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 Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, and Robert Young. Dina Blaes, William Damery, Wayne Gordon, Rob McFarland, and Lynn Morgan were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:15P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Susan Deal. Ms. Deal announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She 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. 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. Young moved to approve the minutes from the May 6, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Littig. Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Morgan were not present. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 016-98. at 681 No. West Capitol Street. by Michael D. and Tami Bennett. represented by Rod Felt. architect. requesting to construct a duplex.
Ms. Deal made it known that all members of the Historic Landmark Commission, who were present at this meeting, had visited the site on West Capitol Street.
Ms. Giraud 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 of this meeting. She stated that the applicants were intending to have a separate driveway, rather than share the driveway with the neighbor to the north of the property, as was stated in the staff report. Ms. Giraud said that Wall Street is on the lower part of the slope, and one of the concerns for the neighboring property owners on Wall Street, was the height and design of the structure. She circulated a series of photographs that depicted the streetscape.
The applicants, Michael and Tami Bennett were present, as well as their architect, Rod Felt. Mr. Felt said that he concurred with the staff report and with Ms. Giraud's comments. He indicated that he hoped the Historic Landmark Commission would approve the plans and the applicant's request to construct a duplex on the lot. He said that he believed the proposed residential structure would be compatible with the neighborhood and would provide all the applicant's needs. Mr. Felt pointed out that the Bennetts had "always wanted to live on Capitol Hill."
Ms. Bennett said that she and her husband were very excited when the lot was found. She indicated that the plans had evolved to make them compatible to the area and meet the requirements of the City. Ms. Bennett said that she hoped the plans would be approved and then moved forward.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Young said that the drawings indicated that stucco was going to be used as an exterior finish, but the staff report suggested that E.I.F.S. was going to be the primary material. Mr. Felt said that the intention was to use a modified stucco system.
• Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant had considered a vertical rail system for the porch steps. Mr. Felt said that the drawing was incorrect, that the applicant intended to use a vertical baluster system.
• Ms. Deal asked what the color of the stucco would be for the exterior. Ms. Bennett said that the stucco would be light beige; the shutters and the doors would be painted black; and the window casings, sills and lintels, the posts and railings, and the trim would be painted white.
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 it was moved by Mr. Young that the Historic Landmark Commission would proceed into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
A short discussion followed regarding the lack of details on the porches, railings, and especially the posts.
Mr. Young moved that the project for Case No. 016-98 be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee to resolve further detailing on the cornice, the light fixtures, porch posts and railings, the supports around the overhangs, the shingles, and the eave depth. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell.
The subject of the discussion turned to the following question: "After the details are resolved in the Subcommittee meeting, would the project have to return to the full Commission for final approval or could the approval be handled administratively." A short discussion followed. Mr. Young amended his motion.
Mr. Young moved that the project for Case No. 016-98 be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee to resolve further detailing on the cornice, the light fixtures, porch posts and railings, the supports around the overhangs, the shingles, and the eave depth. Further, it would be the discretion of the Architectural Subcommittee, after the details are worked out, to refer the case to Staff for administrative approval. The second still stood by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Morgan were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Historic Landmark Commission's awards.
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Nelson Knight, the new Assistant Preservation Planner. She said that Mr. Knight had been working on the Commission's awards and had put together a selected list of nominees with photographs and commentary about the projects. Copies were passed to the members, a copy of which was filed with the minutes, while the original colored photographs were circulated. She thanked Maren Jeppsen for volunteering her time by taking the photographs.
Ms. Giraud said that she had perused the projects that the Historic Landmark Commission had reviewed, as well as the Administrative approvals and developed a list. She said that she considered projects where the owners had put forth much effort into the project, whether it was new construction or a simple window restoration. Ms. Giraud said that she had forgotten how many good developments were taking place.
Ms. Giraud explained further about some of the proposals, and members of the Commission commented on some favorite or outstanding projects. She asked that each member select about eight to ten of the nominees, with a suggested category, and forward the selections to Ms. Giraud by the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
There was a discussion regarding some of the Landmark Commission sites, the probable changes and restorations in the downtown area, other historic sites, signage, and the boundaries of some historic districts.
Discussion of Landmark Commission sites included on the list of Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Giraud reported that on Tuesday, May 19th, the City Council voted to include the Odd Fellows Building at 39 West Market Street and the James Freeze House at 724 East 200 South on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. She talked about the preservation support she received from architectural students, who were attending the meeting.
Discussion of a newspaper story about the Mumford House at 326 South 600 East. Ms. Giraud said that Rebecca Walsh might do a story about the Mumford House in the Salt Lake Tribune to try to develop some public interest. Ms. Deal discussed the story which appeared in the Tribune a short time ago. She said that it falsely stated that the Historic Landmark Commission. Commission cut a deal with Jeff Jonas which enabled him to receive tax credits for low-income housing for the re-use plan, when he requested to demolish the house. Ms. Deal said that there was no such agreement and the story was full of inaccuracies. Mr. Wright said that if Ms. Walsh does a story, he suggested that Staff read the article before it is in print.
Discussion of the plans for the Union Pacific Depot and the Gateway area.
Mr. Young inquired about the changes planned for the Gateway area and the Union Pacific Depot and asked if the plans would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Giraud said that she believed that the Union Pacific Depot was listed on both the National Register of Historic Places and the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Mr. Wright said that any plans for the depot would be reviewed by this Commission. He pointed out that the current plans show very minor changes, but unless a historic district was created, this Commission would not have the purview over the Gateway area around the depot. Ms. Deal encouraged the members to attend the Gateway meetings and to speak out regarding the depot.
Mr. Wright continued by saying that the current plans show that the center of the building would remain as it is. He said that it would become a "great grand foyer". However, he said that he believed some uses on the site were being shown on the plans. Mr. Littig stated that he hoped that the depot would not end up as a shopping mall that mimicked Trolley Square.
• Discussion of the Frank E. Moss Court House project.
After a short discussion, Ms. Giraud stated that the difference between the Moss Court House and the Union Pacific Depot is that the Moss Court House is not only a Landmark Commission site, but it is also in an historic district. She said that was challenging because the court house building, itself, is in the Exchange Historic District, and owned by the federal government who have their own sovereign rights, but the remainder of the block is not.
Mr. Wright gave an update on the renovation and alteration plans for the court house building. He said that the Government Services Agency (GSA), after reviewing three difference schematics, finally recognized that the Odd Fellows Building was not going away. Mr. Wright indicated that GSA changed some of the management structure and essentially started over with the plans, looking for alternatives which would not have an impact on the Odd Fellows Building. He further detailed some of the alternatives and GSA's long-range plans for the building. He said that at the last meeting, GSA concluded that there were no solutions at this time. Mr. Wright noted that the Mayor will become more involved with this project. The discussion continued.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Deal asked for a motion to adjourn.
It was moved by Mr. Young to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:15P.M.