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 Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, William T. Wright, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Sarah Miller, and Orlan Owen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.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
Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from the January 5, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Simonsen. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Owen were not present. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 002-00, at 514 North 200 West, by Jeffrey and Shelly Hickam, represented by Robert L. Booker of Booker and Associates. P.C., requesting approval to legalize vinyl siding, fascia, and soffit installed without a building permit.
Mr. Payne recused himself from this case.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that the applicants began their project in August of 1999. He said that two Capitol Hill residents had called and said that they had spoken with the persons working on the house and informed them that vinyl siding was not allowed in the historic district. Mr. Knight said that staff notified the City housing and zoning inspector that the work was being done without a permit. He said that the inspector visited the property and observed that the work had been completed, so the City issued a notice and order to remove the siding, which has been put on hold, pending the outcome of the applicants' appeal to the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Knight said that in 1980, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted the following policy regarding the use of artificial materials: "The use of artificial material in a building which is listed on the City register, either as a landmark site or as part of an historic district, shall not be approved unless it is proven necessary for the preservation of the building."
Mr. Knight continued by saying the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance was rewritten and adopted in April of 1995. He said that Section 21A.34.20(G)(10), which was included in the staff report, addresses the synthetic siding issue on contributing or landmark site structures: "Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: a) vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and b) any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials."
Mr. Knight also addressed the applicable sections of the Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Knight discussed the requirements found in Section 21A.34.20(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the staffs findings, which are included in the staff report. He reviewed the following staff’s recommendation: "Staff does not find that the project substantially complies with all of the general standards outlined in the ordinance that pertain to the application and that approval is not in the best interest of the City. Staff recommends denial of this application."
Ms. Mitchell pointed out that a correction needed to be made in the staff report regarding the number three finding. She said that Mr. Knight verbally corrected the finding when he said that the application did not comply with this standard, but the staff report read that the application complied with this standard. Mr. Knight acknowledged the correction by saying that the application complied with the standard to the extent that it is significant in this case.
The applicant, Mr. Jeffrey Hickam, and his attorney, Mr. Robert L. Booker, were present. Mr. Booker stated that he was speaking in behalf of the applicants. He said that Mr. Edward McBride was originally working with Mr. and Mrs. Hickam in respect to this application, but left Booker and Associates, P.C. a few weeks earlier.
Mr. Booker continued by saying that he only received a copy of the staff report this day and had not had the opportunity to study it. He asked if any decision on this case could be postponed until such a time when he could represent the applicants in a reasonable manner.
Mr. Young said that he would take this into consideration. He called for a point of order and asked, "Do we still continue comment on the case from other people?" Mr. Wright said that as a matter of convenience, give the people in the audience an opportunity to comment, because they might not be available for the next meeting. Mr. Wright said that he believed that staff would recommend a postponement to give the applicant's representative an opportunity to review the case.
Mr. Young inquired if the Commission had any questions for the applicant. There was none so 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 into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Littig inquired if the staff would have to go through the findings and recommendation again if the case was to be continued. Mr. Wright said that there may be members in the audience at the next meeting that were not present today who may have questions of staff and they would need to hear a full presentation.
There was no other discussion. The Chair entertained a motion. Motion:
Mr. Parvaz moved to postpone Case No. 002-00 until the next meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission so the applicants would be ready to bring the case to the Commission. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Payne was in recusancy. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Owen were not present. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 003-00, 216 West Reed Avenue, by Raul Pineda, requesting approval to construct a new single-family house in the Capitol Hill Historic District. This case was postponed at the owner’s request.
Case No. 004-00, by the Salt Lake City Parks Division, represented by Jan Striefel of Landmark Design Inc., requesting approval for several projects in Liberty Park, including new lighting, restroom demolition and construction, parking improvements, playground replacement, picnic rehabilitation, monument restoration, and jogging path and basketball court improvements. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He stated that the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the Liberty Park Master Plan, as a discussion issue, in 1998. He said that the proposed project would implement the first phase of the Master Plan.
He stated that the extent of the work includes: 1) a new jogging track in approximately the same location as the existing jogging path; 2) replacement of the basketball court in the same location; 3) picnic area rehabilitation that includes adding picnic tables and concrete pads in selected locations already being used for picnicking; 4) monument rehabilitation and removal of two monuments; 5) replacement of old playground equipment in northwest quadrant of the park; 6) demolition of old restrooms in the northeast quadrant of the park replaced with new restrooms in same location; 7) two new restrooms, one near the new playground equipment in the northwest quadrant and one southeast of the tennis courts, near the carousel area; 8) renovation of restrooms at Children's Garden (no changes to the exterior of this building); 9) restroom addition to tennis courts building 10) realignment and repaving of parking lots northeast of the tennis courts and near north shelter building; 11) new light poles and fixtures along Constitution Avenue loop, Sixth East pedestrian corridor, and lawn areas; and 12) new walkways at various locations throughout the park.
Mr. Knight also discussed the proposal for the monuments. He said that there were numerous monuments throughout the park in varying condition. He added that the applicants proposed to repair all of the monuments, with two exceptions. Mr. Knight said that the monuments to be repaired were: 1) Daughters of the American Revolution Fountain and Fireplace, Northeast quadrant, near restrooms; 2) Chase Millstone Monument, east of Chase Mill; 3) eagle fountain, along 600 east at east gates of aviary. (Currently removed for repair.); 4) Chase Fountain, east of Chase house. (Changes approved as part of the Chase House rehabilitation); 5) entry pillars, 600 East at 900 South entrance; 6) Moose Lodge fireplace, southeast quadrant, north of lake at Constitution Drive; and 7) stone arbors, near the "drum circle" area on east side of the park. (Arbors have already been reconstructed by Parks Division).
Mr. Knight said that the monument removal included the stone fireplace, located northeast of the tennis courts, which was once a site used for picnicking. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission considered the Boy Scout flagpole base at its meeting on September 1, 1999 and the Commission approved a new flagpole to be placed on the 600 East promenade. He indicated that the flagpole base would incorporate the cast concrete eagle on the old monument base and would include a plaque that mentioned the old monument. Mr. Knight said that the Parks Division would like to remove the base as part of this work. He stated that although the flagpole is a contributing part of the historic landscape, vandalism and deterioration have advanced to a point that is, in staff’s opinion, beyond repair. Mr. Knight proceeded through the requirements of Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alterations of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, and staff’s findings of fact, which were included in the staff report.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation, which was included in the staff report: "Staff recommends approval as proposed, with the condition that the new picnic tables and playground equipment should be a natural or earth-tone color."
Ms. Jan Striefel, Mr. Dow Richardson of Heath Engineering, and Ms. Jill Jones of A.J.C. Architects, representing the applicant were present. Ms. Striefel said that she could address some the concerns that were expressed in the staff report regarding the picnic tables and the playground equipment. She said that cast concrete for the picnic tables was being considered which would be a subdued and not a bright color. Ms. Striefel said that there was new playground equipment in another portion of the park and the color scheme was dark green with a tan accent color. She added that would be the same color scheme of the new playground equipment.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by suggesting that the large stone fireplace was a piece of historical fabric and should be saved. He expressed his concerns about moving it. Ms. Striefel stated that the Parks Division believed the fireplace to be a "nuisance" in its current location and being "misused". She said that she did not know how feasible it would be to move it, but that the Parks Department would examine this question further. Mr. Littig also inquired about the stonework that was proposed for the new restrooms. He added that there was much "traditional" stonework existing in the park. Ms. Striefel introduced Ms. Jill Jones, who is the architect working on the restroom design. Ms. Jones said that the intent would be to match some of the existing river rock (cobble rock) that exists throughout the park. Ms. Striefel said that the rock would be similar to the stone arbors that are nearby.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the jogging track. Ms. Striefel said that there has been much discussion about the material to be used for the jogging track. She indicated that, most likely, the material would be a "crushed wood" with a concrete or wooden edge. She added that there would be no roller blading or biking on the surface; that it was exclusively for walking or jogging. Ms. Striefel that that the elongated characteristics of the wood holds the surface together. She pointed out that the material has been used for playgrounds, as well.
• Ms. Giraud expressed concerns about the lighting and to make certain that it would not be patterned after City Creek Park. Ms. Striefel introduced Mr. Dow Richardson, who is the electrical designer. Mr. Richardson reported that the lighting would be white 250-watt metal halide lamps with single acorn-shaped heads. He discussed in detail how the engineers decided on what would be considered an "intermediate street lighting level". He further proposed that it would not be like City Creek Park.
• Mr. Young inquired if the fixtures would be shielded so the lighting would be directed down into the park. Mr. Richardson said that there would be house light shields on the light fixtures. He added that the shields would be on two sides so the birds in the aviary would not be affected by the lighting. Mr. Richardson explained the types of lighting 'fixtures that were being proposed, which were included in the staff report.
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 into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was still some questions to be asked of the applicant so it was the decision of the Commission to reopen the meeting for comment. Mr. Parvaz asked if the proposals reviewed at this meeting coordinated with the master plan for Liberty Park. Ms. Striefel said that the scope of the work did coordinate with the master plan. Mr. Young reclosed the meeting and said that the Chair would entertain a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Payne moved to approve Case No. 004-00, based on the findings of fact and recommendations made by staff. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Owen were not present. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 005-00, at 1027 E. South Temple, by Thomas Boden, represented by Max Smith of Max Smith and Associates Architects, requesting approval to renovate the existing building and construct a new building in the area of the existing parking lot.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She stated that there were two separate sections to this proposal, 1) renovate the house but remove the frame additions and sleeping porches and change the use to a single-family condominium unit; and 2) the construction of an L-shaped building of four condominium units. Ms. Giraud said that even though the proposal consisted of two separate structures on one parcel, the applicant would not be required to go through a planned development process because the second structure would not cover more than 60 percent of the lot area and both buildings would be oriented to the street. She added that the applicant would have to go through the condominium process, working with the City's Planning Division.
Ms. Giraud continued by saying that there would be a variance needed for the parking ramp that is proposed on the east side of the property from South Temple.
Ms. Giraud proceeded through the requirements of Section 21A.34.020(G) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alterations of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, and Section 21A.34.0020(H) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction of Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, and staff’s findings of fact, which were included in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds many merits to this proposal, such as the preservation of an existing structure; the filling in of an unattractive gap in the South Temple streetscape, and new construction that is appropriate for the historic character of this district. Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposal, upon the condition that more complete plans are submitted for review by the Architectural Subcommittee, and a final review by the full Commission."
The applicant, Mr. Thomas Boden, as well as his representative Mr. Max Smith, were present. Mr. Smith used a briefing board to further explain the project. He explained that the existing building would be restored and that the new construction would wrap around that existing building. Mr. Smith pointed out that the streetscape drawing of South Temple had the new proposed residential building drawn in to see the potential scale and rhythm of the street. He also said that the south and west elevations were drawn without the existing house on the plans that were included in the staff report.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Mitchell led the discussion by inquiring about the proposed entrances to the individual condominium units. Mr. Smith pointed out the entrances on the drawings and said that there could be another entrance on South Temple if the Commission believed it would be benefit the project. He said that the main entry into the facility would be a gated pediment, masonry, pass through where entrance telephones and mail boxes would be placed. Mr. Smith added that the intent would provide security for the residents. He noted that the existing fence and walkway in front of the house would remain as they were a part of the historic property. Ms. Mitchell expressed her concerns that, although South Temple has a formal streetscape, it still is a "welcoming" environment and believed that an iron gate at the front entry into the facility would not be in keeping that "friendliness" for the environment. Mr. Smith agreed that was a point to consider, but talked once more about the security issue. Ms. Mitchell noted that she wanted to be certain that the east elevation was not just a blank wall. Mr. Smith said that a schematic of the east elevation would be submitted that would show the pattern of the windows.
• Mr. Young continued the discussion regarding the iron gate at the front entry and inquired if there was some way to adapt the existing front walk and gate to the house so it would be the walkway into the facility instead of having two front gates. Mr. Smith said he believed that the applicant would be willing to study that suggestion further to try to eliminate the second gate.
• Mr. Littig said that he was more bothered by the type of roof proposed over the main entry way into the facility than the gate because it was not usually seen in a residential setting. Mr. Smith said that the roof would provide a shelter for one to retrieve the mail and to call on the telephone to be admitted through the door. Mr. Littig also inquired about the originality of the porch on the historic house. Mr. Smith said that he did not believe it was original. He indicated that it was the applicant's intention to restore the existing house to the Secretary of the Interior's standards so the porch element would require more study.
• Mr. Wilson asked for further clarification of the south elevation where the grade would step down between the building and the sidewalk. Mr. Smith said that there would be a difference in the grade level. Mr. Smith also explained that there was a walled, lower, courtyard that would be accessible to the building. Mr. Wilson said that the lowered courtyard or sunken garden would not relate to other buildings on South Temple. Mr. Smith agreed but added that it would relate to the new proposed building. Mr. Wilson talked more about the possibility of an entrance to an individual condominium on the south elevation. There was some discussion about how that could be accomplished.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the height of the proposed building. Mr. Smith indicated that a 35-foot or 2 %-storied structure would be allowed. He pointed out that many of the houses on the street had 2 % stories. Mr. Parvaz indicated
that the applicant needed to provide detailed drawings for the ingress and egress of the parking garage and the driveway. Mr. Smith said that the entrance driveway off South Temple would slope up to the midpoint of the garage, then exit onto "P" Street, which would not be gated. Mr. Smith indicated that the driveway had been reviewed by Mr. Barry Walsh in the Transportation Division. Mr. Littig inquired about mechanical ventilation of the parking garage that would have to comply with the decibel level of the noise ordinance. There was more discussion regarding the parking garage.
• Mr. Simonsen talked more about the entrances into the units and inquired if any would be shared. Mr. Smith said that the entrances would not be shared; each individual unit would have a separate main door. He also explained that an elevator would be provided from the parking structure which would also access the upper units. Mr. Simonsen also said that he was concerned that there would be a series of gated entries on the front elevation, which would not be consistent with the fabric along South Temple. The existing retaining wall was also discussed.
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 into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was a short discussion regarding the wording of a motion. Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to table Case No. 005-00 and refer the project to the Architectural Subcommittee for further review of the detailing, such as the fencing, the security gates, retaining wall and how it would be viewed from the street, the driveway, and resolution of an entrance on the front elevation. It was seconded by Mr. Simonsen.
There was some further discussion. Ms. Mitchell inquired if there was a need to make a statement about an approval on the demolition of the additions on the existing house at this point. Ms. Giraud said that it would be implied by an approval of the project or suggested that the demolition of the additions would be approved contingent on the new construction. Ms. Mitchell suggested that the motion be amended to make that statement. Ms. Rowland also recommended a statement about minimizing the gates and an entrance into the proposed new building from the South Temple elevation. Mr. Littig amended his motion.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Littig moved to table Case No.005-00 and refer the project to the Architectural Subcommittee for further review of the detailing, such as the fencing, the security gates, retaining wall and how it would be viewed from the street, the driveway, and resolution of an entrance on the front elevation, and the application to be
returned to the full Commission for final approval. Further, the Commission moved to approve the demolition of the frame additions to the existing structure, contingent upon the final approval of the new construction. The second still stood by Mr. Simonsen. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Owen were not present. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Historic Landmark Commission's citizens awards presentation.
Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission of the citizens awards presentation that will be held on February 16, 2000 at 5:30P.M. in Room 126.
• Election of officers for the year 2000-2001.
By a closed ballot, Mr. Wayne Gordon was elected as Chairperson and Ms. Elizabeth
Mitchell was elected by acclamation as Vice Chairperson.
Mr. Young was congratulated on his tenure as Chair of the Historic Landmark
Commission.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Simonsen so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:30P.M.