SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was cancelled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Buese, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, and Dina Williams. Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, William Damery, Lynn Morgan, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, and William T. Wright, Planning Director. Janice Jardine, representing the City Council office, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Wallace Cooper. Mr. Cooper announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the Commission, the applicant will be excused. At that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed to the public and the Commission will go into executive session make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Cooper said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal process was listed on the back of the agenda.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they win be erased.
PREVIOUS CASE
Case No. 012-96, at 644 East Ely Place, by Thomas A. Williams. represented by Sandra Hatch, requesting approval of proposed modifications to a previously approved new residential structure.
Ms. Hatch declared recusancy and removed herself as a voting Commission member during this portion of the meeting'.
Ms. Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that this new design of the house was under the same application as the previous proposal, which had been approved on July 17, 1996.
Ms. Sandra Hatch, representing the applicant, as well as Mr. Thomas Williams, the applicant, were present. Mr. Cooper asked if the reason why the applicant could not get financing on the previously proposed duplex was pertinent to the design review process for this Commission. Ms. Hatch indicated that she thought it was pertinent because the proposed project had to be completely changed to a single family home under the same application. Mr. Cooper indicated unless a Commission member was interested in the financing issue, the Commission could review the project without that knowledge. Ms. Deal inquired why the applicant could not get financing on the proposed duplex but could on a single family home. Ms. Hatch said that there were no comparable on the east side of 700 East, which she felt was very interesting because of the development that had occurred. She thought that it was short-sightedness on certain banking institutions not to lend money for a duplex in the area.
Ms. Hatch displayed larger site drawings of the project and circulated photo graphs of the streetscape to the Commission members. She said that the house was in the same footprint as the previous proposal. Ms. Hatch said that the lot was only 38 feet, and because of the new City zoning restrictions on the width of the lot, the proposed single family house had to have the same footprint as the previously proposed duplex. Ms. Hatch gave an overview of the proposed project, which included the pitched roof instead of a flat roof. She indicated that she did not think that the garage would be constructed at this time, but a cement pad would be poured.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the columns on the front porch. Ms. Hatch said that the columns would have an internal wood post which would be boxed.
• Mr. Miya asked if the six-foot high cedar fence would be built during the initial construction. Mr. Williamson said that it would because he was planning to move into the house upon completion and the fence was needed to retain the dogs. Ms. Hatch said that that the applicant would also pave the right-of-way on the west side of the property.
• Mr. Cooper inquired about the pitch of the roof. Ms. Hatch said that it would be a 6/12 pitched roof. She said that the front part of the house would be stick framed and the back part would be trussed. Ms. Hatch noted that the living and dining areas would have a cathedral ceiling. She spoke of the window arrangement on the front of the proposed house. Ms. Hatch said that the applicant wanted somewhat of a contemporary look to the house.
• Mr. Buese said that he thought that the proposal' would fit in the neighborhood, then added that it would have a different character than what was there, originally. He said that he thought it would be a good addition to the neighborhood.
• Ms. Williams inquired about the siding materials. Ms. Hatch said that the planned material would be a Colonial Smooth 8-inch painted Hardi-board. the same as what was approved for the proposed duplex.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Wally Wright, who owns the adjacent property, said that he liked the project and had no problems with it.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed. Mr. Miya pointed out that the application was lacking some of the details that were normally required, such as a typical wall section, the elevations of the garage, and the fence detail. Mr. Cooper said that a wall section was not required. Ms. Miller said that she had not required the details on the garage since the applicant was not going to construct it at this time. Mr. Cooper said that the details of the garage and fence could be reviewed and approved administratively. Mr. Cooper addressed the requirements that were stated on an application.
Mr. Miya moved to approve Case No. 012-96, as presented, based on the findings of fact, included in the staff report; that it met the criteria of scale and form, composition of principal facades, and the relationship to the street and the streetscape. This motion only pertains to the proposed house. Details of the fence and the garage are to be submitted to staff for review and approval. It was seconded by Mr. Buese. Mr. Buese, Ms. Deal, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were excused.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Appeals Board
Mr. Cooper addressed the change in the appeals process for the Historical Landmark Commission. Ms. Janice Jardine from the City Council office enlightened the Commission on this issue. She said that the City Council voted to change the appeals process from going to the City Council to a newly proposed Land Use Appeals Board, which will be made up of three people with a background in administrative law or land use planning and familiar with City processes. Ms. Jardine added that the Land Use Appeals Board will hear appeals from the Historic Landmark Commission cases and the Planning Commission conditional uses. She pointed out that the Council felt that it was more appropriate to have the appeals process in a less political setting because the Council members get lobbied very heavily from their constituents.
Ms. Jardine said that the Board will consist of three members plus two alternates, who will be appointed by the Mayor with the consent by the City Council. She indicated that the next appeals step in the appeals process would be the Third District Court. The discussion continued.
Ms. Egleston said that it was written into the Design Guidelines that the document would have to be adopted by the City Council so there would be more interaction between City Council and the Historic Landmark Commission. She noted that might have to be changed. Ms. Deal said that if the City Council adopts the Design Guidelines, the Land Use Appeals Board would be forced to quote the text as evidence on which the Commission basis its decisions. Ms. Jardine said that she was not certain that if the City Council formally adopts the Design Guidelines if changes would also have to go through the City Council. She said that the City Attorney would have to explore this issue. Ms. Jardine reported that the Land Use Appeals Board will be directed and staffed out of the Community and Economic Development Director's office. The discussion continued.
Ms. Deal inquired about the staff reports for the appeals. Mr. Wright said that staff reports would not be written for the Land Use Appeals Board because evidence will be structured very similar to that of the courts system. He said that the evidence of the appeal will be on record, which will consist of tape recordings, minutes, staff reports, and other documents contained in the file. He added that new evidence could not be submitted. Mr. Wright indicated that the Board would have the option whether or not to hold a public hearing, then added that it would be difficult for the public to keep their testimony focused on the recorded evidence. He noted that the Board will review the evidence of record and the allegation for appeals, and added that the appeals will have to be filed within thirty days of the Commission's decision. Mr. Wright recommended that when the Land Use Appeals Board has a hearing that either the Chair or the Vice Chair, or both, attend the meeting. He also advised the Commission members to be careful that motions are structured in a way as to reference the findings of fact and the criteria that is required to review, also that the members keep their own notes on a case during the hearing, which could be helpful while making a motion. Mr. Wright said that the Commission did not necessarily have to agree with the findings of fact and the recommendations that the staff makes, but to make certain that the reasons are clarified in the motion. It was suggested that any appeals and enforcement issues be added to the agenda. Also it was recommended that the Commission members have access to applications and other pertinent information throughout a hearing so the members could reference the information while making motions.
A lengthy discussion to ok place regarding other projects which the Historic Landmark Commission had heard, as well as other miscellaneous information.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:11 5 P.M.