SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was cancelled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Lynn Morgan, Robert Pett, Dave Svikhart, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. Burke Cartwright and Bruce Miya were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Brent B. Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, Val John Halford, Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Pett. Mr. Pett announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the commission, the applicant win be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Pett said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal's process is listed on the back of the agenda.
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 cases were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Williams moved to approve the minutes of February 7, 1996. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Svikhart, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye”. Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Miya were not present. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASES
Case No. 001-96, at 475-479 E. South Temple Street (the northeast corner of South Temple and "E" Street). by Thomas Williamsen. represented by Russ Naylor of Nichols Naylor Architects. requesting approval for the construction of a new commercial building. This case has been re-opened.
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 stated that she had received a letter from the applicant, requesting that this case be re-opened. She fully explained the circumstances that led to this case being reopened, which was included in the staff report.
The applicant, Mr. Thomas Williamsen, as well as his representative, Mr. Russ Naylor, were present. Mr. Gardner Hammond, representing Boston Market and Einstein's Bagels, the prospective retail tenants, was also present. Mr. Naylor used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He addressed the changes in the configuration of the proposed building which was described fully in the staff report. Mr. Naylor noted that the applicant had adopted for use some of the suggestions offered by the commission members. He believed that the new proposed building was what he considered a more traditional approach.
Mr. Naylor presented the following points of interest: 1) the building would be elevated approximately three feet above the street level, which would also elevate the outside dining patios; 2) the edge of the bui1lding and dining areas would be bermed and planted with a variety of shrubbery and ground cover; 3) the grade transition on the north side of the building would not require an additional retaining wall and could be handled by landscaping; 4) the customer access to the building, would be the front entrance, and the service entrance would be on the north elevation; 5) the dumpster would be located in the northeast corner of the property and fully screened; 6) the venting of the soil contamination, that was described in the staff report, would be an underground well which would encase the environmental equipment. It would be buried beneath the landscaping in a pre-cast cement vault on the southwest corner of the property; 7) there would be a small planter on top of the vault box; 8) there would be a masonry monument sign placed on top of the vault, which would be illuminated with ground lighting; 9) the mullion windows would be placed higher on the facades with pre-cast concrete lintels and sills; 10) a horizontal metal painted band would appear above the windows on the south and west elevations; 11) a high-tech-looking meta11 tube trellis supported by round concrete columns would be over the outside dining areas on the west and south elevations; and 12) there would be a painted metal cap on top of the parapet wall.
Mr. Nichols stated that the applicant had intended to use Atlas brick and Alucabonde panels on the exterior, but due to budget constraints, the applicant expressed his preference for using a split-faced colored concrete masonry unit (CMU) and a material called, Aurora, which has a sprayed-on "granite" looking texture. Mr. Naylor indicated that the proposed trim would be a beige color. He passed around samples of the materials as he made note of the colors.
Mr. Nichols continued by saying that there would be two elements that were not proposed on the original plans: the awning at the corner of the building which would go directly above the entry, and the signage on the south elevation for each of the two restaurants. He said that the letters for Boston Market would be red and illuminated from an in-ground spotlight, and the letters for Einstein's Bagels would be brown with similar illumination.
Mr. Gardner Hammond stated that the two restaurants are jointly controlled by the same entity. He defined the concepts of the restaurants and the various locations nationwide. Mr. Hammond stated that, other than signage to recognize Einstein's Bagel, there would not be a need for any other trademark identifications. However, he continued, there would be more in terms of some representation of a trademark for the Boston Market. Mr. Hammond said that the red lettering and the awnings were a trademark entity and very important to the owners. He continued to explain that, although the awnings that were proposed for this building were not the traditional red, white and black stripped awnings, the owners would be willing to compromise by using a solid red material. Mr. Hammond further requested that some form of awning be installed over each window on the south and east elevations on the Boston Market side of the building.
Mr. Naylor stated that he had expectations that a workable solution could be developed. He said that he realized that not all the issues were resolved, but hoped that an approval could be rendered for the overall concept and then work with the subcommittee to refine the design details.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the height of the building. Mr. Naylor explained that the one-story building, which was proposed, was not significant enough for the kind of massing needed on that corner. He said that he attempted to mitigate that by increasing the height to measure 22 feet from the sidewalk to the top of the building, and 19 feet from the patio area to the top of the building. Mr. Naylor stated that if the height of the building was decreased by 4 feet, it would save the applicant a great deal of money per foot, and Atlas brick and Alucabonde panels could once again be considered. Ms. Deal also asked if the aluminum on the windows was proposed to be a clear anodized. Mr. Naylor said that he thought it would be white and not clear anodized or bronze. Ms. Deal continued by saying that she thought that the fenestrations had been addressed on the new site plan, but could not support the material' which looked like sprayed-on "granite". However, she said that she would not be opposed to the additional awnings on the east · elevation that was proposed. She said that on this prominent corner, all four elevations would be very visible from the streets.
• Mr. Morgan suggested that it would be more interesting to dine on the outside patio areas if the height of the trellis was reduced to about 8 feet, then add a baffle of some kind or a sun screen. He also suggested that an increase of the use of masonry would make the building more appropriate for the area. There was some discussion regarding the height of the building, the masonry details, the size of the columns, and the outside dining areas.
• Mr. Pett commented on the Architectural Subcommittee's review of the project and addressed the quality of the materials that were proposed, and the need to break up the massing of the building. He suggested that since cost was a factor, the goal ought to be to find a workable way to reconfigure the building to maintain the quality of materials which would be expected on a building on South Temple. Mr. Pett indicated that the quality of materials was an important issue. There was some confusion with regards to the location of the proposed material and Mr. Pett asked Mr. Naylor to sketch the placement of the materials on the site plan drawing. Mr. Pett inquired further into the proposed materials. Mr. Naylor expressed a preference to use an 8x16-inch split-faced standard module block rather than the Atlas brick, due to the cost saving factor.
• Mr. Cooper also inquired about the materials and the termination point of the split faced block and the Aurora material, which also was not depicted on the site plan. Mr. Naylor offered an explanation then discussed such details as the flashing and the sloped cap. Mr. Cooper said that he was not eager to see split-faced block on a building on South Temple. He remarked that the combination of the previously proposed Atlas brick and Alucabonde panels, would have created a nice change of texture as well as color. Others agreed.
• Ms. Egleston raised the question of the color and the texture of the proposed split faced block and asked if the block would be similar to the material that was being used on another building that Mr. Williamsen was constructing on the corner of 600 East and 400 South. Mr. Naylor indicated that the color would be a deeper brown, but the product texture would be the same.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the proposed materials and the architectural elements of the project.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Kevin Steiner, the Chief Financial. Officer for Steiner Corporation, whose building is on the property immediately to the east of the proposed project site, inquired about the size and location for the intended monument sign. Ms. Miller pointed out that the 6-foot monument sign would be placed on the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Steiner commented favorably that the design of the building was much better than what was originally proposed, but again expressed his concerns about having a fast food operation on South Temple. Mr. Steiner indicated that he had taken the time to drive past another Boston Market restaurant. He discouraged the use of the bright red metal lettering, the use of the sprayed-on "granite" type of material, and the possible use of metal awnings on the proposed building. Mr. Steiner reminded the commission that South Temple is the City's "show place", and that there has been a large amount of money gone into the restoration of the Kearns Mansion, the Keith Brown Mansion, and the Cathedral of the Madeleine, just to name a few. He also stated that it was essential to use quality materials for this project, which would make a dramatic visual difference in the city.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
Mr. Pett remarked that he thought that the commission members possibly felt much more comfortable about the direction the project was going, in relation to the scale to the street, but again expressed his serious concerns regarding the quality of the proposed materials. He continued by saying that the proposed use of less expensive materials, which would try to give the impression that they were another kind of material should not be part of the design concept. He said that he was concerned that the building would have a "plastic" look. Mr. Pett then raised the question of the relationship of this proposed building to the surrounding structures on South Temple and said that the applicant had not provided a streetscape, which was one of the requirements that should have accompanied the application.
Ms. Hatch expressed her concerns that she felt that the general direction had already been set when this project was reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee. She further stated that she recognized that the zoning on this site allowed for certain uses, however, she said that she did not think that this planned project was visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscapes and was not in the best interest of the city. Ms. Hatch also pointed out that by increasing the height, the applicant was trying to artificially match the scale and massing of the street. She expressed her thoughts with regards to the project complete.ly denying the view of anything except two doors on the north elevation of the building, for anyone driving south from the Avenues on "E" Street, and the way that the building would be oriented towards the corner, it would not have a good relationship to South Temp 11e. Ms. Hatch referred to a site in the Capitol Hill Historic District where the commission recommended that the front elevation and not the side elevation of a single family home be oriented to the street. She indicated that she would like to have some guidance as to the City's future direction for South Temple. A discussion took place regarding the proposed project, with respect to the suggestions which were made at th3 subcommittee, the height, scale, configuration and orientation of the building and the precedent that might be set.
Mr. Cooper said that he thought that because the proposed building was lower that some other buildings in the area, it would look like it was in a hole. He then pointed out that some other buildings on South Temple were oriented towards the corner virtually by its shape and front plaza, and that a precedent had already been set on South Temple. Mr. Cooper indicated that he thought the building lost something by dropping the height at the corner. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Morgan expressed their concerns about the detailing and the transition from one material to another. Mr. Morgan also expressed his concerns about the possibility of a structural problem developing.
Ms. Swinton stated that by using the proposed less expensive materials for the project, the building would not have the needed strength or integrity to stand on its own and would be a significant draw-back to the streetscape on South Temple. Ms. Hatch agreed and said that the commission expected to see high quality materials on this building and ended by saying that the owner should be investing and committed to what could become an historic building on South Temple, rather than one that would last only for about 30 years or so.
Mr. Cooper moved that the application for Case No. 001-96 return to the Architectural Subcommittee for continued review of the design, based on the comments that have been made at this meeting, particularly, the materials, the massing, and the trellis design. Further, that the applicant needed to provide the additional information that would help in the process of evaluating this application, such as additional elevation drawings, a head-on elevation drawing from the corner view, and a streetscape. It was seconded by Mr. Damery.
Questions followed from the commission members regarding the intent of the motion. Mr. Cooper stated that his intent was to give general approval for the direction of the project but focus on the materials and the details, while trying to struggle with the massing.
Mr. William T. Wright, the Planning Director, stated that this subject parcel caused much discussion in the Zoning Rewrite Process because there were so many issues within the community. He said that he thought the final zoning of a CN Neighborhood Commercial Zone was appropriate with the emphasis on very limited retail, high quality, and only serving the neighborhood.
Mr. Wright disclosed the fact that to submit a request to the City Council to change the zoning. on this parcel would be very difficult. He pointed out that this site has a limited capacity in terms of the volume that could be placed on this corner property. Mr. Wright said that the city had received many requests for this property to be rezoned to allow a multi-unit residential structure, such as a 200-unit per acre building, during the Zoning Rewrite Process.
Mr. Wright referred to the "Statement of Intent" for the CN Neighborhood Commercial District, which read, as follows: "The commercial districts are intended to provide - controlled and compatible settings for office and business/commerce developments, to enhance employment opportunities, to encourage the efficient use of land, to enhance property values and the tax base, to insure high quality of design, and to help
implement officially adopted master plans." Mr. Wright offered a brief explanation of the City's direction focusing in on South Temple. He continued by reading the "Site Plan Review", as follows: "In certain districts, permitted uses and conditional uses have the potential for adverse impacts if located and laid out without careful planning. Such impacts may interfere with these and enjoyment of adjacent property and uses. Site Plan Review is a process designed to address such adverse impacts and minimize them where possible."
Mr. Wright stated that he concurred with much of the member's discussion regarding the review of this project and, as a staff member, would not support the change in materials that was proposed at this meeting. He said that higher quality materials should be used rather than a lower quality on this project. He also suggested that the commission should send a clear message regarding the direction in which the applicant is to take.
The discussion turned to the zoning issues and the terminology used in the wording of the adopted zoning ordinance. The question was raised regarding the amount of parking stalls required for a two-story building and if the applicant would consider adding a story and using the extra space for offices.
The commission agreed to allow the meeting to be re-opened to allow the applicant to comment on the possibility of constructing a two-story building. Mr. Pett re-opened this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Naylor said that the zoning required one parking stall per 300 square feet of office space, and they would be short 14 parking stalls to add a second story to the proposed building. Mr. Williamsen pointed out that the retail spaces could not function with less parking. There were other suggestions offered from the commission members to resolve the parking stall deficiency.
Mr. Williamsen said that he had discussed this project with Councilman Sam Souvall and the City Council's liaison to the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Janice Jardine. There was some discussion regarding the need for a better communication system between the Historic Landmark Commission, the Neighborhood Councils, and the City Council.
Mr. Pett re-closed the meeting to the public and Mr. Cooper amended the motion.
Mr. Cooper moved that the application for Case No.001-96 return to the Architectural Subcommittee for a continued review of the design, based on the comments that have been made at this meeting, particularly, the materials, the massing, and the trellis design. Further, that the applicant needed to provide the additional information that would help in the process of evaluating this application, such as additional elevation drawings, a head-on elevation drawing from the corner view, and a streetscape. When this information has been provided and reviewed, the applicant may return to the full commission for final approval. It was seconded by Mr. Damery. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, and Mr. Morgan voted "Aye". Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams were opposed. Since it was a tie, Mr. Pett, as chair, was eligible to break the tie and voted "Aye". Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Miya were not present. The motion passed.
The discussion continued regarding the materials, and Mr. Pett invited all interested commission members to attend the Architectural Subcommittee meeting which will be held on Friday, March 15, 1996.
Case No. 062-94, at 111 South 1300 East. by W. Meeks Wirthlin, represented by Ron Molen. architect. and Robert Wilkinson. attorney. requesting approval to use stucco. instead of wood shingles and siding on the upper exterior walls, on a five-unit townhouse development currently under construction. This is a review due to a technical error.
Mr. Wallace Cooper, was the acting chair, for the remainder of the meeting, due to Mr. Pett's absence.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She noted that the applicant appealed this case to the City Council and explained the circumstances by which the City Council referred this application back to this commission. Photographs were circulated that were recently taken of different uses of the synthetic stucco material, as well as wood shingles and siding. Ms. Egleston said that the structures were found in various sections of the City.
The applicant, Mr. W. Meeks Wirthlin, and his representatives, Mr. Ron Molen, architect, and Mr. Robert Wilkinson, attorney, were present. Mr. Wilkinson passed around current photographs of the property, showing the development as it now exists. He expressed the applicant's preference for using stucco instead of wood shingles and siding on the upper two-thirds of the exterior walls. Mr. Wilkinson spoke of the applicant's disappointment when the City Council did not hear the appeal, due to a mailing error by staff, and referred the case back to the Historic Landmark Commission, because it was causing further delays. He added that Mr. Wirthlin wanted a quality project because his name would be associated with it, and he wanted a project that would look good for a very long time. Mr. Wilkinson continued by saying that Mr. Wirthlin was willing to listen to and incorporate suggestions that would be made at this meeting so a workable solution could be developed.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that when the approval was obtained to use wood shingles and siding on the upper two-third and a brick facade on the lower one-third of the exterior walls, the use of stucco as an option instead of brick on the lower part, was also authorized. He referred to the synthetic stucco that was being used. Mr. Wilkinson explained that there was a miscommunication between Mr. Wirthlin and his architect, Mr. Molen, and Mr. Wirthlin was under the impression that stucco could be used for the upper two-thirds of the exterior walls, as well, and thought it would look similar to the Parklane Assisted Living Center, located at 677 East 100 South. Mr. Wilkinson circulated a photograph of that building. Mr. Wilkinson continued by saying that the applicant believed that having to return to the Historic Landmark Commission to gain approval to use stucco on the upper wall's, was a mere formality because he knew that stucco was a material that had been use. historically, within the district. He noted that this commission denied the request.
Mr. Wilkinson responded to the staff’s findings and analysis, which was included in the staff report, by offering the following information:
First finding - The staff contended that the appearance of Dryvit stucco differed from the cement-like quality of stucco which was used in the historic district. Synthetic stucco can be applied to look different than the scratch, brown, and finish stucco system or the lathe and plaster stucco, which were very similar in appearance. The lathe and plaster stucco structures tend to suffer severe cracking, weathering, and general deterioration over a period of years. The new synthetic stuccos were much more weather resistant, and subject to far less cracking, weathering, deterioration and blight. Mr. Wilkinson said that he had received much information regarding the contrasts between the new synthetic stucco systems and the old stucco, and looked at some projects where the Dryvit system was being applied to a structure. He also spoke of a variety of systems that could be used.
Second finding- Stucco was most often used in conjunction with another material, such as brick, wood, or cobblestone. Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that there already was a contrasting material, which was a combination of brick and patterned concrete block, on the lower exterior walls. He thought that this supported the applicant's proposal rather than opposing it. Mr. Wilkinson circulated additional photographs depicting structures that were constructed using stucco. He directed his comments to those structures that were shown in this set of photographs.
Third finding- If stucco was the only exterior material used, the structures were usually small in size. Mr. Wilkinson referred to the photographs and pointed out that some of those structures, which were almost exclusively stucco, were large homes.
Mr. Wilkinson referred to Section 17-1.8 of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, a copy of which was filed with the minutes, and said that he believed that the staffs findings were erroneous and would not support the recommendations made by staff. He said that the code governed the proposition for principle facades and the relationship of materials used in facades, and believed that Mr. Wirthlin’s proposed modification to use stucco was entirely consistent with this code provision, and would be more visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscapes than the wood siding and shake shingles.
Samples of the stucco were displayed. Mr. Wilkinson pointed out that the samples were not of the texture but of the proposed colors to be used. He said that Mr. Wirthlin wanted to paint each of the five units a different color.
In conclusion, Mr. Wilkinson said that he believed that the Historic Landmark Commission had allowed certain structures within an historic district to use synthetic stucco, and approved stucco on a portion of the buildings in Mr. Wirthlin's project, but not identifying what kind of stucco was allowed, then denying Mr. Wirthlin's request to use a synthetic stucco on the upper exterior walls, was a capricious decision and an abuse of discretion and power, which was in the violation of the law. He suggested that the commission render an approval to allow the applicant to use the synthetic stucco, which he claimed would require less maintenance than the original proposal, and provide Mr. Wirthlin with some guidelines or perimeters within which he could work, so this project could be completed without any further delays.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Hatch led the discussion by inquiring about the window details on the site plan. Mr. Molen responded by describing the vinyl windows, window jams, vinyl extrusion, the shadow line, and the stucco trim. He said that the windows would be very similar to those in the Parklane building. Ms. Hatch stated that the photographs that were circulated by Mr. Wilkinson were very instructional from many different points because she said that most of the properties were not in an historic district. She spoke of another property, where the owner had illegally used a synthetic stucco to cover brick, which this commission denied, and was being forced to remove the material. Ms. Hatch also said that some of the examples of properties that had been stuccoed with a synthetic material, the windows were detailed in wood instead of rigid insulation and stucco. Ms. Hatch conveyed that she believed that the details on a new construction project was more important than the materials used.
• Ms. Deal stated that the, letters from the neighbors of this project site, seemed to be almost identical and asked Mr. Wilkinson if a form letter was given to those neighbors. Mr. Wilkinson indicated that one of the neighbors, to the east, was adamantly against the use of wood siding and shake shingles due to the maintenance issue, that he volunteered to contact the other neighbors. Ms. Deal expressed her opinion that to trim out a building with Dryvit was one of the worst things you could do to these buildings because the material had no change of texture, looked flat with no rel1ief or depth. She said that she thought it was an inferior system, and originally, she would not have given any kind of approval of the project if Dryvit had been requested. Ms. Deal stated that a true cementious stucco over metal lathe and plaster could be nicely detailed and would never look like a Dryvit building.
• Ms. Egleston also expressed her concerns about the construction practices to allow thick enough wails on the buildings which would allow the windows to be set back, thus creating shadow lines. She also expressed her concerns about the concrete block on the lower portion of the building which would be painted to look like brick, and noted that she did not believe these buildings would have any similarity to the Parklane. Ms. Egleston said that she stood by her staff report, of which most of the members were in agreement.
• Ms. Williams directed her comments to the fact that a compromise with the materials on the lower portion of the buildings had already been allowed. She said that if a synthetic stucco would have been requested in the original proposal, the scale and the massing of the structures would have been substantially changed. She spoke of the project site as being a significant corner property leading to the university which has created much interest with the neighbors.
• Mr. Morgan commented on the arguments about the Dryvit system, but reminded the commission that this project was new construction and that synthetic stucco was an approved material for the use on new construction in an historic district. He expressed his preference for the Dryvit system, as long as the stucco was applied correctly, and it would be detailed appropriately. He said that this was a development of contemporary buildings and Dryvit was a contemporary material.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests to address the commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Cooper asked if the commission was aware that the use of stucco was also approved on the upper portion of the exterior walls. Mr. Egleston added that only as a detail with battens. She said that there were many houses in the historic district where stucco was used in this manner. The discussion continued regarding the various applications of stucco and the importance of the detailing on the proposed buildings. At the request of the applicant and consent from the commission, Mr. Cooper, reopened this portion of the meeting to the public to address a point of clarification.
Mr. Molen stated that he would be using the same details on the buildings for this project as he used on the Parklane building, and he reminded the commission that he was presented an award by the commission for the architectural design of that building in an historic district, and made it clear that he could not understand the reason for the commission to accept synthetic stucco on one building and not on another one. It was conveyed to him by Ms. Deal that was one of the discretions that the commission was allowed, to be able to review site by site issues.
Mr. Cooper re-closed this portion of the meeting to the public.
Ms. Williams moved to deny the application of stucco for Case No. 062-94, as presented, based on the findings of fact which were included in the staff report. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.
The focal point of the discussion centered on the fact that wood siding and shake shingles were requested originally on the upper portion of the exterior wails on the buildings, and that was what the neighbors heard at that meeting, Ms. Swinton stated. Because Ms. Swinton resides in this neighborhood, she said that she has had comments that the project should never have been allowed in the first place. She claimed that the commission felt betrayed because the members had questioned the use of stucco originally, and was told by Mr. Molen that the wood siding and shake shingles were planned to be used. Ms. Deal agreed and said that the applicant should not blame the commission for the delays for this project, when there was miscommunication within their own organization. Ms. Swinton concluded that she did not believe that the commission had many options remaining and inquired what the applicant could feasibility do to create the detailing that had been discussed at this meeting.
Upon conferring with the commission, the members concluded that the meeting could again be re-opened to the public to address the conditions of the synthetic stucco application. Mr. Wright recommended that a subsequent motion be made to re-open the meeting because there was a motion already on the table.
Ms. Swinton moved that the commission re-open the discussion to Mr. Molen, representing the applicant, for further feasible options in the construction process. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Svikhart voted "Aye". Ms. Williams and Ms. Deal were opposed. Mr. Cooper, as the acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Miya, and Mr. Pett were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Molen said that the applicant had discussed many of the suggestions which were made at this meeting. He noted that the process of removing the windows and setting them back in to create a shadow line was not possible because of the fear that the windows would leak afterwards. Mr. Molen said that it would be possible to use wood for the trim around the windows, which would create a clear crisp edge and not quite so rounded. Mr. Cooper remarked that on the original site drawings, it indicated that the windows would be set back about 2-inches and not be flush with the exterior of the building. Mr. Molen confirmed that, then added that the main surface of the exterior seemed to be the issue about which the commission was mostly concerned. Others agreed. A discussion followed with regards to the exterior of the buildings and the design elements.
Mr. Cooper again re-closed this portion of the meeting and asked that the original motion be read.
Ms. Williams moved to deny the application for Case No. 062-94, as presented, based on the findings of fact which were included the staff report. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams voted "Aye". Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were opposed. Mr. Cooper, as the acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Miya, and Mr. Pett were not present. The motion failed.
The comments continued. Ms. Swinton stated that she believed that the commission did not have many options remaining and the reality was, at this point, that the commission had the opportunity to make its best effort to clean these buildings up as best that the commission could and make it the best possible development on that corner. Others expressed their concern that the applicant would request further modifications in the detailing if approval was rendered for the use synthetic stucco.
Mr. Wright said that it seemed to him that both parties had an incentive to develop a workable solution and commented on the fact that the applicant was anxious to complete this project. He continued by saying that the issues could be worked out in a subcommittee meeting and since the next meeting was scheduled on March 15th, inquired if the subcommittee members would agree to move that meeting up a week to discuss the issues and work out a comparable resolution to get this project moving forward. Mr. Cooper explained that the commission had been reluctant to do that in the past. Ms. Hatch remarked that one more week's delay would make little difference. Others agreed and the commission declined to reschedule the subcommittee meeting.
The following new motion was made.
Ms. Swinton moved to approve the project for Case No. 062-94, as presented, with the following stipulations: 1) that the applicant consider the comments with regard to the modifications that were discussed at this meeting and any other modifications as determined by the Architectural Subcommittee to the window design and the foundation; and 2) that construction be allowed to continue on the, project. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch.
A discussion took place regarding the authority of the subcommittee and whether or not that body could render a final approval. Ms. Swinton modified the motion.
Ms. Swinton moved to conceptually approve the project for Case No. 062-94, as presented, with the following stipulations: 1) that the applicant consider the comments with regards to the modifications that were discussed at this meeting and any other modifications as determined by the Architectural Subcommittee to the window design, the foundation, and the stucco details; and 2) that construction would not be allowed to continue until final approval is given by the Architectural Subcommittee. The second still stood by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, 'Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Swinton voted "Aye". Ms. Williams was opposed. Mr. Cooper, as the acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Miya, and Mr. Pett were not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASES
Case No. 005-96. at 511 South 900 East. b} Patrick Mundt, requesting the nomination of the building to be included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
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 stated that this request was made by Mr. Patrick Mundt, who is in the process of purchasing the property. She said that he was not present, however, Mr. Michael Hughes, the current owner and representing Mr. Mundt, was present. Current 1 photographs of the property was circulated among the members.
Ms. Miller said that the building was designed by J. A. Headlund, a prominent architect in the early 1900's. She indicated that the owner Andrew P. Michelson, who was a Salt Lake Contractor, built it to use as his home, as well as his office in 1902. Ms. Miller said that that Mr. Mundt proposes to rehabilitate the building and request a conditional use to also use the property for offices as well as a residence. She noted that the issue at this meeting, was to make a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission to include this property on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, if the Historic Landmark Commission agreed to do so.
Mr. Hughes said he concurred with the staff report, and indicated that he would also like to have the building on the register and urged the commission to make a favorable recommendation.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by saying that she thought this was a good building and was in favor of making that recommendation. Others agreed and a short discussion followed.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests to address the commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
There was no further discussion and a motion was made.
Ms. Williams moved to send a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission for Case No. 005-96, to include this building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Svikhart, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Miya, and Mr. Pett were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Design Guidelines for Salt Lake City
Ms. Egleston stated that because she had extended the contract with the consultant for the Design Guidelines and in order to keep the commission on the critical path, the commission would have to make decisions on certain issues.
Ms. Egleston referred to her memorandum to the commission. a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Each topic was discussed and the following are some of the comments that were made: 1) there were more requests to use metal doors on all elevations of a structure; 2) whether or not to allow synthetic materials, such as aluminum or vinyl siding, on an accessory building on a contributing or a noncontributing property; 3) the concession that a person would make while making a choice to live in or out of an historic district; 4) caution ought to be taken whether or not to "open the door” and increase the allowance of synthetic materials; 5) on a contributing property, the consistency of not allowing synthetic material on any existing or new construction within an historic district; 6) the economical feasibility of keeping existing residents in historic districts who desire to restore their homes or buildings; 7) does a neighborhood become more and less desirable by relaxing the standards and allowing more synthetic materials to be used; 8) if a property owner could save money on an accessory building by using synthetic materials, would that person put more money into the restoration of the main structure; and 9) that fact that the commission, as a whole, was not totally in agreement with the use of synthetic materials. Because no final resolutions were made, Egleston suggested continuing this discussion at another meeting in the future. The commission members agreed.
The remainder of this meeting focused on the communication between the planning staff and the members of this commission. Both Mr. Wright and Mr. Wilde encouraged the commission members to openly discuss any questionable issues.
There was much discussion regarding the procedures and the lack of communication between members of the Planning Division, the City Council, and the Historic Landmark Commission. Specific instances, regarding certain applications, were pointed out and discussed. The misunderstanding that applicants perceive of the purview that both the Architectural Subcommittee and the full commission have, was explored. Many suggestions were offered to remedy the length of time it takes to process an application and the wrong conclusion that some applicants acquire. It was the consensus, of those involved, that the preservation staff and the commission go out of their way to help people through the application process.
Mr. Wright circulated copies of the Goal1 and Objectives of the Planning Division for1996, pointing out the Historic Preservation Initiatives, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
The meeting ended with the commitment from the Planning Director, to become more involved with the preservation issues in the City.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30P.M.