April 5, 2000

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 Scott Christensen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne

Gordon, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Soren Simonsen, and Mark Wilson were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners. Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, was also present.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Wayne Gordon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Gordon asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.

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.

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Gordon introduced Mr. Scott Christensen as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. He was welcomed by the other members and staff.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the March 1, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 010-00, at 430 South Douglas Street, by David and Charlene Van Dyke, represented by Sandra Hatch, architect, requesting to construct a second story addition on the house, which is located in the University Historic District.

Mr. Knight 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. He stated that the applicants had submitted a previous proposal that was reviewed and denied by the Historic Landmark Commission at the meeting on March 1, 2000. Mr. Knight said that the applicants have returned with a new proposal that addressed the findings of the Commission in the previous case.

Mr. Knight pointed out that two schemes have been submitted on the current proposal: Scheme A is similar to the proposal review by the Commission, but the applicant proposes to restore the historic porch design, that has been altered with wrought iron porch columns and aluminum siding in the pediment, which also retains the full second story addition; Scheme B, the second story addition would be set back six feet from the first story wall plane and the historic porch would be restored, as well. Mr. Knight indicated that a rear addition was proposed in both design schemes. He said that the applicants proposed stucco for the exterior of the additions, but wood siding would also be considered.

Mr. Knight said that the proposed work would require an "in-line" variance because it would not meet the side yard setback requirements for the zoning. He added that such a variance could be granted administratively if the adjacent property owners would give their consent, which the applicants have already obtained.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12), H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's zoning ordinance, which was included in the staff report.

G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;

3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;

4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;

5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;

6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;

B. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;

9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;

10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: (a) Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and (b) Any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials;

11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined n Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46, Signs; and

12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.

Staffs discussion: With both design proposals, the applicants have responded to the issues raised by staff and the Commission during the review of their previous application. Staff believes that many of the issues with the last proposal are still applicable to Scheme A, although the historic front porch would be retained. Scheme B more clearly expresses the historic character of the building. By utilizing a six-foot setback, the mass and scale of the addition are made subordinate to the original building. The building would clearly "read" as a historic one-story building with an addition, instead of a two-story building. The setback is less than the ten-foot minimum setback recommended by the standards for additions in the adopted Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Buildings in Salt Lake City. The roof form and slope of the historic building would be retained on the addition, as is the dormer window on the east elevation. The proposed material, stucco, is common in the University Historic District. It has been used on additions with varying degrees of success, because historic stucco generally has more texture and relief than the E.I.F.S. (Exterior Insulated and Finish System) systems used today. The color of the stucco is considered in this application, since the pigment is an integral part of the material, instead of an applied coating.

Staff's finding: Staff finds that Scheme A would not substantially differ from the design previously denied by the Historic Landmark Commission. Scheme B would meet the requirements of the ordinance because the historic porch would be retained and the effect on the front of the building would be minimized by setting the addition back from the front wall plane.

Mr. Knight stated that the staff recommended conceptual approval of Scheme B, in which the addition would be set back from the existing wall plane, with the provision that wood siding be used on the addition. Further details would be needed on the proposed windows, the cornice and belt course design, the rear porch and deck design, the stucco color and its application method (if appropriate), and other design elements as the Commission would see fit. These details could be worked through at the Architectural Subcommittee, which could then direct staff to issue an approval. Alternately the proposal could return to the full Historic Landmark Commission for final approval.

The applicants, Mr. David and Ms. Charlene Van Dyke, as well as their representative, Ms. Sandra Hatch, architect, were present. Mr. Van Dyke said that according to the minutes from the March 1, 2000 meeting, the Commissioners expressed concern about the loss of the historic front porch and the massing on the front of the building. Mr. Van Dyke said that he had talked previously about restoring the front porch to its original condition and voiced that he was still willing to do that restoration.

Mr. Van Dyke said that the house, defined as a "bungalow" style, was miss characterized, according to the definitions in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Mr. Van Dyke said that he believed the home fit the definition of either a one-story "foursquare" style or an "eclectic" style.

Mr. Van Dyke said that he was aware the house was located in an historic district when he and his wife were considering buying the property. Mr. Van Dyke reported that he contacted Mr. Knight and inquired about constructing a second story addition on the house. He said that Mr. Knight indicated that second story additions have been allowed. Mr. Van Dyke stated that according to the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting of March 1, 2000, "he [Mr. Knight] did not deny that the conversation took place. He said that his thinking was a different two story. In looking at that, when you talk to people in the industry, contractors, and you talk about a two story, they know what you are talking about. A two story is a two-story home, not an attic conversion or a one-and-one-half-story. Based on that, we went ahead and purchased the home".

Mr. Van Dyke said that he was also aware that he needed to comply with the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. He pointed out that when preparing the drawings for the proposed project, he believed that that he "substantially complied with those Guidelines with both Scheme A and Scheme 8".

Mr. Van Dyke expressed a desire to analyze the standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City and answer any questions the Commission members may have. He said, "The comments in the minutes [Historic Landmark Commission meeting on March 1, 2000] were rather general and not specific. I think there was really a feeling of personal, both on my part and the Commission's part and coming across as maybe being inflexible. Yet, we are willing to do a lot of these, as far as materials and the style of home in order to meet our needs."

Mr. Van Dyke proceeded through the following Rehabilitation Standards for Historic Properties, included in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:

1.0 Site Features - Historic landscape features that survive should be preserved when feasible. In addition, new landscaping features should be compatible with the historic context.

Applicant's discussion: No site changes were proposed so this standard was not applicable.

2.0 Materials - Primary historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible. When the material is damaged, then limited replacement, matching the original, may be considered. Primary historic building materials should never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments.

Applicant's discussion: Stucco or wood siding was proposed for the new addition.

3.0 Windows- The character-defining features of historic windows and their distinct arrangement should be preserved. In addition, new windows should be in character with the historic building. This is especially important on primary facades.

Applicant's discussion: The same windows are being maintained on the first floor. The wood frames would be stripped and repainted. The schematics for the new addition proposed double-hung windows, which would "tie in" with the windows below on the first floor.

4.0 Doors- The character-defining features of a historic door and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. In addition, a new door should be in character with the historic building. This is especially important on primary facades.

Applicant's discussion: The door on the front facade would be retained. The "security-type" door would be removed.

5.0 Porches - Where a porch has been a primary character-defining feature of a front facade, this should continue. In addition, a new (replacement) porch should be in character with the historic building, in terms of scale, materials, and detailing.

Applicant's discussion: The metal columns on the front porch would be removed and replaced with a replication of the original wood columns on either end of the porch.

6.0 Architectural Details - Architectural details help establish a historic building's distinct visual character; thus, they should be preserved whenever feasible. If architectural details are damaged beyond repair, their replacement, matching the original detailing, is recommended.

Applicant's discussion: The same wood molding on the roofline would be maintained and replacements would be replicated where necessary.

7.0 Roofs - The character of a historical roof should be preserved, including its form and materials whenever feasible.

Applicant's discussion: The same roof pitch would be maintained even though the roof would be raised up. A better quality of asphalt shingles would be used. The same depth of overhang would be maintained. Currently, the overhang is between 14 to 18 inches. The preference would be 18 inches to keep uniformity.

8.0 Additions -If a new addition to a historic building is to be constructed, it should be designed such that the early character is maintained. Older additions that have taken on significance also should be considered for preservation. Rooftop Additions: (8.11) When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to the scale of the historic building; (8.12) Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building; and (8.13) The roof form and slope of the addition must be in character with the historic building.

Applicant's discussion: The historic part of the building and the new addition would be differentiated by a beltcourse of a different material around the circumference of the structure. Ms. Hatch said that there were two ways to look at the massing: the new addition to the building; and the house, with the addition, to the streetscape. She displayed a series of photographs showing the relationship of the project to the streetscape. There was some discussion, as the Commission members viewed the photographs. Ms. Hatch said, "There is a lot going on that street there are several styles of homes. Probably the strongest element on the streetscape are the front porches." She said that some of the scale and massing would be visually reduced by the beltcourse, the hipped roof, and the front porch element. Ms. Hatch also talked about the topography of the neighborhood.

The "in line" variance was discussed. In Scheme B because of the setback requirements of the proposed addition, the plans show no windows in the second floor addition on the front facade, just a blank wall. The plans show no character as far as the ratio of glass to the new addition.

9.0 Accessory Structures- Historic accessory structures should be preserved when feasible. This may include preserving the structure in its present condition, rehabilitating it or executing an adaptive use so that the accessory structure provides new functions.

Applicant's discussion: Accessory structures were not part of the application.

10.0 Seismic Design- When retrofitting a historic structure in Salt Lake City to improve its ability to withstand seismic events, any negative impacts upon historic features and building materials should be minimized.

Applicant's discussion: An engineer would address the seismic issues.

Mr. Van Dyke said that they would prefer Scheme A because the new addition would have windows on the front facade. Mr. Van Dyke reported that the project was supported by all his neighbors and the community council. He stated that Mr. Creed Hayman, the community council representative and neighbor, said that the design with the windows in the front facade of the addition, was "more pleasing".

Mr. Van Dyke inquired if a member of the Historic Landmark Commission should be recused because of having a conversation with his [Mr. Van Dyke] neighbor prior to the meeting and telling that neighbor that the Commission would disapprove the project, without the knowledge of the other Commission members. He said that he believed that it was "inappropriate and non-professional". Mr. Gordon said that he would have to know the circumstances of the conversation. Mr. Young suggested that a member of the Commission that would be recused would have a financial interest from the project.

Mr. Wright said it was called an "ex parte conversation", when a commissioner had a conversation with an interested person outside of a public meeting. He said it was a good practice for a member of a commission to disclose that fact in the public meeting, then the commission as a whole could make a judgment whether or not that conversation had any influence on a decision, or if the commissioner could make an objective decision. Mr. Littig said that he had a conversation with one of the applicant's neighbors before the last meeting. Mr. Wright said that the record would show that the conversation was disclosed. Mr. Gordon said that the way this subject was introduced, he was not certain if there was an actual conversation or if it was a hypothetical situation. There was no further discussion regarding this issue.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Gordon led the discussion. He said that he agreed that the house looked more like a "foursquare" than a "bungalow". He also said that the porch being renovated was a "definite plus". Mr. Gordon referred to the photographs of the streetscape which showed both one and two-story houses. He expressed his concerns how the streetscape would be dramatically changed if there would be more requests for second story additions for the single-story houses. Ms. Van Dyke suggested that almost every house on the street had a bay roof and a gabled porch and their house, and the next one to it, had a hipped roof.

• Mr. Littig inquired if the applicants had considered bringing the eave down the sides of the walls to soften the look of the addition. Mr. Van Dyke suggested reducing the roof slope to six feet from eight feet for Scheme A. There was some discussion regarding that suggestion. Ms. Hatch said she was not supportive of reducing the height by two feet. Mr. Littig asked if the applicants planned four-over-four lights in the windows of the addition, as shown on the drawings. Mr. Van Dyke said that they preferred double-hung, one-over-one windows.

• Mr. Parvaz clarified that the applicants did not propose siding on the planned additions. Ms. Hatch said that the applicants proposed to use stucco but were open to other suggestions. Mr. Parvaz also talked about the windows that were shown on the drawings on the proposed addition. Ms. Hatch suggested that the Commission grant the applicants a conceptual approval with details being refined in the Architectural Subcommittee.

• Mr. Christensen inquired if the applicants proposed to strip the brick on the house and repaint it. Mr. Van Dyke said that the brick had been sprayed with a thin layer of stucco-type material. He said that if the material cannot be removed without damaging the brick, the brick would be repainted. Mr. Van Dyke added that the brick was a "yellowish" color. Mr. Christensen said that when an addition was proposed, it was important that the eaves, soffit, and fascia be detailed for the aesthetics of the house. He pointed out that he was pleased that the applicants planned to save what remains of the porch and replicate the columns like those that are shown in the tax photo. Mr. Christensen said that one-over-one double-hung windows would be appropriate for the additions. He also said that he liked the fenestration on the proposed dormer in the second story addition. Mr. Christensen pointed out the "diamond" shaped divided light windows and suggested that they try to replicate something like that for the dormer window.

• Mr. Gordon inquired if the existing dormer could be reused on top. Mr. Van Dyke said that was a possibility but was not certain that it was substantially the same size.

Mr. Gordon 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. Larry Swanson, who resides at 427 South 1200 East, stated that he recommended that the applicant use stucco on the exterior, rather than siding. He said that siding in that area had been mostly used for outbuildings and garages. Mr. Swanson said that stucco with wood trim has been the appropriate construction materials for most of the homes. He also said that the schematic showing the windows in the front facade of the addition "would look a lot better than a blank wall". Mr. Swanson said that the applicants had the smallest home on the street and the massiveness of the house with the proposed additions would still be "dwarfed" by others in the general area. He gave his support of the proposed additions.

Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

There was a discussion regarding the zoning issue and the setback requirements. The Commission found it necessary for the chair to reopen and reclose the meeting a number of times to make further inquiries of the applicants.

Ms. Miller said how helpful it was to see photographs of the streetscape. She said that it was reassuring to her that adding a second story to the house would be in keeping with the scale of the streetscape. Ms. Miller said that she did not think the proposal would "alter the character of the streetscape or become overbearing in that environment. I think it would fit in nicely". She said that Scheme A would change the character of the house, but the drawing of the second floor addition in Scheme 8 would be more subordinate to the original form and scale of the house. Ms. Miller stated that even though certain neighborhoods were designated as historic, there had to be some allowance for change to accommodate the needs of modern day occupants. She added that Scheme 8 would be a good choice.

Mr. Young said that he believed it was important to make a building useful in today's environment. He discussed the differences in the two schematics. Mr. Young noted that Scheme 8 looked "awkward" without windows in the front and added that bedrooms needed light and ventilation. He said that he preferred Scheme A because of the windows, but it did not address the setback issue.

Mr. Gordon added that there may be an egress issue without windows in the front of the second floor addition. He discussed the roof pitch, the setback issue, and the rhythm of the side yards, which were very small.

Ms. Mitchell said that Scheme B would be keeping the historic nature of the house and Scheme A would obliterate the original form of the house.

Mr. Parvaz said that a second floor addition, without the appropriate setbacks, would destroy the historic character of the building. He added that he did not have a real problem with Scheme A, but Scheme B would be more in compliance with the standards in the ordinance.

Mr. Payne said that he thought Scheme A was more visually attractive but realized that it would not maintain the historical character of the house.

Mr. Wright offered a suggestion. He sketched out an additional schematic, calling it Scheme C, which would keep a representation of the original roofline so there would still be a distinguishing factor between the second story and the original house, and reduce the setback to three feet so there would be enough room on the front wall to add windows in the front facade of the second story addition. Mr. Wright said that both issues would be resolved.

It was agreed that the meeting should be reopened again to inquire how amenable the applicants would be to Scheme C. Mr. Van Dyke said that he would not have any problems with Scheme C. He added that he wanted to have the room to accommodate windows. Mr. Van Dyke said that he would like a conceptual approval so his engineer could begin the survey as to the structural stability of the building. He added that he would be happy to go to the Architectural Subcommittee to refine the details of the plan.

Mr. Gordon said that the new proposed sketch would be called Scheme C and included in the records of this meeting and reclosed the meeting to public comment once more.

Mr. Littig said that the proposed rhythms and voids would be very "blank" and the side elevations would be very "plain". He suggested the importance of the Architectural Subcommittee reviewing the proposal again.

Ms. Miller questioned whether or not the side elevations would be a factor because the houses were so close together on the street. A photograph was circulated that showed the side view of the house.

There was some discussion regarding the wording of the motion. Motion: Mr. Payne moved to conceptually approve Scheme B for Case No. 010-00, as modified, bring the wall plane out three feet, which would allow for windows, as represented in Scheme A, and send the proposal back to the Architectural Subcommittee to work out the details. The final approval would be given administratively, unless the subcommittee believed it would be appropriate to return the proposal to the full Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young.

Mr. Christensen suggested that the motion be amended to include the retention of the two original front windows and the front door on the first floor, that the dormer window be removed and placed in the new dormer opening, and that the pillars proposed to be installed on the front porch be similar to the original. Mr. Gordon suggested that reusing existing dormer materials pending condition upon demolition, also be added.

Mr. Payne amended the motion. Final amended motion:

Mr. Payne moved to conceptually approve Scheme 8 for Case No. 010-00, as modified, and allow a three-foot setback, which would accommodate the windows in the front elevation, as represented in Scheme A. Further, that the two original front windows and the original front door be retained, the dormer window be removed and placed in the new dormer, reuse existing dormer materials, depending on the condition after demolition, and that the porch columns, similar to the original, be installed on the front porch. The proposal is to return to the Architectural Subcommittee to work out the details and the final approval be given administratively, unless the subcommittee believed it would be appropriate

to return the proposal to the full Commission. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig abstained. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

PREVIOUS BUSINESS

Case No. 002-00, at 514 North 200 West, by Jeffrey and Shelly Hickam, represented by Robert L. Booker of Booker and Associates, P. C., requesting approval to legalize vinyl siding, fascia, and soffit installed without a building permit. The house is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Mr. Payne recused himself from this case.

Mr. Knight did not present the staff report, the findings of fact, or staff’s recommendation because a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He referred to the February 2, 2000 staff report, and to the minutes of that meeting, for the full history of this case. He said that the applicant presented supplemental documents to the legalization application. Copies were given to the Commission members and staff, a copy of which was filed with minutes of this meeting. Mr. Knight circulated additional photographs received from the applicants, as well as an address list of buildings that have artificial siding on them in the neighborhood. He indicated that there was not time enough for staff to prepare a response to this additional information. Mr. Knight said that the applicants were willing to have this case tabled if the Commission believed that a response was needed. He circulated a copy of the original notice and Order" that the zoning officials sent out when enforcement began, also a copy of the site survey form that was done in 1979 that established the subject building as contributing, a copy of both documents were filed with minutes.

Ms. Giraud reported that aluminum, vinyl, or any other artificial material siding was not allowed by City ordinance, even before the 1995 zoning ordinance rewrite.

There was some discussion regarding the documents just submitted by the applicant. There was a question whether or not the staff should respond to the information before a decision was made since neither the Commissioners nor staff had any prior knowledge what the new evidence contained.

[The following excerpts were taken from the staff report that was presented at the February 2, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Knight included these excerpts in his discussion but they were not integrated in the minutes of that meeting:

In 1980, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted the following policy regarding the use of artificial materials: "The use of artificial material in a building which is listed on the City register, either as a landmark site or as part of an historic district, shall not be approved unless it is proven necessary for the preservation of the building."

The following Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance was rewritten and adopted in April of 1995:

G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site a or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

Staffs discussion and finding: The use of the structure would remain the same. The application complies with this standard.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Staffs discussion and finding: The applicant is correct in stating that the foundation and brick structure of the dwelling remain as they were when the structure was built. Staff believes, however, that the classically-inspired soffit and fascia were a strong visual element on the facade of this building. Wood molding was incorporated into the cornice design, providing a horizontal band that visually marked the junction between the roof and the wall. Removing the wood and replacing it with a synthetic material that is aligned vertically alters a character-defining feature of the property. Staff challenges the applicants' statement that the form and character of the building remain the same with the new siding as they were with the historic material. The design of the new soffit is markedly different than the old design, even to the untrained eye. Although the old and new cornices serve the same function (to cover and protect the junction between the walls and the roof), their architectural character is quite different. Similarly, the rear additions of houses of this period and type were most often construction of wood. They served as service spaces that marked the boundary between the formal house (with its masonry construction) and the outdoors. The historic material on this house was replaced with a synthetic material of dissimilar design. The application does not comply with this standard.

Staff discussion and finding: This standard is meant to primarily address new additions to a building and ensure that they are discernible from the original or historic parts of a building. Removal of historic material, such as in this case, does not create a false sense of history, it merely erases the authentic sense of history created by the building. The application does not comply with this standard to the extent that it is significant in this case.

4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

Staff discussion and finding: None of the work completed was performed on later additions to the building. This standard does not apply in this case.

5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

Staff discussion and finding: Staff's finding is that the wood siding, soffit, and fascia were character-defining features of the property. As such, they should have been preserved. If they had deteriorated to the point that they were beyond preservation or repair, they should have been replaced with like

materials of compatible design, as provided for by other standards in this section of the ordinance. The application does not comply with this standard.

Staff discussion and finding: No information regarding the extent of the deterioration of the wood that was replaced was available to staff. In any event, replacement of the historic material is necessary because the original material was removed. The new material that was installed does not match the material in composition and texture. The siding has a wider reveal than the original material and is not as crisp in appearance as the original wood. The fascia and soffit were installed in a vertical fashion and do not match the original in design or other visual qualities, such as the shadow line created by the detailing on the original cornice. None of the materials were fabricated or installed in a way that sought to duplicate or was based on the original siding and wood trim. The application does not comply with this standard.

Staff discussion and finding: This standard is not applicable in this case; no chemical or physical treatments to the building are proposed.

8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.

Staff discussion and finding: As discussed above, staff believes that the wood siding, fascia, and soffit are character-defining features of this property. Contemporary design would not be compatible with the material or architectural and historic character of the property. The application does not comply with this standard.

Staff discussion and finding: Staff could not determine if the original siding and trim were removed or covered over by the new material. Irreversible damage often occurs to historic buildings when siding is installed, because trim and other details are easier to remove than to cover over. The nails used to install the siding further damage the existing wall fabric. As stated elsewhere in this staff report, staff does not believe that the installed synthetic siding is compatible with the character of the contributing structure. The application does not comply with this standard.

10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: (a) vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and (b) any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials.

Staff discussion and finding: As discussed previously in this staff report, the Historic Landmark Commission confronted the issue of synthetic materials several times between 1992 and 1994. In August of 1994, the Commission discussed establishing a new policy concerning the use of synthetic siding, but decided to address the issue in the new City-wide zoning ordinance. The ordinance addresses the issue of synthetic siding on contributing structures or landmark sites in this section. The intent of this statement is to disallow synthetic siding on contributing structures. The ordinance clearly states that synthetic siding is not allowed on original or historic materials, such as in the case of this building. The application does not comply with this standard.

11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is on visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46, Signs.

Staff discussion and finding: This standard is not applicable in this case.

12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.

Staff discussion and finding: The Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City are also applicable in this case. Individual guidelines directly address the use of synthetic materials: (2.1) Preserve the historic appearance of original materials; (2.2) Covering original building materials with new materials is not allowed; (2.5) Repair deteriorated primary building materials; (2.8) Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces; (2.9) Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum or vinyl siding, or panelized brick, as a replacement for primary building materials; (6.1) Protect and maintain significant stylistic elements; and (6.2) If replacement is necessary, design the new element using accurate information about original features. The applicant does not comply with this standard.

The following is staff's recommendation: "Staff does not find that the project substantially complies with all of the general standards outlined in the ordinance that pertain to the application and that approval is not in the best interest of the City.

Staff recommends denial of this application.

Mr. Gordon invited Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney to say a few words regarding this legalization case. Mr. Pace said that the Historic Landmark Commission had the option to table this case, then made the following statement: "What you have here is what the zoning board identified as a violation. This has been tabled now for several months and the process is allowing that violation to continue is allowing what the City has declared to be a problem to go on unaddressed. Unless there is information that you really think you need, to decide this case, it would be the City's preference to get it decided." Mr. Pace explained that the applicants have had the benefit of a six-month delay period. Mr. Young stated that it needed to be known that the previous "tabling" was at the owner's request and not by the actions of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Pace concurred.

Mr. Pace clarified that the documents in question were no different than someone attending this meeting and making allegations or statements, for the record, without giving anyone a chance to review those allegations or statements before hand. He also wanted it understood that the Commission had the right to make the decision on this matter.

Mr. Pace pointed out that the list of addresses, submitted by the applicants, would be forwarded to the City's zoning enforcement people and researched. He added that those that are illegal would be enforced upon. Mr. Pace said, "The real question before you is, is what the applicant has done on this home justifiable enough. I don't think what someone else has done on their home has any bearing on it."

Mr. Littig inquired if contractors who do work without a permit and below standards for a historic district are also in violation. Mr. Pace said that the ordinance allows the City to cite the owner because most of the time the responsible party would be unknown to the City. He said, "The City fights the owners and lets them sort it out with the contractor."

Mr. Jeffrey Hickam, the applicant, as well as his representative, Mr. Robert L. Booker, were present. Mr. Booker made the following statement:

"My primary reason for submitting the pictures today and a written supplement yesterday was to accomplish three purposes: One, Mr. Hickam came to me approximately ten days ago and asked a very simple question, Does it make a difference that others in the neighborhood have aluminum, and I said that it might, which is true, it might and in looking at some of the homes in the neighborhood, it struck us that approximately one in five of the homes within a two-block radius approximately one in five have aluminum. Now on some of these homes there is aluminum on the face of the house, and I don't know whether these are noncontributing or exactly how they fall into zoning requirements. But on almost all of these houses, particularly the most significant number, whether the aluminum is on the cornice or the soffit and some molding, and again that occurs in approximately one out of every five homes within about a two-block radius. So, the first objective was to demonstrate that what Mr. Hickam has done was not something done in bad faith; was not something done in any malicious or sneaky way. He did something that is completely consistent with what has been done within that neighborhood.

"Another thing (second) that I wanted to point out, and I'm not certain that it's entirely clear in our supplement I advised Mr. Hickam to at least move the aluminum from the face of the building so that you only have the siding material on the cornice and on the molding, and that has been done. There is one Polaroid, I think it says new something like with the aluminum having been removed from the face. Frankly, it’s difficult to see a difference both because of the shade but also because of the material. But we did think it was important to show that Mr. Hickam is willing to do what appears to be appropriate.

"The third thing is to show that there is an existing condition in that neighborhood. Regardless of, with all due respect of Mr. Pace's perception, this is not a flow of the traffic kind of defense. But it is important, I think, to make clear that Mr. Hickam should not be singled out in any unfair way. I believe it is important. I believe it is appropriate for this committee to look at whatever is going on in that neighborhood, because, again, one in five homes does have aluminum; it does have the cornice and the molding, and Mr. Hickam has merely done what is consistent with what's already being done. If you seek to penalize Mr. Hickam, then in my view, it is unfair and it is frankly unconstitutional. I think one important part of this board's function is to seek to enforce compliance and respect for the historic values of our communities, and I don't think that is accomplished by mean spirited or singling out certain individuals. If we are not seeking to bring an entire community into compliance, then there should not be a singling out of one individual. It appears here that there has not been another similar case in several years, frankly, and I don't know what the cause of that is, but what I do know is, it certainly not approximately 45 homes within a two-block radius of Mr. Hickam's home all put their aluminum before, I think it was 1989, when the first general prohibition against siding was past, and that was ratified, I think, in 1995 with a few minor changes and some additional restrictions. Certainly not all of these 45 houses, not all of these one in five homes, get the benefit of sort of a grandfather clause. I think that is something that is significant. I think it is an issue that is appropriate to look at, and I think that if this board desires to continue to have respect in the community, and desires to continue to have the authority and the powers that it has, it needs to do so in equally respectful and reciprocal way. Singling out a particular individual because a neighbor or some other person has a grudge, is simply not appropriate. It is not an appropriate use of this commission's powers to allow some neighbor with a grudge to bring the weight of the City down. I believe that is essentially what has happened and without looking at all that is going on, within just a two-block radius of Mr. Hickam's house, is inappropriate. It's unfair and it's unconstitutional. Thank you."

Mr. Hickam stated that he called the City prior to installing the vinyl and said that he was told that if the cost of the work was under $2,500.00, he would not need a permit. He added that he may have been misinformed, but was satisfied when the siding people reconfirmed what he had been told.

• Mr. Booker said, "He wanted to reiterate the point that the siding on the face has been removed. There are far fewer homes with siding actually on the face of the house itself, but there are between 40 and 50 homes that we could see and could count within a two-block radius in each direction."

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Ms. Miller led the discussion by stating that she wanted to be sure that the applicant understood that the City ordinance does not allow vinyl or aluminum siding if a building had been surveyed to be a "contributing" structure. She noted that some of those buildings in the photographs, that were circulated, and on the list, submitted by the applicants, were surveyed as "non-contributing" structures. Mr. Booker agreed that some of them were "non-contributing" or have the "benefit of the grandfather exception, but certainly not anywhere near 50. Mr. Booker made it known that he believed that "this has spawned from a begrudging neighbor". He said, "It is an inappropriate use of this Commission's powers, particularly where Mr. Hickam has made an effort to come more into compliance with the existing practice of that neighborhood he had removed it from the face of the front and is willing to remove it all the way around, but to require removal of the cornice and the molding is really something that is quite prohibitive at this point. To remove it and then to try to replace it with wood is simply prohibitive."

• Mr. Littig explained that the members of the Commission would not know where the houses in the photographs were located, and would not know the circumstances regarding a case, before the packet of information was delivered to them. He said that the Commission would not know the source of any complaint, and added that they do not want to know. Mr. Littig stated, "We really are not mean spirited We volunteer our time." He said that artificial materials, such as vinyl or aluminum, do not protect historic fabric but actually accelerate the deterioration of the fabric underneath. Mr. Littig continued by saying that the Historic Landmark Commission's purview is to try to protect and keep the historic districts intact. Mr. Booker said, "Part of my suggestion is that I find it difficult to believe that your purpose is being accomplished in singling out one individual, which in fact turns out to be a neighborhood grudge. If there is a community-wide problem, it is not solved by creating more animosity by one of the members of that district. The entire problem needs to be addressed and I don't think it is appropriately addressed by simply singling out one individual." Mr. Littig said that this was not "personal"; it was "mechanical". Mr. Booker responded by saying that the Commission has a "legitimate function" and he said that he would like to see that "function" being carried out successfully.

• Ms. Giraud said that this issue was a community-wide problem in the sense that many people, who live in historic districts, call the staff, or have the contractors call the staff, inquiring about installing vinyl, aluminum, or other artificial siding on their homes. She added that Mr. Hickam is not the only person who has tried to approach a solution in this way. Ms. Giraud said that the staff tries very hard to administer applications consistently.

• Ms. Rowland suggested that the "singling out" occurred when this applicant covered the existing material and that was the reason the case was being reviewed. She added, "Our job is not to bring this community into compliance." Ms. Rowland said that when an individual applies for permit, that person would be informed if the subject property was in an historic district so the work would be appropriately done for that neighborhood. Mr. Booker said, "My perception is that the "singling out" occurred with the action." Ms. Rowland said that the action was done by the applicant and not by a neighbor. Ms. Rowland also commented that Mr. Hickam said that wood on the fascia would be stripped, repaired, and painted and she was uncertain if the wood was still there.

• Mr. Young talked about the analogy of a "speed trap". He said that the first person that gets caught is not being "singled out". He noted that there may be several cases that eventually will make its way through the system and be reviewed by this Commission and they will not be "singled out" either. Mr. Booker said, "Hopefully not from something I have done " Mr. Young said that some of the buildings on the list may have been "grandfathered in" and legal. He pointed out that those cases that may be brought to this Commission would face the "same kinds of restrictions or penalties".

• Mr. Gordon stated that the Historic Landmark Commission has a subcommittee that is currently discussing various issues. He said that one recognized problem has something to do with "neighbor versus neighbor" and he said he was hopeful that would be resolved.

• Mr. Christensen clarified that the applicant had mentioned the potential financial hardship if he was asked to remove the material. Mr. Hickam said that he hired a company to install this material. Mr. Christensen said that he believed companies that work within historic districts have an obligation to understand the regulations. He continued by saying that even if Mr. Hickam called the "wrong" person in the City and got the "wrong" information, it still was not an excuse for the company that did the work. Mr. Christensen suggested that the Mr. Hickam take legal action with the company so that the penalties would not create such a ·financial hardship for him. Mr. Booker responded by saying, "Obviously any litigation like that would be quite expensive."

• Mr. Wright wanted the applicants to be aware if the cost of a permit was included in the contract with the company. Mr. Hickam said that there was no charge for a permit. Mr. Hickam said that he asked the contractor, if there were any laws by which they had to abide. He said that the contractor told him the same thing, "When you work in Salt Lake and the job is under $2,500.00, you don't need a permit." Mr. Young pointed out a defective process if someone was told that a permit was not needed.

After some discussion, Mr. Hickam talked about the holes from rotting wood that were inside his home and added that it was starting to cause structural damage. The specific photograph was found and viewed once more. The discussion continued.

In closing, Mr. Booker said, "We respectfully request that at least the fascia and molding be approved Mr. Hickam again is willing to remove any vinyl or siding from the face from the house itself, which has already been done on the front face of the house. Thank you."

Mr. Gordon considered amending the application to legalization of the fascia and soffit and deleting the referenced legalization of the trim and siding. Ms. Mitchell said that she did not believe that the situation had changed other than there may be less material that would need to be removed.

Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion took place with several members of the Commission expressing his or her opinions in this matter.

A question arose and it was agreed to reopen the meeting to make a further inquiry of the applicants. Mr. Gordon reopened the meeting and asked the applicant if a general contractor applied the vinyl siding or was is a company selling the siding and contracting a smaller company to do the work. Mr. Hickam said that a small subcontractor did the work and one of the workers said that they normally work in Utah County.

As there were no further questions, Mr. Gordon reclosed this portion of the meeting to public comment.

The following is a summary of the comments by members of the Historic Landmark Commission: 1) Contractors should be forced to know and abide by the laws of the city in which they were working; 2) Artificial material being applied over historic fabric may clean the appearance up for a time but will cause damage underneath; 3) The details on the soffit and fascia on houses, especially smaller houses, are usually lost underneath the applied artificial material and it is important to a neighborhood to keep those details; and 4) Artificial siding material used for the trim sometimes changes the orientation of a facade because the pieces are applied "vertically" instead of the "horizontally" like the horizontal lines that is supposed to be represented.

There was some discussion clarifying what elements were requesting to be legalization since the application had been altered. It was determined that the legalization had been modified to the siding on the rear addition, fascia, and soffit. Mr. Christensen expressed his concern about "piece mealing" the application and believed that if the Commission approved a portion of the request, that action would be "weakening the position of this Commission" for the next applicant.

Motion:

Mr. Christensen moved to deny Case No. 002-00 and that the Historic Landmark Commission disallow the work that was done, and to deny the legalization of any of those elements, based on the findings of fact which were included in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Payne was in recusancy. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 001-00, a request by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA), represented by Danny Walz, for reconsideration of findings, pursuant to standards in Section 21A.34.020(L), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, of the Salt Lake Zoning Ordinance, for a nine-unit apartment building at 248 West 500 North. in order to enable the RDA to market the structure with 519 No. Arctic Court, 521 No. Arctic Court, 548 North 300 West, 554-556 North 300 West, as a bona-fide preservation effort to developers seeking to construct a commercial node at the northeast corner of 500 North and 300 West, located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

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. She stated that the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was requesting reconsideration of the findings made at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting on January 5, 2000 regarding an application to demolish a nine-unit apartment building at 248 West 500 North. She added that the building was one of five contributing structures that the RDA requested to demolish on a block bordered by 300 West, Arctic Court, 500 North and 600 North streets in the Capitol Hill Historic District. Ms. Giraud said that the RDA is seeking to demolish these structures in order to develop a commercial center with neighborhood services, which would include a grocery store.

Ms. Giraud stated that when considering an application to demolish a contributing structure in an historic district, Section 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Landmark Commission to base its decision on seven criteria. She added that if six of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall approve the request for demolition; if two or less of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the request; if the Historic Landmark Commission makes ·findings that between three to 'five of the standards are met, the Commission can defer a decision for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site.

Ms. Giraud reported that at the January 5, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the Commission found all buildings, except the 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. She said that the RDA must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, but the one-year "clock" begins only when the bona fide effort has started.

Ms. Giraud said that Section 21A.34.020(M) of the zoning ordinance lists four actions that define bona fide: 1) Marketing the property for sale or lease; 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.; 3) Filing an application for alternative uses if available or feasible, such as conditional uses, special exceptions, etc. and 4) Obtaining written statements from licensed building contractors or architects detailing the actual costs to rehabilitate the property.

Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Walz met with the RDA Board of Directors, which includes the members of the City Council, after the Historic Landmark Commission meeting on January 5, 2000, with the idea of pursuing economic hardship. She said that Mr. Walz asked the Board to allow the RDA staff to hire a consultant to study whether economic hardship would warrant demolishing the residential structures on the site. She indicated that the Board voted unanimously to allow the RDA staff to market the properties to developers and make the $25,000 available to the successful applicant to either prepare for an economic hardship study or be applied toward renovation. Ms. Giraud noted that the RDA is also making $75,000 available for the actual cost of demolition and/or rehabilitation of the structures.

Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Walz addressed the following in his proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission: "The Agency is offering the property for sale as a complete assemblage and developers may only submit proposals for redevelopment of the entire site. It is the Agency's intent to select a developer that will renovate the triplex, which is located on the corner of 500 North Street and Arctic Court, into a commercial use and incorporate it into the project. The developer will be responsible for working with the Historic Landmark Commission to secure demolition permits for any of the remaining structures that the developer does not propose to rehabilitate. The Agency does not represent or guarantee that the developer will be granted permission to demolish the structures."

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a thro1.gh f), H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's zoning ordinance, which were included in the staff report.

L. 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 C2b of this section is no longer evident;

Staffs discussion and finding: According to the site form, this house was constructed in 1906. The original owner, Hans J. Christiansen, was a Danish immigrant who moved to Salt Lake City in 1902. He died in 1923. The unusual appendage on the front elevation has prompt debate among the staff as to its effect on the physical integrity of the structure. Many consider this element to be unattractive, or to have imposed a visual ill effect on a contributing, historic structure. However, the survey form states that the existing two-story, enclosed porch was constructed in 1943. A building card from 1942 supports this statement as it states: "Remodel brick apartment house- three additional apartments", as does a 1950 Sanborn map that indicates the house had been converted into seven apartments. To add to the confusion, the 1911 Sanborn map indicates that while this was a single-family residence, it did have a two story porch on the front of the building. Thus, whether or not the porch is original, it is an element of the house that has achieved significance within the architectural history of this structure. What does appear to be of recent construction is the brick veneer on the first story of the porch. While the house has a prominent feature that is unusual for homes of this vintage in the Capitol Hill Historic District, the building retains its historic, physical integrity. The applicant does not meet this standard.

b. The streetscape within the context of the H. Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected;

Staffs discussion and finding: As stated in the earlier staff report (January 5, 2000), the streetscape of this property consists of several residential structures to the east that were constructed about the same time and are similar in scale and materials. These structures include Nos. 236, 224, and 212 West 500 North. The historic residences that were once on this block to the west were demolished many years ago for the existing parking lot and former grocery store. In the previous staff report, staff stated, "In terms of a historic streetscape, this building acts as the western edge for 500 North", and used that observation to find that the streetscape would be negatively affected within the context of the historic district. Upon further consideration, however, staff believes that the streetscape would not be negatively affected if this building were demolished. One, staff finds that the porch, whether or not it is historic, creates a dissonant element on the streetscape within the context of the historic district. Two, the lack of contributing buildings to the west diminishes the visual role of this structure in conveying the historic development of the district on the block frontage. The applicant meets this standard.

c. The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding noncontributing structures;

Staffs discussion and finding: The previous staff report pointed out the noncontributing buildings in the immediate vicinity: the Movie Buffs, to the west, and a L.D.S. Church across the street at 225 West 500 North. Staff also observed that the integrity of the streetscape and of the district weakens along 300 West, and that this building is the last structure in a row of residential buildings that still exhibit historic integrity. The block, however, has suffered other intrusions, including the Capitol Villa Apartments on 600 North and a small-scale apartment building at 535 No. Arctic Court. The applicant meets this standard.

d. The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure;

Staffs discussion and finding: The zoning of this site is SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, is compatible for the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard. However, it should be noted that when the applicant comes to the Historic Landmark Commission with a proposed project, and if it would meet with the Commission's approval then it would necessitate a change in the zoning on this block.

Mr. Wright commented that there is a statement in the master plan that says that the community would support a zoning change if the proposed plan met the community goals and balanced the preservation issues. He also pointed out that the nine-unit apartment building was considered "legal, non-conforming" but not in compliance with the zoning district. Mr. Wright said which means that at the time the building was constructed, it was legal. He added that the owner would have to delete seven of the nine units to be in compliance with the base zoning.

e. The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section;

Staffs discussion and finding: The only plans that have been discussed between the applicant and the staff concern the landscaping that would be required of any owner of a vacant site. Should this building be demolished, the developer, not the RDA, would be responsible for the plans submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The property will not be sold until the RDA Board of Directors approves plans submitted by the selected developer. The applicant does not meet this standard, as no plans have been submitted.

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; iii) Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and iv) Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.

Staffs discussion and finding: The building appears to be in repair and is in use as a nine-unit apartment building. Neither the former nor the current owners appear to have willfully neglected the building. The site has not suffered from willful neglect. The applicant meets this standard.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Under the revised staff findings, the applicant meets three of the six criteria (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(f) which would place the RDA in the "gray zone" for the building at 248 West 500 North. If the Historic Landmark Commission agrees with the staff’s findings, the RDA could begin the one-year period and the entire site would be marketed. This action would give all concerned, the Historic Landmark Commission, the Redevelopment Agency, and the neighborhood, an idea of which developer would be attracted to this site. Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission agree with the staff findings.

Mr. Danny Walz, Project Manager, was present, representing the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. He stated that he believed Ms. Giraud covered the issues very well. Mr. Walz said that after his presentation to the Board of Directors, the

members decided to shift the burden of demolition and economic hardship on the future developer, in hopes that marketing the property would satisfy the conditions in the bona fide effort standard.

Mr. Wright indicated that he also attended the meeting of the Board of Directors. He said that it was clear to him that the Board understood the exact issue with which the Historic Landmark Commission was struggling; that the Commission would prefer to see a plan that would either justify the renovation or the removal of the subject structures. He said that the Board believed that they would get better information back from the private sector, such as what could be developed on the site by either renovating and reusing the historic structures or building on vacant ground. Mr. Wright explained that was the reason why the staff recommended revising the findings for the property at 248 West 500 North.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring if the project would be required to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Wright said that any proposed project would have to go through "layer upon layer" of approval authority. He stated that this Commission would review any reuse plan. Mr. Parvaz said that to further the preservation issue the RDA should search for a developer who is interested in preservation. Mr. Walz indicated that the RDA would conduct a broad marketing research and market the property to all developers whether their focus would be on preservation or on new construction. The discussion continued by Mr. Wright explaining the "safeguards" that have been created within the approval process. Mr. Parvaz referred to the standards in the City's zoning ordinance that applies to the economic hardship procedure. He said that some of the ensuing issues might be very complicated for a developer to pursue an economic hardship. Mr. Wright said that was probably the reason why the Board of Directors agreed that the best approach would be to market the property with the historic structures on site and try to find an interested innovative and creative developer/architect for the site. The discussion continued.

• Mr. Christensen clarified that the RDA would provide $100,000 towards the preservation of the site. Mr. Walz said that the funds would be given to develop the site. He reiterated that $75,000 would be provided for either the preservation or the demolition of the site and $25,000 would be provided for either preservation or the economic hardship route. Mr. Wright said that the $25,000 would become an incentive for preservation. Again, Mr. Walz explained the hope was that a developer would fill the requirements of the bona fide effort standard and satisfy the Commission.

• Mr. Littig inquired if the subject building was always an apartment house. Mr. Walz said that he believed that it was once a single-family house.

• Mr. Gordon talked about the discussions that have taken place regarding the revisions to the economic hardship section of the City's zoning ordinance. Mr. Walz said that some of those revisions might eliminate some the "gray" areas that have been recognized.

• Ms. Rowland said that the obligation would be to conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site and yet the RFP (Request for proposal) says, "The developer will be responsible for working with the Historic Landmark Commission to secure demolition permits for any of the remaining structures that the developer does not propose to rehabilitate." She said that language would attract developers who would "flatten everything, except the tri-plex on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court, rather than a developer who would make a bona fide effort to preserve the site". There was much conservation between Mr. Walz and Ms. Rowland regarding the wording of the Request for Proposal, demolition versus rehabilitation issues, the extent of the financial incentives, and the potential tax abatement for a period of time. Ms. Rowland expressed her concern about "lumping" the properties and said that she would rather have the properties marketed separately.

• Mr. Christensen stated that a developer could take the historic properties which are contributing in an historic district, renovate them as residential rentals, they would be eligible for 40% tax credits, so if it took $100,000 to restore the house, the developer would get $40,000 back in taxes. Ms. Giraud said that in order to be eligible for the tax credits, the property would have to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. There was some discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Parvaz talked about the possibility of low-income housing. Mr. Rowland said that a developer could get low-income housing tax credits on top of the 40%. Mr. Christensen said, "I know you have to be neutral, but be neutral towards preservation."

• Ms. Mitchell inquired about the housing component to any future development on the site. Mr. Walz said preferred housing on Arctic Court would be included in the Request for Proposal.

In closing, Mr. Walz encouraged the Commission to reconsider the findings made for the property at 248 West 500 North which could make the property easier to market.

Executive Session

Ms. Mitchell said that she was concerned that this approval would put this building closer to demolition. Mr. Wright said that it did as a bona fide effort.

Ms. Rowland said that she had difficulty in revising the findings because the potential additional loss of that large building, would have an effect on the streetscape.

Motion:

Mr. Young moved for Case No. 001-00 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept and approve the revised staff's findings and recommendation, as written the staff report. It was seconded Ms. Miller. Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mitchell, and Ms. Rowland were opposed. Mr. Parvaz abstained. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, voted to break the tie and supported the motion. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Adjournment of the meeting.

As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M.