May 3, 2000

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 Scott Christensen, Oktai Parvaz, Joel Paterson, and Nelson Knight.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Soren Simonsen were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Wayne Gordon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Gordon 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 April 5, 2000 meeting as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the April19, 2000 meeting as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Payne. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 012-00, at 138 East First Avenue. by the L.D.S. Church, represented by Bill Naylor, in behalf of Mark Williams, landscape architect, requesting to relocate part of the existing sandstone wall and wrought iron fence at the north end of the Brigham Young Cemetery property and to remove the sandstone sidewalk along First Avenue. The cemetery is on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and is located in the Avenues Historic District.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, owner of the Brigham Young Family Cemetery, was proposing to remove and rebuild a portion of the existing sandstone wall and wrought iron fence on the north end of the property, adjacent to First Avenue. He added that a portion of the existing wall would be removed and the opening would be widened and rebuilt in the new location using the original materials, and the fencing would be reinstalled atop the wall.

Mr. Knight gave a brief history of the cemetery property, which was included in the staff report and stated that there were many unmarked graves located on the property, and some were believed to be on the north end of the property at the entrance.

Mr. Knight said that the applicants also proposed to remove the sandstone sidewalk pavers along First Avenue and replace them with concrete pavers. He pointed out that the sidewalks were owned by the City so a permit would be required to work in the public way. Mr. Knight talked about the permit that was issued for landscaping changes inside the cemetery.

Mr. Knight said that a similar proposal for this property was denied by the Historic Landmark Commission (then Committee) on August 4, 1993. He indicated that the proposal was only to replace the sandstone sidewalk; no changes to the fence or wall were involved, a copy of the minutes were included in the staff report.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G), H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which were included in the staff report.

G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City. Staff determined that the following standards were most pertinent to this application:

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that a characterize property shall be avoided;

Staffs discussion: As noted above, the property would retain its historic character. The stone wall and wrought iron fence were installed in 1884, and have been only minimally altered since their construction. It is not known when the adjacent sidewalk was installed in front of the cemetery. Peter Goss, as part of his research conducted in preparation for the future reconstruction of South Temple, noted that sandstone quarried from Red Butte Canyon was a common building material for public works projects in the city through the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Much of the material remains along South Temple and portions of First Avenue.

Staffs findings of fact: Removal of the historic sandstone and replacement with concrete pavers, and realignment of the rock wall and wrought iron fence would have a negative impact on the historic character of the property.

5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;

Staffs discussion: The Deseret News noted in 1884 that the Watson Brothers were paid $1,019.00 for building the wall and stone coping around the cemetery lot. William J. Silver was paid $1,175.00 for furnishing thirty rods of wrought iron fencing. The caretakers of the cemetery (first the Young Family, and then the L.D.S. Church) have meticulously maintained the property, so that the condition and integrity of the wall, fence, and sidewalk are remarkably intact.

Staffs findings of fact: The stone wall, iron fence, and sandstone sidewalk remain largely as they were when they were constructed. Alteration of the fence/wall and removal of the sidewalk would have a negative effect on these character-defining features.

6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;

Staffs discussion: The existing sandstone sidewalk has an uneven surface due to the movement over time of the soil under the pavers. A similar situation exists with the sandstone sidewalks along South Temple. Those sidewalks will be retained as part of the reconstruction of the street. The design team for that project has supplied a detail drawing of the refurbished sidewalks, a copy of which has been supplied to the applicant and included with the staff report.

Staffs findings of fact: The sandstone sidewalks should be preserved and repaired by being re-laid over a new sub-base in the same configuration as the existing sidewalk. New sandstone, if required, should match the existing sandstone as closely as possible.

Mr. Knight referred to sections of the Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, which were included in the staff report.

1.1 Preserve historically significant site features. These may include historic retaining walls, irrigation ditches, gardens, driveways, and walkways. Fences and street trees are also examples of original site features that should be preserved. Sidewalks, parkways, planting strips, street trees, and street lighting are examples of historic streetscape elements that should be considered in all civic projects.

1.2 Preserve original fences. Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair.

Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds that the changes would have a detrimental effect on the character of the cemetery, and recommends denial of this application. Staff further recommends that the applicant be encouraged to preserve the existing historic fence and wall location and configuration, and to repair the sandstone sidewalk to minimize the potential tripping hazards but still preserve this important historic street feature."

Mr. Bill Naylor, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present. He said that Mark Williams could not attend and asked Mr. Naylor to represent the applicants. Mr. Naylor said that the applicant's proposal was stated accurately in the staff report. He added that the safety issue of the sidewalk was the greatest concern. Mr. Naylor stated that the proposal to change of the gate, fence and sandstone wall would address the entry into the cemetery better if it was wider which would encourage more people to come in. He said that was the only intent of the proposal.

Mr. Naylor said that the applicants would like an approval to temporarily remove one section of the fence so small equipment could enter the cemetery and build a ramp over the existing wall. He said that if we leave the sandstone where it was, it would have to be re-laid with a better and more substantial sub-base underneath it.

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

• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by inquiring if the applicants had considered signage instead of changing the entryway to draw people into the cemetery. He said that he believed that signage was a simple and inexpensive solution. Mr. Naylor talked about the two small signs that were currently in place at the cemetery and that the applicants did not want to have too much signage. Mr. Christensen also inquired about the gravel pathway around the outer edge of the cemetery as seen in historic photographs. Mr. Naylor said that the original gravel pathway had been discussed. He said there was some concern regarding the roughness of a gravel path and the snow removal. Mr. Naylor added that a final decision had not yet been made. He also said that the applicants believed that the shrubbery in the landscaping should be consistent around the exterior of the property.

• Mr. Wilson asked if the visitors were people walking by or visiting the cemetery as a destination. Mr. Naylor said that he believed that most people planned to visit the cemetery, either as a destination or on the walking tour of the city. He added that sometimes people visit the cemetery to sit down and eat lunch or just meditate. Mr. Wilson said that the cemetery "was a quiet treasure". Mr. Wilson inquired how much of the wall needed to be moved, how much larger the proposed entryway would be, and if the opening would be on both sides of the centerline. Mr. Naylor said that the proposal would be widening on both sides of centerline for a double gate, rather than the existing single gate and curve the walk out. There was a short discussion regarding this matter.

• Mr. Parvaz said that people in wheelchairs or pushing baby carts could not access the upper part of the cemetery. He inquired if the applicants had thought about what could be done to access that part of the cemetery. Mr. Naylor said that the applicants had talked quite seriously about putting ramps from the upper level to the lower level, but concluded that the unmarked gravesites should not be disturbed. He added that the existing stairway would remain partly because of the historical nature. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns about digging in any part of the cemetery. Mr. Naylor said that the landscaping and other plans would not require having to dig very deep. Mr. Parvaz suggested consulting with a state archeologist before the digging occurred.

• Mr. Gordon inquired if large groups ever visited the cemetery. Mr. Naylor said that the largest group, of which he was aware, was the family's annual celebration of Brigham Young's birthday. Mr. Gordon said that he was concerned if there would be a problem if a large group had to exit the cemetery in case of an emergency.

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich stated that the proposed plan of widening the entrance to the cemetery would drastically change the scale of the streetscape.

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

• Ms. Hermoine Jex, an interested citizen, stated that the cemetery was "beautiful, charming, and unique" and she believed that "it shouldn't be drastically touched". Ms. Jex said that the gate was "perfect the way it is. A wider gate is not necessary". Ms. Jex talked about other buildings that the L.D.S. Church wanted to tear down, but was stopped by petitions that were signed "by thousands". She suggested that the public should be aware of the details of the proposal for the cemetery through the newspapers, the Daughters of Utah Pioneers, the Sons of Utah Pioneers, and the Capitol Hill and Avenues Community Councils. Ms. Jex believed that the request should be denied.

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

Executive Session

Mr. Christensen said that he would like to compliment the L.D.S. Church on maintaining the property as well as they have and appreciate the kind of resources it takes for the upkeep.

Mr. Christensen stated that he was opposed to the applicant's proposal, as presented, because "we would be destroying a feature that is intact and in excellent condition, from 1884, that has not been altered at this point. I think there is a real risk of running into additional graves at the entranceway. I have done a little research and there are between 43 and 48 people who were buried in the cemetery 7 were later removed to the Salt Lake City Cemetery so that means that between 36 and 41 graves are on that lot. When you figure that there are 8 headstones representing a total of 11 people because one of the headstones is for a mother and three children. There are still 25 to 30 that are unmarked. In my opinion, it's a very high risk that any kind of serious excavation is going to run into some remains. There seems to be some evidence that right at the entrance there are graves of the Toronto family members There are 10 burials including Conrad Young and Croxill families. There is a lot of history that current markers do not reflect". Mr. Christensen said that if a flood occurred and washed away part of the wall, then it would be imperative to do whatever necessary to repair it.

Ms. Giraud disclosed the fact that when the reconstruction of South Temple was reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, one of the requirements was that the historic sandstone pavers had to be saved and reused. There was much discussion about numbering the sandstone pavers before careful removal so they could be re-laid in the same order after stabilizing the underlay material.

Mr. Parvaz talked about the band of concrete between the street and the sandstone. Mr. Knight said that the concrete could be replaced with new concrete, if necessary. There was some discussion regarding the number of sandstone sidewalks in the historic sections of the city. Mr. Knight said that a sandstone sidewalk was the "concrete of its day".

Motion:

Mr. Christensen moved that Case No.012-00 be denied based on the staff's findings of fact and recommendation that was included in the staff report. The proposed changes to the Brigham Young Family Cemetery would have a detrimental effect on the character of that cemetery. Further, that the applicant should be encouraged to preserve the existing historic configuration of the fence and wall location and repair the existing sandstone sidewalk to minimize potential tripping hazards while still preserving this important historic feature. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller,

Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously

voted "Aye". Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Mr. Gordon discussed the appeal's process, which was printed on the back of the agenda.

OTHER BUSINESS

Report of the Administrative Approval Subcommittee.

Ms. Girard referred to the Position Paper on Changes to the Administrative Approval Process of the Historic Landmark Commission, of which a copy was filed with the minutes, and presented an overview of the administrative approval process. Ms. Giraud reported that in response to concerns expressed by Capitol Hill resident, Polly Hart, and her neighbors, the Planning Division established an Administrative Approval Subcommittee (AAC) to review the process by which administrative approvals were reviewed. She pointed out that this issue had been raised in response to the administrative approval of a carport that was erected on Quince Street in January of 2000. Ms. Giraud said that Ms. Hart believed that if the neighbors had received a notice, that was standard for applications placed on the regular Historic Landmark Commission agendas, the neighbors would have informed the Planning Division of the numerous problems pertaining both to the carport and other issues on the property.

Ms. Giraud said that the AAC consisted of Wayne Gordon, Chair, and Willy Littig, members of the Historic Landmark Commission, Polly Hart, a concerned citizen, Sandra Hatch, and Rob Pett, former members of the Historic Landmark Commission, Mike Mahaffey, a contractor, Kirk Huffaker, with the Utah Heritage Foundation, Nancy Saxton, a member of the Salt Lake City Council, William T. Wright, former Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners. She said that the AAC met five times beginning March 15 and ending April17, 2000.

Ms. Giraud presented the rationale behind the existing process, by saying that prior to 1993, almost all exterior work was presented to the full Commission. She indicated that in 1993, the Historic Landmark Commission determined that many projects could be reviewed at the staff level, in order to streamline the process for the property owners and avoid excessive scrutiny. Ms. Giraud said that because of the designation of two new districts in 1991, the caseload increased and several hundred applications were reviewed by staff each year. She pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed large developments, such as the Fred Meyer development in Central City, and spent a great deal of time on projects with long-term effects on preservation, such as the zoning rewrite in 1995, and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City from 1995 to 1997.

Ms. Giraud stated that a recent transition had taken place with property owners in historic districts due to shortening the length of the approval process. She said that sometimes an applicant would have to wait for six weeks for an approval for something as simple as a fence, which would almost be "punishing" people for living in historic districts. Ms. Giraud said that just recently the fee schedule was changed from $200.00 to $25.00 for a full review by the Historic Landmark Commission, unless the request was for new construction or demolition. She added that property owners in historic districts or landmark sites are forced to have a planning review unlike a developer who desires to have a plan review for a project that would be profitable for the developer

Ms. Giraud said that in 1998 the Preservation Planners administratively approved 375 Certificates of Appropriateness, but last year the approvals were down to 270. She talked about the breakdown into categories of those approvals. Ms. Giraud said that the most numerous were windows, fences, porches, roofing materials, garages, and additions. She added that the AAC recommended that requests such as certain additions and garages, due to the impact they may have in the neighborhood, would need to have a full review by the Commission so the neighbors would be appropriately notified of a proposal.

Ms. Giraud said that the Administrative Approval Subcommittee (AAC) made the following recommendations:

Windows: Staff should be able to continue to review and approve most window replacements, and neighbor notification should not be necessary. When an applicant is proposing a replacement that is clearly not in keeping with the ordinance or the design guidelines, the Architectural Subcommittee should review the proposed changes.

Fences: Staff should be able to continue to approve fences. Those that are not in keeping with the fence policy or are vinyl should be presented to the full Commission.

Porches: Staff should be able to continue to approve porch remodels if the proposed work protects the physical integrity of the building. If not, the proposal should be handled either by the Architectural Subcommittee or the full Commission.

Roofing Materials: The AAC did not have any issues with the current handling of roofing materials.

3. If it is more than one-story in height; or

4. If it will be used for an auxiliary use that could lead to disruptive activity in a neighborhood.

Additions: An addition should require notification of abutting property owners if the following is proposed:

1. A change in the roofline of the primary structure (unless it is a dormer, and the dormer is below the original ridgeline);

2. If it is substantially visible from the street; or

3. If the footprint of the addition is 50 percent larger than the existing footprint of the house.

Ms. Giraud noted the following: The AAC discussed various options for notification and for soliciting input from abutting property owners. After reviewing the administrative approval process, the AAC determined that new additions and the construction of garages create the greatest amount of concern among residents in historic districts and that some type of notice should be required before an administrative approval could be granted. The recommendation of the AAC discussed above propose standards to define when staff should be able to grant approvals of new additions and garages. When the proposed standards suggest that the Historic Landmark Commission must review a new addition or garage, notification should be required. The following two options were discussed:

A. Sending the application to the full Commission. If the application was sent to the full Commission, the City would notice the abutting property owners within 85' and the staff would prepare a report. The neighborhood would have a venue to express their concerns and hear the reasoning of the full Commission. The applicant would be charged at $25.00 fee. This would not require a change in the ordinance, and thus could be implemented immediately.

B. Requiring the owner to have abutting owners sign a form, stating that they are aware of the proposed change and have no objections. This would require a change in the ordinance, and thus would take longer to establish. It might be intimidating to property owners, in that they might object to a change or new garage, but do not want to offend their neighbor. Conversely, this could represent the opportunity they have been waiting for, and they might refuse to sign a consent form out of spite resulting from previous disagreements. A public hearing provides a more anonymous way for concerned property owners to gather information. If they care to object, they would have that opportunity to comment and their comments would be part of a public record.

Ms. Giraud said that staff recommended Option A because it would be the easiest to implement, would give neighbors a formal hearing process, and would be less appealing to neighbors who wanted to object to proposed work based on issues that were not related to preservation. She said that staff did not anticipate that it would change in the ordinance, and thus would take longer to establish. It might be intimidating to property owners, in that they might object to a change or new garage, but do not want to offend their neighbor. Conversely, this could represent the opportunity they have been waiting for, and they might refuse to sign a consent form out of spite resulting from previous disagreements. A public hearing provides a more anonymous way for concerned property owners to gather information. If they care to object, they would have that opportunity to comment and their comments would be part of a public record.

Ms. Giraud made a slide presentation of many of the projects that have been administratively approved in the last few years. She added that most of the proposals were fine projects, but some that were shown were mistakenly approved and should have been reviewed by the full Commission. A question and answer session took place during the slide presentation.

At the conclusion of the slide presentation, the members of the Commission discussed the issues that were recognized during the presentation.

The enforcement issue was questioned. Ms. Giraud said if the property owner carried out a project that staff would ordinarily approve, staff would approve the legalization. She said that if the project was something that clearly should not have been done and did not 'fit the criteria of the standards in the ordinance or in the guidelines, the legalization matter would then be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee or the Historic Landmark Commission. Responding to another question about enforcement, Ms. Giraud pointed out that enforcement should be improved throughout the city. She said that she was not sure how to do it. She stated that the ideal situation would be to have inspectors who were sensitive to preservation issues, and whose primary interest would be historic districts and landmark sites. She indicated that she recognized that enforcement is a problem. She said that there is communication between the preservation staff and the inspectors almost daily. Ms. Giraud noted that the "inspectors really do an incredible job".

The discussion continued regarding the increased caseload for the Historic Landmark Commission review and other matters relating to the administrative approval process. Ms. Giraud said that she believed the increase would be no more than ten or twelve a year.

Ms. Giraud said that this analysis process brought up another matter. She indicated that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission needed to think about if the Commission wanted to continue on the "designing tract" or if the Commission wanted to be more "issues oriented" and be more involved with master plans, housing issues, and larger development schemes. Ms. Giraud talked about a more "pro-active" role for the Commissioners. Ms. Giraud concluded by saying that staff has had a lot of public interest to increase the amount of historic districts, and nominations to the National Register of Historic Places.

Motion:

Ms. Rowland made the motion that staff should bring a draft of a new policy statement to the Historic Landmark Commission for review. It was seconded by Mr. Payne. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Announcement of the new planning director.

Mr. Paterson announced that William T. Wright's appointment with the City as Planning Director had been terminated and Mayor Anderson had appointed Mr. Stephen A. Goldsmith as his replacement. He said that Mr. Goldsmith will start in mid June 2000 and that Brent Wilde, the Deputy Planning Director, has been the interim Acting Planning Director.

Motion:

Mr. Young moved that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission express their gratitude and appreciation to Mr. William T. Wright for his outstanding service to the Historic Landmark Commission and to Salt Lake City. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

National Association for Preservation Commissions conference.

Ms. Giraud reported that the National Association for Preservation Commissions was holding a conference in August 2000. She said that there was $4,000 of Certified Local Government that could be used. Ms. Giraud gave a brief overview of past conferences. She said that more information would follow.

Adjournment of the meeting.

As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.

PLEASE NOTE: