SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon and Sarah Miller were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz 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 Planning Division office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes from the March 21, 2001 meeting. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich and Mr. Littig abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Discussion by Danny Walz of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, to update the Historic Landmark Commission on the status of Case No. 001-00, involving he RDA's request to develop a commercial node at the northeast corner of 500 North and 300 West Streets.
Mr. Simonsen recused himself from this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Knight gave a brief history of the case, on behalf of Elizabeth Giraud who was not present. He referred to Ms. Giraud's memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight said that Mr. Danny Walz of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) had requested an opportunity to update the Historic Landmark Commission on the Redevelopment Agency's efforts to redevelop the site at 500 North and 300 West Streets. He pointed out that the total square footage of the site is 3.1 acres. Mr. Knight stated that the Redevelopment Agency received several responses, after marketing the property during the past year, and the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors selected one developer to proceed. He noted that the developer had studied which structures could be reused or demolished and submitted site plans to the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Knight said that the Redevelopment Agency, represented by Mr. Walz, requested approval to demolish six contributing residential buildings in the Capitol Hill Historic District on January 5, 2000 (Case No. 001-00). He said that the buildings are located at 248 West 500 North Street; 515, 519, and 521 No. Arctic Court; and 548 and 554-556 North 300 West Street.
Mr. Knight stated that at the January 5, 2000 meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission concurred with the staff’s findings of fact so that all the buildings except for the nine-unit apartment house at 248 West 500 North fell into the "gray zone", meaning that the Historic Landmark Commission could delay demolition for up to one year. He clarified that the Redevelopment Agency had to conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, and the one-year clock would begin when the bona fide effort started. Mr. Knight added that because the Historic Landmark Commission found that the building at 248 West 500 North met only one of the six criteria, the Redevelopment Agency would have to pursue the economic hardship process in order to demolish the property.
Mr. Knight addressed the decision made by the Redevelopment Agency's Board of Directors, after Mr. Walz reported the Historic Landmark Commission's actions, which was to allow the Redevelopment Agency staff to market the properties to developers and make the $25,000 available to the successful applicant to either prepare an economic hardship study or be applied toward renovation. He added that the Agency is also making $75,000 available for the actual cost of demolition and/or rehabilitation of the structures.
Mr. Knight continued by saying that provided with the Board's direction, Mr. Walz approached the Planning Staff on April 5, 2000 about reconsidering the findings for 248 West 500 North. He said that Mr. Walz told staff that if the subject property could be put in the "gray zone" in which between three to five findings would be made in favor of demolition, he believed he could better market all of the properties together rather than require an economic hardship finding for the nine-plex. Mr. Knight reported that the staff considered that marketing the property in this way would constitute the bona fide effort and thus the "clock" would start ticking, so staff recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission reverse the findings for the following two standards: 21A.34.020(L)(1)(b), the streetscape within the context of the historic district would not be negatively affected; and 21A.34.020(L)(1)(c), the demolition would not adversely affect the district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures. Mr. Knight noted that by a vote of five to three, with one abstention, the Historic Landmark Commission reversed the findings, as recommended by staff. He concluded by saying that the noncontributing structures, such as Bob's Motel and Movie Buffs, have already been demolished.
Mr. Knight introduced Mr. Danny Walz. He said that Mr. Walz was going to brief the Historic Landmark Commission on the status of the developer with whom the City had entered into exclusive negotiations. Mr. Knight clarified that staff was not expecting the Historic Landmark Commission to take any action; this discussion was only an update on the issues.
Mr. Walz reported that a few months ago, a developer approached the Redevelopment Agency interested in developing a commercial project on the site. He talked about the other responses that the Agency had received. Mr. Walz said that the Board elected to enter in exclusive negotiations with M. S. Development Partners. Mr. Walz said that the site plans were still being finalized.
Mr. Walz circulated copies of a map of the property site, which was included in the staff report for the April 5, 2000 meeting, a copy of which was 'filed with the minutes. He said that the map showed the structures that had been demolished and the ones considered for demolition. Mr. Walz talked about the usage for the property, which would most likely include a drugstore, retail shops, restaurants, and second story office space, as well as residential uses. He said that the developers are considering demolishing two structures on 300 West, including a single family-home and a duplex, saving the single family homes on Arctic Court, and building new residential units surrounding those homes. Mr. Walz said that the developer is also looking at preserving the tri-plex on the corner of 500 North Street and Arctic Court, as well. However, the developer is still looking at demolishing the nine-plex unit. Mr. Walz indicated that as a member of the Redevelopment Agency staff, he believed the proposal to be a good way to incorporate historic structures into a new mixed-use complex.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by asking about the use of the $75,000. Mr. Walz said that the money was available to be used for any of the buildings. Mr. Christensen inquired about a large anchor in the development. Mr. Walz said that the proposed drugstore would serve as the anchor requiring about 15,000 square feet.
• Mr. Littig talked about the height limit of a new commercial building in an historic district. Ms. Coffey said that the maximum height in a Community Shopping (CS) zone is forty-five (45) feet. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission could control the height for the planned development in the design review. Mr. Littig said that 300 West Street would be a logical location for a Transit Oriented Development (TOO) district because of its major access into the downtown area. Ms. Coffey said that so far, the City is only considering TOO districts in areas adjacent to light rail.
• • Mr. Parvaz inquired if the Redevelopment Agency had finalized a contract with the developers, and Mr. Walz said that a finalized agreement had not been secured. Mr. Walz said that the developer requested the right of due diligence to study the buildings on the site with the guarantee that the Redevelopment Agency would curtail discussion with any other prospective developers. He said that the Redevelopment Agency's Board of Directors passed a resolution to grant the developer a ninety-day exclusive right to negotiate. Mr. Walz added that the exclusive right expires at the end of April 2001. Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any other interested developers. Mr. Walz said there were, but the Agency honored the exclusive right and stopped deliberations with any other prospect.
• Ms. Rowland inquired about the location of the planned new housing units and how the project would incorporate the historic structures. Mr. Walz said that the building for the residential units would surround the historic structures on Arctic Court. Ms. Rowland talked about any restrictions the City has on a drive-up window for the drugstore. Ms. Coffey said the Historic Landmark Commission would study the possibility of a drive-up window in its review of the site plans, and provide feedback where a drive-up window could be located and how it might affect the historic district. She also stated that the Commercial Shopping (CS) zoning district requires Planning Commission approval on all development. Ms. Rowland commented that a drive-up window would be conducive to the vehicles circulating through the site, which would be "anti-pedestrian". Ms. Coffey said that would probably be a land use issue the Planning Commission would review. Mr. Littig pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed plans for a proposed new drugstore where the developer included many of the suggestions and recommendations that were made. Ms. Rowland recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission review some prior mixeduse projects that the developer had completed. Mr. Walz said that they would be included in the design review. She also suggested that the developer be informed in advance that the Historic Landmark Commission would not want to see plans for a "suburban-style development". Mr. Walz gave credit to the developer for selecting a local architectural firm.
• Mr. Knight stated that a question arose at the Capitol Hill Community Council meeting about the proposed development extending to 600 North Street. Mr. Walz said that the Redevelopment Agency has been in communication with the owners of some additional properties. He added that there was a possibility that the developer would apply for two additional demolition permits.
• Mr. Christensen talked about the adobe historic building, as well as the other historic structures on the properties, that the development would encompass, if the project is extended to 600 North Street. There was a short discussion regarding how those properties would be affected. Mr. Christensen said that his mother owns a painting of the original buildings on the corner of 600 North and
300 West and added that he would like to see a small residential-scaled business on that corner. However, Mr. Christensen said that he was excited that the developer would be willing to save some of the historic houses on Arctic Court,
as well as others on the site. Mr. Walz said that it was a credit to the developer and the architect working on the project.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked if Mr. Walz was warning the Commission of the future possible demolitions and Mr. Walz said that he just wanted to update the Historic Landmark Commission of the actions of the Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she appreciated him doing that. She added that it appeared the development was "wrapped in secrecy" when the Redevelopment Agency first approached the Commission to approve the demolition of some historic buildings. Mr. Walz assured the Commission that the Agency was not certain of any development at that time.
The discussion turned to the Transit Oriented Development (TOO) that the City is proposing on 400 South and the City's emphasis on walkable communities.
OTHER BUSINESS
Continuation of the Transit Oriented Development (TOO) discussion and its relationship to the Central City and University local historic districts and the proposed Bryant and Bennion/Douglas districts for the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Coffey said that when the proposed Transit Oriented Development ordinance was discussed at the meeting on March 28, 2001, the members of the Historic Landmark Commission accepted the concept of the new zoning district, and recommended that each review would still be done on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Coffey stated that Mr. Doug Dansie, a member of the Planning Staff, who addressed the issues of the TOO at that meeting, proposed that on 400 South Street, the maximum allowable height would be forty-five (45) feet east of 700 East Street; between 500 and 700 East Streets, it would be sixty (60) feet; and west of 500 East Street, closer to the downtown area, it would be seventy-five (75) feet. She said that Mr. Dansie would make the changes in the draft copy of the ordinance and requested the Historic Landmark Commission to review it. Ms. Coffey suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission make a motion or a resolution for approval, at some meeting in the future, that would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
There was a lengthy discussion involving the proposed Transit Oriented Development zoning district and the issues of establishing maximum heights for any future development along 400 South Street.
Mr. Parvaz said he believed that adopting a TOO zoning district was a good idea and he appreciated the fact that the discussion was brought to the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. He then inquired how the proposed zoning district would affect the proposed Bryant and Bennion/Douglas districts for the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Coffey said that since the Historic Landmark Commission is the preservation commission that represents the City, the Commissioners could develop policies to protect historic structures in National Register districts without the jurisdiction of design review in those areas.
• The Mayor's future preservation conference.
Ms. Coffey said that the Mayor was making plans to hold a preservation conference that would include the entire community in late August or early September of this year, and would be inviting the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to participate. She said that the Planning Director is asking for suggestions of topics for the conference. The following suggestions for topics were discussed by the members of the Commission: 1) preserving only the facades of historic buildings; 2) the availability of tax credits; 3) informing the public of materials allowed in historic districts or on landmark sites; 4) educating the public on the advantages of living in an historic district; 5) educating realtors who are marketing properties in historic districts; 6) reviewing property values in historic districts; 7) informing attendees of the services that the Historic Landmark Commission renders to the public; 8) the compatibility of new construction with historic structures and how they could be successfully blended; 9) present a photo survey of the changes in historic districts; 10) show how national and local districts are selected and where potential new districts are being proposed; and 11) inviting someone from the National Trust to speak about preservation issues. Mr. Knight said that Mr. Richard Moe, President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, would be meeting with the Mayor tomorrow and hopefully some good things will come out of it.
Mr. Parvaz recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission develop a mission statement on preservation.
University of Utah Center for Public Policy training sessions.
Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Commission would be attending training sessions offered by the University of Utah Center for Public Policy relating to public meetings and legal ramifications of planning procedures. She displayed two separate manuals that would be used. Ms. Coffey said that additional copies would be obtained and given to the members. She said that the manuals should be helpful in conducting and participating in public meetings. Ms. Coffey said that interested members of the Historic Landmark Commission and the Board of Adjustment may be invited to attend the sessions. Mr. Parvaz said that he would look forward to the invitation.
Architectural Subcommittee meetings.
Mr. Knight reported that eight of the thirteen members of the Historic Landmark Commission are members of the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Knight said that it was not necessary for all the members to attend each subcommittee meeting so he polled the subcommittee members to find out who would be available for the Architectural Subcommittee that is scheduled for Wednesday, April 11th.Mr. Littig, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Parvaz said that they would be available to attend. The members suggested that E-mailing the agenda was more efficient than faxing it. It was suggested that the members be given more notice than the day of the meeting. Ms. Coffey suggested E-mailing the agenda on the Monday before the meeting.
• General discussions at Historic Landmark Commission meetings.
Mr. Knight said there has been some discussion about allowing time to have a general discussion on preservation issues at the Historic Landmark Commission meetings. He also said that the public could be invited to participate. It was suggested that there would be a time limit on public comment. It was further suggested that the Commission continue holding meetings twice a month throughout the entire year and schedule one meeting to discuss pertinent issues.
The Historic Landmark Commission's involvement in the selection of nominations to the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Simonsen said, as a member of the Historic Landmark Commission, representing the Utah Heritage Foundation, he wanted to announce that the Utah Heritage Foundation was interested in listing the old First Security Bank Building on the southeast corner of 400 South and Main Street as a National Register site without the owner's endorsement. He said that he was soliciting support from the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Coffey said that as the City's representative for the Certified Local Government funds, the Commission could take action to advise the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Mr. Knight said that the Commission reviews and sends recommendations to SHPO regarding any National Register nominations in Salt Lake City. Mr. Simonsen said that he would keep the Commission informed.
New development successfully incorporating historic buildings.
Ms. Rowland circulated photographs of a block of buildings on India Street in San Diego that had been redeveloped. She said that although the architecture was rather "San Diegoish", she thought the mixed-use new development successfully incorporated historic structures into the project. Ms. Rowland said that the area had been geared for vehicular use, but now it is pedestrian-oriented. Mr. Simonsen said that the development had appeared in a national architecture publication. Ms. Rowland said that the architects were well known in the Salt Lake City area.
Economic hardship information on the Promised Valley Playhouse.
Ms. Coffey said that members of the Commission would receive the economic hardship informational data on the Promised Valley Playhouse in the next few days so they would have time to review the information before the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting on April 18, 2001. She added that the owners were considering trying to "de list" the building off the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, as an individual landmark site. There was some further discussion relating to this matter.
Mr. Knight concluded by saying that staff was updating the map that shows landmark sites outside of historic district, and would distribute an updated map to the commissioners when it was complete.
• Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Littig so moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:15P.M.