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 Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Mark Wilson. Sarah Miller, Robert Payne, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Amy Rowland. Ms. Rowland announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Rowland asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
NEW MEMBER
Ms. Rowland introduced Ms. Vicki Mickelsen as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. She was welcomed by the other members and staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The approval of the minutes of the July 19, 2000 meeting was postponed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Case No. 018-00, at 336 North Quince Street, by Gary Bliss, represented by Craig Wall, architect, requesting to legalize a patio cover/carport in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that Mr. Bliss requested Historic Landmark Commission's approval to legalize a partially constructed structure north of his home that would be used as a patio cover and a carport, when necessary. Ms. Giraud noted that the Blisses currently have three cars and a two-car garage, but the lease for one car will be up in November and will not be renewed.
Ms. Giraud said that the construction of the carport has been beset with numerous zoning issues and has caused dismay in the neighborhood. She pointed out that work was started on the carport without a building permit and an inspector stopped construction on January 18, 2000. Ms. Giraud stated that when Mr. Bliss tried to obtain a permit, he was told that he would need a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Landmark Commission. She added that staff of the Historic Landmark Commission issued the Certificate of Appropriateness on January 26, 2000 and Mr. Bliss obtained his permit. Ms. Giraud said that when the permits' staff realized that the carport did not meet the required side yard setback, the permit was voided on February 14, 2000. She also indicated that the permits' staff noticed that the retaining wall was not indicated on the original plans for the house, and furthermore that the grade had been changed in excess of two feet in a required yard area. She added that the house was constructed in 1997-1998, but the inspector for the Certificate of Occupancy had overlooked this grade change, so Mr. Bliss also needs to legalize the grade change through the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Bliss has tried to mitigate the effect of the carport by lowering the roof from 8'10" to 6'10", using wide, double posts (6" x 6"), and detailing the space between the posts with balusters. She noted that unlike the illustration attached to the staff report, the carport must be attached to the house in order for him to meet the setback requirements of 10 feet. Mr. Bliss believed that the 10 feet could be met by taking 4 feet off the south end of the carport, which would detach it from the house, but this would still leave only a 6-foot setback which does not meet the requirement of the zoning ordinance, as stated in Section 21A.40.050.
Ms. Giraud pointed out the comments and suggestions made by the Architectural Subcommittee at two separate meetings, which were included in the staff report. She stated that after the subcommittee reviewed the plans showing the carport as a "stand alone structure", the members of the Architectural Subcommittee stated that they would forward a positive recommendation to the full Commission.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(H), H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which were included in the staff report.
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Summary of staff's discussion: The surrounding structures are single-family houses and small-scale multiple-family residences. There are few, if any, accessory structures that are visible from Quince Street, and a carport cover or gazebo would be an introduction of a new form in this part of the Capitol Hill Historic District. The height of the proposed carport has been reduced from the existing structure, and would not be out of character in this regard with the surrounding buildings. Attaching the carport would widen the frontage of the house by about 13 feet; however the carport is pushed back behind the front wall plane of the house by about 20 feet, providing a substantial reveal that reduces its effect on the streetscape. The side-gable roof shape can be found on several houses in this vicinity. In terms of the scale, by reducing the height by 2 feet and the width by 4 feet, the applicant has made an effort to address the concern of the subcommittee member who described the scale of the buildings on the street as "miniature".
Staff's finding of fact: The application meets this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Summary of staff's discussion: Because this is a carport, the proportion of openings, the rhythm of solids to voids in the facade and the rhythm of entrance porches and other projections does not have the same applicability in this situation as it would in the construction of a residential structure. The staff finds, however, that by building an extra pair of posts and a short railing that the effect of the large, open quality of the carport has been softened.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Summary of staff’s discussion: Quince Street is characterized by small homes with minimal setbacks, including the front yard area, by the narrowness of the street itself and by unique landscape elements, such as rock walls. Staff finds that by lowering the height, reducing the width, and adding the details requested by the Architectural Subcommittee, the carport meets the requirement of forming continuity along the street and is as compatible as a carport can be in terms of ensuring visual compatibility with the structures, public ways, and places to which it is visually related. Again, one does not see carports in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Staffs finding of fact: The application meets this standard.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Commission review the plans at this meeting and make a decision. Staff also recommends that if there is any confusion about the appropriateness of finishing the carport, that Mr. Bliss be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for final review."
Mr. Craig Wall, architect for the applicant, was present. He stated that Mr. Bliss was out of town and could not be at this meeting. Mr. Wall said that he got involved about three months after the project was started. Mr. Wall said that the Applicant said that he would complete the appropriate detailing as was suggested by the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Wall added that the applicant had expressed his cooperativeness.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Wilson led the discussion by inquiring if the issue of the differential of the elevation at the property line was resolved. Ms. Giraud said that she believed that it had been, however it has not been legally surveyed.
• Mr. Christensen commented about some revised drawings that were to be submitted. Ms. Giraud said that she mistakenly did not remove that from her updated staff report. Mr. Christensen inquired about the use of the new structure. Mr. Wall said that the applicant would use the structure as a patio and occasionally use it for a carport, even though he already has a two-car garage.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired how much space is between the retaining wall and the actual structure. Mr. Wall said that there was 4 feet between the retaining wall and the structure. He added that the trusses could not be physically attached to the house but it visually appears that it is attached; no one would know the difference.
• Ms. Rowland commented about the existing garage being unusable. Ms. Giraud said that it was a tight turn to get into the garage that made it difficult to get vehicles in and out of the garage.
• Mr. Simonsen asked Mr. Wall, as the architect, if he had been involved with the administration of the construction. Mr. Wall said that he had not and that it had been up to the applicant to follow through with the proposal. Mr. Simonsen referred to a letter written by Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who is a member of the Capitol Hill Community Council voicing concern that the house was not constructed according to the plans that had been approved. Mr. Simonsen asked Mr. Wall about what guarantees he could give the Commission that the carport would be constructed according to any approved plans. Mr. Wall said that he could not enforce the applicant to comply, however there is an enforcement system in the City that could do so. Ms. Giraud mentioned that usually the system worked well but in this instance, the Certificate of Occupancy was issued before the plans had been examined for compliancy.
• Mr. Parvaz, inquired about the roofline on the north elevation drawings. Mr. Wall said that the roofline needed to be kept below the window. He explained that the roofline would not be viewed from the public way.
Ms. Rowland opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Cary Jones, who resides at 333 No. Quince Street, stated that he lives directly across the street from "this monstrosity". He said that Mr. Bliss' proposal started out as a two-lot subdivision in 1995, which was denied, so the applicant submitted plans in 1996 for the residence, which were approved. Mr. Jones pointed out the differences in the approved plans and the structure that was constructed. He also talked about the retaining wall that was constructed which appears like the applicant was still going to try to subdivide the property. Mr. Jones also said he was apprehensive about the applicant parking recreational vehicles and construction equipment in the carport like he has in the driveway. Mr. Jones also expressed his concerns about the fairness of other neighbors having to go through the lengthy process of complying with City regulations and the applicant being allowed to bypass those regulations. Mr. Jones said that he recognized that the Historic Landmark Commission did not have enforcement power. However, he suggested that the Commission use the carport approval as a leverage to bring the applicant into compliance, such as using double-hung windows on the front elevation, painting all wood surfaces, landscaping the rear yard, among other such details. Mr. Jones said that the approved plans did not call for unpainted aluminum screens in front of the house, nor did they call for the design of the light fixture and vent that had been installed on the front elevation. He also stated that the applicant should be forced to store the recreational vehicles and construction equipment somewhere else.
Mr. Joe Pitti, who resides at 325 North Quince Street, stated that he also lives across the street from the Bliss property. Mr. Pitti said that he had been living in his house, which had been built in 1878, since 1986, and had spent a lot of time and money investing in the restoration of his home. He also talked about the new structure not meeting the standards of the approved plans for the Bliss property. Mr. Pitti said that the vent on the front elevation was "very offensive" to him and would not have been allowed on his home. He said that he concurred with everything Mr. Jones said and added that he believed the existing garage was being used as a kennel rather than for parking. Mr. Pitti stated that it was important to the neighborhood to have off-street parking but he did not approve of the carport.
Ms. Polly Hart, who resides at 355 North Quince Street, stated that she wanted to focus on the fact that the carport has been built on a lot with an illegal grade change and Mr. Bliss needs to obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment like others have for the grading of the lot. Ms. Hart said that she believed that the Historic Landmark Commission should not be reviewing this legalization request until the Board of Adjustment has acted. She said, "I'm not sure why you are looking at approving a design that is on an illegal piece of ground l think it is inappropriate that you are even considering this today."
Ms. Giraud read a letter from Marie Dalgleish, who resides at 135 West Apricot Avenue, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud stated that Ms. Dalgleish could not attend the meeting but wanted to communicate her distrust toward the applicant. Ms. Giraud said that Ms. Dalgleish stated that the applicant had damaged her property by using her driveway when she was not at home. Ms. Giraud quoted from the letter, saying, "Having discovered damage to my driveway and carport, I stayed home from school one day and discovered he was using my alley fully for passage of trucks materials and waiting until I had left and for the trucks to use my right-of-way. Several times this was observed and photographed. Neighbors recorded the patterns as well. In addition, Mr. Bliss has sought to bribe me with offers of money to obtain right-of-way." Ms. Giraud stated that Ms. Dalgleish urged the Historic Landmark Commission not to compromise with such a lack of integrity as Mr. Bliss has manifested.
• Ms. Giraud also indicated that a copy of a letter from Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who is a trustee in the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, accompanied the staff report. Ms. Giraud said that Ms. Mangold was not able to attend this meeting but wanted to express her concerns regarding the Bliss property. The following is a small portion of her letter: "Aside from aesthetic considerations, a point of major concern for the neighborhood is that with this carport, in conjunction with the retaining walls (also not part of the approved plans), Mr. Bliss effectively cuts off his access to the back portion of his property. This makes it unlikely that any landscaping will take place, as well as making it difficult for minimal maintenance such as weed removal, or for fire department access."
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Rowland closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich commented that the applicant appeared to do what he wanted and then asked for forgiveness afterwards. She stated that the subcommittee members seemed to be aware of the differences between the submitted proposal and the actual structure, but were not aware of the change of grade. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the legalization of the grade change issue would have been resolved prior to the Commission's review.
Ms. Giraud said that the grade change was discovered when the applicant tried to obtain a building permit. She said that staff discussed this issue to try to determine which approval should be sought first: Board of Adjustment or Historic Landmark Commission. She talked about prior cases. Ms. Giraud stated that staff believed that the design of the carport was under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission regardless of whether or not the applicant obtains a variance.
Mr. Christensen said that if Mr. Bliss is a licensed contractor working in the city, he would know the City's rules and regulations. Ms. Giraud agreed and said that he had worked in historic districts before.
Mr. Simonsen asked what the ordinance requires for a detached garage and if multiple accessory buildings could be allowed for the same use. Mr. Paterson said a detached garage has to be set back at least 4 feet behind the rear of the house and that there are no restrictions on separate garages.
Mr. Wilson said that he believed the neighbor's approach would be well spent to put pressure on the administration of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division to enforce on the applicant to rectify the details that were not completed in the original plan.
Mr. Parvaz said that a formal complaint had not been filed and he considered having the project return to the Architectural Subcommittee to have the members go on a fact finding field trip.
Mr. Paterson said that in the past, it has been difficult to coordinate with the building inspectors before they have issued a Certificate of Occupancy. He said that the new Planning Director, Stephen Goldsmith, committed to working with the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division on improving that relationship.
Mr. Paterson said if the Historic Landmark Commission does not grant approval of this legalization request, the applicant would have built the carport in violation and the City could force the applicant to take it down. Ms. Giraud said that more than likely the enforcement would include fines and/or a lien on the property.
The discussion focused around the question of whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission had the power to force the applicant to comply with the earlier approval by way of a motion for the legalization of the carport issue.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission conditionally approve Case No. 018-00 with the following stipulations: 1) that the Architectural Subcommittee review with staff all the unfinished details or changes for the existing residential structure to ensure what was approved by a previous Historic Landmark Commission is included in the stipulations of this approval; 2) that the original work, that was approved by the previous Historic Landmark Commission be completed on the residence to which the subject carport is attached; 3) that the grade change is approved by the Board of Adjustment; 4) that the carport project be completed, as detailed, based on the findings of fact that was included in the staff report, and that the carport meets the requirement of the ordinance for approval. It was seconded by Mr. Parvaz. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Wilson were opposed. Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Rowland, as acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 021-00, at 464 South 600 East, by East Downtown, LLC, represented by Carrie Fugett, requesting to demolish the "Bill and Nada McHenry House" which has been determined to be a contributing structure in the Central City Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that East Downtown, L.L.C., represented by Ms. Carrie Fugett, submitted an application to demolish what is known as the "McHenry House" in order to construct a new commercial building on this corner. He pointed out that the house is located in the Central City Historic District, on the block occupied by Fred Meyer, Blockbuster Video, Men's Wearhouse, La Salsa, Wendy's, and Baskin Robbins Ice Cream.
Mr. Knight said that this is the last remaining historic building on this block of Central City. He said that at the time the Central City Historic District was created in 1991, this was one of seven historic buildings on the block. He added that nine out-of-period structures were also on the block. Mr. Knight stated that in 1994, Hermes Associates, Ltd., petitioned the City to demolish thirteen buildings on the block and to construct the existing "Family Center at East Downtown", which includes Fred Meyer, La Salsa, Men's Wearhouse on this block, and Barnes & Noble, Old Navy, Staples, and Chili's on the block just east.
Mr. Knight continued by saying that the Historic Landmark Commission considered the proposed demolitions in April and May of 1994. He said that the ordinance, at that time, allowed the Historic Landmark Commission to only delay demolitions for up to six months, after which the demolition could proceed. Mr. Knight indicated that after it was apparent that Hermes would take this course of action, the Historic Landmark Commission allowed the demolitions and new construction to proceed.
Mr. Knight mentioned that the "McHenry House" was originally slated for demolition, but the owners, Bill and Ellen McHenry, were reluctant to leave their long-time home and Hermes was able to purchase a "right of first refusal" on the property, and constructed the new buildings around the house. Mr. Knight said that the developers built a tall masonry wall to buffer the house from the adjacent shopping activity.
• Mr. Knight reported that the building was removed from the demolition application, although the Historic Landmark Commission staff report stated, "The residential structure at 464 South 600 East will remain as an interim use until a later date when the applicant will return to the Historical Landmark Committee to request approval for its demolition. There is no intention to incorporate this last residence into the project permanently."
Mr. Knight said that Mr. McHenry died on August 4, 1999 and Mrs. McHenry passed away three weeks later. He noted that "Bill and Nada's Cafe" closed on December 22, 1999. Mr. Knight said that East Downtown, L.L.C., the successor owners to Hermes, subsequently purchased the house from the McHenry estate.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this property at its July 19, 2000 meeting to determine if the house should be considered a contributing or non-contributing structure in the historic district. He said that the Commission found that the property was indeed contributing, and passed the following motion on a 3-1 vote: "Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 019-00 that the Historic Landmark Commission found that the "Bill and Nada McHenry House" at 464 S. 600 East was a contributing structure, based on the staff's findings of fact, included with the staff report. In addition, the Historic Landmark Commission found that the relationship to the historic structure's setting was also significant. It was seconded by Mr. Christensen. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland voted "Aye." Mr. Wilson was opposed. Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Young, as acting chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed."
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(L) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure, which requires the Historic Landmark Commission to base a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness on seven criteria when considering the application. He stated the following: "If six of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall approve the request for demolition. If two or less of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the request. If the Historic Landmark Commission makes findings that between three to five of the standards are met, the Commission can defer a decision for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The one-year 'clock' begins only when the bona fide effort has started."
Mr. Knight said that Section 21A.34.010(M) lists four actions that define bona fide:
1. Marketing the properly for sale or lease;
2. Filing an application for alternative funding sources for preservation, such as federal or state preservation tax credits, Utah Heritage Revolving Fund loans, redevelopment agency loans, etc.;
3. Filing an application for alternative uses if available or feasible, such as conditional uses, special exceptions, etc.; and
4. Obtaining written statements from licensed building contractors or architects detailing the actual costs to rehabilitate the property.
Mr. Christensen inquired who the ultimate judge would be of a bona fide effort. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission would be the judge and evidence would have to be provided if the Commission made that request.
Mr. Knight referred to the six standards listed below in Section 21A.34.020(L). He said that the seventh standard concerns economic hardship, which involves a separate process in which a committee of three people is chosen to determine if denying a demolition request would entail economic hardship:
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The Historic Landmark Commission found at its August 8, 2000 meeting that the physical integrity of this structure is intact. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staffs discussion: The streetscape on the 400-500 South block of 600 East consists of non-historic, commercial structures, with the exception of the subject property and the former "Bill and Nada's Cafe" across the street. While the Commission found that the house contributes to the overall character of the district, with the exception of the building across 600 East, the landscape median, and the mature trees along the parking strip, the present streetscape is devoid of any remaining historic structures. In addition, the scale and form of the surrounding structures are not in keeping with the historic character of the district.
Staffs finding of fact: The removal of the remaining historic buildings in this part of the historic district would not negatively affect the streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures.
Staffs discussion: The McHenry House is the last remaining contributing building on this block of the historic district, and it is surrounded by non-contributing structures, with the exception of the Bill and Nada's Cafe building across 600 East. In a similar way to standard b, above, while the house individually contributes to the overall character of the Central City District, as the only remaining historic structure on this block, and one of two remaining historic structures on the two blocks facing 6th East, the McHenry house is overwhelmed by modern encroachment.
Staffs finding of fact: The McHenry house is in the midst of noncontributing structures; its demolition would not have an adverse effect the H historic preservation overlay district. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with reuse of the structure.
Staffs discussion: The property is zoned Community Shopping (CS). The zone allows a range of commercial uses, including office and retail uses. Residential uses are only allowed above the first story of the building in which the first floor is used for a commercial use. Any new use, new construction, or addition increasing the size of a building by 25% requires planned development review by the Planning Commission and must meet the city's parking requirements. Given the fact, however, that the purpose of the CS zone is to allow for a shopping center at a community-level scale, this building would not lend itself to a use envisioned for this zone. The property also does not meet the minimum requirements for lot area (this lot is approximately 6,000 square feet the minimum lot area is 60,000 square feet, excluding shopping center pad sites) and lot width (40 feet- 150 feet is required).
Staffs finding of fact: Although a commercial reuse is allowed under the base CS zone, the property is non-complying for this zone, and thus, the base zoning is not compatible with re-use of this structure. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staff's discussion: Staff was only given a schematic site plan and elevation; a complete reuse plan has not been submitted to staff. Staff put this item on the agenda without a complete set of plans under the assumption that if the demolition was approved and the applicant could not produce reuse plans, the applicant had the right to submit her application and landscaping would be the reuse plan.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(f). The site has suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retrain tenants; and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staff's discussion: The house was occupied until the McHenrys passed away in late 1999. East Downtown subsequently purchased the property and has maintained the building, although the house remains vacant. The house has not been boarded in order to avoid attracting the attention of vandals. Ms. Fugett has been working with the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development to keep the building secure and unoccupied by unauthorized people. They have had some issues with people breaking in. The house has been kept overall in pretty good condition.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant has not willfully neglected the building, and thus meets this standard.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "The staff finds that the application meets four of the seven standards for demolition. Staff proposes two options for the Historic Landmark Commission to consider:
1. Recommend that consideration of the demolition application be postponed in order to allow the applicant to pursue the economic hardship process.
2. Recommend that the Commission defer a decision on the demolition for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, it must be noted that the applicant would still have the right to pursue the economic hardship process."
There was much discussion regarding the criteria in the ordinance and other details of the case.
Mr. Knight said that the Central City Community Council had organized a subcommittee that is willing to work with East Downtown to try and find some alternate use for the house.
Ms. Carrie Fugett, representing her brother who was the C.E.O. of East Downtown L.L.C., the applicant, was present. Ms. Fugett explained that the applicant was sensitive to the needs of Bill and Nada McHenry and Ms. Fugett's brother told them they did not have to move and that he would accommodate their needs. He told the McHenry's that when they did not want to live there anymore, he would incorporate the property into the Family Center. She said that the applicant now wants to demolish the house so the Family Center block could be complete.
Ms. Fugett said that the house was too small to be economically feasible to convert it to retail space and that there would not be adequate parking. She said that there were 1,200 square feet on the main floor and 800 square feet on the upper floor. Ms. Fugett talked about some of the inquiries that she had received since the house had been placed on the real estate market. She said that national tenants have to sign an inclusion clause so there would not be direct competition close by.
Ms. Fugett circulated more detailed drawings of the reuse plan for the McHenry property to the members of the Commission and staff, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She believed that if the house was removed, the proposed building would "fit in with the rest of the family center". Ms. Fugett said that there would be 34,000 square feet on the main floor and the same square footage on the second floor. She said that some features of the building would match the Fred Meyer Building and the buildings at Trolley Square. Ms. Fugett said that her brother would not want to do anything that would detract from the other buildings on the block; it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Ms. Fugett reminded the Commission that if it had not been for the perseverance of her brother, the people living in the neighborhood would not have the convenience of having a grocery store, video store, book store, clothing store, or restaurant close by.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring more about the reuse plan. He asked if the applicant had an interested tenant for the proposed new building, if the house was demolished. Ms. Fugett said that there were two prospective tenants who were interested but could not divulge their names. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the retaining wall would be torn down. She said that behind the retaining was about a 20-foot drop to the trucking docks. Ms. Fugett talked about leveling all that property, if the applicant is allowed to construct the new building. She referred once again to the site drawings that were submitted at this meeting.
• Ms. Giraud said that there is several very nice trees on the property and on the parking strip and asked what would happen to those if the proposed building was constructed. Ms. Fugett said that they would be incorporated into the landscaping.
• Mr. Christensen pointed out that there was a large garage that could be taken down and an area in the rear of the house that could accommodate the parking.
Ms. Fugett said that she believed there still would not be enough parking. There was some discussion how the parking configuration could be situated to accommodate the maximum parking spaces.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said she believed that there would be adequate parking and enough square footage to provide retail space in the existing building. Ms. Fugett again talked about the parking issue and the cost per square foot that the applicant would have to have to make the building economically viable. She further described the proposed new building that the applicant would like to construct. There was further discussion regarding the cost of tenant space in an old building versus a new structure.
• Mr. Christensen said that at the last meeting on July 19, 2000, Ms. Fugett stated that her brother was interested in the goodwill of the neighborhood, but the people are interested in saving the structure. Mr. Christensen wanted to know what kind of impact that had on the applicant. Ms. Fugett said that she would pass those thoughts on to her brother. She talked further about the property by saying that she did not think the "McHenry House" was as attractive as many homes in the Avenues. Ms. Fugett again said that she believed the property should be incorporated into the Family Center because it no longer fits into the neighborhood. Mr. Christensen said that "the house no longer fits into the context of the neighborhood because your brother tore all the other historic structures down " He said that saving the house would be a nice thing to do in the memory of Bill McHenry, since there was an "overwhelming interest in saving it, based on the public comment". Mr. Parvaz said that some people believe that because the "McHenry House" has the past history that it has, it should be saved. Ms. Fugett talked about the historical buildings in the downtown area such as the "Lion House" and "Beehive House" and said that those should be saved because they were so beautiful and the setting was so well maintained. She said that the applicant maintains the "McHenry House" property.
Ms. Rowland opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Shawn Gamangasso, stated that she is Bill McHenry's granddaughter. She explained how the house was divided into three apartments when her grandfather purchased it. Ms. Gamangasso said she believed that the parking issue was just an excuse to tear the house down. She said that the house should not be demolished.
• Ms. Lois Brown, who resides 756 South Roberta Street, talked about all the work and effort that went into compiling a "hand book" about all the historic districts in Salt Lake City. She said that she was involved when the Central City Community Council voted to include their neighborhood into an historic district. Ms. Brown said that community council members were concerned about preserving the residential areas that were still in existence at that time. She said that it was known that not all the houses in the area were "noteworthy historic district buildings". Ms. Brown indicated that all the historic buildings could be worthy of keeping and preserving in the area. She talked about the change in the zoning and the commercial invasion in the district. Ms. Brown pointed out that there were many houses in the neighborhood that were allowed to deteriorate and be demolished, but it was not because there was no need for homes in the area. She said that Hermes was a good example of this. Ms. Brown said that Hermes was able to get the development through the City process and Fred Meyer was built. She inquired about the Housing Mitigation Trust fund and said she had not been able to get her question answered about the particulars of that fund and how the money was used. Ms. Brown stated, "I do not know why we should, once again, reward the people who are asking for the demolition for a situation they have created. I recommend that the home not be destroyed and an appropriate use is determined for it. It is still in good condition and could still be used. I would recommend that we look at alternative plans that could be brought forward".
Ms. Valerie Price, who resides in the area, stated that she is on the Central City Community Council's subcommittee for the "Me Henry House", along with Matt Wolverton, who is out of town and could not attend. She remarked how exuberant the subcommittee was when the Historic Landmark Commission determined that the house was a contributing structure. Ms. Price talked about the historical significance of the house and how people know where the house is without having to give an address. She addressed the loss of historic homes in the area and the encroachment of commercial properties. Ms. Price said that she believed the house could be converted into retail, such as galleries or boutiques, or office space like several historic homes have in the district. Ms. Price said that she believed it was important to preserve the "McHenry House" because it lent a feeling to the neighborhood rather than bringing in more "suburban sprawl". Ms. Price stated that mixing commercial properties and old residential homes gives Central City such a diversity. She concluded by saying that she believed that the streetscape would be negatively impacted if the house is torn down. Ms. Price added that the district needed more green space and not more asphalt.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides in the East Center Community that is adjacent to this area, stated that she had followed and anticipated the demolition of the "Me Henry House" since the inception of the petitions for the Fred Meyer Store. She criticized the City for changing the zoning from residential to commercial on the subject block. Ms. Cromer said that the City Planners called for more medium and moderate density housing along the light rail corridor. She talked about how "foolish" the City was because of the creation of an automobile-oriented development on the proposed light rail line. Ms. Cromer talked about the urgency of the City addressing the loopholes in the economic hardship language. She discussed the Central Community Master Plan and expressed her concerns about the erosion of the median on 600 East between 400 and 500 South. She mentioned that curb cuts were allowed for the Fred Meyer property. She believes that the median will disappear. Ms. Cromer said that those medians were one of the bases for initiating the Central City Historic District. Ms. Cromer said that the "McHenry House" should not be destroyed.
• Mr. Wally Wright, who owns property in the area, stated that he has been involved with historic preservation in the neighborhood for 31 years and will continue to be. He said that his office is in an historic building in an historic district. Mr. Wright said that he created Trolley Square. He said that the "McHenry House" has no particular qualities and the fact that it sits isolated and alone does not contribute anything to the neighborhood; in fact it detracts from the neighborhood. He said, "I think we need to pick our battles and I think this is one that we ought to drop. I hear a lot of the people still wanting to flog the Fred Meyer project by using this as the stick. The Fred Meyer project is a good project and it serves the neighborhood well." Mr. Wright spoke of the various preservation boards and committees on which he has served. He continued by saying, "This is not the type of battle we should be fighting. Give it up and let's get on to some better things. Let it go and let's use our energies to really do some historic preservation."
• Mr. Ed Sperry, who owns a house at 345 Moffit Court, stated that his house is the last remaining home in downtown Salt Lake City. He said that it is dead center in the middle of a parking lot and is the same vernacular and style as the subject home on 600 East. Mr. Sperry talked about difficulty in restoring the home, because it had not been occupied for many years. He said that after the restoration, it was used as residential and then offices. Mr. Sperry commented that the house generated a great deal of interest. He stated, "I have to agree somewhat with Mr. Wright's statement that the home on 600 East is incongruous but it is a wonderful incongruity. It is viable to rehab and make into offices or some sort of small retail similar to the three cottages on 700 East [at 600 South]."
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Rowland closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the criteria in the demolition portion of the zoning ordinance. The staff’s findings of fact were also addressed. Mr. Knight indicated that he struggled with some of the findings and gave the Commission an option of developing other findings of fact.
There were many opinions and circumstances expressed in other matters relating to this case by members of the Commission, such as: 1) East Downtown L.L.C. has no interest in preserving the house; 2) the house could be preserved and used as retail or office space; 3) the house, in its current location, was not compatible for residential use; 4) a conditional use would be required if the house is used for anything other than residential; 5) denying the application for demolition, could push the applicant into economic hardship; and 6) changing the language in the Economic Hardship Ordinance needs to be pursued, because the language as it currently exists, it always beneficial to the applicant.
Ms. Giraud said that economic hardship has to be part of the ordinance because if it was not included, property owners could claim that there would be a takings" of their property by the City.
Mr. Paterson read the definition and determination of economic hardship as outlined in the ordinance. "The determination of economic hardship shall require the applicant to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the application of the standards and regulations of this section deprives the applicant of all reasonable economic use or return on the subject property." He said that it is the rate of reasonable return that has been the most contradictory.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved, for Case No. 021-00, that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the staff's findings of fact for subsection 1(a), 1(c), 1(e), and 1(f) of Section 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission rejects the staff's findings of fact for subsection 1(b) based on the fact that the demolition of the "McHenry House" would adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District because the house continues to be an historic structure with historical context; and subsection 1 (d) because the base zoning of the site can be compatible with a reuse of the structure for commercial shopping purposes. He further moved to find that only two of the seven standards had been met by the applicant. Therefore, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission denies the application for demolition of the residential structure at 464 South 600 East known as the "Bill and Nada McHenry House". It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen voted "Aye". Mr. Wilson was opposed. Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Rowland, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 022-00. at 55 No. Virginia Street, by Richard and Sondra Cannaday, represented by Lars Hjalmquist of Champion Windows, Siding, and Sunrooms, requesting to construct a sunroom addition in the rear yard in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that Mr. and Mrs. Cannaday are requesting approval to construct a vinyl sunroom attached to their Tudor Revival home. She noted that the sunroom would be constructed and installed by Champion. Ms. Giraud said that property is zoned SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes, and bulk characteristics. She added that according to the Structure/Site Information Form, the house was constructed in 1926.
Ms. Giraud circulated an additional site drawing that was not included in the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud stated that the proposed sunroom would measure 15 feet x 15 feet and would have a shed roof. She said that the sunroom would be 13 feet high at its attachment to the house and the lowest end would be 9 feet high. Ms. Giraud indicated that the proposal would be attached at the southwest corner of the house. She pointed out that the house is located on the northwest corner of Virginia Street and First Avenue and the sunroom would be visible from First Avenue, although it would be partially screened by a concrete block wall that encloses the side and rear yards.
Ms. Giraud spoke of the previous requests for vinyl sunrooms that were reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, which were outlined in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Zoning ordinance and stated that staff found that two of the standards outlined in subsection (G), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of Landmark Site or Contributing Structures in a H Historic Preservation Overlay District, applied to this request.
G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
Staff's discussion: Although details illustrating the attachment of the proposed sunroom to the house have not been provided, the attachment to the house will most likely not cause irreparable damage to the building. The proposed size, about 225 square feet, is not excessively large and certainly will not overwhelm the house. Staff has an issue, however, with the potentially adverse effect on this fine example of a Tudor Revival home owing to the material and character of the proposed sunroom. The Historic Landmark Commission has been very firm in not approving vinyl-sided additions for contributing structures, determining that synthetic products for wall materials were not historically used and would be out of character with the historic materials of the structure.
Regarding character, the size of the sunroom is larger than many of the frame, utility appendages seen on the rear elevations of historic, contributing buildings in the Avenues. The proposed design differs in materials, as discussed in the above paragraph, and also in the fenestration pattern, including the ratio of solid to voids; the roofline and the massing from both the rear additions commonly found on historic homes in the Avenues and from the house itself. The walls of the proposed addition consist almost completely of glazing, as opposed to windows that sit on a waist-high wall usually seen on additions. Although most of the historic rear additions in the Avenues have a shed roof profile, because the proposed addition is blockier than these older utility rooms the proportion differs markedly, again both from the house and what was historically used.
Staff's findings of fact: The application does not meet this standard, as it is not compatible with the property, neighborhood or environment in terms of material and character. Vinyl has not been approved for additions to contributing buildings and the ratio of solids and voids is substantially different than those seen in rear appendages of the historic period. The relationship of the roof shape to the size of the building is also out of character to rear additions traditionally seen in the Avenues. Staff found that the applicant does not meet these standards.
These findings are supported by two standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City: (8.8) Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition; and (8.10) Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
Staff's discussion: If the sunroom were to be removed in the future, the essential from and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The proposed sunroom is different from the original form of the house. Staff finds, however, that the proposed sunroom does not respect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The reasons are discussed under item 8, above.
Staff's finding of fact: In addition to the above citations from the ordinance, staff finds that the application contradicts the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document (February1, 1984), Section 4. This document states that the use of artificial materials shall not be approved unless it is proven necessary for the preservation of the building. Vinyl is an example of an artificial material, and thus is prohibited this policy.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Because of the strong precedence against the use of vinyl windows and vinyl siding and because the proposal is not in accordance with either the zoning ordinance or the 1984 Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document that prohibits the use of artificial materials, staff recommends denial of the application.
Mr. Richard and Ms. Sondra Cannaday, the applicants, were present, as well as their representative, Mr. Lars Hjalmquist of Champion Windows. Mr. Hjalmquist stated that patio rooms or sunrooms, were originally called conservatories and were constructed of glass with either wood or metal framing.
Mr. Hjalmquist said that the applicant was not opposed to modifying the materials for the proposal. However, he said that structural aluminum or steel was necessary in the framing due to the weight of snow loads. He also said that the applicant was not opposed to pre-designing the proposed structure in order to comply with historic district requirements. Mr. Hjalmquist said that setting a double-hung window on a knee wall approximately waist high, would be taking away the concept of "sunroom" and thus creating more of an addition. He indicated that there were other optional roof styles available.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by inquiring about the products that Champion manufacturers. Mr. Hjalmquist said that Champion mainly manufactures replacement windows, enclosures, patio rooms, rain gutters, and entry doors. Mr. Hjalmquist said that the Champion manufactures the only framing that has a baked enamel finish. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she thought that the material specified in the original proposal was vinyl. Mr. Hjalmquist said that was an error because Champion does not manufacture vinyl-coated aluminum due to the fact that vinyl expands at a different rate than aluminum. He said that wood could also be used and could be bronzed the same color. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if Champion manufacturers wood windows and Mr. Hjalmquist said that Champion only manufactured most styles of vinyl windows.
• Mr. Wilson inquired if the windows provide an option of divided light. Mr. Hjalmquist said that the dividers are inset pieces for cleaning purposes.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the roof and the roofing material. Mr. Hjalmquist said that was still to be determined. He said that he would like to use a polystyrene aluminum roof with asphalt shingles to match the house. There was some discussion about the design of the sunroom. Mr. Hjalmquist said that he could construct an addition similar to a Tudor-style with a white panel and dark bronze or brown. He said that the applicant did not want a permanent addition to the house.
• Mr. Christensen asked more about the panels. Mr. Hjalmquist explained that the panels could be placed almost anywhere in the design. He said he thought Mr. Cannaday would allow him to go back to the drawing board with the staff input and come up with a design and materials that might be more favorable. Mr. Hjalmquist said that he needed more education about the limitations of working in historic districts. He said that he had declined projects in historic districts. Mr. Hjalmquist said that this proposal was opening the door for his company. Mr. Christensen inquired about the access to the sunroom. Mr. Hjalmquist said that it would be through the double door. Mr. Christensen asked about the sealing material that would be used where the sunroom would be attached to the house. Mr. Hjalmquist said that he uses a clear silicone material that does not affect the glaze of the bricks. He said that there should be very little damage if it were ever removed. Mr. Hjalmquist explained how the lag bolts would be installed.
• Ms. Rowland inquired about the roof slope. Mr. Hjalmquist said that the proposed attachment would be a 13-foot mounting height sloping to 9 feet that should give a significant slope. He said that he has only seen photographs of the rear of the house, so in the finalization of the plans, that could change.
Mr. Cannaday said that he and his wife were retired schoolteachers and had discussed the possibility of building a sunroom for a long time. He said that they could not travel as much as they would like and they thought that would be one way to enjoy the sun. Mr. Cannaday said that they did not want to start something they could not finish if it became too expensive. He said that the yard had mature landscaping and a fence that would screen the sunroom from the street.
Ms. Rowland opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Rowland closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Christensen said that it seemed as if the owner was willing to make changes to the basic design, the rear fastening, and other details. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked if the Commission should consider this proposal as an addition or a sunroom. Ms. Giraud said that it has always been the matter of materials and the design that would cause it to be called a sunroom or an addition. Mr. Mickelsen said that the plans were not clearly defined. Mr. Wilson agreed that the drawings did not support how the proposal was described. Mr. Parvaz said we could deny the case and ask the applicant to bring a new proposal to review.
Since it was necessary to ask some additional questions of the applicant, the Commission unanimously approved reopening this portion of the meeting. Ms. Rowland reopened the meeting.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked the applicant if more detailed drawings could be provided to the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Hjalmquist said that could be possible and reminded that Commission that the submitted drawings were his initial attempt. He said that after reading the staff report, there would have to be modifications. Mr. Hjalmquist said that they would be willing to resubmit something that would be more in line with the character of the historic district
Mr. Rowland reclosed this portion of the meeting.
There was some discussion about the wording of a motion. Ms. Giraud said that if the Commission denied the application, the applicant would have to pay an additional fee to submit a new application. She suggested tabling the application and pointing out the various elements and materials that did not meet the standards of the historic district.
Motion:
Mr. Parvaz moved to table Case No. 022-00 based on the findings of fact included in the staff report and asked the applicant to resubmit alternate proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee, that would include revisions regarding general materials, the massing, the proportions, roof design, and other details. The revised proposal would be forwarded to the full Commission for final approval. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Rowland, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 023-00, at 648 East Ely Place, by Michael Malouf, represented by Joe Lorenzo of J.A.L. Architects, requesting to construct a new two-family dwelling on an existing vacant lot in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project, which showed the relationship of the proposed dwelling to the streetscape.
Ms. Giraud stated that the applicant was requesting approval of the design of a new two-family dwelling of approximately 3,840 square feet. She said that each level of the home would be approximately 1,920 square feet. Ms. Giraud reported that the purpose of the current zoning of this lot, which is SR-3: Special Development Pattern Residential District, is to "provide lot, bulk, and use regulations in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks." She indicated that this was a big step forward in the Zoning Rewrite in 1995 because so many of these interior blocks were zoned in such a way that a much wider lot was required making many of these homes and lots nonconforming and that encouraged deterioration and discouraged any kind of reinvestment.
Ms. Giraud said that there was once a small one-story rectangular structure on this block and located in the middle of the lot, which created larger setbacks than other buildings had on Ely Place. She pointed out that Ely Place is noted as "Ely Court" on the maps. Ms. Giraud talked about the requirements of SR-3 Zoning for this parcel. She stated that are some very nice homes adjacent to this property on Ely Place. However, she added that many of the buildings have been demolished.
Ms. Giraud reported that the proposed structure would have a first-story bay window in the 'front facade and a first-story bay window and a one-story full width porch. She said that the predominant exterior material would be Hardiboard shingles on the second story; the architect is proposing to use vinyl, one-over-one windows; and that a decorative, semi-circular element is proposed for the gable end. Ms. Giraud noted that details on the fascia and porch elements have not been submitted.
Ms. Giraud stated that the proposed three-car garage would be tucked under the second story and would be accessed on the east side of the lot. Ms. Giraud indicated that the parking requirements in this zone are one stall per unit and this proposal includes five stalls, three of which would consist of garage space. She added that a concrete pad is proposed for the rear of the lot for two cars. Ms. Giraud mentioned that a one-way drive is proposed on the east property line, with drivers exiting out the rear of the property on an existing right-of-way. She pointed out that the applicants are trying to obtain permission from the adjacent property owner to the east for a shared driveway; otherwise, the driveway will be 8 feet 6 inches.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, and stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should consider the following standards in the ordinance:
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The height, width, and length of the proposed design are 25 feet, 26 feet, and 81 feet (minus the front porch), respectively. Similar measurements for the noncontributing-historic house to the west are 23 feet high, 30 feet wide, and 48 feet long (exclusive of the front and rear porches). The measurements for the rehabbed house to the east are approximately 23 feet high, 35 feet wide and 60 feet long. The proportion of the principal facade is similar to nearby structures, as the ratio of its overall height and story heights to the width of the building is similar to the nearby structures.
The roof shape, that of a front-facing gable with a 6/12 pitch, is similar to the new house to the west, but differs from the two houses to the east that feature a hipped roof.
From the street, the proposed new construction will probably read much like the adjacent homes in terms of scale; however, it is almost twice as long. The attached elevations illustrate an attempt to create a break in this length, as the ridgeline of the rear half is a few feet lower than the front half. This is in accordance with Section 11.6 of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, that instructs applicants to "subdivide larger masses into smaller 'modules' that were similar in size to buildings seen traditionally."
The height, width, proportion of principal facades, and roof shape conform to the surrounding properties and with dwellings in Central City in general. The Historic Landmark Commission needs to decide if the scale of the proposed construction meets the requirements of the ordinance.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The proposed openings are primarily double- and triple-banked sets of one-over-one, double-hung that appear to have more horizontal orientation than those seen in surrounding dwellings. However, staff does not believe that they differ to the extent that they would be visually disruptive in the context of the streetscape. The rhythm of solids and voids is similar to that found throughout the district, and the use of the one-story porch is a critical element that ties the proposed residence to most of the older homes seen in the city. Although brick was the material used most often in Salt Lake City's residential construction, siding and wood shingles were also frequently used. The staff finds that the proposal meets this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: Construction on this lot would complete the street wall and would be in keeping with the existing rhythm of spacing and structures on the street. The existing structures are very close together, and small side and font yards are the traditional development pattern of inner block development in Central City. The proposed house will face the street; staff is unaware of proposed streetscape and pedestrian improvements.
3. Subdivision of Lots. Any subdivision of lots will be compatible with the character of the historic district.
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: This lot is not being subdivided, so this is not an issue.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's findings of fact and recommendation: "The proposed project fills a gap on this street frontage in an area of Central City that presents a challenging urban environment. This small pocket of the historic district has recently experienced the fortunate circumstance of a successful rehabilitation at 652 E. Ely Place and a compatible new design at 644 E. Ely Place. Staff finds that this application continues the reinvestment and is consistent with the surrounding properties in terms of many of the design elements listed in the ordinance, as well as the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
"However, two components differ from the environment and the traditional site planning seen in this district. The first is the length of the house, which is approximately twice as long as the adjacent structures. The second is the incorporation of the garage space into the building structure. Staff recommends that the Commission carefully consider whether these features prevent the proposed design from successfully completing the infill of this part of the district, and after this consideration, approve or deny the application. If the Historic Landmark Commission approves the project, the Commission should request that the architect submit further details to the Architectural Subcommittee."
There was a short discussion regarding the proposed garage included in the building, rather than being detached, the length of the proposed structure, and the shared driveway access.
Mr. Michael Malouf, the applicant, as well as his representative, Mr. Joe Lorenzo, architect, was present. Mr. Lorenzo said that they had approached the project in such a way that they could maximize the efficiency of the lot and do it in such a way that they could take the parking and incorporate it into the design of the house. He said that solution had eliminated having to create an additional backup space which would have been required if they had placed the garage at the end of the lot. Mr. Lorenzo noted that there is very little parking in the area.
Ms. Lorenzo talked more about the parking and driveway issue. He pointed to the 10- foot easement that is shown on the map, which was included in the staff report. He described how the driveway would be accessed off Ely Place and exited onto the right of-way at the rear of the property.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Rowland led the discussion by inquiring further about the driveway access. Mr. Malouf said that the neighbor to the west had built a cedar fence across the 10-foot right-of-way because she uses it as her driveway. He said that fence would have to be moved if someone wanted to access that right-of-way.
• Mr. Parvaz said that the home would be very long and narrow. Mr. Malouf said that the lot was very long and narrow and believed that the house would fit onto the lot very nicely.
• Mr. Wilson asked if the extra parking spaces in back were really necessary because that parking pad could be used for a yard. He said that there was very little yard space on the proposed plan. Mr. Lorenzo said that parking is so limited on Ely Place that guests would have to have some place to park. He also said that the parking pad would not have to be a hard surface, it could be gravel.
• Mr. Christensen inquired about the exterior material proposed for the structure. Mr. Lorenzo said that Hardiplank siding is proposed on the first floor exterior and a shingle product would be used on the second floor, which simulates wood. He said that the product has been used quite successfully in Park City. Mr. Christensen said that it will appear to have a "craftsman" look. Mr. Lorenzo said that there would be very little overhang to the roof due to the tight set back requirements. Mr. Christensen suggested setting the windows back about 3 inches so the windows would not be flush with the wall surface. Mr. Lorenzo said that could be done in the framing without any problem.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the proposed vinyl windows have been allowed in the past. Ms. Giraud said that vinyl-clad windows are allowed for new construction.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if the applicant planned to live in the home. Mr. Malouf said that had been discussed but was not certain at this point. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested some kind of a visual separation between the house and the garage. She said that it could be done by creating patios for the two units. Mr. Lorenzo said that the applicant started with the concept of having a side entrance in that location and using it as an interior court. He said that the side yards do not meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Lorenzo said that is why the proposal includes having the cover for the lower unit and a deck adjacent to the living room, dining room, and kitchen on the upper unit.
• Mr. Paterson recommended that the applicant review the 10-foot right-of-way issue with the City Transportation Division to make certain that the 90-degree turning radius would work. Mr. Lorenzo said that they met with Barry Walsh from that division and discussed the turning radius for the garage entrance, but not the right of-way. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she believed that the Permits Office would address that issue.
Ms. Rowland opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Terri Martin, who resides at 644 E. Ely Place, stated that she owns the home adjacent to the subject property to the west. She stated that she welcomed the development to the neighborhood. Ms. Martin said that she was the owner of the right-of-way, but Mr. Malouf had a right to access it, even though it had not been used for 40 years. She added that the previous owner built the fence. Ms. Martin expressed her concerns about the disproportionate length of the proposed house for the neighborhood. She said that her house would be in the shadow by a 25-foot wall. She added that the same would occur to the duplex east of the subject property. Ms. Martin said that there appears, according to the plans, no allowance for green space on the property. She also stated that she knows of no other house in the area that has the garage incorporated into the structure. Ms. Martin stated that as a homeowner, she would hope that whatever would be constructed on the property, would be in keeping with the history of the neighborhood and would have a sense of proportion to what is there now.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Rowland closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich questioned the zoning ratio that would allow that size of structure to the size of the property on which it would be built. Mr. Paterson said that the SR-3 zone has a maximum building coverage, and for attached dwellings, the maximum building coverage is 70% of the lot, which does not include the parking spaces. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that if the proposed structure would meet the standards then there is not much the Commission could do. She added that design issues could be discussed. Ms. Giraud said that if the Commission believes that the length and massing of the proposed structure would not be appropriate in Central City, then the members could base a finding on that fact. There was some further discussion regarding this matter. Some members thought that the design of the proposed structure was not an issue, but the size and the massing were. Some members believed that there was a way of breaking up the massing or some other solution.
The discussion turned to the exterior materials that are proposed to be used. Ms. Giraud mentioned that Hardiboard was used on the house to the west. Mr. Christensen talked about the imitated wood shingles that are proposed for the second story. He mentioned that the application specified wood siding.
Motion:
Mr. Wilson moved to approve Case No. 023-00, as presented, with specific details being worked out with the Architectural Subcommittee, such as the window types and the windows in relationship to the exterior walls, the exterior siding, and exterior trim details and materials.
After a short discussion, the motion was amended.
• Amended motion:
Mr. Wilson moved to approve Case No. 023-00, as presented, with specific details being worked out with the Architectural Subcommittee, such as the window types and the windows in relationship to the exterior walls, the exterior siding, and exterior trim details and materials. The Subcommittee is to review options of addressi11g the length of the proposed structure, based on the staff's findings of fact and recommendation included in the staff report, based on the consistency with the surrounding neighborhood and the historic development. It was seconded by Mr. Christensen. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mark Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Robert Young were not present. Ms. Rowland, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 024-00, at Memory Grove Park, by the Salt Lake City Park Division, presented by Mark Vlasic of Landmark Design, requesting approval for landscaping undertaken as part of the first phase of the restoration of the park.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the Salt Lake City Parks Division and Landmark Design are requesting approval for phase one of the work initiated in response to the damage done to Memory Grove Park by the recent tornado. Mr. Knight said that Memory Grove is located at the north end of Canyon Road in City Creek Canyon. He added that the Grove is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site, and parts of the park are located within the boundaries of the Capitol Hill and Avenues Historic Districts.
Mr. Knight gave the following brief history: "Memory Grove is located in City Creek Canyon, on land that was once owned by Brigham Young. Salt Lake City acquired the property in 1902 with the intention of creating a park in the mouth of the canyon. The park was dedicated as a war memorial in 1924 at the request of the Service Star Legion, a patriotic organization of women whose relatives had fought in World War I. Numerous monuments have been placed in the park to memorialize men and women who lost their lives in battle." He referred to the documents that accompanied for staff report for more information about Memory Grove.
Mr. Knight talked about the tornado that hit downtown on August 11, 1999 that tore directly through the park. He said that the picturesque historic character of the landscape was instantly changed into a tangled mess of branches and debris. Mr. Knight indicated that the Salt Lake City Parks Division assembled a steering committee to direct the planning to restore the park. He said that the members of the steering committee included City staff, Friends of Memory Grove, neighbors, community council representatives, design and horticulture professionals, and members of veteran's groups. Mr. Knight noted that he served on that committee.
Mr. Knight explained that the City retained Landmark Design to complete a concept plan to form the framework for the restoration of the park and this plan was completed in late 1999 and reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission on December 1, 1999. He mentioned that a system of phased improvements was proposed by the concept plan; this application implements phase one of the planned improvements. Mr. Knight informed the Commission that the overall budget for the project is $860,000.00, which is a combination of donations and money received from the settlement between the City and its insurers.
Mr. Knight said that the first bid package consisted primarily of plantings and soil preparation. He said that the damaged trees on the hillside would also be removed, with their roots left in place in order to assist in stabilizing the hillside. Mr. Knight added that the work would be performed primarily by contracted professional crews, with a great deal of volunteer help. He said because of the tight schedule the Parks Division to complete this work, staff believed that it appropriate to issue an administrative approval for this portion of the project.
Mr. Knight stated that the second bid package is still in the design development phase. He mentioned that the scope of work and landscaping plan from Landmark Design, that accompanied the staff report, further details the proposed work. Mr. Knight said that the built features, such as walks, plazas, steps and lighting are all included in this phase. He pointed out that this portion of the project was still in the design phase, staff did not make findings at this time.
Mr. Knight gave the following analysis of the project:
Street tree plantings - A line of maple trees is proposed along Canyon Road from the park entrance to Memorial House. These trees would restore a historic alley of trees that once stood in the same location, but were removed by the flooding that occurred in the canyon (and down State Street) in the spring of 1983.
Removal of the boxcar, armored personnel carrier. and the cannon - The Parks Division proposes to remove three objects from the park: The "40 and 8" boxcar (so called because of its ability to transport forty men or eight horses} near the entrance to the park, the World War One-era German cannon near the meditation chapel, and the tank-like, Vietnam-era M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC} north of the "Pagoda" (the World War One memorial}. The boxcar and APC would be relocated to other museums (The Utah State Railroad Museum in Ogden and Hill Air Force Base Museum, respectively}, where they can be cared for in a controlled environment. Plazas are proposed for their former sites. There is currently no site proposed for the relocation of the cannon, but its removal was proposed because there was a feeling on the steering committee and among local veterans groups that "instruments of war" are not appropriate for a grove memorializing war dead. Staff has no strong issue with relocating the boxcar or the APC, because both are later additions to the park and are historic objects in their own right and moving them would ensure their long-term survival. The cannon is also a historic object on its own, but was also placed in the park shortly after World War One, around the time other monuments in the park were constructed and the park assumed its historic form. It is thus a more integral part of the landscape. Its importance to the historic significance of Memory Grove should be weighed against the value of its long-term preservation, hopefully in a museum setting, and the changing attitudes of the public, who no longer see the cannon as a symbol of victory, but as a symbol of war.
Mr. Knight said that he believed that the cannon should stay, unless it has a great area or relocation. There was someone who testified at the last meeting who felt very strongly that these should be removed. Some of the Commission members commented regarding those elements.
Plazas- New plazas are proposed for the entrance to the park at Canyon Road, the location of the 40 and 8 boxcars (referred in the history} and the location of the APC. It is totally appropriate to go to all the trouble of putting a plaque to something that once used to be there. (replacement} Perhaps in the museum in Ogden. An expanded rose garden is also proposed to surround the area around the Pagoda, which, before the tornado, was surrounded by lawn on three sides. The Historic Landmark Commission, perhaps through the Architectural Subcommittee, should provide input on these plazas as their design develops.
Paths - The applicants propose to replace the asphalt portions of the pathways through the grove with new concrete. A new path is also proposed on the west side of Canyon Road between Memorial House and Gold Star Hill, at the far north end of the grove. The curved concrete steps on the west hill climb, between the park and the Capitol, would also be replaced because they do not meet code. In staff's opinion, all of these items appear to be acceptable changes.
Lighting - New lighting is proposed for Memory Grove in the same styles and configuration as the lighting in City Creek Park at the mouth of the canyon. There have been numerous complaints about the intensity and color of the lighting in City Creek Park, so this will be adjusted in the lighting design for Memory Grove. Hillside stabilization and restoration - The eroded canyon walls near the park will be stabilized and replanted with native plants to restore the natural appearance of the hillside and to illustrate principles of wise water use.
A chunk of the money was donated by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Salt Lake County as kind of a model for wise water use and instead of doing on the hillside, especially the hill climb that would be a good location for plants and plantings that showed good examples of wise water use.
Interpretation, way finding, and park furnishings - Landmark Design proposes to develop a coordinated park furnishings plan to be used in this phase and future phases of the park. The furnishings should be compatible with the historic character of the park in design, material, and color. Signage for interpretation of the historic, environmental and cultural elements of the park and for way finding should be limited and creatively-designed so as to have as low an impact on the landscape as possible.
Mr. Knight said that he worried a little with all of the people who are rushing to compete for signage space. He said that everyone wants to put in their little interpretations and there may be a tendency of dotting the landscape with a whole lot of signs and interpretative plaques. Mr. Knight suggested coming up with some creative design concept to address the issues of plaques throughout the park.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "The Historic Landmark Commission should review the proposed improvements and identify any major issues to be addressed. Staff proposes that the project be referred to one or more meetings of the Architectural Subcommittee for further detail development and review. The project could then return to the Commission when it is in a more developed form for final review and comment."
Mr. Mark Vlasic of Landmark Design, representing the Salt Lake City Parks Division, was present. He said that there needed to be a concentration only of any fall plantings. Mr. Vlasic said that there would be some significant changes and grading on the hillsides and in other areas.
Mr. Vlasic also presented an overview, using a display board to further describe the project. He said that the scope of work proposed for this assessment had been developed to provide recommendations for preserving hillside slope integrity and minimizing erosion potential during and after the hillside slope re-vegetation process.
Mr. Vlasic said that Landmark Design will work with the tree subcommittee of the Memory Grove Park Restoration Steering Committee in locating trees that will be planted in the fall by the contractor hired for this phase of work. He commented that the tree plantings will follow the recently initiated Tree Master Plan for Memory Grove completed by City staff.
Mr. Vlasic presented the following overview of the project:
Scope of the work - The scope of work generally includes the formal park area as identified in the Memory Grove Concept Plan and extends from the entry gate past the Memorial House to the second gate. It also includes evaluating the lighting in City Creek Park to the entry gate. He stated that the overall budget for the project is $860,000 that includes all consultant fees, City management fees, contingencies, and actual costs of construction. He also stated that the Box Car and the Armored personnel Carrier would be removed by others. Another $28,000 will be used to pre purchase trees. There would be a more simple treatment for those areas.
Mr. Vlasic stated that priorities were established, such as:
1. Evaluation of hillsides and determination of methods and means to stabilize, as needed;
2. New tree plantings along the street, which will include the removal of the existing soils and replacement with suitable soils for planting. Trees will be pre purchased and provided to the contractor for planting.
3. Evaluation of alternative levels of lights and colors of light for the lighting fixtures in City Creek Park and along Canyon Road;
4. Continuation of pedestrian-scale lighting north into Memory Grove Park;
5. New water conserving plantings on the west hillside adjacent to the walkway;
6. Renovation of existing lighting in City Creek Park;
7. Installation of "wise watering" systems throughout the project area; and
8. Renovation of the "Capitol" stairs and trail from Canyon Road to East Capitol
Boulevard.
Mr. Vlasic stated that there would be different kinds of concrete used, such as stamped concrete or something rich in pattern. He said that the walkway is flagstone; the only flagstone in the park. He pointed out that concrete would be used for the asphalt sections.
Mr. Vlasic noted that some of the evergreen plantings would be replaced with deciduous plantings because they would provide a more seasonal interest. He said that the sod would be replaced with a turf that requires less water. Mr. Vlasic said that a water wise irrigation system also would be installed.
Mr. Vlasic stated that there would be more slope to the edge of the water detention pond. He mentioned that there were no trees around the detention pond because it has to remain open in order to get the big equipment to remove the mud and silt from time to time.
Mr. Vlasic indicated that the idea of the plantings is to get a cluster of plants together. He also said that there would be more of a natural landscape area to create a more natural backdrop for some of the monuments.
Mr. Vlasic said that the Geotech engineers recommended closing off a substantial amount of trails on the hillside to maintain stability. He said that there would be a special type of material (coco mat carpet) for the trails that will remain.
Mr. Vlasic said that Landmark Design will prepare a plan, which provides for lineages and pathways between the monuments, and which would connect the park to the surrounding neighborhoods. Specifically, this will include:
1. Walkway improvements and repairs to the existing stone walkway.
2. Continuation of the walkway between the Chapel and the 145th Monument.
3. Connection of the Gold Star Monument to Memorial House. This will be included as a bid alternate.
4. Plaza development where monuments have been removed.
5. Sidewalk extension from the Capitol stairs to the entry.
6. East Capitol Boulevard entry feature.
7. Canyon Road feature to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.
8. Park entry signing and directional signing.
9. Repair pathway on west hill climb.
10.Repair stairs on west hill climb.
Mr. Vlasic talked about the lighting and the evaluation of the existing City Creek Park lighting to develop alternative displays to be reviewed by City staff and the Steering Committee.
Mr. Vlasic said that the small trees in front of the Memorial House would be replaced. He pointed out all the seating areas on the plans and said that black metal furniture, very similar to what is now seen in City Creek Park, would be used. Mr. Vlasic stated that he would be meeting with the City's ADA specialist for the requirements to make some of the trails handicapped assessable.
Mr. Vlasic pointed out that some of the lawn areas around the entrance gate would be replaced with plantings to try to create a screen for the neighboring houses.
In closing, Mr. Vlasic said that Landmark Design would establish a coordinated and aesthetic park furnishings palette for use during this phase and future phases of improvements. He said the full scope of the work accompanied the staff report.
• The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by inquiring when the plantings were scheduled. Mr. Vlasic said November. He said that the City's Urban Forester recommended that all the soil underneath the Canyon Road trees be moved to the depth of three feet then allowed to settle, which would take about six weeks to settle. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that any design issues should be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee.
• Mr. Wilson asked if the patching on the asphalt portions of the hill climb would be patched with asphalt. Mr. Vlasic said that the patches would be asphalt.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the gate would function the same way that it functions now. Mr. Vlasic said that the gate will remain the same, with the exception that the new plaza will wrap around the pillar and give pedestrians an option to go through.
Ms. Rowland opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Randall Dixon, who resides at 726 Wall Street and an interested citizen, stated that he has done some research on the cannon and said that it was placed in the park in 1926, almost as long as the park has been dedicated (1924). He added that cannons are traditionally found in most memorial parks. Mr. Dixon said that he believed the cannon should remain. However, he said that he had no affection for the tank. Mr. Dixon indicated that the wagon was place in the park in the 1940's. He said he had some old post cards and photographs of the Capitol Building "looming" over the park and thought it would be a nice effect to keep the plantings low on the western hillside. Mr. Dixon said that the proposed plans would be wonderful for restoring the park.
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested citizen, stated that she liked the idea of having the expertise of water conserving landscapes in the park restoration. She said that there is no record of how the park was originally designed. Ms. Cromer said that she had concerns about giving children something appropriate to do when they were in the park environment, whether it would be climbing on the cannon or something else so they would not be destructive to the plants. She urged the Commission and staff to consider that. Ms. Cromer said that she did not support the use of circular benches, however she understood they were sometimes necessary to protect certain plantings. She said that they were not comfortable to sit on and made conversing with someone sitting next to you difficult. Ms. Cromer also said that young trees needed to be protected.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Rowland closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission continued with the discussion.
• Ms. Mickelsen stated that children love the park but they do get restless. She said that she has spent many hours in that park with children anywhere from kindergarten to sixth grade. Ms. Mickelsen also encouraged incorporating elements into the park on which the children can play, such as rocks.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she spends a lot of time in the park because she lives just above the park. She said that she has lived there 15 years, but had never seen children playing in the park without parents or schoolteachers. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested not sacrificing the restoration of the park by building a children's play yard.
Mr. Knight mentioned that there was a newly constructed community park in the canyon where the salt pile used to be.
The discussion continued regarding the staff recommendations that the project be referred to one or more meetings of the Architectural Subcommittee for further detail development and review. The project could then return to the Commission when has been further developed for final review and comment.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of possible Historic Landmark Commission support for a feasibility study to determine the viability of renovating the Wasatch Springs Plunge Building (currently the Children's Museum of Utah) at 840 North 300 West, to house a community and recreation center.
Mr. Nelson presented the following proposal, a copy of which was included in the staff report:
The City Planning Division would like to receive recommendations on and, if appropriate, an endorsement of CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and CIP (Capital Improvement Program) requests for funds to study the possible reuse of the former Wasatch Springs Plunge Building, located at 850 N. 300 West in the Capitol Hill Neighborhood. The Plunge Building currently houses the Children's Museum of Utah, but will become vacant when the Children's Museum moves to a new facility currently planned to be part of the Boyer Company's Gateway Commons Development.
The building sits on the site of natural warm springs used for bathing by early local bands of Native Americans and by the early white settlers in the Valley. According to the National Register Nomination for the building, the springs were one of the earliest city public improvement projects (in 1848), and a city recreation spot since that time. The Architectural Firm of Cannon and Fetzer designed the present Warm Springs Plunge building, which was completed in 1921 at a cost of $177,450.00. The facility served as a municipal swimming pool until 1976, when declining population in this part of the city and the construction of other pools throughout the Salt Lake Valley led to a decline in use and revenues of the pool. The Children's Museum of Utah leased the building and opened their museum in 1983.
The 1999 Capitol Hill Master Plan outlines the lack of indoor recreation facilities in the Capitol Hill Community since the closing of the Deseret Gym in 1997. The plan notes that the city should work with the School District and the private sector to locate a community recreation center with aquatic facilities within the Capitol Hill Community. With the imminent vacation of the Wasatch Springs Plunge Building, staff believes that there is a good opportunity to explore returning the building to its former use as a swimming pool and community center. Staff has prepared requests to the CIP and CDBG programs for funding a feasibility study to determine whether the Community Center re-use is feasible, and if there are other possibilities for re use of the structure if a Community Center in this building is not feasible.
He said that staff requested input and support on these funding requests. The Historic Landmark Commission members recommended that a letter be written supporting the City Planning Division's application for the CDBG and CIP requests for funds to make this study.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Rowland asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.