landmark Commission Citizens Awards ceremony. Mr. Knight stated that since 1996, the Historic Landmark Commission has honored both large and small-scale projects and given citizens' merit awards recognizing the good stewardship of property owners, contractors, and design professionals associated with the projects. He noted that on occasion, the Commission has presented an individual awards, such as to a building inspector, who has been an asset to the work of the Historic Landmark Commission. He encouraged the Commissioners to nominate such a person.
Mr. Knight pointed out that the awards ceremony would be held on January 16, 2002 in the City and County Building. Mr. Knight said that more information would be forthcoming.
There were 23 properties on which the Commission members voted. The properties with the most votes were selected to receive the citizens' award. The Commissioners voted on the projects. The winners will be announced at a future Commission meeting.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Simonsen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting