SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, and Oktai Parvaz. Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor/Zoning Administrator, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Ms. Mickelsen as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Ms. Mickelsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off sothere will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, Ms. Mickelsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. LoPiccolo introduced a new member of the Planning Staff, Ms. Sarah Carroll. In behalf of the entire Commission, Ms. Mickelsen welcomed Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that there was no additional information to report from the Planning Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Heid moved to approve the minutes of the March 2, 2005 meeting. Ms. Carl seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Continuation of Case No. 002-05. by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division. represented by Bill Gould of Pasker. Gould. Ames. and Weaver Architects. requesting approval for a new concession building and associated site work immediately west of 600 East in Liberty Park. Liberty Park is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places.
The overview of the project was included in the March 2, 2005 minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented her memorandum to the Commission: The Historic Landmark Commission previously reviewed this case at its March 2, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission moved to table the request from the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, in order to give the applicant the opportunity to address the following concerns: 1) that the applicant address the setback of the structure in order to make it consistent with the other structures, public ways, and places to ensure visual compatibility; and 2) that the applicant address the diagonal orientation of the proposed structure. The Historic Landmark Commission found the diagonal orientation to be not in keeping with the structures, public ways, and places to which it would be visually related in its orientation to the street.
At the request of the Historic Landmark Commission, the applicant has revised the site plan, which accompanied the memorandum. The details of the proposed structure, including the design, roof shape, materials, etc., have not changed. The building has been rotated to the west, so that it would be parallel to the 600 East thoroughfare, and pulled back from the sidewalk. The proposed building orientation will remain consistent with the existing concession building.
Staff finds that the applicant meets the standards of the ordinance, and has sufficiently addressed the concerns of the Historic Landmark Commission regarding the orientation of the proposed building. Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approved the proposed building.
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff.
Ms. Mickelsen said that there was some question about the existing concrete bridge and inquired if that turned out not to be a problem. Ms. Giraud suggested conferring with the applicant regarding that matter and added that apparently the larger immediate problem would be the existing transformer box just west of the building. She said that the box might have to be moved forward about five or six inches to the east.
Upon hearing no questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Bill Gould of Pasker, Gould, Ames, and Weaver Architects, the consultant working on the team with this project, representing the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, was present. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Gould talked about setting the proposed concession building so it would be in line with the old Aviary gate and the Chase Mill. He added that the Aviary gate is setback from the sidewalk approximately 24 feet 3 inches, the Chase Mill is approximately 29 feet, and the proposed building would be approximately 25 feet back.
Mr. Gould stated that there was an existing transformer that they would have to work around. He also pointed out the new ten-inch water main on the site plan with which he was concerned. Mr. Gould said that the opening to the breezeway in the proposed building would be moved from the original plan setting it east of the transformer approximately 10 feet. He indicated that there needed to be a little “wiggle” room on the exact setback dimensions.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion and inquired if lawn would be planted in the space created by the new placement of the building. Mr. Gould said that he did not know but someone from the Salt Lake City Parks Division could answer that question. He noted the current Children's Garden area that has been fenced and closed to the public for liability reasons. Mr. Gould said that the Children's Garden will be demolished when there is enough money in the budget to do so. Ms. Mickelsen asked if that was part of the scope of the project. Mr. Gould said that it was not. He mentioned that the restrooms in the east end of the current building is part of the Children's Garden and will be closed when the new restrooms are constructed.
• Mr. Ashdown inquired if the transformer had to be at least 10 feet away from any opening of the proposed building then why not set the building back 24 feet instead of 25 feet. Mr. Gould said that it would be too close to the new water main which he had pointed out on the site plan. However, Mr. Gould said that he was certain that it could be worked out as long as they are granted a little “wiggle” room.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if any changes had been made to the proposed building, itself, by the new placement. Mr. Gould stated that the plans had not changed.
• Ms. Carl inquired how the Concessionaire felt about the new plan and if security could still be monitored sufficiently. Mr. Gould said that he has not talked to the Concessionaire, who has the current lease. Ms. Carl said that the proposed building would certainly sit better than in the previous plan.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session.
There was no further discussion so Ms. Mickelsen stated that the Chair would entertain a motion at any time.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved in Case No. 002-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the Staff's findings of fact for the new placement of the proposed concession building in Liberty Park within the six-inch “wiggle” room and approve the project as submitted. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Simonsen, Chairperson, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Heid concluded the meeting by saying that she was delighted to see the change not only in terms of visually lining up with the other structures but not to infringe on the foot traffic that would be on the sidewalk. Ms. Mickelsen agreed and said that she believed it would function better in terms of the flow of people and also for the surveillance issue.
OTHER BUSINESS Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Carl seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 4:30 P.M.