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 Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Rob McFarland, Orlan Owen, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Bill Wright.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Lynn Morgan, Orlan Owen, and Robert Young. William Damery, Wayne Gordon, Sarah Miller, and Elizabeth Mitchell were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 4:10P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the April 1, 1998 meeting, after a correction is made. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 013-98, at 175 No. 0 Street. by Alex Steckel. requesting to dismantle the existing structure, relocate it on the existing property. and construct a new addition.
Ms. Giraud 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 of this meeting. Photographs of the site were circulated to the members of the Commission. Ms. Giraud noted that the applicant wanted to build a garage on the site to store the dismantled sections of the house, during construction of the proposed addition. She said that the applicant had indicated that he did not want to incorporate the porch in the project.
Ms. Giraud said that upgrading the existing house, including the construction of an addition, would be necessary for its preservation. She pointed out that this case was most unusual and expressed her concern that the exterior material would be so difficult to remove that perhaps all that would remain would be the historic studs of the house. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant had conveyed to her that he was flexible on the design of the addition. She indicated that the rear lean-to would present some challenges in terms of tying the addition onto the house. Ms. Giraud noted that the applicant had been working on this project for a long time trying to find ways to preserve as much of the house as possible. She displayed a scale model of the proposed addition and where it would be attached to the rebuilt house.
Ms. Blaes stated that when she initially had a conversation with Ms. Giraud, regarding the applicant's project, it was believed that the applicant wanted to keep the historic structure, but dismantle it and rebuild it on another foundation, but on the same property site. Ms. Blaes also said it was her understanding that the applicant planned to construct an addition to give him the needed livable square footage. She stated that the way the zoning ordinance was written for relocation, it was obviously meant for a structure that could be lifted up and moved in one piece, but that should not preclude someone from proposing another method of relocation. She added that the method of relocation was one of the pressing issues which determined that the proposal was a relocation, rather than a demolition request. Ms. Blaes said that the construction of an addition seemed to be a sensitive solution to an historic structure, as opposed to a new construction proposal that might not be as sympathetic to the surrounding structures or to the historic district. She noted that the amount of exterior material which could be salvaged, will become a critical issue. Ms. Blaes said that the Commission members needed to be certain that they were comfortable with that decision, and as the applicant responded to questions, that rationale might be evident.
The applicant, Mr. Alex Steckel, was present. He was asked to address the question about how much exterior material could be salvaged and reused during construction. Mr. Steckel said that he would document the location and position of any interior door casings, base trims, crown moldings, windows, the door with the transom, and other elements which were salvaged. He said that all the exterior materials would be on a "touch and go" basis. Mr. Steckel said that much of the exterior materials have deteriorated to the point that he could not say how much would be salvageable, without the extreme use of epoxy resins or "Scotch taping" the boards together. He added that he would try to replicate any material that was too damaged to use. Mr. Steckel said that he intended to use 2" x 6" studs when the house was rebuilt, instead of the 2" x 4" original studs. He further addressed the new drywall, wiring, plumbing, mechanical systems, and radiant floor heating which he intended to include in the rebuilt house.
Mr. Steckel further addressed the details of the proposal and concluded by saying that the original house is less than 400 square feet, and he said that he believed that relocating the rebuilt house and adding an addition, was the most reasonable way of acquiring the space he needed and it would still have an historic presence.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Young led the discussion by saying that the site plan did not include a garage.
He inquired if the minimum set back of that proposed house, was the reason why it had to be moved. Mr. Steckel said that the proposed 24' x 24' garage, would be one foot away from each of the property lines, on the north and the west sides of the property, then indicated that he did not know what the code required, as far as the minimum distance allowed for a driveway. Mr. Young addressed that issue and suggested that the back lean to addition could be "scraped off' and replaced with a new addition. He said that by changing the massing and the configuration of the footprint of the proposed building, the portion which comprised the o1iginal house, would not have to be relocated. Mr. Steckel said that by lengthening the proposed house, which would give it an east/west access rather than a north/south access, would be cutting into the back-yard space. He added that he wanted to have enough space in the back to provide him some privacy. Mr. Steckel said that was his reason for situating the house as what was being proposed.
• Mr. Littig said that he believed this proposal to be "facade-ism", and likened it to the proposal for the Odd Fellows Building, that the Commission reviewed a few months ago. He said that he did not want to endorse a proposal that rebuilt a dismantled historic house. Mr. Littig mentioned that he lived in a small historic house and chose to build a new foundation and add a second story to it, which was approved by the Historic Landmark Commission Committee. He said that he believed that it would be very difficult to dismantle and reuse the exterior wood cladding; that there would be too much waste. The discussion continued balancing the use of repaired deteriorated material or replacing it with new.
• Mr. Morgan said that the exterior material would have dry rot and so damaged that not much could be reused. He said that when materials would have to be replaced, the materials should have the same profile as the original. He said that there was no requirement that epoxies and resins had to be used. Mr. Morgan suggested some materials that the applicant could use. Mr. Morgan also inquired further into the site plans that were submitted, as he was unclear as to what was the existing, and the proposed foot print. Mr. Steckel pointed to the details on the site plans, as he further explained the fine points of the proposed project. Mr. Morgan commented that the submitted site plans did not meet the graphic standard that the Commission would normally expect. Some others agreed.
• Ms. Blaes remarked that the amount of salvageable material was still very unclear.
She said that when comments were made like, "using as much material as possible", the Commission had no idea what that meant. She said that the Department of the Interior's standards state that deteriorated architectural features should be repaired wherever feasible, but in the event replacement was necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities, which was incorporated into the City's zoning ordinance [Section 21A.34.020(G)(6).] Ms. Blaes said that in other words, if eight out of ten boards could be reused, the other two boards would have to be milled to match the original ones, before synthetic materials could be introduced. She added that if the method became cost prohibitive for the total project, then the applicant would have to reconsider his proposal.
• Ms. Deal stated that if the Commission allowed the historic building to be taken apart and then allowed it to be rebuilt with new material, then this project would be considered a demolition. Ms. Blaes said that there needed to be an assessment made as to how much of the historic fabric could be saved. She said that more information was essential.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Skip Hoagland, who resides at 967 E. First Avenue, stated that he was a general contractor, and also a member of the City's Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAS). He said that when the applicant first approached him about the planned project, it was uncertain if the proposal would be reviewed as a remodel, restoration, relocation, or a demolition. Mr. Hoagland said he understood that the project was going to be considered a demolition. He said that he believed that most of the Commission members and the applicant thought it was going to be a demolition request. Mr. Deal said that a relocation and a construction project to build an addition was the proposal that was being reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Hoagland said that the project seemed to be in a "log jam" and inquired again if it was going to be considered a demolition or a restoration. Ms. Blaes said that it would not be considered as a restoration. She said that based on the points that were detailed in the conversation which she had with Staff, as she mentioned earlier in this meeting, the project would be reviewed as a relocation request. Ms. Blaes said there were sections in the City's zoning ordinance where she and the Staff believed that the applicant's request complied to the standards, which was included in the staff report. She said that she did not expect all members of the Commission to be in agreement with how the decision was made. Ms. Blaes pointed out that the applicant's request was a very unusual situation and that it was important to understand that the Commission had no intention of making this process a "horrible experience" for the applicant. She pointed out that she also respected the applicant's desire to get the house that he wanted. The discussion continued.
Mr. Hoagland continued by saying that he was familiar with the building and said that he has had much experience with restoration projects. He said that ninety percent of "that building is not salvageable and I think if anyone tries to present anything different than that, they are blowing smoke." Mr. Hoagland stated that the house was in a "bad state of disrepair from the foundation, the deterioration of the walls and the studs, from dry rot and termites, and from many other different problems." He said that if a review was made by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, the board would render this house as substandard, hazardous, and not fit for occupancy. Mr. Hoagland further said that he did not believe the City inspectors would accept any type of secondary or "band aid" solutions to the problems the house has. He said that the applicant has cooperated with the Staff and the Commission and that he has the capability of constructing the type of house that he proposed, and that he should be able to "pull this thing off."
Ms. Blaes remarked that the information Mr. Hoagland offered was useful. She pointed out that if more of that type of information had been known, the determination may have been for demolition rather than relocation. Ms. Blaes said that the evidence was made much clearer on the site visit today during the field trip.
Mr. Steckel spoke of the prior meeting he had with Ms. Giraud, Mr. Charles Shepherd of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and Mr. Hoagland regarding the project. He said that he believed, after that meeting, that it was the consensus that he should apply for a demolition permit. He said that was his intent all along and only learned about the relocation proposal after reading the staff report. Ms. Blaes inquired if the reuse plans, that were submitted, would be the same if the applicant were granted a demolition permit for the site. Mr. Steckel said that the plan would be the same and that he would still try to use as much of the historic structure as he could to incorporate
into the new building.
Ms. Blaes reiterated what she said earlier about the relocation decision. She said that she also wanted to make it clear that the decision of the application being considered a relocation was the result of a series of discussions that she had with Ms. Giraud. She said that she "definitely persuaded" Ms. Giraud to write the staff report as a relocation request. Ms. Blaes said that the determination was made on, ''what she now knows as erroneous information and miscommunication on her part," and offered sincere apologies for the delays it may have caused. She continued to express her regrets for the misunderstanding.
• Mr. John Roberson, who resides at 174 No. 0 Street, stated that he has lived across the street from the Steckel house for about eight or nine years. He said that he was familiar with the previous resident, who was an elderly woman. Mr. Roberson said that he made numerous trips over to her house to repair broken wiring, plumbing, and other such things. He said that the woman had told him that on windy and stormy nights, she would be afraid because the house would squeak and sway. Mr. Roberson pointed out that he believed he knew the house very well and said that he was in complete agreement with the applicant and the testimony that Mr. Hoagland gave. He said that if it was his decision, he would "drop the house very quickly". Mr. Roberson said that the applicant was an artist, we well as a contractor, and he was comfortable with the aesthetic design and the overall massing of the proposed building. He spoke of a newly constructed house on the block which he believed was too large for the neighborhood. Mr. Roberson said the project that the applicant proposed would certainly be more appropriate.
Ms. Karen Day, who resides at 180 No. 0 Street, said that she and her husband also knew the previous resident. She spoke of the times that she had of adventuring into the house. She said that the house was a disaster and anything the applicant could do would be an improvement. Ms. Day said that the house was an "eyesore" and did not know how it stood this long. She said that she would inquire if Mr. Steckel was all right during the wind and snow storms. Ms. Day said that she believed the house should be demolished.
Ms. Day further said that she was "shocked" when Mr. Littig suggested putting a second story on that house. Mr. Littig clarified that he did not suggest that, he only spoke of how he was able to create more living space for his own house. Ms. Day apologized for the misunderstanding and said that the idea of putting an addition on top of the house "horrified" her, due to the condition of the house. She again said that she was in favor of getting something done to the property that would improve the neighborhood, and said that the process should be done as quickly as possible.
A lengthy discussion took place as Mr. Steckel went over the details of the project once more. He pointed out that the addition would be skewed on an angle to further differentiate the addition from the house. Mr. Steckel talked about consulting the Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City before he completed his proposal. Some members of the Commission made suggestions and recommendation as he spoke of the project. Mr. Steckel assured the Commission that he never had any intention of "bulldozing" a proposal through the process, and that he desired to have cooperation.
Mr. Steckel introduced the subject of the bond, which was required by the City, for a relocation permit. He said that he had spoken with other people, who had gone through a similar process, who was never asked to post a bond with the City. Mr. Steckel asked that if posting a bond was not warranted, then he believed he should receive equal treatment.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes stated that the Commission members needed to make a decision whether or not they agreed with the Staffs finding of fact included in the staff report, unless more information was needed to make that decision.
A lengthy discussion took place. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission.
Mr. Young said he believed, after hearing the discussion at this meeting, that this application actually was a demolition. Mr. Young said the applicant would only be able to reuse a small portion of the materials after the house was dismantled. He talked about Mr. Hoagland's comments that ninety percent of the materials would be too damaged to be reused. He said that the original studs would not be reused because he wanted to have the new house built on a 2' x 6' frame.
Mr. Young referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(3) of the City's zoning ordinance, which states the following: "All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alteration that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed." He said by replacing much of the historic material, the new construction could be made to look like "Disneyland" where it may look the same but the historic materials would not be present, so it would not be the same. Mr. Young said that if the application was being presented as a demolition, all those arguments would be eliminated. He said that he believed that it would not be economically feasible to reuse only ten percent of the materials. Mr. Young said that dismantling the structure, rebuilding it by replicating the exterior cladding and other historic elements, would create a false sense of history. He used the word "facadectomy" to describe the proposal. Mr. Young said that the Commission could spend time debating the issues of demolition versus relocation, or the members could go through the appropriate sections of the ordinance and make the correct determination.
Ms. Blaes inquired that, based on the way the ordinance reads regarding the interior walls, studs, and interior elements of the house, if they were considered character defining features. Mr. Young said that if the applicant were to apply for tax credits, those factors would be examined closely which would affect the qualification requirements.
Mr. Young concluded by saying that he has baseboards in his home that were the same level as the exterior siding on the applicant's existing house and as soon as the nails are pulled out, the boards split and nothing can be done about it. He said that the applicant could use "ticky tack" methods of gluing and patching the materials, but that after many years of moisture damage, trying to reuse those materials would be too costly. Mr. Young supported demolishing the building and building a new structure, using contemporary materials, that were allowed in the ordinance, which would be within the context of the neighborhood.
Mr. Littig said that he agreed with Mr. Young. He said that the applicant would be dealing with economics and what would be economically feasible for him. Mr. Littig read Section 21A.34.020(1)(4) of the ordinance: "The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure." He cited the discussion and the Staff's finding of fact, included in the staff report: "The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building." Mr. Littig said he believed there would be such a large loss of materials that it would have an effect on the structural soundness of the building. He further said that if the existing building was demolished, the applicant might choose to redesign the new building.
Mr. Morgan said that he did not have a problem that the application was being reviewed as a relocation, especially when the materials would be duplicated and replaced on a small 400-square foot vernacular building. He said that the proposed addition would be appropriate in scale and form, and was being relocated on the same parcel for functional reasons. Mr. Morgan concluded by saying that the proposed plans indicated that part of the addition would be skewed; therefore, it would be differentiated from the original structure which he believed would be compatible.
Ms. Deal said that she was not convinced that there was a functional reason to relocate the house. She said that there had been some discussion regarding a garage, but the plans for the garage were not included in the current application. Ms. Deal noted that she was one of the members who attended the Architectural Subcommittee meetings where Mr. Steckel's plans were reviewed. She said that she still stood by the following comments from the Subcommittee members, that were made during those meetings: 1) the existing building should stay in its present location; 2) the orientation of the house should remain to the south; 3) the new addition can be designed to work with the existing; 4) concerned about the addition becoming the dominant element; and 5) the porch detail on the east elevation should be reused. She pointed out that the applicant had only revealed one of those five suggestions. Ms. Deal said that she had no problem with the replacement of deteriorated features with "in-kind" materials, but said she could see no reason why the house had to be moved. She said that upon reviewing the completed site plans, a reason may be detected at that time.
Ms. Deal read Sections 8.5 and 8.7 from the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, (the publication of which the applicant referred), which states: "Section 8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition", and "Section 8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured." She remarked that the applicant would be altering the streetscape by moving the house.
Ms. Giraud said that she was responsible for not submitting the site plans for the proposed garage to the Commission. She said that the applicant's request created such an unusual case, with a lot of twists and turns in terms of conforming to the ordinance, she believed that the relocation issue versus the demolition issue should first be reviewed by the Commission.
Ms. Blaes said that the Commission members needed to determine whether or not they could support the Staff's findings that were included in the staff report. She talked about dismantling wall sections, interior and exterior finishes, and the existing asbestos problem, and expressed her concerns about the meaning of relocation and demolition. Ms. Blaes pointed out that there had been a lot of significant information brought forth in this meeting and inquired if the City would look at the demolition issue if the house was concluded to be a health hazard. Mr. Wright said that the director of the Building Services and Licensing Division would have to make that determination. Ms. Blaes reiterated what the applicant had said earlier, that until a few days ago when he read the staff report, he believed his application was for a demolition permit.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the consideration of reviewing the applicant's proposal, and basing the Commission's findings of fact on standards found in the demolition section of the zoning ordinance, rather than the relocation section of the ordinance. Also, questions were asked how this process could be expedited for the applicant. Ms. Blaes said that she did not want the applicant penalized because of her misunderstanding.
Mr. Wright stated that the application could be tabled at this meeting and reviewed under a new, clearly defined, staff report at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting, and/or the Commission could "shift gears" and go through the required standards of the demolition ordinance. He said that the Commission could conclude that the minutes of this meeting would reflect the Commission's findings of fact.
Ms. Blaes asked for a consensus from the Commission if each member was comfortable reviewing the standards for demolition. Ms. Deal mentioned that she was not comfortable accepting the proposed new structure as a reuse plan because it was not complete. Ms. Blaes asked if she would be more comfortable with accepting the reuse plan as a single-family dwelling, which was a permitted use on the site. There was further discussion regarding this matter.
Ms. Deal said that she was concerned that the applicant had not had time to prepare any kind of argument if the commission were to review this proposal as a demolition. She said that he has not had the opportunity to read a staff report, geared towards a demolition request, or read the appropriate sections of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Blaes also expressed her concern that this issue would be a point of appeal. Ms. Blaes suggested that the members propose this topic to the applicant. The members concurred that the meeting should be re-opened so the applicant could respond to the question before the Commission.
Ms. Blaes re-opened the meeting and asked the applicant if he preferred to have a new staff report, and to have the case presented at the next regularly-scheduled Historic Landmark Commission meeting, so he would have the opportunity to respond to the Staff's findings of fact. She said that the Commission could go through the process of reviewing the criteria in the ordinance for demolition. She briefly explained the standards on which the Commission members would base their decision. Ms. Blaes said that there might be an issue arise, to which the applicant would want to respond, but could not, because of the executive session privilege. She added that if this was a concern to the applicant, she recommended that the case be continued at the next meeting.
Mr. Wright indicated that another option was that the applicant could initiate an economic hardship process, which could take up to forty-five days to complete, once the panel was seated.
Mr. Steckel expressed his concerns about the time frame. He said that the process had been going on for a very long time. He said that he would like to have the opportunity to respond to the Staffs findings, but said that he would like to have some assurance that his case would not be denied, if it was extended to the next Commission meeting. Mr. Steckel added that he knew that the Commission members could not make that assurance at this time, so he said that it would be helpful for the Commission to proceed.
For the record, Mr. Wright announced that the Historic Landmark Commission would be reviewing Case 013-98 as a request for demolition and the Commission will proceed through the standards found in Title 21A.34.020(L)(1) (a through g) of the City's zoning ordinance, a copy of which, as well as other related sections of the ordinance, was filed with the minutes of this meeting. To shorten the process, Mr. Wright recommended that the members vote on each standard so there would be no miscommunication. He proceeded by reading each section in the following manner:
Section 21A.34.020(L)(1) (a through g) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall determine whether the project substantially complies with the following standards:
(1.) Standards for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. (a.) The physical integrity of the site, as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section, is no longer evident. [Subsection C(2)(b) states: "Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
Discussion: Historic character is based on the Department of the Interior's standards. Some members believed that in terms of the standards, the building still has historic character and physical integrity.
Finding: The physical integrity of the house was still evident. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young agreed. Mr. McFarland did not agree. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. Most of the members agreed with the finding so the applicant did not meet the criteria in Subsection (1)(a).
b.) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected.
Discussion: Some members believed that the house was not that significant relative to the streetscape of the neighborhood. Some members believed that the setback was significant to the streetscape, however the removal of the house would not leave a big, gaping, hole in the streetscape.
Finding: The streetscape would not be negatively affected by the demolition of the structure. Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young agreed. Ms. Deal did not agree. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The majority of the members agreed with the finding so the applicant met the criteria in Subsection (1)(b).
(c.) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Discussion: The ages of the housing stock in the neighborhood were discussed. Some were new homes, some were non contributing, and some were contributing.
Finding: The demolition would not adversely affect the Avenues Historic District, if demolished. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young agreed. Mr. Morgan did not agree. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The majority of the members agreed with the finding so the applicant met the criteria in Subsection (1)(c).
(d.) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with reuse of the structure.
Discussion: This is in a SR-1 Zoning District (Special development pattern residential district) and the purpose statement for this zoning district is to maintain the unique character of the older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes, and bulk characteristics. It allows single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings, twin home dwellings, open space and other provisions. Some members noted that the house sat on a very small portion of the lot which was inconsistent with the intent of this zone. Some pointed out that this argument was made against the Mumford House in Winthrop Court project, which was reviewed earlier by the Commission, even though it was a permitted use in the zoning district, it was not a viable use in the zone. Other projects were discussed.
Finding: The base zone of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young agreed. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The majority of the members agreed with the finding so the applicant met the criteria in Subsection (1)(d).
(e.) The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in subsection (H) of this section, which are standards for Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction or alteration of a noncontributing structure.
Discussion: Subsection H includes the standards for new construction. The members believed that the reuse plan, of a single-family dwelling, will be consistent with the standards. Mr. Wright suggested that the Commission give the applicant some general direction so he would not return with a two-story large addition.
Finding: The submitted reuse plan will be consistent with the standards for new construction. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young agreed. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The majority of the members agreed with the finding so the applicant met the criteria in Subsection (1)(e).
(f.) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: (i.) willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure, (ii.) failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, normal maintenance and repairs, {iii.) failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and {iv.) failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Discussion: The applicant has only owned the property for two years, and none of these standards were applicable.
Finding: The site has suffered from willful neglect but not from the current owner, according to the standards in this subsection. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young agreed. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The majority of the members agreed with the finding so the applicant met the criteria in Subsection (1)(f).
(g.) The denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition would cause an economic hardship as defined and determined pursuant to the provision of Subsection {K) of this section, which is the definition and determination of economic hardship.
Discussion: The Commission cannot determine this, unless the applicant goes through the economic hardship process.
Finding: No finding at this time.
A short discussion followed regarding the fact the Historic Landmark Commission's findings of fact found that the applicant met four out of the seven standards, which meant that the Commission must make a decision based on Section 21A.34.020{L){2){c), Deferral of decision...which states, "Upon making findings that three to five of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall defer a decision for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to Subsection (M) of this section."
Ms. Deal moved for Case No.013-98, based on the Historic Landmark Commission's findings of fact, that just preceded this motion, regarding the criteria found in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1) (a through g), which are the standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, that the demolition decision was deferred for three weeks. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
After a short discussion, the motion was amended.
Ms. Deal moved for Case No.013-98, based on the Historic Landmark Commission's findings of fact, that just preceded this motion, regarding the criteria found in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a through g), which are the standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, that the demolition decision was deferred until the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The motion passed.
A discussion of when the bona fide effort had commenced by the applicant took place. Ms. Deal asked Mr. Wright if it could be determined that the applicant had already started to make a bona fide effort. Mr. Wright said that the Commission could make that determination. Ms. Deal said that "we know that he has made the effort already because it is right in front of us." Ms. Giraud stated that the applicant had already made the effort by contacting contractors who looked at the structure. Some members also remarked that the bona fide effort had already begun, since the applicant had already submitted a reuse plan for the property site. Mr. Wright said that the Commission would have to make a findings on the criteria regarding the bona fide effort.
Mr. Wright read the standards for determining a bona fide efforts, found in Section 21A.34.020.(M), Deferral of Decision for up to One Year. Upon the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission to defer the decision of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition for up to one year, the applicant must undertake bona fide efforts to preserve the structure. The one-year period shall begin only when the bona fide effort has commenced. A bona Fide effort shall consist of all of the following actions:
(1.) Marketing the property for sale or lease.
Discussion: Some members believed that this was not relevant because if the applicant were to market this property, a person who would purchase it would likely request a demolition permit. Some pointed out that the subject structure was not a viable unit, such as an apartment building in which people were living. The intent for this criteria, was to make preservation the primary goal. It was suggested that a small400- square foot house, with possible code deficiencies, would be difficult to market.
Finding: It was the consensus of the Commission members that due to the nature of the property, this standard was not applicable for the property site, therefore a finding was not applicable.
(2.) Filing an application for alternative funding sources for preservation, such as federal or state preservation tax credits, Utah heritage Revolving Fund loans, Redevelopment Agency loans, etc.
Discussion: It was determined that it would not be feasible to put an alternative use on the property site. Ms. Blaes said that if she could speak with her "Utah Heritage Foundation hat" on, in terms of the revolving fund program, it would be very difficult to 'find anyone who could appraise this property without the addition that would be worth putting money into. It was determined that the subject property would not qualify for tax credits, as well. It was also suggested that Redevelopment Agency funds were not available in the part of the city in which the subject property is located.
Finding: It was the consensus of the Commission members that this standard was not applicable for the property site, therefore a finding was not applicable.
(3.) Filing an application for alternative uses if available or feasible, such as conditional uses, special exceptions, etc.
Discussion: Due to the reuse plan that was submitted, this standard was not applicable.
Finding: It was the consensus of the Commission members that this standard was not applicable for the property site, therefore a finding was not applicable.
(4.) Obtaining written statements from licensed building contractors or architects detailing the actual costs to rehabilitate the property.
Discussion: The Historic Landmark Commission would accept a letter detailing the costs from Mr. Skip Hoagland, who is a licensed contractor, based on his prior testimony at this meeting.
Finding: It was a consensus by the Commission members to accept a letter from Mr. Hoagland as the written statement required in the criteria of Subsection (4).
A short discussion followed.
Mr. Young moved that evidence had been presented that a bona fide effort had commenced by the applicant, at this point, and will be concluded at the next regularly-scheduled Historic Landmark Commission meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Mitchell were not present. The motion passed.
Regarding Mr. Steckel's comment about the bond that he had to post, Ms. Deal explained that the ordinance was very specific. She read a portion of Section
21A.34.020(1)(6), "A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the City..." She said that the applicant was not singled out to post a bond; that anyone would be required to conform with the ordinance. Mr. Wright said that the bond was required in case the relocation failed. The discussion continued.
Ms. Blaes apologized again and said that she appreciated the Commission's willingness and to the Planning Director, Mr. Wright, to guide the Commission through that process. She said that, based on the information that was available, she made an error in judgment and thanked the Commission for the patience of going through what she thought was a reasonable alternative to keep the process going forward.
Some members of the Commission explained to the applicant what information should be on the drawings for the next meeting and to make certain that the materials and the details were called out, and that Staff would provide a sample of a complete drawing for reference. It was recommended that the drawings needed to have a sense of the topography and how the foundation would sit relative to the ground. It was suggested that samples of the material would also be helpful. The discussion continued. Mr. Steckel said that he appreciated the help from the Commission.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Master Plan for Liberty Park. represented by John Swain of the Salt Lake City Engineering Division and Jan Striefel of Landmark Commission Design.
Ms. Giraud said that this portion of the meeting would focus on the master plan of Liberty Park. She introduced Mr. John Swain of the City's Engineering Division, and Ms. Jan Striefel of Landmark Commission Design. Mr. Swain said that Ms. Striefel was the consultant working on the master plan. Mr. Swain said this discussion would be a further update of the master plan and the condition of the park. He said that a steering committee was organized to define elements that needed improvement or changed in the park. He said that workshops were held and public input was an important part of the process. Mr. Swain said that the overwhelming response from the public and the steering committee was that people wanted to see upgrades and improvements, but not many changes, but to make certain that the park remained what it was intended to be when it was first envisioned. He said that they wanted old things to be repair, restored, and brought up to acceptable standards.
Mr. Swain said that Liberty Park's 17 million dollar proposed improvement plans are scheduled to be completed in four phases. He said that he encouraged members of the Historic Landmark Commission to comment and make suggestions.
Ms. Striefel used a briefing board to further demonstrate the projects. She talked about the four phases. Copies of the listed projects included in the Liberty Park Landscape Seeping Project were circulated to the members, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Striefel pointed out the improvements to the park as she discussed the four phases of the project. She said that the public was concerned about the restroom facilities, safety issues, emergency telephone service, playground facilities, the deteriorating historic monuments, parking improvements, surfaced jogging paths, the landscaping irrigation system, directional signage, and an information area. Ms. Striefel said that Constitution Drive would be resurfaced with separated parking and bicycle paths. She said that the direction of the roadway would not be changed. She indicated that there had been lengthy discussion regarding the traffic flow and it was decided that vehicles would still have to drive out of the park and enter again to complete the circle on Constitution Drive. Ms. Striefel said that the public definitely wanted the bandstand to return to the park, have an ice skating facility, and renovate the existing buildings. She also discussed the City Forester's goal to begin a tree planting process, using a variety of species, because the trees in the park are approximately the same age. She said that the trees need to be maintained and some are deteriorating and need to be replaced.
Mr. Swain talked about the necessity to move the tennis courts away from the swimming pool area, where they are currently located. The issue of the tennis courts being proposed for the middle of the park was discussed and the possible danger to the public who would like to use the facilities at night under the lights. Mr. Littig suggested that the tennis courts be moved to the outer edges of the park for security reasons. Ms. Blaes suggested that an interpretative nature pathway be incorporated into the plans. Mr. Littig said that the placement of directional signs was important so a traffic congestion would not be created upon entering the park on 900 South or 1300 South.
Mr. Swain briefly discussed the possibility of the City using a portion of Liberty Park for flood retention, which had already been proposed to the Historic Landmark Commission. He said that existing pond had been discussed and it was still undecided how the edging and the bottom would be handled. Ms. Blaes said that the existing pond had a severe shelf around the edge. She talked about the pond in Memory Grove Park as having a very soft lip that slopes down gradually to a rock wall, which makes it a soft transition when the pond gets heavy and the water spills out onto the grassy area. Mr. Swain said the retention pond will be further discussed at a later date.
Mr. Swain said discussions had begun with the administration and the City Council regarding the funding sources and the time frame to complete the project. He said that the potential funding sources would be from the City, the State, and perhaps some funding avenues would be opened to create private partnerships.
Mr. Wright indicated that the Chase Home was not outlined on the proposed improvements because it had its own funding source and restoration process. He suggested that the Chase Home restoration project be added to Phase I so it would not be forgotten, perhaps with a notation that funding sources were independent. Mr. Swain agreed that the Chase Home restoration project should be highlighted, as well as the retention basin proposal. Mr. Swain pointed out that the Tracy Aviary site upgrades were included in Phase IV of the plans. He said that Tracy Aviary was now a privately managed entity and its board had made some commitments to raise some funding on their own, with matching City funds. Mr. Swain said that the project may be moved up to an earlier phase.
The discussion continued further detailing the improvements, which have been outlined, in the Liberty Park Landscape Scoping Project.
Discussion of the Historic Landmark Commission's Awards Ceremony, to be held in May of 1998.
Ms. Giraud said that Ms. Jeppsen and Mr. Gordon volunteered to help with the photography. She said that she had been compiling a list of projects to propose to the Commission, but due to the workload of the office, the awards ceremony would be held later in the year. Ms. Giraud further discussed some of the projects she would be proposing.
Ms. Giraud also announced that interviews for the vacated Preservation Planner position would be conducted next week and a selection would be made soon. This matter was further discussed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Ms. Devine. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M.