SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Bruce Miya, Dina Williams, Robert Young, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Bruce Miya, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. William Damery, Rob McFarland, Lynn Morgan, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller, Planners. William T. Wright, Planning Director, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:05P.M. by Chairperson, Wallace Cooper. Mr. Cooper announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of February 5, 1997. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Jeppsen abstained. Mr. Damery, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion carried.
NEW CASES
Case No. 001-97. at 454 E. South Temple, by Stephen C. Bamberger. requesting approval to demolish the Imperial Apartments.
This case was postponed at the applicant's request. A copy of the notice was filed with the minutes.
Case No. 002-97. at Memory Grove Memorial Park. by Rick Graham. Deputy Director of the Salt Lake City Public Services Department. represented by Ron Salisbury. Landscape Architect of the Engineering Division. requesting approval to construct a new playground in the park.
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 applicant was asking the Commission to reconsider the original decision that was rendered to locate the playground on the flat area in the south end of the park because the residents on Canyon Road and the community were opposed to that location. Ms. Miller circulated plans of other proposed locations, as well as photographs of the proposed playground equipment.
The applicants, Mr. Rick Graham and Mr. Ron Salisbury, were present. Mr. Salisbury presented an overview of the revised proposal to relocate the playground near the Meditation Chapel by pointing out that there would be an ADA (American Disabilities Act) accessible sidewalk that would lead around the play area to the Meditation Chapel, making the chapel more attainable to veterans and others in wheel chairs. Mr. Salisbury described other proposals which were included in the staff report, such as: 1) the use of rip-rap, a natural rock material to construct a four-foot high retaining wall resulting for the grading to accommodate the playground; 2) wood structures were proposed for the playground equipment except for the slide, which would be metal; 3) the playground area would be surfaced with bark chips; and 4) the World War I cannon would have to be relocated closer to the main walk, making it more attainable to the general public.
Mr. Graham stated that the City's intent for Memory Grove, since the start of the revitalization project, was to make the park more user friendly, by eliminating the bad elements that existed, and to create an atmosphere where families could enjoy the park once more. He said that the City had been working with the community and the Memory Grove Oversight Committee to try and find the best place for a playground area in the park. He pointed out that the community desired to keep the only open area in the park for activities, such as throwing a Frisbee or picnicking. Mr. Graham continued to discuss the City's proposals for Memory Grove and said that although the Parks Division was sensitive to the sacredness of the monuments, the Parks Division also wanted to make the Meditation Chapel more accessible. Mr. Graham said that only one deceased Sycamore tree would have to be removed with the current proposal and that the Parks Division would seriously look into adding Conifer trees as a way of screening the playground. However, he said that care had to be given not to create a natural wall where bad activity could go on. He said that trees would be trimmed and shrubbery would be thinned out with the purpose of opening the park and not have screened barriers.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark
Commission.
• Mr. Cartwright led the discussion by inquiring further into the objection of the community for the playground being located in the south end of the park. He said that the Commission's thought, at the time the decision was rendered, was to locate the playground away from the monuments. Mr. Graham said that he remembered that comments were made at that time, that the noise of children in the playground area would be objectionable to visitors of the Meditation Chapel and the other monuments. Mr. Cartwright said that he was grateful that this project was being reviewed once more by the Historic Landmark Commission because he was also concerned with the visualization of the playground as the first thing that one would see as they entered Memory Grove. He continued to express his thoughts on this matter and if the playground equipment was necessary. Mr. Cartwright commented that the children should be asked about their need to have playground equipment in the park. Mr. Graham indicated that the neighborhood community might have a response to that comment.
• Ms. Deal said that part of the Commission's purview was to protect the Meditation Chapel and other monuments in the park and she thought if the children playing in a playground, which had been approved closer to the homes in the neighborhood, would be too noisy and distracting, then it certainly would be too noisy and distracting next to the Meditation chapel.
The discussion turned to the Memory Grove Oversight Committee. Mr. Graham explained that many of the members who serve on that Committee were residents who reside on Canyon Road. He said that the Committee was created by the community, with support from the City, to discuss problems that existed in the community. Mr. Graham said that the Memory Grove Oversight Committee was not a group which had been empowered by the City's Administration, but of members who were all volunteers who had worked closely to the Parks Division.
• Ms. Williams asked if there were any Veterans organizations represented on that Oversight Committee. Mr. Graham responded negatively but pointed out that various Veterans' organizations had been invited to serve. He said that the City has communicated with veteran’s groups, but no one representing the veterans' groups serve on the Committee on a continuous basis. Ms. Williams explored the idea of an activity where parents could go on an interpretive walk to the monuments with their children where an explanation could be given as to why the monuments were placed in Memory Grove. She stated that she works across the street from these monuments and sees graffiti, but nothing to help instill the respect in younger people. She said that she thought there was an opportunity to rethink how the Commission, the Parks Division, and the community would interact with those monuments for all of generations, young and old. She said that swings, slides, and sand lots have specific kinds of uses that do not respond to the true meaning of the park and she asked if the City had ever explored that idea. Mr. Graham said that the Parks Division had no formal program of that nature. He said that children have been fairly creative in their use of the park. Mr. Graham talked about the children climbing on the guns, the cannon, and other apparatus found in the park. Ms. Williams said that there were elements in the park that warranted respect for the reason why they exist with a sense of appreciation and perhaps some type of interactive setting would help nurture that respect. She said that she thought that would encourage families to visit the monuments in the park. Mr. Graham noted that he did not know what that would be and gravitated back to the proposed site because he said that the playground would be tucked-away and would give the Parks Division an opportunity to improve that area. He said that he did not think that any other area in the park would be more conducive in which to locate the playground.
• Mr. Young commented that there seemed to be a lack of interested representation of the Veterans' groups who would actually visit the Chapel to meditate or to reflect on the site, in the Oversight Committee, or in the community. He continued by saying that having input from the Veterans' groups would lend more credence whether or not a playground should be constructed on the proposed site. He expressed his concerns that once an institutionalized playground was introduced next to the Meditation Chapel, that it would permanently degrade the intent of that Chapel. Other members agreed.
Mr. Cooper 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. Tom Rogan, who resides at 1112 E. Third Avenue, stated that he was the Chair of the Avenues Community Council, but he was not going to speak for or against the proposal in behalf of the Council. Mr. Rogan questioned the input the Council had prior to the renovation of the park. He said that he recognized that there was a great deal of reliance on the information received from the Memory Grove Oversight Committee. Mr. Rogan clarified what he thought was the perception of the Avenues Community Council of the relationship that should exist with the Memory Grove Oversight Committee, the larger community, and the City Staff. He said that the Council would like to be more involved in the process.
Mr. Cooper invited anyone on the Memory Grove Oversight Committee in the audience to come forth who would like to give the Commission some feedback on the Committee's involvement.
• Ms. Jane Erickson, who resides at 116 E. Fourth Avenue, stated that she had been a member of the Oversight Committee for some time and had been involved with the playground issue prior to the hearing before the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that it finally came to fruition in 1994. Ms. Erickson indicated that the Oversight Committee had been trying to "marry" the proposed playground location with the sacredness of the Meditation Chapel site. She discussed the Oversight
Committee's and the neighbor's concerns of the inappropriateness of the playground being located in the south end of the park. She said that it would be too large, too exposed, and conflicted with the spirit of the park. Ms. Erickson also said that drainage was problem in that area and caused the ground to be constantly wet and mushy. She further addressed the need for the Historic Landmark Commission to review its decision and place the playground into the site where the community had originally intended to seclude it and move it back off the beaten path. She encouraged the use of landscaping and the ADA sidewalk to the Meditation Chapel. Ms. Erickson said that a group called the Memory Grove Foundation, which was created by Mr. Murray Hyatt and consisted of many military members, were raising funds to restore the Chapel. Mr. Cooper asked if she thought that a playground would make a big difference in the number of visitors to the park. Ms. Erickson indicated that she did not know the answer. She also pointed out that she had not realized that a slide was proposed for the playground. She said that she understood there would be rocks, sand and perhaps a swing. Mr. Cooper noted that the slide that appeared on the site plans would be tucked into the landscaping. Ms. Erickson stated that it had been the desire of many families that there would be some specific site for children to play away from the lake. Mr. Cooper asked if the Oversight Committee had considered other locations for the playground rather than inside Memory Grove. Ms. Erickson indicated that she thought there had been other suggestions but pointed out that the funds had been designated for Memory Grove. When asked by Mr. Cerruti how much of an issue was the funding and how much money was involved, she said that the funding questions could best be answered by Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham said that this project would be funded out of CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) which was allocated in 1994. He said that some of the money had already been used for other improvements in the park. Mr. Graham said that the Parks Department, trying to make the right choice, had let this project go on way too long. He said that the funding for this project would disappear on June 30, 1997, if it was not used.
The following comments were directed to the CDBG budget: 1) if the monies were not used, they would go back into the general CDBG budget, then the Parks Division would have to reapply for it; 2) the size of the grant was $36,000 and approximately $5,000 was destined for the playground equipment so the bulk of the funds would be spent on landscaping and walkways; and 3) the monies could not be redirected.
There was further discussion regarding the reassignment of the CDBG monies. Mr. Cartwright said that he recognized the need for the community to have a playground but expressed his concerns that if it was the general consensus of the Commission and the community that it would be better if the playground was constructed in another area rather than Memory Grove, then the monies would be lost and the Parks Department would have to reapply for funding. He further commented that there would be a problem with developing the ADA accessible sidewalk to the chapel at this time.
The question of the definition of "playground" arose. Mr. Graham explained that when the application for the CDBG funds was developed, playground was defined as having swings, slide, and other apparatus. Mr. Cooper inquired if the definition of playground apparatus could include large boulders, on which the children could climb, and other natural elements. Mr. Graham said that he would have to communicate with the City's Capital Planning Division for that determination. Mr. Cartwright also questioned whether or not that playground equipment was needed. Mr. Cartwright said that he thought children would prefer climbing on the cannon, the tank, the boulders, and other natural elements rather than a teeter-totter and slide, which could be found in other parks. He further suggested having an area for a sand lot with benches around so parents could sit with their children or watch them as they play in the sand. Mr. Cartwright added that he did not want Memory Grove to be stuck with a playground that would detract from the spirituality of the site. Mr. Cooper mentioned how peaceful it was when the Commission visited Memory Grove earlier while they were on the field trip, to see families throwing balls and enjoying other activities in the park, without playground equipment such as swings, see-saws, and slides.
The question was raised by Mr. Cerruti about locating the playground area in the City Creek Park area, rather than Memory Grove. Mr. Graham said that was considered prior to the design for the City Creek Park was submitted but found that since that park would be created on an island surrounded by streets, plus the lack of open space, the City decided that was not a workable solution.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the possibility of other areas inside and outside Memory Grove to locate a playground, or if a playground was necessary.
• Mr. Lance Weekley, who resides at 288 No. Canyon Road, stated that he thought Ms. Erickson spoke on behalf of the community, very well. He commented about the Commission protecting the sacredness of Memory Grove and endorsed the idea of having boulders and more natural elements for the children's activities, rather than a playground. Mr. Weekley discouraged the location of a playground at the south end of the park because he said he agreed with Mr. Cartwright, that it would be the first thing that someone would see after entering through the gates of the park. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Weekley if he thought there would be a place in the park that would be acceptable to the community. Mr. Weekley that the playground should be tucked more out of the way so the visual impact would not be so severe. He stated that he was not convinced that locating a playground on the site of the current proposal, was the solution, and that was the reason why so many residents who live on Canyon Road were present.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session:
Executive Session
The discussion continued regarding the CDBG funds. Ms. Hatch inquired about the Preservation Staffs involvement in the review of applications that pertained to historic districts or historic landmark sites. Ms. Egleston said that the staff had no involvement in the process. She stated that applications were received and reviewed by staff in the Capital Planning Office, reviewed by a volunteer committee composed of interested citizens from various communities in the City, to the Mayor for a recommendation, and finally to the City Council for approval. Ms. Hatch commented that the problems, surrounding the playground proposal, could have been avoided if there had been input by the Preservation Staff or the Historic Landmark Commission before an application had been submitted.
Ms. Williams talked about the CDBG funding year and the length of time it takes for applications to be approved before monies were received. She pointed out that if the Parks Division abandoned the allocated funds for the playground equipment, and reapply for them, the application would then be in competition with others, and it would be at least another year before more funds would be available.
There was much discussion regarding the time frame for the implementation of the CDBG grant monies and the involvement of the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Hatch raised the question of why funds that have been allocated for the playground project could not be redirected when alternative suggestions had to be made after the Commission's review. She again expressed her concerns about the involvement of the Historic Landmark Commission.
After several more points of interest were raised by the Commission, it was agreed that the meeting would be reopened to the public to ask Mr. Graham further questions. Mr. Cooper announced that this portion of the meeting was reopened.
Ms. Williams referred to the CDBG grant period. Mr. Graham reiterated that the grant period for monies for the playground project would end June 30, 1997. He indicated that the Capitol Planning Office had already been flexible by extending the grant period. Mr. Graham assured the members that if it was the consensus of the Historic Landmark Commission to ask for an extension and an inquiry into the possibilities of altering the wording to include boulders and other natural elements for playground apparatus, then he would pursue that recommendation.
Ms. Deal stated that although she sympathized with the problems surrounding the grant period, she cautioned the Commission not to make a bad decision because the Parks Division might lose $36,000 in grant money. She said that should not be an issue with the Commission.
Mr. Cartwright said that he would not have a problem with the proposed location of the playground if the money could be redirected and spent on a sand lot, big boulders, and other natural elements the children could climb on and not swings, teeter-totters, or slides.
Mr. Cerruti also talked about the possibility of locating the playground in another area of the park. He inquired about the boundaries of Memory Grove Memorial Park. Ms. Williams, stated that the park's boundaries go further north than the north gate where the turn-about is. However, she said that the area goes further up the canyon and is very primitive with trees, shrubbery, and walking trails. Ms. Williams said that the canyon was narrow and any activity was restricted to the pathways. Mr. Cerruti continued by saying that after listening to the discussion regarding the grant program, it appeared like the tail was wagging the dog, and in all reality, the monies were wanted to put all the infrastructure in the park. He commented further on the issues that had already been discussed.
Mr. Cartwright, once again asked Mr. Graham about how specific the language was in describing the playground equipment on the application. Mr. Graham said that the language had been very clear on the application with the interpretation that the playground apparatus was the traditional type. Mr. Graham again reassured the Commission that he would be happy to make an inquiry to the Director of the Capital Planning Division.
Mr. Cooper reclosed this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Cartwright moved that the Historic Landmark Commission would ask the applicant to proceed with the plans, as presented, for Case No. 002-97 and encourage the following: 1) to incorporate interpretative opportunities along the trail that had been proposed; 2) to eliminate the swing set, the teeter-totter, the slide, and the bark; 3) to enlarge the sand area; 4) to find other play elements such as large boulders and rocks, as part of the sand lot environment; and 5) to encourage the applicant to install opportunities for interpretive interaction for children and participants.
After a short discussion regarding the wording of the motion, the motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Cerruti read what he said was one of the criterion on which the Commission should base a decision, which was Section 17.1.7 (a) and (b) of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code: (a) "a property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;" and (b) "the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided." He stated that he did not believe that the location and design of the current playground proposal would not be consistent with the sections of the ordinance he just read.
Mr. Cartwright expressed his concerns about the most expeditious way to deal with this proposal. A short discussion followed.
Ms. Williams moved to deny the application for Case No. 002-97 because it would not be consistent with Sections 17.1.7(a) or (b) of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, in particular the location of the playground and the design of the playground structures and apparatus included in the current proposal. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion carried.
Case No. 003-97 at 439 No. Main Street. by Todd Holoway of DT Partnership. requesting approval to construct a two-family dwelling.
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. Ms. Miller reminded the members that the Commission reviewed a single family home on the project site last year. She circulated photographs of the various sizes, styles, and materials of homes in the neighborhood.
Ms. Miller also reported that the plans that were submitted by the applicant did not meet the zoning height requirements. She said that when she received the plans from the applicants, the dimensions were not on the drawings. Ms. Miller said that after she had telephoned the applicant for the dimensions, she realized that the dimensions told to her were not accurate. There was a question if it met the zoning requirements. Ms. Miller said that she discussed these circumstances with staff of the City's Building and Housing Services Division, and if the applicants are willing to make some changes in grading and/or excavating on the west elevation it could meet the zoning regulations. She addressed how some of the changes could be made.
Ms. Miller stated that the Commission should concentrate on the overall design and the proposed materials for the building at this meeting. Ms. Miller circulated information on the proposed windows and a sample of the proposed siding for the building. She pointed out that the single family dwelling, which was previously approved for this lot, was sited generally in the same way with the garage in front, due to the slope of the land, which makes this a difficult lot on which to build. She noted that the garage in front was usually discouraged. Ms. Miller said that the only alternative for the configuration of the building, would be to build a driveway on one side of the lot leading to garages in the rear yard.
Mr. Cooper inquired Staff to clarify the City's Ordinance relative to the change in grade by asking if the ordinance specifies excessive grade change only at the property line or within the site. Mr. Paterson responded by saying that within the buildable area of the established grade may be raised or lowered a maximum of six feet. Mr. Cooper then asked if a variance would be required or if it could be handled administratively. Mr. Paterson said that it could be handled administratively.
Mr. Holoway and Mr. Johnson, the applicants, were present. Mr. Johnson said that the building would be twin homes, and each unit would be 3,500 square feet. He said that the landscaping plans were not submitted with the proposal, and as they were not ready, he displayed the current landscaping plans. Mr. Johnson presented a brief overview of the project. Mr. Holoway said that he liked the area and said that he hoped he could be a small part of improving the neighborhood in the Capitol Hill.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the height problem. Mr. Holoway said that neither Mr. Johnson nor he understood that the height restriction of just 2 1/2 stories was restricted on all four elevations. He said that he had proposed a walk-out basement, but would change that to meet the Zoning Ordinance. When Ms. Deal asked him about the windows in the proposed basement, Mr. Holoway indicated that because 50 percent of each face of the basement level would have to be underground, window-wells would be used. The discussion continued regarding the height of the proposed building and the terrain of the property. Ms. Deal expressed her dissatisfaction of the garage being located in the front of the house in this neighborhood and said that it would be possible to locate the garages in the rear on this lot.
• Ms. Hatch addressed the plans for the lower floor of the structure and asked if it was being interpreted as a basement because she did not think it would be 50 percent covered on all four elevations. The discussion continued. Ms. Hatch expressed her concerns about the future development of the lower floor, of the proposed structure, and the light, ventilation, and egress requirements. She asked what would prevent the applicants from excavating more than would be allowed so they would have their walk-out basement. Mr. Holoway stated that once the rear elevation would be back-filled to meet the 2 1/2 story height requirement, it would not make sense to excavate further due to the drainage problems that could occur and the desire to have enough space for a rear yard. Mr. Cooper asked for a clarification of the height allowance for the building. Mr. Paterson said that the maximum height allowance for a building in an SR-1 Zoning District is 30 feet or 2 1/2 stories high, whichever is less. Ms. Miller noted that she had spoken with Mr. Larry Butcher of the City's Building Services Division for some suggestions how the applicant could meet the height restrictions. Ms. Hatch offered the suggestion that the plans for the upper story, could be moved to the basement level to decrease the overall height of the proposed building. Mr. Holoway said that would not be possible because he wanted to keep the bedrooms on the upper floor and use the lower level for a family game/entertainment room and storage.
• Mr. Cooper made the suggestion to place the garage doors on the south unit to the side rather than the front so the garage door would not be exposed to the street. Mr. Holoway said that they looked at that issue, but he said that he found that the required turning radius would make that very difficult. He also said that he felt that it would not be practical to locate the driveway on one side of the property in order to place garages at the rear because of the maximum slope and length that an inclined driveway would have to be. Mr. Holoway said that maintenance would also be very strenuous. He continued to address the garage issues. Mr. Cooper inquired if the applicants had obtained a copy of the design standards before they had started the design of the building. He referred to Section 17.1.8 of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, "Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction of Alteration of a Non-Contributing Structure." Ms. Miller responded by saying that those standards appear on the application for new construction, which was completed and submitted by the applicant. Mr. Cooper stated that the Commission had to form a decision for this application based partly on the criteria of these standards. He read Section 17.1.8 (a) (1), "Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape." He pointed out that there were no other 2 1/2 story structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Cooper also read Section 17.1.8 (a) (2), "Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures," and Section 17.1.8 (a) (4), "Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structures and streetscape." Mr. Cooper continued to address the design issues. Mr. Johnson said that due to the value of the land, they wanted to utilize the space the best way they could, and that way was to construct a two-story house.
• Mr. Cartwright stated that the Commission had reviewed many new construction projects in the past and he said that it seemed to him that the group fell into a category that were in between a design of an old house and a design of a contemporary house. He said the plans for the current proposal, also fell into that category and did not express itself. Mr. Cartwright said that the project did not articulate well and had a massing problem. He discussed the elevations that had the large wall areas and the disproportion of the small windows on that large wall. Mr. Cartwright also expressed his opinion regarding the architectural elements and suggested that the applicant should give all elevations the same level of thoughtfulness as the front of the house was given. He said that did not mean the applicant needed to spend more money but to make thoughtful, careful, and considerate decisions on the design, because the applicants would be the benefactor, not the Commission. Mr. Cartwright said there were other homes in the area that have garages 'in front which are still beautiful and elegant, so he encouraged the applicant to study the homes in the neighborhood, in a positive way, and with a certain passion and conviction, to design a house for that piece of property. He assured the applicants that they would be happier and have a better project. Ms. Deal also commented that she thought the reason why the applicants were not very happy with the design was because it was out of proportion and pointed out that the windows were too small for the massing. Mr. Holoway spoke very candidly about his concerns about appearing before this Commission and designing a project that all the members would like. Mr. Cooper tried to assure the applicants that was not expected of them. Mr. Cooper said that within this Commission there was a wide, divergence of philosophy of design, and some had expressed their opinions on the proposed project. He again remarked that the Commission's decision would be based on whether the design was consistent with the design guidelines and standards in the City ordinance; not whether or not the individual members agreed on the design. He said that it was up to the applicants to demonstrate to the Commission that the proposed design would meet the guidelines and ordinance. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the above issues.
Mr. Cooper 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. Waine Riches, who resides at 431 No. Main Street, stated that he was glad that someone would be building on the lot across the street from him because there had been problems with transients living on the property. He expressed his concern with the project such as the height of the house, as it would interfere with his view, and that a two-family dwelling would be leased to renters and not owner-occupied. The discussion continued.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session:
Executive Session
The focal points of the discussion were the issues of the height not complying with the zoning requirements that would have to be addressed, which was reported by Mr. Miya, and the proposed house being too large for the property. Ms. Deal suggested that the applicants be encouraged to meet with the Architectural Subcommittee, after the zoning issues were resolved, to work out some of the details of design. Ms. Hatch said that she took issue with the square footage and thought the house was much too large for the site. Some other members agreed. Ms. Deal said that she thought the curb cuts for the project were too wide and that there would be too much concrete in the front of the proposed structure. The discussion included the design, the setbacks, and the footprints of other homes on the street.
The discussion turned to the subdivision process and the legality of a twin home. Mr. Paterson said that in a twin home situation, each owner would own the interior of their individual portion, however together the two owners would jointly own the exterior of the building. There was much discussion regarding this issue. Some members, again, commented on the role of the Historic Landmark Commission and the subdivision process when the subject property was located in an historic district.
Mr. Young said that he wanted to express his appreciation to the applicants, especially for Mr. Holloway’s candor in his presentation. He commended him on his openness and willingness to share his thoughts on this project.
In conclusion, Mr. Cartwright stated that the best way to work through the design was through open communication. He said that all persons involved had the same goal, to make certain that the house would fit into the neighborhood, comply to the ordinance for the protection of the neighbors, and that the applicants would be satisfied with the project.
Mr. Cooper called for a motion. The discussion continued regarding the wording of the motion.
Mr. Miya moved to table the application for Case No. 003-97 which would allow the applicant to redesign whatever aspects with relationship to the Zoning Ordinance and the following: Section 17.1.8 Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness involving new Construction, as the project related to Section
17.1.8 (a) scale and form, (b) composition of principal facades, (c) relationship to the street, and (d) subdivision of lots, which are included in Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Cooper discussed the contents of Ms. Williams' letter, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Williams stated that her purpose in sending the letter was an attempt to sort out the levels of communication and expectations on the Staff as well as the Commission and encouraged a meeting. Mr. Cooper suggested that a time and place be designated to have an open and sincere discussion relative to matters that come before the Commission.
A lengthy discussion took place with many members expressing their feelings relative to matters and issues of past Historic Landmark Commission meetings. It was decided that a working session be scheduled on Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 12:00 Noon in Room 126 at 451 South State Street. Mr. Paterson told the Commission that the meeting would have to be posted to the public, but that the Commission would not have to take any public comment, which would be noted on the agenda.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M.