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 David Fitzsimmons, Oktai Parvaz, Lee White, Elizabeth Giraud, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White. Peter Ashdown and Noreen Heid were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with 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.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the sites.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Analee Apgood, a resident of the area, stated that she owns the apartments at 778 North 300 West. The apartment building at 776 is very close to her building and it is a fire hazard. She talked about the problems with the tenants and the building itself. Ms. Apgood said that a few years ago the building burned and should have been demolished, but the owners rebuilt it. She said that it does not make any sense putting more money into an old building. Ms. Apgood concluded by saying she would like to see 300 West looking nice and pretty.
Mr. Jack Carr, a resident of the area, talked about the history of the Capitol Hill area. He said that he has lived in his home for over thirty years. Mr. Carr mentioned that there were many retail stores, clubs, and the Warm Springs and the park where many people gathered to enjoy the day. He said that at one time there were four bus routes servicing the community. Mr. Carr said that he hoped to see the area viable again.
As there were no additional remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze thanked the Chairman and members of the Commission for recognizing him. He said that it had been a while since he had attended this meeting. Mr. Zunguze said unfortunately he would not be able to stay for the rest of the meeting because the Mayor asked to meet with him on another matter.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he had two items related to the Legislative Action report that was placed in front of the Commissioners. He mentioned that this had been a very long process and glad that it has moved on to the City Council. Mr. Zunguze said that he hoped to have a hearing soon before the City Council to explain what is contained in the report. He encouraged the Commissioners to read it and forward any questions or comments to staff. Mr. Zunguze thanked the Commissioners for their participation in sharing their thoughts throughout this entire process. He added that it has been an educational process which provided an opportunity to raise issues that have been long overdue and to provide a forum for discussion in the role of redevelopment and preservation and all of the other matters with the City Council. Mr. Zunguze noted that he read the minutes from the previous meeting and said that Ms. Giraud did a good job covering most of the contents with the Commission.
Mr. Simonsen inquired when the Commission should have comments to the Planning Staff and when the Legislative Action report will go before the City Council. Mr. Zunguze said that he will have his monthly meeting with the Chair and the Vice Chair of the City Council tomorrow and will be able to report further to the Commission as to the timeframe.
Mr. Zunguze said that the only members of the City Council, who have the Legislative Action report, as far as he knew, were the Chair and Vice Chair. He added that at least they acknowledged they received it. Mr. Zunguze said that the rest of the Council members will receive a copy when the matter is scheduled for a City Council meeting. He suggested that the Commissioners wait until the item is on the agenda before any member of the City Council is contacted.
Mr. Zunguze said that the second item he wanted to discuss was a legal matter. He added that there were a few questions that were asked of the City attorneys regarding the Historic Landmark Commission, which were: 1. Does the State law require that the Historic Landmark Commission be given the power that it currently has? 2. What flexibility does the City Council have in changing the powers that are currently in force? 3. Does the current ordinance contain anything that is unconstitutional regarding the delegation of authority to the Historic Landmark Commission? Mr. Zunguze said that the City Attorneys answered positively that this Commission is not doing anything illegal. He said that under the State law, the City Council has the right to provide this Commission with its authority; they also have the discretion to take those powers away from this Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that he was anxious to have a discussion with the City Council regarding the preservation policy with respect to redevelopment as well as all these other matters.
Mr. Zunguze thanked the Commission and staff once more for the work they put into the Legislative Action report and added that it was a "well rounded" effort.
Mr. Simonsen stated that judging by the size of the document, it clearly represents something significant. He also thanked all those who participated in putting this document together. Mr. Simonsen expressed his appreciation that Mr. Zunguze was able to join them.
Since there were no additional questions for Mr. Zunguze, he excused himself and left the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz said that the minutes did not clearly reflect the landscaping issue which was the reason why he voted against the project under review at the last meeting. He requested an amendment to the minutes. A short discussion followed.
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2004 meeting, as amended. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 015-04, by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division. represented by Sharen Hauri of MGB+A, requesting approval for several projects in Liberty Park, including the rebuilding of a gazebo on the north island of the lake in the southeast corner of the park and a bridge connecting the island to the mainland; improvements to the duck pond north of the basketball courts; and wayfinding and identity improvements. Liberty Park is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
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. A copy of the Liberty Park Wayfinding and Identity Improvements, the Liberty Park Gazebo and Bridge improvements, and the Liberty Park Duck Pond Improvements reports accompanied the staff report and filed with the minutes.
The following is an overview of the project:
The Historic Landmark Commission will review proposals for three projects in Liberty Park, which are a gazebo on the north island of the southeast quadrant of the park; a bridge connecting the north island with the mainland; and renovations to the duck pond in the northwest quadrant of the park. The entire park is listed as Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Liberty Park sits on land that was originally on the outskirts of Salt Lake City. The land was subdivided in the "Big Field" survey of 1847, which distributed farming plots to the first settlers of the Salt Lake Valley. Isaac Chase was the first owner of this plot of land; he built his house (which now houses the Utah State Folk Arts Program) and a gristmill (which also still stands). Brigham Young obtained the property from Isaac Chase in 1860. His estate sold the land to Salt Lake City for development of a city park in 1881. The park opened on June 17, 1882, which was the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Landmark Design and the City Parks Division completed a major scoping plan for the park in 1998. There was extensive public input during this process, the general tone of which was that there should not be major changes made to Liberty Park, but that the physical infrastructure was in need of major maintenance. The Historic Landmark Commission echoed t 1is stance when the scoping plan was presented to the Commission on April 15, 1998. Over the past six years, most of the goals of the scoping plan have been achieved.
The construction of the gazebo and bridge, and the restoration of the duck pond area are identified in the Landscape Scoping Project document. The document breaks the list of proposed projects and necessary work into "Project I" (highest priority) and "Project II" (the remaining projects) categories. Restoration of the duck pond is identified in "Project I;" the construction of the gazebo and the bridge are included in the "Project II" categories.
Gazebo and Bridge.
The proposed gazebo and bridge would replace these elements that existed in these locations historically and were significant, beloved features of the lake and the southeast quadrant of the park. The lake has undergone numerous changes in the past twenty years, and in addition to its aesthetic role in the park, serves an important function as a storm water detention basin for flood control. The gazebo was demolished in the 1980's. The date of the bridge construction is uncertain. As the landscape architect's report points out, all that remains of these elements is a concrete foundation for the gazebo that is octagonal and 19' in diameter. Because the foundation is in fair condition, it may be considered for reuse, as the proposed size matches the dimensions of the original gazebo. A paved area, 25' wide, is proposed to surround the gazebo, which in turn is surrounded by a 10' deck. A handrail will surround the deck to keep visitors from wandering around the natural area of the island.
The gazebo and associated paving would not necessitate the removal of any trees on the island. Where trees intercept the paved area, gaps will be left in the paving to allow the trees to remain in place and continue growing. Outside the perimeter of the deck, the island will be replanted with native wildflowers to complement the natural scenery.
The gazebo is described as being "nee-Victorian" in style with ornamental columns. The proposed materials include stone facing on the foundation, black metal support columns, roof supports and handrails, tongue and-groove wood decking on the ceiling and wood shingles on the roof. The materials for the pavers are proposed to be concrete unit pavers in an earth tone. The wood decking is proposed to be a natural stained wood that will complement the color of the pavers.
The bridge is proposed to be constructed of prefabricated wood that would be naturally stained, and metal that would be naturally weathered core-ten steel. The bridge would be placed on a concrete foundation faced with stone. The landscape architect's intention is to make the bridge a simple structure that is unobtrusive so that it will not compete with the scenery of the lake and the park.
Ms. Giraud stated that in considering the proposed work of the gazebo and bridge, the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on section 21A. 34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure:
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The proposed gazebo and bridge are reconstructed features of those historically associated with the park. The width of the gazebo is the same as the original, and the height is similar, if not the same. The roof shape and scale is also consistent with the original, and is not overwhelming to the scale of the island or the park. The bridge is simple in design and a necessary functional element for the gazebo.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The proposed openings and the proportions of solids and voids are typical of gazebo design, and are similar to the original. The material for the posts and structural elements that are proposed to be metal deviate from the wood that would have originally been used, but this is new construction, and not technically a reconstruction. The metal is not incongruent with the other materials that are proposed, such as the rock foundation and the wood shingles of the roof. The materials of the bridge are simple and are designed to complement, not compete with, the proposed materials for the gazebo. The other standards mentioned in this section are not applicable to the bridge.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The gazebo and the bridge are unique features, very closely tied to their setting and location within a large, historic park, rather than a streetscape. These standards do not apply to this proposal.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion and finding: This standard is not applicable to the proposal, as no subdivision of lots is required.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.
Ms. Mickelsen referring to the historic photographs commented that it would not be appropriate to try to replicate the gazebo and bridge. Ms. Giraud said that the City was looking at the proposal as a reconstruction. She said that one of the guiding principles in the scoping plan of Liberty Park was that there would not be a "one look" for the Park. Ms. Giraud added that the Park would represent layers of history and architecture through different time periods. Ms. Mickelsen asked if replication had been considered. Ms. Giraud suggested directing that question to the applicants.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Sharen Hauri and Mr. Leonard Grassli of MGB+A Architects, and Mr. Dell Cook of the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, the applicants, were present. Ms. Hauri said that she was responsible for preparing the application; Mr. Grassli was primarily responsible for the design; and Mr. Cook was responsible for the contracting going through, getting constructed, and making sure that the City's standards were being met.
Ms. Hauri said that the Master Plan for Liberty Park was completed about five years ago. She said that the City has already spent about $8 million on park improvements and about $2 million on Liberty Park. Ms. Hauri commented that Liberty Park is a great place and the City is implementing improvements and adding more items that people can enjoy and use safely which makes the Park a safer and more welcome place. She stated that the addition of the gazebo and bridge would restore some of the historic feel of the Park.
Ms. Hauri talked about the historic photographs of the gazebo and the bridge going to the island. She pointed out that concerts were held on the island in the bandstand in the gazebo. Ms. Hauri said that the City is proposing something on a little smaller scale. She said that there would be enough paving and decking to sit about 100 people; others would be able to sit on the hillside.
Ms. Hauri stated that the proposed materials have to be durable enough to handle people touching it because the Park has a history of graffiti. She noted that the metal part that would make up the support for the gazebo and the railing would be powder-coated metal so it would be easy to clean, hard to scratch, and hard to damage. Ms. Hauri said that the material would hold up better than wood.
Ms. Hauri said that they had more freedom with the materials for the roof and the shingles and they chose a higher quality wood shingles that would match the shingles on the north shelter in the Park.
Ms. Hauri mentioned that there will eventually be a new building near the concession area. She said that the pattern, color, and material palette will blend easily with the new construction. Ms. Hauri added that the black metal would be used because it looks very similar to wrought iron.
Ms. Hauri stated that the bridge would be a standard design and almost indestructible. She noted that it would be made out of steel with a wood decking and the concrete would be faced with stone. Ms. Hauri said that the bridge would be important to get to the island for access and for maintenance; a row boat is currently being used for transportation.
Mr. Cook pointed out that the proposed concept would keep the people on public ground and not on the natural part of the island.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking if the proposed railing would extend from the observation deck to the gazebo. Mr. Cook said that it would go all the way around. Ms. Mickelsen said that it might be a challenge for some people. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the lighting plan. Ms. Hauri stated that plans have not developed that far. Mr. Cook said that the lighting should be low key. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the designers should take into account that musicians would be playing out there.
• Mr. Simonsen asked if the landscaping would be a restorative type of landscaping project or would native adaptive material to Utah be used; materials found in the mountains and valleys. Mr. Grassli said mostly natural grasses would be used. Mr. Simonsen stated that one of the things he admired about the island is the sculptured quality to it. He suggested that the plantings be low to the ground and maintained. Mr. Grassli said that the planting material would be low to the ground and noted the topography of the land. Mr. Simonsen asked if the stone used on the buttresses for the bridge be a natural stone and would it be used elsewhere in the Park. Mr. Grassli said that the stone would be a natural field stone and is used in other areas in the Park. Mr. Cook pointed out that the new north shelter has the same kind of stone
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked how wide the bridge would be. Mr. Grassli said that the bridge would be ten feet wide, which would be wide enough for maintenance vehicles to access the island. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked how wide the gazebo would be and would it sit on the existing foundation. Mr. Grassli said that the gazebo would be 19 feet wide, extending to about 35 feet wide which would include the boardwalk. He added that the existing foundation may be considered for use. Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if there has been any thought given to building an Amphitheatre or anything similar. Mr. Cook said that the idea of an Amphitheatre was entertained but the budget would not allow it. He said that people would rather sit on the grass than in the seating area at the Red Butte Garden concerts. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if any more structures would be built around the perimeter of the lake. Mr. Cook said that there were no plans for anything else. He added that the nearest new construction was the north shelter which has been completed.
• Mr. Christensen pointed out the proposed design of the gazebo with that second tier or cupola looks like a modern installation and the original gazebo as shown in the historic photograph looks like an early Twentieth Century building without that extra layer. He inquired if that second tier was needed for ventilation or if it has some other purpose. Ms. Hauri said that the design with the cupola was selected from several options. She said that one without the cupola would replicate the original gazebo. Ms. Hauri stated that people think that Victorian-looking elements have a historic feel to them. She pointed out that they could be very flexible with the design. Ms. Hauri said that a cupola lets in more light. She asked if the Commission had strong feelings about the cupola. Mr. Simonsen said, "You are the designer; we are here to make sure that you follow the ordinance."
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the handicap accessibility of these new proposed features. Mr. Cook said that all of the features would be assessable. He said that if the ground is made level enough there would be access from the duck pond to the drinking fountain. Mr. Cook stated that the City is mandated to make all public facilities accessible. Mr. Parvaz asked about the gazebo noting the stairway in front. Mr. Cook said that the gazebo would be on grade with the bridge. He said that plans would have to be developed to make the gazebo handicapped accessible. Mr. Cook mentioned that a ramp was constructed on the back side of the chapel in Memory Grove which is hardly noticeable and works very well.
Duck Pond.
The intention of restoring the duck pond is to make it an amenity; rather than the forgotten feature that it now seems to be. It is currently surrounded by a chain link fence that keeps out visitors, but tends to trap dogs that burrow under the fence and attack ducks. The proposed restoration calls for removing two manmade structures: a small stone island in the center of the pond and a lava rock and brick grotto at the southeast corner of the pond. The origin and history of these features is unknown by staff. They were not identified as historic features or monuments by Cooper/Roberts/Simonsen Architects in the scoping document.
The proposal would include removing the fence, removing the stone features, keeping the existing mature trees, reshaping the pond into a more natural form, and placing rough-hewn stone blocks to create a "casual, but well-defined space." The edge of the pond would be edged with naturally flat stones that overlap. The spring that wells up to supply the pond with water will be better defined. The depth and size of the duck pond will not be altered. A bypass for the pond inlet will be created so that it can be drained; the bottom will be lined with gravel to prevent algae growth.
Ms. Giraud stated that in considering the proposed work of the duck pond, the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on section 21A. 34.020(G) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure:
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;
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;
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.
Staff's discussion: The proposed work to the duck pond involves removing non-historic features such as the chain-link fence, as well as features of unknown age and origin, such as the masonry structures. An attempt has been made to focus on returning the duck pond to an interactive part of the park, and one that invites reflection and quiet activity, rather than redesigning or altering the space. Minimal change is proposed, and the existing depth and size will not be altered. In terms of removing alterations or features that have achieved significance over time, and the preservation of distinctive features, it could be argued that removal of the stone elements violates these standards, but again, no evidence has been found that proves that these features are of the historic period, and their preservation was not included or documented in the scoping document. The proposed stone work that borders the pond is compatible with the size of the pond and its simplicity is consistent with the serene atmosphere that the City is trying to restore and achieve. It can be anticipated that changes will have to be made at some point, and thus alterations to the pond will not always be reversible. Synthetic siding and signage standards do not apply to this proposal.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Based upon the preceding findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed. Staff further recommends that the Commission delegate to Staff approval of any minor revisions that may be necessary as part of the completion of construction drawings for this project."
Ms. Hauri said that the duck pond is actually another part of the water system in Liberty Park. She said that Liberty Park is very wet with a lot of wells and springs running underneath the surface. Ms. Hauri said that a natural spring will feed the duck pond and the nearby drinking fountain. She said that when the water is shut off, then the water features would be dry.
Ms. Hauri said that the duck pond is not in great shape. She added that it is a leftover corner which has been forgotten. Since there were some safety issues, she said, that a fence was put around it. Ms. Hauri stated that the proposal would bring this area back to being a central feature of the park. She pointed out that the historic Chase Home had been restored recently and it is being used for a number of things including concerts in the summertime. Ms. Hauri added that people like to spend time there walking around the yard and looking at the foliage.
Mr. Hauri stated that the proposal is to restore the water flow into the duck pond. She mentioned that it is very soggy around the pond and so the drainage needs to be corrected. She said that the pond would be created to invite people to sit on the edge on the flat rocks and dip their toes into the pond. Ms. Hauri noted that it would not be the kind of place that would encourage swimming.
Ms. Hauri said that the area needed to be cleaned up which would make it a more usable and accessible space. She said that the proposed design would re-sculpt the edge of the pond which is currently a concrete curb which has pipes and hazardous things sticking out of it. She said that the pond would be reshaped with flat sandstone or a similar type of flat stone along the edge. Ms. Hauri said that "we want people to walk around the pond and enjoy it."
Ms. Hauri stated that there is a concern about that grotto. She said that the proposal calls for a new grotto where natural spring water would pool before trickling down about two feet into the pond. Ms. Hauri pointed out that grottos are supposed to look a little craggy, deep, and mysterious; they are usually tucked away in the corners of formal gardens. She said that the grotto would be reconstructed.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Fitzsimmons led the discussion by inquiring if the nearby basketball courts and the horseshoe pits will be modified. Mr. Cook said that they will eventually be modified. Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired about the water flow of the duck pond. Mr. Cook said that one of the main things of concern is making sure that the spring flow would support freshening the water in the pond and keeping the water of a quality that would be acceptable. He mentioned a hydrological study which was done where the flow was measured and the size and depth would minimize the algae growth.
• Ms. Mickelsen said that there was some mention about the soggy ground around the pond. She inquired how that would be corrected. Ms. Hauri said that the surface drainage would be improved to prevent that from happening around the pond. Mr. Cook said that it is muddy inside the fence. He said that the surface would be replanted.
• Mr. Parvaz said that the last few years some of the water features have not been working in the summertime. Mr. Cook said that the pond recycles itself with a natural spring. He continued by saying that the water in the lake is from storm water; it is a storm retention basin and Public Utilities has control of that property. Mr. Cook said that when a big rain storm is expected, Public Utilities drain the lake so there would be room for the storm water drainage. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the water would be dammed up some way in the pond. Mr. Grassli said that there would be no dams and that people would be able to sit next to the water on the edge of the pond. He said that the edge would be about six inches high.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired further about the grotto and asked what the material would be for the new grotto. Mr. Grassli said that it is not a true grotto, but it would have similarities. He pointed out that the water feature would be chiseled out a large 6 to 10 foot stone. Mr. Grassli said that water would come through the middle of the new grotto then spill over the top into the pond. Mr. Simonsen talked about another water feature similar to the one proposed where sandstone was used. Mr. Grassli said that some kind of hard sandstone would be used. Ms. Giraud asked how high would that water inlet feature be. Mr. Grassli said that it would be about 14 to 18 inches high.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked about the time frame for completion. Mr. Cook said that he would like to see construction started this year, but realize that might be optimistic. He indicated that the construction documents would have to be completed and the bids should go out in September. Mr. Cook talked about other project such as constructing new culinary water service lines which should begin in September. He pointed out that the concession building is under design but money is not approved for that yet.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. William Littig, a concerned citizen, stated that he would like to endorse the idea that any lighting on the gazebo be hidden either underneath the eaves onto the building and no lighting that would be exposed to the eye. He said that he would not like the gazebo to become a "lantern" and over lit. Mr. Littig said that the lighting would have to be serviceable during a performance. He suggested that appropriate lighting could easily be done.
Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session.
Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission that this was a concept plan and different percentages would be done each year as the budget allowed.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he had heard three issues, which are handicapped accessibility, the cupola on the gazebo, and the lighting. He asked if there were any other issues that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Christensen said that the cupola was just a discussion issue. He said that both designs have historic precedence.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 015-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the projects for Liberty Park, as proposed, based on staff's findings of fact, recommendation, and the discussion at this meeting. The Historic Landmark Commission recommends that the lighting be as unobtrusive as possible. Staff shall be delegated to approve minor revisions including the addition of the handicapped accessible ramp, if that is required by code, lighting for the gazebo, and other features in the preparation of the construction documents. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 014-04. by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. requests a reconsideration of the requests to demolish the structures at 515 No. Arctic Court. 242 West 500 North. 248 West 500 North. 271 West 600 North. and 564 North 300 West. All sites are located in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to include these properties in the planned neighborhood commercial/residential development on this block. The interim reuse plan for these sites would be landscaping.
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.
The following is an overview of the project:
The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA} is requesting that the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC} reconsider the demolition of five buildings in the Capitol Hill Historic District, located on the block between Arctic Court and 300 West, and 500 and 600 North streets. This site has been proposed for redevelopment for a mix of commercial and residential uses, and is referred to as "the commercial node." The application addresses the following five buildings: 564 North 300 West (Marsh Auto}; 271 West 600 North (the "duplex"}; 248 West 500 North (the "nine-plex"}; 242 West 500 North (the "store"}; and 515 North Arctic Court (the "shotgun" house}.
The buildings are zoned C-S Community Shopping and SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District. The purpose of the CS zone is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. The purpose of the SR-1 zone is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics.
The following is background information regarding the project:
The 1999 (amended 2001) Capitol Hill Community Master Plan calls for development of a neighborhood shopping node in this location. The RDA has acquired property in the area in order to develop a neighborhood-scale commercial center. The RDA initially applied for demolition of six contributing structures on the site on January 5, 2000 (HLC Case No. 001-01). This first application included two of the buildings currently under review, the store and the nine-plex, plus four others: 519 and 521 No. Arctic Court, 548 North 300 West, and 554-556 North 300 West. The HLC denied the demolition of the store and the nineplex; agreed with staff's findings for 548 North and 554-556 North 300 West to put the buildings in the gray zone; and overturned two of staff's findings for 519 and 521 No. Arctic Court so that they would also be in the gray zone.
When the RDA staff informed their board of the HLC's decision early in 2000, the RDA board voted to allow the RDA staff to market the properties to developers and make funding available to the successful applicant either to prepare an economic hardship study or be applied toward renovation. The RDA staff returned to the HLC in April, 2000, requesting that the HLC reverse their previous findings regarding the nine-plex so that it would fall into the gray zone, enabling the RDA to market it for renovation and count this as a bona fide effort. Mr. Bill Wright, Salt Lake City Planning Director at the time, reported to HLC that the RDA Board understood the issue with which the HLC struggled: that the HLC would prefer to see a plan that would either justify the renovation or the removal of the subject structures. The Board, he stated, believed it would get better information back from the private sector, such as what could be developed on the site, either by renovating and reusing the historic structures or building on vacant ground. If the nine-plex were placed in the gray zone, the marketing of the entire site could begin at once. The HLC complied, and the RDA commenced its efforts to market the entire commercial node.
Ms. Giraud referred to a table in the staff report which indicated which buildings were part of the HLC Case No. 001-00, and the HLC decision on each building on January 5, 2000:
The HLC found that the property at 248 West 500 North (nine-plex) did not meet six of seven demolition standards. On April 5, 2000, the HLC reconsidered findings so that nine-plex met three of standards and was put into the gray zone. RDA marketed property for reuse/renovation in 2000 and 2003. The RDA is requesting to reconsider demolition as part of the current application.
The RDA withdrew the demolition application for the property at 242 West 500 North (the store) and 515 No. Arctic Court {the shotgun house). Both buildings are on the same parcel. RDA marketed the property for reuse/renovation in 2001 and 2003. The RDA is requesting to reconsider demolition as part of the current application.
The HLC overturned two staff findings of to put the buildings at 519 and 521 No. Arctic Court in the gray zones, deferring demolition for up to one year once efforts to save the buildings commenced. The buildings were demolished.
The HLC concurred with staff findings that the applicant met four of six demolition standards, on the properties at 548, and 554-556 North 300 West, deferring demolition for up to one year once efforts to save the building commenced. The buildings were demolished.
Marketing the Property and the IBI Group Plan.
On April 5, 2001, the RDA staff briefed the HLC on its activities regarding the marketing of the property, and that the RDA was considering extending the project to 600 North, due to interest expressed by developers. At this meeting, the RDA staff stated that after marketing the property, the Board selected one applicant for exclusive negotiations. On October 17, 2001, the RDA staff again briefed the HLC. The proposed plans from the application selected by the Board had fallen through, and the RDA planned to hire a consultant to conduct a community-based design process. The process would include a number of open houses and community council meetings in the area to receive input and direction from the residents regarding how they would like to see the site developed and also which structures they would like to see preserved, rehabilitated or demolished. Two HLC members, Mr. Soren Simonsen and Mr. Pete Ashdown, volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to work with the consultant.
The following April, the RDA staff and the consultant, IBI Group, presented their plan to the HLC. The "Arctic Court" option, one of five options developed by the IBI Group, was presented to HLC and approved on June 19, 2002. The Arctic Court plan approved at this time was characterized by the following elements: 1) Three or three-and-a-half story mixed-use buildings on 300 West. The first floor would have commercial or retail use; the upper stories would have residential uses; 2) Seven two-story single-family dwellings on the west side of Arctic Court; 3) Preservation of the nine-plex and the store, on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court; and 4) The 300 West frontage in the Arctic Court plan extended only to include the contributing building 554-556, as the RDA had not acquired the properties north of this building to the corner of 600 North and 300 West.
Approval of Demolition of the Buildings in HLC Case No. 001-00.
In addition to approving the IBI Group plan on June 19, 2002, the HLC also approved the demolition of several of the buildings that were included in the initial application of January 5, 2000, including the following buildings: 519 No. Arctic Court; 521 No. Arctic Court; 548 North 300 West; and 554-556 North 300 West.
The HLC approved the demolition of the four buildings, with the provision that the buildings not be demolished until re-use plans were logged for plan review in the Building Services Division. The RDA appealed this decision to the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). LUAB overturned the HLC provision in their approval of the demolition on August 26, 2002, so that the RDA is only required to landscape the site. The HLC approved a landscaping plan on November 6, 2002.
RDA Demolition Application- HLC Case No. 035-02.
HLC heard a request for the demolition of the following four buildings on December 4, 2002: 515 No. Arctic Court {the shotgun house); 242 West 500 North {the store); 564 North 300 West (Marsh Auto); and 271 West 600 North (the duplex). The HLC denied the demolition, making findings for each building. (Please note the table in the staff report.)
Marketing Efforts Resumed.
By the summer of 2003, the RDA's marketing efforts yielded three proposals: 1) A proposal to build housing on the site, using CROWN funding (a federal rent-to-own program), with a small commercial pad on the corner of 300 West and 500 North renovate the nine-plex and the store; 2) A proposal to build multi-family housing on the site with a small commercial pad on the corner of 300 West and 500 North, and renovate the nine-plex and the store; and 3) A proposal to renovate the nine-plex as townhouses oriented to the west, and also renovate the store.
In June 2003, the RDA Board rejected the first two proposals, determining that they did not meet the goals of providing a mixed-use development with neighborhood-oriented services. Although awarded exclusive negotiation from the RDA Board, the developer proposing only renovation of the nine-plex and the store decided not to move forward on the project.
Re-submittal of RDA Application for Demolition.
Since the denial of HLC Case No. 035-02 on December 4, 2002, the RDA and Planning Division staffs have discussed options for the development of the commercial node and the concerns of the Planning Division staff regarding the development of the site. The Planning Division requested financial and engineering information regarding the feasibility of renovating the buildings, toured the subject properties in January, and discussed the potential of development on the site with and without the renovation of the subject properties with Bruce Bingham of Hamilton Partners. After considering the information provided by these sources, the Planning Division staff determined that the buildings could be brought back to the HLC for reconsideration. It is the hope of the Planning Division staff that both goals of redevelopment and preservation can be met.
Ms. Giraud stated that section 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance requires that the Historic Landmark Commission shall base a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition on seven criteria when considering the application. 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 Historic Landmark Commission can defer a decision for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The one-year "clock" begins only when the bona fide effort has started.
Section 21A.34.01O(M) 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 Funds 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.
The six considerations are addressed below with a discussion and finding for each property. The seventh criteria, concerns economic hardship, which involves a separate process in which a committee of three people is chosen to determine if denying a request for demolition would entail an economic hardship. (The Historic Landmark Commission selects one person, the applicant selects one person, and these two people select the third member). Economic hardship takes precedence over the first six considerations. If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the applicant meets the standards for economic hardship, then the Historic Landmark Commission would approve the demolition. If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application does not meet the standards for economic hardship, the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the demolition. The Historic Landmark Commission must be consistent with the findings presented by the Economic Review Panel, unless the Historic Landmark Commission finds by a three quarter vote of a quorum that the Economic Review Panel either acted arbitrarily or based its report on an erroneous finding of fact.
Ms. Giraud summarized staff's findings of fact in a table, which was included in the staff report. (Please see the table for specific findings and/or the analysis of each subject property).
If the HLC agrees with the staff findings, the buildings would be placed in the gray zone, meaning that the HLC could defer a decision for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The one-year "clock" begins only when the bona fide effort has started.
The RDA has tried to market the entire property twice, once in 2001 and again in 2003. As the RDA further refined its plans through the IBI Group Plan process, the agency realized that redeveloping the 600 North corner is essential to attracting a developer that could successfully complete a mixed-use project. Over time, the RDA recognized that the residential component on 500 North and Arctic Court could be independently developed, and that retaining the store and the nine-plex until the appropriate plan is proposed would not jeopardize the development of the commercial area to the west. The shotgun house could be renovated as part of the store; alternatively, it is a good candidate for moving to another site due to its small size and frame construction. The RDA is interested in pursuing the establishment of a branch library on the site,
although the outcome of this is unknown as voters rejected the proposed bond last November.
Ms. Giraud offered the staff's recommendation which was separated and added to the analysis and discussion of the pertinent property.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicants, Mr. Danny Walz and Mr. Mack McDonald of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, were present. The applicants used a briefing board to further describe the project.
Mr. Walz stated that Ms. Giraud did an excellent job of recapping the history of these properties. He stated the following: "We are here to talk about where we have been, where we are now, and where we are going with this site. We originally acquired these properties in 1998. The goal of this project actually predates the West Capitol Hill plan. It goes back to the West Capitol Neighborhood Plan of 1996 when we started targeting this site. Over the past seven years, we have assembled 3-% acres of land from seven different property owners at the cost of $3.3 Million which does not include any feasibility studies, reports, surveys, or property maintenance over the past seven years. As an agency, we have a huge vested interest in getting this project done."
Mr. Walz said that the goal for acquiring these properties was to develop them into a neighborhood commercial site for the community. He mentioned that the Redevelopment Agency is the active arm of the real estate process for the City. Mr. Walz pointed out that the typical process when land is acquired, is to den1olish the structures, then market it to developers at a reduced cost so it would encourage development in parts of the city that the Redevelopment Agency targets. Mr. Walz stated that he has discovered in this process that at times the City's own development goals and future land use plans for an area conflict with historic preservation.
Mr. Walz noted that the Redevelopment Agency has struggled to make this site attractive for developers because of its designation within the historic neighborhood. He pointed out that the requirements pushed upon property owners are somewhat restrictive and difficult for developers to understand, and as such they tend to look away from properties like this.
Mr. Walz said that the problem is that the Redevelopment Agency has tried to act as the developer without a proposed development and it has been difficult to work through the restrictions of the ordinance. He remarked that it was like the "chicken and egg" theory. Mr. Walz stated that with what the Redevelopment Agency had done with the property, hopefully the agency is in a position now to where it can finally attract some interest in it.
Mr. McDonald stated that from January to April of 2003, the Redevelopment Agency issued the request for a proposal for a three-month time period. He added that after that three-months of doing due diligence, the developers would come in with their conceptual plan, find their funding, and submit their proposal to the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. McDonald indicated that the Redevelopment Agency advertised quite extensively compared to the usual marketing efforts, in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Land Institute Magazine, the local papers, the Enterprise, etc. He said that the Redevelopment Agency spent over $5, 000 in advertising fees just to try to get this property out there and known to the developers. Mr. McDonald mentioned that the Redevelopment Agency had hoped of receiving many proposals back. He pointed out that only three proposals were submitted: one from Garrison Development, one from Overland Development Corporation, and one from Dan Bethel. He stated that the first two mentioned were mostly rental occupancy with a small portion of commercial, which did not meet the master plan, the reuse plan, or would have benefited the area. Mr. McDonald noted that the area is already about 68 to 70 percent rental occupancy.
Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that the homes on Arctic Court were free to anyone who wanted to move the historic homes and the Redevelopment Agency would have contributed the demolition costs in hopes of preserving the structures. He added that two letters were received, one from a man who wanted to move one of the houses to Cedar City, and another one from a man who wanted to move one of the houses to Sandy. He noted that the first gentleman backed out when he was made aware of the costs involved, and the second gentleman could not find a contractor who was willing to disassemble the building and reconstruct it on a proposed site.
Mr. McDonald stated that the nine-plex and the store were awarded to a local developer, Dan Bethel. He said that the Redevelopment Agency awarded Mr. Bethel the right to renovate those structures. Mr. McDonald pointed out that Mr. Bethel did his due diligence on the buildings but found that the costs would be too high with no possibility of having a return on his investment. Mr. McDonald referred to the cost estimates of renovating the buildings, which accompanied the staff report.
Mr. McDonald said that the Redevelopment Agency staff met with some large commercial developers and asked what was wrong with their marketing strategy. Overwhelmingly, Mr. McDonald said that the developers pointed out that three months was not a long enough time period to attract developers, find a tenant, and get a firm commitment from a financial source, which was necessary. Another thing they mentioned, Mr. McDonald said, was that they would also want to build to their tenant's needs.
Mr. McDonald said with that in mind, the next time the Redevelopment Agency markets the property a nine-month time period would be permitted for the selection process. He added that a request for qualifications would be required which will allow a potential developer to list their resume's so the agency will know the qualifications and what their intentions
would be to develop the property.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission would become a team player because any developer would have to have the proposed plans reviewed and approved by this body. He disclosed the fact that the Redevelopment Agency staff has been speaking to developers who are excited about the project.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking if the Redevelopment Agency found that the guidelines that were prepared helped through this process and if they alleviated some of the "nervousness" about working with the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. McDonald responded positively. He said that there had been no problem with the guidelines or any hesitancy shown on the part of a developer. Ms. Mickelsen said that was good and that it would make the process easier for everyone concerned. Mr. Walz pointed out that the developers had been told about the process that would be required.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired about the market studies that have been prepared to show what would be viable for the property. He added that he did not know if anyone on the Commission had received a copy of any market studies. Mr. Simonsen mentioned that he saw the economic analysis. He expressed his concern about the empty commercial buildings on 300 West. Mr. Simonsen indicated that he has been told that 300 West has not been very successful as a commercial corridor. Mr. McDonald stated that the Redevelopment Agency has a study showing a three mile radius of houses and what commercial could do in this area. He said that one of the things the Redevelopment Agency is looking at here is on a neighborhood scale; not a large box scale like Wai-Mart's. He said that the commercial venture would be on a smaller scale similar to Walgreen's or Wild Oats that would serve the needs of the community. Mr. Simonsen inquired if the study took into account all of the grocers who are already in the community, such as the two Smith's grocery stores, the Albertson's grocery store, 7-11, and other small markets. Mr. McDonald remarked that there were many people who live in the area who do not have transportation to get to one of those stores, except by a UTA bus. Mr. Walz said that back in 1999-2000 the Redevelopment Agency did its own market study, as part of the agency's due diligence before marketing the site and it showed the demand for small community services, such as a bank, a hair salon, and etc. and that is why the Redevelopment Agency proceeded. Mr. Walz said that most of the empty buildings on 300 West were for office commercial. He added that there would always be a demand for basic services. Mr. Simonsen said that the commercial development in this area would probably rival Sugar House in terms of square footage of commercial available.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the Redevelopment Agency would insist on a developer doing commercial if the developer disagrees with the concept. Mr. McDonald said that staff has already spoken with commercial developers and he believed they were ready to get started. Mr. McDonald disclosed the fact that North Salt Lake is planning a new residential development and many of those residents would be traveling along 300 West. He added that it would be convenient to stop on the way home to pick up groceries.
• Ms. Rowland inquired if the developers were interested in doing both the residential and the commercial portions. Mr. McDonald said that they were. He said that the Redevelopment Agency wants to have more owner/occupancy development in the area. He mentioned that they wanted to get this property developed.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the idea of commercial over residential was interesting to a developer. Mr. McDonald said that it was, but not all developers were interested in mixing residential with commercial. Ms. Mickelsen also asked the Redevelopment Agency staff to be realistic and tell the Commission what the chances were that the store would be restored. Mr. McDonald said that was a difficult structure to restore as Mr. Bethel found out. He mentioned that it was tipping over and the pylons that would have to be driven underneath to straighten up the building. Mr. McDonald added that the possibility was there for the right person. Ms. Mickelsen commented that the person would have to be of a more philanthropist-type person who loved old buildings.
• Mr. Christensen said he believed that marketing the store and the nine-plex together was a poor strategy but he understood why RDA had tried to do that because they were contiguous properties. He inquired if the Redevelopment Agency would consider marketing those individually. Mr. McDonald said that they would be marketed separately because of the costs involved. Mr. Christensen stated that it seemed to him that the nine-plex at some point in its marketing strategy had an $80,000 endowment from the City Council that they were willing to put toward the renovation of buildings. Mr. Walz said that the first market, we did put money out for the renovation or demolition of those buildings. He added that they had made some incentives available for some of the structures to be moved or be demolished. Mr. Walz said that the Redevelopment Agency would spend that money one way or another. Mr. Christensen said that he believed the shotgun house and the store combination would have a greater possibility of actually being renovated in a way that would be acceptable to everyone if the $80,000 would be offered to an applicant for the renovation of that structure.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Shirley McLaughlin, a member of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she attended the meeting to try to find out for herself "where you guys are coming from". She said that she has been made aware of some of the homes that the Historic Landmark Commission has allowed to be demolished because she serves on the City's Housing Authority and Appeals Board. She also pointed out some of the structures that the Commission wants to remain and be restored. Ms. McLaughlin mentioned the apartment house on Arctic Court. She said that it is a disaster. Ms. McLaughlin said that she could not understand why the Commission wanted people to throw money into something that are "shacks" on this property and should be torn down. She talked about other buildings in the area that are fire hazards. Ms. McLaughlin talked about the 100-year-old slurry that comes down 500 North. The building where the Salt Lake Acting Company performs is slowly sinking, she said. Ms. McLaughlin stated that the Capitol Hill Community Council's position needs to be maintained which is that no commercial use will extend onto Arctic Court or no commercial access onto Arctic Court. She concluded by saying, "I hope you guys will stop and realize that when you approve a building to be demolished make sure it is worth demolishing, and the ones that you don't allow to be demolished, they need to be."
Ms. Jilene Whitby, Chair of the State Fairpark Community Council, stated that she works at the State Office Building behind the Capitol Building and travels pass the Marsh Auto building twice a day. She stated, "The last time that I heard it was being preserved by the Historic Landmark Commission I was really upset because for the last 18 years that I have gone by it, I don't remember it being anything more than looking like something that belongs in a shanty town." Ms. Whitby said that seeing the Marsh Auto building when people come off the freeway, leaves a bad impression on the city. She said that the building does not look sound and she would like to see it demolished. Ms. Whitby said that small shops would be wonderful on that property and the services are badly needed in the area.
Ms. Analee Apgood, a resident of the area, stated that buildings like Marsh Auto are eyesores and should be demolished.
Mr. Jack Carr, a resident of the area, stated that he was not attending the meeting to give out merits or demerits. Mr. Carr believed that the City was putting too many restrictions on property owners and that is preventing the Capitol Hill area from growing. He mentioned that the area used to be a very viable with many small retail stores. Mr. Carr also called the buildings on Arctic Court "shacks" and said that they needed to be torn down. He said that a small shopping area would be nice. He said that the "whole area has gone belly up."
Mr. William Littig, an interested citizen, stated that the Historic Landmark Commission does a great job of enforcing the laws because the Commissioners do not get the opportunity of writing them. He commented that the staff report was well written and very poignant. Mr. Littig said that the condition of these properties is not the fault of the Historic Landmark Commission. He added that people are unclear as to what the Historic Landmark Commission does. Mr. Littig pointed out that the members of the Commission know enough to see beyond the repairs and the patches on an old building and know when they can be saved. He confided in the Commission by saying that he was personally interested in the store and the shotgun house, but had not made a formal proposal to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Littig said that he believed that they could be serviceable and would represent the kind of structures that was in the neighborhood. He pointed out the condition of the nine-plex and was sorry that it was offered in conjunction with the other two buildings. He added that it would have been too much. Mr. Littig said that the shotgun house would be a more affordable project to take on than the store or the nine-plex. He mentioned that $80, 000 would come in handy. Ms. Rowland inquired if Mr. Littig had any conversations with the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Littig said that he had. He said that the Redevelopment Agency is a good agency but he was neither a rich developer nor a contractor, but he believed the agency could work "outside the box" and not illegally. Mr. Littig said that he would perhaps pursue the challenge once again since there would be a longer period in which to work.
Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session.
Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Commission members focus on coming to some sort of conclusion. He stated that he believed that staff had provided a very thorough review of the property. Mr. Simonsen said that even though the historic structures are individual buildings, they each have their own set of issues. He recommended reviewing the structures individually and a separate motion be made for each building. Mr. Simonsen asked if there was any discussion regarding the staff's findings of fact.
A lengthy discussion took place where the Commissioners talked about supporting some of staff's findings and the possibility of changing some.
Mr. Christensen said that he understood why staff made the determination of some of the findings of fact but that he could dispute the findings associated with 242-244 West 500 North and 515 North Arctic Court on 1b and 1c which are about the streetscape and surrounding non-contributing structures. He asked if staff had a strategy in the determination of the findings, which would give those buildings a better chance of survival.
Ms. Giraud stated that those standards are tough and open to interpretation. She said that she tried to be objective when making the findings. Ms. Giraud said that she had no strategy but looked at the possibility of an economic hardship status versus those buildings staying in the gray zone. She added that the Commission could reverse those findings if the members disagree with them. Ms. Giraud said that if those two findings (1b and 1c) were reversed, the Commission would have to deny demolition and it would be thrown into economic hardship.
Mr. Christensen said that marketing tends not to be done on properties that are being reviewed for economic hardship. Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission is working with a certain level of trust with the Redevelopment Agency that they would move forward with the marketing of those properties, to which the agency is committed she believed. Ms. Giraud talked about the conversations the Planning Staff has had with the Redevelopment Agency Staff regarding potential developers and people like Mr. Littig who is not a professional developer or contractor.
Mr. Simonsen stated that there is no easy way to market that sector. Ms. Giraud added that it would take someone with a certain amount of creativity and vision and one who has an appreciation of old buildings. She said that she would be a little concerned that all the structures would be demolished on the site and the shotgun house, for instance, would have to go through economic hardship. Ms. Giraud said that she sees the shotgun house as being subordinate to the store in importance.
Ms. Mickelsen believed Ms. Giraud was correct. She mentioned that the criteria dealing with the streetscape and surrounding non-contributing structures seems to kindle much discussion. Ms. Mickelsen said that the discussion is how far the applicable streetscape goes. She said that it encompasses the opposite side of the street. She said that 200 West has a strong streetscape in terms of historic buildings. Ms. Mickelsen said that the historic structures do not relate to buildings like the Capitol Villa. She added that that looming presence does affect the contributing structures around it.
Mr. Simonsen agreed that those two standards are very challenging. He said that his partner, Wally Cooper, looked at those structures on the corner of Arctic Court and 500 North and came to the determination that each should be a "stand alone" project, or it would "never fly". Mr. Simonsen said that the use would change in those structures. He said that he believed the ability of finding a developer who would take on all of the pieces of the project together would almost be insurmountable. However, Mr. Simonsen said, it could be done. He indicated that the historic structures would have a better chance to be saved and rehabilitated by someone who would be willing to take them on as a "stand alone" project.
Ms. Giraud stated that there is a practical matter to consider here. She said if the Commission reverses those two findings and putting those properties into economic hardship it places the Historic Landmark Commission in a more adversarial position with any applicant. Ms. Giraud said that it also would mean that the buildings might stay on the property and languish for a longer period of time because "this big looming thing (process) would be ahead of them, even if someone might have a very good development plan." She said that keeping those properties in the gray zone would be sort of handing the Redevelopment Agency an "olive branch" and they would go forward with that. Ms. Giraud stated that in terms of providing a "carrot" as an incentive to preserve an historic structure would be up to the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. She added that she believed all the Commissioners hoped that the commercial node would be successfully developed. Mr. Simonsen said that one has to think of the bigger picture.
Ms. Mickelsen expressed her concern about losing more of those historic structures in case the development is not built. She added, "Once they are gone, they are gone."
The discussion continued regarding the marketing strategy developed by the Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he was certain that the Redevelopment Agency was not in the position to offer cash as an incentive to developers; there are other programs, such as smaller impact fees that could be used to create that kind of a cash advantage. He said that impact fees were used all over the country and throughout the state. He mentioned that this discussion was clearly beyond the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission and the discussion should focus on the criteria in the ordinance.
Mr. Christensen stated that the discussion was very helpful to him in understanding how the process works. He said that it seemed like the Commission has gone through several economic hardship processes with various developers and that seems like a very unsuccessful venture.
The discussion turned to requiring the Redevelopment Agency to make a bona fide effort to sell the property and when the "clock" should start ticking. Ms. Giraud read from Page 5 of the staff report regarding the four actions that define bona fide effort.
[Please note: The standards in the ordinance, the discussions, the findings, staff's recommendation, and the Commission's motions are separated in the minutes and listed with the individual properties.]
Ms. Giraud 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. 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:
564 North 300 West – March Auto Building
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staff's discussion: No official site/survey form exists for this property. According to the National Register nomination, the owner of 564 N. 300 W. built a grocery and fruit stand in front of the circa 1890 house in 1924. Most of the early commercial buildings were built at the north end of 300 West, because of the available land and the travelers entering and leaving the city. Most commercial ventures in the area were on a smaller scale, and many were nearby or attached to an owner's residence. The Marsh Auto building is an example of this development, and thus although the structure has been modified to accommodate other uses, the building maintains much of it its earlier, if not original, appearance associated with the period of significance of the district.
Staff's finding of fact: The physical integrity of the site is evident. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: Although the location of this structure on 300 West is significant because of its association with early twentieth-century development in Capitol Hill, no contributing structures on the east side of 300 W., between 500 and 600 N. remain. To the south are the vacant site of Bob's Motel and Movie Buffs and two office buildings of contemporary construction. To the north is a convenience store/gas station of recent construction. Two other structures {548 and 554-556 N. 300 W.) have been demolished.
Finding: The streetscape within the context of the historic neighborhood and H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected if this building was demolished, and thus the project substantially complies with this standard.
{1){c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staff's discussion: Few contributing structures are within the vicinity of Marsh Auto. This is the only contributing structure on the block face of 300 West between 500 and 600 North; on 600 North, only one contributing building, other than the duplex proposed for demolition as part of this application, is extant on the southern frontage from the bungalow at 217 W. heading westward.
Staff's finding of fact: The project substantially complies with this standard.
{1){d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The base zoning of this site is Community Shopping {CS). Although there is evidence that Marsh Auto Sales occupied the building until 1998, this zone does not currently allow automobile sales. Although the CS zone permits a variety of other commercial services that could complement the proposed commercial node, the size of the Marsh Auto Building and its location on 300 W. and 600 N. make it unlikely that the retention and integration of this building would be compatible with the proposed development of the commercial node .
Staff's finding of fact: The base zoning is not compatible with the reuse of this structure. The project substantially complies with this standard.
{1){e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staff's discussion: When the HLC heard the proposal for demolition of Marsh Auto in December 2002, the RDA had only supplied a landscaping plan for the site. The plan was intended to be used as an interim post-demolition plan while the property is marketed and ultimately redeveloped. This was an issue for the HLC. Since that hearing, the RDA has submitted a re-use plan illustrating a site plan for new construction that would be part of the conceptual plan already approved by the HLC. Once a developer is chosen for the site, the HLC will review plans with specific details, as per Chapter 21A.34.020{H) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction of
Alteration of a Non-Contributing Site. The conceptual plan submitted for this application is consistent with the format of the plans approved by the HLC for the rest of the commercial node.
Staff's finding of fact: The project substantially complies with standard {1){e).
{1){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.
Staff's discussion: As evidenced by the age of the structure on the site, a noticeable sway in the roof, and the patchwork nature of the use of materials for previous repairs, it appears that the previous owners have failed to perform normal maintenance and repairs.
Staff's finding of fact: The building has suffered from a lack of proper maintenance, use and care, but because staff is aware that the neglect was not the doing of the RDA, staff finds that the project substantially complies with this standard.
[The staff's recommendation and the Commission's motion are in the next section.]
271 West 600 North - The Duplex (Historic Name: the James Raliegh House
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staff's discussion: The original adobe structure located to the rear of this property was built about 1884 for James A. Raliegh who lived in the house until about 1889. This structure was also the home of Joseph Smith Barlow, a policeman and later Deputy Sheriff, who was born December 6, 1856 in Great Salt Lake City. On November 12, 1885, Barlow married Clarissa Pugsley. They eventually had eight children who were raised in this home.
The front portion of the adobe dwelling is hidden from the street by a one-story modified temple form structure with a side-wing. Sanborn maps show that the red brick addition was constructed by 1911. The National Register nomination for this district indicates that many of the area's extant adobe dwellings were later enlarged by building newer homes in front or on the side to make a cross wing. As such, these types of alterations have acquired historic significance in their own right. The original front porch posts no longer exist, but this type of modification is easily reversed.
Staff's finding of fact: This property is a physical record of its time, place, and use and its character defining features remain intact. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: The Capitol Villa Apartments are a major intrusion on the southern frontage of this block of 600 North. The multi-family complex greatly weakens the streetscape of this block of the district, as perceived from 600 North. The demolition of other buildings along this streetscape in recent years further diminishes the historic character of the street. With the exception of the contributing structures on the east end of 600 North, only one contributing building (253 W. 600 N.) remains on the south side of this street between 200 and 300 West.
Staff's finding of fact: The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected if this house were demolished. The project substantially complies with this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staff's discussion: The non-contributing structures in the vicinity of this building are the Gas-N-Go across the street at 276 N. 300 W., the Capitol Villa apartment complex at 239 W. 600 N., and a small apartment complex at 268 W. 600 N., and the Marmalade apartment complex at 650 N. 300 W. The surrounding area is also characterized by a substantial amount of vacant land, most notably due to the proposed commercial node but also as a result of the demolition of other small-scale structures over the years. Staff finds that the nearby non-contributing structures hinder one's ability to perceive the historic character of the area because of the lack of historic resources remaining on the block, west of 200 W.
Staff's finding of fact: The project substantially complies with this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The base zoning of this site is Community Shopping (CS). This zone does not allow residential units on the ground floor except where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage although the past residential use would be permitted to continue as a non-conforming use since it does not meet the current use standards of the zoning ordinance. As with the Marsh Auto building; however, the size of the duplex, and its location as part of a corner so critical to the development of the proposed commercial node, make retaining it at odds with the CS zone in light of the RDA's plans for the site.
Staff's finding of fact: The base zoning is not compatible with the reuse of this structure. The project substantially complies with this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: As described above, when the HLC heard the proposal for demolition of the duplex in December 2002, the RDA supplied only a landscaping plan for the site. The HLC determined that landscaping was inconsistent with the requirements of the ordinance.
Since that hearing, the RDA has submitted a re-use plan illustrating a site plan for new construction that would be part of the conceptual plan already approved by the HLC. Once a developer is chosen for the site and detailed plans are submitted, HLC will review the plans as per Chapter 21A.34.020(H) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction of Alteration
of a Non-Contributing Site. The conceptual plan submitted for this application is consistent with the format of the plans approved by HLC for the rest of the commercial node. The project substantially complies with this standard.
(1)(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.
Staff's discussion: As evidenced by the age of the structure on the site, some structural bowing in the roof, and the general need for a good coat of paint, it appears that the previous owners have failed to perform normal maintenance and repairs.
Staff's finding of fact: The building has suffered from a lack of proper maintenance, use and care, but because staff is aware that the neglect was not the doing of the RDA, staff finds that the project substantially complies with this standard
Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with all staff's findings of fact.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Given the current state of the site, and the fact that numerous buildings on the site have been demolished, Staff has determined that it is in the best interest of historic preservation for the City and for the continued revitalization of the Capitol Hill Historic District if Marsh Auto and the duplex are demolished. Adopting the findings in the staff report, and crediting the Redevelopment Agency with the previous marketing efforts would enable the Redevelopment Agency to move forward with the demolition of these structures once the Historic Landmark Commission has approved a landscaping plan and documented the buildings."
Motion for 564 North 300 West (Marsh Auto) and 271 West 600 North (Duplex):
Ms. Mickelsen moved for Case No. 014-04, that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the Staff's findings of fact and recommendation on the properties at 564 North 300 West (Marsh Auto) and 271 West 600 North (the duplex) which would enable the Redevelopment Agency to move forward with the demolition of these structures once the Historic Landmark Commission has approved a landscaping plan and documented the buildings. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that staff's findings were adopted but the bona fide effort was not mentioned in the motion. She believed it should be clarified. There was a short discussion as the Redevelopment Agency marketing procedure was determined.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that he thought the staff report was unclear but urged the Commission to accept the efforts that have occurred by the Redevelopment Agency on the Marsh Auto building and the duplex as meeting the requirements for the bona fide effort so those buildings can be demolished.
Motion on the clarification of the previous motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for clarification of the previous motion by stating that the Historic Landmark Commission credits the Redevelopment Agency with the previous marketing efforts for the properties at 564 North 300 West (Marsh Auto) and 271 West 600 North (the duplex) meeting the requirements of a bona fide effort. Ms. White seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
248 West 500 North - The Nine-Plex
{1){a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staff's discussion: 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. Sanborn maps indicate that the house had been converted into seven apartments by 1950. The unusual appendage on the front elevation has prompted debate among the staff as to its effect on the physical integrity of the structure. The survey form states that the existing two-story appendage on the front elevation was constructed in 1943, which puts it within the historic, pre-1950 period. Thus, although this porch is not original, it can be considered to be an element of the house that has achieved significance within the architectural history of this house. While the house has been altered from its original appearance, it retains a high degree of physical integrity.
Staff's finding of fact: 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 project does not meet this standard.
{1){b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: The streetscape associated with this property consists of several residential structures to the east that were constructed about the same time and are similar in scale and materials. No contributing buildings exist to the west, and the streetscape is further visually compromised by the L.D.S Church across the street. These factors diminish the contribution of the nine-plex in conveying the historic development of the district on the block frontage.
Staff's finding of fact: The project substantially meets this standard.
{1){c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staff's discussion: With the exception of the contributing structures on 500 North east of this building, the nine-plex is in the midst of vacant land that weakens the association of the nine-plex to the historical development of this neighborhood of Capitol Hill. Additionally, the L.D.S. Church across the street, the Capitol Villa Apartments on 600 North and the small-scale apartment building at 535 N. Arctic Court are surrounding non-contributing structures that detract from the historic character of this part of the district.
Staffs finding of fact: The project substantially meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The zoning of this site is SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District. Seven of the nine units would have to be deleted in order to the building to comply with the standards of the SR-1 zone. However, because the building had the units for decades, the apartment building would be considered a legal, non-conforming use. The Capitol Hill Master Plan states that a zoning change would be supported if a proposed plan meets the community goals and balances the preservation issues.
Staff's finding of fact: The building could retain its legal, non-conforming use if renovated. Also, the zoning could be changed, in accordance with the master plan, if renovation of the nine-plex were part of a plan that balances preservation with the development of a commercial node. The project does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The HLC approved the IBI Group "Arctic Court" plan on June 19, 2002, that indicates that this building and the store to the east will be renovated. The revised plan included as part of this application indicates "existing residential" on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court. The applicant substantially complies with standard.
(1)(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.
Staff's discussion and Staffs finding of fact: When the RDA purchased the nine-plex, the tenants were evicted and the building was boarded. The building does not seem to be in a serious state of disrepair, and thus the project substantially complies with this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with all staff’s findings of fact.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the demolition of the nine-plex, based on the findings made in this report and the previous efforts the Redevelopment Agency has made to market the property. The nine-plex has been in the gray zone for four years (April 2000). Staff thus finds that the Redevelopment Agency has met the bona fide effort requirement. The Redevelopment Agency will have to obtain Historic Landmark Commission approval for a landscaping plan and document the buildings prior to obtaining a demolition permit."
Motion for 248 West 500 North (Nine-Plex):
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 014-04, that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the Staff's findings of fact and recommendation on the property at 248 West 500 North (the nine-plex), bolstered by the comments heard at this meeting, which would allow this building to be placed in the "gray zone", meaning that the Historic Landmark Commission can defer a decision for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The Historic Landmark Commission credits the Redevelopment Agency and accepts their bona fide effort with the previous marketing process which would enable the Redevelopment Agency to move forward with the demolition of this structure once the Historic Landmark Commission has approved a landscaping plan and documented the buildings. Ms. White seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed. Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
242-244 West 500 North - The, “Store” The Poulton House and General Store
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staff's discussion: Constructed in 1906, this is a rare, extant example of a combination store and residence. It is unusual because of its massing: the east portion is a typical two-part commercial block, but it has a one-story house attached to the west. This building was constructed for James Poulton, an immigrant born in Birmingham, England in 1854, and his wife Sarah. The Poulton’s operated a general store from this location for thirty-four years. It was associated with the ZCMI chain stores for many years. The commercial store sits at the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court, and features an angled entrance to the storefront. The house resembles one-half of a one-story, brick foursquare.
When comparing the current appearance of this building with its appearance in the late 1930's tax photograph, it is evident that many of the character defining features of this building remain intact. The massing, including the height, roof pitch, and relationship of the two-story block to the small, attached residence, is unaltered. The fenestration is largely the same, and details such as the molding and frieze board that separate the two stories on the eastern block are still in place. The application of vertical wood siding, vertically oriented windows, and the removal of the original porch columns on the one story house are the only substantial alterations to the structure. These alterations could easily be reversed.
Staff's finding of fact: The physical integrity of this site is evident. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: As with 248 W. 500 N. to the west, the streetscape within the context of the district is compromised by the L.D.S. Church across the street and the large swath of vacant land cleared for the commercial node. Although contributing structures exist to the east to the corner of 200 West, this block frontage has few contributing structures remaining.
Staff's finding of fact: Within the context of the historic district, the streetscape has already been marred by the construction of the L.D.S. Church across the street, and by the incompatible development that occurred to the west. The project substantially complies with this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staff's discussion: The most conspicuous non-contributing structure in the vicinity of this building is the L.D.S. church across the street at 225 W. 500 N. As stated above, few contributing buildings remain on this block frontage. The lack of surrounding contributing structures is reinforced by the proximity of the Capitol Villa Apartments, the small apartment building at 535 N. Arctic Court, and the cleared land to the west.
Staff's finding of fact: The project substantially complies with this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The zoning of this site is SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, is compatible for the reuse of the structure as a residence. There is the possibility that rezoning could occur that would allow the building to be used commercially, and thus make its renovation more financially appealing. This could occur in conjunction with the development of a commercial node on the southwestern corner of the block. 1
Staff's finding of fact: The base zoning of the site is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The Planning Division anticipates that the City would support rezoning in the future as outlined in the Capitol Hill Master Plan, which would allow commercial uses in this structure. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.
{1){e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The HLC approved a plan on June 19, 2002, that indicates that this building will be renovated. The revised plan included as part of this application indicates "existing residential" on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court. The applicant complies with this standard.
{1){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.
Staff's discussion: The structure is currently vacant, and was vacant when the RDA purchased it in February of 1998. All of the main floor windows and doors are covered with plywood. Some windows are broken and the close proximity of the existing tree in the front yard creates a potential hazard to the structure. Staff finds that this building has experienced some deterioration from a lack of normal maintenance, use and care.
Staff's finding of fact: The property has suffered from failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, but the staff is of the opinion that this probably predates the RDA's ownership. The staff recognizes that the RDA is not responsible for the neglect that occurred before it purchased the building, and thus finds that the applicant complies with this standard.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "The potential renovation of the store on the 500 North/Arctic Court corner could be a catalyst to reintroduction of the architecture and development pattern represented in Salt Lake's inner-block streets. The adoption of the findings presented in this report could allow the Redevelopment Agency to continue marketing the store and the shotgun house. If the Historic Landmark Commission agrees with the staff’s findings and puts the store in the gray zone, the one year "clock" could start once the Redevelopment Agency undertook a public means of widely advertising its availability. If the availability of the store has attracted serious interest from potential developers who are ready to submit a proposal to the Redevelopment Agency for renovation, submittal of a complete proposal could count as commencing the one-year clock."
Mr. Simonsen suggested that if the findings are changed the reason should be clearly stated in the motion.
Motion on 242-244 West 500 North (Store):
Mr. Parvaz moved for Case No. 014-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt the following:
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident. The physical integrity of the site is evident {as per the staff report).
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected. This contributing structure is among the last remaining store/residence ·from 1906. Together with 515 and 248, they are also among the last historic landmarks in the streetscape of the district. The existence of the LOS Church does not justify demolition of this building. In fact, it reinforces the need to preserve this and other contributing structures and remaining characteristic features of the district streetscape. Demolishing this structure would be a big loss, therefore, would negatively affect the district. In the case of 1{b) the finding should be changed to "no" as it would be affected.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. Demolition of this contributing structure causes great danger to the remaining historic structures, reduces the number of contributing structures in the district, and makes other historic structures possible and easier targets for demolition. Because there are some non-contributing and few contributing structures in this district, demolition of 242-244 would adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District. In the case of 1{c) the finding should be changed to "no" as it would be adversely affected.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure. The base zoning is compatible {as per the staff report).
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section. It is not clear why a credit is given to the applicant. If the applicant intends to preserve this building all this finding of fact is irrelevant. In the case of 1{e) the finding should be changed to "no". If the re-use plan is to preserve the structure, then it is not clear why the Redevelopment Agency would plan to demolish it.
(1)(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. As per staff's finding of fact "the property has suffered from failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs". It does not matter who the owner is or who the owner has been in the past, when the property is left alone, whether they bought it yesterday or ten years ago. There is no compliance with this standard. In the case of 1{f) the finding should be changed to "no" as the property has suffered from the failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs.
A short discussion followed.
Ms. Rowland said that she had the same feelings that Mr. Parvaz did about the criteria that this allows the non-contributing structures to "poison" what is left to the contributing structures; it continues the erosion of the district. She said that because there is a non-contributing structure nearby allows the continuation of the erosion into the historic neighborhood. Ms. Rowland asked that if the reuse plan is consistent with wanting to save the building then why are they applying to demolish it?
Mr. Parvaz stated that that was his point exactly. He said that he is trying to follow the text of the ordinance. Mr. Parvaz said that the Commission was setting precedence of a standard for justification to tear down historic buildings. He pointed out that everyone could come to the same argument and all historic structures could be demolished.
Ms. Giraud remarked that this would not prevent the Redevelopment Agency from trying to market the property. She said that if they could not market it and they still wanted to demolish it then it would have to go to economic hardship.
Ms. Rowland stated, "I think we have been hearing that the Redevelopment Agency intends to market the store. I think what we would be doing here is causing them to go to economic hardship, but market the store."
Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed and said that he believed this was a decent place to draw an edge and the Commission has heard that there is some chance this property had a more likely chance to be developed than the others.
Mr. Simonsen asked for a second to the motion and called for a vote.
Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. White abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Christensen stated that he thought those standards are confusing the way they are written, with double negatives.
515 N. Arctic Court- The “Shotgun House” - The Arnold and Nettie Poulton House
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staff's discussion: According to the intensive-level site form prepared by Korral Broschinsky in 2001, the Arnold and Nettie Poulton house was constructed in 1906 and moved to its current location sometime between 1912 and 1915. The house is a one-story, frame dwelling on a concrete foundation. The house is simple in design and similar to a shotgun, a type of worker cottage. The house has Victorian Eclectic details such as drop siding, full cornice returns, decorative shingles in the gable trim, and corner boards. While the house is vacant and all of the windows and doors are boarded, any alterations have been minor.
Staff's finding of fact: The house maintains most of its original appearance and therefore, retains a high degree of physical integrity. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: Arctic Court is typical of the narrow, inner-block streets that were developed in Salt Lake City around 1900. The 1898 Sanborn map portrays no development on this site; the 1911 map refers to Arctic Court as "Pacific Avenue". The 1950 Sanborn maps show eight houses on this block. Aside from the subject property, only two contributing structures - nos. 520 and 528 on the east side of Arctic Court- remain.
Because of the demolition of several homes on the street, and the intrusions of Capitol Villa apartments and a smaller apartment building at 535 N. Arctic Court, enough has been lost so that a sense of the historic streetscape no longer exists. Only the size of the narrow street and its entrance from 500 North remain to indicate that this was an inner-block court.
Staff's finding of fact: The streetscape of Arctic Court within the context of the overlay district has been lost, due to the demolition of several contributing structures and the construction of buildings incompatible with the small scale of the street. The project substantially meets this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staff's discussion: The intrusion of the Capitol Villa apartment complex at 239 W. 600 N., the apartment building at 535 N. Arctic Court, and the large vacant parcel to the west create a void of non-contributing buildings around the subject parcel. Three contributing structures are located east of the shotgun house on 500 North, but this concentration is too weak to compensate for the nonhistoric landscape in which the shotgun house now sits. As stated above, so much has been lost that the sense of Arctic Court as an inner-court, early twentieth-century street no longer exists.
Staff's finding of fact: The demolition of this building would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district. The project substantially complies with this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The zoning of this site is SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, is compatible for the reuse of the structure. The project does not comply with this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The HLC approved a plan on June 19, 2002, that indicates that this building and the store to the east will be renovated. The revised plan included as part of this application indicates "existing residential" on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court. The applicant complies with standard (1)(e), and substantially meets this standard.
(1)(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.
Staff's discussion: Currently the house is vacant, and all of the windows and doors are covered with plywood. Not unlike other vacant buildings under similar conditions, staff has found that this building has experienced some deterioration from a lack of normal maintenance, use and care.
Staff's finding of fact: The property has suffered from the failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, but it does not appear that the current owner is responsible for the overall neglect of the building. The project complies with this standard.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt the staff's findings to place the house in the gray zone, and consider the beginning of the one-year "clock" in conjunction with that of the store. A buyer interested in the store might make use of the shotgun. Alternatively, because of its small size and frame construction, the shotgun house would lend itself easily to relocation. Because of its proximity to the store and the fact that the Redevelopment Agency has received inquiries recently about renovating the store, as well as its potential for relocation, the staff has determined that the shotgun should not be demolished until other avenues have been fully explored."
Mr. Simonsen suggested that if the findings are changed the reason should be clearly stated in the motion.
First motion for 515 No. Arctic Court (Shotgun House):
Mr. Parvaz moved for Case No. 014-04, that the Historic Landmark Commission approve that the criteria be modified and that all items marked "yes" be changed to "no" based on the discussion for 242 West 500 North.
Mr. Simonsen called for a second. Seeing none, the motion died for the lack of a second. Second and final motion for 515 No. Arctic Court (Shotgun House):
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved for Case No. 014-04, that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt the Staff's findings of fact and recommendation to place the structure in the "gray" zone, and consider the beginning of the one-year "clock" in conjunction with that of the Store at 242 West 500 North. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Ms. White abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission needed to address the landscaping plans since it was submitted as an interim use. Mr. Simonsen said that the document was provided but because the Historic Landmark Commission did not know the outcome of the demolition proposals, and it was not reviewed by staff. He said that he thought it would be appropriate to continue the review of the landscaping plan, as it may have to be modified due to the decisions that had been made at this meeting.
Ms. Giraud suggested continuing the landscaping plan to the August 18, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. She added that by continuing the meeting, it would not have to be noticed. Mr. Simonsen said that would give staff an opportunity to review the landscaping plan and write a staff report.
The discussion turned to the lack of landscaping and irrigation system on the subject property where the buildings had been demolished.
Ms. Rowland asked what kind of timeframe the Redevelopment Agency should be given, because they should have fulfilled their landscaping obligation last spring on the properties where the previous demolitions have occurred. Ms. Giraud stated that the landscaping issue needed to be discussed with the Redevelopment Agency. She said that people are concerned about the drought. Ms. Rowland said that sod would not be required, only drought tolerant plans. Ms. Giraud said that staff has talked about that on a number of cases. She said that the City needed to do a better job with enforcing landscaping.
Motion to continue the review of the landscaping plan:
Ms. Rowland moved that the Historic Landmark Commission continue the hearing regarding the landscaping plan as the reuse plan for the commercial node property on 300 West, between Arctic Court, and 500 and 600 North to the August 18, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, pending a staff report. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Election of a Chair and Vice Chair.
Mr. Simonsen said that with the modification of the Commission's Rules and Procedures, a new Chair and Vice Chair should be elected at the next meeting. He said that if no one else is interested in becoming Chair, he would be willing to serve another term. It was the consensus of the Commission members that elections should be held at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Spray on liquid siding.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the Commission would address the spray on liquid siding issue. She mentioned that she searched the website and pulled information regarding the spray on liquid siding. Ms. Mickelsen stated that the information called it a spray on ceramic coating and not paint. She said that it seems like the Commission should investigate the material and its effect on historic structures.
Ms. Giraud asked if the Commission could form a subcommittee to research the pros and cons of spray on liquid siding. Ms. Giraud said that she would approach the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for any information. Mr. Simonsen said that he would welcome anyone to do a demonstration of the product in his office. He n1entioned inviting the members of the Commission to the demonstration. Ms. Giraud stated that the Commission needed to keep in mind that a quorum could not be present for the demonstration, or else the meeting would have to be posted.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 7:15P.M.