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 Susan deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Giraud, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, and Robert Young. Thomas Cerruti, William Damery, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Lynn Morgan were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel
Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.
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. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the January 7, 1998 meeting, after some small corrections are made. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the joint meeting with the Planning Commission on January 22, 1998, after assurance was given to the Commission that the accompanying information would be filed with the minutes. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASE
Case No. 002-98. by Lance Duffield and Paul Gardner of Black Oak Development requesting approval of a new construction project at 661-665 South 500 East of four town homes.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Both Mr. Lance Duffield and Mr. Paul Gardner, the applicants, were present. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Duffield stated that the revised rendering was a concept of the original plan with a "row house" look of which the Commission and the Architectural Subcommittee seemed to be favor. Copies of the revised drawings, the wall section, and the landscaping plans were circulated to the members.
Mr. Duffield displayed samples of the proposed exterior materials and of the windows. He described the following revisions to the plans and the proposed materials: 1) 2 Y2 to 3-inch caliper indigenous trees, such as Maple, would be planted; 2) more greenery and landscaping would be added to the rear parking area to break-up the asphalt; 3) the existing pine trees would be removed; 4) the windows would be of an etched glass; 5) double-hung, individual single-hung, and banks of single-hung windows would be installed; 6) concrete capstones would be used for the window headers; 7) the windows would be set back and the plaster system would roll into the window creating a shadow line, with no significant trim on the side of the windows. Optional trimming could be used, which would set the windows back further; 8) a neutral colored synthetic stucco system would be troweled on the exterior; and 9) a simulated cast stone, would be used for trim on the porch posts, the window sills, and a horizontal 2 Y2- inch wide piece would be used at the foundation line and the floor line to cover the expansion joints in the plaster system. The color would be a darker color than the plaster system for contrast, giving the exterior of the building more texture. A short discussion followed regarding the proposed materials.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Littig inquired about the etching on the proposed windows. Mr. Duffield said that the windows would have a traditional look with using contemporary materials. He said that he did not want to use the grids between the window panes and true divided light was not an option, due to the cost. Mr. Littig referring to the simulated stone, asked if a material could be obtained that had more of a consistent color, like in traditional stone work. Mr. Duffield said that he had no problem with using another material, even a natural looking simulated sandstone or granite, which would give the proposed building a more historic look. Mr. Gardner agreed that the material for the accent trim was negotiable. Mr. Gardner said that his primary concern was to get an approval of the layout of the building, then the details could be worked out. Ms. Blaes said that the detailed elements of the project would have to meet the criteria in the ordinance, in order for the Commission to approve the project. She indicated that many of the details could be reviewed in an Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Littig continued his inquiry by asking if the applicant had considered a building design of joining the front porches, making either two or one long porch, rather than four individual entrance porches. He said that, traditionally, buildings in the area would not have four entrances. Mr. Littig said that design would give the front elevation a symmetrical look and would tie-in more with other buildings in the area. Mr. Duffield said that it was their goal to make the four units individual, with separate front entryways and porches. Mr. Gardner said that breaking-up the front façade into four individual units would give the building a more "row house" look, which was discussed at the last Commission meeting.
• Ms. Deal inquired about the use of real stone instead of cast stone. Mr. Duffield said that cost was a factor. He said that the simulated product was easier to use and had a ten-year warrantee from the manufacturer, which real stone did not have. Mr. Duffield added that he preferred cultured stone to natural stone, but that was negotiable. He further addressed the proposed accent trim. A short discussion took place as there was some confusion with how the detailing was read on the drawings and the proposed exterior materials.
Ms. Deal asked if the exterior plaster siding came in prefab panels. Mr. Duffield said that the exterior synthetic stucco material would be troweled onto the exterior walls. He added that he had considered using real three-coat stucco, but that was not his first choice. There was some discussion regarding the exterior wall material. Ms. Deal said that a plaster-finish was not a typical material in the Central City Historic District, and the building would not be compatible to the area. She inquired if the applicant had considered masonry. Mr. Duffield pointed out that there were several structures in the area with painted-brick exteriors, which made them look like stucco. Ms. Deal said that painted brick had a texture that could be seen from the street. Mr. Duffield said that there was a cost issue of using masonry. He said that they were trying to keep the product in "some realm of affordability" but believed that issue was not a concern of the Commission. Mr. Duffield said that the cost of using masonry rather than a plaster system was substantial. Ms. Deal agreed, but informed the applicant that he was dealing in an historic district which had an established pattern, and using the same exterior material, as in his other projects, that were not in historic districts, should be reconsidered. Ms. Deal stated that if any changes would be contemplated to an approved building design or for exterior materials, the applicant would have to return to the Commission for approval of those changes.
Ms. Deal said that she also had a problem with the scale, massing, and the gabled roof. She added that the building would be surrounded by single-storied houses and it would be too massive for the area. Ms. Deal also spoke of the 70-foot elevation which the residents on Gallagher Place would be exposed to and added that it was totally out of context. Ms. Deal said that a streetscape drawing would have been helpful to the Commission members.
• Ms. Miller inquired if the applicants had considered a flat roof. Mr. Duffield said that he did not want to put a flat roof on the building. Mr. Gardner said that he believed flat roofs were almost impossible to maintain and would not consider it. Ms. Miller stated that she thought the scale and massing had been broken-up by the "row house" or "townhouse" design of the structure. She suggested that a vertical element be added in the center portion of the front facade to separate that massing. Ms. Miller said that she did not have a problem with the general physical appearance of the proposed building.
• Mr. McFarland said that he thought more landscaping would be needed in the rear. He added that the proposed Aspen and Colorado Blue Spruce trees would not do well surrounded by hot pavement because those species appreciated coolness and higher altitudes. Ms. McFarland suggested that the applicants give more thought to the landscaping and the type of trees to use.
Mr. Gardner said that he felt like they had addressed the Commission's concerns in the revised drawings and pointed that since this was the second time the applicants had appeared before this Commission, he would like to have some kind of definitive response from the Commission of specific issues that they still needed to work out.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion continued. Ms. Blaes pointed out that the Staff had made a findings of fact in the staff report, and the Commission had the responsibility of supporting or not supporting it. She talked about the criteria upon which the Commission needed to base a decision, which is found in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Blaes said that there appeared to be some controversy regarding the scale and form of this proposed project. She read the Staffs finding regarding scale and form, as follows: "The proposed structure is visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape in terms of height and scale. It differs in width, but the use of multi-unit structures next to single-family residences in this district is typical, and examples of such structures that are wider than the proposed four-plex can be seen in the vicinity of this property. Gable and hipped roofs are typical of surrounding residences, but are not typical of multi-family residences." Ms. Blaes asked for a consensus of opinion of the members by making it known who supported the Staffs finding on scale and form.
After a vote was taken, Ms. Blaes indicated that she wanted the records to show that the majority of the members supported the finding; and that based on comments which had been made by members during this discussion, there was some concern about refining the scale and form further in an Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
The discussion turned to the subject of the proposed etching on the windows. The members agreed to reopen the meeting to the public. Ms. Blaes reopened this portion of the hearing and asked the applicants to respond to the questions. Mr. Duffield said that the windows would be in the same size group and that the etching would only be on the top pane of the window. Ms. Blaes reclosed the hearing to the public.
A lengthy discussion took place. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as: 1) traditionally, the window pattern would be one large window with side windows, or a bank of windows that would have at least a 6-inch space between the windows; 2) the proposed windows needed to have a deeper profile, 3) making the north elevation on Gallagher Place more pedestrian oriented by adding a sidewalk; 4) the windows were drawn on the plans without lintels or caps; 5) the rhythm of solids to voids in the facades; and 6) the window openings.
Mr. Young moved, based on the Staff's findings of fact for Case No.002-98, to recommend that this case be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement of details, as per the discussion, and be returned to the full Commission for final approval. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.
A short discussion took place regarding the approval by the Subcommittee. Mr. Young amended the motion.
Mr. Young moved, based on the Staff's findings of fact for Case No. 002-98, that this case be forwarded to the Architectural Subcommittee for review of the refinement details, as per the discussion at this meeting, and give the Subcommittee the authority for final approval, after reviewing those details. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon.
The discussion continued. Some members of the subcommittee said that they would not be comfortable with the subcommittee having final approval and that it was a huge burden to put on the Subcommittee. Ms. Blaes pointed out that it had to be determined in the motion if final approval would be given by the Subcommittee or by the full Commission.
No one voted "Aye". Ms. Deal Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young unanimously were opposed. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion did not pass.
A short discussion followed. It was suggested that a list of the details that needed refining be listed.
Mr. Young moved, based on the Staffs findings of fact for Case No. 002-98, to recommend that this case be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement of details for the windows, the massing on the front, the landscaping and trees, the stonework, the side elevations, the sidewalk, and the foundation, as per the discussion at this meeting, and be returned to the full Commission for final approval. It was seconded by Mr. Littig. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Ms. Deal was opposed. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan were not present Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
The schedule of the meetings of the Historic Landmark Commission and the Architectural Subcommittee was discussed. When Mr. Gardner asked how the approval for the project could be expedited. Ms. Blaes spoke of the appeals process information which appears process on the back of the agenda.
NEW CASES
Case No. 004-98. by Robert Rose. represented by Jim Adamson of Petroleum Equipment Company. requesting to install a canopy with lighting over the gas pumps at 860 East Third Avenue.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that there was an issue with the variance and encroachment into the setback. Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Randy Taylor, the Zoning Administrator, had not given her a definitive answer regarding this issue, and that it might be decided by the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Giraud said the members of the Architectural Subcommittee had the same concerns as she did, regarding the lighting and the affect it would have on the surrounding properties. She said that Mr. Rose indicated that he planned to close the station at 7:00P.M. Ms. Giraud pointed out that any future owner might not abide by that closing time. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant and his representative could answer more questions in regards to the lighting and other issues.
Mr. Robert Rose, the applicant, as well as his representative, Mr. Jim Adamson, were present. Mr. Adamson circulated a drawing of the existing and the proposed lighting, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. A brochure depicting several models of canopies and lighting was also passed to the members, a copy of which was included in the staff report and filed with the minutes. Mr. Adamson said that currently there are 16, 215-watt angled fluorescent fixtures on poles, so the light spills out onto the neighboring properties. He said with the new proposal, the service area would be better lit but light pollution would not be flooding onto the neighboring properties.
Mr. Adamson described the proposal in the following manner: 1) no signage would be on the fascia of the canopy, as depicted in the photographs in the brochure. The station already had a sign installed; 2) the fascia would be brown, the same color as the top of the canopy; 3) the halide fixtures would be recessed up into the canopy fascia, so they would be flush with the ceiling; 4) there will be a 3-inch lip around the canopy which would help control the light shining out farther that 15 to 20 feet; and 5) proposing to use 8, 400-watt lights recessed up in the canopy, which would reduce the total wattage. The applicant would be willing to reduce the wattage by using 250-watt lights, but that would not be his preference.
Mr. Adamson briefly explained how the candle power would affect the lighted area. He said by using the 400-watt bulbs, the lighting would only measure 10-candle power by the time the light would hit the sidewalk. Mr. Adamson said that he believed the reduced lighting would look nice and not like other stations with many bright lights.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring if just changing the light bulbs would produce the reduced lighting. Mr. Adamson stated that the ballasts and the fixtures would have to be changed. He said that the manufacturer makes specific fixtures for the precise wattage. Ms. Deal asked if the height of the proposed canopy could be reduced. Mr. Adamson said that the minimum height had to be 15 feet because it had to be high enough to accommodate large trucks and other large vehicles. Mr. Rose said that the existing lighting was on poles higher than 15 feet. He said that he measured the light right by the current fixtures, and it measured 1,000-candle power.
• Mr. Littig asked if the proposed canopy was recommended by Conoco. Mr. Adamson said that the proposal called for a Conoco-spec canopy and that the color was selected by Conoco. He said that the canopy had already been chosen, so the applicant had no other choice in the matter. Mr. Adamson noted that the brown color would fit into the neighborhood better than a brightly-colored one would. Mr. Rose said that the color is already in the color scheme on the station. Mr. Littig also inquired about the canopy being installed on an angle. Mr. Adamson said that the City Streets Department determined the width, where the canopy could lay, and where the dispensers could be located to keep the traffic flowing on and around the property.
• Mr. Young questioned the terminology that had been used when determining the total wattage of the proposed lighting. He said that lighting output is not measured in watts, but by foot candles. Mr. Young said that fluorescent lamps had more light but used lower wattage than incandescent lamps. He said it was like comparing apples to oranges when you compare the two types of lighting. Mr. Young expressed his concern that there was still no indication what the actual light output would be. This discussion continued. Mr. Rose spoke of a letter from Lew A. Wangsgard, an electrical engineer, from Kustom Kanopies, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Rose said that Mr. Wangsgard measured the existing lighting at the station and informed the applicant, that the new plans would create substantially less, but more directional lighting.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the way light is measured, the distribution of light, and other related matters
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Blaes 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 design of the canopy.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 004-98, based on the findings of fact presented in the staff report. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller voted "Aye". Mr. Young was opposed. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 005-98, by RB & G Engineering and the Department of Public Services. Salt Lake City Corporation. requesting approval of the South Temple street reconstruction project.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the project would be funded from the intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA). Ms. Giraud said that one of the difficult issues surrounding this proposal was choosing which historic time period should be incorporated into the reconstruction project. She spoke of the Citizens Advisory Committee, which had been meeting and discussing the phases of the project. Ms. Giraud said that the decision had not been made to resurface the street with concrete or asphalt, which was not part of the current application.
Ms. Giraud continued by saying that only about 70% of the lattice poles could be repaired. She said that those lattice poles would be preserved, repaired, and repositioned in a soldier-style pattern, but set back a few feet from the street. Ms. Giraud reported that there would be additional lighting by adding more light poles on the street.
Ms. Giraud said that trolley rails have been found under the existing surface. She indicated that their location will be documented.
Ms. Giraud said that the sandstone sidewalks were discussed in the Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting, and since they were an historic element, the committee members believed they should be retained.
Ms. Giraud was asked what will happen to the disposed materials, such as the dome lights after they are removed, and would they be available for use in other parts of the City. She suggested that the question be proposed to the applicant.
The applicant, Mr. Rick Johnston from the City's Engineering Division, was present, as well as Mr. Carl Cook from RB&G Engineering, the consultant, Mr. Peter Goss, architectural historian, Mr. Dell Cook from ORCA Associates, Inc., consulting landscape architect, and Mr. Dow Richardson from Heath Engineering, Inc., electrical consultant.
Mr. Johnston briefly outlined the proposal. Large briefing boards were used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Cook pointed out that on one side of the room, the drawings were of the existing South Temple from State Street to Virginia Street, depicting every light pole, tree type, bus stop, and other elements. He said that on the opposite side of the room, the drawings depicted the proposed modifications and improvements. Mr. Cook stated that the width of South Temple would remain the same, and the curbs and gutters will be replaced in the same locations as they are now.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Blaes led the discussion asking if the final paving material had been determined. Mr. Johnston indicated that it had not. He said that the City's Urban Design Committee is planning a field trip to compare concrete and asphalt street paving and will be studying that further before making a recommendation.
• Ms. Deal inquired further about the lattice poles, making reference to the 70% that would be repaired. She wanted to know what kind of lighting would replace the remaining 30%. Mr. Richardson indicated that the lattice poles would be repositioned. He said that not all the existing lattice poles have lights on them. Ms. Deal said that some of those lattice poles still had a function because power lines were attached to them. Ms. Deal said that she liked the proposed bus stop arrangements. She inquired if all the proposed bus stops were required to have ramps to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Mr. Cook said that the consultants would be working with the Utah Transit Authority, because some of the bus stops would be too steep for wheelchair access. The discussion continued.
• Mr. Young asked about the elimination of the onion dome poles. Mr. Richardson said that the onion dome poles were originally set up by the power company to dead end the primary lines on South Temple. Ms. Deal thought they should be kept because she said that they were an "incredible unique element".
After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Cook said that if the onion dome poles perform a function, they would not be eliminated. He noted that, it was the understanding, that they had no purpose. Mr. Cook said that there were no strong feelings toward keeping them or removing them. Photographs of the poles were circulated among the members.
Mr. Wright said that the issue would have to be investigated. He said that perhaps the lines did not need to be connected to those poles anymore and if they were an anchor, what would be put back in their place, if they were removed. Mr. Richardson assured the Commission that would be studied further.
• Mr. Littig commented that he believed there was too much directional signage on South Temple and inquired if the City was planning to eliminate some of the "no parking" signs. He said that he was a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee and there was much discussion regarding signage on South Temple. Mr. Cook responded by saying that the Urban Design Committee and the community councils also discussed the signage issue. He said that the City and the consultants would do everything they could to minimize the impact of the signage and keep the lattice poles free from any of those signs.
The subjects of angled and parallel parking were introduced. Ms. Giraud asked the consultants to clarify if angled parking would continue to be allowed, or would those few areas be replaced with landscaping and parallel parking. Mr. Cook said that they would be replaced with the traditional landscaping in the park strip and parallel parking would be required.
Mr. Goss referred to Section No. 21A.34.020(G) Standard No.6, "Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects."
Mr. Goss said that if he correctly interpreted the language, that standard meant that if a component had to be replaced, the new component would not have to look like the old. Ms. Deal gave the example that if an additional sandstone walk had to be placed, the new sandstone would not have to be battered to make it look old.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Nancy Pace, an interested party, inquired if the property owners on South Temple would be assessed to help pay for the reconstruction. Mr. Cook said that the property owners would not be assessed. He gave a brief explanation regarding the funds that would pay for the reconstruction. Ms. Pace addressed the pedestrian lighting and asked if the new light poles had to have some historic significance. Mr. Johnston said that, under the Section106 review process, no imitation historic features can be used, the poles have to be different. Ms. Pace, referring to the staff report, said that the reconstruction project would be done in two phases, from State Street to 700 East, then from 700 East to Virginia Street. She asked if those phases would be completed in small increments. Mr. Johnston said that the City realized the sensitivity of the reconstruction to the property owners, but noted that that aspect had not been studied in detail, at this time. Mr. Johnston reiterated that the time frame for the project would be 2000 or 2001. He said that some utility work might commence in 1999. Ms. Pace expressed her excitement for the project.
Ms. Melissa Cheng, whose parents own a small business located on South Temple, expressed her concerns about the length of time the reconstruction would take. She talked about other small businesses that were affected by the 1-15 reconstruction. Ms. Cheng was concerned how the property owners, and those who had businesses on South Temple, would be able to access their properties during the reconstruction process. She said that she knows that the project will have an impact on her parent's restaurant. Mr. Johnston said, again those details had not, yet, been worked out. Ms. Cheng talked about the changing character of South Temple and expressed her concern that the "uniqueness" of South Temple would be lost.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a resident in the area, stated that she wanted to compliment the consultants for the visual displays they had provided. She pointed out that the consultants had been meeting with the neighborhood councils. Ms. Cromer said that there had been much stated about traffic calming and she asked that the cross walks be redesigned with some kind of contrasting surface to slow vehicles down. She said that she realized that traffic speeds were not in the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission, but at some point, "we need to incorporate into this massive investment what is current, and what is current is to create a pedestrian environment and slow people down." Ms. Cromer continued by suggesting that an appropriately designed bus shelter be included in the reconstruction project. She talked about a first-hand experience of using salvaged sandstone and said that it was extraordinarily difficult to work with and recommended not investing a huge amount of resources into the restoration of the sandstone sidewalks.
Ms. Lou Ann Carstensen, stated that she was representing the Ladies Literary Club, which is located in a building on South Temple. She expressed her concern that the plans for reconstruction would not enhance street parking, and make parking more difficult. Ms. Carstensen pointed out that the club building had no off-street parking, so the members and guests relied on street parking. Mr. Cook assured her that the only parking that would be changed will be the angled parking.
Mr. Mark Lloyd, who resides at 926 E. South Temple, stated that he was also representing several neighbors who live on Haxton Place. Mr. Lloyd commented that he appreciated all the preparation that had gone into this project and the successful public notification process. He said that he supported the limitation of the signage. Mr. Lloyd talked about refurbishing the lattice poles and expressed his concern about the replacement locations, because he currently had two in front of his property. He also expressed his concern that park strips and yards would be dug up and that underground lawn sprinkling systems would be damaged. Mr. Lloyd also said that he supported anything that could be done to reduce the speed of the vehicular traffic. He concluded by addressing the unique street lights on Haxton Place and asked that they remain. Ms. Deal asked the consultants to look at the lighting on Haxton Place because that site had a unique identity of its own.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed. Mr. Young recommended that the consultants consider using low water trees and vegetation in areas that will be re-landscaped.
Ms. Deal moved that the Historic Landmark Commission give preliminary approval as to what was presented in the staff report for Case No. 005-98 for the South Temple reconstruction project, with the understanding that the applicant will have to return to the full Commission to approve the paving material, once the material is known. Further, that the applicant re-evaluate the use of the onion dome light poles, and make a further presentation to this Commission. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
Ms. Jeppsen said that the public's point about traffic calming was very important and thought that should be incorporated in the motion. Ms. Deal said that she would be willing to amend the motion, but it was a transportation issue and was not in the purview of this Commission. She asked, for the benefit of the neighborhood, that the consultants study traffic calming devices. Mr. Wright stated that the traffic issue could be pursued by the Urban Design Committee and reviewed with the Transportation people and the consultants, as well, for further analysis into a traffic calming plan.
Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
For discussion. only: Rehabilitation of the "Isaac Chase House" in Liberty Park. presented by John Swain. from the Salt Lake City Engineering Division.
Ms. Giraud stated that she had worked on this project for a long time. She presented the following historical facts about the Isaac Chase House:
Isaac Chase and his family lived in a little cabin. He built the mill and started an industrial business. After the family was showing some success with the mill, he built the farm house. His farm grew to be what is now Liberty Park. It eventually became Brigham Young's farm house.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that there had been volumes written about the mill, and meanwhile the house just sat, and became a forgotten element of the park. She said that she has had a special interest in the house. Ms. Giraud said that the City was now getting to the point where money was available to do something with it. She said that because the Chase House was inhabited by the State Arts Council, funds for the renovation project were being requested from the State Legislature.
Mr. John Swain from the City's Engineering Division, was present. He stated that he thought there was an additional funding source, as well. Mr. Swain said that he was also very excited that the Chase House was getting some attention and it looked like the restoration project would be moving forward. He said that the project would be in conjunction with other improvements in Liberty Park. Mr. Swain talked about a series of public workshops which were held during the summer months, and many of the comments received were that the public loves the character of the park, but concerned about the condition of the buildings and other commodities in the park. He said that the City was working with neighborhood groups, the Urban Design Committee, and the Historic Landmark Commission to try to develop a strategy for rehabilitation of Liberty Park and turn the park back to the grandeur that it once had.
The following improvements to the Isaac Chase House were presented by Mr. Swain:
1) the extension of pathways; 2) period lighting along 600 East; 3) benches along the pathways; 4) the porte-cochere was added many years after the house was constructed. The decision will have to be made whether it should stay and be renovated or if it should be torn down; 5) small wire fences throughout the landscaping; and 6) perennial plantings in the landscaping, with the possibility of developing a small orchard in back of the house, with fruit trees or ornamental trees. Mr. Swain said that the orchard would be a symbolic representative of the period of an old farm home.
Ms. Blaes thanked Mr. Swain for his presentation and suggested that the members of the Commission contact their Senator or Representative in the State Legislature to encourage the funding issue.
Election of new officers.
Ms. Giraud said that ordinarily the election of officers were held in February, but during 1997, the term of the Chairperson, at that time, expired in July, so elections were held in June of 1997. She pointed out that the terms for both positions were for one year, and that the Vice Chair was not a Chair-elect position. Ballots were passed out to the members.
Mr. Young moved and it was seconded by Mr. Gordon that Dina Blaes be retained as the Chair and Susan Deal be retained as the Vice Chair for another term. As there were no other nominations, Ms. Blaes and Ms. Deal were elected by acclamation to serve as Chair and Vice Chair for the year 1998-1999.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Ms. Deal moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Young. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:38P.M•