SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Room 315, 451 South State Street at 5:45 p.m.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular session meeting held on July 1, 2009.
If you are viewing a hard copy of the minutes and would like to view the attached materials and listen to audio excerpts of the record, please go to:
www.slcgov.com/boards/HLC/hlc-agen.htm
To download the FTR player and listen to audio excerpts from the record if you are already viewing this document on the worldwide web, click here.
The regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission was held on July 1, 2009, at 5:51:26 PM in Room 315 of the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street. Commissioners present for the meeting included: David Fitzsimmons (Chairperson), Anne Oliver, Arla Funk, Polly Hart, Bill Davis, Sheleigh Harding, and Earle Bevins, III. Planning staff present for the meeting were: Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Robin Zeigler, Senior Preservation Planner; Janice Lew, Principal Planner; and Andrea Curtis, Acting Historic Landmark Commission Secretary.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting at 4:00 p.m. The field trip was attended by David Fitzsimmons (Chairperson), Arla Funk, Polly Hart, and Earle Bevins, III. Joel Paterson and Robin Zeigler attended for the Planning Division.
FIELD TRIP 4:00 p.m.
At the Tracy Aviary, staff pointed out most of the features that were planned to be removed for Phase II of the master plan. Commissioners asked if sidewalks would be moved and if it was an option to move the caretakers’ cottage rather than demolish it. Staff explained that the non-historic walkways would be reoriented. Staff further explained that although moving buildings was not normally considered good preservation because it takes a building out of its original context, moving the caretaker’s cottage within the Aviary would retain the building’s context and so it might be an appropriate action if the building could not be used in its current location.
At 589 6th Street, staff explained the proposed project and that the majority of the work in the rear would likely be administratively approved. Staff pointed out that the house was the same as others around it but, at some point, the subject house was altered with an enclosed porch. Commissioners asked if the rear patio had been raised. Staff stated that it was at its original height.
Commissioners viewed the windows at 233 North State Street and asked if staff had recommended storm windows to the applicant. Staff noted that it had been addressed. Commissioners asked about the R factor performance for the existing windows vs. the new windows. Staff explained that they did not go into depth with exploring the details of the new windows since the existing windows did not meet the requirements for replacement.
DINNER 5:00
A presentation was given on solar collection.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 5:51:26 PM
PLNHLC2009-00152 – Reservoir Park Major Alterations – 5:53:01 PM A request by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department for final approval on major alterations to the reservoir structure at Reservoir Park located at approximately 1319 East 100 South. Reservoir Park is located in both the South Temple and University Historic Districts. The request to demolish the tennis court cover and the below-ground portions of the reservoir were approved by the Commission on May 6, 2009 with the condition that the applicant return with a final landscape plan before completing the project. Reservoir Park is zoned OS Open Space and is located in City Commission District 4, represented by Commission Member Luke Garrott.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
Staff Presentation 5:53:07 PM
Ms. Zeigler stated that the Reservoir Park Major Alterations application was approved in May by the Commission, but there was a condition in place that the applicant return in May to present the landscape plans before demolition. Two additional pieces of information, one from the University Commission via email and an email from Tom Keen about the pending wall at the park, were received post packet delivery and presented to the Commission.
Public Utilities 5:54:20 PM
Tom Ward, Deputy Director for the Public Utilities Department, 530 South West Temple Street presented the finished landscape design. He explained how the plans related to specific items from the Commission mentioned in May and that the plan had been reviewed by multiple Community Councils, Police Department, Parks, City Forrester, Transportation, Art Council, and Public Services. The design maintains the open space in the western and southern portions of the property and the existing Hawthorne trees. The city sidewalks will extend up to University Street. Upon request by the Transportation Division, the plan includes ADA access at 1300 East and 100 South. Upon request by the community, a grove of trees will be included that will serve as a sound buffer.
Questions by the Commission 5:59:05 PM
Commissioner Funk inquired as to how much the drop would be on the west side of the historic wall. Mr. Ward addressed the inquiry and stated that the drop would remain the same along the existing wall and the extension of the trees. The dimensions would be 3-4 feet from the concrete to the grass and allowed for proper drainage.
Commissioner Funk asked if the safety concerns had been addressed with the police department. Mr. Ward informed the Commission that it is an open-lit space and the police department approved the design.
Commissioner Oliver inquired about access to the park area. Mr. Ward stated that the design of additional stairways, concrete, and sidewalks could be determined after the ground work is completed. Commissioner Lloyd inquired if transportation had included a plan for bike lanes or a sidewalk. Mr. Ward explained that might be a project of the Transportation Division.
Public Comments: 6:08:30 PM
Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Esther Hunter to address the Commission. Ms. Hunter asked the Commission to provide additional protection to the root systems of the trees and construction litigation when the construction began on the Reservoir project. She asked the Commission if there were funds available to provide two to three additional park benches. She also addressed the concern of graffiti on the walls and what anti-graffiti treatments were available. Ms. Hunter recommended the Commission, provide a name or theme to the new park.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Gwen Springmeyer to address the Commission. Ms. Springmeyer representing the Greater Avenues Community Council addressed the desire of the public supporting grass and trees in the new park area and the phase four issues which would not be public utilities, but the Parks Division responsibilities.
Applicant Response
No response.
Commission Comments: 6:14:03 PM
Chairperson Fitzsimmons closed the public hearing. Staff recommendation was to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Reservoir project.
Commissioner Lloyd agreed with the ADA site access of sidewalks and the park should be accessed from the southwest into the northwest.
Commissioner Oliver inquired if there was a schedule to apply a preservation approach to different types of parks. Staff stated that that would be a part of the master planning process for each park.
Commissioner Fitzsimmons asked if there were additional requirements, and inquired if tree requirements were the normal spec.
Commissioner Lloyd commented that the Park Department might be able to provide the benches if there is money there, but it would be a good idea to find other sources to provide the benches. Staff asked if the Commission would like to review the design and placement of park benches and they said they would not.
MOTION 6:17:08 PM
Commissioner Funk moved that in the case of PLNHLC2009-00152 – Reservoir Park Major Alterations she recommend that the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the complete project and with the recommendation that park benches and permeable concrete would like to be included. Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion.
All voted in favor; the motion passed unanimously.
PLNHLC2009-00552 – Washington Square Café Signs 6:18:22 PM
A request by Salt Lake City Facilities Management Division for five directional signs in the landscaping of Washington Square located at approximately 451 South State Street. Washington Square is a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. The purpose of the signs is to direct passers-by to the Washington Square Café located within the City and County Building. The property is zoned PL Public Lands and is located in City Council District 4, represented by Council Member Luke Garrott.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 6:18:35 PM
Mr. Norris stated that the location of the proposed signs would be at the following locations: one sign at the main drive entrance to the square, one on each corner of the property. The design would be low profile signs that were similar to other existing signs on the property. Staff recommended that the petition be denied because placement was not consistent with the standards to alterations of a Landmark site.
Commissioner Bevins inquired how many signs were currently on the property. Mr. Norris explained that there were signs at each parking stall indicating the length of time and permit number and additional directional and parking signs.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons inquired if the facility agreed with the signs being adequate. Mr. Norris was unaware of the facility’s position of the signs. Mr. Norris stated that the Conservancy Board did give approval for the signs.
Commissioner Funk inquired about the policy of temporary signs on the property. Mr. Norris responded that temporary signs were not allowed unless related to a public event.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired on issue #2 that the signs are altering the space. He wanted to clarify if altering of the space did occur because of the increased number of signs to the area. Mr. Norris agreed that the increased signs were not appropriate in the landscaping.
Mr. Joel Paterson noted that the portable A-frame signs could be allowed in certain zoning districts along a sidewalk. The sidewalk in question was on public land which was not currently zoned for the A-frame signs.
Commissioner Hart inquired if the café was run by the City. Mr. Paterson informed the Commission that the café leases the site from the city.
Applicant Presentation: 6:25:23 PM
Steve England, SLC Engineering Division, discussed with the Commission the request by the concessioner, Ivonne’s Cafe, signage on the exterior of the site to help with patronage. Mr. England explained what the options were: low profile sign, unobtrusive, and replication of what was currently in place; 18 x 24. The placement would be on the opposite side of the sidewalks and the east entrance. Mr. England notified the Commission that the Conservancy and Use Committee had approved the signs.
Questions by the Commission 6:30:41 PM
Chairperson Fitzsimmons inquired if there had been signs directing the public to the café. Mr. England noted that there had not been signs directing business to the café.
Public Comments: 6:31:36 PM
Rick Graham, Director of Public Services for Salt Lake City, explained how the Department had been working with the concessioner to obtain more outside business with the placement of additional signage. The current concessioner was leaving at the end of August, and a new concessioner was due in September.
Mr. Pace addressed the legal issues regarding signage on public property. Mr. Pace noted that if one concessioner was provided a sign, other concessioners within the building, such as the bank, might require the same consideration.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons inquired about the legal policies with the City for these signage issues.
Mr. Pace was unaware of any policies and will consult with his office.
Executive Session 6:35:38 PM
Commissioner Funk stated that she had concerns of the Commission being a public body and promoting a private concern. She would not be in support of the petition.
Commissioner Hart commented that the City might need to support its own concession.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons recommended that a policy be established with how the City handles this issue.
Commissioner Oliver agreed with the proposal of the City supporting its own concession. A sign on the interior of the building is acceptable and then smaller signs at the four corners of the block. Commissioner Bevins stated concern as to the effectiveness of these signs. Commissioner Lloyd stated that the zoning does not allow for concession signs. Commissioner Hart noted that there are sandwich signs placed in the front doors of the building to draw attention to the public about the café.
Mr. Pace noted that the Commission had the ability to petition to expand the availability of sandwich signs placed around the perimeter of the grounds for the café.
Commissioner Lloyd stated that whether a sign was made to reflect historical design or just a sandwich sign, the objection was that it alters the character inside the block.
Commissioner Funk stated that if a historic sign was created for the café, it would create confusion if the café had no historic value. She agreed with Commissioner Hart on the administration making the café viable by using it for administrative services.
MOTION 6:43:10 PM
Commissioner Funk moved in the case of PLNHLC2009-00552- Washington Square Café Signs that the Commission deny the petition based on the recommendations from Staff that the project does not meet standards 1, 2, and 3, and that it is recommended that the City implement measures to support the café by using their services for city functions.
Commissioner Haymond seconded the motion.
Mr. Norris addressed the Commission to make a correction to the standards; Standard 3 should be Standard 11.
Commissioners Funk, Hart, Davis, Bevins, Fitzsimmons, Haymond, and Lloyd voted aye; Commissioner Oliver voted nay. The motion carried.
PLNHLC2009-00609 – Cook Residence Minor Alterations 6:45:17 PM– A request by Brian Gurr, representing the property owners Jim and Arlene Cook, for a minor alteration located at approximately 233 North State Street. The request is to replace existing windows. The issue could not be approved administratively since the action does not meet the ordinance or design guidelines. The site is zoned RMF-35 and is located in City Commission District 3, represented by Commission Member Eric Jergensen.
Staff Presentation 6:45:49 PM
Ms. Zeigler reiterated what the petition entailed and the recommendation of Staff was to deny the petition since it did not meet standards of 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of Section G.
Applicant Response 6:46:49 PM
Mr. Jim Cook addressed the Commission in regards to their desire to replace the existing windows with more energy efficient, noise reduction windows. Mr. Cook stated that the proposed windows were identical to the current windows. Mr. Cook stated that there would be no change to the appearance of the exterior of the residence.
Commissioner Oliver inquired if Mr. Cook had ever had storm windows on the residence. Mr. Cook confirmed that they had storm windows installed in 1940 and the windows were not energy efficient according to today’s standards. Mr. Cook stated that it would not change the exterior appearance of the home or the historical district.
Commissioner Funk inquired of the efficiency rating of the new windows compared to the current windows. Mr. Cook stated that the new windows were extremely efficient and provided a packet that explained the efficiency of the new windows.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons asked if the current windows were deteriorating or showing deterioration.
Mr. Cook explained that they were not deteriorating because they had taken such good care of the structure. Mr. Cook stressed that they wanted to make their house more efficient and conserve energy.
Mike Strasky shared with the Commission his support for replacing the windows at Mr. Cook’s residence. Mr. Foyer addressed the Commission with an example of the window that would be used in replacing Mr. Cook’s windows.
Mr. Foyer explained the UV rating of the existing windows; sixteen windows that were single-paned are at 67% and seven of the windows that were double-paned were at 46% rating. The new windows had a rating of 4%. This would allow light into the residence with no fading. Solar heat co-efficient of the existing windows; sixteen windows are .9 and the seven storms are .81. Mr. Foyer stated that President Obama was allowing a federal tax allowance to residences that replaced their windows with a solar heat gain of .3, and the new window reaches .27, which was allowing the windows to be 300% more efficient than the storm windows currently in the residence and 316% more efficient on the single pane windows. Mr. Foyer stated that the noise reduction of the windows have a STC rating of 28 to 38, which means a 90% reduction of noise. Mr. Cook’s current single pane windows were at 24 to 26 STC rating.
Commissioner Lloyd questioned the profile of the new window in relation to the current window and in keeping with the historic standard.
Mr. Foyer explained how the process would be in creating a replica of the current profile and grills of the existing windows. He also stated that the outside and interior of the window would be historically correct.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired if the new windows met the National Parks Service Standards for Preservation as it related to tax credits.
Mr. Foyer was unaware of the standards of the National Park Service.
Mr. Bill Carpenter (72 Hillside Avenue) addressed the Commission in support of Mr. Cook’s ability to maintain the residence with the replacement of the windows.
Mr. Brian Gurr, (2980 S. 2390 E.) representative of Norton’s, explained the benefits of the new windows and that the profile of the windows had been allowed on other historical buildings.
Mr. Duran, neighbor, voiced his support for the replacement of Mr. Cook’s windows.
Executive Session 7:10:33 PM
Commissioner Haymond commented on keeping the historic district vital, and the value the windows could give in terms of light, heat, cooling and sound reduction.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons inquired if the Commission was inclined to abandon the preservation of all the old windows if there was an equal to the window.
Commissioner Haymond commented that that was not the goal.
Commissioner Bevins commented that the wooden dividers in these windows would be easy to duplicate. He stated that it appears that Mr. Cook had an easy solution.
Commissioner Funk commented that replacing the windows is a viable option, but that they also need to evaluate if the new products change the character of the residence.
Commissioner Oliver stated that the modern storm windows would be efficient in reducing noise and this project might be eligible for the tax credit, which was a 20% return on the project costs. There was significant amount of history in a window; the wood it was built from and the paint layers for instance, which gives cause to retain the windows for their historic value. She stated that she was in favor of a well designed storm window that would qualify for the tax credit.
Commissioner Lloyd commented on the Park Service Standards as they relate to rehabilitation. Those standards could provide some insight on replacing windows. He asked if options could be explored before making a final decision. The tax credits were not administered by the Commission, but those guidelines could be beneficial in preserving a structure.
Commissioner Oliver commented on what was covered by the tax credit in restoration; scraping of old paint, replacement of pulleys, ropes, which would make the windows easy to operate again as well as be efficient.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons stated that there was not significant deterioration of the windows.
Commissioner Lloyd commented about the direction and facades of the house. He stated that the Commission had evaluated side and rear elevations in the past and the Commission may need to consider re-evaluating the north and east elevations.
Mr. Cook addressed the Commission regarding the storm windows and the difficulty in cleaning the windows.
Commissioner Oliver stated that she meant the efficiency for heat with regards to the storm windows, not cleaning efficiency.
Commissioner Funk commented about investigating what the National Park standards were and asked Ms. Zeigler to explain the standards.
Ms. Zeigler stated that ordinance was based on the Secretary of Interior Standards, from the National Park Service. The design guidelines provided more specific direction on fulfilling the ordinance. Both stated that repair needed to be done before replacement. Ms. Zeigler reiterated that the existing windows did not met the ordinance for replacement.
Commissioner Oliver commented that this project did not meet the standards of the ordinance and that it was not appropriate to re-evaluate the ordinance. She stated that there was plenty of literature available to show the efficiency of storm windows and repairing windows before replacing them.
MOTION 7:23:53 PM
Commissioner Oliver moved in case PLNHLC2009-00609 – Cook Residence Minor Alterations that we deny the application based on the findings and facts of the Staff reports do not meet standards 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Section 21A.34.020G of the zoning ordinance standards and standards 7, 10, 11, and 12 are not applicable to this case.
Commission Lloyd seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hart requested clarification by Ms. Zeigler that on page 4 of the report, finding for standard 3 meets this standard and on the front page it states that it does not meet standard. Ms. Zeigler clarified that it does meet the Standard 3. Ms. Zeigler clarified again that the project does not meet standards 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9; and standards 7, 10, and 12 were not applicable. The project would meet 1 and 3.
Commissioner Hart amended the motion that the project does meet standard 3.
Commissioner Oliver agreed to the amended motion.
Commissioners Lloyd, Funk, Hart, Fitzsimmons, and Oliver, voted aye;
Commissioners Bevins, Harding, and Haymond voted nay.
The motion carried.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons called for a five minute break. 7:26:15 PM
Chairperson Fitzsimmons called the meeting to order. 7:32:43 PM
PLNHLC2009-00525 - Clay Home Minor Alterations 7:32:45 PM– A request by Jeff Armstrong, representing Shawn Clay, for minor alterations to a single-family home located at 589 E. Sixth Avenue in the Avenues Historic District. The applicant requests approval of the site work conducted without the appropriate permits. The project involves changes to the slope, new retaining walls, and alterations to the front porch stairs and walkway. Planning staff determined that the work did not meet the Design Guidelines, and therefore refers the request to the Historic Landmark Commission for consideration. The property is zoned SR-1A and is located in City Council District 3, represented by Council Member Eric Jergensen.
Staff Presentation 7:33:00 PM
Ms. Lew discussed the petition being presented and explained in detail the changes made to the property. Some of these changes could be approved administratively once additional information was submitted. Additional changes included the removal of an accessory structure, new driveway, grading changes, new fencing, along with installation of retaining walls and stairs. Staff finds that the standards 2, 5, 8, and 9 had not been met. Ms. Lew stated that the Commission took the actions as outlined in the report. She requested the Commission deny the request for the alterations to the steps, changes to the slope, and the retaining wall. Standards 6, 7, 10, and 11 do not apply to the application.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired about finding #2, the character of the property being retained and he asked if the rock retaining wall was not considered a traditional retaining element. Ms. Lew noted that the new configuration was done with multiple types of retaining elements.
Applicant Response 7:38:15 PM
Mr. Jeff Armstrong addressed the Commission and explained his process in trying to obtain clearance to begin construction. Mr. Armstrong presented slides of the slope, deteriorating concrete, and the stairway area. He noted the areas that had remained in the slope. He discussed the projects on the application; new rock walls on the north elevation, the stairs and railings were to remain, the railings were allowed to be repainted, new irrigation and planters were to be put in place to control erosion, replace the sod and irrigation on the east property, the garbage barrier required natural mediums, the driveway and retaining walls could be replaced, but had to remain to similar mediums, and texture was allowed along the back. He stated he was unfamiliar with the process and stated that he was told if there was no response within a couple of weeks, it should be okay to begin the construction. He admitted that there was miscommunication between planning, him and Ms. Lew. Mr. Armstrong stated the other issue was with finding #5, distinct finishes and craftsmanship that needed to be preserved, and he stated he used materials that were native to the area. He also noted that the slope was maintained as required. He addressed the issues on findings #8 and #9, which was the stairing, and stated that the material used was to match and replace the rock that was in those locations. This was where the construction was ordered stopped.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired as to the condition of the concrete of the lower stairs and asked what kind of rock was used. Mr. Armstrong informed the Commission that the stairs and concrete were completely eroded and unsafe. He explained what the process was going to be to cover it and match the surrounding rock. He stated that the rock used was quartzite, which was native to the area.
Public Comments 7:55:55 PM
Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Cindy Cromer to address the Commission. Ms. Cromer voiced concerns with the landscape and boulders, which would be a permanent eyesore and not of historic value to the residence.
Shawn Clay, 589 6th Avenue, owner addressed the Commission. He discussed the landscape intentions in regards to the historic district and suggested having all of the guidelines clearly presented to future homeowners in historic districts.
Executive Session 8:04:11 PM
The Commissioners discussed their concerns with the topography, linear design, and destruction of historic fabric in regards to the retaining wall. Mr. Armstrong made a suggestion of placing additional rocks to help create a more linear design and prevent erosion.
MOTION 8:16:07 PM
Commissioner Lloyd moved in the case of PLNHLC2009-00525 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff recommendation to deny the covering of the steps to the front entrance of hallway because the proposed design is not compatible with the historic character of the house, the new stone work shall be removed. Issue #2 is approved conditionally, the landscaped walls in the front with the provision that the applicant submit to staff revised plans to re-contour stone walls in a more linear fashion that will satisfy drainage requirements and be more consistent with the historic character of the streetscape. The Historic Landmark Commission approves the landscaping in the parking strip as designed; approval of the final details of the design shall be delegated to the planning staff based on direction from this Commission. The project does meet all other City requirements as noted in point 5 and 6.
Commissioner Oliver seconded the motion.
All voted in favor; the motion passed unanimously.
ISSUES ONLY
1. PLNHLC2009-00684 – Tracy Aviary, Major Alterations 8:18:56 PM– A request by Paul Svendsen, representing the Tracy Aviary, for recommendations on major alterations to the Wilson Pavilion located approximately 589 East 1300 South in Liberty Park. The applicant is seeking guidance and is not requesting a decision at this time. This is an Issues Only public hearing. The Historic Landmark Commission did not take any final action on this item at this meeting. Tracy Aviary is a Landmark Site within Liberty Park. Tracy Aviary is zoned OS Open Space and is located in City Council District 4, represented by Council Member Luke Garrott.
Staff Presentation 8:19:07 PM
Robin Zeigler stated that since the presentation was issues only, no decision was necessary, but she did note that the applicant was also in attendance to get feedback for the reconstruction plan. Ms. Zeigler reported that the Commission received additional information via email from Tracy Aviary regarding the Wilson Pavilion and the master plan. Ms. Zeigler briefly described what the reconstruction entailed; which was changing the walls, a new entrance and exit, exhibit spaces being extended for the animals, changes to the roof and the top peak of the roof. She also pointed out the buildings to be demolished and referenced them in the packets.
Applicant Presentation 8:24:18 PM
Mr. Paul Svendson addressed the Commission. Mr. Svendson gave some background to the needs of the Aviary and the reason for needing to have this project approved. He explained Phase I consisted of the Flight Cage, Amazon Adventure, Destination Argentina, and Chase Mill and Phase II consisted of renovation of the Wilson Pavilion, indoor/outdoor habitat, bird show facilities, and restrooms. Mr. Svendson discussed all the structures that would be demolished. He stated the urgency in being able to demolish the hexagonal structure to help ensure the accreditation of the Aviary. Additional structures that the aviary wishes to remove are the keeper house and the existing entry.
Questions by the Commission 8:33:24 PM
Commissioner Hart inquired of the age of the pool, which was unknown.
Commissioner Oliver suggested that the Aviary document the structure to prove its historic value.
Mr. Svendson noted to the Commission that the wooden structures do not meet zoo philosophies for health reasons to the animals, and the wooden structures had become an accreditation issue and would need to be used for storage, not birds.
Commissioner Hart noting the buildings to be destroyed as 10, 14, 16, 17, 25, 30, and 32 and stated that 14 and 25 are historic, building 30 is incorrectly dated.
Commissioner Bevins questioned Mr. Svendson if completion of phase 2 would allow the aviary to receive their accreditation or does phase 3 needs to be completed before accreditation can be granted. Mr. Svendson responded that the aviary was hoping for accreditation before phase 2 is complete.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons suggested evaluating the structures movability at the time they plan on demolishing the structures.
Applicant Presentation: 8:53:31 PM
Mr. Svendson discussed with the Commission the plans for the Wilson Pavilion. He explained the concerns that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums had with the Pavilion which was the wood damage, the lack of proper drainage, and that the enclosures are too small for the animals and the building is not up to standard. The reconstruction of the building would allow the animals to go in and out of the building and allow the public to view the animals from indoors, which would provide revenue to the aviary during the off-season months.
The Commission commended the aviary on the improvements being proposed.
Commissioner Lloyd inquired of the changes to the roof structure.
Jonathan Bradshaw addressed the Commission in regards to the changes of the roof. He suggested that the cap be removed and keep the existing cap, existing louvers, and the existing sky light. Ventilation will be achieved by a damper and fan system.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons inquired of the roof material and Mr. Bradshaw explained it is a single-ply membrane and he stated that parts of the roof appear to have been repaired with PMD black rubber and TPO white single-ply membrane. The new roof would be constructed with a light colored single-ply membrane and would remain similar to the current character and sustainable. The building will be certified under old standards.
Commissioner Oliver inquired if there are currently sky lights and noted concern as to the height of the sky lights. She stated that to keep the curve of the structure intact it might be necessary to reduce the height of the sky lights. Mr. Svendson noted they were dark trapezoid shape to bring UV light inside. Mr. Bradshaw noted that the sky lights could possibly be reduced in height.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons noted the expansion of the footprint of the building and inquired if the surrounding elements, structures, and landscaping were being demolished around the building.
Mr. Bradshaw noted a curb would need to be removed. Tim Brown commented on the red barns that are at the aviary and noted the Aviary is unable to put them to use because of their size. Commissioner Oliver stated that if those structures are removed from the Aviary they lose their historic value by being removed from the context of the Aviary.
Public Hearing 9:09:25 PM
The Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Esther Hunter to address the Commission. Ms. Hunter represented the East Central Community Council Land Use Committee along with the UNC Land Use Community Development Committee. She discussed preserving the trees and the landscape and presented some ideas to the Commission such as having the Conservancy Committee step in to help with design of landscapes and have citizens help document the landscape and provide care.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Cindy Cromer to address the Commission. She was pleased with the staff showing the relationship of the Wilson Pavilion to other structures in the aviary. She agreed that researching the newspapers for historic value on the history of the structures was a great idea and the staff could use the resource of students at the University of Utah and older residents. She noted some concern and dislikes of the proposed sky lights on the Wilson Pavilion and hoped that the aviary would find a better way to disguise the sky lights.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Rick Graham, Director of the Department of Public Service for Salt Lake City, to address the Commission.
Mr. Graham reiterated the importance of the historic buildings and the landscape of the Aviary. He also noted that Tracy Aviary is one of two publicly owned aviaries in the United States. He discussed with the Commission the financial history of the aviary and needing to find outside support or risk closing the Aviary. He also noted that Friends of Tracy Aviary and the City need to help the aviary be self-sustainable. He mentioned that the with twenty million dollar bond issue coming up and making these structural changes to the Aviary would help the Aviary in preserving the wild life in a protective area and allow the public to experience the wild life opportunities. He requested the Commission to grant approval for the project.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM June 3, 2009
Commissioner Hart noted typos on page 3, bottom paragraph, second line, addition’ should be ‘addition’, page 5, last line, underlined typos need to be deleted, page 7, second set of bullet points, last bullet point Howard J. McKeen, should be spelled McKean.
MOTION 9:20:41 PM
Commissioner Hart, with the typographical changes, makes a motion that we approve the minutes.
Commissioner Haymond seconded the motion
All voted in favor; with Commissioner Lloyd abstaining, the motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing
OTHER BUSINESS: ECONOMIC HARDSHIP REVIEW 9:22:04 PM
Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Cindy Cromer to address the Commission. She asked the Commission for consideration of the Economic Hardship Provision. She was stressing the importance of doing what the ordinance intended. She emphasized her dissatisfaction of the Jewel Apartments being torn down and the loss that was to the City in historic value, affordable housing, and she noted that in the place of that now is a vacant lot. She also mentioned how Bill and Nada’s was a loss of income from a facility that provided sales tax revenue 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in its place now is a vacant lot. She stated that it is an economic burden to the City to lose these structures when replacement facilities do not appear for a period of time.
Chairperson Fitzsimmons invited Esther Hunter to address the Commission. She discussed the expansion of the five blocks in the University Historic Neighborhood and hoped that the Commission would seek action.
MOTION 9:27:20 PM
Chairperson Fitzsimmons noted this concluded the business of this meeting. The next meeting would be held on September 2, 2009.
Commissioner Hart made a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion.
All voted in favor; the meeting adjourned.