SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, Joel Paterson, William T. Wright, and Janice Jardine, representing the City Council.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Susan Deal was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes 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
Ms. Blaes introduced Ms. Amy Rowland as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. She was welcomed by the other members and staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the August 5, 1998 meeting, after some corrections are made. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal was not present. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 024-98. by Jeff Jonas of Winthrop Court L.L.C. represented by Max Smith. architect. from MJS Associates. requesting to demolish two structures at 323-325 and 327-329 South 500 East.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. When asked, Ms. Giraud read the following standards from Section 21A.34.020(M) of the City's zoning ordinance, which is the criteria that establishes a "bona fide" effort on the part of the applicant: 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. After a short discussion, Ms. Giraud said that it would be the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission if the applicant executed all the points found in those standards.
Mr. Jeff Jonas, the applicant, as well as his representative, Max Smith from MJS Associates, were present. Mr. Jonas stated that his company owned the property east of the subject site, where Phase I of the Winthrop Court project will be developed, which has been through the approval process. Mr. Jonas said that originally in the plans for Phase I, the structure would have been six stories high. He added that the zoning would allow a structure 75 feet high. Mr. Jonas indicated that the cost would have been too prohibitive to build a structure with six stories, so the plans were changed and the building will be four stories high, which he said would be more in character with the height of other structures in the neighborhood.
Mr. Jonas said that after conferring with his investors, lenders, and other developers, it became evident that the properties on 500 East would not be compatible adjacent to, what he said he believed "would be the highest renting apartment complex in Salt Lake City". Mr. Jonas remarked that when the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the proposal for what he called Phase I of the apartment complex, he had stated that he hoped to obtain the properties on Vernier Place to have another accessway for the development. He said that he was able to purchase those properties earlier this year.
Mr. Jonas said that the previous owners of the buildings were "slum lords" who were responsible for the deteriorated condition. He said that for the last few years, the property never had a building inspection because the owners told the building inspectors that the buildings would be torn down. Mr. Jonas said that the buildings were a "mess" and "uninhabitable". He noted that there had been recent fires in the buildings. He said that it was a "wonder that people had not been killed in those buildings". Mr. Jonas also spoke of the crime element. He said that he had no other choice but to board them so that he, as the current owner, would not have the liability of the inhabitants.
Mr. Jonas said that the purpose statement in the Section 21A.34.020(A) of the zoning ordinance it reads, "In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity, and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to:
1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the City and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance. Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas said that he believed that the subject properties did not have any architectural or cultural significance.
2. Encourage new development, redevelopment, and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual Landmark Commissions.
Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas stated that the project would be a continuation of Phase I, which "everyone" thought was compatible with the historic district. He said that the architectural site plans had not been completed.
3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures. Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas said that he was asking for a demolition so he agreed that his application did not comply with this criteria.
4. Implement adopted plans of the City related to historic preservation. Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas said that this criteria was pertinent. He said that in the rezoning of Salt Lake City, a few years ago, the property was zoned R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use District), which is a high density zoning. He stated that If the City had intended for this property to be part of the historic district, it would have been zoned SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) which would have been more in keeping the zone's historic development pattern.
5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City. Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas said that he did not understand how demolishing those buildings would negatively impact the civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City.
6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the City's historic Landmark Commissions and districts for tourists and visitors. Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas said it was difficult for him to understand how his request would negatively affect the streetscape of the district. He said that these were the only historic buildings left on the 500 East on that block, which is the western boundary of the historic district. He added that these were the only historic buildings in a five-block area. Mr. Jonas said that as the process is continued, "you will see that this block and the Fred Meyer block should not be in the Central City Historic District, and I will ask you to amend the boundaries."
7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation. Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas stated that the City envisioned a high-density development on this block. Mr. Jonas said that in the plans for light rail, a stop on the corner of 600 East and 400 South is proposed, so that access to the apartment complex must have been critical in making that decision.
Mr. Jonas talked about the criteria when the overlay district was selected. He read from Section 21A.34.020(8)(1), "H Historic Preservation Overlay District. A geographically or thematically definable area which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City." Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas said that neither the subject property site, the block, in which the property is located, nor the Fred Meyer block have any of the features as described in this criterion.
Mr. Jonas referred to Section 21A.34.020(L), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District: 1. Standards for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. (a) The physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association is unique. Applicant's comments: Mr. Jonas said that the subject property did not meet this criteria, except for the fact that the buildings are 50 years old.
Mr. Jonas continued by saying that when the overlay districts were set up, it was written that the Historic Landmark Commission would evaluate each parcel of property within a proposed historic preservation overlay district or the parcel of property associated with a Landmark Commission site. Mr. Jonas said that Individual parcels should be reviewed and judged by themselves and not by the whole district.
Mr. Jonas said that the subject property had ceased to meet the criteria for inclusion in an historic district. Ms. Blaes indicated that adjusting the boundaries of a district was not part of the review for Mr. Jonas' request for demolition. She suggested that the applicant make that recommendation in a formal request to the City. Mr. Jonas said that he intended to make such a request. Ms. Blaes said that the subject of historic district boundaries, was not pertinent to the applicant's demolition request. Mr. Jonas disagreed and said that he believed that it was pertinent. He said that he has tried to be "up-front and honest" in dealing with the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Jonas talked about Phase I of the project and the fact that the Juel Apartment Building would be incorporated into the project. He said that there was still a chance that the Mumford House would be moved. Mr. Jonas said that his office probably had 300 calls regarding the notice that was in This Old House Magazine. He said that, as yet, no one could make economic sense out of moving the house. Mr. Jonas pointed out that he has tried to be fair.
Mr. Jonas said that he was disappointed in the staff’s findings, which are reported later on in the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Jonas indicated that he believed that the project met four out of the six of the required standards for demolition. He said that if the Historic Landmark Commission continues to make applicants go through the economic hardship process, people will be less likely to try and work with the Commission. Mr. Jonas said that he believed if his demolition request is denied and he goes through the economic hardship process, the Economic Review Panel will rule in favor of economic hardship because of the R-MU zoning.
Ms. Blaes pointed out that the R-MU zone allows for two family dwellings, as well as high density. The discussion continued regarding what would constitute the "highest" and "best" use for the subject property. Mr. Jonas said that he believed that the highest and best use for the property would not be a duplex and reminded the Commission that the City rezoned the property for high density dwellings.
Mr. Jonas talked about the possibility of the Commission tabling his application. He pointed out that it was difficult to distinguish between Case No. 024-98 and Case No. 025-98, because the property will be redeveloped as one site.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Young led the discussion by asking if plans for the development included retail spaces, or would it all be residential. Mr. Jonas said that there would be a site for some commercial use, but it primarily would be residential use. Mr. Smith said that there would be commercial exposure on 500 East. He added that there would be a fitness center at the main level and office space.
Mr. Young said that retail space could be provided in any or all of the existing buildings on the site. Mr. Young pointed out if the trend continues to develop high density residential properties, then the smaller retail services and business opportunities, that could support the residential sites, would be forced out. Mr. Young continued by saying that the idea of having an urban neighborhood, which is the ultimate goal of the Planning Staff, would have a balance of services accommodating the nearby residential neighborhood. Mr. Jonas said that, as the development went through the approval process, it was the consensus among the members of the Community Council, Planning Commission, and the City Council that retail services were already in the community and that residential use was high priority to support the existing services.
Mr. Young expressed his concerns that when these two remaining historic buildings in the five-block stretch were gone, that whole legacy would be gone. He said that if the residential trend continues, what would prevent the potential residential developers from looking at the next generation of buildings in the community. Mr. Young said that the Historic Landmark Commission would be faced with the continuing erosion of this historic district and end up "killing itself'. Mr. Young pointed out that Mr. Jonas said that this planned high-scale residential complex would have the highest rents in Salt Lake City. He was concerned that there would not be enough opportunity for the service people, not only to provide services, but to live in the area, as well. Mr. Jonas reiterated his comments that this block and the Fred Meyer block should not be in the historic district.
Mr. Young said that most of the current Commission members were not on the Historic Landmark Commission during the review for the Fred Meyer development, and do not know the discussions that occurred. He said that he knows, as a member of this Commission, that part of the members ‘charge is to ensure the future contingency of the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Young said that Mr. Jonas was correct in the fact that there has been a significant erosion on the western border of the historic district. However, he said that there was no obligation to continue making the same decisions that previous Historic Landmark Commissions made. Mr. Young said that, the Commission was looking at the overall long-term ambiance, and not the immediate short-term argument. Mr. Jonas said that he believed that the charge of the Historic Landmark Commission was to create districts that were appropriate. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the Central City Historic District was established before the R-MU zoning was adopted.
• Ms. Blaes said again that the Commission would not be making changes in the district boundaries at this time because the application before the Commission was for the demolition of two contributing buildings that exist on 500 East, which is the western edge of the Central City Historic District. She said that Mr. Jonas would have the opportunity in the future to make his argument, but the members of this Commission at this meeting have the responsibility to make a decision on the demolition request. Mr. Jonas said that he believed that it was pertinent to discuss the boundary in terms of the context of the proposed development.
• Ms. Miller asked if the applicant had explored working with the existing buildings on 500 East and incorporating them into the development. Mr. Jonas said that idea would not make economic sense. Ms. Miller noted that the applicant was prepared to proceed with the project without the demolition of the buildings on 500 East. Mr. Jonas stated that one of the things that his investors and lenders pointed out was that it would not be feasible to have a high-scaled residential development in the back yards of those existing buildings, because the proposed project would be developed in the interior of the block with very little streetscape exposure. He added that the project was already including an existing historic apartment building. Mr. Jonas continued to discuss the planned development.
• Ms. Mitchell said that she recalled an earlier discussion during the review of Phase I of the project, where the applicant brought up the issue that Vernier Place would be important for access. She said that she did not recall any discussion where the additional property on 500 East was important to make the project viable. Mr. Jonas said that the access issue was raised by the City Engineers. Mr. Jonas spoke briefly about the ratio of potential parking that would be available in the parking structure. Mr. Smith said that there had been national companies look at the proposed project because he said that local lenders could not undertake the project. He said that the reaction was the same as soon as someone saw the dilapidated condition of the buildings. Mr. Smith said that he believed that was what pushed Mr. Jonas into the idea of acquiring those two additional buildings on 500 East. The discussion continued regarding the local lenders, the buildings on 500 East. and the requested demolition.
• Mr. Littig inquired how the investors and lenders felt about the restaurant, the convenience store, and the other noncontributing buildings on the block. Mr. Jonas indicated that he started acquiring the properties about three years earlier, and he said that he had to put a limit on the development. He said that Mr. Smith has had to alter the design of the project several times.
• Ms. Rowland said that it was unfortunate that creating a R-MU zone had increased the value of the land. She also agreed with the applicant that, as a lender, she would have had a hard time financing the project due to the condition of the buildings. The discussion continued. Mr. Smith said that the R-MU zone was good, economically, because of the purchase price. He also said that the previous owners had no intention of doing anything with the buildings; they were "just sitting on them until someone came around with the right dollars". Mr. Jonas said that he did not want to pay what he had to pay for the property.
• Mr. Gordon inquired about the site plans for the development. Since the Ware Building had been mentioned, Mr. Gordon wanted to see on the site plans for Phase I where the building was located. Mr. Smith showed him. Mr. Gordon asked if there had been any attention given to the Lunt Motel Annex for the possibility of incorporating those buildings into the development plans. Mr. Smith said there had not been any time given to that idea because the project would have been in the back yards of those buildings and very little exposure on 500 East. Mr. Jonas said the units in the Lunt Motel Annex were "functionally obsolete"; however, he said that an effort was made by the Valley Mental Health people to use the space, but the economics did not work out.
• Mr. Owen asked how many housing units were planned for the Phase I of the project and what the projected rents would be. Mr. Jonas said that Phase I would have approximately 240 units, and Phase II would have approximately 200 units. He indicated that the projected rent would be between $1.00 to $1.25 per square foot. He said the units would vary from studios that may be 450 to 500 square feet to larger units up to 1,000 to 1,200 square feet. Mr. Young said those would be comparable to the rents at the Brigham Young Apartments on South Temple. Mr. Jonas said that the Brigham Young Apartment complex was not functioning very well due to the limited parking spaces allowed per unit. Mr. Young commented that the residents have to use their automobiles to get to the needed services.
When asked, Mr. Jonas said that both phases of the project would be developed together. Mr. Smith gave a lengthy discourse regarding the condition of the subject buildings and the noncontributing buildings in that portion of the historic district. He said that the City and the citizens in the community wanted what was envisioned in the master plan for East Downtown area, which was higher density and to create a neighborhood that has the kind of "vibrancy" and "aliveness" that was needed. Mr. Smith talked about other buildings in the area. Ms. Blaes said that it made her wonder if this was the block for the land use that Mr. Jonas and Mr. Smith envisioned. She added that she is not sure that it was.
Mr. Smith concluded by saying that most of the East Downtown area had been broken up in relatively small pieces of properties. He said that the property that Mr. Jonas had acquired was an attraction for the type of development he was proposing.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides at 816 East 100 South, stated that she did not object to the project that Mr. Jonas had proposed, but she had problems with the misuse of the East Downtown Master Plan, as the basis for "deep sixing" the Central City Historic District. Ms. Cromer said that she was involved with the formulation of the East Downtown Master Plan. She said that the intent of the zoning was to re establish the population base and stop the encroachment of office parks. Ms. Cromer said that the intent of the master plan was not supposed to be at the expense of the historic district. She said that she did not have a problem with the quality of the applicant's project, only the impact it would have on the Central City Historic District.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes said that the Commission could not make a decision until it was known if the Commission members supported or not supported the staff’s findings, based on the information received at this meeting. Ms. Blaes pointed out that there was a base zone and an overlay zone in the district. She asked staff to read that statement out of the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Giraud read the Statement of Intent from the zoning ordinance: "An overlay district is intended to provide supplemental regulations or standards pertaining to specific geographic features or land uses, wherever these are located, in addition to "base" or underlying zoning district regulations applicable within a designated area. Whenever there is a conflict between the regulations of a base zoning district and those of an overlay district, the overlay district regulations shall control."
The discussion turned to the probability of the applicant filing for an economic hardship review. Mr. Young asked if there were standards for the rate of return the applicant would have on the project. Ms. Giraud said it states in the zoning ordinance that it is a "reasonable rate of return." What a reasonable rate of return would be continued to be discussed. Mr. Wright read from Section 21A.34.2\020(K)(2)(d), "The feasibility of alternative uses that can earn a reasonable economic return for the property as considered in relation to the following: ..." He said that it then lists information how that reasonable rate of economic return could be established.
Ms. Blaes reintroduced the subject of the staff’s findings, which were included in the staff report, and also analyzed by the applicant earlier in this meeting. She referred to Section 21A.34.020. (L)(1) as the Commission went through the staff’s findings, 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 ·finding: The physical integrity of this structure is intact.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that he would not argue that. He said that the application did not meet this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
b. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay
District would not be negatively affected;
Staffs finding: The removal of the remaining historic buildings in this part of the historic district would negatively affect the streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The applicant does not meet this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that the subject buildings were the only historic ones in a five-block stretch and removing them would not negatively affect the streetscape. He said that the western boundary of the district had been destroyed. Mr. Jonas said that "to say that this will adversely affect what has already been destroyed, is ridiculous".
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the
members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
c. The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding noncontributing structures;
Staffs finding: The Lunt Motel Annex is in the midst of noncontributing structures but the demolition of the Annex would adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The applicant does not meet this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that the subject property site has a Circle K Convenience Store next to it and the lvographics Building, ''which may be the ugliest building in Salt Lake City," on the other side of it. He said that the block had been destroyed. He said that he had the same argument with the 300 South block in Phase I of the project with the credit union building, the restaurant, the flower shop on the corner, and the other noncontributing buildings. Mr. Jonas said that he did not believe that his request to demolish the two buildings on 500 East would have an adverse effect in the district.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
d. The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure;
Staffs finding: If the Lunt Motel Annex is reused, it would comply with the R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use) zone. The applicant does not meet this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that he would not argue that the base zoning would be compatible with the reuse.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
e. The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section;
Staffs finding: The applicant does not meet this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that the site plan for Phase II would be consistent with the site plan for Phase I, except that the project would be extended to the 500 East block.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: Mr. Wright said that another purpose that the staff recommended tabling this decision, was that this standard was not met by the applicant, according to the staffs finding, because staff had only been given a schematic site plan and not a complete reuse plan. After a short discussion, it was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
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 finding: The applicant has not willfully neglected the building, and thus meets this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas agreed that his application met this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: Ms. Mitchell said that she questioned whether or not that this standard for willful neglect was met because after a site visit, it could be seen that there was more than water damage to those buildings. Mr. Wright said that he believed the applicant met this standard because he did not willfully neglect the buildings. Ms. Mitchell said she understood that it was the previous owner. Ms. Blaes said that there was a broader issue when one purchases another's willful neglect. Mr. Young pointed out that the applicant did what he had to do to secure the buildings; that Mr. Jonas was attempting to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, whatever the solution may be. It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
Mr. Young moved to support staff's recommendation that Case No. 024-98 be tabled so the applicant could pursue the economic hardship process and defer the decision for demolition for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to Section 21A.34.020(M) of the City's zoning ordinance. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon.
A discussion took place regarding the following Section 21A.34.020(L)(2)(a through c), which states: a) Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. Upon making findings that at least six of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition; b) Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. Upon making findings that two or less of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition; and c) Deferral of Decision for up to One Year.
Upon making findings that three to five of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall defer a decision for up to one year during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site pursuant to Subsection M of this section.
Mr. Wright said that an economic hardship process, could override all the standards in the determination of the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Ms. Blaes said that, according to the staff’s findings, the applicant only met one of the six standards. She said that the Commission would be compelled to deny the request for demolition, unless the motion would be based on the fact that the Commission did not have enough information and that the Economic Review Panel process would provide the Commission with that information. The motion was amended.
Mr. Young moved to support staff's recommendation that Case No. 024-98 be tabled so the applicant could pursue the economic hardship process. It was still seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal was not present. The motion passed.
• Ms. Blaes said that she believed that it would be appropriate if the Historic Landmark Commission selected a panel member for the Economic Review Panel. Ms. Blaes suggested either Rob White, who is a Trustee for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, or Nathan Watson, who is a development and financing specialist from Kier Company. She said that both had served on previous Economic Review Panels and both seemed to be familiar with realistic rehabilitation costs and real estate development practices.
Mr. Wright stated the Economic Review Panel consisted of three members. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission would select one person; the applicant would select one person; and those two individuals would select the third person. Mr. Wright indicated that if the two selected panel members could not come to an agreement on the third selection, then the Mayor would have 30 days to select the third member.
It was the consensus of the Historic Landmark Commission that either Mr. White or Mr. Watson be asked to serve on the Economic Review Panel to determine economic hardship in regards to the demolition request by Jeff Jonas.
Case No. 025-98, by Jeff Jonas of Winthrop Court L.L.C. represented by Max Smith, architect. from MJS Associates. requesting to relocate eight structures at 517. 521, 524, 527, 528, 532, 533, and 538 East Vernier Place.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Jeff Jonas, the applicant, as well as his representative, Max Smith from MJS Associates, were present. Mr. Jonas said that he chose to submit an application for the relocation of the eight structures on Vernier Place, rather than a demolition request: He said that he felt strongly that an attempt should be made to relocate the houses rather than tearing them down. Mr. Jonas noted that he has been trying to find locations to place these houses, as a group, or individually. He said that there were more possibilities outside the historic district for properties, on which the houses could be relocated, than within the historic district.
Mr. Jonas referred to the staff's findings, which are reported later on in the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Jonas said in the staff's summary statement, it states, "the Commission will find a mixed bag in this application to move the eight houses at Vernier Place. Relocating the buildings, especially to separate location, will have adverse effect on the historical integrity of the buildings and of the street" Mr. Jonas said that he did not know how the relocation request could reduce the continuity within the boundaries of the historic district of which the subject properties should not even be a part. Mr. Jonas stated that he had contacted a number of non-profit organizations to inquire if they would be interested in relocating and using the houses. Mr. Jonas said that he was finding out that the buildings will be very costly to move because of their construction. He indicated that he still had two non-profit organizations that were working with him on a basis that he would subsidize the cost of moving the buildings so it could be affordable for them to use for different programs. Mr. Jonas added that he still would like to do that. He invited the Commission members to offer any suggestions. He said that the option of relocation would still be the first option and asked the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to work with him.
Mr. Jonas confronted the issues at hand by discussing the option of demolition and the economic hardship processes. He said that he believed that if the Historic Landmark Commission takes the position to either "keep what is there or forget it", it would send a clear message to anyone trying to work with the Historic Landmark Commission in the future. He said if that happened, the Commission would become a very "static organization that only wants one thing."
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Gordon led the discussion by saying that he had been house hunting in the Central City area. He pointed how much he enjoyed finding these little courts and how unique they are to the area. Mr. Gordon said the he would keep his eyes open for locations as he drives around the area. Mr. Jonas said that he had found some individual lots, but none have been large enough to accommodate all eight of the houses. Mr. Gordon asked if the applicant had investigated the possibility of relocating the houses in "This Is The Place State Park". Mr. Jonas said that he had contacted the LDS Church but they were not interested because the houses would not fit into the historical time frame.
• Ms. Mitchell asked why this application had come before the Historic Landmark Commission before a relocation site or sites have been found. She said that it would be difficult for the members of the Commission to make a determination when there were no options presented for relocation. Mr. Jonas said that he wanted to know how the Commission felt about moving the houses. He also said that until a short time ago, he believed that a relocation site had been found.
• Mr. Owen asked if the applicant had considered moving the buildings onto the project site. He said that they could replace the buildings that are being destroyed on 300 South. Mr. Jonas said that he did not believe that suggestion would work for the project. The discussion continued regarding the number of residential units in the development, the rents, sizes, and types being the same as the first phase.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes said that she needed to disclose conversations that she had with the applicant with regard to these properties on Vernier Place. She said that in her capacity as Assistant Director of the Utah Heritage Foundation, she administers the revolving loan fund program. Ms. Blaes said that Mr. Danny Waltz of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) came to the Foundation with a proposal that the RDA would be demolishing several duplexes and creating six single-family home sites on Pugsley Street, as part of a project area of Capitol Hill. She said that there was some discussion about relocating the houses on Vierner Court onto Pugsley Street, utilizing funds from the Utah Heritage Foundation Revolving Fund Program. Ms. Blaes said that the executive committee made the decision not to pursue that project for various reasons. Ms. Blaes said that one reason was that the Utah Heritage Foundation did not have the staff capacity, at this time, because of the preparation and demand of the multi-million-dollar loan project for the Ogden area. She added that the executive committee also believed that not enough information about the rehabilitation of the properties on site had been provided and the committee members were not willing to explore the proposal until the requested information was provided.
Ms. Blaes reported that she did not believe that this circumstance was a conflict of interest between the applicant and herself. She added that under the policy procedures of the Historic Landmark Commission, if the members feel that because of her involvement, she should recuse herself, she would do it. Since no one suggested that, it was the conclusion that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission did not believe that it was necessary for Ms. Blaes to recuse herself and the meeting continued.
Mr. Wright stated that it had been the staff's decision to separate the previous case from this case. He pointed out that the City's zoning ordinance requires that the Historic Landmark Commission make a determination if the project substantially complies with a set of standards, which had been outlined in the staff report. Mr. Wright said that the standards do not have the same characteristics as the standards required in a demolition request. He noted that there were also six standards for a relocation of a Landmark Commission site or contributing structure, but the Commission would not be compelled to make a decision based on the numbers, i.e. five out of six, or two out of six.
Mr. Wright said that if the Historic Landmark Commission denies the application for relocation, then the applicant would not be able to file a request for economic hardship, because an Economic Review Panel would not be looking at the financial issues, as in a demolition request. Mr. Wright said that it may be difficult to determine with which of the six standards the applicant would substantially comply because all the information needed to make that determination was not available at this point.
The subject of the discussion turned to the possibility of the eight houses being stored, as an option. Mr. Wright recommended that the Commission be very careful with that option because he said that he had seen in other cities where storing houses was an option, and as time went by and the buildings were left out-of-site too long, they would be destroyed and there would be nothing left to move.
Mr. Young said that if the titles to the buildings were not transferred, who would pay the holding costs, Mr. Jonas or the mover. He added that he imagined that there would be a storage fee. Mr. Wright said that would have to be resolved as part of the arrangement.
Mr. Wright said that there was a technical issue concerning moving the buildings. He said that there might be a problem with the houses fitting through the 500 East accessway.
There was some discussion that the lvographics Building will be considered for demolition. Ms. Giraud said that when a request for demolition is received for a noncontributing building, such as the lvographics Building, notices go out to the nearby property owners. She said that there is a two-week waiting period that allows for public comment on the demolition. Ms. Giraud said that if no objections are raised, during this time, the demolition permit is issued.
The discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as:
1) Spaces on the development site not large enough for the houses to be relocated;
2) The determination to review the relocation request as "one entity" or "eight entities";
3) If the houses are relocated, the uniqueness of the court style of Vernier Place will be lost;
4) If the houses are not moved, the applicant would apply for a demolition permit, and eventually the houses might be demolished which would diminish the historical and architectural significance of the Central City Historic District;
5) Vernier Place represents one of the last microcosms of what that original historic district intended to be. The court is a "mini district" unto itself;
6) There were viable uses in these houses, at one time, and it was sad that they could not be restored to some level of economic return;
7) When the homes were destroyed on Gordon Place, another microcosm was lost;
8) It was difficult to separate some of the issues of the two cases;
9) The economic feasibility of relocating the eight houses was questioned;
10) If the eight houses are relocated outside the boundaries of Salt Lake City, the Historic Landmark Commission would not have jurisdiction over the relocation site or sites, unless a development agreement was drafted which would show how the houses would be placed on the foundations;
11) The possibility of the cost of moving the houses would more than likely keep them in the City; and
12) The conclusion that the houses would be removed from the Vernier Place site either by relocation or demolition.
The discussion continued regarding the lack of information for the relocation site or sites, and if that was an issue with the members of the Commission. Mr. Young inquired what would happen if the houses were still on Vernier Place, and the applicant was ready to start construction on the project. Mr. Wright said those conditions could be detailed in the approval. Ms. Blaes said for that reason if the Commission believed that the relocation information was vital, then the application should be tabled until that information was provided. She said that if the Commission believed that the relocation information was not necessary, then the Commission could make a finding and a determination on the standards in the ordinance.
Ms. Blaes discussed the following staff's findings, which were included in the staff report, as well as the applicant's comments which were made earlier in this meeting:
In Section 21A.34.020{1) the standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Relocation of Landmark Commission site or contributing Structure are listed. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation of a Landmark Commission site or a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following standards:
1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure;
Staff's finding: Moving the buildings will abate their possible {though not assured) demolition.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas agreed to this finding.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staff's finding.
2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district;
Staffs finding: The application does not meet this standard. Removing the eight buildings would adversely affect the integrity of the district, especially if six other buildings on the block are demolished as part of this project. The loss may be mitigated if the buildings are moved to another site within the historic district. Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas disagreed with this finding. He said that he did not understand why the removal of the subject buildings would diminish the overall physical integrity of the district. He added that the district in this area had no remaining integrity. Mr. Jonas said that the western boundaries on 500 East had already been destroyed and the boundaries of the historic district should be changed.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the structure;
Staffs finding: The application does not meet this standard. The historical significance of the eight houses on Vernier Place is primarily derived from their location together on Vernier Place. Relocating the buildings to separate locations would adversely affect this aspect of the historic significance of the buildings, but to a lesser extent.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas disagreed with this finding. He said that he did not believe that any of the existing buildings on Vernier Place had any historical or architectural significance.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure;
Staffs finding: The application meets this standard. Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas agreed with this finding.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members
of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored;
Staffs finding: The commission can make this a condition of approval of the application.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that this finding was conditional and had no problem with it.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the City. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the City attorney, in an amount determined by the planning director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the Historic Landmark Commission and restore the grade and landscape the properly from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs.
Staffs finding: The Commission can make this a condition of approval of the application.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that this finding was conditional and had no problem with it.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
Ms. Mitchell moved to table Case No. 025-98 until more information is received on the relocation site/sites from the applicant. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
There was a discussion regarding whether or not to put a time limit on the applicant to find an appropriate site or sites on which the houses could be moved. It was suggested by Ms. Blaes that the applicant should provide evidence to the Planning Staff that he has made a bona fide effort to find a relocation site or sites before it is further reviewed by the Commission.
The subject of the applicant providing a bond was introduced. Mr. Wright said that the applicant would have to post a performance bond as part of the planned development process. The motion was amended.
Ms. Mitchell moved to table Case No. 025-98 until more information is received on the relocation site/sites from the applicant. Further, that the applicant make a bona fide effort to establish the relocation site/sites, either for all eight of the houses in the court, as a whole, or the buildings, individually, and provide that information along with the relocation site/sites. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal was not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Blaes said that she had communicated with the Planning Staff about putting together an ad hoc committee that would be concerned with the housing issues in the Central City Historic District that would review areas that most likely would be targeted for large housing projects, at the expense of historic properties. She suggested that the purpose would not be to create an idea that preservation was the only thing to which the City would pay attention. Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission was concerned with housing issues and favored repopulating the Central City district, but not at the expense of the district. Mr. Wright suggested having representation from members of the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission, the community, and technical staff as part of the hoc committee. Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Staff was going through the process of redoing the Central City Master Plan. The discussion continued. Mr. McFarland, Mr. Littig, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young volunteered to serve on the ad hoc committee.
There was some discussion regarding the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use zoning and what was defined as "high density". Ms. Blaes suggested that those were the kind of issues that could be discussed in depth by the ad hoc committee. Ms. Blaes said that she would provide more information as it developed. The discussion continued.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes 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 6:30P.M.