PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
#1. Leigh von der Esch briefed the Council on the agenda after which the Council met as the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. The proposed use of garages owned by the Redevelopment Agency as temporary housing for transients was discussed during the Redevelopment Agency meeting.
#2. Lance Bateman briefed the Council on the Industrial Revenue Bond application for Associated Specialties. Donald Jeffery, vice president of Associated Specialties, discussed the business. He said that the business is a clean manufacturing operation. The neighborhood supports relocation of the business as it will utilize and upgrade a vacant structure. The finance department recommends approval of the resolution on the first reading without a public hearing. The public hearing will be held prior to consideration of the enactment resolution.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairman Grant Mabey presided at and Councilmember Alice Shearer conducted the meeting.
Mayor Wilson, Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, and Wally Miller, deputy city attorney, were present at the meeting.
The invocation was given by Police Chaplain Howard Cox.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of minutes:
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for Tuesday, October 4, 1983 and Thursday October 6, 1983, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 83-1)
PETITIONS
Petition 400-20 of 1982 submitted by Norris Goold and J. Leland Behunin.
RE: Vacation of an alley which runs north and south between Columbus Street and Victory Road.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to adopt Ordinance 70 of 1983, vacating a portion of a public way located within Lot 1, Block 15, Plat “J”, Salt Lake City Survey; said alley is 20 feet wide and runs north between Victory Road and Columbus Street for approximately 500 feet, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-377)
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
CITY COUNCIL
#1. RE: An ordinance relating to vehicles loaded with waste prohibited from standing on the street.
Leigh von der Esch, executive director for the Council, indicated that according to the health department this ordinance is enforceable and a similar ordinance is successfully being enforced in the county.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 71 of 1983, amending Section 18-2-29 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, as amended, relating to vehicle loaded with garbage and refuse standing on street prohibited, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(O 83-37)
#2. RE: A resolution amending Resolution 55 of 1983 by extending the deadline for waiver of fee for filing alley vacation petitions.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to adopt Resolution 87 of 1983 amending Resolution 55 of 1983 by extending the deadline for waiver of fee for filing alley vacation petitions, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(R 82-18)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: An ordinance relating to the realignment of Indiana Avenue and 900 South Street from 1700 West to 3600 West.
Councilmember Mabey indicated that he had not received objections to the ordinance and presumed that prior objections had been resolved.
Councilmember Shearer mentioned that involved property owners had been notified about the impending adoption of this ordinance.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to adopt Ordinance 72 of 1983, amending Section 51-31-2 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965 as amended, relating to the adoption of an amendment to the official street map by adopting Official Map No. 15A for the proposed widening and realignment of Indiana Avenue and 900 South Street from 1700 to 3600 West, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(W 82-5)
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
#1. RE: Certification that the abstract of votes from the Primary Election held October 4, 1983, is correct.
The Salt Lake City Council and Mayor reconvened as the Board of Canvassers to certify that the abstract of the votes for the Primary Election held October 4, 1983, is correct and to subscribe their names to the certification determining which candidates are nominated for the municipal election. Kathryn Marshall, city recorder, presented the tally of the votes to the Council and said that the only change was in combined district 99 which is in Council District #6. She said that the total number of registered voters is 780.
Mr. DePaulis moved and Mr. Parker seconded to accept the canvass of votes of the Primary Election held October 4, 1983, as presented, which motion carried, all members of the Board of Canvassers voting aye.
(U 83-1)
#2. RE: Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $1,900,000 for Associated Specialties.
Councilmember Shearer indicated that the applicant requested passage of the inducement resolution prior to a public hearing so that they can proceed with their project; they requested that the public hearing be held prior to the issuance of the bonds.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 88 of 1983, the inducement resolution, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, for the issuance of $1,900,000 Industrial Revenue Bonds for Associated Specialties for the consolidation and expansion of existing operations into one 170,000-square foot facility at 545 West 700 South, for building components and service for office buildings, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-24)
#3. RE: Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of $825,000 for Sixth East Associates.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to adopt Resolution 89 of 1983, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, authorizing the issuance and sale of the Salt Lake City, Utah, Industrial Development Revenue Bond, 1983 (Sixth East Associates Project) in the principal amount of $825,000 to finance an industrial development project for Sixth East Associates; authorizing the execution and delivery by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah of a bond purchase agreement a loan agreement, an assignment and security agreement, the 1983 bond, and closing documents in connection therewith; confirming the sale of such bond to the purchase thereof; and related matters, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers DePaulis and Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
(Q 83-10)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: The appointments of Nancy Pace and Dave Watson as alternate members of the Board of Adjustment. Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred the appointments of Ms. Pace and Mr. Watson as alternate members of the Board of Adjustment to the consent agenda for November 1, 1983 and to the Committee of the Whole for Thursday, October 20, 1983.
(I 83-30)
#2. RE: The appointment of Talley Stevens to the Sugarhouse Park Authority. Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred the appointment of Mr. Stevens to the Suqarhouse Park Authority to the consent agenda for November 1, 1983.
(I 83-24)
#3. RE: The appointments of Senator Frank Moss and Van Ross to the Air Travel Commission. Without objection, Councilmember Shearer referred the appointments of Senator Moss and Mr. Ross to the Air Travel Commission to the consent agenda for November 1, 1983.
(I 83-26)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: An ordinance confirming the equalized assessment rolls and levying a tax providing for the assessment of property in Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension 38-684.
Leigh von der Esch, executive director of the Council, indicated that the appeal process for this curb and gutter extension started with the Board of Equalization and is running coterminously with the assessment ordinance. She said that Dick Fox feels comfortable with this process. Ms. von der Esch indicated that notices will be sent to the property owners who are affected by the assessment.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember DePaulis seconded to adopt Ordinance 69 of 1983, confirming the equalized assessment rolls and levying a tax providing for the assessment of property in Salt Lake City, Utah, Curb and Gutter Extension No. 38-684 for the purpose of paying the costs of construction improvements on certain streets within the municipality consisting of the paving of streets with bituminous surface course placed on compacted gravel base; constructing a drainage system, constructing curb and gutter and sidewalk; removing all existing nonconforming improvements; constructing drive approaches from the new curb and gutter to the street edge of sidewalks; and all other miscellaneous work, necessary to complete the improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner, reaffirming the establishment of a special improvement guaranty fund; and establishing the effective date of this ordinance, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 83-20)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition 73 of 1982 submitted by Sven Nilsson.
RE: The closure of a portion of the east side of West Capitol Street and the vacation of portions of two alleys running between West Capitol Street and Victory Road north of Clinton Avenue.
A public hearing was held at 6:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 73 of 1982. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and indicated that the Planning Commission recommended the vacation of the alley subject to retaining necessary easements but did not recommend that any portion of West Capitol Street be closed since the street will be needed if the area is improved. The petitioner was not present at the public hearing. Wilburn West, abutting property owner, indicated that he did not want the portion of the ally vacated which abuts his property since the alley is his only access.
Minta Brandon, Paula Beck, Golden Wilcox and Larry Glen, all residents of the area, opposed the petition request and expressed concern about the impact that a large high-density housing unit, as proposed by the petitioner, would have on the area. William Bleazard, owner of property at 694 West Capitol, indicated that his property would be landlocked on the north end of the alley if the portion of the alley abutting his property is vacated. Councilmember Fonnesbeck suggested that instead of vacating the entire alley, the Council could vacate just that portion which abuts Mr. Nilsson’s property on both sides so that the other two property owners would not be affected.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if a building could be constructed on Mr. Nilsson’s property. Mr. Hafey replied that because of the steep terrain buildings would have to be designed to fit the property but the area is zoned “R-5A” which allows for multiple units.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to vacate the portion of the alley, as requested in Petition 73 of 1982, which only abuts Mr. Nilsson’s property on both sides; to uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the vacation of the east side of West Capitol Street; and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance, with the city retaining easements, to effectuate the vacation of that portion of the alley, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-470)
Petition 324 of 1982 submitted by Patric McGarvey, et al.
RE: The vacation of the alleys located between 400 East and 500 East and 1700 South and Blame Avenue.
A public hearing was held at 6:45 p.m. to consider Petition 324 of 1982. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the petition requests the vacation of the east-west alley between 1700 South and Blaine Avenue and the north-south alley between 1700 South and Blaine Avenue and 4th and 5th East. He said that all of the abutting property owners have not signed the petition. Mr. Hafey said that the public utilities department recommended denial of the petition until all the homes abutting the property have their service lines brought to the front of their property for reconnection to the existing mains on 1700 South or Blaine. The traffic department was concerned about parking accommodations for abutting property owners. Mr. Hafey said that the recommendation was to vacate the alleys subject to the considerations as specified by various departments (this information is on file in the Office of the City Recorder).
Patric McGarvey, petitioner, distributed pictures to the Council showing the condition of the alley. He indicated that there has been a problem with vandals using the alley, abandoned cars in the alley and in many areas there are overgrown weeds and trees. The residents at the juncture of the two alleys agree that this section of the alley should be vacated which would stop the thoroughfare. Currently several of the residents use the alley as a driveway and Mr. McGarvey suggested that if the City abandoned the portions of the alley needed by property owners as a driveway then the right-of-way would be maintained for those people but a “No Trespassing” sign could be installed.
Mr. McGarvey indicated that the residents would have to pay the cost of connection to the water line which would be about $400. Rita Cammack, 455 Blame Avenue, opposed the closure of the alley since it would be expensive to move her fence and make the water connection. Scott Knowley, 429 Blaine, presented a petition signed by several of the area residents opposing the closure of the alley. These residents did not object to the closure of the east end of the alley as far west as it is not being utilized for access (this petition is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Gordon Herrick, 436 East 1700 South, opposed the petition request. He felt that law enforcement individuals need access to the alley to search for burglary suspects who use the alley as an escape route. Mr. Herrick also felt that it would be difficult for the power company and telephone company to maintain their lines if the alley is closed.
Don Harrelson, 471 Blaine Avenue, indicated that criminals use the alley to escape after they have robbed the Rainbow gas station at 1700 South and 500 East and people perform indecent acts because restrooms are not available. Mr. Harrelson expressed concern for children when they walk past the alley. He supported the closure of the alley as long as he retains access to his garage. Dennis Perry, 463 Blaine Avenue, indicated that the power poles can be maintained without the use of the alley since Utah Power and Light has necessary equipment for that purpose. He expressed his support for the closure of the alley because of the crime problem.
Karen Brown, 457 Blaine Avenue, indicated that her garage has been vandalized and cars have been stripped and then left behind her garage. She said that it is hard to keep children out of the alley and supported its closure. Eva Herrick, 436 East 1700 South, indicated that criminals would continue to use the portion of the alley which is not closed, even though there would be “No Trespassing” signs. She indicated that the alley is the only access they have to their garage.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to refer Petition 324 of 1982 to the Land Use Committee for further consideration and check with the water department about connections into the watermain if only a portion of the alley is closed and also check with the power company about the electric lines, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(P 83-471)
Petition 400-3 of 1982 submitted by Boyd Stevens and Gertrude Edwards.
RE: Requesting the vacation of portions of two alleys. One alley runs east and west parallel to Kensington and Emerson Avenues east of 1300 East; the second alley runs north and south between 1300 East and 1400 East, approximately 150 feet east of 1300 East.
A public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. to consider Petition 400-3 of 1982. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the north-south portion of the alley runs approximately 112 feet to the north and the east-west portion is approximately 17 to 20 feet. The remainder of the alley to the east was vacated several years ago. The petitioner wants this portion closed so that he can construct a new garage. The recommendation is to vacate the alley subject to the City retaining necessary easements. All but one of the abutting property owners, Ms. Spilsbury, have signed the petition. Daniel Anderson, legal counsel representing Mr. Stevens, displayed a chart showing the area that Mr. Stevens wants vacated. He indicated that Mr. Stevens only wants that east-west portion closed in order to construct his garage according to building regulations. The property owners abutting this portion of the alley have both signed the petition in favor of the vacation.
Mr. Anderson said that there is a question as to whether or not Ms. Spilsbury is actually an abutting property owner to the east-west alley, he felt that she is not an abutting owner. Mr. Anderson indicated that Mr. Stevens has been assessed for taxes on this property since 1951 because it was believed that the property had been vacated when the remainder of the alley was vacated. Ms. Edwards also thought that this portion of the alley was vacated. Mr. Anderson indicated that Ms. Spilsbury uses the north-south alley as a driveway and objects to the vacation of the east-west alley because she feels that access to her garage would be limited. Mr. Anderson showed a diagram indicating that there is room for a car to back out of the Spilsbury garage without using the east-west portion of the alley.
Mr. Anderson said that Ms. Spilsbury’s backyard is gravel and there is indication that this area is used for access in and out of the garage. Frank Moss, representing Ethel Spilsbury, reiterated that Ms. Spilsbury opposed the alley vacation because appropriate use of her garage will be denied. He disagreed that there is adequate room for a vehicle to back out of the Spilsbury garage without using the east-west alley. It is not appropriate to back down the north-south alley in a car since the alley is very steep and narrow. Mr. Moss said that if the petitioner is unwilling to allow Ms. Spilsbury to continue using the east-west portion of the alley then she wants the petition denied. She does not object to the construction of the new garage.
Mr. Moss suggested that either the alley should be left as it is or Ms. Spilsbury should be allowed to continue to use the portion of the alley. There is a power pole in front of Ms. Spilsbury’s garage which also inhibits her access and an easement allows for the pole to remain. Ms. Edwards, 1324 Emerson, indicated that the stone wall on her property was in place when she bought the house. She said that the tax notice has always indicated that this area is half of a vacated lot. She felt that there was not any reason why Ms. Spilsbury could not get out of her garage by using her own property.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Parker seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye. Councilmember Parker felt that there was not an easy solution to this problem and he felt that more time was needed to consider this request so it should be referred to the Land Use Committee. Councilmember Fonnesbeck did not feel that any new information could be presented about this request. Councilmember Whitehead agreed. Councilmember Davis suggested that the Council could visit the area and view the situation. Councilmember Shearer felt that there is friction between the neighbors and felt that if given an opportunity these residents could meet with the Land Use Committee and present a solution.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to refer Petition 400-3 of 1982 to the Land Use Committee, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Whitehead, Mabey, and Fonnesbeck who voted nay.
(P 83-266)
Petition 321 of 1982 submitted by West Properties.
RE: The closure of 150 lineal feet of 1600 South at the point where it dead-ends west of 367 West to the railroad tracks right-of-way at approximatley 400 West.
A public hearing was held at 7:15 p.m. to discuss Petition 321 of 1982. Mark Hafey, planning and zoning, outlined the area on a map and said that the recommendation was to approve the closure subject to the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall pay the City the fair market value of the street to be vacated. 2. The petitioner shall pay the appraisal costs incurred to determine the fair-market value of the petitioned property. 3. The petitioner shall prepare engineering drawings and specifications in accordance with the City’s requirement describing the improvements necessary to shorten the street and that said improvements be installed at the petitioner’s expense. The street improvements shall include the installation of curb and gutter on the remaining portion of 1600 South which abuts the petitioner’s property.
4. The petitioner shall install a cul-de-sac at the west end of 1600 South in accordance with the engineer’s specifications. 5. The public utility easements be retained for all existing utilities with the understanding that no structures are to be constructed over these easements and that access shall be available to the easement holders at all times. James Snarr, petitioner, reiterated that he is requesting the vacation of 150 feet of 1600 South at approximately 400 West. The present location is abutted on two sides by West Properties. The street dead-ends at a railroad track and the owner of the piece of property on the other side of the track has not signed the petition. No one from the audience opposed this petition.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the petition request with the stipulations as outlined and adopt Ordinance 73 of 1983, closing a portion of 1600 South Street from approximately 400 West, proceeding eastward along the north and south boundaries of said street for approximately 150 feet, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent when the vote was taken.
(P 83-480)
Devereaux House/Carriage House.
RE: Appeal by Vee Carlisle of the Planning and Zoning Commission decision overturning the decision of the Landmarks Committee which denied certain aspects of the application of Triad Utah for the Devereaux House/Carriage House restoration.
A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. to discuss this appeal. Craig Peterson, director of development services, said that any action by the Landmarks Committee can be appealed to the Planning Commission for their review. Any decision by the Planning Commission regarding the properties on the City’s register of cultural resources can be appealed to the City Council. The Devereaux site is owned by the State of Utah and normally would not be brought before the Landmark Committee but through a cooperative agreement in the economic development of the west downtown area, the state and Triad consented to have the project meet City ordinances.
Mr. Peterson said that the matter before the Council was an appeal by Vee Carlisle of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Devereaux carriage house. Mr. Peterson outlined the background of this situation by explaining that Triad and representatives of the Landmark Committee had been meeting on the matter of the carriage house since August of 1982. The proposed use of the carriage house area had been for a sunken plaza and an arcade entrance into the enlarged basement of the carriage house with the back wall to be constructed from the glass. The use of the basement as a restaurant instead of only restroom facilities was questioned by the Landmark Committee and it was felt that this use would not be in keeping with the carriage house.
The Landmarks Committee did not approve the applicant’s plans to construct a lower level to the carriage house because it was considered a visual intrusion, however, the glass lean-to was not denied. They felt that the transition from the commercial to the historical aspect of the project should be on Triad’s property and not on state property. Mr. Peterson said the Rich Nordlund of Triad appealed the Landmarks decision to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nordlund felt that the Landmarks Committee was unfair by not approving the sunken plaza area since this area had been included in all plans shown to the Landmarks Architectural Subcommittee with the minor exception of a 2 1/2 foot grade change. Mr. Nordlund had explained that the area would serve as an activity area to aid the transition between the modern and the historic envelope of the Devereaux House. The Planning Commission voted to overturn the Landmark Committee decision on the basis that Triad had tacit approval for the plaza from representatives of the Landmark Committee acting as a subcommittee, that the commercialization and the brick arcade do not detract significantly from the overall effect of the structure, the practical utilization/ revitalization of the area needs to be addressed, and that the carriage house plans would upgrade the desirability of the project overall.
Vee Carlisle, former member of the Devereaux Committee, said that the Devereaux property had been purchased for historical reasons for the people of Utah. The property was to be restored and improved in an appropriate historical manner to accommodate such state and public functions as the governor might prescribe so long as those functions neither conflict with the use of the premises as an historic site and tourist attraction nor interfere with reasonable public access. Ms. Carlisle said that except for the use of the house, changes in the Devereaux project were agreed to because the committee felt they were right. But the proposed sunken plaza and arcade entrance to the carriage house introduces a foreign visual intrusion to the state property, to the overall 19th Century Victorian setting of the project, and defeats the block’s historic theme.
Ms. Carlisle said that she understood that visual or setting changes can be adverse effects according to federal procedures thereby preventing professional preservation of the view of the site and she understood that the federal grant restricts expenditures for this kind of intrusion unless federal mitigation procedures are followed. A new restaurant is proposed for the sunken plaza arcade entrance to the carriage house basement which would be constructed and operated on the state’s property. Originally no new buildings were included in the restoration. Ms. Carlisle believed that if the Devereaux project is restored in true Victorian fashion the charm of the project will offer an appealing contrast to the Triad grandeur.
Councilmember Davis asked Ms. Carlisle if the committee felt that the glass lean-to was appropriate. Ms. Carlisle said that many committee members personally felt that it was not acceptable but a vote was not taken. Henry Whiteside, chairman of the Historical Landmark Committee, distributed a letter outlining the committee’s position on this issue (a copy of this letter is on file in the Office of the City Recorder). Mr. Whiteside felt two questions surrounded this issue: First, the intent of the state and the City in investing their money; second, whether the proposed arcade and sunken plaza are compatible with the intent.
Mr. Whiteside quoted from the legislation which says that to the extent possible the restoration of the property and facilities shall be accomplished in accordance with sound and accepted historic restoration and preservation practices. The agreement between the State of Utah, the Redevelopment Agency and Devereaux Partners also indicates that the building and surrounding area is to be restored to the condition the property was in during the height of its public service and residential grandeur around 1876-1880 and the utilization of the Devereaux House is to be as a functional contemporary office and reception center in a setting of Salt Lake City Victorian elegance. Mr. Whiteside felt that the intent of the project was clear and did not feel the Triad proposal was consistent with that intent. Mr. Whiteside said that the Landmark Committee attempted, according to sound historic preservation principles, to accommodate the developer in what was felt to be reasonable concessions. He reiterated that the proper place for a transition to an historic property would be on the developer’s property.
The state acquired the property with public funds for a public purpose, which has been compromised to a degree by the proposal that it not be used as a museum but as a restaurant. Mr. Whiteside said that the Landmark Committee felt that the proposed carriage house restoration intruded unreasonably onto the feeling of the building and its grounds. He felt that neither a public restaurant nor sunken plaza belongs in a Victorian garden and asked the Council to compare this historic building with others in Salt Lake City and decide on the appropriateness of a sunken plaza and restaurant. Originally the basement addition to the carriage house was approved for use as restrooms.
The glass lean-to was approved because the building had originally had a lean-to albeit constructed out of different material. Mr. Whiteside said that overall they were satisfied with the quality of the Devereaux restoration but were at a loss to understand why the developer feels obliged to pursue a small commercial advantage at the expense of the clear public purpose for which state money, federal money, and City money have been invested. Councilmember Fonnesbeck asked Mr. Whiteside if he thought the sunken plaza destroyed the relationship between the mansion, the grounds, and the outbuildings.
Mr. Whiteside felt that the relationship would be damaged severely even though the carriage house is 100 feet from the mansion. Councilmember Shearer asked how the public would reach various shops in the basement of the broadcast house if the plaza is not constructed. Mr. Whiteside felt that perhaps there could be stairs leading down into that area. Richard Nordlund, representing Triad, presented various drawings outlining the proposed development. He outlined the transitional envelope between the modern Triad project and the historical Devereaux house and explained that the area around the carriage house has shopping potential and creates an area where people can intermingle.
Mr. Nordlund indicated that the sunken plaza had been included in the plans which were presented to Landmarks Subcommittee and the concept they approved on April 18 was the plan that included the sunken plaza. Mr. Nordlund showed a drawing of the sunken plaza area and explained that this area would add walkways, benches, and eating areas. He added that the proposed eating place would not be a pizzeria. He said that the plaza was not very big, approximately 5,000 square feet, and displayed a chart comparing the size of this plaza to others throughout the city. Mr. Nordlund also explained that the carriage house would be on approximately the same grade level as South Temple and there would be a great deal of foliage so that not much of the carriage house would be seen from the street. He said that the area has been designed to accommodate everyone and would be complementary to the surrounding buildings. The proposed use of arches would also complement arches used in the other buildings.
Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Nordlund if the state committee gave him the impression that the glass lean-to would spoil the authenticity of the carriage house. Mr. Nordlund indicated that he did not get this impression and when he made his presentation to the committee they did not say much about the lean-to. The Triad architect, who had worked with several of the committee members, indicated that they felt comfortable with the design. Dale Carpenter, executive director of the State Department of Community and Economic Development, said that the division of history has worked closely with the City to help the City assure that the Secretary of Interior’s standards are satisfied.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the historical integrity of the project would be jeopardized if the Triad plan was adopted. Jim Dykman, with the Division of State History preservation office, said that according to the regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, visual intrusion is mentioned under criteria of adverse effect. He said that there is a professional question as to whether or not this kind of development could be an adverse effect. He indicated that many people involved in this project feel that the potential for an adverse effect is high considering the nature of the project. He said that the state has worked with the City on how to mitigate the adverse effect.
Councilmember Shearer asked what advice the City had been given on how to mitigate the adverse effect. Mr. Dykman said that a memorandum of agreement has been drafted which brings the City and developer together to work out a way to best present the idea and make a compromise on the issue. Bernice Cook, People’s Freeway Community Council and member of the Utah State Historical Society and Utah Heritage Foundation, felt that there has not been enough information given to the public regarding the progression of and decisions made concerning this project. She also questioned the need for a restaurant in the carriage house since one is planned for the Devereaux mansion.
Stephanie Churchill, Utah Heritage Foundation, read a statement from the Foundation (this is on file in the Office of the City Recorder) which indicates that the proposed project would not be in accord with reasonable preservation standards. She felt that the size of the sunken plaza was not the issue but the issue was that it did not belong in an 1886 Victorian garden. Hermoine Jex, Land Use and Natural Resource Committee of the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils, indicated that the proposed project was viewed as a negative intrusion into public property. Ms. Jex presented a chart outlining the total area covered by the private development and public project and showed how much of the public land had been taken by Triad for their development. She felt that there was a moral commitment to do the project as originally planned.
Representative Sam Taylor said that the state legislature provided funds for the purpose of preserving the historical background of the Devereaux mansion and not for the purpose of commercialization. He felt that the proposed plaza was an intrusion and would violate public interests. He said the intent of the legislature was to preserve the history that the Devereaux mansion represents and felt that this intent should be upheld.
Randy Dixon, co-chairman of the Capitol Hills Neighborhood Council, felt that there has been gerrymandering of property and the public has not been aware of how the project has been developing. He felt that had they known there would have been more pressure and input on what was happening. Mr. Dixon also felt that the historical context of the project has been lost but urged the Council to support Ms. Carlisle. Bob Bliss, 27 University Street, read a letter from Peter Boss, an architectural historian (this letter is on file in the Office of the City Recorder).
Mr. Boss indicates that the open-air plaza beneath the carriage house would have a negative impact upon the historic nature of the Devereaux site and that the restoration and reconstruction of the state-owned site, including the house, grounds and carriage house, has been continually compromised by the developer. Mr. Boss felt that the developer should make more than token concessions to the citizens of Salt Lake City. Craig Peterson said that there were several processes that the City needed to follow in order to comply with the urban development action grant. The administration would proceed on the 106 review process in which a report must be made on any impact on historic sources as a result of design or construction.
This process was begun with the state when the Planning Commission made the decision that the plaza was appropriate but the process stopped when Ms. Carlisle appealed the Planning Commission decision. On the 106 review process the City would declare that the plaza would have an adverse impact in terms of the historic nature of the carriage house. This notice of adverse impact would be sent through the state to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and they would do a review of the adverse impact and make a recommendation to the HUD regional office. A proposed memorandum of agreement between Salt Lake and HUD would be sent along with the declaration of adverse impact. HUD is not bound by the recommendation that may come from the Advisory Council. Mr. Peterson read from the proposed memorandum which outlines how the project would be constructed such as materials used and design so that the project would be compatible with the historic property. He said that the thrust of HUD at this point was for economic development and it appears that their response would be that although there may be an adverse impact to the plaza, if the state and City elected officials have determined that this is the best policy to pursue then they may support that policy. It was Mr. Peterson’s opinion that the review process would solve the problem and it is not foreseen that the urban development action grant would be in jeopardy. Mr. Peterson said that the thrust of the UDAG as it was written was that of economic development and the City did not want to be involved with the interior restoration of the mansion. The primary concern was for the development of the west part of the City. Mr. Peterson indicated that the plaza was a policy question that should rest with the City Council.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to hold a 10 minute discussion period regarding this issue, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
Councilmember Whitehead felt that if the carriage house was restored to its original condition it would be a cold outside building with nothing of interest to see. He did not think the carriage house was the focal point and felt that the people of Utah would be pleased with the restoration of the Devereaux mansion. He did not think that the general public would care what happens with the carriage house and felt that the plaza would be more enjoyable for the majority of the people.
Councilmember Parker asked if the priority of HUD had changed from historical restoration to economic development. Mr. Peterson said that the primary thrust of the program is economic development but historic restoration was one of the criterion by which the program was approved. Councilmember Shearer expressed concern about the 106 process and felt that the project would be delayed because of this process. She thought that redesign of the project would not he as lengthy as the HUD process. Councilmember Whitehead agreed that redesigning the project would not take as long but felt that the parties involved may not be able to agree on a redesign. Compromises have been made throughout the project and he felt that they were at a point of no compromise.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck said that Triad has a tremendous amount of property to develop. She admired their development and said she has been supportive but did not understand why this small piece of property had to be the critical aspect. Ms. Fonnesbeck said that she was not pleased with the carriage house and would feel more comfortable with the project if it were situated so that it would not negatively impact the mansion. She thought there ought to be a solution which compromises more space in favor of the historical aspect of the mansion. Councilmember DePaulis felt there was a lot of frustration on both sides of this issue and hoped that people did not feel that the entire project was jeopardized. He suggested that time be taken to review this issue. Councilmember Whitehead felt that nothing would be accomplished by postponing the decision because he did not think there was any additional information which could be gained. Councilmember Fonnesbeck said if the Council voted in favor of the developer there would never be another compromise but if the appeal is upheld the developer could present another compromise.
Councilmember Shearer felt that both parties had reached a point on this issue where they feel they no longer can give. Councilmember Parker asked Mr. Nordlund for a brief review and asked if their position on the design of the project is rigid. Mr. Nordlund said that a modification to the plan would cost more money and winter is approaching. There is a potential that tenants will be lost from the broadcast house and if the plaza is not developed those tenants would not have access out into that area or it would be a rigid pathway. Mr. Nordlund said they have tried to prepare a design that would compromise both the historical interests and Triad interests in terms of trying to create a people-oriented pathway along the historical area. Triad feels that the carriage house is in the transitional period and more resembles the modern buildings rather than the historical building.
Councilmember Shearer asked about building the restrooms in the main floor of the carriage house. Mr. Nordlund said several locations were considered but it was felt that a restroom location was needed, other than in the various buildings, which could best serve the people using the amphitheater area. Mr. Nordlund said that they had considered using the first level to generate revenue and reminded the Council that the developer will be spending about $800,000 to complete the Devereaux house. Councilmember Mabey felt that a restaurant in the carriage house would add to the atmosphere of the area while people are looking at the historic places and felt this area could be used as a rest stop. Mr. Nordlund said a concept that they were considering for the carriage house was a delicatessen that would be utilized not only by visitors but also by people working in the downtown area. Another idea would be to sell various international foods.
Councilmember Whitehead moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to uphold the Planning Commission decision to override the decision of the Landmark Committee to deny the Triad project, which motion failed, all members voting nay except Councilmembers Davis, Mabey and Whitehead who voted aye.
Councilmember DePaulis moved and Councilmember Fonnesbeck seconded to uphold the appeal of Ms. Vee Carlisle, which motion carried, all members voting aye except Councilmembers Davis, Mabey and Whitehead who voted nay.
(G 83-28)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
#1. Mr. West complained about the alley which runs behind his property on Downington Avenue and said that the neighbors have let the trees and bushes overgrow into the alley. Mr. West said he needed the alley for access to his garage so he did not want it closed but he wanted the owners cited for their negligence. He said that he had tried contacting several different City departments but did not get any satisfaction to this problem. Mayor Wilson assured Mr. West that Albert Haines, chief administrative officer, would help Mr. West reach a satisfactory conclusion to this problem.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.