April 3, 1996

SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting

Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126

No field trip was scheduled.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Robert Pett, and Dina Williams, Burke Cartwright, Dave Sv1khart, and Heidi Swinton were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright Planning Director, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller, Ms. Janice Jardine representing the City Council Office, was also present.

The meeting was called to order at 4:10 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, alter which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Williams moved to approve the minutes of March 6, 1996. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye”. Mr. Pett. as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Swinton were not present the motion passed.

PREVIOUS CASE

Case No. 001-96, at 475-479 E, South Temple Street (the northeast corner of South Temple and “E” Street) by Thomas Williamsen, represented by Russ Naylor of Nichols Naylor Architects, requesting approval for the construction of a new commercial building. This case has been re-opened

Ms. Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major Issues of the case, the findings of fact. and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes She pointed out that the applicant was requesting two signs on the building, as well as the monument sign. Ms. Miller said that two signs would meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, due to the proposed square footage, but not meet the South Temple signage policy of the Historic Landmark Commission. She recommended careful consideration of the monument signage and its placement.

The applicant, Mr. Thomas Williamsen, as well as his representative, Mr. Russ Naylor, were present. Mr. Naylor used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He also displayed a model of the proposed building and a streetscape drawing of the property, which the members agreed were very beneficial to the commission. He circulated samples of the brick and the awning materials.

Mr. Naylor said that the design, oriented to the corner of the property, had not changed but pointed out the following significant changes to the proposed building: 1) Atlas brick would be used for the exterior of the proposed building; 2) lintels and the fascia panels would be pre-cast concrete, which would be sandblasted: 3) there would be a white steel tubular frame for the outside dining area supported by poured-In-place concrete columns; 4) only one red awning, made of “Sunbrella" material was planned, and that would be placed over the entry way; 5) the white aluminum windows would have a more industrial design which would identify with the framing of the storefront: 6) a horizontal parapet cap would go around the perimeter of the building, which would be broken up by vertical panels on the south facade; 7) the plaza was redesigned by adding more hardscape, benches, bicycle racks, and moved the planter, that would hold the monument sign, which would be five feet from the property line; B) the screen hiding the mechanical equipment on the north side of the roof would be four feet high, with some allowance for the height. It would be elevated enough to appropriately shield the necessary equipment: 9) the suggested window pattern for the north elevation facade was not included in these proposed changes, although there would be two windows on that elevation. The exact placement would be decided as soon as the office space is identified for the operation of the two restaurants: and 10) the proposed in-ground lit monument sign would be constructed of Atlas brick, the same as the building, with lettering applied to the face of the sign.

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

• Mr. Cooper led the discussion by inquiring if the elevation drawings showed the grade of the property. Mr. Naylor said that he did not have a topographical drawing for the property. Mr. Cooper said that in back of the property line on the north elevation. there was an abrupt grade change and that the building actually would sit down in a hole as it would be viewed by one coming down on "E" Street. There was some discussion regarding the view of the proposed structure from the surrounding buildings.

• Mr. Miya stated that there was no clarification on the se plan for the curb cuts to the property. Mr. Naylor said that there would be a curb cuts on South Temple and one on “E” Street Mr. Miya raised the question of the proposed site lighting. Mr. Naylor said that three light poles, with house side shields to diffuse the light, were proposed and pointed to the areas on the site plan where the light polo& would be installed.

• Mr. Pett observed that it stated in the staff report that steel windows were proposed. Mr. Naylor clarified that the windows had been changed and white aluminum windows were now planned to be used. Mr. Pett inquired about the different site plans in the staff report. Mr. Naylor pointed out the correct site plan which illustrated the landscaping of the property. Mr. Pett said that although he was more comfortable after seeing the model, he still expressed his concerns about the materials, the articulation of details, and the signage. He indicated that the elevation which showed the bulk of the material, and which had the least articulation, was the north facade. Mr. Pett stated that the bulk of the large wall which would be visible from the street. had no relationship to the rest of the building. Mr. Naylor suggested severe. ways a relating element could be attained by adding 6-inch block infill, which would create a pattern change.

Mr. Cooper said that the grade change of the property would soften the north façade some and he did not have a problem with that elevation, however he made suggestions that a horizontal break would break up that mass, rather than using the pilaster treatment Mr. Pett promoted the idea of the applicant observing how that was accomplished on the gymnasium portion of the Uintah Elementary School, located on the corner or 15th East and 13th South. He made several recommendations to the applicant.

Mr. Pett further pointed out that according the elevation drawings, one of the identifying signs for the tenants was proposed to be placed on the concrete pre-east panels and one was proposed to be placed on the masonry, and suggested that they both be placed on the Concrete pre-cast panels. Mr. Naylor agreed and said he thought that was a good suggestion. He stated that could be done, and added that both the signs could then be treated the same. Mr. Pett inquired about the roofing product. Mr. Naylor stated that was anticipated to be gravel. Mr. Pett inquired about the handrails. Mr. Naylor explained that they would not be exactly as they were depicted on the model but would be metal. Mr. Cooper suggested adding some sort of detail on top of the handrails to avoid the high maintenance problem created by rollerblades. Mr. Pett also inquired about the dumpster enclosure which would be located on the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Naylor asked that the same masonry as the building would be used to construct the screening wall with a framed in and painted corrugated metal gate. Further, Mr. Pett commented on the elimination of the once-proposed entry to Boston Market on the east elevation. Mr. Naylor said that if it was necessary to include another entry to the building it would be in one of the window openings on that elevation. Mr. Pett inquired if the applicant would provide additional screening around the mechanical equipment on the roof using some type of material screen to conceal this equipment. Mr. Naylor said that could be done.

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:

• Mr. Tom Rogan, chair of the Avenues Neighborhood Community Council, apologized for being a "Johnny-come-lately" to this process, but pointed out that he had only been in the position of chair for a short time. He said that a change of leadership occurred on January of 1996, Mr. Rogan indicated that he had the opportunity to briefly discuss the project with the applicant and invited both, Mr. Williamsen and Mr. Naylor to a neighborhood council meeting to explain their development before the Historic Landmark Commission rendered an approval. He commended the commission members for the careful scrutiny of a prefect such as this on South Temple. Ms. Egleston pointed out that on a request for demolition of an existing building, it would be required that the applicant appear before the neighborhood community council but not for a new construction application. Mr. Pett stated that in the past, the commission had asked the applicant to meet with the community as a courtesy to the neighborhood. Ms. Miller indicated that the applicant had no plans to do this because this development was a permitted zoning use for the property.

• Mr. William Littig, who resides in the area, expressed his concern about the increased use of South Temple, due to this project, and the lack of a traffic study. He questioned the affect this retail development would have on the traffic on the South Temple and "E" Street intersection. Mr. Pett made an inquiry to Mr. Bill Wright, if the two curb cuts and the traffic f1ow study would be included in the process that would be reviewed by the Engineering or Transportation Division of the City. Mr. Wright stated that the issues such as the internal circulation and the capacity or parking lots and the ingress and egress of the property would, but in terms of a curb cut being too close to the intersection and a study of the traffic now, would not be part of the review process. There was some discussion regarding the traffic at the intersection of South Temple and "E" Street and the proposed increase of traffic caused by this project. It was also suggested that traffic now was not one of the purviews of this commission. The discussion continued.

• Mr. Myron Richardson, an architectural consultant to the Steiner Corporation, which is in the building immediately to the east of the subject property site, was present and commented on the great strides that this project has made since the first review. He said that the fact that the two tenants would be housed in one contiguous building, rather than two, was very pleasing to him. In conclusion, he touched on the following concerns: 1) that the signage would be carefully reviewed by the commission in terms of total amount of signage, the location, and the brightness; 2) that the materials that were presented, end up being the same as what would actually be used for the building; and 3) the Steiner building is elevated higher than this proposed project, and the view of the rooftop by the occupants was a concern, as well as the massing on all four elevations.

• Mr. Kevin Steiner, Chief Financial Officer of the Steiner Corporation, was present and Inquired further into the proposed awning. He showed photographs of other Boston Market buildings and was reassured that the awning would not be constructed out of metal or plastic, but out of fabric. Mr. Steiner also expressed his concerns about the cast resin outdoor tables and chairs that were depicted in the photographs of other Boston Markets. Mr. Naylor said that they would not be used in the outside dining areas or this proposed project. Mr. Steiner also remarked that this project had come a long way and proved the added value of the Historic Landmark Commission. In closing, Mr. Steiner pointed out the difference in the tenants of these. what he considered "fast food" restaurants, in comparison with the other restaurants in the area that provide table service and other amenities for its customers. Mr. Steiner expressed his concern about the idea of having "fast food" restaurants on South Temple.

• Mr. Fred Barth, who has been a real-estate consultant to the former Brackman Brothers Bagel Restaurants, stated that he has been involved with the conversion to Einstein’s Bagels. He explained that his amity has lived in the Avenues area for many years. Mr. Barth said that the development of Einstein’s Bagels, has been a driven urgency because of the many inquiries from residents in the area over the past few years, asking to bring the bagel concept to the Avenues area He said that he had looked at many sites for the location of the bagel business. Mr. Barth explained that the cooperation of the tenants for this proposed location, was due to public demand.

Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission. Mr. Pett dosed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive

session.

The discussion continued regarding the previously mentioned issues. Mr. Pett commented on the progress of this project and the fact that the applicant had taken into consideration many of the recommendations from the public, as well as from this commission. Mr. Pett noted that he had detected no reluctance on the part of the applicant, as to any suggestions that had been expressed during this meeting. The wording of a motion was contemplated.

There was a question regarding the size and details of the planter and of the monument sign. The commission agreed to re-open this portion of the hearing to the public to allow the applicant or his representative, to respond. Mr. Naylor indicated that the planter and monument sign, which would be constructed out of the same masonry as the main building, would sit on top of the pre-cast concrete vault which would house the soil venting equipment. Mr. Miya encouraged three dimensional planting of foliage in the planter. The lighting of the monument sign was again discussed. Ms. Hatch thought that the signage should be considered separately from the main structure. Mr. Pett stated that those issues had been reviewed separately on previous cases. Other commission members commented regarding this subject matter.

Ms. Hatch stated that she was opposed to this project mainly because she agreed with the comments made by Mr. Kevin Steiner regarding the initial zoning interpretation being a little broad in terms of its residential use. Ms. Hatch requested that her following comments be included in the minutes of this meeting, as presented: "I was also disappointed in the staff report in that I think that South Temple is a unique historic district. Our other historic districts, such as the Avenues, Capitol Hill, University, and Central City occur in multiple blocks and the South Temple is a linear district and that it is viewed in a progression. To evaluate the project. based on only the surrounding properties, I think is an unfair evaluation of the district. I have looked at the street and the hundred odd buildings that are on South Temple, from Union Pacific Depot all the way up to the university, and there are only five buildings that address the corner, like this subject proposed building. The rest of them face South Temple. Many of the properties on South Temple also were built with a lot of pride in the community. I think a lot of the buildings represented the prosperity and the pride of the community at the time that they were built. If Atlas bring, aluminum windows, and metal panels are reflections of the prosperity of Utah in 1996, then so be it, but I will be voting against this project because of the things that I have stated.”

Mr. Cooper inquired if the motion could be amended to include a note of appreciation to Mr. Williamsen, the applicant and Mr. Naylor, the architect. He noted that he has been impressed with their work with the commission and subcommittee, and their willingness to continue to come back, continue to refine, and continue to look for better ways to develop more workable solutions for this project and at the same time. working with their client trying to pull a very difficult situation together. Ms. Deal agreed to include those comments, then added that she wanted to commend Mr. Kevin Steiner for bringing an architect to the commission meeting rather than a lawyer. She expressed her desire to see more of that and asked that these comments be added to the record of this meeting.

Mr. Morgan said that he thought this was a great project and indicated that the success of this building depended on the sensitivity of the final details such as the details intersecting the pieces on the trellis, and encouraged the applicant to be thoughtful of how those pieces come together.

• Ms. Deal amended the motion.

Ms. Deal moved to approve the project for Case No. 001-96, as presented, with the following conditions: 1) that there would only be two signs allowed on the building to identify the tenants; 2) that the two signs be installed on the pre-cast concrete paneled areas, and not on the masonry; 3) that additional information regarding the signage, such as baseline, placement, height, size, and materials, be provided for further review; 4) that the west, north, and east exterior wails be detailed to provide a visual horizontal break; .5) that the rooftop mechanical equipment be additionally screened both visually and acoustically from the neighboring properties; 6) that the applicant and architect be sensitive to the final details, such as the intersecting of the pieces for the trellis, and 7) that the final review be given by staff. further, let it show in the record that the Historic Landmark Commission has appreciated the work that the applicant and his architect has done on this project and that they have been responsive and cooperative throughout this approval process; Mr. Cooper, Ms. Deal, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams voted "Aye". Ms. Hatch was opposed. Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Damery, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.

NEW CASE

Case No, 006-96, at 681 No. West Capitol Street by Juan and Penelope Gonzalez,

Requesting to construct a new single family home.

Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major Issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Deal inquired if the request was to use stucco or an Exterior Insulated and Finish System (EIFS), and Ms. Egleston said that was EIFS and remarked that the applicant could better describe the materials. Ms. Deal expressed her opinion that it should say that I n the staff report.

The applicants, Mr. Juan and Ms. Penelope Gonzalez, were present, as well as their architect, Mr. Ralph Van Frank of Van Frank and Associates. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Gonzalez said that he wanted to clarify the fact that the structure was being referred to a duplex in the staff report. He said that he considered it a single family home with a mother-in-law apartment. Mr. Gonzalez further explained that he has no intention to have a second set of meters on the property, therefore he would not consider this structure a duplex. He noted that his mother-in-law, who is getting on in years, would be moving in with he and his wife. Mr. Gonzalez said that there was only one entrance into the house at the front, and that would either take one into the mother-in-law's space or their space, downstairs.

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

• Mr. Pett led the discussion by asking the applicant to describe the materials that would be used on this project. Mr. Gonzalez said that he was expecting to use gray colored architectural Shingles on the roof. He circulated several brochures that pictured many of the proposed materials. Mr. Gonzalez a1so displayed a sample of the casement windows that would be used, which were made from a product consisting of PBC and vinyl, and constructed on a steel frame, locally manufactured by Royal Windsor. He explained that because he was out of town a great deal and he thought it was necessary to have windows that had a secure locking system and commented that he thought this window was the very best for safety reason. Mr. Gonzalez said that same company would manufacture the proposed solarium to be placed on the south side of the house. Mr. Pett asked Mr. Van Frank to further explain the height of the elevations of the project, and to differentiate the use of the proposed materials, which included painted plywood, split-laced concrete block, a synthetic stucco system, T-111 treated siding, and glass jalousie windows for ventilation into the garage. The proposed structure and the landscaping features were more fully described by Mr. Gonzalez and his architect, Mr. Van Frank, there were other questions from the members pertaining to the placement of these proposed materials, as well as the connecting street level garage. Mr. Van Frank said that all the glass would be encased in the same pattern as the window that was exhibited; some would open and some would be fixed.

• Ms. Egleston observed that there were other homes in the neighborhood that had constructed solariums. When asked, Mr. Gonzalez described this element that would be manufactured by the same company as the windows. The discussion continued regarding the overall project and the different dimensions of the design elements.

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:

•·Mr. Sydney Draper, who resides in the adjacent home, south of the subject property, stated that he was concerned with the overall design of the project. He also expressed his satisfaction that someone was trying to do something with the property. Mr. Draper spoke of the contemporary design, with some hesitation, but concurred with the staff report that there were many contrasting styles in the neighborhood. Mr. Draper noted that he liked the site plan, and the fact that an orchard would be part of the landscaping. He suggested that the applicants let the ground settle before concrete was poured for the garage pad and driveway, otherwise it would sink and pointed out where that had happened in the neighborhood. He further expressed his concern over what he claimed would become a duplex building in the future. He stated that he understood that the property was large enough and is zoned to accommodate a duplex. Mr. Pett asked if Mr. Draper had purchased the strip of property that could have allowed another entrance onto the subject property site. Mr. Draper said that he had, which insulated his property to that possibility. In closing, he encouraged the applicant to continue to work with this commission to create an acceptable site development

Ms. Deal asked Mr. Bill Wright what would happen five years from now. if the owner wanted to premise this structure as a legal duplex. Mr. Wright said that these plans would not meet the requirements of a duplex. Ms. Williams asked why the staff report referred to this project as a duplex or a two-family dwelling. Mr. Wright stated that an earlier design of a proposed building for this property, had separate entries and kitchen facilities and was design specifically to be two separate living areas. Mr. Wright stated that although this proposed building would have two kitchens, a lot of homes have two kitchens, it would not have two separate entries. He noted that by the design, it would look like it could accommodate two separate living units but the owner would never be able to legally consider it as a duplex without providing two additional off-street parking places. He then added that the key to the term was “legal".

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

Executive Session

The discussion continued. Mr. Damery stated that this site was a very difficult lot on which to build a house. He concurred with the suggestions from Mr. Draper as to the driveway setting situation. Mr. Damery said that he liked the design of the proposed building, but thought the commission ought to take a better look at the materials, such as the T-111 siding and windows.

Mr. Cooper said that he also liked the design. although the material and details needed more review. He also said that he liked tile fact that this was not a typical infill approach for an historic district. He then referred to a past survey of the Avenues where it was discovered that the Avenues was far from being a homogeneous neighborhood, but a very heterogeneous neighborhood, with more than twenty distinct architectural styles. Mr. Cooper concluded by saying that because of the abrupt styles in the Avenues, such as Queen Annes, the bungalows, and the contemporary structures, the element that pulls the area together, is the landscaping.

Mr. Morgan said he thought that the house design was suitable and sensitive to the topography of the property site.

Ms. Williams moved for a conceptual approval of the project for Case No. 006-96, and require the applicant to meet with the Architectural Subcommittee for further review, then return to the full commission for final approval.

Mr. Cooper inquired if the motion could be amended by requiring the applicant to bring to the subcommittee four rendered elevation drawings with the materials clearly designated on the site plans, as to the intersections and joint details. and the boundaries or those materials. There was some discussion regarding some of the proposed materials, specifically the T-111 siding.

• Ms. Williams amended the motion.

Ms. Williams moved for a conceptual approval of the project for Case No. 006-96, with the following conditions: 1) that the applicant meet with the Architectural Subcommittee for further review; 2) that the applicant bring to that subcommittee meeting rendered drawings of all four elevations with the materials and details clearly defined, as well as describing the boundaries of the intersections and joint details of the materials; and 3) that the applicant return to the full commission for a final review for approval It was seconded by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Swinton were not present The motion passed.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.