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 Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Elizabeth Giraud, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, William Littig, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, and Lee White. Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. 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
Mr. David Fitzsimmons was recognized as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. He was welcomed by the other members and staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2002 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no public general comments to the Commission, Mr. Simonsen continued with the Public Hearings portion of the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 007-03. at 214 South 700 East. by Acapaso Coffee Company. represented by Mountain Mudd Espresso. requesting approval to construct a new commercial building and associated signage. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Lew 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. Ms. Lew gave the following overview of the project:
Acapasa Coffee Company is requesting approval to construct a new commercial structure at 214 South 700 East in the Central City Historic District. The property is located in a Community Business (CB) zoning district, the purpose of which is "to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods."
The applicant is seeking to build "Mountain Mudd Espresso," a drive-through coffee business. The new business will be located rr1id-block along the 700 East frontage of the existing shopping center and will use accesses to the property on 700 East and 200 South for ingress and egress. The project, as first presented, was going to be Mountain Manufacturing's standard kiosk model, which would have been a one-story, 64 square foot structure with a total height of approximately 13 feet from finished grade. Following discussions with staff, the applicant made changes in the standard materials package. Current plans show the use of brick, as opposed to the aluminum exterior typically used for similar structures. Drive-through windows will be located on both the east and west sides of the building. The drawings also show aluminum type windows, but a more recent submittal indicates that the windows will have an outside casing made of wood. Other minor modifications to the site plan would be made based on discussions regarding circulation patterns with the City's Design Review Team
(DRT).
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing 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 noncontributing 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
a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually
d. Scale of compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Ms. Lew also pointed out the applicable guidelines in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Comrr1ission and the City Council. They provide a framework for the Commission to review and determine the suitability of the proposed project in terms of compliance with the standards in the ordinance.
Standards for New Construction in Historic Districts
11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:
- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.
- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.
- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.
- Using a solid-to-void that is similar to those seen traditionally, and using window
openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.
11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block.
11.6Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block.
11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district.
11.8 The back side of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.
11.9Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings.
11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also recommend design standards for the Central City Historic District.
Design Standards for Central City
13.27 Design new buildings to appear similar in mass to those that were typically in the district.
13.28 Design new buildings so that they appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally on the block.
13.30 Use primary building materials that will appear similar to those used historically.
Staff's discussion: Consistent height, width and scale are not characteristics of the historic district in this area. Buildings differ in scale due to the variety of uses permitted and mix of both contemporary and historic types of development. This combination of functions and building types creates a diverse neighborhood. Additionally, 700 East forms the eastern boundary of the Central City Historic District with the eastern side of the street actually outside of the district, and thus not subject to design review as within the district. Structures in the vicinity of the proposed project are uniformly larger than the building that is proposed.
A wide variety of roof forms can also be found on this block. The existing shopping center is contemporary in design and has a flat roof with large plate glass windows. Other individual buildings have simple roof forms including flat and gable.
Staff's finding of fact: The form and scale of the proposed structure does not fall within the range of building forms found in the area. It is smaller in size, height, and massing than the surrounding structures. Although a drive-through kiosk is not a typical building type historically seen in the city's historic districts, it fits within the eclectic mix of structures in the area and can be recognized as a contemporary design. The gable roof form is similar to those seen on this block and throughout the district, but is smaller in scale. The proposed design meets the intent of the "scale and form" standards.
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.
Standards for New Construction in Historic Districts
11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district.
11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood.
11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area.
11.15 Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block.
11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing.
11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street.
11.19 Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged.
11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
Staff's discussion: The design of the building is simple and functional. As stated above, the exterior of this project includes brick for the main portion of the building. The proposed openings consist of a band of aluminum windows along the walls of the building and a solid door. The plans do not identify the exact location of the entrance. The framing of the gabled roof will be covered with a green vinyl material in a matte finish that is similar to that used on an awning or a canopy. The proposed sign plan consists of white vinyl lettering that will be attached to the roofing material within the gables on each side of the structure.
The front elevation lacks the standard components, such as a clearly defined entrance and storefront window treatment of most commercial buildings, as well as street presence because of the automobile-driven design for the use. However, the fenestration pattern of nearby buildings is not consistent due to the variety of development along the street. The ratio of glass to wall is less than that on other big box retail buildings in the area, but although the smaller band of windows on the front is not an historical storefront characteristic, it is appropriate for the proposed drive-through use of the structure.
The primary material proposed for the building, a brick veneer wall material, is a material used historically for similar structures in the city. The applicant is, however, proposing an alternative material for the roof. The Commission should evaluate whether using a non-historic building material (vinyl) is appropriate and the potential for setting a negative precedent that could be detrimental to the city's historic districts as a whole. Wood and asphalt shingles are typically considered appropriate materials for most gabled roofs. A vinyl material would be inconsistent with these materials because it does not convey the same physical character and visual appearance with respect to composition, application and texture.
Staff's finding of fact: The simple and functional design of the proposed structure is consistent with the ordinance in several areas including relationship with respect to the proportion of openings, rhythm of solid to void in facades, primary building material and roof form. The vinyl roofing material does not meet the intent of the ordinance because it does not possess the same physical properties of typical roof coverings used in the districts, as indicated in Standards 11.15 and 11.16. The proposed project does not fully address these standards. However, a variety of uses and building types can be found on this block. If the Commission determines that the vinyl material would be appropriate for this site, they should make specific findings that address the use of the building for a drive-through, the character of the area and the location of the site.
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.
Standards for New Construction in Historic Districts
11.1Respect historic settlement patterns.
11.2Preserve the historic district's street plan.
11.3Orient the front of a primary structure to the street.
Design Standards for Central City
13.31 Minimize the visual impact of automobiles as seen from the sidewalk by pedestrians.
13.32 Screen service areas from the residential portions of the historic district.
13.34 Shield all site lighting such that it does not spill over into residential portion of the historic district.
Staff's discussion: Staff has found it difficult to review the proposed design within the streetscape context because of the character of commercial redevelopment on the block. The 700 East streetscape consists of a shopping center (Rite Aid and Big Lots), individual businesses located closer to the street (Chevron and McDonald's), two residential structures and several vacant lots at the corner of 300 South. Consistent setbacks and landscape massing are not characteristics of the block's streetscape. The shopping center is set back farther away from the street than the smaller single structures and thus the structures vary in their rhythm of spacing in relation to each other and the street.
Staff's finding of fact: Little continuity exists on the block frontages near the subject property in terms of siting and the rhythm of spacing of the structures on the street. Staff finds that the application meets the intent of the "relationship to street" standards. The front setback is more in line with the other buildings on the block, although not with the shopping center on the lot.
4. Subdivision of Lots.
Staff's finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.
Ms. Lew also discussed the signage issues in the following manner: In lieu of any individually constructed and mounted signage, the applicant is proposing to affix white vinyl lettering with their trademarked logo within the four gables of the vinyl covered roof structure. The proposed signage treatment would not be illuminated or back-lit. The "Mountain Mudd Espresso" lettering and logo has been considered a flat sign by the City's Building Services Division and would be approximately 8 square feet in area per building facade. According to the zoning ordinance, a flat sign may be installed to identify the entrance of the building and on the elevation with street frontage.
Ms. Lew also referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(11) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Ms. Lew stated that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district. The Historic Landmark Commission should use these criteria in Section 5.0 in determining whether the proposed signs are consistent with the character of the district, as required by the zoning ordinance. The criteria are listed below:
A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee [Historic Landmark Commission] considers the entire principal facade as the sign (i.e. in context). A sign should relate to the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and the streetscape.
In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple), the Committee encourages the use of low-key, sophisticated signage such as brass letter, painted signs in an historic character etc. The Committee encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated sign in most cases. Back-lit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
The Historic Landmark Committee considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Committee. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.
Ms. Lew pointed out the applicable guidelines in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
Design Standards for Central City.
13.33 Minimize the visual impacts of signs.
The full text of the standards and criteria was included in the staff report.
Staff's discussion: Like the buildings, a wide variety of signage exists on this block due to the contemporary nature of the area. Staff believes that the proposed signage will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The signage is being applied to a new building within a block that consists of predominately non-historic structures on the eastern boundary of the district.
Canopy sign treatments have been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission in the past, when the design blends with the architectural details of the building, and if the canopy is not of a synthetic material nor back-lit. Synthetic materials have been discouraged because they fail to appear similar to traditional awnings and canopies in visual quality (glossiness and transparency).
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed signage will comply with the requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs. Additionally, the proposed signage is consistent with the Commission's design standards in terms of size, location, style, color and illumination. The incorporation of signage into the actual roof material is typical of new construction proposals reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. The use of vinyl, of which the signage is an integral feature, is inconsistent with the standards as discussed above. Despite the unusual nature of the signage, staff finds that overall the proposed sign plan complies with this standard.
Ms. Lew offered the following staff recommendation: "Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends approval of the proposed project at 214 South 700 East with the following conditions: 1) Review of the final details of the design of the proposed project including materials, as well as any other concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission, shallbe delegated to the Architectural Subcommittee, where the applicant could receive the focused technical support of the Commission's architects; and 2) This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements."
Ms. Lew also stated that if the Commission decides to deny the request, it should adopt findings supported by substantial evidence.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Littig inquired if the fascia was vinyl as well. Ms. Lew said that it was. She also said the entire roof would be a vinyl material.
Mr. Parvaz clarified that the background material for the proposed signage would be vinyl. Ms. Lew reiterated that the vinyl letters would be applied to the roof, which is also the vinyl material.
Mr. Simonsen said that the proposed structure would not fit either the character of a temporary structure or a permanent structure. He also pointed out that the structure would not have a foundation. Ms. Lew said that the proposal met the building code requirements.
When asked, Ms. Lew said that the building would be anchored to the ground and suggested asking the applicant how that would be accomplished.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Brenda Burkhartsmeier, the founder of the company, Mountain Mudd, a chain of retail coffee stores in 157 locations across the United States, was present. She noted that the concept of the building is unusual and draws a line between semi-permanent and permanent. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the design has been viewed very differently in many cities and the retail business has become a more highly regulated type of industry. She said that the kiosk was designed by a team of architects and would have to meet all UBC (Unified Building Code). She added that it would not be a wooden storage shed with a window in the side. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the kiosk is a precisely calculated pre-manufactured building and the roof is an intricate part of the design and how it would fit on the site. She said that a third party inspection agency would visit the manufacturing plant in Montana and inspect the building so it meets Utah's standards.
Ms. Burkhartsmeier stated that she was familiar with the function of a preservation board because her activities in Billings Montana, include being a member of a preservation board and historical society, which are review groups. She added that her company was "pro regulation". Ms. Burkhartsmeier circulated photographs of other buildings she called "copycats". She pointed out by adding a wood or asphalt roof ruined the scale of the building and calculations would have to be completely redone. Ms. Burkhartsmeier believed by using these materials for the roof the kiosk would lose some of its commercial appeal as it would look like a storage shed.
Ms. Burkhartsmeier explained that the HVAC equipment would be located underneath the sealed canopy, completely screened, but would allow for "breathability" due to the innovative design of the roof. She indicated that studies of snow loads, typhoons, seismic conditions, and hurricanes were contained in a booklet she presented.
Ms. Burkhartsmeier stated that the design standards suggest recessing the building with a porch. However, she said by doing that the building would have an appearance of a cabin and that was not the look for which the company was seeking.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring about using a metal material for the roof. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that metal has not been used. She added that many cities would consider that the same as using aluminum siding, which is traditionally not allowed. Mr. Littig mentioned back-lit awnings and Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the original plans showed the use of back-lighting, but the plans were modified. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the exterior siding is stucco embossed aluminum. She mentioned that the brick application which was used for a building in another location was more orange than the old town brick that is planned for this current site. There was some discussion as different photographs were viewed.
• Mr. Ashdown clarified that lighting would not be used behind the vinyl. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that was correct. Mr. Ashdown inquired if flood lights would be used to illuminate the building at night. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the peak times for their clientele are in the early morning hours. She noted that there might be some early morning issues, but the lights in the building would be sufficient. Mr. Ashdown asked if any other material other than the vinyl had been used in other locations. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said they had not used any other material.
Mr. Christensen said that it seemed like the building would be susceptible to withholding moisture underneath without a foundation. He also inquired what the life of the building would be. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the company has been in business for ten years and the framework has a lifetime warranty. She explained how the bottom of the buildings are completely sealed and did not seem to have the moisture problem even in warm climates such as in Florida. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that there was no sign of dry rot to the buildings because they are raised off the ground slightly then anchored with bolts into the asphalt or concrete pillars on all four corners. Again this allows for air circulation underneath the building. Ms. Burkhartsmeier went on to explain that this type of business is not the type that would utilize permanent locations. She added that the buildings are made portable and removable and are usually placed on unused portions of parking lots. Mr. Christensen asked about restroom facilities. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that restroom facilities are contracted out to a nearby business. She indicated that the restroom facility for this subject location would be the gas station on the corner. She mentioned that only beverages are served in their locations. Mr. Christensen also clarified that the windows would have a wood trim and Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that was correct.
Ms. Giraud asked what the holes were in the sides of a building seen in one of the photographs. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said those holes were for the receptacles for the forklift; however, those could be covered with a green trim skirting around the bottom or the holes could be plugged with rubber of some other kind of material.
• When Mr. Simonsen asked what kind of material was used for the skirting, Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the material has been alurr1inum flashed into the brick about four inches high, depending on the grade of the parking lot.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the roofing came in one piece. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the roof is a solid piece and the building is a solid piece that would be shipped by a common freight carrier. Mr. Parvaz asked some questions about the vinyl material. Ms. Burkhartsmeier displayed a sample of the vinyl material called Cooley-Brite, No. 4048 in forest green. She said that it has a warranty of 25 years. She added that the slickness of the fabric allows it to stay much cleaner and meets a higher requirement for snow loading. Ms. Burkhartsmeier also mentioned that it holds up much better than canvas. Mr. Parvaz was curious about the hours of operation. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said they would be open from 6:00A.M. to 6:00P.M. She added that some across the nation are opened until later in the evening. When Mr. Parvaz asked about the competition from the gas station/convenience store, Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that she certainly hoped the coffee served in their kiosks would be much better. Mr. Parvaz asked how the water would be drained from the building. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that the building is self contained and a service transport vehicle licensed by the state for water removal would service the building. She said that purified bottled water is usually used to make their coffee.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen 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 proposal before the Commission.
Mr. Littig had misgivings about the vinyl roof. He said that when he looked at the proposed building he believed it would be an opening for the use of a very contemporary material. He believed that a metal roof could be used without affecting the calculations for the structure. He believed that the building would be inappropriate for the area. He did not have a problem with the size of the building, remembering the small drive-through photomat stores. He pointed out the lack of detailing on the building.
Mr. Ashdown said that ordinarily he would agree with that assessment if it would not be sitting in a parking lot with a gas station, a Big Lot, a Rite Aid Store, and a McDonalds. He added that there were very few remaining historic structures in the area. He said that even though he objected to the vinyl roof, he did not view it as a problem in this location. He said if the proposal was for the Avenues, then he would not consider it.
Mr. Simonsen reviewed the language in Section 11.16 of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, "New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically. They also must have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate. Metal products are allowed for soffits and eaves only." He said that the scale, proportion, texture, and finish are so far from an historic use, other than perhaps an out building. He said that there was a question how the proposal would comply with the ordinance because there was no historical precedence for a building of this scale.
Mr. Christensen believed that the design and materials would not violate historic materials, but expressed concern about the precedence it would set. Ms. Lew suggested that the Commission members make specific findings as to why or why not the building would be appropriate or not appropriate in this particular location. Ms. Giraud added that it would also have to be specified the use for this type of building, in a temporary location of a parking lot and the diversity of non-historic buildings that surround the site. Mr. Simonsen agreed that the context should be part of the motion. Ms. Giraud said that in terms of setting a precedent, staff receives many calls wanting to use vinyl or aluminum siding and the vinyl skirting could be looked upon as allowing vinyl siding on a building, where she did not expect to get another proposal for a vinyl roof.
Mr. Ashdown said that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City stated in Section 11.19, "Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged", not required.
Mr. Parvaz said his greatest concern was the fact that it would have no foundation. He did not want the vinyl skirting around the base. He said that a concrete base should ·fill in the gap around the bottom of the building.
The discussion continued. It was a consensus of the Commission to reopen the meeting to ask the applicant additional questions. Mr. Simonsen reopened this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Simonsen asked Ms. Burkhartsmeier about putting a concrete slab underneath the building to use for a foundation. Ms. Burkhartsmeier said that they had not used a concrete slab. She said they had only used a color-coded aluminum to match the siding. Ms. Burkhartsmeier expressed her concern that a concrete slab would make the structure permanent and the owners might not be receptive to the idea of pouring concrete on their parking lot. She again explained how the floor would be sealed up off the asphalt.
Mr. Littig suggested using something like cement blocks to build a foundation, then it would not look as if it were a permanent structure. He said that he did not know the ergonomics of the building, and if one end could be lifted up.
Since there were no additional questions for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen reclosed the meeting and continued with the executive session portion of the meeting.
The discussion continued. Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone had been able to form a motion.
First motion:
In the matter of Case No. 007-03, Mr. Ashdown moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the staff's findings of fact with the exception of the finding related to the use of vinyl roofing which the Historic Landmark Commission finds is acceptable based on Standard 11.17, Standards for New Construction in Historic Districts. The proposal is similar to the existing non-contributing buildings, including, the gas station to the north, retail stores to the west and McDonalds to the south. All use new materials, so the Historic Landmark Commission finds that in the terms of context and scale, the use of the structure is compatible with the environment. The design is to be submitted to the Architectural Subcommittee. As required in Section 21A.34.020(H)(2)(b) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades, it states: "The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape." The Historic Landmark Commission had a problem with the void below the wall and the fact that there are no surrounding structures anywhere near which have voids below their supporting walls. This issue is also to be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee with respect to Section 21A.34.020(H)(2)(d), Relationship of Materials, where it states: "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."
A short discussion took place. Mr. Ashdown amended his motion.
Amended and final motion:
In the matter of Case No. 007-03, Mr. Ashdown moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the staff's findings of fact with the exception of the finding related to the use of vinyl roofing which the Historic Landmark Commission ·finds is acceptable based on Standard 11.17, Standards for New Construction in Historic Districts. The proposal is similar to the existing non-contributing buildings, including, the gas station to the north, retail stores to the west and McDonalds to the south. All use new materials, so the Historic Landmark Commission finds that in the terms of context and scale, the use of the structure is compatible with the environment.
The design is to be submitted to the Architectural Subcommittee. As required in Section 21A.34.020(H)(2)(b) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades, it states: "The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape." The Historic Landmark Commission had a problem with the void below the wall and the fact that there are no surrounding structures anywhere near which have voids below their supporting walls. This issue is also to be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee with respect to Section 21A.34.020(H)(2)(d), Relationship of Materials, where it states: "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."
Due to the fact that the proposed structure would be temporary, the Historic Landmark Commission allowed the use of the vinyl roofing material, and that the size of this structure is an important consideration in the approval of this case. After the review by the Architectural Subcommittee of the materials, staff could administratively approve the project. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Mr. Fitzsimmons abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The proposed fluoridation building in City Creek Park.
Mr. Wheelwright mentioned that Salt Lake City's Public Utilities is abandoning the City Creek Park site and will focus on putting the fluoridation equipment in the shed roof annex next to Ottinger Hall. He said that Public Utilities will have to clear the site with the Mayor's office and the proposed youth center. Mr. Wheelwright stated that if the building could be used. The cost of running the lines under the street may offset the cost of constructing a new building.
Villa Theater
Mr. Ashdown asked if the Historic Landmark Commission had any jurisdiction over the closing and demolition of the Villa Theater on Highland Drive. Mr. Simonsen said that it sits outside Salt Lake City's limits. Ms. Giraud said that the theater sits on property in an area that is proposed for annexation into the city. Mr. Simonsen said it would have to be designated as a landmark site.
Land Use Appeals Board
Mr. Parvaz inquired when the Historic Landmark Commission would have access to the minutes of the last Land Use Appeals Board hearings. Ms. Giraud said that minutes have to be approved before they are released. She mentioned that until recently, minutes of the Land Use Appeals Board were not provided, just the tape was available. It was the consensus of the Commission that the minutes should be accessible for review. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the decisions of the Land Use Appeals Board was a binding decision and whether or not permits could be issued as the results of the board's decision before the minutes are released for due process. The Land Use Appeals Board hears and decides appeals from decisions made by the Historic Landmark Corr1mission and the Planning Commission. When asked, Ms. Lew said that an appeal of the Land Use Appeals Board's decision can be filed in district court. Mr. Parvaz stated that he would like to know how the Land Use Appeals Board came to its conclusions.
Mr. Zunguze said that legal staff should be consulted in this matter.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Littig moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:15P.M.