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 Bruce Miya, Dina Williams, and Elizabeth Egleston.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, and Dina Williams. Burke Cartwright, 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 and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the Commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. 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 will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Miya moved to approve the minutes of June 19, 1996, after a small correction was made. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASES
Case No. 01' :1-96. at 140 West Pierpont Avenue, Baci Club. by Gastronomy. Inc., represented by Magda Jajovcev of FFKR Architects. requesting approval to enlarge the front facade openings,
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that outside dining was a separate issue from the Historic Landmark Commission's review.
Ms. Magda Jajovcev, representing the applicant, was present. She circulated larger drawings, as well as some additional drawings, of the project. Ms. Jajovcev stated that the Utah State Liquor Commission required railings around an outside dining area where liquor was to be served. She briefly described the project. Ms. Jajovcev said that the openings for the doors on the front facade would be cut to floor level with the same framing detail as the existing windows. Ms. Jajovcev also addressed the interior changes of the restaurant.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Miya led the discussion and inquired further into the details of the outside dining area and the proposed railing. Ms. Jajovcev said that if their request was approved, the required railing would be stainless steel pipe, twenty inches high, four feet off center, and double flat bars for the vertical. She indicated that the outside dining area would not need a raised deck and would be directly accessed from inside the building.
• Mr. Wright asked for clarification as to the railing location on the site. Ms. Jajovcev indicated that the restaurant would be. maintaining the trees and planters and pointed out that the railing would be located outside of those planters. She added that the entire sidewalk was brick pavers and to compensate for the slope on the west side, there would be about a ten-inch concrete step up. Mr. Wright stated that City encouraged outdoor dining if it was allowed in the zoning ordinance; however, if this request for outdoor dining was not approved, there would not be a need for the railings or the door alteration.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed.
Mr. Miya moved to approve Case No. 011-96, as presented, because of the following: 1) that the building would be able to keep the Historic character of the property; and 2) that the approval was based on the findings of fact and analysis included in the staff report. Further, this approval was contingent upon the request being granted for the outside dining area. It was seconded by Ms. Williams.
A short discussion took place regarding the contingency placed on the motion. Mr. Miya said that if the outdoor dining was not approved, there would be no reason for the railing or doors.
Ms. Deal expressed her concerns that the existing window fenestration pattern on the front facade of the building on both sides of the entrance way is two short windows and one long window, which will be lost if the windows are removed and replaced with doors. She stated that she would support the idea of replacing the shorter windows with two doors and leaving the long window with the sectional bottom pane. Mr. Miya said that he wanted to separate the outdoor dining issue from the Commission's review but also wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to work with the remaining long windows. He said that he did not believe that those windows were original to the building. Ms. Egleston pointed out that those exact windows were not depicted on the Historic photograph.
The discussion continued. Mr. Miya amended the motion.
Mr. Miya moved to approve Case No. 011-96, as presented, based on the findings of fact and analysis included in the staff report. Further, this approval is contingent upon the following: 1) that the project would consist of four doors only which would replace the shorter windows on each side of the entrance door, instead of the requested six doors; 2) that the existing character-defining pattern of the long windows on each side of the entrance door would remain so the building will be able to keep the Historic character of the property; and 3) that the outside dining request be approved by. the City. The second still stood by Ms. Williams. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 012-96. at 642-644 East Ely Place. by Thomas A. Williams. represented by Sandra Hatch, Architect, requesting approval of a new duplex.
Ms. Hatch declared a conflict of interest on this matter and did not participate as a member of the Historic Landmark Commission or the voting proceedings.
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 indicated that the duplex was destroyed by fire earlier this year and the remains of the condemned building were subsequently demolished. Ms. Miller said that the new proposal was for a new two-family home which would be constructed on the site.
Both Mr. Thomas A. Williams, applicant, and his representative, Ms. Sandra Hatch, were present. Ms. Hatch described the project. She discussed the setback requirement and the angled corners of the building for better utilization of the bedrooms in the basement and upper levels and its relationship to the property line. Ms. Hatch added that she thought the design was more intriguing than just having a box pattern.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by asking about the screen separating the rear entries of the two units. Ms. Hatch said that would be a wall. There was some discussion regarding the height of the project and the relationship to the other structures in the neighborhood. Ms. Hatch indicated that there were both smaller and larger structures on the street, then added that many were boarded up.
• Mr. Miya asked about the materials on the north and south elevations. Ms. Hatch said that precast concrete would be used for the columns on the porches with wood trim. She indicated that a synthetic stucco system called EIFS would be used for the design band, and either painted Hardi-board or wood siding for the exterior would be used. Ms. Hatch said that the garage would be built to match and the doors would be paneled. She also pointed out that the color scheme had not been selected but she expressed her preference for the use of monotone colors and letting the reveal pick up any contrast. Ms. Miya inquired about the landscaping plan. Ms. Hatch remarked that the plans had not been completed but the property would be completely fenced and some of the existing trees would be utilized.
• Ms. Williams asked about the access to the garage. Ms. Hatch said that there is an alleyway to which the applicant has access and that the garage could be rotated to be accessed from the south or the west.
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, indicated that he recently acquired the adjacent property to 642-644 East Ely Place. He stated that he liked the plans for the proposed two-family dwelling. Mr. Wally Wright pointed out that he attended the meeting to find out what the City's intentions were for that area. He said that he thought he would like to build a similar duplex as what was being proposed for the subject property because he was in support of the project.
Mr. Bill Wright said that the area was zoned SR-3 to encourage infill in the center of the block with single and two-family homes. He pointed out that the density may be higher than other districts because the lots are smaller in this area. He added that the project was consistent with that plan. Mr. Bill Wright said that there was also an opportunity for attached housing in the area. There was some discussion regarding the construction of similar housing structures, with sensitive designs, in small pocket areas of the City, and how they would be assets to the community.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
The discussion continued. Mr. Cooper expressed his concerns about the incomplete application in comparison to other projects which have come before the Commission. He pointed out that a landscaping plan, as well as window and railing details had not been submitted. Ms. Miller remarked that those plans would be provided. A short discussion took place regarding these issues.
Ms. Williams moved to approve Case No. 012-96, based on the findings of fact included in the staff report, subject to the following conditions: 1) that the applicant provide the landscaping plan, the window, and the railing details; 2) that the applicant limit the exterior siding material to either Hardi-board or wood; and 3) that the final review and approval will be given by staff. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Ms. Hatch was not eligible to vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Deal raised the question and expressed her opinion on the administrative approval for the temporary installation of a motion ride simulator at Trolley Square. She said that it did not appear to be temporary because of the concrete slab and the large plywood construction. Ms. Deal encouraged all the members and staff to visit the site in Trolley Square because she thought it was truly an "eyesore." Ms. Deal said that she was unfamiliar with the procedure but would like to appeal the administrative decision and have it reviewed by the full Commission. Ms. Egleston stated that the promoters did not realize that they would have to obtain an approval from the City prior to her review. Mr. Wright said that since the project was approved as a temporary structure, a permit would have to be issued, but assured the Commission that the staff would look into it.
Ms. Hatch also raised the question of the plastic banner that advertised "32 Theme Rooms" at the Anniversary Inn and suggested that it be looked into because that sign was not approved. Ms. Miller said that she had contacted the enforcement people to have that removed and she would continue her pursuit.
Discussion of the Design Guidelines
Ms. Egleston briefly discussed the latest draft of the Design Guidelines which was included in the packets. She also commented that the photographs would be much better in the final document because they would be fully screened. Ms. Egleston recommended that a meeting be held in September of 1996 to receive public comment on the guidelines.
Several parts of the document were discussed. The consensus of the Commission members was that the guidelines were much improved. Further, because of the size of the report, the members felt like they had not been able to thoroughly review it. It was suggested that another meeting be scheduled to critique the Design Guidelines. Ms. Egleston asked that comments from the Commission be directed to her as soon as possible.
Ms. Egleston also spoke about a meeting she attended with the City Council Staff regarding preservation in Salt Lake City. She spoke about how the Design Guidelines would tie in with the new relationship the Commission wanted to establish with the City Council1. She suggested that a meeting be held with the City Council, in conjunction with the public meeting. Ms. Egleston said that a subcommittee should be formed with a few members of the Historic Landmark Commission, for the purpose of making a brief presentation to the City Council regarding the purpose of designating Historic districts and landmark sites and communicating preservation issues. Ms. Jardine agreed with that suggestion and encouraged a very elementary discussion that would consist of basic preservation philosophy, design, and other such matters. Ms. Jardine also said that the City Council members preferred to receive written material before such a meeting, so they would be more knowledgeable on the subject.
Mr. Wright noted that the current City Council members are a generation away from the members who originally adopted the preservation ordinance in Salt Lake City. He also promoted the idea of a brief educational session with the City Council to explain how preservation helps to revitalize, stabilize, and enhance neighborhoods.
A discussion followed regarding the basics of preservation issues and the thought pattern for the suggested presentation.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:30P.M.