November 19,2003

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 Pete Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Lee White, and Nelson Knight.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White. Scott Christensen and David Fitzsimmons were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.

Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. 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.

Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no public comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded to the approval of the minutes and the public hearing portion of the meeting.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes of the October 1, 2003 meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. White abstained. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Fitzsimmons were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 001-03. at 160 No. City Creek Canyon Road. by the Salt Lake City Public Utilities. represented by Robert Sperling. requesting to construct a new chlorination and fluoridation building on Salt Lake City property north of Ottinger Hall in the Capitol Hill 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. Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project:

The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, represented by Mr. Robert Sperling, is requesting approval of a revised design for a new building to be located in City Creek Park, north Ottinger hall, on the west side of Canyon road. The building would house chlorination and fluoridation equipment for a city well that provides culinary water to the downtown area. City Creek Park is zoned OS-Open Space zoning district, and is also part of the City Creek Canyon/Memory Grove National Register Historic District. The Historic Landmark Commission previously reviewed this case on February 5, 2003. At that time, Public Utilities proposed a building at another location in City Creek Park. The Commission tabled the application with a request that the applicants examine alternative locations for the building. The minutes and the staff report from that meeting were attached to this staff report.

Under the new proposal, fluoride and chlorine solution would be piped from the building to the well site, at approximately Fourth Avenue and Canyon Road, and then put into the City water supply. This well is only used for water at peak times during the spring and summer months, and has been offline since the rest of the city's water supply was fluoridated in October. Public Utilities plans to complete this project in order for the well to be ready to be put back on line at the beginning of next summer.

The Avenues Comrr1unity Council reviewed the revised proposal on November 5, 2003, and by the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council on October 15, 2003. In addition, a group of Canyon road residents have been meeting with the applicant's representatives since the Historic Landmark Commission last heard this case. They have reviewed the current proposal. Staff also received a letter from Ms. Hermoine Jex regarding this proposal. A copy of the letter is attached to the staff report.

The revised design calls for the construction of a 14'-4" by 33'-8" concrete building, of approximately 400 square feet. The building would be sited approximately ten feet from the sidewalk, and aligned along the natural slope of the canyon hillside. Most of the building would be built into the hillside, with landscaping covering the vaults for the chemical storage tanks and the roof of the center portion. The visible walls of the center section would be covered with a cobblestone veneer to match the stone that was used in other locations in City Creek Park. A stone or colored concrete door lintel and coping at the top of the exposed walls are also proposed. Concrete steps with a metal handrail would provide access to the metal front door from the street.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based upon the following standards of the ordinance:

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

1. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

The following guidelines, and those included in the discussion of other standards in the ordinance, are from the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council. Although these standards do not specifically address this specific instance of constructing a non-residential building in a City park, Staff has included them as a framework for the Commission to make its findings and determine the suitability of the proposed structure in terms of the standards in the zoning ordinance.

Mass and Scale.

11.4Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:

- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.

- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.

- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.

- Using a solid-to-void that is similar to that seen traditionally and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.

11.5Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.

Height.

11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.

Width.

11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings. If a building would be wider overall than structures seen historically, the facade should be divided into subordinate planes that are similar in width to those of the context.

Building form standards.

11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.

11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and fourplexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.

Staff's discussion: The surrounding buildings that constitute the streetscape in the Canyon Road neighborhood are a variety of single and multi-family residential buildings. Although the buildings in the neighborhood are similar to those in the Avenues and Capitol Hill, the setting of the neighborhood at the gateway to Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon and the unusual, non-grid street pattern distinguish this neighborhood as a distinct part of both districts. The surrounding buildings are an eclectic mix of houses dating from several historic periods, from the Nineteenth Century up through the 1980's. Primary structures in the neighborhood are uniformly larger than the building that is proposed.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building is similar in scale and form to historic accessory buildings in the district and is smaller in size, height and massing than the surrounding primary structures in the neighborhood. The north-south vista through City Creek Park and along Canyon Road is a character-defining feature of the neighborhood and should be maintained. The visual impact of the building will be mitigated by burying most of the mass of the building in the hillside and by covering the roof of the building with landscaping.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

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

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding

structures and streetscape; and

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

APPLICABLE GUIDELINES:

Solid-to-void ratio.

11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district. Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate in residential structures. Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows.

Proportion of building facade elements.

11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood. The "overall proportion" is the ratio of the width to height of the building, especially the front facade. See the discussions of individual districts and of typical historic building styles for more details about facade proportions.

Rhythm and spacing.

11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area. This is an important design standard because these details strongly influence the compatibility of a building within its context. Large expanses of glass, either vertical or horizontal, are generally inappropriate on new buildings in the historic districts.

Materials.

11.15 Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block. This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district.

13.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. Appropriate primary building materials include brick, stucco and painted wood.

Architectural Character.

11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street. These include windows, doors, and porches.

11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. One should not replicate historic styles, because this blurs the distinction between old and new buildings, as well as making it more difficult to visually interpret the architectural evolution of the district. Interpretations of historic styles may be considered if they are subtly distinguishable as new.

Staff's discussion: As with the building's scale and mass, the proposed building is very similar to historic outbuildings in terms of proportion of openings, rhythm and spacing of openings and materials. No windows are proposed for the building. Access to the building would be through a door of typical size and height. There are also no entrance porches or elements proposed for the building. This is in keeping with the utilitarian character of the building.

The primary visible material proposed for the building, a cobblestone veneer wall material is a building material used historically for similar structures in the city. Cobblestone was used on planter boxes in City Creek park as early as 1912 (see attached historic photo). The designers of the 1995 renovation of the park used cobblestone extensively. Although the design draws upon historic design antecedents, it would be distinguishable as a new building.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building is similar to outbuildings seen historically in terms of this standard, and is visually compatible with the surrounding streetscape with respect to proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, and rhythm of entrance porch and other projections. The proposed materials were commonly used historically and were used on current structures within City Creek Park.

3. Relationship to Street.

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

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

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

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

APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES:

Landscaping.

12.7 Maintain established native or acclimated plantings on site. Established trees should be preserved on site when feasible. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replace damaged, aged or diseased trees. If street trees must be removed as part of a development, replace them with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.

12.8 Incorporate indigenous plant materials in new landscape designs. Drought tolerant varieties that are in character with plantings used historically are preferred. The use of gravel and other inorganic surface materials in front yards is prohibited in the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. A list of drought-tolerant plants is available from the Salt Lake City Planning Division.

12.9The use of traditional site structures is encouraged. Constructing retaining walls and fences that are similar in scale, texture and finish to those used historically is appropriate. See also Section 1.0.

Staff's discussion: The Ottinger Hall site is at the end of a row of structures that are regularly spaced along and set back from Canyon Road. The addition of another building of this size and height at the end of this line of structures would probably have no negative visual impact. Any visual impact could be further reduced by setting the building back from the street.

Staffs finding of fact: Placing the structure north of Ottinger Hall would reinforce the existing walls of continuity and rhythm and spacing of structures along Canyon Road. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements are in keeping with the historic and established design of City Creek Park.

4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: There is no subdivision of lots proposed as part of this application. This standard is not applicable.

Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact in this report, Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve construction of the building at the Ottinger Hall site, subject to the following conditions:

1. Submittal of final plans to be approved by planning staff;

2. Conditional use approval by the Planning Commission and fulfillment of all other City Department conditions. If any substantial changes are required by the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, or other City departments, staff shall refer the proposal back to the Architectural Subcommittee or full commission for final review.

Mr. Knight stated that this portion of City Creek Park has been dubbed "Fireman's Hill" in reference to the fire 'fighters that once used the adjacent Ottinger Hall as a recreation hall and clubhouse. He noted that the hillside was restored when the park was renovated in the early 1990s and a water feature was added adjacent to the sidewalk.

Mr. Knight reported the following: This application would also be going to the Planning Commission because a utility structure in the Open Space Zone is considered a conditional use and so Public Utilities would have to go through a design review process with the Planning Commission. Public Utilities are also asking for a reduced front yard setback. The setback in an Open Space Zone is 30 feet so Public Utilities would also be going through a Planned Development Process for the reduced setback.

Mr. Knight said that when it goes to the Planning Commission and substantial changes are required, it would be reviewed once more by the Historic Landmark Commission or the Architectural Subcommittee. He added that decision would be left up to the Planning Director's discretion.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Parvaz asked why Public Utilities placed the building on an angle and not in alignment with Ottinger Hall. Mr. Knight said that the building has to be aligned with the grade because the slope of the hill would run parallel to it. Mr. Knight referred to drawings on Page 4 of the staff report. Mr. Parvaz also inquired about the proposed landscaping going over the roof of the building. Mr. Knight pointed out the two wings on the elevation drawings and said they would be below grade and set back into hillside so the landscaping would extend over the top of the building. Mr. Parvaz talked further about this and the fact that the drawings needed to be revised.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if the veneer would be pressed concrete or actual river rock. Mr. Knight said that it was his understanding that it was going to be actual river rock. Mr. Ashdown expressed his concern about the safety of children climbing onto the roof and the eventual damage to the building that would result. He also inquired about fencing or a railing around building for safety purposes. Mr. Simonsen said that if a fence was desired, it would have to be requested under a separate application. Mr. Simonsen added that one on the roof would be his concern. Mr. Ashdown then inquired if that would change the Historic Landmark Commission final recommendation. Mr. Knight suggested asking the applicant about the safety factor.

Ms. Heid expressed concern about the flammability of the chemicals in case there was a brush fire and the fact that the landscaping would be that close to the building. Again, Mr. Knight suggested posing that question to the applicant.

Ms. White asked about the security of the building. Mr. Knight said that secure locks are proposed for the building and pointed out that it would only have one access door. Mr. Simonsen asked Ms. White to also pose her question to the applicant.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Mr. Robert Sperling, who is the Project Engineer with the City's Department of Public Utilities, was present and introduced Mr. Steve England, Architect with the City's Engineering Division. Mr. Sperling said that in addition to a secure lock on the access door, there is an alarm with the 24-hour dispatch office and if there is a sense of intrusion security officers would be notified immediately.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking the applicant about the safety issue of people being able to climb on top of the building. Mr. England said that he could respond to that question as well as the others that were asked. He said that the all concrete building would be secure. The stone would be river rock and not a cultured stone.

Mr. Simonsen inquired if the river rock would be a veneer. Mr. England said that it would be a veneer. He said that stone veneer would match the other stonework on the bridges and other elements in the park.

Mr. England described the project in the following manner: The structure would be mostly underground. The front door would be the only way into the building. It would be very secure. Right now one could get onto the roof of Ottinger Hall from the addition on the north side because the grade slopes up in the back. The safety issue is a concern for the Parks Division. The roof of the building would not be a walking surface so it would not require a handrail. Staff with the Parks Division said they believed that the type of plantings that will go on top of the roof would make it less desirable for climbing. Large shrubs will make it difficult to walk. There is a similar building on the north side of Memorial House in Memory Grove Park that is built into the hillside. Hopefully railings around the perimeter of the roof would not be necessary. If some kind of fencing is required, it would go on the back edge of the roof to prevent access onto to it.

The chemicals that will be stored in the tanks are not flammable or explosive, but they are toxic. The main worry would be containment. If there were any leaks or spills, the chemicals would be contained within the building.

Mr. England talked about the two previous options for placement of the building. He said one option was close to the well in the middle of the island in City Creek Park, but the neighborhood was opposed to that location. He said that the other option was to use Ottinger Hall and the shed addition. Mr. England said that the City's plans changed for the use of Ottinger Hall so a new location had to be found. He mentioned that both Ms. Giraud and Mr. Knight discouraged an addition to a pristine building such as Ottinger Hall for an unrelated use.

Mr. England said the building would be angled so it would be parallel to the contours of the hill. He added that the desire was to diminish the building as much as possible.

Mr. England explained that the two wings drawn on the plans housing the storage tanks would be dropped down twelve inches below grade and the doors providing access to those wings to fill the tanks would be short.

Mr. England said that the building could not be pushed further back into the hillside to create a 30-foot setback because it would not be possible to get the construction equipment in and out without causing much damage to the existing natural landscaping.

Mr. Parvaz asked if the tanks would go into the building during construction or after the building is finished. Mr. England said that they would go in the building during construction. Mr. Parvaz wanted to know how the tanks and the mechanical equipment would be maintained. Mr. England said that about every ten years or so the roof would have to be excavated, the roof removed, and then re-installed, re waterproofed, and re-planted once the tanks were replaced. He noted that under normal operations the tanks could be accessed by the small doors. Mr. Parvaz clarified that in the future the roof of the building would have to be demolished for access to the underground tanks for maintenance. Mr. England said that was correct. After meeting with the engineer, Mr. England said that smaller tanks could be used which could be brought through the main door, but they would have to be refilled more often. He added that they were still working out some details.

• Mr. Ashdown asked the applicant to address why the chlorination and fluoridation building needed to be located near Memory Grove. Mr. England said that the well the building will service is in the island in the park. Mr. Ashdown inquired if any major trees would be damaged and uprooted. Mr. England mentioned that there are three existing trees that would have to be relocated. He said that he felt certain that the large trees behind the proposed building would not be damaged. Mr. England said that the contractors would not have to excavate up the hillside any further than necessary and keep the disruption to the lawn area.

Mr. Wheelwright clarified that fluoridation site is the only chemical that will go in the lines at this time because the chlorination tanks are planned for future use. He said that the well site is only part of the water system during the summer months. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that the bulk of the year the well site would not be connected to the City's water system so there would be no chemicals delivered in the wintertime. He concurred that Public Utilities had searched for other locations and the Planning Staff is supporting this as the best compromise location.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if it would be appropriate to respond to the letter from Ms. Hermoine Jex, which accompanied the staff report.

The letter is addressed to the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commissioners and reads as follows: Please consider the following comments: 1) Please provide more information to the public as to the size and design of the building and the impact and damage to the hillside. 2) Will the east side home owners of Canyon road be observing a negative or positive view? 3) Why can't the building be located north of Memory Grove Park or at another hidden location? 4) Why weren't the citizens make aware of this pending building impact before the fluoridation vote? 5) Please delay voting on Case No. 001-03 until other options are explored. This is a prize area.

Mr. Simonsen said that he appreciated Mr. Ashdown's mention of the letter. Mr. Simonsen said that there were some issues raised in the letter. He said that the Commission was responding to an application for a building on this site. A short discussion took place and it was the consensus of the Commission that the points in the letter had been addressed. Mr. Knight said if the Commission believed it would be appropriate, he would write a letter to her responding to the issues and include the staff report and drawings.

Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Ms. Mickelsen expressed that making a decision at this meeting might be a little premature if there is a possibility that smaller tanks will be used. Mr. Wheelwright said that even with different tanks the size may slightly change, but it would not change the location.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that a conditional use has to go before the Planning Commission so there will be an additional review of this project. He added that the Planning Commission might want some changes. Mr. Wheelwright said that it would be likely that the final site details will be approved by the Planning Commission, but delegated to the Planning Director. Mr. Wheelwright added that he would review the approval in detail.

Mr. Parvaz said that he thought this location was better for the proposed building than what was previously submitted. He mentioned again about the safety issues and the lack of completed drawings.

Mr. Simonsen said that the proposed building would be consistent with other structures built into a hillside. He said that proposal represents an attractive solution. Mr. Simonsen mentioned that the building would be handsomely done compared to other utility structures in other places.

Mr. Simonsen commented that the applicant might give some consideration to putting a transom over the main access door into the building. He asked if the door would be painted metal. Mr. Knight said the new restrooms on Canyon Road have a flat metal paneled door, which has been used in the park. Ms. Mickelsen said that she hoped it would not be painted a utility green.

Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion. First motion:

Mr. Parvaz made the suggestion to include the landscaping plans of the building and the need for revised drawings in the motion. Ms. Heid amended her motion.

Final amended motion:

In the matter of Case No. 001-03, Ms. Heid moved to accept the staff report, the findings and order, and Staff's recommendation and approve the construction of the chlorination and fluoridation building based on the applicant obtaining a Conditional Use permit from the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff reviewing the final plans for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for final approval. The revised drawings should include greater detail on the landscaping, especially on the roof and around the building. Ms. White's second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Fitzsimmons were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 025-03. at 478-482 E. Fourth Avenue. an application by Brandon Bateman of 3- B Construction. requesting to construct a one-car garage and a four-car carport 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.

Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: Mr. Brandon Bateman, of 3B Construction, requested approval to construct a detached, one-story, one-car garage and a four-car carport in the rear yard of the property at 478-482 Fourth Avenue. The primary structure on this lot is a duplex, and the property is zoned RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.

Tax records indicate that this building was constructed in 1930 as a duplex. The building is red brick, with two small front porches with Tudor revival style details. No further formation on the history of this duplex was available. There is no record of any previous project reviews by the Historic Landmark Commission for this property.

The city requires two off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit for duplexes (four spaces total) and allows accessory structures up to 1,000 square feet. Accessory structures over 1,000 square feet are allowed as a special exception as defined by Section 21A.14 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.

Based upon the criteria established by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals, Staff decided to refer this case to the full Corr1mission because it is larger than a two-car garage or 600 square feet.

The proposed building would be 20'-0" x 58'-0", with four open parking bays and room for an additional car or storage in the enclosed fifth bay of the structure. The 4:12 gabled, asphalt shingled roof rises to 13'-0" at the peak of the gable. The primary wall material (which will be used on the enclosed garage portion and the other three enclosed sides of the building) would be stained cedar lap siding with a five-inch reveal; 4" x 4" wood posts would be used for the carport framing, with wood trim. The structure would be located 23 feet from the rear lot line, and 18 feet from the primary structure. The driveway and parking area would be hard-surfaced.

Access to the parking area would be from a private right-of-way off of "G" Street. The right-of-way crosses the adjacent lot to the north, which is owned by the same owners as the subject property.

2. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

Staff's discussion: The surrounding structures are a mix of single-family- and two story buildings in a range of historic and contemporary styles, ranging from the contemporary apartments to the west and north to a number of Victorian-era buildings to the south and east. There are many examples of multi-car carports in the immediate vicinity of this property, including next door at 474 Fourth Avenue, and nearby at 485 Fourth Avenue, and 512 Fourth Avenue. The proportions of the building are similar to those exhibited on these nearby carports. The 4:12 gable roof shape in commonly seen on many historic outbuildings.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

3. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

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

d. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

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

Staff's discussion: No windows are proposed for the structure, which would be enclosed on three sides. The bays of the building would face west, away from the street, and are regularly spaced. One garage door is proposed for the enclosed garage bay, no details for this door is proposed for the enclosed garage bay; no details for this door are shown on the drawings, but the Historic Landmark Commission has approved metal or wood panel doors on similar garages in the historic districts. Likewise, no additional details were supplied for the man door proposed for the east side of the garage.

Wood lap siding was the most common historic material for garages in the Avenues, as noted by former Staff member Lisa Miller in her masters project, "Garages in Salt Lake City's Avenues Historic District". Masonite soffit and fascia are proposed.

Staff notes one discrepancy on the drawings with regard to the building design. The site plan calls for no eaves on the west end of the gable roof, in order to meet setback and building code requirements. Staff has concerns about this approach, however, and suggests that the Commission require that the design be modified to accommodate eaves on this side, as shown on the elevation drawings. Staff is of the opinion that the floor plan could be modified or the building could be moved slightly to the east to allow for the eaves on the west side, and still comply with building code and zoning requirements.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

4. Relationship to Street.

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

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

e. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually

related in its orientation toward the street; and

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

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The proposed building is located on the interior of the block, and is setback from the street. The proposed building meets this standard.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: No subdivision of lots is proposed, thus this standard does not apply.

The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, addresses accessory buildings in Section 9 and Section 12. One guideline in Section 9 addresses preserving existing historic accessory buildings where feasible, and another requires garages to be detached structures in most cases. The third deals with the details of constructing a new garage:

9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits. In the case of a two-car garage two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.

The standards in Section 12 address the location and design of parking areas:

12.10 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multi-family uses, shall not be visually obtrusive. Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit. Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.

12.11 Avoid large expanses of parking. Divide large parking lots with planting areas.

Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.

12.12 Screen parking areas from view of the street. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas shall be screened from adjacent lots and the street. Fences, walls, and plantings, or a combination of these, should be used to screen parking.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building meets applicable design guidelines. Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application, based upon Staff's findings that the project substantially complies with the applicable standards of the ordinance and adopted design guidelines, and subject to the following conditions:

1. That the floor plan and site plan of the building be modified to provide enough setback to allow one-foot eaves on the west end of the building, as shown on the architectural elevation drawings, provided these can be done while still meeting building code and zoning requirements.

2. That additional detail regarding the garage door and entry door be supplied to the Historic Landmark Commission Staff, with final approval for the doors being delegated to the Historic Landmark Commission Staff.

3. This approval is for design only; all other City requirements must be met prior to obtaining a building permit. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other city requirements, Staff shall refer the proposal back to the Architectural Subcommittee or full Commission for final review.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the entire structure would be enclosed on three sides. Mr. Knight said that is what is shown on the garage floor plan. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that she could not see on the plans a way that the tenants could get from the carport and garage to the house. There was some discussion as the drawings were viewed. Mr. Knight said that he believed there would be a change to the drawings so there would be an access. Ms. Mickelsen said that access was a concern to her.

Mr. Parvaz asked about the setback between the west side of the property line and the required fire wall. Mr. Simonsen said that the setback has to be three feet or greater to not require the one-hour fire wall. Mr. Knight said that it would still have a one-hour wall. Mr. Simonsen said that there could not be an eave on the building if the setback is 12 inches or less. Mr. Knight said that was the way he understood it.

Mr. Simonsen inquired if there is a specific requirement in the guidelines requiring the eave on the east side of the proposed building, or the request due to the inconsistency of showing on the elevations and not on the site plan. He said that there are a number of outbuildings that do not have eaves on them throughout the district. Mr. Knight said that it was more of a general recommendation based on Staffs experience. He continued by saying that the Staff had run into similar situations in which the eaves were deleted to meet the code requirements, and the end results have not been very successful.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Darrell Whatcott, the applicant was present, as well as his contractor, Mr. Brandon Bateman. Mr. Bateman said that there was no existing covered parking for the tenants. He addressed the access issue with the applicant. Mr. Bateman indicated that the building could be shortened by eliminating the garage and putting a five-foot storage room on each end and still have enough room to park four vehicles. He said that by making those changes that would allow a four-foot setback on each end, and a one-foot eave on the building. Mr. Bateman said that a four-foot cement sidewalk would be in the setback which would allow the tenants to access the residence from the parking structure. He mentioned that the back yard is a couple of feet higher than the area where the structure would be located so doors leading out the back would not be desired. Also, Mr. Bateman pointed out that there was not be room for stairs to be built inside the garage and still be able to park the vehicles. He noted that a firewall would not be necessary. Mr. Bateman said that the building width would be 54 feet instead of 58 feet. He circulated photographs of a building similar to the proposed project.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking about the elevation on the backyard. Mr. Bateman said that the garage floor would be about two feet lower that the back yard which is the reason for that foundation wall across the back of the building; it is also used as a retaining wall. Ms. Mickelsen said that no height measurement was indicated on the drawings, and clarified that the back wall has no windows. Mr. Bateman said that the back wall would be closed with cedar lap siding on the exterior. Ms. Mickelsen noted that there would be a 58-foot wall with no openings and expressed an aesthetic concern for the tenants. Mr. Whatcott said that he wanted to provide an enclosed fenced yard for the tenants because two of them have dogs. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that there is an existing chain link fence. Mr. Whatcott said that the chain link is temporary and would be removed and be replaced with another kind of fence. Ms. Mickelsen asked what the hard surface would be for the drive approach. Mr. Bateman said that the entire driveway would be concrete. He added that from the back wall of the proposed structure there will be a grassy area in the back yard.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if Mr. Bateman built the parking structure that was in the photographs. Mr. Bateman said that he did and it would be the same kind of building, only larger. He pointed out that the materials would be upgraded and have no vinyl siding. Mr. Bateman said that he knew the applicant would have to go through a Routine and Uncontested Matter process, but was surprised that the historic district only allows a 600-square foot accessory building without having to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. He said that it did not make much sense on a property that has a duplex because that is the size of a two-car garage. Mr. Bateman said that he has built several garages in historic districts but the first time he had to go through this kind of process.

Ms. Giraud pointed out that an accessory building larger than 600 square feet would have a huge impact in the neighborhood, and by going through a formal process, it allows the neighbors to be notified and informed of any proposal.

Ms. White asked some questions about the size of the duplex and how many bedrooms were in each side. Mr. Whatcott said that there were two bedrooms up and two down. Ms. White said that it seemed larger to her. She asked if the proposed parking structure would only service the people in the duplex. Mr. Whatcott said that was correct.

Mr. Parvaz asked some additional questions about the height of the proposed structure. Mr. Bateman said proposed structure would be eight feet from the concrete floor to the bottom of the roof joist. He said that the roof would add another four feet of height to the building.

Mr. Simonsen said that the wall section did not show the two-foot grade change on the north side of the building, and that the foundation wall would have to be changed on this side in order to meet the building code. Mr. Bateman agreed, and said that it was an inadvertent error on the drawing.

• Ms. Rowland inquired if the easement had been used for parking. Mr. Whatcott said that he also owns the property that the apartment building is on and has been used by the tenants in that building. Ms. Rowland asked if the tenants in both buildings would use it for parking and would that be a problem that should be addressed. Mr. Whatcott said that the duplex property has a right to use the easement. He added that the right-of-way easement was part of the provision for the Routine and Uncontested Matter. Mr. Whatcott stated that at one time the easement provided access to a dilapidated garage that has since been demolished.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

Mr. Lynn Morgan who owns the neighboring property at 175 No. "G" Street, stated that he had a couple of concerns. He said that it looked as if the proposed parking structure would only have a three-foot setback off the sidewalk along "G" Street. Mr. Morgan said that he was alright with that providing the wall facing "G" Street would be solid with the same cedar lap siding on the exterior. He said that he supported the project and indicated that he was pleased that it would have a 4:12 pitched roof. Mr. Morgan said that he believed it would be a nice parking structure; however, he would like to see a softer edge between the sidewalk and the front elevation. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the structure would not be immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and would be separated by the width of the lot on the corner of Fifth Avenue and "G" Street. Ms. Heid clarified that the carport would be enclosed on three sides. Mr. Simonsen said that was the way the application read.

Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Simonsen said that there might be changes in the setbacks and by modifying the structure. He recommended that any changes be addressed in the motion and if it should come back to the full Commission or reviewed administratively by Staff.

First motion:

Mr. Parvaz moved to approve Case No. 025-03 based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation approve the carport structure and the discussion at this meeting with the following revisions to the drawings: 1) the changes in the carport eliminating the garage and showing the number of proposed parking stalls; 2) the addition of the four-foot sidewalks on the east and west sides of the parking structure providing full access from the carport to the residence; and 3) the wall section be modified to reflect the grade change on the site. Staff shall review the revised drawings and issue the Certificate of Appropriateness for the final approval. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion.

Ms. Giraud inquired if Mr. Parvaz wanted to include in his motion that the three sides of the carport would be enclosed.

Ms. Mickelsen urged caution what to include in the motion until it becomes known what the applicant plans to do with the changes that were discussed.

Ms. Heid pointed out a discrepancy in the width of the proposed structure if a five-foot storage shed is built on each end. She added that the sidewalks in the setbacks would have to be narrower.

• After a short discussion, Mr. Parvaz amended his motion.

Amended final motion:

Based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, and based on the discussion at this meeting, Mr. Parvaz moved to approve Case No.025-03 which was a request to construct a parking structure (carport), with the following revisions to the drawings: 1} the changes in the carport eliminating the garage and showing the number of proposed parking stalls; 2} the addition of sidewalks on the east and west sides of the parking structure providing full access from the carport to the residence; and 3} the wall section modified to reflect the grade change on the site. Staff shall review the revised drawings and the door detail including material and issue the Certificate of Appropriateness for the final approval. Ms. Rowland's motion still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Fitzsimmons were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR

Mr. Simonsen invited Mr. Louis Zunguze to update the Commissioners on the Legislative Intent.

Mr. Zunguze indicated that the Planning Staff is in the last stages of the combined effort of the Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission in responding to the City Council's Legislative Intent. He pointed to a large document and said that this was the volume of work that had been prepared so far. He said, "You can appreciate the tremendous amount of work that the Staff has put into this effort."

Mr. Zunguze wanted to present the highlights that Staff would be emphasizing in the response. He said that the document stresses the apparent imbalance in emphasis that appears to exist between preservation and economic development in the community. He pointed out that the City has not given sufficient attention to preservation matters which have been considered a secondary issue to other land use matters. He noted that as the result, the City has moved ahead and zoned properties without taking care of the potential impact that the zoning classification would have on historical assets. Mr. Zunguze stated that the City zoned properties for commercial use without due care being paid to historical assets in that zoning district. He added that gave the perception to prospective developers that they could purchase those properties and raze them for commercial construction. Mr. Zunguze said, "That has given us all kinds of problems, so we are going to stress that we need to create a sense of awareness within the Administration itself that if we talk land use we need to make sure that it includes historical assets as well." He noted that historical assets should be a major concern for any proposed zoning classifications and land use regulations.

Mr. Zunguze stated that another highlight would be updating surveys of Salt Lake City's historical districts needs to be a priority issue. He indicated that the surveys of historical assets would need to be ratified by this Commission and adopted by the City Council. Mr. Zunguze pointed out that when those surveys are completed, they needed to be publicized as much as possible within the community so people would be aware of where historical assets are, and whether or not they are also contributing properties in the area. He stated that when people purchase the properties, which are historical assets, including the Redevelopment Agency, they would be aware that any of those properties they target would have a special review process. Mr. Zunguze also said that by informing the public, any future investors interested in the demolition of existing buildings would not be surprised when the City raises the issues surrounding a demolition approval. He added that it will be a huge undertaking for those surveys to be updated, but it is something the City must do, otherwise the City will constantly run into these same problems where people will continue to say that they would lose money if the City does not allow them to demolish these structures. Mr. Zunguze stated that once these historical assets are gone, they could never be replaced. He likened it to losing an arm. "You will be a different person thereafter." He noted that if the historical assets were gone, the community would never be the same.

Mr. Zunguze stated that the City has, in a number of cases, moved ahead with redevelopment efforts without considering the implication of historical assets, which contribute as much to the economic vitality of a community. He pointed out that there are people who move to this community because of their attraction to those historical characteristics. Mr. Zunguze said, "That is a huge element that we often overlook when we talk economic development. So we really need to bring that forth all the way to the highest level in the community."

Ms. Mickelsen stated that most likely both of those issues address the perceived conflict between historic preservation and economic development whereas evidence from around the world suggest that preservation does much to a community to support growth. Mr. Zunguze concurred with that summation. Mr. Simonsen added that there has been a significant change in terms of reinvestment since the West Capitol Neighborhood was designated as a National Register district.

Ms. Giraud said that the State of Utah has a source of information to determine the effect of historic preservation on the local economy, but these analyses are targeted to rural areas. She said that it is unfortunate, but economic development at the State level is focused at the rural economic development. Ms. Giraud pointed out that there is a State program that is the equivalent to Community and Economic Development.

Mr. Simonsen inquired if it would be possible to search tax records to compare property values before and after an area was designated as a historic district. He said he believed there would be a dramatic increase in appraised property values. Ms. Mickelsen commented that one could see an increase every year. Ms. Giraud said that the City has a demographic expert, who might be able to help with putting together some information to support that assumption.

Ms. Giraud stated that property values in the Avenues Historic District have increased dramatically even though there are a high number of renters living in that community. Ms. Rowland added that the Redevelopment Agency staff has said that there were too many renters and there needed to be more of a balance between renters and home ownership, and yet property values have gone up.

Ms. Giraud stated that it was important that the money to update the surveys be obtained because Staff does not have the resources to do it. Mr. Simonsen proposed the question of a bond election to raise the money. He added that at the City level in Park City, funding was provided to do these kinds of things. Ms. Giraud said that Staff is getting stretched thinner and thinner with fewer and fewer resources so the important issues needed to be prioritized. She believed the Legislative Intent process would help prioritize these issues enabling the possibility of getting the funding.

Ms. Mickelsen mentioned that at a recent master plan review committee meeting held in her home, Council Member Nancy Saxton made the statement that things were going to change when the committee was reviewing the implementation plans regarding surveys in Salt Lake City. Ms. Mickelsen said she felt that Council Member Saxton was a little negative about extending the surveys to other parts of the city. Ms. Mickelsen said that she (Ms. Mickelsen) talked about how important the preservation districts have been for the well being in some of the Council Member's areas. Ms. Mickelsen also said that a comment was made that certain policies should be taken out of the master plans to make

them easier to read. She expressed her concern about the apparent lack of understanding about planning issues. Mr. Zunguze stated that members of the City Council, as well as the Planning Commission have to be educated about the importance of historic preservation. He added, "once again it speaks to the whole notion of making sure that everyone understands the importance of historical assets in the community."

Ms. Heid introduced that fact that there might be an inherent conflict with the City Council's willingness to address historic aspects in development decisions since the City Council functions as the Redevelopment Agency Board. She said she wondered if that was asking the City Council to put emphasis into two different directions. Ms. Rowland said that she hoped that would not be a problem, but then pointed out that their Staff has told them historical properties slow down economic development. Ms. Mickelsen said that in her opinion the Redevelopment Agency Board has the perception that historic structures just are not acceptable. Ms. Heid pointed out that it appears the City Council does not grant the Historic Landmark Commission equal time on their agenda with the Redevelopment Agency.

Mr. Zunguze stated the following: "I think it is our fault for not knocking on the door and making the noise that we need to make. I was telling Staff that if you do not say anything, someone is going to define you. We need to take the initiative and l think we have a tremendous opportunity here to say, 'Here is what we think; here's why we think so; here's how we can work together to make development better; and here's how we think your role and our role is.' If they think they can endorse that then when we come back with specific projects we can relate to that. Right now it seems that in many cases they do not make that connection. There is simply a perception that we are holding back development that should be happening. It should not be development for the sake of development."

Ms. Giraud said she understood what Mr. Zunguze was saying, but at the same time to her the main focus has to be to encourage the City Council to have more of an understanding of preservation issues. She pointed out that historic districts were established and adopted by a previous City Council. Ms. Giraud stated, 'We seem to be in this deadlock and that they really don't want it but they are too afraid to cut it out completely so everyone seems to be feeling very negative about it. What this Legislative Intent action will do is move it somewhere and hopefully move it in the direction that we would like it go." Ms. Heid noted that those groups have to be educated constantly the value of preservation due to the changing membership.

Mr. Zunguze stated that during the survey process, he is committed to looking at boundaries of certain districts and possibly redefining them so that historical assets are better protected.

Mr. Zunguze talked further about the need of injecting major resources to hire a consultant to accomplish the goal of updating the surveys of the historic assets in Salt Lake City. He added that there needed to be a steady stream of resources enabling the Staff to keep up with the need to keep the surveys current.

Mr. Simonsen suggested that Staff "hammer” the Planning Commission and the City Council with the fact that as zoning issues are reviewed, the City not only look at the historic overlay zones but also look within several of the community master plans and observe the National Register district designations, which have been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission, and consider the application of conservation districts. He continued by saying if the City does not come up with the money to update the surveys, the City could at least identify in the master plans those neighborhoods, which have historic qualities that are worthy of conservation, if not preservation. He pointed out neighborhoods in the Sugar House area that would meet the criteria, and yet the City Council is considering down zoning from the single-family zoning status.

Mr. Zunguze declared that these efforts would be a challenge. He admitted that he did not believe that the Staff and Commission could achieve all of these goals "in one shot". Mr. Zunguze believed there needed to be a reasonable timeline and priority list of the important issues that "form the basis and the anchor of what we are trying to achieve" to build a solid foundation on which to accomplish "our goals". He stated that the Legislative Intent presented an opportunity to raise this matter because he has observed that there is an imbalance in historic sensitivity between the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council and as a result the ability is lost to look at this community in a holistic fashion. Mr. Zunguze said that in many ways the City creates rules and regulations that take away some of the major components that define this community.

Mr. Zunguze said he has considered introducing the subject of conservation districts to the City Council, but would have to do it by in stages. He mentioned that recently the Board of Adjustment had a discussion regarding infill projects in neighborhoods that were out of scale and were setting a negative tone for years in terms of the character of a neighborhood. He added that the public needed to be aware of this trend anytime compatibility is discussed. Mr. Zunguze said that people put up "guardrails" when conservation districts are mentioned, thinking that there would be too many restrictions imposed on their property. He said that he thought he would find a way to address the topic of conservation districts through the review of infill projects by stressing the importance of compatibility.

Mr. Zunguze said that there is a need to begin discussion regarding developing design guidelines for commercial properties in Salt Lake City so that the Planning Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission would have a full set of tools to work with. He also said that the design guidelines now in place for residential properties, needed to be updated.

Mr. Zunguze stated that he would ask the City Council for a reaffirmation of the Historic Landmark Commission to remain a full commission. He added that there was a question of whether or not this body should become a recommending subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that it was his strong opinion that if that happened then the issue of historic preservation would become "second rate". He stated that with preservation issues being under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission, as a full commission, was the right forum and should have the necessary tools to protect the historical assets of the community.

Mr. Zunguze also said that there should be some consideration to reduce the number of Commission members from fifteen (15) members to perhaps eleven (11). He said that the same issue is being considered with respect to the Planning Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that more effective participation and representation was more important than the number of commission members. Mr. Zunguze stated that the City should look for people who are committed to serving on a board or commission and show that commitment by attending meetings and doing the work that needed to be done.

Mr. Zunguze stated that another issue that is going to be addressed is economic hardship. Although, he said that if the other components are addressed, particularly zoning mismatches in preservation districts, this issue may be alleviated. He added that if zoning matches properly, claims of economic hardship would be dramatically reduced.

Ms. Rowland inquired about contacts that the City might have who could do the "leg work" for zoning and master plan issues. She said that she knew Staff did not have the resources for this kind of research. Ms. Rowland suggested the possibility of using graduate-level students from the University of Utah doing the research as part of their curriculum.

Ms. Giraud stated that it was interesting that Ms. Rowland brought this up because the Dean of the Department of Architecture and Planning at the University of Utah, Ms. Brenda Scheer, is showing more of an interest to forge relationships with the City in the fields of architecture and planning. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Bob Young is another great contact that the Staff has who is an Associate Professor and the Director of the Historic Preservation Program at the University of Utah and a former member of this Commission.

Mr. Zunguze stated that he has constant interaction with Ms. Scheer trying to work at a more formalized program for internships because the Planning Division has a lot more work than resources to get the work done. He added that this would give the students a tremendous opportunity both in design and planning. Mr. Zunguze said that there is extraordinary potential for interaction and would provide additional resources to the City.

Mr. Zunguze stated that the tone that is relayed to the City Council when the issues of the Legislative Intent are presented to the City Council could not be one of hostility but one of firmness with respect to the value of working out development policies in a different way.

Mr. Zunguze said that once the Legislative Action response is submitted to the City Council, a briefing time would be announced. He encouraged members of the Commission to attend when the schedule was confirmed. Mr. Zunguze inquired if the Commission members wanted to include their response as part of the package submitted by the Planning Staff or submit their document separately. There was some discussion regarding this, and Mr. Zunguze believed that the most effect way would be to submit both documents together because they complement each other. He added that he was pleased with the information that was submitted for the document.

There was some discussion whether or not individual comments submitted by the Commissioners be packaged as one voice from the Historic Landmark Commission.

Mr. Parvaz said that he believed it was better to show individual views from the Commissioners. He added that it might not be as comprehensive as a document written with one voice, but on the other hand, the document will be given to a number of people with differing points of view. Mr. Parvaz said that comments from one Commissioner might be more important to certain members of the City Council and be more effective. Mr. Zunguze only suggested that any comments or questions should follow the outline of the Legislative Intent. Mr. Parvaz said in his opinion the comments should remain as Staff has included them in the package that are individual but uniformly followed the outline.

Ms. Rowland pointed out that the individual viewpoints of members of the Commission might be slightly more strident than those of the Staff since the Commissioners are volunteer citizens and the Planning Staff work for the City and Council and the Administration. She added that she did believe that it was the job of the Commissioners to worry about the comfort level of the City Council. Ms. Rowland indicated that Staff has to take more of a middle ground approach.

Ms. Giraud noted that there have been times that the Preservation Staff did not feel like they were part of the City and stood alone. However, she indicated that was a false perception. Ms. Giraud stated that when the members of the Commission see the entire copy of the Legislative Intent that "you will feel that it represents your views. At the same time we don't expect you to totally agree with Staff and just follow along behind us."

Mr. Zunguze concluded by saying that this would be a great opportunity to show the City Council how blessed this community is by having historical assets. He said he would point out that such assets define communities and the need to protect them is not just for the sake of protection against progress, but making preservation part of the progress. He stated, "This is the foundation of our progress."

Mr. Simonsen thanked everyone for his or her efforts in the Legislative Intent matter. (Mr. Ashdown left the meeting at 6:00P.M.)

OTHER BUSINESS

Discussion of the request by the Salt Lake City Council to solicit comments from Boards and Commissions on housing issues.

Mr. Simonsen said that the next item was a request by the City Council for the Historic Landmark Commission's input on housing issues in Salt Lake City. He referred to a letter authored by Mr. Carlton J. Christensen, Chair of the Salt Lake City Council, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Simonsen pointed out the importance of the housing issues and that the City Council has established housing issues as a top priority. He inquired if this discussion should be continued at a special meeting.

Mr. Zunguze said that the City Council has given a deadline of December 4, 2003 to have the input back from the boards and commissions. He suggested that a special meeting be held in the next week.

Due to the time constraints, it was decided that a special meeting should be held to discuss such an important topic as housing issues. A luncheon-working meeting was scheduled for Monday, November 24, 2003 at Noon in Room 126.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:30P.M.