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, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Robert Payne, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:20P.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's 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 Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Simonsen moved to approve the minutes from the August 1, 2001 meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 012-01. at 1027 East South Temple, by William Connelly of Groupwest Properties, requesting final approval of four new condominium units at this address in the South Temple 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. Ms. Giraud stated that William Connelly of Groupwest properties is requesting final approval to construct four condominium units at 1027 E. South Temple, and renovate an existing home on the property as a fifth unit. She said that the existing house is a contributing structure in the South Temple Historic District, and the applicant will present plans in the future as to how he proposes to renovate the historic structure. Ms. Giraud added that this application concerned only the new construction.
Ms. Giraud referenced the plans that accompanied the staff report and described the proposal for new construction, as follows:
The four new units will be configured in an "L" formation, with frontage of one unit on South Temple. Brick and EIFS (Exterior Insulated and Finish System) are the proposed materials. The new units will be on a platform that acts as a roof for the underground parking, which will be accessed from an 18-foot driveway off of South Temple.
The size of the parcel is .37 acres, or 16,117 square feet. The property is zoned RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-family Residential District, the purpose of which is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types. Mr. Connelly must pursue a planned development process through the Planning Commission because he needs approval to modify the setbacks and because he is proposing to have more than one building on a parcel. The setback in question is at the rear. The RMF-35 zone requires a 25-foot rear yard setback and the applicant is proposing a 15-foot setback in order to accommodate the underground parking. Pushing the units back on the lot also enables a front-yard setback to conform to that of the house to the north.
The project was presented at the June 20, 2001 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The proposal presented, at that time, included elements that have been altered or eliminated, including large chimneys, double stairs to the historic house, and a gable roof on the north elevation. Members expressed the following concerns regarding the new proposal: 1) concrete walls faced with some other material; 2) the reduced rear yard setback would impact the neighbors; 3) reduce the size of the concrete mass on each side of the garage door and minimize the impact of the driveway; 4) handling of guest parking; 5) single-wide driveway for both in an out traffic; 6) two single garage doors, instead of a double door; 7) the scale would be "too grand", as would be the house on South Temple with a driveway accessing from the front elevation; 8) the driveway would be less intrusive if it were narrower and did not have the plantings; and 9) plants might mitigate the concrete, but unless they were coniferous, they would shed their leaves five months out of the year and leave exposed concrete.
Ms. Giraud said that the motion was made to refer the proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee and return to the full Commission for approval. She said that Mr. Connelly submitted plans to the Architectural Subcommittee on July 25, 2001 with the following revisions: 1) the elimination of the two-sided stairs west of the proposed driveway; 2) a decision on the security of the garage entrance (no free-standing phone; a keypad will be place on the west side of the driveway for guests); 3) the garage door would be recessed six feet; 4) the cupolas and chimneys would be eliminated; and 5) the gable on the north elevation changed to a hipped roof. At the conclusion of the subcommittee meeting, the members approved the changes, but further suggested that the garage door opening have a straight line and that the wall over the garage opening be concrete and brick instead of a planter box.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "In the previous staff report of June 20, 2001, staff made findings according to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020.34.020(H) Standard For Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. All of the findings were positive, with the exception of Relationship to Street. Under this category staff wrote, 'However, staff finds that the use of a garage door, the encroachment of the retaining walls in the front yard of the clinker brick house and the resulting platform created by the parking garage interrupts the sloping front yards characteristic of residential development on South Temple.' Staff finds that these problems have been mitigated. The straight sidewalk to the existing house, rather than the use of a two-sided stair, creates less of an intrusion on the historic house. Recessing the garage door by six feet, mitigates its encroachment on the streetscape. While there seems to be little way around the interruption of the sloping front yards, staff finds that the use of a straight walk from South Temple to the to the new unit facing the street is more in character with the historic streetscape and far less intrusive than the previously-proposed two-sided stairwell. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the project upon submittal of drawings that consistently reflect the comments of the Architectural Subcommittee"
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Littig inquired if the back yard setback would be 15 feet from the stairwell or the rear wall. Ms. Giraud said that it was from the rear wall; at the curve of the stairwell it would be 8 feet.
Mr. Christensen inquired if the proposed double-hung wood windows, with pre-finished aluminum exterior cladding materials, had been previously approved by this Commission. Ms. Giraud said that it had in new construction.
Mr. Simonsen talked about some of the unresolved issues that came up in Architectural Subcommittee meeting. Ms. Giraud said the applicant could be requested to return to the Architectural Subcommittee or the issues could be resolved in this meeting.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. William Connelly, the applicant was present. Mr. Dave Kallinger joined him at the table. Mr. Connelly stated that all material in the casing and sash portions of the windows, that would face the weather, would be aluminum clad. He added that the sections would be architecturally correct and it would be difficult to be able to tell the true wood and the exposed wood, that has to be painted, from the metal.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig inquired if the windows would be true divided light. Mr. Connelly said that true divided light is seldom done any more; there is something called simulated divided light. He said that they were big windows with two panes of insulated glass. Mr. Connelly explained that grids would be attached on the outside as well as inside the window and in between would be a divider so one could not see into the side of the window. He said that simulated divided light is very effective. Mr. Littig wanted to make certain that the simulated divided light would not be the plastic grids between the two panes of glass. Mr. Connelly said that it would be very difficult to tell the difference between true divided light and the proposed simulated divided light. Mr. Littig also inquired about the EIFS synthetic stucco system. Mr. Connelly said that the proposed system would be E.F.S. (Exterior and Finish System) with no insulation. He said there has been too many problems with that material. Mr. Connelly stated that the process would be a true stucco system, using chicken wire as a base. He pointed out that the difference between the two is EIFS has an underlay of Styrofoam insulation and then fiberglass grid over that to hold the stucco, one or two underlying coats of cement, then an acrylic colored finish coat. Mr. Connelly said that system has had many problems. Mr. Littig inquired about the keypad and how guests would access the parking structure. Mr. Connelly said that all occupants would have a door opener, but that would create a problem for the guests, so the guests would use a keypad to enter the parking structure.
• Mr. Protasevich talked further about the stucco process for the exterior of the new building. Mr. Connelly said that the true stucco system is actually cheaper. Mr. Protasevich indicated he was glad that the applicant was proposing that kind of system. Mr. Connelly said that they would use two coats and a finished coat of acrylic because it does not stain.
• Mr. Christensen talked about the alley access off "P" Street and asked if it would be a vehicular access or a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Connelly said that they intend to continue to use it for access to the dumpster, but not for the occupant's use, Mr. Christensen inquired about the material for the garage door. Mr. Connelly said the garage door would be made as bland and neutral as possible. He said that he did not believe it would be appropriate on South Temple to make the door "a very bold statement". Mr. Connelly noted that he looked into wood doors, but he would use a plain commercial metal roll up door.
(Mr. Gordon arrived at 4:35P.M.)
• Ms. Rowland said that one of the things that the Commission discussed was making the driveway narrower. Mr. Connelly said that it had to be the proposed width for two way traffic.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the finish on the walls around the garage door. Mr. Connelly said that the walls would be finished concrete. Mr. Connelly talked about the shape of the garage door and the fact that the garage door would be set back six feet. He pointed out that an arch, as well as a straight surface design are both shown on the rendering. Mr. Connelly said that he had no preference and asked the Commission for input.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired if the shape of the garage door would make a structural difference. Mr. Connelly said the shape would not affect the structure. Mr. Littig said that the arch would visually work well. Mr. Connelly said that he believed the arch would "soften" the architecture of the building, but it would be the only rounded element on the building. Mr. Simonsen asked if the renovation of the historic structure would be a separate application. Mr. Connelly affirmed that it would.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the arch would be on the exterior surface of the concrete. Mr. Connelly said that it would create a three-dimensional effect. Ms. Mickelsen said that the arch would seem "friendlier". Mr. Connelly said that the other issue is the railing on top. He pointed out that a solid railing was proposed on the rendering, but he said he realized that South Temple is eclectic enough that the railing could be open or solid. Mr. Parvaz asked what the choices would be? Mr. Connelly said that if it is an open railing, it would be wrought-iron. Mr. Parvaz asked if the cap on the wall would be concrete? Mr. Connelly said that it would. He added that there would be a planter box placed on top of the wall.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion took place regarding the issues at hand and the wording of a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Case No. 012-
01, based on staff's findings of fact and staff's recommendation, after the applicant returns to the Architectural Subcommittee meeting with updated drawings and plans that are consistent with the previous findings of the subcommittee and reflect what incurred by this Commission at this meeting today. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 020-01, at 464 South 600 East, by Doug Holmberg of Total Property Asset Management, requesting a review of the application for economic hardship regarding the "Bill and Nada McHenry" house, and consider who the Historic Landmark Commission will appoint to the Economic Review Panel for this case. The properties are located in the Central City 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. A copy of the application and the accompanying information was also filed with the minutes. He stated that the purpose of this review, after the application is submitted, but before the Economic Review Panel is established, is to address any glaring inconsistencies and/or request additional information that the Commissions believes would be necessary to convene the panel. The panel members may then request additional information from the applicant during the course of their review.
Mr. Knight stated that staff suggested Ms. Sandra Hatch to represent the Historic Landmark Commission on the Economic Review Panel. Ms. Hatch is an architect specializing in residential and historically sensitive design. She was a member of the Historic Landmark Commission from 1991 to 1997, and recently served on the Commission's subcommittee that examined the administrative approvals process.
Mr. Knight also asked the Commission to suggest other names of people to serve on an Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Littig suggested the name of Susan Deal to represent the Historic Landmark Commission on the Economic Review Panel for this case, who is a noted architect and has an appraiser's certificate. She was on the Historic Landmark Commission for five years and Vice Chair for one year. She works at Pace Pollard Architects. She has said before that she would be willing to serve on an Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Simonsen said that he was aware that Ms. Hatch worked in residential properties and asked if she had much experience in commercial properties. Mr. Knight said that is what staff primarily sees of her work.
Mr. Simonsen offered the names of Max Smith and Wally Cooper as possible representatives. He said that they both have expertise in the fields of architecture in residential, offices, and businesses.
Mr. Parvaz suggested calling these people to find out who would be willing to volunteer to serve in this capacity. Mr. Knight said that when he talked to Ms. Hatch, she said that she would be interested.
Mr. Knight also said that Mr. Parvaz had previously indicated that he would like to meet with the representative before the economic hardship review. He said that he could arrange that at a subcommittee meeting.
Ms. Rowland said that it seemed to her that a background and knowledge in real estate and development would be more beneficial to serve on the Economic Review Panel than being an architect.
Ms. Giraud said that she believed someone representing the Historic Landmark Commission should be someone who was used to developing large parcels of land and larger scale projects. She said that it has been difficult to find people whose expertise could address an economic hardship review. Ms. Giraud mentioned that the three Economic Review Panel members who have been reviewing the Promised Valley Playhouse have been "dynamic". Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission that Bob Springmeyer was representing the Historic Landmark Commission, Gary Chaston from Zions Securities, the applicant, and they selected Don Mahoney, architect with theater rehab experience, but their sessions have gone beyond the knowledge of theater rehab. She added that they have addressed many legal issues.
Mr. Parvaz said this Panel was probably "an exception".
Mr. Littig inquired if the Commissioners had a problem with anyone who was nominated. He also suggested that the Commission have a backup person in case one of the nominees are not willing to serve.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the nominations of Sandra Hatch, Susan Deal, Max Smith, or Wally Cooper, to serve on the Economic Review Panel to review the economic hardship of the "Bill and Nada McHenry" house at 464 South 600 East. Any of those nominated would be acceptable to the
Commission, pending the availability of the nominee. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion.
There was some discussion regarding the name of the person to be asked first to serve on the Panel.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Littig moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the nominations of Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Max Smith, or Wally Cooper, to serve on the Economic Review Panel to review the economic hardship of the "Bill and Nada McHenry" house at 464 South 600 East. Because of her background, Ms. Deal would be the first choice, but any of those nominated would be acceptable to the Commission, pending the availability of the nominee. Ms. Rowland's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There was some further discussion regarding some of the data what was submitted for the economic hardship review.
Mr. Gordon commented that it had been said before that the owners of the McHenry property would like to incorporate that parcel into the Family Center and asked if it would be considered part of the entire complex? Mr. Knight said that the Me Henry property is a separate parcel; however the plan is to absorb the property at some point. Mr. Gordon commented that if the property becomes part of the bigger parcel, the return necessary to subsidize the renovation of the McHenry house could be partially carried by the existing development.
Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Doug Holmberg, the applicant, was present. Ms. Carrie Fugett joined him at the table. Mr. Holmberg stated that the application for demolition of the Bill and Nada McHenry house was denied about one year ago. He read Section 21A.34.020.34.020{K) The determination of economic hardship shall require the applicant to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the application of the standards and regulations of this section deprives the applicant of all reasonable economic use or return on the subject property. He said, "As long as that building remains there, there is no way you can get a profitable economic use you can't even get above zero, as far as your investment is concerned."
Mr. Holmberg stated that an issue had been made on the application as to whether or not the owner knew it was in the historic district when it was purchased. He said that he started acquiring property in that block in 1962, which was long before the historic district was created. Mr. Holmberg noted that 71 parcels were acquired and this final property would make a 72-parcel aggregation. Mr. Holmberg also pointed out that when application was made to the City in 1994 for the construction of the Family Center, it included the McHenry parcel. He indicated that the Central City Neighborhood Council voted 18 to 0 on the construction of the Family Center, with 4 or 5 people abstaining. He added that the City Council voted for the project. Mr. Holmberg stated that it was well known in 1994 that the McHenry parcel would become part to Family Center. He added that the owner did not "force that Family Center on the City; the City came to us and asked us to go ahead with that project".
Mr. Holmberg stated, "In a free market situation, you would have some value that you could attribute on an economic basis. This is not a free market situation; we're being dictated to, by you folks, to keep that house. The economic forces are not present in this situation "
Mr. Holmberg indicated that he recently filed a reuse application.
Mr. Holmberg addressed the financial analysis of the McHenry property. He explained that financial analysis is broken down into three scenarios: residential, office, or retail use. Mr. Holmberg said that the internal rates of return (IRR) are spread out over a three-year period for each scenario.
Mr. Holmberg stated the following: "If you turn to the last page of that section, the three indented paragraphs explain net present value and internal rates of return and I think it is important to look at those. It says, if net present value (NPV) is positive, the financial value of investor's assets would be increased: the investment is financially attractive. Go back to the first page you will see NPV of minus $397,230.48, minus $444,503.81, and minus $467,303.45. It says, If NPV is zero, the financial value of investor's assets would not change: the investor is indifferent toward the investment. The last one says, If NPV is negative, the financial value of the investor's assets would be decreased: the investment is not financially attractive.
Mr. Knight said that staff identified three issues with the data contained in the application:
1. The renovation plans for the building as a residence, office, or retail use assume a "Cadillac" version of a renovation (Tab 6). No information is supplied on the basic work that would be necessary to bring the building up to minimal standards for occupancy. The cost estimates for each use reflect the scope of the renovation plans (Tab 7). The estimates of $425,146.68 (house option), $397,200.83 (office option), and $397,416.83 (retail option) seem high for a house of this size and condition. Staff discussed this issue with the applicant, and Mr. Holmberg stated that even if the construction costs were reduced by 50%, the applicant could still not make a reasonable return on the property. Additionally, if the construction costs were reduced, there would be a commensurate drop in amount of state and federal rehabilitation tax credits that the applicants could recoup on the costs of construction.
Applicant's response: Both Big D Construction, who is on the State's list of recommended contractors with experience in historic properties, and Wayne Belka, architect, indicated that the proposed costs were not high enough. He left out approximately $50,000 in soft costs having to do with construction, such as permits, fees, bonds, detailed architectural plans, engineering studies, environment reports, soil tests, interest, and appraisals for the various lenders. He circulated copies of sheets where the renovation costs were cut 50%, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
2. Both Mr. Holmberg and the applicants' previous representative, Carrie Fugett, have stated that they received numerous inquiries about leasing the building. The panel might benefit from further information regarding these inquires, to see if there might be a viable use for the building. Information on prospective tenants might also help the Panel analyze the validity of the applicant's scope of renovation work and construction costs. Mr. Knight said that someone approached him about putting in a little art studio. He said that other possible uses would be explored during the evaluation process.
Applicant's response: For some period of time, Ms. Fugett dealt directly with people wanting to use that property for a one-year period from the date of purchase - December of 1999, to December of 2000. There were exactly six inquiries: residential/production of ·fine art, car wash, communication center, studio for a talk radio host, gift/book store, and floral shop/boutique. The property is listed with Colliers CRG.
3. Mr. Holmberg has included an appraisal for the property that estimates values for the building under several different scenarios: 1) as renovated for a single-family residence ($230,000.00); 2) converted to an office use ($320,000.00); 3) converted to a retail use ($350,000.00) (Tab 8, page i); and 4) as vacant land ($150,000.00) (Tab 9). The financial analysis (Tab 10, page 2) includes scenarios in which the building is sold, but the sale prices included in the analysis are substantially lower than the appraised values.
Applicant's response: The appraised value is the same as the applicant used in his evaluation. The discrepancy in values was an error by the appraiser. The appraiser listed the lower values elsewhere in his appraisal, but made a typographical error on the executive summary on page (p. ii). The applicant offered the appraisal book to review, but did not produce copies of the pertinent page.
Mr. Holmberg stated that Total Property Asset Management was on record as the owner of the McHenry property. Mr. Holmberg said that he plans to serve on the Economic Review Panel as the representative of the owner. He explained that he was the chief financial officer for Hermes for over 17 years. Mr. Holmberg also stated that he was the director of the local evaluations section of the Utah State Tax Division for 8 years. He added that he could "talk about appraisals quite well". Mr. Holmberg suggested Allen Fawcett, who used to work for the City as a contractor employee, when the building ordinances were being written, and/or Jim Davis, who also used to work for the City and former mayor of South Salt Lake City, as the third party on the Economic Review Panel. Mr. Parvaz said that the two representatives on the Economic Review Panel would select the third party and not the Historic Landmark Commission or Planning Staff.
(Mr. Christensen excused himself at 5:30P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.)
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Rowland inquired about the value of the property, using the three alternative scenarios before rehabilitation. She said that the applicant assumed that the property has no rehab value, but people rehab houses all the time, for any use. She said that she believed that was an appropriate question. Mr. Holmberg said those figures are included in the appraised value of the land of $150,000. He said that as long as that house just sat there, the only value is the value of the land. Ms. Rowland said that the economic argument is the highest and best use for developable land. She said that if the owner purchased the property for $155,000 and leased it out at $10.00 to $13.00 per square foot, over a period of time, the owner would get a return for his investment. Mr. Holmberg said that the building could not be leased without putting some money into it. He pointed out the figures that were included on the economic hardship worksheet. Mr. Holmberg said, "Let me reiterate we are not going to sell the property so that is out; that is not a consideration. We have to go forward from this point as to what we are going to do. If you want to get lower bids and set things up, I'm happy to run the numbers again." Ms. Rowland said, "I am not questioning as to whether or not the bid is accurate I'm questioning what is appropriate, based on the ordinance. What is the extent of the work that has to be done?"
The discussion continued regarding the financial analysis and the best return for the investment. Mr. Knight said that the responsibility of the Economic Review Panel is to review the figures that the applicant submits and make the determination of the rate of return and whether or not the financial analysis demonstrates an economic hardship.
• Mr. Simonsen said that the applicant's demolition request was denied, so if the applicant chooses to go through the economic hardship process, the Economic Review Panel may find that the applicant could make an economic return by selling the property. Mr. Holmberg suggested that the City Attorney review that situation because "there isn't a law that could make us sell that property". Ms. Giraud said that is the question that came up with a previous case. She said that the Assistant City Attorney said, "No one can make you sell the property. But if you cannot prove that you would suffer an economic hardship if you chose not to sell the building, then you cannot claim economic hardship." Ms. Rowland said that you cannot leave that out of the picture. Mr. Holmberg said, "I don't believe that is true, but that is for the attorney to decide."
• Mr. Knight pointed out that this reasoning was similar to a property owner ruling out a use, such as a residential use, that is allowed and could potentially be profitable. He said that just because an owner is not interested in that use, it does not constitute an economic hardship. Mr. Holmberg said that a residential use would not be allowed, due to the City Housing Codes. He cited the low head height in the basement as an example of the house's deficiencies.
• Mr. Parvaz stated that there was a discrepancy in the square footage. He said that the appraiser used 2,500 square feet, but in the analysis for retail use, the square footage is listed as 3,960 square feet. Mr. Holmberg said that the basement has a very low ceiling and where it could be used for storage in the retail or office use scenario, it could not be used for residential purposes. Mr. Simonsen said that was not entirely true because the building official could waive that. He said that his home has a low ceiling in the basement. Mr. Holmberg said that the basement would have to excavated to accommodate any plumbing fixtures for residential use, which would be a lot more money. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that the applicant's architect called for excavating the basement, installing a new floor slab, mechanical and plumbing in his proposal. Mr. Holmberg said that the architect would have to explain the difference. Mr. Parvaz continued to point out the discrepancies in the costs.
Mr. Holmberg asked the question, "Where do we go from here?" Mr. Knight said that after the representative for the Historic Landmark Commission is chosen, that person and Mr. Holmberg would select the third person. Mr. Holmberg said that it might be difficult to find the third person who would be willing to work for free. Mr. Knight said that the ordinance provides for an option that if the third party is not chosen within 30 days, then the Mayor has the right to choose that third person.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Knight pointed out that it was the responsibility of the Economic Review Panel to review and analyze the data that the applicant submitted. He said that it was the responsibility of the Historic Landmark Commission to establish whether or not the information is complete and if additional information is needed.
Mr. Protasevich said that he had difficulty in understand why the Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition of the building on 400 South, which is not an historic and contributing building, but denied demolition to the McHenry house which he did not believe had any historic value. He said, "It's a shack. Why not build something nice there." Ms. Rowland said that "something nice" is not always based on the criteria in the ordinance. Mr. Parvaz said that there are criteria and standards that the Historic Landmark Commission has to follow in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Protasevich talked about all the buildings that were lost in Europe during World War II. He said, "Why not take down the old and build a new buildings."
Mr. Littig said that the Historic Landmark Commission could not just "roll over" when owners of historic buildings want to demolish them. He said sometimes they have to be shown that there is an alternative rather than tearing down.
Ms. Rowland said that historic districts need to be protected, otherwise the message is sent, that a landmark site or an historic district does not mean anything.
Ms. Giraud said that maybe individually one house might not be historically significant in and of itself, but as a whole, they made up the fabric of the city. She indicated that by previous planning practices, that historic fabric has been eroded.
This discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as 1) the replacement would not be better than the historic building; 2) different layers of culture; 3) the problem of losing historic properties through the demolition process; 4) there are risks associated with buying and development property in an historic district; 5) the historic fabric is being lost, one building at a time; 6) the problem of developers accumulating properties for the sole of purpose of demolishing them; 7) economic hardship slows the process; 8) preservation is a managed process; 9) if Bill and Nada's Cafe is torn down, what would the significance be for the McHenry house; and 10) Bill McHenry was a fixture in the neighborhood.
The discussion turned to the wording of a motion. Ms. Giraud said that if the Commission believes that additional information needs to be provided, then it should be included in the motion.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that based on the review by the Historic Landmark Commission of the economic hardship application for the McHenry property, the Commission has questions regarding the discrepancies in the appraisal amounts based on the usable square footage of the building, the evaluation and extent of the renovation that is required, and based on those questions, the Commission would like the Economic Review Panel to review those items, in detail, and determine whether or not they are accurate. Further, the option to lease the building, as is, and have the tenants renovate the building should be included. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Gordon so moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.