March 17, 1999

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 Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, and Amy Rowland. Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, and Robert Young were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Susan Deal. Ms. Deal announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Deal asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.

A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Payne moved to approve the minutes from the March 3, 1999 meeting, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Blaes. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.

OLD BUSINESS

Case No. 001-99. at 515 East 400 South. by Jim Terry of CLC Associates, Inc., Englewood. CO. requesting approval of a new Rite-Aid Store.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said that the applicants were receptive to relocating the proposed building to provide an urban design anchor for the street corner. Mr. Knight stated that the Central City Community Council encouraged the applicants to incorporate the CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design), which are crime-reduction design guidelines, into the design for the building.

Mr. Jim Terry from CLC Associates. Inc., representing the applicants, was present. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He displayed the revised and most current plans. Mr. Terry apologized that the revised plans were not in the Commissioner's packets. He also exhibited a sample board of the exterior materials.

Mr. Terry said that the applicants had made some dramatic changes to the original proposal, which were as follows: 1) the exterior materials; 2) the elements behind the signage; 3) the removal of the previously proposed back-lit awnings; 4) the relocation of the building to the corner of the site; 5) the addition of landscape buffers along the east property line; 6) the inclusion of landscaping plans; 7) addressing elements pertaining to the "stacking" issue on the remote drive-through; 8) the popping out of a small element on the south-west corner of the building; and 9) varying the parapet height to further break-up the building. Mr. Terry pointed out that the revised plans had "strongly tied in with the pedestrian linkages".

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring further into the upper southwest corner element. Mr. Terry said that some signage would be incorporated into that area. Mr. Parvaz said that the solid walls on the exterior would need visual connection with the inside on the outside of the building. He inquired what retail entity would be located in that corner of the building. Mr. Terry pointed out that was where the pharmacy and some internal storage would be located. Mr. Parvaz suggested that the applicants should provide exterior lighting, which would light up the corner of the building. He also suggested that the landscaping meet the crime-reduction design guidelines. Mr. Terry pointed out that there were some existing trees on the site and said that the applicants would address the safety issues with the Police Department. Mr. Knight added that the Design Review Team (DRT) would also address those issues.

• Ms. Blaes inquired about the proposed site lighting and light fixtures. She talked about the west and the north elevations, which she said, seemed to be "monolithic". Mr. Terry said that there would be wall fixtures on those elevations. Ms. Blaes suggested placing lighting fixtures next to all man doors. Mr. Terry said that there would be some small fixtures and assured the Commission that there would be some lighting. Ms. Blaes stated that there needed to be something more to the building than just anchoring a corner. She added that it needed to have an interest and be pedestrian-friendly through the design, the exterior materials, lighting, and landscaping. Ms. Blaes commented that the current proposal was certainly an improvement over the original and the Commission appreciated the efforts of the applicants to consider the requirements in the overlay ordinance. Mr. Terry said that the heavy landscaping and the lighting should address those concerns.

• Ms. Deal expressed her concerns about the back of the building, which would be the north elevation. She suggested repeating a fenestration pattern around the building, detailing it with soft lighting, wall washes, and decorative fixtures. Mr. Terry said that Rite-Aid had a certain standard that is used, which simply washes the wall with light rather than provides flood lighting.

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich mentioned that the signage would be reviewed under a separate application. She asked the applicant if he knew what the signage would be when that application is reviewed by this Commission. Mr. Terry said that the signage would consist of back-lit raised block letter on a blue EIFS background, in addition to a pylon sign.

• Mr. Littig inquired if signage was proposed in the blue area on the upper portion of the west elevation. Mr. Terry said that there would be. Mr. Littig suggested that the identical "Rite-Aid" sign be place in that location as there would be on the south elevation. Mr. Terry said that the suggestion would be incorporated into the signage proposal when it is reviewed.

Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

• Mr. Evan Barrow, who is the chair of the Central City Community Council, indicated that he was in attendance to listen and review the project and did not wish to comment at this time.

Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

The requirements of Section 21A.34.020(H) of the Salt Lake City Code were discussed.

H Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council, and is in the best interest of the City.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's finding: The height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape and the scale of the structure would be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape in this portion of the Central City Historic District.

Historic Landmark Commission's comments and finding: There was no discussion or disagreement with the staff's finding.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of

entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staff's finding: The relationship of materials to the surrounding structures and streetscape is acceptable. The proportion of openings, rhythm of solid to void in facades, and rhythm of entrance porch and other projections is diminished in comparison to the surrounding structures and streetscape by the lack of an entrance to the building at the corner of 400 South and 500 East and the small window size in relation to the size of the building.

Historic Landmark Commission's comments and finding: Since the applicants had revised the proposal, there was no further discussion or disagreement with the staff's finding.

3. Relationship to Street.

a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;

c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and

d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staffs finding: The proposed development is visually compatible with the surrounding structures in term of walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, directional expression of principal elevation and pedestrian improvements.

Historic Landmark Commission’s comments and finding: Since the applicants had revised the proposal, there was no further discussion or disagreement with the staffs finding.

4. Subdivision of Lots.

Staff& finding: Since the proposal did not involve any subdivision lot, this standard did not apply.

Ms. Blaes suggested that the site lighting should be increased to the entire site; not just the south and west elevations. The motion was amended.

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve Case No. 001-99, based on the staff's findings of fact and to reflect the following recommendations: 1) to include more definition of the windows on the west and north elevations; 2) to duplicate the signage that is proposed for the upper south elevation on the upper west elevation on the southwest corner of the building; 3) to install soft lighting that will be attractive, promotes safety, and will be pedestrian-friendly for the neighborhood on all elevations, with emphasis on the west and south sides; and 4) and recognize that the drive-through and complete signage proposal will be included in separate applications. The motion was still seconded by Mr. McFarland. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS

Requesting favorable recommendations to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the following properties be included on the National Register of Historic Places; Case No. 002-99. the "Lewis A. Ramsey House" at 128 South 1000 East: and Case No. 003-99. the "Silver Brothers' Iron Works Office and Warehouse" at 550 West

700 South.

Mr. Knight made a presentation by outlining the major issues of the cases and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of both nominations were filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said that these two nominations had been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for its review. Mr. Knight added that nominations are approved by the State Board of History and then forwarded to the National Park Service. The state also requires the nominations to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate Certified Local Government (CLG), which in Salt Lake City is the Historic Landmark Commission.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the future plans for the properties. Mr. Knight said that the owners were restoring the buildings and wanted to be eligible for state and federal tax credits. He added that staff has had no contact with the owners for either properties for any other reason.

• Mr. Littig wanted it stipulated in the minutes that this request was only for a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and did not include a conditional use for the properties.

• Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns that the nominations were not complete; that there needed to be more information than what was submitted. Mr. Knight said that the owners of the properties initiated the proposals with SHPO and a consultant prepared the paperwork for both nominations. He continued by saying that the Historic Landmark Commission is "out of the loop" for the review of design standards since these properties are not City landmark sites or in an historic district. Mr. Knight added that the Commission was asked only to make a recommendation to SHPO. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the restoration projects would be required to have permits and if they would be under the jurisdiction of the City building inspectors. Mr. Knight said that they would. Mr. Knight stated that at some time in the future, the owner of the properties might want to include them on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. He said that there is no financial incentive for the owners to make that request at this time. Mr. Knight pointed out that the "Ramsey" house is in the Bryant neighborhood, which eventually will become an historic district.

• Mr. McFarland inquired what affects these nominations would have on the properties. Mr. Knight said that the buildings would be eligible for tax credits, and that they might have some protection if a federal agency wanted to demolish the buildings for a federal project that they might have some protection if a federal agency wanted to demolish the buildings for a federal project.

Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion ensued with many Commission members expressing his/her concerns about the nominations. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Commission decided the following: 1) that the Historic Landmark Commission should have the opportunity to review a completed nomination form before being asked to transmit a recommendation to SHPO; 2) that the person who prepared the nomination forms should present the nominations to the Historic Landmark Commission; and 3) that the nominations should include a vicinity map because some properties do not have addresses displayed making them difficult to find.

Ms. Blaes moved to transmit a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the following properties be included on the National Register of Historic Places: Case No. 002-99, the "Lewis A. Ramsey House", at 128 South 1000 East, and Case No.003-99, the "Silver Brothers' Iron Works Office and Warehouse", at 550 West 700 South. The motion was seconded by Mr. McFarland. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote.

The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Certified Local Government grant.

Mr. Knight reported that the CLG grant came through and the Historic Landmark Commission received $11,000. The funds will be used in the ways that were discussed at a previous meeting. He said that there will be approximately $2,000 that can be used for travel for Commission members for the next National Association of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) conference, which will be held in Pittsburgh on August 4-6, 2000. Mr. Knight said that some money will pay for a survey of the area south and west of the University Historic District, Central City, and Bryant neighborhoods. Ms. Blaes suggested that the City try to receive matching funds for the money from a foundation. Mr. Paterson said that suggestion could be explored.

Mr. Knight also talked about a grant for which Ms. Giraud had applied to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for the West Capitol Hill/Pugsley neighborhoods to hire a consultant to complete the survey to include the area on the National Register of Historic Places. He announced that Ms. Giraud will do a presentation at the RDA board meeting on Wednesday, April 7th at 6:30 P.M. in Room 326. Mr. Knight encouraged the Commission members to attend and give support for this project.

Subcommittee for the Salt Lake Arts Council.

Ms. Deal announced that the Historic Landmark Commission's subcommittee met with the Salt Lake Arts Council to review pieces of art to be displayed on Exchange Place. She talked about a controversial sculpture that once stood on Exchange Place and Main Street. Ms. Deal said that the Arts Council had not included the entire plaza in the proposal. She said that the sculpture pieces were not very artistically successful. She said that the Arts Council would study the possibility of revising the proposals and the budget to try to include the entire Exchange Place plaza and to consult with a landscape architect. When asked, Ms. Deal said that the Arts Council had a $100,000 budget for this budget, which she said, "surprisingly was not enough".

State Fair Park.

There was a discussion regarding the State Fair Park. Mr. Owen said that he called the director of the State Fair Park regarding the demolition of the historic buildings. He said that she informed him that the buildings were deteriorating and the Utah State Legislature does not fund any money for the upkeep of the buildings, because the Fair Park Corporation had been designated as a separate operating agency for profit since 1995. Mr. Owen also said that the director commented that it was difficult to find tenants for the buildings for only ten months out of the year.

Ms. Blaes said that the Utah Heritage Foundation was considering pursuing legal action against the Fair Park Corporation. She said that, so far, there had been no demolition permits issued by the City. Ms. Blaes talked about the complications involved with the control and the stability of the Fair Park. She said that one of the statements in its charter is that the Fair Park Corporation will preserve the buildings that are currently in the Fair Park.

Mr. Parvaz talked about when the historic coliseum which was demolished. Ms. Blaes said that there was never a process clarified as to how buildings would be taken care of on that site. She said that there are many levels of citizen participation. The discussion continued.

Adjournment of the meeting

As there was no other business, Ms. Deal asked for a motion to adjourn.

Ms. Blaes so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:00P.M.