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 Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Sarah Miller, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Elizabeth Mitchell was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young 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, Mr. Young 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Gordon moved to approve the minutes from the August 4, 1999 meeting with a
small correction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Parvaz. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. Miller abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Littig and Ms. Mitchell were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
BUSINESS
Case No. 010-99, at 395 Trolley Square, by Hard Rock Cafe, represented by Shane Atkin of Modern Display. requesting to install six flags on the restaurant.
Mr. Knight reported that this case was scheduled to be heard at the July 21, 1999, but the meeting was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum of members.
• Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Knight clarified that the applicant was requesting six flags and six flagpoles attached to the building. He added that three would be on the north facade (500 South side) and three would be on the east facade of the building. Mr. Knight said that the building is set back six feet from the property line on 500 South.
Mr. Knight concluded by offering the following staff recommendation, which was included in the staff report: "Staff finds that the addition of the proposed flagpoles would yield excessive signage on this portion of the building. In addition, staff worries that approval of flags for this particular business would lend a precedent for further applications for flagpoles from other Trolley Square businesses. Flagpoles installed in a common area of the shopping center to serve a symbolic purpose for all the businesses in the Square might be suitable, but would require further review. Staff recommends that the application be denied."
Mr. Shane Atkin of Modern Display, representing the applicant, was present. He circulated colored photographs and drawings of the proposed flags and flagpoles. Mr. Atkin also passed out copies of a document that addressed several points in the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Atkin said that it was the opinion of the applicant that the flags and the flagpoles would be an enhancement and not a deterrent to the building. Mr. Atkin said that the three flags on two sides of the building would include an American flag, a Utah State flag, and perhaps an Olympic flag, City flag, or colored banner.
Mr. Atkin indicated that he had installed several flagpoles on brick buildings, but none were of a historic nature. He added that damage to an historic building was always a concern. Mr. Atkin said that the installation of the ·flagpoles would be by a flat-mounted plate bolted into the brick. He said that the applicant did not intend to light the flags and the flagpoles, but it might be something that could be pursued.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Young led the discussion by saying that it puzzled him that this request was being made by Hard Rock Cafe for a building that is owned and management by Trolley Square associations. Mr. Atkin pointed out that the officials at Trolley Square gave their approval and alerted the applicant to the preservation staff and the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Young said that he believed Trolley Square was a popular attraction and did not need the addition of flags and flagpoles to attract customers.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich pointed out that there were many tenants at Trolley Square who had outside entrances and there would be a whole series of requests to attach flags and flagpoles to all the buildings. She questioned the real intent for the request for flags and flagpoles. Mr. Atkin pointed out that the applicant wanted to upgrade the look of the business, and not draw attention to the building, so it would not be an advertisement attraction. He said that he believed there was a real difference between a "beautifying and advertising" feature.
• Mr. Gordon inquired as to the size of the flags and the flagpoles. Mr. Atkin said that the flagpoles would be about seven feet long and installed on a 45-degree angle. He added that the ·Mags would be 1ive feet by three feet. Mr. Gordon expressed his concerns about the excess weight of the flags and the flagpoles. Mr. Atkin said that the Commission "would not have to worry about the weight".
• Mr. Owen disagreed and said that the weight would be a concern, especially the drag the flagpoles would have on the building on a windy day; they would act like sails. Mr. Atkin said that the trees would break up the wind, so he said that he did not believe the wind would be a factor.
• Ms. Rowland asked if the applicant had explored any other options where the flagpoles might be standing outside of the building. Mr. Atkin said with the concrete sidewalks, the fence, and the trees, a flagpole standing outside the building would be more of a hindrance to pedestrians. He added that there were no other options.
• Mr. Payne asked what the attachment plates were made out of. Mr. Atkin said they would be metal plates, with two or three bolts, and have a decorative cover over the flat of the bolts.
• Mr. Parvaz said that he did not believe the flags and flagpoles should be considered signs. He indicated that he would not have a problem with approving the application if only one flag and flagpole had been requested. Mr. Atkin said that he believed only having one flag and flagpole would look unbalanced.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion continued. The following points of interest were presented by the members of the Commission: 1) concern over the damage of bolting into the fragile masonry on the buildings at Trolley Square and for the safe removal, if necessary; 2) the installation of the flags and the flagpoles would be an advertisement, much the same as signage, and draw attention to the business which was not necessary; 3) if this request would be granted, the precedent would be set and there could be a possibility of twenty-six (or more) flags and flagpoles requested to be installed at Trolley Square; and 4) the buildings at Trolley Square were attractive enough to appeal to patrons and did not need the addition of flags and flagpoles.
Mr. Owen moved that Case No. 010-99 be denied.
Ms. Giraud suggested that Mr. Owen make a finding for the denial of the application. Mr. Owen amended the motion.
Mr. Owen moved that Case No. 010-99 be denied based on the findings of fact included in the staff report. The Commission believes that bolting the flagpoles in the delicate nature of the brick facades of the buildings would damage the masonry and the integrity of the buildings. The Commission did not agree with the applicant's opinion that the addition of the flags and the flagpoles would upgrade the look of the business or the building. It was seconded by Mr. Payne. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Payne and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon abstained and Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Mitchell was not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 011-99. at 460 South 1000 East. by Diamond Lil's Restaurant. represented by Deanne Leatherman of VESCO (Young Electric Sign Company). requesting to legalize a plastic back-lit sign.
Mr. Knight reported that this case was scheduled to be heard at the July 21, 1999, but the meeting was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum of members.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He stated that the signage was installed with a building permit but without Historic Landmark Commission approval at the Salt Lake Brewing Company building, which is listed as a landmark site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Mr. Knight indicated that the applicant endeavored to obtain a building permit, but it was issued in error due to an incorrect address for the site listed on the computer. He added that, at this time, the building permit was still open, pending the outcome of this review. Mr. Young asked if there were means to prevent the error from happening in the future. Mr. Knight said that the permits office had converted to a GIS (Geographic Information System) system, and he has been working with the GIS planner to enter the data and verify addresses. He pointed out that the problem should be solved for the future.
Mr. Knight concluded by offering the following staff recommendation, which was included in the staff report: " Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the legalization of the door-mounted and fence-mounted painted metal signs and window signs, but deny the legalization of the back-lit box sign on the north facade."
Mr. Parvaz asked about the individual landmark site. Mr. Knight said that when a property is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, as an individual landmark site, then the H Historic Overlay Zone would apply to that property, the same as if it was in an historic district. Mr. Knight said that the Anniversary Inn occupies the rest of the building, through an acquired conditional use permit to operate as an inn.
Mr. Littig inquired if the plastic box sign would be allowed if the back light was turned off and lit from the front. Mr. Knight said that there was a previous case where there was an existing signage box and the applicant wanted to reface it. He added that it was approved, as long as it was not illuminated. Ms. Giraud indicated that there have been many new requests from the public to use the boxed Plexi-glass signs that were not approved.
A short discussion followed regarding the visibility of the signage from the street.
Ms. Deanne Leatherman of VESCO, representing the applicant, was in attendance. She circulated current photographs of the signage. Ms. Leatherman pointed out that she was aware of the regulations in historic districts and on landmark sites and assured the Commission that if she would have known the building was a landmark site, she would have worked with the preservation staff first. She said that she would rather not be in the position of determining the responsibility for the cost of installing illegal signage. She said that there are so many factors that determine the cost of signage, that she was not certain of the cost involved. Ms. Leatherman petitioned the Commission to review the situation and make a conclusion that would be amenable to both the applicant and the Commission.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by asking if there was a way the sign could be surface-lit rather than being back-lit. Ms. Leatherman said that flood lights or indirect lighting could be installed.
• Mr. Young suggested having lights that shine down on the sign. Ms. Leatherman said that one of the problems with that suggestion was that a large portion of the cost of the sign is the illumination, which the applicant had paid for, but "now it is rendered useless". Ms. Giraud inquired if that kind of illumination would create a glare. Ms. Leatherman said that it would depend on the area of the location and added that the applicant "hoped the sign could be visible from where the road curves on 500 South".
• Mr. Gordon inquired if the lighting mechanism inside the sign could be removed and used in another installation. Ms. Leatherman said that the mechanism could be used but only on the same size and type of sign. She added that a new face would have to be installed.
• Ms. Miller asked if there was any other way the sign could be modified so it would meet the requirements in the ordinance. Ms. Leatherman introduced the idea of signage that had a painted metal face where only the cut-out graphics would be internally illuminated. She said that the applicant might want to add some color to the graphics, rather than being all white. Ms. Leatherman explained how this could be done, but was uncertain of the cost.
In conclusion, Ms. Leatherman said that there were other options that could be explored if the Commission would consent to that determination and collaborate with the applicant.
Mr. Young 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. Cindy Cromer, who is an interested person, stated that she was more concerned about reflecting on the history of this building as it went through the process of being listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. She raised a concern about the vinyl banner that is still existing on the east face of the building, which she said she found "very offensive and totally incompatible with the historic status of the building". Ms. Cromer compared this request with the previous request, that the Commission just reviewed, by saying that the applicant sought permission from the building owner. She said that if the tenant would have gone to the building owner to get permission to install signage, the tenant would have been told the same thing because the building owners found out how sensitive signage issues were, when they went through the process of having the building listed. Ms. Cromer said that the building had two billboards mounted to the roof and the City Council would not approve the landmark site until they were removed. Ms. Cromer continued by saying that this was not the first time a banner had been hung off the side of that building. She concluded that banners on landmark sites were very offensive to her and would like to have it removed.
Ms. Katherine Burton, who stated that she represented the residents of the Aztec Condominiums at 515 South 1000 East. She said she misunderstood the request and believed that additional signage was proposed for the Diamond Lil's site. She said that the tenants, who lived on the west side of the Aztec Condominiums, had visibility of the building and did not want large flashing signs. Ms. Burton said that the tenants did not seem to be concerned with the signage that was in place. She added that the banner was installed when Diamond Lil's first opened.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion continued regarding the possibility of dismantling the back-lit mechanism and externally lighting the sign. There seemed to be a consensus of opinion by the Commission members that the only sign that was of concern was the back-lit box sign on the north fa9ade. Some members said that they believed that the applicant should be opened to several different solutions and not just focus on one.
There was a recommendation that YESCO point out samples of the technology of some of the other signage suggestions made by Ms. Leatherman. It was recommended by Ms. Giraud that the back-lit box sign be totally deactivated, if the sign was not approved by the Commission, so it would not be turned on by mistake.
Mr. Young made some further suggestions regarding the signage and believed it would be beneficial and cost effect if several options were reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee.
Mr. Payne moved to approve the painted metal panel sign and the signage box for Case No. 011-99 and deny the back-lit sign, but give the applicant the option of meeting with the Architectural Subcommittee with some other proposals or examples of signage. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland.
Mr. Gordon suggested that the applicant be given an extension of time to change this sign, since it was not their error. Ms. Giraud said that she believed something could be worked out, also that she would have the enforcement officers investigate the banner that is hanging on the east façade of the building. After a short discussion, Mr. Payne amended the motion.
Mr. Payne moved to approve the window sign, the painted metal panel sign, and the signage box for Case No. 011-99 and deny the back-lit sign, in its current configuration. The applicant may disconnect the back-light mechanism and light the existing sign panel from the front. The applicant may meet with the Architectural Subcommittee to examine other approaches to the sign construction and lighting, but if the applicants wish to back light the sign in some manner, the proposal must return to the full Commission for final approval. The second still stood by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Mitchell was not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 012-99. at 389 No. Center Street. by Tom and Colleen Paddock. represented by David Vasquez, requesting to sandblast the paint off the brick walls and the sandstone foundation of the structure.
Ms. Giraud reported that this case was scheduled to be heard at the July 21, 1999, but the meeting was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum of members.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She stated that she was concerned about this request because sandblasting has long been recognized as an action that can be very detrimental to masonry. Ms. Giraud said that she applauded anyone who wanted to improve their property, but was opposed to the technique the homeowner had chosen. She said that there were other types of cleaning methods that were gentler to the surface.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation, which was included in the staff report: "Staff is sympathetic to Ms. Paddock's desire to improve her property, but given the amount of information that discourages sandblasting or other forms of abrasive cleaning, staff believes that alternatives to sandblasting must be considered. Staff recommends that the Commission deny the request to sandblast. Staff recommends that the paint either be removed by scraping by hand, or by a chemical product or water method approved by Mr. Hartley. If the Commission approved the request to allow sandblasting, staff recommends that Mr. Vasquez be required to protect the east wall of the adjacent house at 129 West 400 North."
Mr. Littig said that he was unfortunate to experience the sandblasting of the masonry on a house and said that sandblasting does not leave a consistent surface. He inquired if staff knew what kind of paint was on the masonry and sandstone foundation. Ms. Giraud said that she did not know.
Ms. Rowland inquired if the applicants were intending to repaint the brick and the sandstone. Ms. Giraud said her impression was that the applicants intended to repaint the brick and seal the sandstone.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich explained how sandblasting was done and cautioned that it should be done in an enclosed environment so there would be no damage to the abutting property.
The discussion continued regarding the areas of the sandstone foundation that appeared to be very soft, and could be easily damaged by sandblasting.
Mr. Tom Paddock and Ms. Colleen Paddock, the applicants were present. Mr. Paddock said that it was their intent was to remove the paint off the sandstone and leave that portion unfinished, or at least seal it with a sealant that would breath. He mentioned the problem that had already occurred to the sandstone by moisture entering the very porous sandstone material, freezing and thawing, which caused more damage. Mr. Paddock said that he believed the paint on the masonry was latex but did not know what kind of paint was on the sandstone. Mr. Paddock said that they changed their request and was not planning to sandblast the brick facades.
Mr. Paddock said that there were two types of sandstone on the foundation and one appeared to be a harder construction grade. He said that the walls of the sandstone were roughly two feet thick and removing one-eighth to one-fourth inch by sandblasting would not matter.
Mr. Paddock said that they had tried to remove the paint from both the masonry and the sandstone by scraping and chemically cleaning the surface, but the method left the masonry with "irregular marks" and residue in the sandstone. He said that he believed that sandblasting would be the only means of removing the paint.
Mr. Paddock gave the following statement: "Our intent, also, is to have the contractors remove all of the paint off of the windows and repaint. We truly want to obtain a very nice looking building and we cannot see any other means of removing the paint from the sandstone, without using some aggressive means, and we truly do not believe that it will not deteriorate that at all. If anything, it will save the sandstone. If we leave it the way it is, the paint will continue to hold the moisture in and it will have far more damage than just removing the paint."
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Rowland led the discussion by saying that she has a house with similar vintage in the same neighborhood and recently had the brick and the sandstone foundation chemically stripped. She said that she was very pleased with the results. Ms. Rowland inquired if the applicants had priced having the paint chemically removed because most preservationist agree that method would be slightly less corrosive to the surface. Mr. Paddock said that the labor would be more intensive and the cost would be more. Ms. Rowland said that using a chemical method was less damaging to the mortar. Mr. Paddock said that the mortar would probably have to be replaced if the walls were sandblasted.
• Mr. Young said that when this request was presented to the Architectural Subcommittee, the applicant was asked to secure prices for alternative methods, such as chemicals, soda wash, or other means that the applicants could find. Mr. Young said that had not been discussed. Ms. Paddock said that she was disappointed that Mr. Vasquez was not present because he had the updated information. She said that the original bid to chemically remove the paint on the entire house was just under $30,000, which was way out of "my pocketbook range". Mr. Paddock said that was their budget to do the entire project. Mr. Young said that the chemical product that the applicants used was probably purchased from a local hardware store. He added that the chemicals that professionals use would be much stronger and more penetrating, and not meant to be used by the average homeowner. Mr. Young also said that there were gentler means of blasting, such as crushed walnut shells, that would replace the sand.
• Mr. Littig said that the bids for sandblasting the masonry and sandblasting the sandstone, should be separated. He said that perhaps a test spot should be done. Mr. Littig suggested tabling this case until the September 1, 1999 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, which would allow the applicants an additional two weeks. Ms. Paddock said that she was concerned that "their window of time is being lost".
Ms. Paddock made the following statement; "She knows there has been exceptions made in historic districts, exceptions made for individuals and churches and I have a real hard time with that because I feel like if you can make an exception for one person, then there is a precedent set for being able to weigh exceptions for everybody. I think that the integrity of this house is such that it deserves an exception. It has been there for over 100 years. The foundation, frankly, if any of you have gone out to look at it, it's not going to be here for another 100 years if we leave it like it is. If we leave that stuff stuck in there. It just is not going to make it. I would like to appeal to you to treat us like you have treated the others that have been granted exceptions to the rules." Ms. Giraud said, "Just for the record, I don't know of any permit where I have allowed sandblasting. If it was done, it was done without our knowledge and done illegally." Mr. Young said that in his two and one-half years experience of being on the Commission, this is the first sandblasting case that has come up so he said that he did not know of any exceptions to which the applicant was referring. Ms. Paddock said, "I have done a little homework on it and I have counseled with some people and I have been told that there are exceptions that have been made. I would really appreciate being able to do it, too. It would be a big help to us to get it done."
Mr. Paddock said that they were at a point where they had committed $30,000 to work with the contractor by simply sandblasting and re-sealing the stone, and washing and repainting the brick. He said that chemically cleaning the sandstone would "eat up a large portion of our budget." Mr. Paddock said, "We are not talking about a pre-carved, decorative, sandstone, we are simply talking about large pieces of sandstone that will not have a negative appearance if blasted by sand or any other product."
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the test patch that already had been performed. Mr. Paddock said that patch had been sandblasted and added that the only problem he could see was that it also removed the mortar which will have to be replaced.
• Ms. Rowland said that she realized that the cost of chemically stripping was more than sandblasting but wondered if it was a trade-off because the mortar would have to be replaced if sandblasting was approved. She suggested that the applicants obtain a quote from the contractor for repairing the mortar. Mr. Paddock said that he believed they could replace or repair the mortar. Ms. Rowland invited the applicants to drive by her house and see how good the masonry and sandstone foundation looked.
Mr. Paddock inquired if the members of the Commission saw the test patch that was sandblasted. Ms. Giraud said that some members were on the field trip. A discussion followed by some members declaring that they did not recognize the part that was tested, that the sandstone had a different look on various sections of the foundation. He said that he wanted to know the members' impression of the test patch. Mr. Littig said that the each facade of the house would have a different exposure so no small test patch would show a true example. Mr. Paddock said that the test patch was about twenty or thirty square feet.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she observed the different kinds of sandstone. She said that the sandstone on the front of the house looked like it was extremely soft. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she believed the sandblasted test patch was done on a construction grade sandstone. She said that she was concerned with further damaging any of the sandstone, especially the sandstone that was in the front. Mr. Paddock said he disagreed with her and said that did not believe the sandstone in the front was a soft product, but the damage to it, made it appear so.
• Ms. Miller talked about the southeast corner of the foundation, that it appeared some of the crevices and cracks were deeper resulting from sandblasting. Mr. Paddock said he thought it looked much better.
• Mr. Parvaz said that it did look better, but he again expressed his concern about the softness of the sandstone in the front and that parts of the stone were falling off. He said that he believed the best way to solve the problem was to use a chemical treatment. Mr. Paddock said that the sandstone was deteriorating and that is why they wanted to do something that would preserve it.
• Mr. Young said that the applicants needed to be very careful of the kind of sealant that would be used over the sandstone after it is cleaned. He added that it needed to be "breathable". He addressed properties where the sealant was some kind of epoxy material and after a few years, large sheets of the stone surface sloughed off and the stone was damaged even more. He talked about different stone materials. Mr. Paddock said that he believed that stone had the same surface all the way through it. Mr. Young said that it depended on how the stone was cut and dressed. Mr. Young explained that micro crystal fractures can develop in stone as it is being cut to a certain size. He said that those fractures do not show up immediately. He said as the stone weathers and moisture seeps into the stone, then pieces would be pushed out from the inside. Mr. Paddock said that surface damage has already been done on the sandstone, so it should not matter if the paint was removed chemically or by mechanical means. Mr. Young said that the surface would have to be resealed. Mr. Parvaz cited the sandstone at the new City Creek Park. He said that after only a few years, one can see the sealant coming off because a
breathable sealant was not used.
Ms. Paddock said, "I know our neighbors have been concerned that their house would be dirtied by it but we would make sure that would not happen. It would be enclosed. If by some reason it was dirtied, it would be taken care of." Mr. Young cautioned to made certain that the contractor knows that. Ms. Paddock said that the contractor knows. Mr. Paddock said that he believed that the contractor wanted to maintain his integrity in the neighborhood. Mr. Young assured the applicants that the Commission was trying to help them not to cause further damage to the building.
Mr. Young 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. Ann Lisetor and Ms. Esther Stringfellow, stated that they live at 129 West 400 North in the house just west of the applicants' house. Ms. Lisetor said that they want the Paddocks to fix up the house and they were not attending the meeting to stop their neighbors from fixing up their house. Ms. Lisetor said that they were concerned when they saw the scaffolding in the yard. Ms. Lisetor and Ms. Stringfellow said that they believed sandblasting the sandstone foundation would be a mistake. They also expressed their concerns about the blasting material intruding the neighborhood environment. They alerted the staff to another historic property where sandblasting was done, and they believed without a permit. Ms. Lisetor said that the bricks were so soft that they crumbled. They both advised the Paddocks to use another method besides sandblasting.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Gordon inquired if the Commission should handle this request separately because the applicants had chosen not to sandblast the masonry. Ms. Giraud said that she did not think that was necessary, that it would be clear in the record of the meeting. Mr. Young said to be certain that it was clear in the motion.
Mr. Payne asked what proportion the hard sandstone was to the soft Red Butte Sandstone and should there be a distinction between those two. Ms. Giraud said that the Red Butte Sandstone was only in the front of the house and wraps around on the north facade.
A lengthy discussion took place with members of the Commission expressing his or her opinions of the methods of the removing the paint off the sandstone, the costs involved, and the prevention of further damage to the sandstone.
Mr. Littig moved that Case No. 012-99 be tabled allowing the owner more time to look into any alternative means of stripping the sandstone and return to the September 1, 1999 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Littig's motion died for the lack of a second.
The wording of a motion was discussed. Mr. Young said that sandblasting is not allowed by ordinance and asked staff to read that portion of the ordinance. Mr. Paterson read Chapter 21A.34.020.(G)(7) "Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible."
Mr. Payne said that there is a question whether or not sandblasting will cause damage to these materials and this may be the only option the Commission has.
The discussion continued.
Ms. Giraud said that if the Commission determined that sandblasting can be approved in this case, she asked that another method be required for the soft Red Butte Sandstone that is on the front of the house. She also said that the wording of the ordinance was taken from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Ms. Giraud said that since those standards were written, cleaning methods have changed and chemical cleaners are much gentler.
Mr. Payne moved to approve the sandblasting method for Case No. 012-99 only on all portions of the sandstone foundation and not on the masonry, except for the Red Butte Sandstone portion and recommend to the applicants that they chemically clean that portion. Further that all sandblasting would be done in a protective, enclosed, environment to contain the sandblasting materials from invading the neighborhood. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Payne voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed and Ms. Miller abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Continuation of Case No. 013-99. at 358 South 700 East. by Chevy's Fresh Mex. Inc., requesting final approval of tenant changes to a space in the Fourth South Market development.
Mr. Knight stated that the applicants' proposal was reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee and informed staff that they had withdrawn the proposal to install the portico in front of the building. He added that everything else had been approved at the August 4, 1999 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Therefore, they did not need
to come back to the full commission.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Owen so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M.