SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was cancelled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Robert Pett, Dave Svikhart, and Heidi Swinton. Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, and Dina Williams were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, and Val John Halford.
The meeting was called to order at 4:10 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Pett. Mr. Pett announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the commission, the applicant will be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Pett said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeals process is listed on the back of the agenda.
A rol1 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 cases were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Miya moved to approve the minutes of December 6, 1995. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, and 'Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASES
Case No. 001-96, at the Northeast corner of South Temple and "E" Street by Thom Williamsen. represented by Russ Naylor from Nichois-Naylor Architects, requesting approval to construct a new commercial building,
Ms. Miller 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 staff recommended that the building be moved forward on the lot to maintain the setback established along this section of South Temple Street, and that the parking area be moved to the rear. Ms. Miller said that she believed the applicant would provide an alternative plan at this meeting which would indicate this revision.
Both Mr. Thom Williamsen, the applicant, and Mr. Russ Naylor from Nichois-Naylor Architects, representing the applicant, were present. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project and photographs of the area were circulated among the members. Mr. Naylor stated that he believed that the design of the proposed commercial building would be in character with the surrounding area. He concurred that the site plan, that had been previously submitted, showed the proposed building set to the rear of the lot because this site has some remedial clean-up work due to the gas station that previously sat on the property for many years. Mr. Naylor indicated that the ventilation of the soil on the southern portion of the property would take approximately two years. He spoke of the little "Tuff Shed" that would be erected to house the pumps for the ventilation of the swell. Mr. Naylor stated that the site plans were revised because the applicant also desired to have the building closer to the outside corner of the property. However, he asked that the commission give them some latitude on the placement of the building as they were unaware of the extent of the environmental ventilating work.
Mr. Naylor reported that the two restaurant tenants in the proposed building, were new entries into the market area, by the names of Einstein's Bagel and Boston Market. He said that there would be no drive-through facilities, but the applicant proposed outside dining with umbrella tables on the west side of the building.
The following points of interest were presented by Mr. Naylor: 1) the proposed landscaping met the requirements of the ordinance and provided the required setbacks; 2) the building would be constructed using masonry and stucco, with a granite-textured EIFS System for the accent band that would run horizontally along the building above the windows and at the signage impediments. A color board was exhibited which showed samples of the brick and stucco; 3) red, white, and black striped awnings were proposed which was part of the Boston Market's logo; 4) the dumpster enclosure in the rear, would be screened by landscaping, 5) the height of the parapet would be increased to four feet to accommodate and screen the mechanical equipment on the roof. The roof height would be about 18 feet; 6) the site lighting, would include soft lights on the building, as well as three full mounted shielded parking lot lights approximately 20-25 feet high; 7) a small ground mounted monument sign was proposed on the southwest corner of the property which would have the names of both tenants inscribed on it; 8) four signs on the building are proposed, two on the front (South Temple) side, as well as one on the west and east sides to identify each tenant. Mr. Naylor said that the proposed signage was important to the tenants, but realized
that there could be some problem with the number; and 9) no additional fences or retaining walls were proposed to be constructed.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Pett led the discussion by inquiring further into the landscaping plans and asked about the sloping of the land, the existing retaining wall, and shrubbery. Mr. Naylor said that with the modest amount of fall from the north to the south portion of the property, no additional retaining walls would be required, however the existing retaining wall would remain. Also, he said that the mature shrubbery on the east side of the lot, he believed, was on the adjoining property, but they would be augmenting that with an additional seven feet of landscaping on their side of the property. Mr. Pett inquired about the hours of operation and the service vehicles for the restaurants. Mr. Naylor said that the bageis restaurant would be open probably at 6:00A.M. and close late evening. He said that the Boston Market was primarily open for lunch and dinner, and the way the kitchens would be oriented, the service vehicles would drive into the area behind the building.
• Mr. Cartwright also said that he was concerned that the grade change from the north to the south looked a little steep not to require an additional retaining wall, by the proposed parking lot in back of the building. Mr. Naylor said that the applicant does not have a topographical survey, as yet, but when he "eyeballed" the property, it looked like it was about six feet. Mr. Cartwright inquired if the tenants had any objections to their patrons parking in the rear if the building would be oriented towards the southwest corner. Mr. Williamsen said he did not think that would be a problem.
• Ms. Swinton directed her comments to the "Tuff Shed" that would be constructed and asked about the size and the intended location. Mr. Naylor said that it probably would be about 6 feet by 8 feet, and might not be the "Tuff Shed" brand. He said that he used that term because the shed would be a temporary structure. Mr. Naylor stated that the intended site for the shed was thought to be on the southeast corner of the property, but the owners of the Steiner Corporation objected to the fumes that would be expelled, so the most likely location would be at the southwest corner, but the location site had not been determined. He added that the shed could be dressed up a little. To further clarify this clean-up project, Mr. Naylor explained that the State of Utah had already approved the environmental project and he thought the funding was also coming from the State. Mr. Williamsen indicated that the sellers of the property, would be paying the clean-up costs. Mr. Pett commented that the placement of the planned building must hinge on the location of the temporary shed. Mr. Naylor responded by saying that the PVC lines required for the pumping process would be placed, running east and west, on the South Temple frontage of the property.
• Mr. Morgan remarked that he remembered that when the gas station was demolished, most of the soil was excavated and replaced on that site. Mr. Naylor said that was correct, but some contamination still remained under the sidewalk and parking strip areas. Mr. Williamsen said that there was also some ground water contamination that would have to be addressed, and then said that was the reason why he wanted some latitude on the placement of the intended building because if there was to be further excavation, it would be easier to dig up the parking lot rather than redo the building.
• When Mr. Miya inquired about the emission that would be released, Mr. Williamsen said that the State indicated that the fumes would be harmless, but no one wanted to be near them. Ms. Swinton asked how they could propose outside dining if fumes were to be released. Mr. Williamsen reiterated that was the reason why he asked for an allowance for the location of the building. He continued by saying that he was still working with the State for alternative sites for the shed. Ms. Swinton asked about the time frame for the State to make the decision as to the location of the shed, because she said that it was obviously out of the applicant's hands. Mr. Williamsen indicated that the State had already given approval for the welis and the venting system. He said once this project was approved and constructed, then the welis and the venting system would be placed, however there were still contingencies. Mr. Williamsen could not respond to the question regarding the need for additional sheds. He stated that the environmental specialists would be handling that matter. Mr. Miya directed his comments to the signage on the building. Mr. Naylor said that the signage would be an internally illuminated, translucent sign. Mr. Miya asked if he existing trees in the park strip on "E" Street side would remain. Mr. Naylor said that was the applicant's intention. Mr. Miya remarked on the amount of traffic on that intersection
• Mr. Svikhart pointed out that the awnings, which were depicted in the drawings, appeared to be different than the awnings which Mr. Naylor described. Mr. Naylor said that the black stripe between the red and white was very subtle. He continued by saying that the awning design was the only element of Boston Market's other buildings, that have been retained.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Kevin Steiner from Steiner Corporation, who is in the building on the adjacent property to the east, said that the applicants were absolutely right, he did not want ventilation stacks next to his building, and noted that he was glad that a remedial plan had been suggested. Mr. Steiner indicated that from his inquiries to the State, there is a significant amount of free product under the South Temple roadway, which was a severe problem that would require a considerable amount of work. He stated that he was disappointed in the design of the proposed building and believed that a "fast food" chain did not belong on South Temple where the predominant character was basically low rise modem buildings and the remaining historic mansions. Mr. Steiner also remarked on the signage and was opposed to electric signage and was in favor of brass signage.
• Mr. Grant RussE111, owner of a neighboring building north of the subject property, asked if there was a large sign that was proposed on the southwest comer of the property. He was informed by the applicant that there would only be a monument sign on that corner which would only be a maximum of four feet. Mr. Russell expressed his concerns that the proposed building would be a high rise and block the view from his building. Mr. Russell commented on his dislike for the proposed awnings and the design of the building. He referenced the gas station that was once on this subject property. He said traffic has been heavy for years on the intersection of "E" and South Temple Streets. Mr. Russell expressed his opinion that the applicant could not have selected a worst place to put a fast food place.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing to the public and the commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
Mr. Cartwright asked if there would have to be a separate approval with the Planning Commission regarding the traffic situation on South Temple. Ms. Egleston said that the proposal was a permitted use for the property, but the applicant would have to go through the normal process, which would include the City's Transportation Division. There was some discussion regarding the traffic situation at that intersection. Mr. Pett indicated that anything that would be constructed on that property would generate more traffic. He said that he was less concerned about the traffic at that intersection than regarding the actual physical characteristics and design of the building. Mr. Pett continued by saying that placing the proposed building more towards the outside corner of the property certainly addressed South Temple in a more appropriate manner, but pointed out that the proposed structure lacked the sense of dignity and mass and would be incompatible with the streetscape on South Temple. Mr. Svikhart agreed and referred to the proposed project as a strip mall and not sensitive to the streetscape.
Ms. Hatch said that she had a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the zoning for this piece of property, that was included in the staff report. She read the following: "The purpose of the CN district is intended to provide for small scale commercial uses that could be located within residential neighborhoods without having significant impact upon residential uses." She reiterated that she did not believe that was an appropriate interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Hatch believed that this proposal would have a significant impact on that corner and would completely change the character of that street. Mr. Cartwright wanted clarification of that statement. Mr. Halford stated that this request was a permitted use. When asked, Ms. Hatch said that she did not believe that the CN Zoning on that property was incorrect, but thought that it left an area for interpretation.
Mr. Miya directed his comments to the signage, that the signage was like signs you could see in the highly commercial district on 400 South and not on South Temple. He offered the suggestion that the signage be more sophisticated, and more in keeping with the nature of South Temple. Ms. Egleston wanted to expand the discussion of signage on South Temple and referred to the Squire Hair Building, which is across "E" Street from the subject property. She reminded the members of a previous request of an applicant on South Temple who wanted to install a monument sign on the property and the Historic Landmark Commission denied it because of the "one sign" policy on South Temple. She said that there was already one sign on the building. An extensive discussion took place regarding the signage policy on South Temple and what the applicant proposed. It was suggested not to reverse the policy decision and other options of the signage issue was suggested.
Mr. Cartwright explained that the commission thought that South Temple is clearly a valuable community asset as a whole, and with that in mind, the commission looked closer at projects going in on South Temple. He said that he believed that the applicant had an opportunity to be very expressive with the design and to be more in context with the other buildings in the neighborhood. The discussion continued.
Ms. Hatch moved to deny Case No. 001-96, as presented. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton.
Ms. Miller raised the question that if this application was denied, would the applicant have to submit a completely new application. The conclusion was that the applicant would. A discussion developed to the fact that the applicant should not have any misunderstanding that the commission would not be asking just for minor modifications, but completely new plans needed to be submitted that showed a major design change of the building. The motion stood. Ms. Hatch repeated the motion.
Ms. Hatch moved to deny Case No. 001-96, as presented. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 002-96. at 236 No. Canyon Road. by Dee Edmonds, requesting approval to legalize a vinyl fence.
Ms. Egleston 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. Ms. Egleston said that the fencing also included some solto paneis which were installed for privacy. Mr. Pett inquired if the staff recommended denial of the entire fence. Ms. Egleston responded in the affirmative. A copy of the 1992 landscaping plans and current photographs were circulated to the members. Ms. Egleston pointed out that the applicant appeared before the Historical Landmark Committee in May where the case was tabled. Ms. Egleston stated that Ms. Edmonds proceeded with renovation work, but because the case had been tabled, a stop work order was issued in July 1992. Ms. Egleston continued by saying that Ms. Edmonds again presented her plans to the Historic Landmark Commission in September 1992. Landscaping and building plans, as presented, were approved. Neither of these plans indicated the construction of a vinyl fence. The fence was installed about two months ago. Because the previous plans did not indicate the erection of a vinyl fence and because no building permit had been issued for the fence, a stop work order was issued.
Ms. Miller said that she had randomly called two vinyl fencing companies and one fencing company that does vinyl fencing, as well as other fencing materials, and all three of them said that they started in business in Salt Lake City installing vinyl fencing in early 1983. Ms. Miller indicated that the preservation planners has not had to deal with this issue until last summer when it was brought to their attention.
Mr. Pett commented on the motion that was presented at the September 2, 1992 HLC meeting. He inquired about the staff’s interpretation of the following: " and demolish shed." Mr. Egleston stated that this request had been included in the renovation plans that were submitted for the May 6, 1992 HLC meeting. She thought that the word "shed" meant the garage, because it had a shed-like appearance and had been used as a garage.
Mr. Halford stated that under the new ordinance, adopted in April of 1995, a permit was not necessary for a fence if it met all requirements, unless it was located in the Foothill Protection District or the Historic Preservation Overlay District, so this first submission was reviewed under the old ordinance. There was some discussion regarding the original landscaping plans that were submitted in 1992.
The applicant, Ms. Dee Edmonds, was present. She said that she was requesting the legalization and allow the completion of the vinyl fence, which has been partially installed inside her property line, because of the long-lasting durability of the material which required no maintenance. She said that the fence has a twenty-year guarantee. Ms. Edmonds circulated photographs of wooden fences in her area, depicting how decrepit they can look only after a few years. She stated that she had not, at any time, tried to be secretive or subversive with her restoration project. Ms. Edmonds said that she was a member of the Utah Heritage Foundation and had opened her doors three different times for heritage home tours. She noted that she was very sensitive to historic preservation on the inside of her home as well as the outside. Ms. Edmonds referred to her original landscaping plan that was submitted in September of 1992. She said that she tried to be very specific with details, even where each plant would be located. At that time, she said that she was informed by the committee that she could have a four foot fence in the front and sides of her property, and a six-foot fence in back. Ms. Edmonds explained her need for protection and privacy, especially at her kitchen and patio area. She spoke of the many trespassers who walk down her driveway and on her property thinking her home was part of the new City Creek Park.
Ms. Edmonds described her first introduction to the vinyl fencing, which was at a popular restaurant in the suburbs. She claimed she could not recognize that the fence was made out of a vinyl material until she touched it. She said that she contacted the company who designed and installed the fence to match her porch rails and balusters. Ms. Edmonds stated that she had no idea that the vinyl material would not be allowed, until the stop work order was issued. She said that the vinyl material does not resemble wood because it does not have a grain to it and needs no maintenance. She said she had no intent to replicate wood.
Ms. Edmonds presented the following points of interest: 1) she maintains the exterior of her home by painting the front porch, railings, and balusters every year, and she could not afford to maintain a wooden fence, painted white, on an annual basis; 2) she was given permission to build a fence within the required height limits in September of 1992. At that time when she asked about specific materials, she was told that she could not put up a cyclone fence and proceeded on that premise; 3) the vinyl fence is below the maximum height requirement; 4) she was going to build a fence out of sandstone or cinder block, then she found out that the cost was too exorbitant for the sandstone and she did not like the appearance of cinder block. She has a cinder block wall in the back which would be covered with river rock because river rock was used extensively in the park; 5) the vinyl fencing should not be compared with the illegal installation of vinyl, aluminum, or other artificial material on the main structure, which she said she would not do; 6) two six-foot wide gates would be installed at the entrance to her driveway and two three-foot wide gates at another location, which should be made out of the same material; 7) she obtained signatures from every one of her neighbors, except one, who were all in favor of having the fence legalized, a copy was filed with the minutes; and 8) there was no record of what was on the property originally in terms of a fence or shrubbery.
In closing, Ms. Edmonds asked the commission to review this request on a case-by case basis because of the history of her project and that the fence was not a defining characteristic of the main structure and could be easily removed without damaging the house. She said that she had taken in consideration the historic flavor of the community before she had the fence installed. However, she did consider the 200-foot plus perimeter of her yard and the cost of installing a fence.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Cartwright led the discussion by asking the applicant to help them try to determine why the commission should make this request be considered "special" and approve this fence. He asked what was so special about this case that would not be applicable in other instances. Ms. Edmonds responded by saying that maintenance, favorability of the neighborhood, the design that matches elements on her home, not character-defining and could be removed, no intent to replicate wood, the privacy it would provide, and the protection she needed from the increased; crime in the neighborhood were all, issues that could be considered. Mr. Cartwright stated that he believed a typical application of a fence in this particular community and for the design and style of the house, would have been stone, wrought iron, or a hedge planted. He continued by saying that any of those suggestions would not have to be painted or maintained. Mr. Cartwright said that he was not unsympathetic to the idea that wood creates a maintenance problem, but is that a specific enough issue to allow this legalization. Ms. Edmonds discussed additional issues and situations by which to strengthen her case.
• Mr. Miya inquired about the stop work order and to clarify if it was issued because the fence was different that what was approved or, was it because the permit was issued in error. There was some discussion regarding this issue.
• Mr. Pett asked about the twenty-year guarantee and what it covered. Ms. Edmonds said against cracking, breaking, fading, pieces missing, installation problems, and so forth. Ms. Edmonds circulated a brochure of the vinyl product and the supplier. Mr. Pett remarked that he did not think anyone on the commission did not recognize the 'incredible effort the applicant has made to restore her home. However, he explained that the commission was dealing with an artificial material in an historic district. Ms. Edmonds suggested that with the advent of new materials, the Historic Landmark Commission should look at its policies in regards to artificial material. When the possible expiration of her permit was raised by Ms. Egleston, Ms. Edmonds said that due to the number of inspections the project has required, she did not believe that the permit had expired because she has not had a final inspection. In conclusion, Mr. Pett stated that the stop work order, other decisions in the past, or the use of a fence, was not the issue, it was the use of materials.
Mr. Pett 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. Vickey walker, a neighbor of the applicant, stated that the park renovation has had a major impact. She said that both foot and road traffic had increased. Ms. Walker concurred with the applicant's statements regarding the public intrusion on her property and the increased crime element. She pointed out that people who deals with crime prevention tells homeowners not to plant hedges and shrubs because criminals have the ability to hide in them. Ms. Walker stated that the vinyl fencing looked better than if it was wood and the product had not taken away the integrity of the neighborhood. She was in favor of the commission legalizing the fence.
Mr. Phil Erickson, a resident in the area, said that in the 1980's, he was involved with the restoration of the City and County Building and one of the first things he learned at that time, was to compromise. He commented on the compromising that had been done on the building because some elements or materials were not known at the time the building was constructed. Mr. -Erickson established the fact that the applicant's home was a "dump" before her restoration project. He said that homeowners in this neighborhood had made an effort to clean up their properties and restore their homes. Mr. Erickson was in favor of the legalization of the fence.
Mr. Alan Walker, a neighbor of the applicant, indicated that he attended the committee meetings in 1992 when the applicant's case was reviewed and to the
best of his knowledge, her presentation was accurate. He concurred with the public intrusion, vandalism, and crime because of the increase of traffic in the park. Mr. Walker said that he preferred to see a vinyl fence than a wood f€1nce, then pointed out how, until recently, Ottinger Hall (an historic structure across the street from Ms. Edmonds' home) was poorly maintained, which is a wooden structure. Mr. Walker stated that he thought the vinyl fence was in good taste and because of its prominence when you drive north on Canyon Road, the property made you feel like you were entering into an estate. He recommended the legalization of the vinyl fence.
• Mr. Dave Wallace, a resident in the area, stated that he lived directly across from Ms. Edmonds and probably had the best view of the fence of anyone in the neighborhood. He indicated that he also had taken a quick survey of wooden fences in the area and suggested that the approval should require a twenty-year requirement for paint and maintenance because most of the wood fences were not in good repair and needed paint. Mr. Wallace wanted the commission to know that he understood the reason for not legalizing artificial material on the house, especially on an historic home, and the damage that could occur. However, he said that there are places where new products were actually better than the original. He recommended legalizing the vinyl fence.
• Ms. Egleston introduced a letter from Mr. Ivan Weber, a Certified Construction Specifier, who expressed his opinions why this vinyl fence should be legalized, copies were given to the commission members and a copy was filed with the minutes. Mr. Weber supported the use of the vinyl material for fencing.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing to the public and the commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the history of this project. Ms. Egleston was able to verify the activity on the property by the inspection report. Mr. Pett pointed out that chain link fences were an issue in historic districts which caused the commission to approve a policy to prevent further occurrence of that type of material. The commission discussed other cases where compromises were made on the use of chain link fences. Mr. Morgan was amenable to this particular application of vinyl fencing and believed it was a good solution for this particular property. Some members agreed. He also remarked that an incorrect design of a wrought iron fence would not look at good as this vinyl fence.
Mr. Cartwright remarked that the commission needed to take a broader view of this case than a maintenance or security problem. He said that the commission should not make decisions on social issues, and he wanted to know why this was a special case. There was much discussion among the commission members when the facts about this case were analyzed.
Mr. Pett stated that when the commission was inundated with many chain link requests, this prompted a survey of the historic areas for the use of chain link in historic districts. The commission had to review these applications on a case-by-case and site-by-site basis. He said there probably was a means in which to deal with this current case.
The discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the commission such as: 1) the resemblance of massing and the relationship of solids and voids; 2) the details, scale, location and a noncharacter defining element; 3) public intrusion on the property; 4) the possibility of an appropriate material being used, but a design that might not be compatible to the house or surrounding neighborhood; 5) when applications requesting new additions or new construction were reviewed, the commission advised against the replication of other structures; 6) the possibility of reviewing new materials; and 7) during the 1992 reviews, the committee at that time, was comfortable with what the applicant's project and thought she was sensitive and sympathetic to historic preservation.
Mr. Morgan moved to approve the legalization of Case No. 002-96 of the existing vinyl fence as installed and to allow the completion of the vinyl fence and two gates to the driveway and the completion of the fence for the perimeter of the property, as outlined by the applicant. This approval was based on this specific vinyl fence for this application on a case by case basis, based on the fact that it is a non-character and not contributing to the historic character of the house which is not always the case with a privacy fence. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton.
Mr. Morgan said what he was trying to say was that the fence was non-contributory to the architectural integrity of the house in this particular case, but in many cases, the fence would be contributory to the character of the house, and since the fence was a noncontributory to a well-done historic house, the commission could approve the legalization of this request. Mr. Pett suggested that the motion be amended to say that there is significant detail and design involved in this particular character of the home, to render an approval on this case.
Mr. Morgan moved to legalize the existing vinyl fence for Case No. 002-96 and to allow the fence to be completed and the allowance of the gates, as presented by the applicant. This legalization was approved on this particular fence because of the scale, height, and the appropriate detailing, as it related to this particular property. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton.
Mr. Pett further suggested that the motion might be amended to require that the gates be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee as they would be a significant element. Mr. Morgan agreed to amend the motion.
Mr. Morgan moved to legalize the existing vinyl fence for Case No. 002-96 and to allow the fence to be completed and the allowance of the gates, as presented by the applicant. This legalization was approved on this particular fence because of the scale, height, and the appropriate detailing, as it related to this particular property, and require that the applicant return to the Architectural Subcommittee to review the vinyl gates that was included in this approval. Ms. Swinton's second still stood. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper,
Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 003 6. at the intersections of South Temple and 400 East. and South Temple and 800 East Streets represented by Tim Harpst of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. [requesting approval to install new traffic signal lights.
Ms. Egleston 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. Ms. Egleston circulated current photographs of the areas of discussion and of the various poles, mast arms, and signals of which the descriptions and drawings were included in the staff report.
Mr. Tim Harpst, representing the City's Transportation Division, was present. He stated that the City was requesting the installation of two traffic signals along South Temple for pedestrian and traffic safety, and added that input was needed from the commission, as to the design and style. Mr. Harpst also reminded the commission that South Temple would be reconstructed in the next few years, which would include replacing all the light poles. He urged the commission not to delay in the selection due to the availability of the light poles.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Miya led the discussion by inquiring further into the mast arm and the variations of long and short mast arms. Mr. Harpst pointed out several types of mast arms on South Temple. Mr. Miya said that the information in the literature was confusing. Ms. Egleston indicated the one she selected to use, which was in the staff report. Mr. Miya also inquired about the selection of the intersections of 400 East and 800 East on South Temple. Mr. Harpst outlined the process of determining the location of traffic signals.
• Ms. Swinton discussed the light fixtures on the poles that were located around the Delta Center, and suggested that the new fixtures on the poles for South Temple be more decorative, and not have the cobra heads on top. There was much discussion regarding the design of the lights and the placement of the light poles. Mr. Harpst stated that the old lattice-type poles, that are currently on South Temple, were very dilapidated and needed to be replaced. Mr. Miya suggested that the commission establish the standard for the light poles. Ms. Swinton also raised the question regarding the part the City would have in the clean up of the substance which was under the road on South Temple at "E" Streets, which was discussed in a previously discussed case at this meeting. Mr. Harpst could not answer the question but said that he would make an inquiry.
Mr. Harpst gave a brief overview for the different phases for the street reconstruction and what would transpire in each phase. He added that a federal government grant would pay for the "lion's share" of the project. Mr. Harpst explained the bidding process for both concrete and asphalt for the road base on South Temple, as well as the maintenance issue.
Mr. Pett 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:
• Mr. Martin Backer, the owner of a business in the area, spoke favorably of putting a traffic signal on 400 East and South Temple because he believed that it was needed at that intersection. He also voiced his opinion about Case No. 001-96, that was previously reviewed at this meeting, and complimented the commission for not approving the commercial building that was proposed. He explained that he believed in the freedom of individuals in this country, and felt like he did not want to comment at the time the case was heard, because he was concerned that the applicant might have been critical of Mr. Backer owning a business in the area. However, he said that his business had been in the same location on South Temple for 56 years. Mr. Backer encouraged the commission to take good care of South Temple because it is such a unique street.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing to the public and the commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
The discussion continued regarding the style and design of the light poles and light fixtures.
Mr. Cartwright moved to approve Case No. 003-96, based on the findings of fact, subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report. It was seconded by Mr. Miya. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Comments were made regarding the draft copy of the Historic Real Estate Brochure and Ms. Miller said that the brochure would be revised and include the recommendations offered by the commission.
The citizen's merit awards ceremony was discussed and the list was finalized. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 P.M.