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 Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Dina Williams, Cheri Coffey, and Elizabeth Egleston.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Lynn Morgan, Bruce Miya, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. William Damery and Bruce Miya were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston 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.
Ms. Egleston asked if the Architectural Subcommittee could stay following the Historic Landmark Commission meeting to review the plans for an addition to the home at 330 South 1200 East by Kathleen Hansen. She explained that Ms. Hansen was not able to attend the last meeting and now found that she was in a time crunch. Mr. Cooper asked if any of the subcommittee members could stay, the pl1ans could be reviewed.
Mr. Cooper introduced and welcomed a new member of the commission, Mr. Thomas
E. K. Cerruti.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of August 7, 1996. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti abstained and Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Miya were not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASE
Case No. 014-96. at 752 E. Sixth Avenue. by Dennis Glass. requesting approval to remodel the structure for a residence.
This case was postponed until the September 18, 1996 meeting at the applicant's request.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion to reconsider the conditions of approval for Case No. 011-96 at 140 West Pierpont Avenue. Baci Club. by John Williams of Gastronomy. represented by Magda Jajovcev of FFKR Architects. which was a request to allow six full-length doors on the south facade instead of four. This case was originally heard on July 17, 1996.
Ms. Elgeston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the staff’s recommendation to reconsider the decision made by the commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that included in the motion, at the July 17, 1996 meeting, was 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; and that the existing character-defining pattern of the long windows on each side of the entrance door would remain so the building would be able to keep the Historic character of the property. Ms. Egleston said that she had recently obtained photo graphs that portrayed that the original fenestration of the building was not how it currently exists, but that it consisted instead of three windows of equal size on the south facade. Ms. Egleston recommended that the original plans be adopted because the character-defining pattern on the front facade had previously been altered.
A short discussion followed.
Ms. Deal moved to amend the decision rendered by the Historic Landmark Commission at the July 17, 1996 meeting and to approve Case 011-96 as it was submitted on that date to allow six full-length doors on the south facade instead of four. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti abstained and Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Miya were not present. The motion passed.
Discussion of the plans for a storm drainage detention basin proposed to be placed in the northwest quadrant of Liberty Park. presented by Mike Collins. a consultant from CH2M Hill and Jeff Niermeyer, Drainage Engineer, from the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities.
Ms. Egleston gave a brief overview of the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes, and suggested that Mr. Collins and Mr. Niermeyer present the details of the proposal.
Mr. Collins used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project and circulated colored artist renderings of the proposed basin, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He said that in 1993, Salt Lake City completed its first Storm Water Master Plan of the entire City. Mr. Niermeyer added that Public Utilities had completed other master plans, but only for small increments of the City. Mr. Collins said that in the master plan it was reported that eight or nine of the projects were critical to improve the storm water system, and one of those projects was the Liberty Park Storm Drain Project, which was proposed be the largest single project in the master plan.
As Mr. Collins and Mr. Niermeyer made the presentation, the following points of interest were discussed:
The storm water drainage system takes water from the steep east bench area and transfers it to the flat area of the Jordan River. The flooding in the downtown area and the area west of State Street occurs during high storm events.
- The master plan envisioned that the Liberty Park project would intercept drainage above 600 East and take the water down to the proposed detention basin, and the outflow from that detention basin, would go 900 South to the Jordan River. Those plans would relieve the storm water in the systems along 400, 600, and 800 South Streets so they would not be at their capacities.
- When the Liberty Park project was analyzed as the best alternative, a citizen's steering committee was formed in 1995, to receive feedback from the community as what to do with that proposed detention basin. The following were concerns of the citizens from the steering committee: 1) the loss of trees; 2) the basic change in character of the northwest section of the park; and 3) the construction impact of the project. Mr. Collins said the City Urban Forester, who was involved with the steering committee, indicated that as many trees as possible would be saved. He pointed out that some trees would be destroyed, some would be moved, and many would be replaced.
Mr. Collins also reported on the improvements on which the steering committee focused, regarding the construction of the detention pond, such as: 1) the citizens wanting the pond to drain so it would not have a muddy bottom; 2) wanting the debris that would collect be removed; 3) wanting open space to be maintained; 4) wanting tree retention and replacement as much as possible; 5) wanting provisions for playground and picnic facilities; 6) wanting new restroom facilities; and 7) wanting to spend dollars on park improvements and not on underground pipes.
Mr. Collins passed around copies of a document that listed alternative plans for the storm water drainage system, other than the construction a detention pond in the northwest section of Liberty Park, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He pointed out that the Mayor had asked the consultants to re-evaluate the alternative proposals.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the existing pond in Liberty Park and asked if the capacity was increased in that pond and eliminate the idea of constructing another detention basis, would the water quality be better. Mr. Collins said that the water quality could increase in the pond by having a flow through system. He indicated that the existing pond was set up for flood control and not for diversioning the best quality water. Mr. Collins said that stagnant water existed in the pond because there was no circulation. He said that there would be a constant circulation through the proposed basin because of the interconnection of two storm drain systems. Mr. Collins said that there would be modifications to the 600 and 800
South Street systems.
• Ms. Williams inquired if the 1300 South drainage system would be abandoned. Mr. Niermeyer said that the storm water would still flow through the 1300 South but then would have the management option to control the water flowing into the 900 South system. Mr. Niermeyer said during the peak of heavy storms, the water backs up out of the conduit on 1300 South which creates the flooding1 situation in the area of the 'Franklin Quest Field at West Temple and 1300 South. He said by redirecting some of the water into the proposed 00 South/Liberty Park basin, they believed would eliminate that occurrence. Mr. Niermeyer stated that the proposal called for the replacement of the 900 South conduit from 600 East to the Jordan River. As other options were discussed, some Commission member expressed their opposition to some of the alternatives.
• Mr. Cartwright said that the only purview that the Historic Landmark Commission would have with this proposal was of the Liberty Park site because of the fact that the park is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. He said that the response from this Commission should be directed at the two options that involved Liberty Park.
• Mr. Cooper inquired if the 1300 South conduit was replaced after the flood in 1982. Mr. Niermeyer said that the area between State Street and 400 West was replaced the remaining conduit was approximately 80 years old.
• Mr. Morgan expressed his preference that something be done to the existing pond in the park to make it more aesthetically attractive and/or utilizing that storm water in another part of the City. He indicated that the construction of a new storm water basin in the proposed location was the wrong thing to do. Other members agreed.
There was much discussion regarding some of the alternati1ve plans.
• 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. Neal H. Brutsche, who resides at 475 East 900 South, stated that he was part of an organization that was called "Friends of Liberty Park." He said that increasing the storage capacity of the existing pond in the park was a good idea but he said he would be concerned with the residual debris left in the pond. Mr. Brutsche also discussed ways of diverting part of the Emigration Canyon watershed areas. He suggested that a better method would be to build an open channel in the existing median areas along 600 East from South Temple to Liberty Park. There were opinions expressed by the Commission members regarding this option referencing the surrounding property owners.
• Mr. Paul Wharton, who resides at 436 East 800 South, pointed out the difference between retention and detention and the fact that the flood in 1982 was caused by snow melt water. Mr. Wharton stated that these plans were for a detention basin for storm water caused by heavy summer rain storms and not from the snow melt. He remarked that the Commission's primary responsibility should be whether or not a detention pond should be constructed in Liberty Park and not about the removal or moving of trees. Mr. Wharton spoke of the few organized areas of the park, such as Tracy Aviary, and said that was one of the joys of Liberty Park was the fact that most of the areas were disorganized. His question to the Commission was do the citizens of Salt Lake City want to sacrifice trees that were planted in the park by the people who settled the valley to the construction of a detention basin that would be utilized only four or five times a year, as reported. Mr. Wharton also spoke of a petition that had been circulating among the citizens of Salt Lake City asking if a detention basin should be built in Liberty Park. He indicated that there were over 5,000 signatures of people who are against the proposal, including himself.
• Mr. Jeff Straley, who resides at 810 East 1700 South, stated that he would respond to the "Save Liberty Park" petition drive, to which Mr. Wharton referred. He said that he had unified Mr. Wharton's petition and the petition that he was circulating and spoke of the success he felt he has had with obtaining signatures against the proposal. Mr. Straley further expressed his opinion, as well as other citizen's, to reconstruct the existing pond and get rid of the swampy condition that exists in that area. Mr. Niermeyer addressed the swampy condition of the pond. Mr. Straley said that the Central City Community Council had voted against this project twice, and that the Sugar House Community Council would be voting on the project that evening. He reminded the Commission that Liberty Park was a landmark site which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and should be preserved and urged that the Historic Landmark Commission not support the proposal.
• Ms. Ethel Hale, who resides at 436 East 800 South, stated that Liberty Park was a gracious park, that attracted people from all over the State of Utah. She said that aside from the fact that is a landmark site, it does have the beauty, the attraction, and if you live near it you would know how many people appreciate it. Ms. Hale said that she did not want those grand old trees to be cut down. She suggested that the blighted area in the vicinity of 900 South west of Main Street could be utilized and serve in the capacity of a storm water drainage basin, and/or divert the storm water to the Gateway Project in the downtown area.
Ms. Egleston referred to a letter she had received from Ms. Evelyn Johnson, Chair of the Central City Neighborhood Council opposing the proposal. A copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
There was some discussion about that the funding of the project that would come from the storm water charge that appears on the water bills. Jeff explained that in 1990 Salt Lake City established a storm water utility fund. There was also a discussion regarding Reservoir Park on 1300 East between South Temple and 100 South. Jeff said that was a culinary water reservoir which is in need of repair.
When asked, Mr. Niermeyer said that the Avenue's storm water collects on South Temple down to 400 South and that there would be no major work on the Avenues with this project.
In conclusion, some commission members expressed their opinions on this matter and it was the general consensus of the Historic Landmark Commission that other options for the storm water detention basin should be pursued. Some members expressed their appreciation to Mr. Collins and Mr. Niermeyer that alternatives had been considered.
Discussion of a previous case.
Mr. William T. Wright, the Planning Director, said that he wanted to discuss the Russ Watts project at 263 No. Almond Street and update the Commission on its status. Mr. Wright indicated that he had met with Mr. Watts to learn of his response to the suggestion of a charrette. Mr. Cartwright had joined the staff to discuss the options with Mr. Watts. Mr. Watts opted to hold a charrette with other designers in the community. Mr. Wright said that the charrette would not be sponsored by the Commission or the City. Mr. Cartwright wanted it understood that he agreed to give Mr. Watts a list of names of people who he thought could help with the design of a project on the Almond Street property. Mr. Cartwright said that Mr. Watts also added names to the list. Ms. Deal said that the intent was not to embarrass anyone when the design charrette was suggested. Ms. Williams suggested that the Commission had to be careful and not become advocates to an applicant. Ms. Williams said that in her opinion, they serve as Commissioners first and architects, professionals, and preservationists second, and the Commission had a responsibility not to cross that line. Mr. Cooper stated that the suggestion of a charrette was offered to Mr. Watts and the Watts Corporation by the
Commission had a choice to either take the recommendation or to ignore it, and that the Commission would have no obligation whatsoever to the applicant or his project. Mr. Cooper said that the Commission tries to promote good design and the suggestion was a possible avenue for good design.
A lengthy discussion to ok place regarding the landowner's rights and the use of his or her property. There was also discussion whether or not it was appropriate that the Historic Landmark Commission first introduced the idea of a charrette to an applicant. Mr. Wright said that the idea of a charrette was simply a suggestion and reiterated that the Commission should not feel any obligation to the applicant.
There were many suggestions made by members expressing their opinions what
should occur during a charrette. There was some controversy whether or not a member of the Historic Landmark Commission, and/or his or her affiliates, should be involved in the charrette. Mr. Cartwright said that while he had the floor at the August 7, 1996 meeting responding to Mr. Watts' proposal, his suggestions reflected that Mr. Watts had a choice of appealing a denial or trying to work to fix the project. He indicated that he had told the applicant that if he wanted to try to fix it, that this Commission would not design the project for him, then offered the idea of a charrette. Mr. Cartwright said that perhaps the charrette would provide some fresh ideas. Mr. Cartwright stated that he thought he was acting in behalf of the entire Commission. Ms. Hatch said that the minutes of that meeting reflected the concerns of individual Commission members but the Commission, as a group, did not vote on the idea of a charrette or it would have been part of the motion when Mr. Watts' project was denied. Ms. Hatch said, speaking as a professional architect, she said that he thought it was a good idea, but as a member of the Historic Landmark Commission, she said that she did not support the methods which were used to set up the charrette. Others disagreed with the comments. Ms. Deal pointed out that the staff had at times asked for assistance from the professionals on the Commission in regards to design questions. The conversation continued.
Ms. Williams made the suggestion that a formal disclaimer statement be made, which would meet any concerns the Commission members may have regarding the charrette or if this issue ever surfaced again. Mr. Cerruti inquired, if a discussion could take place among the Commission members regarding issues in a separate meeting, to try to form some kind of guideline. Mr. Cooper said that kind of meeting was possible.
Ms. Hatch said that the Commission worked hard and pulled together, as a whole, because the Commission represented diversity in the City, and she indicated that when individual members were asked to participate in matters without the support of the full Commission, it caused a misunderstanding between members and staff. Ms. Hatch said that if a decision was to be made of this significance, then it should be decided by the Commission, as a whole, and not by a few individuals. Mr. Wright said that he would respect that comment and added that the actions of the staff were based on the discussion of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting and that was the reason for the proceedings. Mr. Wright also said that it was the applicant's decision whether or not to proceed with the charrette or with the appeal to the City Council. Ms. Hatch reiterated that she believed that no member of the Commission should participate in the charrette, unless that member declared a conflict of interest and not participate in the vote of the project. Not all members agreed that it was a conflict of interest.
Mr. Cooper said that he was not at the August 7, 1996 meeting but when he read the minutes he did not believe there was a conflict of interest or a bias towards the applicant. He stated that when he learned of the meeting with Mr. Watts, he thought that it was a reasonable response of the direction the Commission gave to the applicant. Mr. Cooper said that the applicant had a choice of pursuing the idea of holding a charrette, or not. He said that the applicant had a copy of all the minutes which reflected the discussions during the review of this case. He said that if Mr. Watts should file a new application, at that point, the Commission would review the new application. Mr. Cooper believed that involving Mr. Cartwright in the meeting with Mr. Watts, facilitated that process, and was a reasonable response. However, Mr. Cooper
suggested that he did not think it would be appropriate for Mr. Cartwright to continue his involvement by sitting on the charrette. Other members agreed with that recommendation.
Design Guidelines public meeting.
Ms. Egleston reminded the commission members of the public meeting on the Design Guidelines on Thursday, September 12, 1996 in the 3rd floor Auditorium in the Main Branch of the Salt Lake City Library at 7:00 P.M.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.