SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was cancelled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Alex Protasevich, and Mark Wilson were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. 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
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the April 3, 2002 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 007-01B. a request by Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation to extend demolition approvals for 326 and 334 South 600 East; 550 and 558 East 300 South; 321 and 331 South 500 East: and 517, 524, 527, 528. 532, 533 and 538 East Vernier Court.
Ms. Giraud presented her memorandum, regarding the history of the demolition request and Staff recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Giraud gave the following background information: On March 21, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission denied Overland Development Corporation's request to demolish fourteen contributing structures located between 500 and 600 East, and between 300 and 400 South. This decision required Overland Development Corporation, represented by Ken Holman, to pursue the economic hardship process in order to receive approval from the Historic Landmark Commission to demolish the buildings. Overland Development Corporation requested the Historic Landmark Commission adopt its previous findings of economic hardship relating to American Housing Corporation's Winthrop Court proposal from 1997-1999. The Winthrop Court proposals involved three separate cases for demolition: No. 014-97 (Mozart Apartments, Covey Apartments, Mumford House, and the Frederick Fail house); No. 024-98 (Lunt Motel Annex), and No. 026-98 (Vernier Place houses). In all cases, the Economic Review Panel found an economic hardship and in all cases the Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition of the structures.
On May 2, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission voted to accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel pertaining to the Winthrop Court proposals. These findings did not include the Frederick Fail house {558 East 300 South) or the Juel Apartments {340 South 600 East). In 1997, the Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition of the Frederick Fail house, and thus it did not go through the economic hardship process. American Housing Corporation did not request demolition approval for the Juel Apartments because the developer planned to incorporate this building into their project.
Mr. Holman appealed the Historic Landmark Commission decision that the Frederick Fail house would have to go through the economic hardship process to the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). He based his appeal on the fact that in 1997 the Historic Landmark Commission found that the Frederick Fail house met six of the six standards of the ordinance, and thus demolition could not be denied. When reviewed on March 21, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission did not individually review each criterion for every structure proposed for demolition. Mr. Holman argues that the 1997 finding should apply. The Land Use Appeals Board heard this case on June 28, 2001, and overturned the Historic Landmark Commission decision. Because the Frederick Fail house was one of several buildings in the demolition request, Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, stated that June 28, 2002, because of the appeal, is the expiration date for the Historic Landmark Commission approval of demolition of the 14 buildings.
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Holman is requesting that the Historic Landmark Commission extend the demolition approvals for another year to June 28, 2003.
Ms. Giraud offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission grant the request for an extension to June 28, 2003."
Ms. Giraud pointed out that Mr. Nole Walkingshaw, the City's Enforcement Officer for that area of the city, was in attendance at this meeting if the Commission needed additional information.
• Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Parvaz asked for clarification of the buildings on the site for Phase I of the proposed project and why the extension was requested. Ms. Giraud said that the Lunt Motel Annex buildings on 500 East and the houses on Vernier Court would be demolished for Phase I of the planned apartment complex. She also said that it was taking a while to get issues resolved and financing determined.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if granting an extension to the applicant would change any of the requirements for maintaining the property. Ms. Giraud said that it would not affect the upkeep requirements for the site.
There were some comments made and questions asked regarding some of the issues of the site. Ms. Giraud said that those issues involved the landscaping plans for the site, which was the next case on the agenda.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicant, Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation, was present. He stated that since the Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition of the buildings, Overland Development Corporation has documented each building to be demolished. Mr. Holman said that titles have been researched to find significant ownerships, floor plans have been drawn, and photographs have been taken for recordation. Mr. Holman stated that the demolition of the other buildings that exist on the site of Phase II of the development and the finalization of the plans would not commence until the outcome of the Juel Apartment building. He pointed out that the loan would close and the bond posted before the end of May, and unless there was a postponement, construction would begin the first part of June 2002.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic
Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring when the architectural and construction documents would be completed. Mr. Holman said they would be completed on the 19th of April and Phase I of the project would go out for bid the following Monday. He indicated that hopefully by the end of April the cost estimates for construction would be finalized.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked when the demolition would start and Mr. Holman said the demolition would begin as soon as the City process was completed and a bond posted for landscaping. Ms. Giraud said that the City would not allow a demolition to occur until the applicant has paid a plan review fee, which is about 65 percent of the building permit costs, or an approved landscaping plan. Mr. Holman said that he would prefer having an approved landscaping plan rather than pay the plan review fee before a bond was posted. Ms. Mickelsen said that members of the Central City Community Council were interested in salvaging some of the materials. Mr. Holman said the only materials that might have some significance would be the exterior brick. He added that before he acquired the property, all the fireplaces, the hardwood flooring, and any other desirable element had already been removed. Mr. Holman said he was not opposed to the public salvaging any remaining materials, but was concerned about the liability issue. Mr. Simonsen said that after his conversation with Mr. Roger Evans, Director of Building Services, he believed that the City ordinance only allows salvaging by a certified salvage company. Mr. Simonsen said that the High Performance Building Task Force is looking at possible changes in the policy. He added that there was a liability issue on property, which had buildings that posed significant safety hazards. Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the consequences if the Historic Landmark Commission did not approve an extension. Ms. Giraud said that she believed the Historic Landmark Commission would have a difficult time defending why the extension was not approved. She added that the decision would have to be based on solid findings of fact. Mr. Holman pointed out that the applicant had been diligently pursuing the acquisition and demolition of the buildings on site.
• Mr. Young talked about the asbestos report. Mr. Holman said that a significant amount of asbestos was found in every building except one. He said that the asbestos was the biggest clean-up issue. Mr. Holman mentioned that he had received bids anywhere between $26,000 and $41,000 remove the asbestos in seven of the buildings. He added that an asbestos soil analysis also has to done for the site.
• Ms. Rowland inquired if the applicant goes into construction after the bond is posted, it would not be necessary for the landscaping plan for Phase I. Mr. Holman said it would be more efficient and cost less to post a bond for landscaping than it is to pay 65 percent of the permit fee at this time. He added that the demolition of the buildings in Phase I of the project could begin.
Ms. Giraud reported that in Section 21A.34.020.10(D), of the City's Zoning Ordinance, General Application and Public Hearing Procedures, it states, "The Zoning Administrator, upon written request, may, for good cause shown and without any notice or hearing, grant extensions of any time limit imposed on an applicant or permittee by this Title. An extension of time may also be granted by anybody acting pursuant to this Title unless this Title expressly provides otherwise. The total period of time granted by such extension or extensions shall not exceed twice the length of the original period."
Ms. Giraud said that if the applicant's request for an extension is granted, then only one more extension would be allowed. She added that the ordinance is written so an applicant could not apply for extensions indefinitely. Mr. Holman mentioned that he hoped he would not have to apply for any more extensions.
There was a short discussion regarding the extension process as it relates to this application.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing none, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no additional discussion.
Motion
Mr. Young Moved to approve the requested extension to June 28, 2003 for Case No. 007-01B. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 011-02, a request by Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation for approval of a landscaping plan at 321 and 331 South 500 East; and 517, 524, 528, 532, 533 and 538 East Vernier Court. The landscaping would be planted in the event that the proposed 190-unit development is not constructed.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Giraud gave the following background information and overview of this request: Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation is requesting approval for a landscaping plan on the site of Phase I of the proposed multi-unit development where the structures located at 321 and 331 South 500 East and Vernier Court exist. On May 2, 2001 the Historic Landmark Commission voted to approve demolition of these structures. In all cases regarding the demolition of contributing buildings, Staff has not allowed demolition until plans for new construction are submitted to the Salt Lake City Building Services Division and the plan review fee is paid, or until the Historic Landmark Commission approves a landscape plan and the necessary bond money is paid to the City.
Section 21A.34.020.34.020)P) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Review of Post Demolition Plan for New Construction or Landscape Plan and Bond Requirements for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition requires the Historic Landmark Commission to approve new construction or a landscape plan for a vacant site. The Historic Landmark Commission approved plans for new construction of a 190-unit apartment building on March 20, 2002. Mr. Holman must receive conditional use approval from the Planning Commission in order to obtain a building permit, and has submitted an application to the Planning Division. In the event that the Planning Commission approval does not occur in a timely manner for this project, Mr. Holman is seeking Historic Landmark Commission approval for a landscaping plan so that he will not risk having to pay substantial boarding fees while pursuing the conditional use approval from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Giraud said that the proposed landscaping plan consists of 25 feet of grass with the necessary irrigation infrastructure. A copy of the plans accompanied the staff report.
Ms. Giraud said that in addition to Section 21A.34.020.34.020(P) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.64.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, Post-Demolition Use Plan Required pertains to this application. This section states that no demolition permit shall be issued until one of the following requirements has been met:
A. A permit for the use replacing the demolished building or structure has been issued by the Building and Housing Division.
B. A landscaping plan for the site, showing the sprinkling system and planted areas, has been approved and a performance bond to assure timely and proper installation and maintenance of the landscaping has been filed with the City in a form acceptable to the City. In the event the building official determines that landscaping is impracticable or unnecessary given the characteristics of the site and the neighborhood, the landscaping requirement may be waived subject to the provisions of Section 18.64.070 below.
C. In the event of a natural disaster, fire or other similar event, or where immediate demolition and clearing of the land is necessary to remove hazardous or blighting conditions, the building official may waive the landscaping requirement and order immediate demolition.
Staff's findings of fact: The submitted landscaping plan includes a sprinkling system and planting areas. It is in accordance with the City's requirements and would be an acceptable re-use plan in the event that the previously approved plan for a 190-unit apartment building does not proceed in a timely manner.
Ms. Giraud offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the landscaping plan submitted by Overland Development Corporation."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Parvaz asked about the 25 feet of grass requirement. Ms. Giraud said that requirement is a policy that the Building Services Division established. She added that the grassy area would be planted on the street frontage, which is the 500 East side.
Mr. Christensen talked about the possibility of installing a temporary chain link fence beyond the 25-foot grassy area to protect the population from the demolition site.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if there was a time limit on the bond and Ms. Giraud said that bonds have a six-month limit. Mr. Simonsen said that it sounded as if the applicant had plans to proceed before the six-month limitation.
Upon hearing no additional questions, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicant, Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation, was in attendance. He stated that when the project is constructed, there would be considerably more landscaping than the minimal amount shown on the submitted plans.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Young led the discussion by asking about the curb cuts. Mr. Holman said that the only curb cuts that exist are for Vernier Court and the south side of the lvographics Building. He added that at this time, those curb cuts would remain. Mr. Young said that someone could still drive a vehicle onto the property and abandon it. Mr. Holman said that the site would have to be made safe during the interim period from demolition to construction. He indicated that the holes would have to be filled-in and the land graded or else Overland could be faced with major liability issues. Mr. Young inquired what would happen beyond that six month period if construction had not commenced. Mr. Holman suggested that the Commission could stipulate if the applicant had not begun construction within that six-month period of time, the applicant would be obligated to construct a standard curb and gutter system and eliminate the curb cuts. Mr. Young said he did not expect that it would become an issue.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen commented that if the project is abandoned, the city could be left with a 25-foot length of grass and an inner block full of dirt.
Ms. Rowland said that the amount of the bond would guarantee that the work would be done. However, Ms. Rowland talked about the "loophole" in the ordinance, which she believed was not intended. She said that if the project is abandoned, the ordinance does not specify what one's obligation would be except for the 25-foot grass requirement. She added that the ordinance should at least specify that something should be planted so the city would not be left with just dirt. Ms. Rowland said that she though the entire demolition site would have to be planted. Mr. Parvaz said that his interpretation of the ordinance is the same as Ms. Rowland's.
Mr. Simonsen talked about the other City ordinances that require certain maintenance of property. He commented that overgrown weeds are not allowed. He added that would become an enforcement issue for a vacant piece of land. Mr. Simonsen said that the street frontage landscape is required so the public would not have to walk through overgrown areas.
Ms. Giraud said that less landscaping is required by ordinance in commercial areas than residential areas. Ms. Giraud also said that she discovered that people interpret the zoning ordinance differently. She said that the RMU zoning district does not require a front yard setback and in that broad interpretation, a developer would be required to pay for a bond and not required to put anything in the vacated property. Ms. Giraud said that at least the established policy requires the 25-foot grassy area for commercial properties. Ms. Giraud said that it was the prerogative of the Commission to impose additional requirements on the applicant. She said the property is not surrounded by residential, but if it was located in the Avenues, it might be more appropriate to require an increased landscaping requirement.
Mr. Parvaz said that information makes more sense. He added that this case should not be the determining factor for other cases.
Ms. Giraud said that "as an interesting flip side to this", a grassy field might attract the people who have been violating the boarded buildings and the City would not want that to happen either.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 011-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the finding of fact included in the staff report and accept the landscaping plan that had been presented, with the condition that when the buildings are demolished and if construction had not begun within six months, the applicant would be obligated to fill-in the curb cuts that exist on the properties involved. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Architectural Subcommittee.
Mr. Simonsen polled the Commission members for their attendance at the next Architectural Subcommittee meeting on April 24, 2002. Mr. Simonsen said that he would be attending the meeting and announced that all members of the Commission were invited, as well. Ms. Heid said that she found the meeting very interesting in an informal setting.
Land Use Appeals Board.
Ms. Giraud informed the Commissioners of the Land Use Appeals Board hearing to be held on Monday, April22, 2002 at 5:30P.M. She said that the hearing was concerning the Historic Landmark Commission denial of Case No. 019-01, at 340 South 600 East by Overland Development Corporation, requesting a review of the findings of the fact of the Economic Review Panel regarding an economic hardship relative to a request for the demolition of the Juel Apartments in order to construct a 190-unit apartment complex. The property is located in the Central City Historic District. Ms. Giraud invited members to attend, although no public comment will be accepted at the meeting. She believed that members of the Commission attending would lend support to staff. Ms. Giraud explained that the appellant would have 20 minutes to present his case, staff would have 20 minutes to present the City's analysis, then the appellant would have the last 20 minutes for a rebuttal.
Recognition of the outgoing Chairperson.
The Commission members recognized Mr. Parvaz for the service he rendered to the City this past year as Chairperson of the Historic Landmark Commission and expressed their appreciation to him.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. No second was required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:00P.M.