SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 4511 South State Street, Room 126
A fiel1d trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Thomas Cerruti, Wallace
Cooper, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Buese, Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. William Damery was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston and William T. Wright, Planning Director.
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 and the Commission will go into an 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
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of September 18, 1996. It was seconded by Mr. Miya. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery was not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASES
Case No. 016-96. at 501 East 900 South. by V. Mancini and Company. represented by Elizabeth J. Blackner of AJC Architecture, requesting to construct a drive-through coffee bar.
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 the Planning Staff questioned the double lanes of traffic for the drive-through and the traffic circulation pattern. She added that after consulting with the Zoning Administrator, these were in compliance with the zoning for the property.
Ms. Elizabeth Blackner of AJC Architecture, representing the applicant, was present for this portion of the hearing. She stated that she concurred with Ms. Egleston's comments. Ms. Blackner pointed out that the double row of auto mobile traffic lanes was necessary to prevent stacking for each transaction window, per the zoning ordinance.
There was some discussion regarding this matter. Reference was made to another drive-through coffee kiosk on 900 South and 1100 East, where a double row of traffic lanes had been permitted.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the materials proposed for the new structure. Ms. Blackner said that the kiosk would be a synthetic stucco system, with an accent color band. She also described the decorative concrete planters. There was some discussion regarding the site plans. Mr. Wright reminded Ms. Blackner that the setback had to be at least four feet from the planters.
• Mr. Miya addressed the site lighting on the property and the hours of operation. Ms. Blackner said that there was an existing light pole on the property that would be maintained. She also said that there was another existing light pole on the corner. She said that she was not certain of the exact hours, but it would be opened early in the morning. Ms. Blackner said that a barrier block wall would be built which would provide some protection to the adjacent properties. Mr. Miya asked if the mechanical units would be roof mounted. Ms. Blackner said that since the proposed building would be 13 feet high to the top of the parapet wall, the mechanical units should be hidden.
• Mr. Cartwright asked if the dumpster would be screened. Ms. Blackner said that a wood fence would be constructed around the dumpster to screen it. Mr. Cartwright inquired about the curb cuts. Ms. Blackner said that if the curb cuts were damaged, they would try to patch them or replace them. Mr. Wright indicated that the applicant would be working with the City Engineer's office to determine the damage.
• Mr. Cooper inquired about on-site employee parking. Ms. Blackner said that since there would only be two employees working at one time, two parking spaces would be adequate. She added that one would be a handicapped parking space. Mr. Wright explained that the required number of parking spaces for employees was based on the square footage. There was some discussion regarding this matter, as well as the demolition of the building and the required landscaping plan. Mr. Cooper said that the submittal of a landscaping or land use plan was one of the requirements for the demolition permit. Mr. Cooper inquired about the applicant's plans to remove the existing trees. Ms. Blackner assured the Commission that the applicant had not planned to remove any trees on the property site. Mr. Cooper expressed his concern about the proposed sign panels on the planned building. Ms. Blackner said that they were not necessarily signs. She said that she considered them graphic drawings. Mr. Cooper raised the question if the graphics on those ten panels would be considered signs or works of art. He referred to "McDonald's" and said that if that business showed a clown with the name of "Ronald McDonald" on it, he would consider that a sign, but if the graphics were just of a down, he would consider that art.
• Ms. Swinton made it known that she thought there were too many signs for the size of the proposed building. Ms. Blackner said that all the metal panels could be eliminated on the east side of the proposed building. The discussion continued regarding the proposed signage.
Mr. Wright addressed the sign and/or graphics issues and read the definition of "Signs" which can be found in Section 21A.46.020(B) of the Salt Lake City Code, as follows:
Any object, device, or structure, or part thereof, situated outdoors or indoors which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct, or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including words, letters, figures, designs, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination, or projected images. The term "sign" shall include the sign structure, supports, lighting system and any attachments, ornaments or other features used to attract attention. The term "sign" does not include the flag or emblem of any nation, organization of nations, state, county, city; or works of art which in no way identify a product or business logo.
Mr. Wright said that the key words were "outdoors" or "indoors". The following discussion to ok place:
Mr. Cartwright said that the interesting thing about these types of buildings was that they advertise themselves and are clearly defined as to what kind of businesses they are. Mr. Cooper thought that the signs were part of the vernacular for this type of building. He referred to other retail businesses which were covered with signs.
Mr. Cooper said that he did not disagree with the signage approach, but thought that they should be consolidated. Ms. Egleston said that in her opinion, the signs would become part of the design of the building and she felt that the signage on the upper exterior walls prevented the building from looking like a little stucco box. Ms. Egleston mentioned that she would not like to see all the signage become back-lit signs with little pasted on lettering or logos. She continued by saying that the Commission had purview over this matter. Mr. Cartwright said that sometimes signage becomes the Historic value of a property. The discussion continued with suggestions being made to consider the signage/graphics as part of the design of the building, giving conceptual approval on the building and reviewing the signage, separately, after they were more refined and fully integrated with the building, itself. Ms. Blackner indicated that she was in agreement with those suggestions.
Mr. Cooper opened this portion of 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:
Ms. Egleston read a note which included remarks from Ms. Linda Jennings, Chair of the West Liberty Community Council, said that she was not able to attend the meeting but desired to have her concerns addressed. Ms. Jennings was concerned about the increase of traffic by having another coffee place on the corner of 900 South and 500 East. She said that the coffee house, which was located across the street from the property site, added to the traffic congestion in the area and she wanted to make sure if the proposed establishment was approved, that the traffic patterns would be carefully studied, and if necessary, there would be a traffic mitigation for the intersection of 900 South and 500 East. Mr. Wright said that due to the commercial zoning requirements, if the project fits the parameters of the lot, as to the size and scale of the proposed building, he did not think there would be any reason to provoke a traffic study. He said that a traffic counter would be provided to record the traffic volume in terms of the ingress and egress of the property which would then be reviewed and analyzed for the possibility of allowing a turn lane.
Mr. Dave Burnham, who resides at 517 East 900 South, stated that he, too, was concerned about the traffic in the area. He was concerned that the coffee kiosk would become a "hang-out" which he said that the other coffee shop had become. The site plan was further discussed.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Cooper closed this portion of the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
The discussion continued regarding the signage and other matters relating to this application. Mr. Buese said that he was in favor of a business such as this and made reference to the coffee kiosk on 1100 East off 900 South. He directed his concern to the neighbors because of the early hours of operation and the brightly-lit environment which he said would be an incredible intrusion onto the neighbors. He wondered if this issue was under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission or was it a Planning and Zoning issue. Mr. Buese recommended that the applicant have a sound barrier and a way to shield the lighting on the north and east sides of the property to minimize the impact of the vehicular traffic on the neighbors. Mr. Morgan suggested that a Ballard-type lighting, directed low, could be placed on the building, rather than on poles.
Mr. Cooper asked what recourse the neighbors would have if the issues that Mr. Buese addressed became a problem. Mr. Wright said that the recourse would be an enforcement issue because the ordinance would be violated. Mr. Wright also talked about the problem of cars cutting across the property lines, which would also be in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Wright said that it would be the responsibility of the owners of the establishment that the stacking of traffic in the public right-of-way does not occur causing a safety hazard. He added that the City's Zoning Administrator would have the authority to determine if the ordinance was being violated. Mr. Wright referred to Section 21A.40.060(8) which are the "Drive-Through Service Window Regulations" of the City Ordinances, that includes Section 21A.40.060(8)(3), which states: "The amount of stacking space for auto mobiles awaiting service shall be at least five (5) spaces on site per cashier, teller, or similar employee transacting business directly with drive-through customers at any given time." Mr. Wright recommended that the Commission review a detailed landscaping plan that would show the buffered areas and the setbacks.
Ms. Hatch inquired about the vehicular noise level. Mr. Wright discussed the shifting decibel levels of vehicular traffic during the hours of operation. He said that since there would not be an outside speaker it would be very unlikely that the traffic noise would exceed the permissible decibel levels.
Ms. Deal pointed out that this property site had been a busy commercial corner, because of the previous gas station business. She also talked about the width of the streets that led into the busy intersection of 500 East and 900 South.
Mr. Cerruti directed his comments to the signage issue and expressed his concerns about the precedent that would be set for the signage that was proposed for this building. A discussion to ok place regarding other projects where signage on the building had been an issue. Mr. Cerruti questioned whether or not all the proposed signage would be considered signs, as per the definition, or become design elements.
Ms. Swinton also discussed the signage issue and said that the signs might work for this proposed building, and further expressed her concerns about the precedent the Commission may be setting for other Historic districts if this application was approved, as submitted, in the Central City Historic District. She was also concerned if the Historic Landmark Commission would be staying within its purview if the signage was considered as part of the design for this particular building. Ms. Swinton questioned the number of signs which appeared on the proposal and suggested that some of the duplicate signs, such as the menus, could be eliminated.
Mr. Cartwright thought that the Commission, if the application was approved, could consider that the treatment of the graphics around the top of the building would be an indigenous architectural element for this particular building-type. He thought it would be a clear separation from other businesses in Historic districts where signage had been an issue. Mr. Cartwright said that he would not like to have a project such as this denied based on the signage issue and the fear of setting a precedent.
Ms. Deal said that she would like the signage to come back again to the full
Commission for further review.
Ms. Williams said that if the signage returned to the full Commission for further review, the message she thought should be sent to the applicant was not to return with a lot of logos and trademarks on the metal panels.
Ms. Hatch expressed her thoughts that the deviation from this project was not necessarily the building itself, but that it previously was a gas station that had been pushed up into the corner of the property which has had much activity occur. She pointed out that with this proposal, an island would be created where the activity would occur. She also agreed that it was important how the lighting would be created.
Mr. Wright said that the Staff needed to make a substantial analysis of the signage package associated with this application as it would comply to the Sign Ordinance. A short discussion followed.
Ms. Williams moved to grant conceptional approval to Case No. 016-96, based on the findings of fact included in the staff report, subject to the applicant returning the full Historic Landmark Commission with the following information: 1) details on the dumpster enclosure with the materials spelled out; 2) additional information regarding the material above the band of windows, be determined and clarified; 3) that the landscaping plan for the buffer be more clearly articulated, which should include the lighting so1lution; 4) that the metal panels, the awnings, and other elements be more clearly defined, as they relate to the overall structure; and 5) that the materials provided to the Staff and the Commission needed to be at the level of construction documentation, or at least documentation that would clearly define the intention of the applicant of what would be constructed. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti.
A short discussion followed with some additional suggestions regarding the wording of the motion. Mr. Cartwright questioned the need for construction level documentation at this time as long as the Commission was able to fully understand what the clear intention was for this application. Ms. Williams amended the motion.
Ms. Williams moved to grant conceptional approval to Case No. 016-96, based on the findings of fact included in the staff report, with instructions to the applicant to return to the Historic Landmark Commission with the following information: 1) details on the dumpster enclosure with the materials spelled out; 2) additional information regarding the material above the band of windows, be determined and clarified; 3) that the landscaping plan for the buffer be more clearly articulated, which should include the lighting solution; 4) that the metal panels, awnings, and other elements be more clearly defined as they related to the overall structure; and 5) that the material provided to the Staff and the Commission needed to be documentation that would clearly define the intention of the applicant of what would be constructed. The second by Mr. Cerruti still stood. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery was not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASES
Case No. 017-96. at 263 No. Almond Street. by Russ Watts of Watts Corporation. requesting to construct a 52-unit condominium project.
Mr. Cooper declared recusancy and removed himself from the position of Chair for this case. Mr. Miya, the Vice Chair, occupied the position of Acting Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She noted that this was a new application and that the density had changed from the original proposal. Ms. Egleston stated that she reviewed the current proposal with the Permits Office. She said that there were concerns about the height of the project, among other issues, but said that the figures needed to be clarified, she said that this review should be based on the design of the project. It was pointed out that the case number on the staff report needed to reflect that it was a new application.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the appeal to the City Council for the last application for this site that was reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission and subsequently denied was withdrawn, so it was not necessary for the City Council to take any action. He added that the activity for this site had been dormant during the time-frame of the applicant's withdrawal of the appeal and the submittal of this new application.
Messrs. Russ and Kevin Watts with Watts Corporation, the applicants, were present during this portion of the meeting. Mr. Russ Watts gave a brief history on the previous application for the Almond Street property site. He stated that the property was zoned RMF-45 and the new application complied to all the codes and zoning ordinance requirements, such as the height, setbacks, and encroachments, but would be reviewed more thoroughly by the Permits Office.
Mr. Russ Watts said that among the many recommendations that were made by the Historic Landmark Commission, one was to create a design charrette. He said that the Watts Corporation went forward with that idea and hired a number of experts in the design and development field to help with assessing a different approach for a condominium project. Mr. Watts circulated copies of the minutes from that charrette, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said that the group reviewed the minutes from the Historic Landmark Commission meetings and concluded that the following elements during the charrette meeting were discussed: (A) variations in the massing of the building; (B) using a design which reflected a more simple approach which would be comparable to the other older buildings in the Avenues; (C) add pedestri.an access and doors off Almond Street; (D) consider brick in place of the Hopper Plaster/Terra-cotta finish; (E) sandstone facing might be appropriate; (F) add more windows and openings to the east side of the building; (G) additional units on the east side of the building would increase the residential appearance of the building from Almond Street; (H) use different parapet design and materials; (I) the addition of paths, landscaping material's both small and large on each street which would help the walking experience around the building; and (J) review the possibility of pedestrian access between Almond Street and West Temple on the southeast side.
Mr. Russ Watts exhibited a scale model of the project, which also showed the streetscape, as he discussed the massing. He said that a more simple form wall system would be used; the sloped roof would be removed which gave more flexibility in stepping the building up and down; and six different roof changes would be utilized on the building. Mr. Russ Watts also displayed a material and color board as he further described the project.
Mr. Russ Watts said that in the new application, they had endeavored to move the massing of the proposed building back and forth and stepped it up and down. He pointed out the variation of the corners of the proposed building. Mr. Watts indicated that there would be 136 corners on the structure. Referring to the Almond Street side of the project, Mr. Watts said that he thought they had created a more friendly environment with the pedestrian access into the corridors and into the main distribution areas of the building. Pointing to the model, Mr. Watts described other elements and details of the proposed building. He indicated that the height of the 300 North facade was only five feet higher than the Historic home across the street. Mr. Watts discussed the more simplified, more traditional, design of the parapet walls and the openings of the balconies and windows.
Mr. Russ Watts said that the current application showed a 52-unit project with 94 parking spaces and 4 visitor stalls. He said that the parking issues were discussed in the charrette and that the parking spaces allowed for this project met the formula for the off-street parking requirements. Mr. Wright said that when the conversion was made from the old zoning ordinance to the new zoning ordinance. The previous ordinance required 1.50 stalls for parking for each unit and .25 stalls for visitor parking, which added up to 1' .75 stalls with a low occupancy zoned for one-bedroom units. He said that the City made a shift by requiring the developer to provide two parking spaces for two-bedroom units and above, and one parking space for one-bedroom units.
Mr. Russ Watts stated that they tried to make this proposed building have a feel like some of the older buildings in the Avenues, such as the Kensington Apartments. He said that much time had been spent discussing the elements of the balconies, the window openings and the materials, and how they related to the overall project. He mentioned that it would be more difficult to duplicate the same materials as found in older buildings.
Mr. Russ Watts mentioned the pedestrian walkway that was proposed which would meander down from Almond to West Temple Streets on the southern portion of the property site. He addressed the issue of the possibility of closing off West Temple at 300 North and landscaping the island in that intersection, which had been discussed at other meetings. He indicated that the Watts Corporation and the various City Departments would have to join hands in accomplishing this, because there would be easements, costs involved, and liabilities in taking the road out.
Mr. Russ Watts said that they had endeavored to follow the suggestions of the Historic Landmark Commission, according to the minutes of the meetings and the design charrette. He said that he had been to six or seven Commission meetings. He said that the process had been very time-consuming and very expensive. He said that "patience" and "persistence" were words that they had gotten to know with deep understanding, in regards to this project. Mr. Watts said that as the owner of this property site, that the Watts Corporation was committed to do something that would bring credit and value to the community. He said that due to the configuration of the building, the project would consist of 21 different floor plans, ranging from 680 to 2,100 square feet.
Mr. Russ Watts stated that the Watts Corporation was aware that the representation from the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association had continually requested that only six to ten homes, an orchard, or a park be constructed on this property site. He said that as the private owner of the property, the Watts Corporation purchased the property which had a zoning of a RMF-45. He pointed out that the Watts Corporation had not changed that zoning; that it had been zoned for high density for many years. Mr. Watts said that they were not able to respond to the neighbors' wishes as to what should be constructed on the subject property site. He said that he thought that the Historic association had not been interested in the design of the project, only ways to delay or stop any improvements on the site.
Mr. Russ Watts discussed the traffic circulation on the property site and the parking area. Using the scale model, Mr. Watts pointed to the different entrances and exits of the parking garages in relationship to entering or exiting the building, depending in which quadrant of the building one would reside. He said that due to the stepping up and down of the building, there would be five levels of parking, which would not be connected. Mr. Watts stated that there would be no vehicular access on Almond or 300 North Streets, that all vehicular ingress and egress would be on West Temple. Mr. Watts noted that the developers would improve the conditions of the roads and the curbs and gutters.
In summary, Mr. Russ Watts said that he sincerely requested that the Historic Landmark Commission take a good look at the effort and detail that had been put into this proposal and consider the direction in which the project was headed. Mr. Watts concluded by saying that much of the time he had spent in the Architectural Subcommittee meetings; the focus was mostly on the design elements. He said that he would appreciate any input the Commission may have, not only in the design elements, but the massing of the project.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Miya led the discussion by inquiring further into the parking areas. Mr. Watts reiterated a portion of his explanation that pertained to accessing the building from the parking garages by entering an elevator into an atrium, then continuing down the corridor, depending on the level. There were some points of clarification discussed regarding the access to the parking garages. Mr. Miya then asked about the columns that would carry the balconies. Mr. Watts said that he was proposing to finish off the exterior skin of the building with a more sandy stucco finish, but that the stucco on the columns and the fountains in the landscaping would have a very smooth finish for easier maintenance. Mr. Watts observed that the smooth finish on those elements would have a look of a finished wood material. Mr. Watts described the columns as being broader at the bottom and narrower at the top. Mr. Miya also inquired if the parapet would be sufficient to hide the mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Watts said that it would. Mr. Miya asked if there were pedestrian ingress and egress off West Temple, as well as vehicular. Mr. Watts said that the West Temple side of the project would have both pedestrian and the vehicular accesses.
• Mr. Cerruti asked about the number of units that faced Almond Street. Mr. Watts said that there would be six units.
• Ms. Williams asked to have clarification regarding the height of the project. Mr. Watts said that there would be a variation of height as the building stepped up the hill. He said that the heights of the building would range from 12 feet to 45 feet. She addressed the materials and asked how much of the surface would actually be the stone material. Mr. Watts said that the material would be a fully cast stone which would be two inches thick. Ms. Williams expressed her concerns about the stone material and wondered if the edges of that material would weather the same as real stone. Mr. Watts said that he assumed that as the material weathers, it would have the same sort of edges as real stone.
Mr. Miya opened this portion of the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The Chair then requested that the members of the audience who wished to speak, make a short presentation regarding the new project and not rehash the issues surrounding the previous proposals. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, said that she represented the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association. She read the following statement, a copy of which was filed with the minutes: "I am sure that you all were not looking forward to this meeting today, nor to our neighborhood's response. This 14-month process has not been fun for anyone, not for Mr. Watts, not from the Planning Staff, not for this Commission, and certainly not for our neighborhood, but we do care deeply about how our Historic district is affected. Once again, we are here and we will continue to be here until there is a proposal that maintains the Historic district integrity that meets the design standards and that doesn't overwhelm our neighborhood and adheres to the applicable public policy. We had hoped to be able to come to this meeting today with only positive things to say. The results of the charrette however dictate otherwise. As this is a new application unfortunately there does need to be reiteration of points that we have made before because they are still appropriate. "Based on the materials available for study prior to today and her seeing the design here today, it appears that the design of the building is aesthetically more pleasing than the previous proposal, but that aspect is only one of the many criteria that this project must meet. It appears that there was neither an historian nor a preservationist involved in producing this design. It is not "just business as usual" in an Historic district. New development, as well as our old homes, must meet astringent standards and not abuse the fabric of the district. We question whether or not the architects on the charrette team were familiar with the location of this site, situated as it is between two 14-foot wide, no parking streets, bounded on the north by a 21-foot wide street which also happens to be unusually steep and with blind turns and curves, with Historic homes to the north and south, in the middle of an area already overwhelmed with parking and traffic problems and about to be further stressed by the new LDS meeting hall which will be one-half of block from this proposed 52-unit project. "To design a project for this location with less than two parking stalls per unit and four of the 98 are the guest stalls, would indicate that the architects did not have a clear picture of the area where the project is to be situated. (Ms. Mangold circulated a photo graph taken on a Saturday morning of Quince Street and 300 North, which is only 1/2 block away, which she said showed the massive traffic and parking problems that exist in the neighborhood.) "We don't expect everyone to have an infinity for the Capitol Hill Historic District or want to live in it, but we do expect developers and architects to gain an understanding of the district in which they wish to build and to respect the unique qualities and characteristics of that district, and not to build something that is in conflict with those characteristics, as is this structure, regardless of the zoning. "We find that this new proposal fails to meet the criteria relative to mass and scale, as well as other criteria just as the previous design failed. If anything, this one is worse with a larger footprint, more units, greater height, and in other words, more mass. Architectural finessing cannot cure problems of inappropriate mass and scale. If this building were planned for a different type of district, it might be an appropriate design. Here, it is out of step. We are concerned, however, that this Commission is under greater pressure to approve an aesthetically improved design despite the ongoing defects relative to the Historic district. "Understandably, the Planning Director, Mr. Wright, would like to avoid appeals to the City Council and so the idea of asking Mr. Watts to consider a charrette seemed a viable alternative, but because it was framed as an alternative to an appeal, it takes on the nature of a condition of approval or a means to an approval; thereby complicating matters and increasing pressure on this Commission. No doubt, Mr. Watts was not given any guarantee that during a charrette that we would get the project approved. Nevertheless, this strategizing for the developer as to how to achieve an acceptable project has created new issues. At the end of the August 7, 1996 meeting, Mr. Wright asked if the Commission would be willing to, and I quote from the tape, 'sort of sponsor a charrette of some kind to take a look at a to ugh site and throw out some options and if we put some criteria always have to stay within certain types of criteria. "Our understanding is that in fact only one or two Commission members were involved in primarily suggesting architects. We would like to know what were the criteria to which Mr. Wright referred. Presumably, the design concerns of the entire Commission were given as criteria, but from the minutes, that would have been apparent, but what criteria were set out the well-being of the neighborhood for fitting into this Historic district without adverse impacts. Criteria such as adequate parking. From the design submitted to day, we don't see that such criteria was used and so this process has failed in addressing the concerns of the residents in the Capitol Hill Historic District. In any case, we think that the wrong problem was being addressed by holding a charrette. "We don't think that the Watts Corporation lacks design skill nor do we think this is necessarily a to ugh site, architecturally. The existence of RMF-45 Zoning is what makes this a difficult site and creates this impasse. The Watts Corporation wants to do a project that would make them a certain profit and so he wishes to take advantage of the zoning. The neighborhood wants the Watts Corporation to do a project that won't adversely impact the neighborhood. This Commission has the responsibility to maintain the integrity and the livability of this Historic district. "Due to this incompatibility of intentions, we have all along sought to find a buyer of the property who would be willing to create and maintain it as open space. That is one possible solution to the impasse and that is why we have worked on that all along. Additionally, we proposed early on to Mr. Watts the possibility of a minimal number of units on West Temple with long narrow backyards going up the hillside, which is typical in the Marmalade Hill area. Homes, either single or twin, but done very nicely and very expensive. At this point, new construction in our area can be priced above $300,000.00. This is the direction we hoped the charrette would have taken. It hasn't. Instead we have another large scale development with increased negative impact. This is not going in the right direction and seems a waste of energy as far as we can see. "We do ask you to consider these comments and the ones the other neighbors will be making when you give your comments to the developer. Thank you."
Mr. Mark Chambers, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, stated that as a resident and owner of an Historic home, of which he was very proud, he had to adhere to certain criteria to maintain that home to certain codes. He referred to Mr. Watts' discussion of the charrette and said that the two major things that were not listed, were the parking and traffic issues. Mr. Chamber said that he thought everyone concerned with this property was trying to come up with a possible solution to the problems that surround the property site and said that he wondered why no one from the Utah Heritage Foundation, the Salt Lake City's Historic Landmark Commission, or the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association was invited to attend the charrette discussion. Mr. Chambers indicated that he was not in favor of the project, as presented.
Mr. Joe Pitti, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, also discussed the traffic and parking issues, focusing on the difficulty of traveling on the steep and narrow roads in the area, especially in the wintertime. He also talked about the danger of the blind corners around the property site and that he anticipated accidents happening at those locations. Mr. Pitti said that even though there would not be any vehicle traffic access off Almond Street, residents or visitors would park on the street. Mr. Pitti spoke of the numbers of rental property in the area and expressed his concern regarding renters, who he said had no pride in ownership, who might sub-lease some of the residential units. He further stated that it also upset him to have to keep coming back to these meetings. Mr. Pitti stated that the current proposal was not new, it was just a continuation of the same issues with which the neighborhood had been dealing. He indicated that the proposal would not relate to anything in the streetscape. Mr. Pitti said that he would like to see something happen on the property but not this project, as proposed. He concluded by saying that the project was not getting better, just bigger.
Ms. Kris Hopfenbeck, who resides at 333 No. Quince Street, pointed out that she hoped that a project would be proposed for this property that worked. She stated that the zoning was wrong and referred to one of the Commission meetings where a Commission member indicated that the density should be researched and perhaps request a zoning change. Ms. Hopfenbeck said she was uncertain if that request was ever submitted. She then directed her remarks to the money that would be made from this project and said that she understood that a certain amount of money had to be made by the Watts Corporation, to make a project worthwhile for their endeavors, but agreed with Ms. Mangold when she suggested building a few very expensive single-family homes on the property. She also discussed the traffic and parking problems. Ms. Hopfenbeck closed her remarks by saying that people who live in this neighborhood do so because they want to live close to the downtown area.
Ms. Janette Knowley, who resides at 252 No. Almond Street, said that she too thought the property was improperly zoned, because it allowed too many residential units on the property and not enough off-street parking. She said that she agreed that residents of visitors would still park on Almond Street which would make the access to her driveway very difficult. Ms. Knowley stated that she had been in the real estate business and worked with other developers for many years. She ended her comments by saying that no other previously submitted, high density projects had been approved for the property and again said that she thought the density was zoned too high for this property and said that it should be changed.
+ Ms. Jane Allen, who resides at 390 No. Quince Street, stated that the current proposal was a lot better looking than the previous one, but also spoke of the lack of parking, especially for visitors. She did not think that visitors would know that a few parking stalls were provided within the complex. Ms. Allen said that this was Utah and people had big families. She asked where the people would park while visiting friends and relatives on holidays such as Christmas day. Ms. Allen discussed the terrain and admitted that the parking would not matter so much if the area was flat. She closed her remarks by saying that there needed to be more easily identified areas in which the visitors could park.
• Mr. Bill Call, who resides at 185 No. West Temple, said that there had been many comments made by the neighbors with which he wholeheartedly concurred about this impacted area. He said that he had lived for many years in the Sugar House area and chose to live closer to downtown. Mr. Call spoke of the traffic traveling at a high rate of speed. Mr. Call discussed the impact of traffic that would be caused by the closure of Main Street, as well as the lack of parking in the area. He spoke of all the future construction in the area and the possibility of having more parking lots opened in the area. Mr. Call said that he would like to obtain one of the units in the condominium project but expressed his concerns about how his paraplegic grandson could access the property, as a visitor, due to the shortage of visitor parking. He also addressed the problems that service vehicles have in the area, such as the garbage trucks. Further, Mr. Call said that he resented the suggestion that the neighborhood association had been delaying this project by using stalling tactics. He said that he was very concerned about the neighborhood. Mr. Call said that he would like to see something constructed on the property site, but the current proposal would impact the traffic and not be good for the neighborhood.
+ Ms. Rela Wardle, who resides at 265 No. Vine Street, said that she had tried to be supportive of Mr. Watts' projects, but she said that she thought that he was avoiding the real issues. She also questioned the accuracy of the site drawings regarding the height of the building and inquired about the levels of the building on the Almond Street side. She commented on the difficulty to have any maintenance work done due to the very narrow streets and the lack of parking in the area. She said that if she had a heart attack, she would be concerned how the paramedics could reach her. Ms. Wardle also spoke of the expensive single family homes that could be built on the lot. She said that she thought the profit that the Watts Corporation would be making would be at the expense of everyone else around this area and that the profit needed to trim down. Ms. Wardle concluded by saying that she was miffed when Mr. Watts said that the neighborhood was just stalling and said that she resented the hastiness of the whole thing. She said that the feeling she had was that Mr. Watts thought his project would get approved at this meeting and it would be cut and dried. She ended by saying that she hoped that was not true.
Ms. Hermoine Jex, who resides at 272 No. Wall Street, stated that she had not seen the plans of the current proposal prior to this meeting. She said that the neighborhood would not be in this mess if the City Council had approved their wish list by down-zoning the property. Ms. Jex said that the neighborhood council spent three years going door-to -door obtaining support signatures to down-zone the property. Ms. Jex said that she hoped the zoning for this area would be reviewed again. She stated that she thought 52 units for the proposed project was ridiculously too large with insufficient parking. Ms. Jex said that Mr. Watts had not provided the information on the size of the setbacks. She also stated that the necessity of widening West Temple and the closure of West Temple must be addressed, and that Mr. Watts had not solved that problem yet. Ms. Jex said that the current proposal must be cut down in size and shape.
+ Mr. Rod Stone, who resides at 241 No. Vine Street, said that he guessed that narrow streets and parking problems were the "name of the game" in the Marmalade District. Mr. Stone reported that enforcement was not able to handle the traffic and parking infractions. He expressed his concerns about the parking situation, the problem that confronts service vehicles, and the need for more short-term parking.
Mr. Jerry Tertocha, who resides at 142 West 300 North, stated that Mr. Watts had talked about having patience. He added that he does not think Mr. Watts understood the patience of the peop1le who live directly around this proposed project. Mr. Tertocha said that the neighborhood was faced with very narrow streets and steep- hills. He said that by living on the corner of 300 North and Quince Street, he had seen many near accidents, too much traffic, and the West High School track team sprinting on 300 North and Quince Streets heading towards Center Street. Mr. Tertocha claimed that no one had discussed the difficulty of turning onto West Temple from 200 North Street. He talked how the subject property site had been used as a parking lot, so he would not mind something be constructed on the property. Mr. Tertocha concluded his remarks by saying that the proposed project was too large and said that he favored a few single family homes or a much smaller apartment complex which he said would be more fitting for the Capitol Hill area and hoped that a compromise could be made.
• Mr. Kerry Kruskop, who resides at 320 No. Almond Street, said that he had lived in the Marmalade area for 15 years. He said that when he came from Chicago, he thought that the Marmalade area was the most interesting area Salt Lake City had to offer. Mr. Kruskop said that the area had a lot of charm and Historic significance. He was concerned that the project would compromise that environment, and if lost, would never again be retrieved. In his closing statement, he said that Salt Lake City had so little of this type of area left.
• Ms. Oida Sepehri-Nik, who resides at 260 No. Almond Street, said that she lives across the street from the property and said that the person who sold her the property said that no one could build a building higher than 30 feet on the subject property. Ms. Sepehri-Nik claimed that there were a lot things going on with the subject property and thought it was all about money. She thought there could be some compromise between four single family homes and a 52-unit condominium project, where Mr. Watts would make a reasonable amount of money to get back his investment. Ms. Sepehri-Nik said that she thought Mr. Watts should call a meeting with the residents in the neighborhood to talk about a solution for the property. She also spoke of the traffic impact and the lack of parking.
Mr. Russ Watts asked if he could respond to the public by addressing some of the issues that was discussed. He said that the design charrette was suggested by a member of the Historic Landmark Commission during one of the commission meetings, of which he appreciated. He said that it was the decision of the Watts Corporation to go forward with that idea. Mr. Watts said that the charrette was not planned by this Commission or the Planning Staff, and added that it was an option for them to take knowing there would be no commitment in any direction. Mr. Watts stated that ever since his first involvement with a project on Almond Street, the primary points of discussion had been the parking and traffic issues. He said that it was to ugh for him to respond to those issues, because they were not project issues, they were issues that had to be reviewed and addressed by the City. He reminded the Commission and the public that the project was in compliance with the zoning ordinances. Mr. Watts reiterated the formula for the parking requirements. He stated that to construct only six to eight single family homes on this site was not financially viable to the corporation. He said he had studied that feasibility since August of 1995. Mr. Watts further said that at the present time, the property was not zoned for single family _dwellings. He said that it was interesting that many neighbors who support his project, never attend these meetings, and the only ones who are motivated to attend are negative and do not want to have the project constructed. Mr. Watts said that the corporation had received calls from neighbors who had expressed an interest to live in the proposed condominiums.
Mr. Watts continued by saying that the setbacks would be in compliance with the City code and would' not be changed. He said that there were sidewalks planned for the perimeter of the property site.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Miya closed this portion of the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
• Executive Session
A 'lengthy discussion to ok place. Ms. Williams said that she had made notes of the public's responses and stated that almost 90 per cent of the discussion focused on the transportation issues. She said that it was frustrating to the members of the Commission, because the Commission absolutely had no purview over transportation issues. Ms. Williams said that it was unfortunate that the Commission had created an arena in which those discussions could take place. She said that the Commission was dealing with a proposed building and project that fit into all the parameters and all the variances. Ms. Williams let it be known that the Commission had no jurisdiction over changing the zoning ordinances. She added that the Commission had an overlay requirement to review the application based on the district and certain impacts that were expressed in the report.
Ms. Hatch said that the necessity for parking for a certain number of cars and the number of cars on the street, directly had a connection to the number of units for the project, which related back to the scale and massing. Ms. Williams said that the density met the zoning requirements. Ms. Hatch said that she thought the traffic concerns of the neighbors were directly related to what the Commission had purview over.
Ms. Williams said that she felt like her hands were completely tied at this meeting because the project met what was required by zoning and added that she thought the Commission had to be very careful getting into the overlay area because it was clearly spelled out what the Commission could dictate based on the overlay. Ms. Williams stated that the Commission needed to address the architectural and design elements, and other issues that the Commission could review.
Ms. Deal said that she did not feel that it was appropriate preservation policy to create more parking spaces for the neighborhood. She said that she thought that was in direct opposition of a long-term preservation policy to keep more cars out of the neighborhood, and added that the Commission ought to keep that in mind.
Ms. Williams said that she agreed, then added that hearing comments with regard to the meeting hall that was proposed on North Temple had nothing to do with this Commission and those issues needed to go to the City Council or some other division of the City. Ms. Deal said what difference would it make to this Commission if the application was for 12 gigantic units. She said that the Commission still does not have purview over floor plans or anything else that goes on inside. Ms. Deal said that the number of units of a project, was not in the Commission's purview. Ms. Hatch stated that it would drastically reduce the required number of parking and the people traveling in and out of the area. Ms. Deal said that the traffic was not in the purview of the Commission. Ms. Hatch said that the purview of the Commission went further than the scale and the form of the building.
Mr. Wright said he would like to comment on the traffic issue. He explained that in the process of reviewing a permitted project, what was being proposed at this meeting for the approval of the Historic Landmark Commission, there would be a site plan review to make certain that issues relevant to design standards on the site were being addressed. Mr. Wright stated that the review was an administrative function. He continued by saying that in that site plan review, there would be an opportunity for reviewing traffic circulation. Mr. Wright said that the position of the Staff will be for the Zoning Administrator to require a traffic study to be performed on this 52-unit proposal to make certain that the size of the streets, in terms of ingress and egress off West Temple, or the parking structures, as proposed, would be adequate. Mr. Wright said that he thought that a traffic study was conducted on the previously proposed 34-unit planned development proposal. He said that proposal was approved by the Planning Commission but never received final approval by this Commission for its design. He said that it may be possible to modify the traffic study, but the facts had changed in regards to the increase in the number of units and the number of vehicles which would access the site. He added that the road widths and access points had also changed. Mr. Wright said that the Commission's specific review would be on design issues and architectural issues relating to the parking structure. He added that the Commission's approval process, ought to focus on the massing, the configuration of the building, the scale, design, and materials.
Mr. Cartwright said that he thought the architecture and the detailing of the new project had been vastly improved. He remarked that there had been much progress made since the charrette process. He said that he thought the design was one with which the Commission would be much more comfortable. He said that it was indigenous architecture. Mr. Cartwright stated that the project could be a bridge between the Marmalade District and the downtown area. He said that the project had an architectural expression that belonged to Salt Lake City and belonged to the community. However, Mr. Cartwright added that he still thought the building was too massive and would like to see the number of units reduced. He also talked about being able to see through the complex from Almond Street to West Temple, from time to time by eliminating some of the troublesome massing that he thought that the project had suffered with from the beginning. Mr. Cartwright said that he did not want to address the traffic, parking, setbacks, or height because there were other departments in the City that would respond to those issues.
Ms. Deal agreed and said that as soon as she reviewed it, she was comfortable with its expression. She said that she liked the stepped parapet and believed it would make a big difference in the architecture. Ms. Deal added that although she liked the materials and color choices, she would like to see the massing of the project a little smaller.
Mr. Cartwright directed his next comments to the fact that at one time, he lived in the Telegraph Hill area of San Francisco, which was an extremely dense hillside environment. He said that the area had all the problems associated with emergency vehicles, garbage collection and so forth and added that it was very much like the Marmalade District because it was in close proximity to the downtown area. Mr. Cartwright said that auto mobile and traffic congestion and the lack of parking spaces, was unbearable. At that time, he said that he did not own an auto mobile. Mr. Cartwright said that he believed there were "trade-offs" when one chooses to live in that kind of environment.
Ms. Deal suggested that a developer/owner could limit the number of absentee owners through the Home Owners Association or the c.c.&r's (covenants, codes and restrictions.) However, she added that those limitations were not in the Commission's purview but it would be a solution to that kind of problem. Ms. Williams agreed and referred to the person in the audience who made that comment earlier in this meeting.
Ms. Hatch suggested that the Commission get back to the issues that were in the Commission's purview. She thought it was a much stronger project, but agreed with Mr. Cartwright that the building should be broken up in some way. Ms. Hatch reported that being able to see the scale model of the project and the materials board helped her understand the scale and massing in comparison with the other buildings in the streetscape. Ms. Williams inquired if the building could be broken up without the applicant having to go through the process of a planned unit development with multiple buildings.
Mr. Cartwright interjected by saying that he did not mean, when he said he would like to be able to see through the project, to separate the buildings. He said that he meant that some sections of the building could be lower, rather the same height, which would make it appear to have a more radical diversion. Mr. Miya suggested that some sections of the windows be profiled in such a way that one would be able to look through the building. Mr. Cartwright said that it would change the configuration of the windows because one would be able to look through the complex from north to south, as well as east to west.
Mr. Morgan said that he liked the new proposal just the way it had been presented. He said that he liked the way the facades were broken up, the way the balconies were handled, and the way the roof had been stepped. He said that he felt that it was as good as it was going to get if the objective was to design to the HMF-45 zoning standards. Mr. Morgan respected the fact that the developer had bought the property with that kind of density in mind. He said that he understood the concerns of the neighborhood but the opportunity to have changed the zoning on the property apparently had past.
Ms. Hatch said that the petition requesting to down-zone the property should have been reviewed by the City government officials who were in charge of that procedure. Ms. Williams said that she thought there was a process where the zoning could have been appealed. Mr. Wright said that the neighborhood association tried to down-zone the property but failed during the process.
Mr. Wright reported that the City Council, after discussion, made the decision for the zoning of the property in the adoption of the Zoning Rewrite in April of 1995. Ms. Williams asked if there was some deliberate discussion for the down-zoning of the property. Mr. Wright indicated that this specific property was discussed by the City Council. Mr. Cartwright asked what was the rationale to keep the present zoning. Mr. Wright said that the only persons who could initiate a change of zoning for a piece of property would be the property owner, a member of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or the Mayor. He said that a neighborhood association could not.
Mr. Morgan asked, as part of the requirement for this project, that West Temple be widened so that there could be nine feet for parallel parking on both sides of the road which would lessen some of the expressed hardship for service vehicles.
Mr. Wright said that during the conditional use process for the first planned development project for this site, there was conversation about the parking on Almond and West Temple Streets, the scale of the streets and the ability to widen them, and the traffic problems in general. He continued by saying that when the Planning Commission approved the conditional use, it was appealed to the City Council. He said that the City Council never heard the appeal because Mr. Watts provided a design for a single building orientation, which essentially abandoned that first proposal.
Ms. Deal said that she thought it would be a good idea to close West Temple at 300 North and landscape the island and asked Mr. Wright to pass that information on to the appropriate department. Mr. Wright disclosed the fact that problem might involve creating a more hazardous situation due to the steep terrain of the hillside. However, he said that he would propose that option for the intersection of West Temple and 300
North in the traffic study.
Mr. Miya raised the question about the City's program to implement the requirement to have parking passes or stickers for auto mobiles that are parked in the area. Mr. Wright said that he did not think the congestion would be quite like it is around the LOS Hospital or the University of Utah but said that he thought the district would be a good candidate for the program. He said that the subject had been discussed. He said that part of the issues would be that the City would be giving away the right for the public to park in a public area. He said that the City would be shifting the balance between the public using public property and advocating a higher preference to the public who would be the citizens who lived next to the public property. Mr. Wright said that this legal concern had to be balanced very carefully. He added that most of the parking impacts that occur in the area, were due to event-oriented parking. Mr. Wright stated that changes needed to be made in the way the ordinance was drafted, specifically where criteria had to do more with event parking. Ms. Hatch said that the parking situation was not just event-oriented because she has had an occasion to drive through the area just about every day for the past three years and the parking had always been a problem.
Ms. Williams pointed out the fact that the Commission fell into the trap of discussing the parking, permit, and traffic issues. She suggested that the Commission could make recommendations about parking permits, but that the Commission should deal with the issues that were included in the staff report.
Ms. Williams moved to grant conceptional approval for Case No. 017-96, based on the findings of fact included in the staff report, and to request that the applicant return to the full Commission once the design is reworked to reflect the following three conditions found in sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance: A. Section 17-1.7(a) Scale and Form, (4) Scale of Structure: Structure is simply too large, the applicant must design a smaller structure or provide a design which, based on pedestrian perceptions, diminishes the scale; B. Section 17-1.7(b) Composition of Principal Facades, (2) Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades; Reconsider to accommodate Mr. Cartwright's suggestion of creating east/west visual lines through the site; and C. Section 17-1.7(c) Relationship to Street, (1) Walls of Continuity; Facade is stepped, but not enough --still perceived as a massive wall, West Temple primarily. The applicant is to provide detailed drawings reflecting the above conditions to the Architectural Subcommittee, prior to the full Commission review. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton.
Mr. Wright said that he was concerned with the motion as it was formatted because it could be appealed on a procedural error. He suggested tabling the action and ask the applicant to go to the subcommittee and return to the full Commission after the issues, that had been stated, had been addressed. Mr. Wright said that he was concerned that the motion was in compliance with the ordinance. He added that the Commission needed to make some specific findings on each of those criteria to grant an approval.
Mr. Morgan expressed his opinion by saying that he thought that the rhythm and spacing, as it had been presented at this meeting, was as good as it was going to get. He said that this proposal was a reasonable compromise between the goals of the Watts Corporation and the needs of the community. Mr. Morgan said he would like the parking issues addressed and mitigated to some extent. He said that he thought this would be a transitional building between the larger, higher density apartments on the east side and the single family character to the north. Mr. Morgan said that he would have a difficult time being in opposition to the project based on the walls of continuity and the rhythm of spacing of the facades. Ms. Williams said that the motion was not intended to change the fenestration of the facades, the balconies, and elements such as these, only the scale and massing. She said that she wanted to make that clear.
Ms. Deal said that she liked the proportions of the balconies and the windows and she would not want those changed, so she hoped there was no misunderstanding. Mr. Morgan agreed and reiterated his comments by saying that he did not think the project would get significantly better even if some of the units were dropped. He said the reality was that an owner of a property wanted to develop a condominium project that would comply to all the zoning requirements. The discussion continued. Ms. Williams amended the motion.
Ms. Williams moved to table the application for Case No. 017-96 based on the discussions made throughout this meeting. The second still stood by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Morgan was opposed. Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Damery were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Wright made the suggestion that a letter be sent to Mr. Watts informing him that the Planning Staff would require that a traffic study be one of the stipulations for this site. Mr. Wright noted that Mr. Watts could start the traffic analysis now with the 52 units or if the applicant wanted to do some additional design work, based on what they had heard at this meeting, then Mr. Watts could have the traffic study completed.
Ms. Williams indicated that the Commission should not hear those traffic and parking issues unless they were related directly to the project's design. She said that the Commission could review the parking impact and conclude that the project was too dense. Ms. Williams remarked that if the Commission continued to listen to the complaints that the neighbors have such as improving West Temple, traffic, and parking issues, and as a Commission do not act on them, then she said that of course the neighbors were going to feel like the Commission did not care about what was happening in the neighborhood. Ms. Williams pointed out that she thought that the neighbors realized that this Commission could not resolve the parking problems or had no control over the traffic issues. However, she noted, that she believed that there were only two or three comments regarding the design or the materials of the proposed project, which would come under the purview of this Commission.
Ms. Swinton suggested that since the Historic Landmark Commission meetings were a public forum, it was the responsibility of the Commission to listen to what the public had to say. Ms. Williams said that she did not agree and again remarked that she did not believe that the members had to listen to issues over which the Commission had no control. Ms. Deal also questioned the responsibility of the Commission to have to listen to testimonies that were irrelevant, repetitious, and extraneous. Mr. Miya said that he understood what the members were saying, but as Acting Chair, he thought that the public needed to vent their frustrations. Mr. Cartwright repeated prior comments by saying that the Commission had no control over most of the issues that the public addressed, that they were Planning and Zoning issues.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Egleston stated that she applied for two Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) for this year. She said that one would be used to hire a consultant to do a survey for the National Register nomination of the Guadeloupe area. She pointed out that Ms. Williams had been working with some people in the neighborhood who seemed to be interested in that, kind of designation. Ms. Egleston said that the area was boarded by the freeway and the railroad tracks, from North Temple to 600 North.
Ms. Egleston said that the second block grant was for signage that would be placed in Historic districts specifying that the area had been designated an Historic district. She indicated that some people in the Capitol Hill Historic District had relayed that idea to her. She suggested forming a committee that would represent each Historic district and hire a graphic artist to assist with the design of the signs and the materials. Ms. Egleston also pointed out that there was no guarantee that the City would be granted the money.
Ms. Egleston also spoke about the grant that the City would be receiving from the intermodel Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA), which was a federal program issued through the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and local municipalities transportation divisions to enhance the environment for streets and highways. The City would use a portion to completely resurface South Temple Street. She indicated that the City had already sent out the Requests for Proposal for the consultant. She asked that a few Commission members serve on a subcommittee team. Ms. Egleston said that the other City departments wanted to make certain that the Historic Landmark Commission be consulted because the project would ultimately have to be approved by this Commission.
The discussion turned the issue of appeals filed on decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright said that the City Council had initiated a change in the Zoning Ordinance to change the body that would hear the appeals of both Commissions. He said that since the City Council had been involved with a few appeals, the Council realized the difficulty for that legislative body to act in a quasi-judicial process. He said that an appeal could not be filed just because someone did not agree with the decision that had been rendered. Mr. Wright said that the appeals would have to be based on a procedural error made by the Planning Commission or the Historic Landmark Commission, of if the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by the evidence in the findings of fact.
Mr. Wright said that under a State law, the Boards of Adjustment have jurisdiction to decide appeals, approvals, or denials of conditional use permits, unless the legislative body has enacted an ordinance designating that legislative body or another body as the appellate body for those appeals. Therefore, Mr. Wright said that the State law provides for considerable flexibility in the appeal authority. He indicated that the State does not specifically address appeal authority for the Historic Landmark Commission, but that the options are similar to those of a Planning Commission appeal.
Mr. Wright said that the Planning Staff agreed to transfer the appeals hearings to the Board of Adjustment, but recommended that for the next six months, that the idea and the feasibility of a three-member Appeals Board should be studied. He said that he endorsed a Board of Adjustment working session with the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission to help the members increase their knowledge of the conditional use, planned development, and the preservation processes and standards to which the Commission would be applying when an application is heard. Mr. Wright said that the Planning Commission held a hearing on this change at the October 17, 1996 Planning Commission meeting and a recommendation was made to establish a three-member Appeals Board, rather than the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Wright explained that the courts would be the ultimate decision maker. However, he said that any Historic Landmark Commission designations would still be handled by the City Council.
Ms. Deal remarked that since the City Council depends on its constituents for re election, it becomes a matter of politics. Some of the Commission members wanted to have more information about the Board of Adjustment and its members. Ms. Williams asked if the Board of Adjustment supported this change. Mr. Wright indicated that the members were concerned about the change. He reported that time was of the essence because the City Council would review this proposal and make their decision on November 5, 1996 at the City Council meeting.
Mr. Morgan suggested that the Board of Adjustment might be a more informed body to hear the appeals because it currently deals with land use issues such as variances, setbacks, zoning, and so forth. A lengthy discussion followed.
Mr. Wright said that he would report to the Commission after the November 5, 1996 City Council public hearing.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:05 P.M.