June 19, 1996

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, Lynn Morgan, Heidi Swinton, Dina Williams, and Elizabeth Egleston.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, William Damery, Susan Deal; Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Robert Pett, Heidi Swinton and Dina Williams. Wallace Cooper and Dave Svikhart were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, and Brent B. Wilde, Deputy Planning Director. Janice Jardine, representing the City Council office, was also present.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Pett. Mr. Pett announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the commission, the applicant will be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Pett said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal's process is listed on the back of the agenda.

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 cases 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. Miya moved to approve the minutes of June 5, 1996, as presented. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.

PREVIOUS CASE

Case No. 021-95, at 263 No. Al1mond Street. by Russ Watts of Watts Corporation, requesting approval for a multi-unit condominium project.

Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that she was not certain of the total number of units on the revised proposal. However, she said that the previous application had 34 units.

The applicant, Mr. Russ Watts of Watts Corporation, who was present, asked the commission to focus on the design packets, dated June 19, 1996, that he distributed to the members, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He described the following points of interest:

1)The massing of the buildings on the prior site plans were lower and more spread out. On the revised plans, there would be only one taller building which would comprise 44 units. The proposed footprint of the project would create more open space. The entire project would be on the West Tempie· side of the property. "There would be a landscaped elements along Almond Street with widths varying from 30 to 90 feet. The north elevation would have a 40-foot set back which would have a landscaped barrier;

2) traffic would be removed from Almond and 300 North Streets. The point of ingress and egress would be from West Temple;

3) there would be 86 parking spaces, all of which are under the building. Based on the combination of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, the zoning requirement is 82 spaces. Tandem parking would be eliminated;

4) there would be 7 visitor's parking spaces under the building, also;

5) all pedestrian entries and exits would be off West Temple. There would be stairways for fire exiting;

6) the proposed materials for the west and north elevations would be red sandstone around the base of the plaza areas on the west elevation. A Dryvit synthetic stucco system would be applied on the upper portion of the building, which would be a taupe color. The base of the building would be a red color plaster product which has a "leathery" finish. Mr. Watts pointed out the drawing of the wall section which showed the detailing from the ground level to the roof, which included the bay window, the relief, and the cornice detail;

7) the Mansard roof would be copper and any roof element would be an aged copper with a brownish tone;

8) the windows system would be double-hung wood windows which would be dark gray in color and the bay windows would be copper. The rails would be wood. Mr. Watts referred to the detail drawings of the window section which showed the profile of the windows and the railings. There would be atrium areas designed to bring light down into the main elevator corridor, as well as the parking structure;

9) the project meets all zoning requirements; therefore variances would not be needed;

10) the building at the north elevation would be 17 feet above Almond Street, and on the south elevation, the building would be 22 feet above Almond Street. The height of the building at the south elevation would be approximately 74 feet. Mr. Watts said that he did not have the exact dimensions of the building;

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Miya led the discussion by inquiring about the existing landscaped island at the intersection of 300 North and West Temple Streets and if traffic would still be allowed at that intersection. Mr. Watts said that there were seven various traffic flow formats presented to the Planning Commission, and the decision was to keep that intersection status quo. However, Mr. Watts indicated that if the traffic situation would change and block traffic at that intersection, he would commit to landscape and maintain that island. Mr. Miya inquired about the additional parcel to the south of the Watts property that was included on the previous plans. Mr. Watts pointed out the Watts' property line on the drawings and added that the parcel would not be included on the revised plan.

• Ms. Swinton intimated that the windows openings on the east elevation were different than the other elevations. Mr. Watts clarified that by saying that the exact design of the window openings had not yet been determined.

• Mr. Cartwright asked for clarification of the access points on the West Temple elevation. Mr. Watts explained the grade of the land and how the building would step-up. He said there would be three vehicular driveways and two pedestrian walkways. Mr. Cartwright commented that the revised footprint of the building would give a much improved three-dimensional relief and continued to discuss some of the changes. He said that he still had some concerns regarding the scale and massing.

• Ms. Deal questioned the window bump-outs on the top floor. Mr. Watts pointed out that on the southeast corner of the building, there would be a one-bedroom studio unit. He said to create more light, the bay window would be extended along the length of the unit.

• Mr. Pett inquired about the material for the large plaza areas on the west elevation. Mr. Watts said that the intended product for the plaza would be a colored concrete decking that would be laid out with colored Bomonite pavers to create a pattern. He said that the color would match the color of the sandstone around the base. Mr. Watts said that the landscaping plans had not yet been completed. Mr. Pett discussed the height of the building and asked if the mechanical equipment would be screened by the parapet. Mr. Watts was affirmative.

There was much discussion regarding the changes in the footprint, the massing, and the height of the building. It was determined by Mr. Watts that depending where one stood on Almond Street, the view would not be blocked by the intended building.

Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 26 No. Almond Street, stated that she represented the Capitol Hill Historic District, the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, as well as herself. She said that since the plans that were presented at this meeting were completely revised, she thought it was necessary to reiterate the concerns she expressed in previous meetings.

Ms. Mangold read exerts from several documents that she submitted, copies of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She discerned that the Historic Landmark Commission had a much broader power and responsibility by reading from the Utah Code Annotated, 1953, regarding the Historic District Act, Section 17A-3-1302, "Recognizing that the historical heritage of this state is among its most valued and important assets, it is the intent of the Legislature that the counties, cities, and towns of this state shall have the power to preserve, protect, and enhance Historic and prehistoric areas and sites lying within their respective jurisdictions as provided in this part."

Ms. Mangold also read the following exerts from Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code: Section 1-3, Purpose and Intent, "The purpose of this Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, ;"Section 1-4, Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans: "All master plans or general plans adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City or for an area of the City, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions;" Section 3-5.1, Creation: "The Historic Landmark Commission is created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Historic District Act, Section 11-18-1, et seq., of the Utah Code Annotated, 1953;" and Section 3-5.2 (e), " .and general welfare of the people."

Ms. Mangold said that it states in the Goals and Policies of the 1981 Capitol Hill Master Plan". To preserve scale, character, and livability of the community;" "Preclude intensification of use which would increase traffic beyond the capacity of old, steep, or narrow streets;" "Maintaining sound zoning to protect the present scale and character of existing neighborhoods, particularly those where steep or narrow streets cannot handle significant increases in traffic;" and "Accepting moderate increases in multi-family use in a few suitable areas, but insuring that no new apartments or condominiums affect precincts adversely."

Ms. Mangold continued by stating that the proposed density of this project would be inappropriate in the community, and due to the traffic and parking issues, that the existing infrastructure is already inadequate for the area. She spoke of the letters that were included with the staff report, which were prepared by members of the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, addressing the association's concerns regarding the traffic and parking issues. Ms. Mangold expressed her opinion that the parking needs for any new multiple unit complex should be self-contained. She raised the question of the City acquiring the responsibility for solving the problems being created by a development, using taxpayer's money, when the developer could avoid creating those problems by either lowering the density and having adequate onsite parking. Ms. Mangold indicated that she thought that the revised plans to egress and ingress traffic onto West Temple was a vast improvement. However, she thought that the size and massing of the structure would not be visually compatible with the surrounding structures or streetscape and would not meet the standards for the Certificate of Appropriateness.

Ms. Mangold pointed out an error in the staff report regarding the acreage of the subject property and continued to challenge the proposed density issue. She questioned the stability of the hillside because of damage caused from the slippage by other new construction in the area.

When Mr. Cartwright asked what the community would like to see on the subject property, Ms. Mangold said that the association's position was that smaller single family homes or twin homes could possibility be constructed on the southern portion of the property and an orchard and open space be created on the northern portion. She added that the density allowed in the RMF-45 zoning was too high for this piece of property.

In closing, Ms. Mangold read an exert from the 1981 Capitol Hills Master Plan, "The Historic element in the plan (Master Plan) involves not only the protection of certain Historic buildings, such as the Capitol Building and the Latter-day Saints Temple, but also the Historic neighborhood character where the pioneers built Victorian-style houses and created street scenes which draw charm from their intimate human scale. Ms. Mangold stated that for all of the above reasons, she was against the project.

• Ms. Hermoine Jex, who resides at 272 No. Wall Street, stated that the she had not seen the revised plans so she may want to express some additional concerns after reviewing them. She read the letter from the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council into the record, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.

Mr. Watts asked to respond to comments made by the public. He clarified the acreage question and reported that the total land measurement of his property was 1.4 acres. He said that the average density of the area, including any property that surrounded his parcel is 30 units per acre and the density on the Watts project would be 28.13 units per acre. Mr. Watts stated that he still was in communication with the neighborhood but reminded the commission that the project he was proposing was allowable under the current zoning ordinance. He urged the commission to move forward with a decision, even with conditions. Ms. Mangold spoke again and questioned the actual size of the property. She again expressed her objection to the density of the project.

• Mr. Pett asked Mr. Watts if he investigated parking beyond the footprint of the proposed building and perhaps more than one level of parking. Mr. Watts responded by saying that he had not because he was trying to keep all parking hidden. Mr. Watts explained that his decision to provide the amount of parking spaces for both residents and visitors was based on a study he had made of the residents of another condominium complex he had just constructed in the downtown area of the City. Mr. Pett mentioned that he thought this project would create a gateway to Capitol Hill and expressed his concerns how it would relate to the neighborhood. He said the achievement of the architectural treatment of the project would be very important.

• Mr. Morgan asked if the applicant had considered widening West Temple to allow for on street parking. Mr. Watts indicated that he felt the "drum beat" of the neighborhood and discouraged on street parking. He reminded the commission that the Planning Commission abandoned any on street parking plan.

• Mr. Cartwright suggested that from a planning standpoint, there were still significant problems with the architectural character of the project and the proposed materials and that the applicant should return to the Architectural Subcommittee to develop a workable solution. He said that he thought it would be very difficult to take the character-defining elements of a single family house and translate those successfully into a major project. Mr. Cartwright added that he thought the high rise buildings on the east of the subject property were intrusive to the neighborhood.

• Ms. Williams commented that the commission has had successful dialogue with the developer and encouraged that continued association. Regarding the scale, form, and massing of the project in relationship to the streetscape, she said that the commission discouraged new construction responding to a noncontributing property.

• Ms. Deal said that she questioned the commission focusing on the density issue when the interest should be on the design, scale, form, and massing of a project.

• Ms. Hatch expressed her concerns about comparing the scale of the proposed project to the buildings bordering the subject property to the east because they were not in the Historic district. She said that the commission's responsibility was not to those buildings but to the homes to the north of the property. Ms. Hatch offered the suggestion that although the density of the project is allowed in the zoning ordinance, it would have a negative impact in an Historic district, and as it is outlined in the ordinance, that issue would still be under the purview of the commission to base its decision.

• Mr. Miya observed that in the letter Ms. Jex read there was mention of the possibility of public sidewalks and asked Mr. Watts if he intended to put any walkways along West Temple. Mr. Watts said that the City's engineering crew had examined the idea of putting in some kind of sidewalk on 300 North, perhaps a switchback path or step system with a landscape buffer because of the steep grade. He added that he would be responsible for laying a sidewalk on West Temple, replacing the sidewalk on Almond Street, and doing whatever the engineer's decided on 300 North.

Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion to ok place. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the commission such as: 1) multiple housing is appropriate for the property but the density is too high for this project and the concerns about the impact to the neighborhood; 2) concerns about the neighborhood asking the commission to exercise its overlay prerogatives; 3) the revised plans for the project had been vastly improved; 4) commended the open space and the parking areas of the project; 5) consideration for an appeal to the City Council and if new evidence could be submitted to the City Council; 6) the developer is within his rights to build an allowable project within the zoning ordinance; 7) the disappointment of the neighbors that the master plan had not been complied to ; 8) concerns about the detailing and the way the components, such as the balconies, the mansard roof, and other details been handled and the issue of solids and voids; 9) the consideration and the definition of the standards for the Certificate of Appropriateness; and 10) the reasons surrounding the decision to zone the subject property as RMF-45.

Ms. Jardine assured the commission that if this case was appealed to the City Council, that the submittal of new evidence would not be allowed. She said that the appeal would be heard and base on the evidence that had already been presented. Ms. Jardine also offered the suggestion that the commission, when making a final decision, be very specific and articulate the wording of the motion, whatever the decision may be.

Mr. Wilde reported that when the City underwent the zoning rewrite process, the decision was made to leave the subject property as status quo because there had been an ongoing development interest. He added that under the adopted zoning ordinance, the old R-5 zoning was basically the same as the new RMF-45. Mr. Wilde said that as the City continued through the zoning rewrite process, a list of mapping issues was created and presented to the City Council which pointed out the publicly contested problems in certain areas. Mr. Wilde said that this property was on that list. He said that the City Council adopted the ordinance as is was without making changes on this parcel because it was basically consistent with the previous zoning on the property.

Mr. Wilde continued by saying that there was a very comprehensive set of standards for the Certificate of Appropriateness to which the commission should comply. He read Section 17-1.8 of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Wilde pointed out that when the commission considers an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, the Historic Landmark Commission shall determine whether or not the project substantially complies with all of the standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape, as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the commission and the City Council, and is in the best interest

of the City.

Mr. Cartwright moved to grant conceptional approval to Case No. 021-95, based on the applicant's revised site plan and its alleviation of the architectural and traffic impact on Almond Street. Also, that the applicant is to address the existing scale and form issues of the project as it would relate to the neighborhood to the north of the property to develop a proper relationship to the streetscape. Further, that the applicant continue to work with the Architectural Subcommittee in developing the facade and the use of proper materials.

The discussion continued regarding the details of the project. Mr. Cartwright amended his motion.

Mr. Cartwright moved to grant conceptional approval to Case No. 021-95, based on the applicant's revised site plan and its alleviation of the architectural and traffic impact on Almond Street. Also, that the applicant is to address the existing scale and form issues of the project and as it would relate to the neighborhood to the north of the property, specifically that the proposed building would be too high and that the proposed roofline would be too flat. Further, that the applicant continue to work with the Architectural Subcommittee in developing the specific composition and details of the principal facades and the use of the proper materials and a proper relationship to the streetscape. It was seconded

by Ms. Deal.

The discussion continued with members expressing their concerns for a conceptional approval as opposed to tabling the application once more. Also, the revised plans had only been presented at this meeting and the lack of the exact dimensions, such as the height of the building. A question was raised whether or not a conceptional approval could be appealed to the City Council and the answer was that it could not; the application would have to be approved or denied.

Mr. Wilde asked for a clarifications of the intent of the commission for a conceptional approval; that the applicant would respond to the specific issues and return to the full commission for final approval. Mr. Cartwright responded affirmatively. Mr. Wilde read Section 17-1.6 (b) (8) of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, which included the criteria for an appeal of an Historic Landmark Commission decision to City Council, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting, and recommended that the commission's decision should respond to each of the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness and refer to the outline in the appeal's section which was just read.

The discussion continued. Mr. Cartwright withdrew his motion.

Ms. Deal asked that the following comments be in the record of this meeting: "I have a problem asking someone to match the height and the width of single family residences on the north of the project, who has a legal right to build a building 45 feet high. The set back is far enough, I find it out of context to pull in those houses on the north side when you have these huge, looming structures on the east, which I understand are not in the Historic di1 strict. That would be unacceptable." The discussion continued.

Ms. Williams amended her motion.

Ms. Williams moved to table Case No. 021-95 and requested that the applicant return to the Architectural Subcommittee with a full set of drawings, with the materials articulated, and the design that is to be submitted will respond to the scale, form, massing, fenestration, height and width, the shape of the roof, the proportion of openings, the rhythm of solids and voids of the principal facades, the rhythm of entrance, porch and other projections, the rhythm of spacing of the structures to the street, the relationship of the materials and detailing to those properties that are contributing to the integrity of the existing local Historic district. The applicant will return to the full commission for further review. The second still stood by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Williams was given consent to speak about the article in the latest newsletter of the National Association of Preservation Commissions regarding the zoning rewrite and it complimented the staff for the outstanding work by setting a great example to other Historic commissions. Discussion of the expansion of the Farmer's Market at Pioneer Square at Pioneer Park. Mr. Wilde gave a brief overview of the expansion of the Farmer's market at Pioneer Square, a copy of the staff report was filed with the minutes. Mr. Wilde said that the

Downtown Alliance had been wo king in conjunction with Gastronomy, Inc. to try to enhance the Farmer's Market.

Ms. Bimentel from the Downtown Alliance, was present and spoke about the expansion and improvements in the center of Pioneer Park from funding by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. She explained some of the ides for the expansion of the Farmer's Market into the center of the park.

Mr. Wilde explained that Gastronomy, Inc. woul1d play a major role by setting up food booths in specific locations in the park, in conjunction with the Farmer's Market, as well as other activities, such as volley ball tournaments.

The discussion turned to the City's regeneration of Pioneer Park. Mr. Pett said that it seemed to him that there was not an overall master plan of the park, any plan was in small sections and fragments. He asked about the City's goal for the park. Mr. Pett also inquired about the possibility of delisting the park and suggested that the commission members rethink the idea that Pioneer Square would continue to be a landmark site, in view of the fact that there is no Historic fabric remaining, other than the four streets on its perimeter. There was much discussion regarding this topic.

Mr. Wilde indicated that he could not respond to those thoughts but said from a zoning standpoint, there is a chapter in the zoning ordinance that addresses temporary uses. He referred to Chapter 21-6 of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. And prior to the adoption of this ordinance, every time the City had a request for such activities as a Neighborhood Fair or an Arts Festival, the City continued to stumble over the requirements. He explained that in the zoning ordinance, the City exempted public properties that was involved with temporary uses. Mr. Wilde said that from the zoning standpoint, the City would consider the expansion of the Farmers Market and the temporary food booths in the same category for a temporary use.

There was much discussion regarding some of the past improvements to Pioneer Park that had been reviewed by this commission. The members were in agreement that there was much to be done with the transient population and the litter that seems to be scourging Pioneer Park.

The question arose as to how the Old Pioneer Fort site could be delisted from the National Register of Historic Places and the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Mr. Egleston said that the request would have to go to the Planning Commission and then the City Council. The discussion continued.

Ms. Swinton moved to approve the expansion of the Farmers Market at Pioneer Square and the temporary food booths, based on Section 21-6 of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, which considers this festival activity as a temporary use. Ms. Swinton further moved to ask the staff to prepare an outline to delist the old Pioneer Fort Site from the National Register of Historic Places and the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, so it could be put into the appropriate redevelopment process, regardless of any Historic significance. It was seconded by Mr. Miya. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.

Ms. Egleston announced a special luncheon meeting that will be held on Wednesday, June 26, 1996, at Noon to honor the outgoing chair, Robert Pett, as well as Dave Svikhart, whose terms on this commission will expire on July 14, 1996. She also said that elections for a new chair and vice chair will be held at this luncheon meeting.

Due to the holiday, Mr. Egleston reminded the commission that the July 3, 1996 Historic Landmark Commission meeting would be cancelled.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:45P.M.