SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A fieldtrip preceded the meeting and was attended by Pete Ashdown, Warren Lloyd, Vicki Mickelsen, and Elizabeth Giraud, Joel Paterson, Janice Lew, and Sarah Carroll.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Vicki Mickelsen, Lee White, Warren Lloyd, and Soren Simonsen.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; Janice Lew, Assoc. Planner; Sarah Carroll, Assoc. Planner and Louise Harris, Senior Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:49, upon having enough members to make a quorum. Because of the lateness of the hour, he ask the Commissioners approval to postpone Administrative matters to the end of the meeting with the exception the general comments to the Commission. All were in favor of the idea and the meeting continued.
Mr. Simonsen then ask if anyone had general comments to be made to the Commission. Seeing none, he closed the Public Comment portion and moved on to the Public Hearings. He indicated the procedure that would be followed for those attending for the first time. Each Public Hearing would begin with the Staff Report, then the applicant or representative would be asked to come forward and present any additional comments. The public would then be invited to speak. The Commission would open the Executive Session, discuss the issue and make a decision. He noted the process to appeal any decision of the Landmark Commission was listed on the back of the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 017-05 at 539 East 900 South by Shaun Killpack. requesting approval to construct a new single-family dwelling. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.
Sarah Carroll of the Planning Staff presented the case by outlining the major issues, the finding of fact and staff’s recommendations. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Killpack is requesting approval to build a new single-family dwelling, with a footprint of approximately 1,118 square feet on a corner lot. The primary goal of the Central City Historic District, as stated in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts, is to preserve the general, modest character for each block as a whole, as seen from the street. The lot is zoned RMF-30, low Density Multifamily Residential District, the purpose of which is to “provide an environment suitable for a variety of housing types of a low density nature, including multifamily dwellings.”
Mr. Lloyd asked what type of windows would be used.
Ms. Carroll replied vinyl, which is acceptable for new construction. They are double hung as well.
Mr. Lloyd also asked if she knew what was the structure on the lot before now. Ms. Carroll did not have an answer as she did not have a record.
The applicant was then asked to come forward. He was asked to state his name and address for the record. Shaun Killpack, Contractor/owner Killpack Construction. He stated he was open to suggestions from the Commission as to what will be allowed.
Mr. Simonsen asked for any question from the Commission.
Ms. Mickelsen wondered about the floor plan on the 2nd floor. She stated it looks like something was missing.
Mr. Killpack responded that it only went above the master bedroom and kitchen area. The great room does not have a second floor. It is all open with vaulted ceilings.
Ms. Mickelsen still felt the floor plan was inaccurate.
Mr. Killpack talked about the vaulted ceilings in the great room. He asked if it mattered what type of bricks were to be used on the exterior. He had brochures and samples of brick. -;;
Mr. Simonsen indicated it would be helpful to review the brick.
Mr. Killpack showed the brick and indicated he tried to find something old fashion that would go with the bricks in the neighborhood, brown and new. The plans show the gable on the front elevation will have fish scale shingles. They are planning to use a Hardi-plank or vinyl product. He prefers to use vinyl because it is easier. The windows are vinyl and Cascade style (name brand).
Ms. Giraud clarified that they have only allowed vinyl as a wall material for soffit and facia but not on the exterior walls.
Mr. Killpack indicated that they could use Hardi-plank siding rather than vinyl.
Mr. Lloyd asked what material the columns were going to be.
Mr. Killpack indicated they were thinking about wood or all brick, which he prefers, if it was alright with the Commission. When asked again about the windows, he indicated he could use a wood clad window.
Ms. Giraud asked about the windows on the elevation of the plans. One elevation shows a medium rail on the windows, but it doesn't show on the south elevation. Was he going to use the medium rail all around or not.
Mr. Killpack said it didn't matter. He could use either one, whichever was preferred.
Ms. Giraud was concerned how well the house blends in with the streetscape. There is a house very similar to this one that is a contributing structure and it does have that rail in the middle. She then indicated that the house at 567 East 900 South was similar to what is being proposed. She mentioned that other properties have widows with the medium rail. She believed the medium rail would help make this house compatible with the rest of the streetscape.
Mr. Simonsen asked the applicant to pass around the samples he had.
Mr. Killpack showed the Hardi-plank samples, and the shake shingle vs the fish scale. He wasn't sure if there was a preference or not. There are other homes in the neighborhood that have fish scale but he was not sure about that street. His preference is the shake shingle.
Ms. Coffey said another issue is whether the type of dormer on the front elevation be a shed dormer or a gable dormer or even a hip roof dormer.
Mr. Killpack again indicated he does not have a preference.
Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Killpack and proceeded with the public hearing portion.
Ms. Keni Cravon of 860 Park Street spoke about the Staff Report. She stated the
house looks like a single family dwelling but has an exterior dwelling entrance. She
wondered if the structure could be used as a multi-family dwelling.
Ms. Carroll answered by stating that the property is in a multi-family dwelling zone; however, the lot is not large enough to allow more than a single-family home. There is interior access below the stairs but it could not be used as a multi-family dwelling. That would be a zoning issue if it did happen.
Mr. Simonsen then asked if there were any more questions. Seeing none, he closed the public portion and went into the Executive Section. He indicated he would entertain a motion at this time.
Motion:
Ms. Carl moved to accept the staff recommendation and grant approval to build
as proposed and to advise him to work with the staff as far as window design and materials and the design of the dormer. All of the windows should be compatible with the neighborhood and the dormer be a hip dormer. Ms. White seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. White and Mr. Lloyd all voted “Aye”. No one opposed. The motion passed.
Case No. 018-05-748 and 750 East South Temple Street by Aaron Coleman. requesting legalization of windows installed without a building permit in the South Temple Historic district.
Ms. Janice Lew of the Planning Staff presented the Staff Report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and staff's recommendation. Mr. Aaron Coleman, owner of the property is requesting to legalize the vinyl windows installed on the house without Historic Landmark Commission approval or a building permit. The subject property is located in the South Temple Historic District which was locally designated as a historic district in 1977. The base zoning of the property is RO, Residential/Office, the purpose of which is “to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale”. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Simonsen called for any questions from the Commission.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the upper windows in the front facade, were to become single, hung aluminum windows.
Ms. Lew indicated that it was hard to tell but in the photo of the ice cream shop it shows that it was a double-hung window originally.
Mr. Simonsen asked how this project came to the attention of staff.
Ms. Lew said it was through Zoning Enforcement. Mr. Coleman had taken out a permit to build a deck in the back and the enforcement officer noticed the windows had been replaced. No permit was taken out for the windows.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the applicant was present. If so, would he please come forward. Mr. Aaron Coleman, owner, came forward and stated there was no permit for the changing of the windows. There was a permit only to refurbish the inside as well as pull off the back addition that was in very bad condition and add a new redwood deck. He thought the windows would be part of the inside work. All of the aluminum siding has been pulled off the windows. There was hardly any wood left. He passed around pictures showing the all square aluminum siding that was removed and showed the material in question. He thought it was the MDF but it is a material called Medix from National Wood Products. It is designed specifically for exterior use. It is more expensive than MDF2, and could get more information from National Wood Products if the Commission desired.
Mr. Lloyd asked if any of the windows were wood before.
Mr. Coleman indicated they were aluminum and had a 1985 stamp. The upstairs are also single-hung and most are not operable. All windows have the bull nose rounded wood that goes right into the brick. It has not been exposed for about 20 years. He stated he wanted to clean it up, sand and paint it instead of putting something over it.
Mr. Simonsen asked if Mr. Coleman knew what material the profile was between the two aluminum windows.
Mr. Colemen indicated it was flush once they put in their new windows. There was some bending of the original material that was there. That profile was flat. The board around the window will be sealed with an oil primer and then painted. The Medix is the only wood added to the outer stop that had to be applied to the outside of the window. It was routed to get a more classic look.
Mr. Simonsen asked for any more questions. Seeing none, he thanked Mr. Coleman and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on the case.
Mr. Phil Babcock, contractor was asked to help guide Mr. Coleman through the review process. The material is not an MDF material. It is an exterior grade product. The retrofit of the MDF product on the outside actually adds more profile to the window trim. When the windows were installed it covered up and hid some of the profile between the window and the transom. The application of that flat board of the Medix added profile back to the transom area. Because of the age of the building, there is some settling problems and the windows are out of square. In order not to do some major reconstruction, it has to be trimmed out. Now the windows have been done with the approved Medix product. They have a stock with a profile in it and it will be weather proof when complete. The MDF application does not cover the wood trim that was originally on the house. It helps to actuate the wood strip. The aluminum siding covered all the bull nose wood trim around the windows used for casing, opened up and reinstated so the bull nose casing is in place as it was originally installed. Should wood windows be required on the front they would be installed as they are now. No additional glass would show. It would look just like it does now. The Medix product would have to be reinstated there is no way to install the wood window without some means of stop and trim of the wood window.
Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone else had something to say. Hearing none he closed the Public Hearing and moved into the Executive Session for further discussion.
Mr. Ashdown indicated he was having trouble seeing how the trim covers the original features.
Ms. Lew indicated that the cross bar of the picture window in the front, is totally covered. Mr. Ashdown asked if it was a concern that in the 1980's someone got away with putting in aluminum windows. The quarter round is to cover the gap.
Ms. Lew thought that they wanted to create a window closer with the original windows effect particularly on primary facade. Staffs preference is to bring it back to the historic appearance on the front.
Ms. Giraud indicated that when a building is not in pristine condition, they don't want it to get further away from its original appearance even if it doesn't fully conform to a very pristine restoration.
Ms. Mickelsen stated that the 1979 picture shows quite a complicated profile of that cross bar and now it is just solid and flat.
Mr. Lloyd mentioned that it did seem like at one point there was a discrepancy between what staff had recorded on the transom of the cross bar vs what the owner recalled it to be. Staff felt that the profile had been replaced with the Medix product. The front elevation seems to be one of the key questions, as to what that profile was because Medix is probably a very good material to recreate a profile. If it is painted correctly, it would be very long lasting.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that on page 5 of the Staff Report three of the five items listed for the Design Guidelines he would agree that what has been installed probably is closer in appearance to the original than the aluminum windows that were replaced. The Design Guidelines and the Standards for replacing windows are quite clear especially for a primary facade, (Item #3.5, Match a replacement window to the original in its design; #36 Match the profile and its components as closely as possible to that of the original window; and #3.7 in a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.) He stated the new windows are more in keeping with the original than what was replaced. There are standards that must be applied to this situation.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated that there are vinyl windows that look like wood but these don't. They look like aluminum windows with a vinyl coating. The frame is very thin and half the size you would have in the historic wood window. She felt it looks very strange to see such a large picture window on a house that old. She also wanted to know from staff if the front windows should be wood or have the appearance of the original looking windows in terms of the divisions especially between the transom.
Ms. Lew stated the windows should have more of the appearance of the original windows. In the fixed windows, the glass is more of a proportion of the opening. She felt they could get a window that looks better in a variety of materials that have a better proposition than what has been installed.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that in the past vinyl windows have been allowed on non-primary facades and in new construction and when it is only replacing the sash.
Ms. Giraud said that some styles lend themselves better to that kind of replacement. A bungalow that originally had an enlarged pane of glass in the front window that keeps all the brick molding intact can better accommodate a vinyl sash window.
Mr. Lloyd thought that the contractor was improving the historical appearance on the side and rear elevations because the profile on the jams as they return to the brick mold are going to be restored and what was being removed was aluminum material that went right to the brick molds. He thought the trouble was primarily on the 2nd story windows, on the front elevation. There had been a divided window but is now a single picture window.
Ms. Carl asked about the consideration of the economic impact.
Ms. Mickelsen replied that the agreement to legalize all the others took that into consideration.
Ms. Coffey said that that isn't something the Commission should take into consideration.
Ms. Mickelsen asked whether the use of the MDF was addressed sufficiently.
Ms. Lew asked, if the Commission was comfortable with that material.
Seeing no other comments, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion.
Motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved to legalize the vinyl replacement windows on the building with the exception of the picture windows in each bay, on the front elevation because they meet the criteria of 3.6 in the Design Standards for Windows. In the case of the large picture windows on the front elevation, the applicant should work with staff to find something that matches the original profile in the case of the division of the transoms and the picture on the lower windows and that it at least gives the appearance of a divided upper window whether it is operable or not. She further moved to accept #2 and #3 of the staff recommendation and #4 that Medix is an acceptable material and the original features that are getting covered will be solved by #1. Mr. Lloyd seconded. With no further discussion Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. White and Mr. Lloyd all voted “Aye”. None voted no. The motion passed.
Case #019-05 at 1115 East 2nd Avenue by John Englund and Lynn Rilling requesting approval to construct a new detached garage in the rear yard. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Sarah Carroll presented the case by outlining the major issues, the finding of fact and staff's recommendations. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that based on the supplemental information the height will be an issue. He asked if there are other examples of accessory dwellings with spaces above the garage that have appeared in the Avenues. He stated it doesn't seem like there are restrictions that have been considered in the Design Guidelines that would prohibit this.
Ms. Carroll replied that they did look at a garage of similar scale that was two houses to the east and any garage that has more than one level in the Historic District has to be reviewed by the Commission. The house two doors east was approved by the Commission.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that height is a zoning issue but wondered what the guidelines say about a second level.
Ms. Coffey noted that the Landmarks Commission reviews it for compatibility so if the height isn't compatible, the Commission has the purview to not allow it to be that high even though the underlying zoning allows it to be 17 feet.
Mr. Ashdown asked if they were restricted by the fact that it is not visible from the street.
Ms. Carroll indicated that this is not a living space and it is noted on the plans for storage only. She has clarified that with the owner.
Seeing no more questions for Ms. Carroll, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward.
John Englund and Lynn Rilling owners, came forward. The first thing Mr. Englund wanted to clarify on the site map of the garage was that it shows a one foot recession to the north of the right-of-way. They have talked with the Transportation Division of Salt Lake City and have agreed to move the garage 4 ft. from the right of way rather than just a foot. When deciding what type of garage they wanted to build the biggest difference between a garage at 960 First Avenue and their address of 961 First Avenue was that they put a drop down staircase on the inside of the garage rather than have an exterior staircase and deck. They identified several other 2 story garages in the immediate vicinity.
Ms. Mickelsen ask if the 4 feet was after the 3 foot loop.
Mr. Englund said they would place the garage 4 feet from the 10 foot right-of-way which would give them, a total of 14 feet from the north edge of the right-of-way. They plan on storing items in the upstairs.
Mr. Ashdown asked how much clearance they have from the floor to the top.
Mr. Englund indicated about 4 feet on the sides and about 10 feet at the very middle of the building.
Mr. Ashdown asked if 4 feet would work for storage.
Mr. Englund indicated it could work however they want the structure to look like a carriage house.
Ms. Mickelsen asked how tall is his house.
Mr. Englund thought about 21-22 feet from the ground to the weather vane. He stated he garage directly to their south has a pitched roof of about 23 feet.
Mr. Lloyd asked about the stairs on the corner to the landing. The landing is at a low point of the roof. He has to ensure adequate head height for gaining access to the upper floor. He thought you might be able to lower the height to 7 or 8 feet at that corner.
Mr. Englund said that the ceiling from the ground floor was 8'-3. The staircase drops down. They did not want an exterior stair case.
Lynn Rilling showed an example of the cultured brick.
Mr. Englund indicated that they could use that brick or stucco for the exterior. It will be painted the same color as the brick on the house that was built in 1903. This is a thin brick material like tile and the mortar between the bricks is much thinner than usual standards of today. It can be scored to look like the original brick of the house. The stated they'd prefer to use the brick veneer but will do what the Commission thinks is best.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Hearing none, he opened the Public Hearing and asked anyone in the audience to come forward.
Rebea L. Keil of 124 North “S” Street said she was representing nine other neighbors. She stated she is currently in litigation with the applicant about use of the right of way.
Ms. Keil then mentioned that the garage really needs to be moved back more than 3 feet for safety reasons. The garage wall would have to be far enough away that any utility truck could get through. Secondly, she was asked to ask about the design. It seemed that there was no concern about anything that can't been seen from the street. The common area is a frequent meeting place. There is a garden for the children as well as chairs and the neighbors feel that this design is too high and they feel this design is not conducive to their neighborhood. Because of the stairs, windows and balcony the neighbors feel that the garage will be used for a music studio and not storage. She indicated that they (the neighbors) ask the Commission to postpone the approval until litigation on the right-of-way is finished so nothing depends on them having access through the north right-of-way. She felt it was highly unlikely they would have a north entrance to the garage but only a south entrance. They are not asking that the Commission deny the case, but only postpone it until some of these questions are answered especially the utility easement and issue of design.
Mr. Simonsen closed the Public Session and opened the Executive Session.
Ms. Mickelsen asked whether the second story could be used for living space.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that is a zoning use issue and beyond what the Commission can review.
Ms. Coffey indicated that the Board of Adjustment can allow an accessory dwelling to house art studios, hobby shops, etc. but not used for music lessons.
Mr. Paterson said that a music studio for lessons would be a home occupation which must be contained in the primary structure of the building. A garage is excluded from home occupations.
Mr. Ashdown asked what would happen if they occupy the second story.
Mr. Paterson indicated that then it would become a zoning enforcement issue.
Mr. Lloyd talked· about the placement of the structure and the effect of the appearance. He stated that other than the guidelines that are historically appropriate, there are not any guidelines. He mentioned the Scale and Form on page 3 of the Staff Report (c) roof shape and (d.) Scale of a Structure on the alley way.
Mr. Ashdown asked about the material.
Mr. Lloyd indicated that a thin brick and paint and a thin concrete and paint should be evaluated as basically the same material.
Mr. Ashdown stated that brick veneer always looks like brick veneer and looks false. Mr. Simonsen asked about whether the height could be lowered. He stated lowering the height one to two feet won't perceptively be seen, but will affect usable space.
Mr. Lloyd asked if anyone knew the height of the other garages in the area.
Ms. Carroll indicated the garage at 1127 East 2nd Avenue was 16 feet to the mid point but it has a 12-12 slope so the top of the roof is probably 20 plus feet.
Seeing no other questions, Mr. Simonson asked for a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved that the Commission accept the design plan based on staff's Findings of Fact with the exception of the materials presented, the veneer brick, and that the staff approve the materials. Mr. Lloyd second. Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Mickelsen and Ms. Carl voted “Aye” Ms. White abstained. None
were opposed. The motion passed.
Ms. Carl Recommend that they consider placing the new garage as closely as possible on the footprint of the existing garage.
A short break was taken at 6:55 Mr. Sorensen indicated that he had to leave at 8:00 for a presentation to the Community Council. The meeting wall called back to order at 7:01.
Case Number 002-05 by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, Represented by Oat Q. Phan of the Salt Lake City Engineering Division and Craig Ames of Pasker Gould Ames and Weaver Architects, requesting approval of modifications to a prior Historic Landmark Commission approval for the new concession building immediately west of 600 East in Liberty Park. Liberty Park is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. i
Elizabeth Giraud of the Planning Staff presented the case by outlining the major issues, the Finding of Fact and Staff’s recommendations. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
She indicated the reason for this case to be brought back to the Commission was that the Engineering Division has asked for a review of a full set of plans. Because of budget cuts there has to be some changes made. The gable ends for everything except the north elevation had changed from the CMU that had been previously approved to EIFAS. On March 2, 2005 the Commission heard this case and it was tabled then brought back on March 16, 2005 for final approval.
The original piers were approved as stone that would be similar to the arbor features in the park. But because of the expense they would like to change these piers.
Ms. Giraud noted if the Commission feels these are minor changes they could leave it up to engineering to resolve due to budget constraints they could make that the motion. She felt that this being a heavily used and viewed public park it warrants the Commission's opinion.
Mr. Sorensen asked the applicant to step forward.
Mr. Bill Goold, of GW Architects discussed the elevation drawings including materials on the gable ends and elevations. He stated as this was going out to bid, the City Engineers asked that they put in two alternates, one for an architectural concrete pier and one for a concrete block pier. They need input from the Commission before starting construction, to determine whether these materials are appropriate. The bids are in and over budget. The taper architectural concrete pier has no cost change. The base bid is $1,060,000.00 with a $20,000.00 savings if they go from tapered rock pier to concrete block pier. This issue is before the City Council as a new budget issue, and they want to know if concrete block would be acceptable by the Commission.
Mr. Ashdown asked what the difference between the rock and tapered concrete are. Mr. Goold indicated that there is no cost difference.
Mr. Simonsen indicated he was still unclear about what was originally reviewed and the differences to what they are viewing now.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if #3A was the choice they hope to go by and Mr. Goold replied yes.
Mr. Simonsen thought that the only change to what was previously approved, other than the piers, is a change in the center gable bay on the west elevation which has an addition of concrete block. The other item is whether or not concrete block piers are an acceptable option.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were additional questions for the applicant. Seeing none he opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone was there to speak. Seeing no one it was closed and the Commission went into Executive Session.
Mr. Ashdown said that he has a problem with the concrete block piers fitting the character of Liberty Park.
Ms. Giraud asked Mr. Ashdown if it were the use of the material or the shape that he had an issue with.
Mr. Ashdown indicated it was the shape. He stated the tapered pier is so characteristic of Utah architecture.
Mr. Simonsen stated the architecture in the park is eclectic. When you look at the tennis building that was recently expanded, which is all brick, and the adobe Case Mill and other structures, the aviary, the playground equipment, the variation in restroom, it's a very collective mix of architecture.
Ms. Giraud asked the applicant whether the arbors on the east side of the park, were stone and straight.
Mr. Goold replied they are straight. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the color.
Mr. Lloyd ask if they had a brand of CMU like this used on the newer restroom structure. Mr. Goold indicated that the restrooms were split face concrete block.
Mr. Lloyd asked what the finished was on the CMU.
Mr. Goold said they have a combination of grout faces.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated the drawing looks like a great deal of contrast in the colors. Mr. Goold said the intent of what they showed last time was the CMU has the same color just a different texture.
Ms. Giraud asked if using the stone on a straight column would save money. Mr. Goold said probably not.
Mr. Simonsen asked for a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved to accept the modifications that were presented and recommend the final design approval on the concession stand be approved by the Planning Staff. Ms. White seconded. Ms. Mickelsen recommended that the City's priority be the original design of the piers (tapered stone column). If not possible they should use a tapered concrete pier and the least favorable be the CMU straight pier. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. White, and Mr. Lloyd all voted “Aye”. No one opposed. The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Carl indicated that she was not on the field trip last month as indicated in the minutes of July 6, 2005. She then moved to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Ashdown seconded. The motion passed.
REPORT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Paterson reported that in their packets was a letter from Mr. Zunguze discussing the issue of enforcement of work done in the historic districts without building permits. Because of the concerns and problems he would like to plan some time at the next HLC meeting to talk about ideas and issues the Commission may have and discuss some of the options of how the problems could be corrected. The idea of doubling the building permit fee has been suggested and in many cases could be very negligible. The
Planning Division will put together some materials and bring them to the next meeting and see what can be done with that. Also, a survey has recently been completed for the Yalecrest area, by Bee Lufkin and they will have her on the September agenda to present a presentation on her findings. He also reminded the Commission that elections needed to be done at this meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Ashdown nominated Ms. Mickelsen for Chair. Because no second is required, she accepted. All voted “Aye”. The motion carried. Ms. White non1inated Mr. Ashdown for Vice Chair, he accepted. All voted “Aye”. The motion carried.
Ms. Mickelsen talked about the gift that was given to Shirley as her farewell gift. She found 3 wonderful books, one was on the houses in the Avenues, one on buildings in downtown Salt Lake and one that was published in 1941 on the Views of Salt Lake. She was very excited about the fact that many of the buildings are still standing except for the State Prison which was very extravagant. The price of the books was $40.00. She asked for those who can to contribute toward the cost.
Mr. Simonsen asked about some current action taken by the City Council to have Planning Staff look at housing ordinances as it relates to compatibility. He asked whether a subcommittee of Planning Commission members could work with a subcommittee of Landmark Commission members to address ideas and recommendations on that topic. He felt that at some point the HLC might be involved with the implementation of that in some way.
Mr. Paterson indicated he would look into that issue.
Mr. Simonsen asked the members if anyone would be interested in being on a subcommittee like that if one were put together. Both Ms. Carl and Mr. Lloyd mentioned they would.
Mr. Paterson also talked about the importance of attendance at meetings. He stated the Commissioners should contact Ms. Harris, HLC Secretary as soon as possible if there is a problem with being late or not being able to attend. He also asked if anyone knew of anyone that might be interested in being on the HLC to turn in their names as new members are needed.
Mr. Ashdown thanked Mr. Simonsen for his great work with HLC and everything he has contributed then he moved to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Ms. White.
The meeting adjourned at 7:51.