December 3, 1997

SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting

Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126

A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Dina Blaes, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Elizabeth Giraud, and Joel Paterson.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Lynn Morgan. William Damery, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Rob McFarland, and Robert Young were excused.

Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Planner. William T. Wright, Planning Director, was also present.

The meeting was called to order at 4:10P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.

• A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the November 5, 1997 meeting, after a small correction. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Young were excused. The motion passed.

PREVIOUS CASE

Case No. 014-97. by Jeff Jonas of American Housing Development Company, represented by Max Smith of MJS Architects. requesting to demolish four contributing buildings at 550 East 300 South. 558 East 300 South. 326 South 600 East. and 334 South 600 East. which are located in the Central City Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated the following: "Subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Landmark Commission to base a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness on seven criteria when considering the application. If six of the standards are met, Historic Landmark Commission shall approve the request for demolition. If two or less of the standards are met, Historic Landmark Commission must deny the request. If the Historic Landmark Commission makes findings that between three to five of the standards are met, Historic Landmark Commission can defer a decision for up to one year, during which 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 seventh criteria concerns economic hardship, which involves a separate process in which a committee of three people are chosen to determine if denying a demolition request would entail economic hardship."

Ms. Giraud continued with her presentation. She addressed each subject property, separately, as outlined in the staff report. Ms. Giraud stated that the applicant would be entitled to pursue the economic hardship process. She said that if the applicant chose to do that and it was found that renovating the subject properties would be economically unfeasible, then that decision would have priority over any decision that the Historic Landmark Commission would make.

There was a clarification regarding the staff report and the standards on which the Historic Landmark Commission would base its decision. A short discussion also took place relating to a further deterioration of the streetscapes in conjunction with the proposed project if the criteria were met and the demolition requests were approved.

Mr. Jeff Jonas of American Housing Development Company, and Mr. Max Smith of MJS Architects, representing the applicant, were present. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Jonas stated that it was his understanding the Staff's findings would be different than what was written in the staff report. He also stated that to renovate the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East had always been part of the project. Mr. Jonas said that the Planning Staff found that the Juel Apartment building was a more significant historic building than any of the other buildings on that block. He said that he believed that the Staff had changed their minds on that issue.

Mr. Jonas addressed the Staff's findings relative to the buildings on 300 South. He said that the issue of "physical integrity" is unclear, as he referred to Pages two and three of the staff report. Mr. Jonas focused on the words, "setting", "feeling", and "association". He read the definitions of these words from staff report, then expressed his opinions in the following manner:

Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. Mr. Jonas said that he questioned whether or not any of the properties requested for demolition played a historic role. The character of 300 South, on that block, had changed significantly with the construction of commercial buildings. He said that was significant when determining whether there is physical integrity or not. He concurred that the workmanship and materials were still evident.

Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Mr. Jonas reiterated his impression of the changing character of 300 South. He said that he would question anyone coming up with a "feeling" of these properties' expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a period. He said he did not understand how that could be stretched to say that had occurred.

Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Mr. Jonas said that except for the significant architect on the one building on 600 East, he was not aware of any link between an historical event or person. He said that the staff report made the argument that the association still exists with all the properties. Mr. Jonas added that the association does not exist pursuant to the definition provided by National Park Service's National Register Bulletin 15.

Mr. Jonas continued by questioning the significance of each subject property.

550 East 300 South. the Mozart Apartment building. Mr. Jonas disagreed with the finding (1)(a) and said that the discussion was inclusive to the Staffs finding. He questioned the base zoning issue included in the Staffs finding for (1)(d), that the zoning was incompatible with the reuse of this structure. Mr. Jonas said that if the base zoning compatibility meant something as a permitted use, then the ordinance would have said that. He said that the current use of this building was non conforming to the ordinance. Mr. Jonas said that he did not understand how the Staff interpreted "incompatibility" and disagreed with the Staffs finding. He said that he believed the property met six of the six standards.

Mr. Smith said that there had been lengthy discussions regarding the word "incompatible" and as Mr. Jonas pointed out that if it was a permitted use issue, then the ordinance would have clarified that point. He said that the applicant's interpretation of "incompatible" was something much more than that and if it were just a matter of determining whether it would be a permitted use or not, the applicant would not need this Commission to determine that issue. Mr. Smith said that he realized that the applicant and the Staff disagreed due to the rigidity of the ordinance. He questioned whether or not the Mozart Apartment building was compatible with the small structure next door and asked that the Commission consider that issue.

558 East 300 South. the Frederick Fail house. Mr. Jonas stated that the physical integrity was not evident, due to the changing streetscape, therefore he believed that the property met the Standard in (1)(a). He said that he disagreed that the house maintained its integrity of association because it still imparts its original use as a single-family home. He said that it seemed to have nothing to do with the definition of "association" which was a direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Mr. Jonas said that he disagreed with the base zoning issue in Standard (1)(d) and believed that the site was compatible with the reuse of the structure. Ms. Deal asked him the size of the lot on which the Fail house was located. Mr. Jonas said that he did not know but it was included in the larger parcel, when it was purchased. Ms. Giraud stated that according to the County's records, it was a very small lot. There was some discussion regarding this matter. He believed that the property met six out of the six standards and said that he would continue to argue the issue of physical integrity.

326 South 600 East. the Stephen M. Covey Apartments. Mr. Jonas said that he had a difficult time with the streetscape issue in Standard (1)(b) because he believed that one should look at both sides of the street, as opposed to only one side. He said that he did not believe that non-contributing buildings should dictate what was proper in terms of form and scale.

334 South 600 East. the Mary Ann Mumford house. Mr. Jonas said that the structure would not be compatible with the reuse plan and the streetscape for the project. Mr. Jonas said that if a person was found that would have the desire to move this house, he would assist in that course of action.

Mr. Smith stated that neither he nor the applicant wanted to destroy historic buildings; that was not their purpose. He said that the four subject buildings could literally control the destiny of that inner block property, which was vacant and almost impossible to control and police. Mr. Smith said no one that the applicant had found was interested in financing an apartment project which would be in the backyard of the four subject buildings.

Mr. Jonas said he realized that the Historic Landmark Commission had a difficult and complicated ordinance with which it has to deal and is unclear in some respects. He said that he had tried to approach this project with what he believed was a considerate manner of the historic district. Mr. Jonas said that it would be considerate to their needs and considerate to the issue of preservation. He stated that if the buildings would not be moved and are permitted to be demolished, the important elements would be warehoused. Mr. Jonas said that after consulting with companies that move buildings, it was the consensus that the buildings on 300 South could not be moved, but the buildings on 600 East could be moved. He noted that the economic process would be pursued, if those buildings would not be allowed to be demolished. Mr. Jonas said that they had incorporated the Juel Apartments into the plans of the development and would be working also to incorporate the Covey Apartments into the project in a meaningful way, as well. Mr. Smith further discussed this undertaking.

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

• Ms. Blaes led the discussion by asking about a building in the proposed development located directly north of the Juel Apartment building which appeared to have the same footprint as the Mumford house. Mr. Smith pointed to the building on the larger map of the area. He said that the possibility of keeping the Mumford house was considered, but it did not give the proposed project enough of a presence and was not well received by the financiers of the project. Mr. Smith said that he did not mean, precisely, that if the Mumford house was left, no one would finance the proposed project. He said that was not the issue; it was a feeling of discomfort that this multi-million dollar project would look as if it was built in the backyard of other buildings, as he had stated earlier. Mr. Jonas referred to the streetscape on 600 East and said that he believed that the Historic Landmark Commission would conclude that the Mumford house would not fit into the streetscape of the proposed project. The discussion continued and Mr. Smith gave a brief overview of the proposal.

• Mr. Littig inquired about moving the Mumford house behind the Juel Apartment building. Mr. Smith explained that at first, the original studies of the proposal, explored the idea of the main entrance of the project be off Vernier Place, but that did not occur, so a different "front door" had to be developed. He further explained the ingress and egress of the planned development. Mr. Smith noted that all but nine stalls for guest or service parking was underground. The discussion continued.

Ms. Giraud further clarified the non-conforming use issues of the subject buildings by saying that she conferred with the City's zoning office and in terms of where those buildings sat on the lots and the available parking was non-conforming. She said that many buildings in the City were non-conforming.

Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

• Ms. Blaes referred to a copy of a letter from Ms. Evelyn Johnson, Chair of the Central City Neighborhood Council, in which she stated that the Council supported the proposed project and believed that it would serve to revitalize the block and the surrounding Central City neighborhood, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

• Mr. Prescott Muir, an interested person, stated that he would like to take issue with the findings in the staff report, but wanted to express some broader concerns regarding the ordinance and the process of which the City had established. He said that he recognized the responsibility that was before this Commission in terms of dealing with broader urban design issues that would face the City. Mr. Muir spoke of the diminishing population and the decline of the East Central Neighborhood, and exclusive of the roads and sidewalks, sixty percent of the ground in the area had been paved. He said that he was a member of a task force of the Downtown Alliance, who works with parking vendors. Mr. Muir said that there was an incredible demand for perimeter surface parking and that demand would be met by demolishing more obsolete structures and creating more parking lots. He said that he was not certain that would be what the citizens would envision for the City. Mr. Muir pointed out models of those circumstances which happened in the downtown sections of Los Angeles and Denver, where there were high rise buildings surrounded by inner blocks of parking lots. He said that the City should seize the opportunity for the creation of more mix-of-income-level housing and more density in the downtown area. He encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to weigh the delicate balance of sustaining the quality of the City's neighborhoods and character while trying to accommodate the housing needs. Mr. Muir said that if the City did not do it, then Draper and other farm land areas around the perimeter of the City would.

Mr. Roger Borgenicht, an interested person, also spoke of the declining population of the area. He referred to the master plan which was developed in the 1980's of the East Downtown area. Mr. Borgenicht spoke of the changes in the zoning and the re-establishment of more residential units. He said that the proposed project was one of the first to do that. Mr. Borgenicht talked about the difficult decision the Historic Landmark Commission had to make and the ability to prioritize the overall benefits of this project to this neighborhood.

Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides at 816 East 100 South, stated that contributing buildings were sparse in many areas in the Central City Historic District. She indicated that every building in these sections of the historic district have become so precious, that the entire district would be negatively affected by the loss of the buildings which have been requested to be demolished and it would create huge gaps in neighborhoods. Ms. Cromer suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission spend some time at a retreat to discuss the Central City Historic District and how it exists within the City. She indicated that she had mixed feelings about this proposed project, but delaying the demolition request for one year would be detrimental to the development. She said that she was really concerned about the Mumford house at 334 South 600 East. She said that she understood about the design arguments, but expressed her concerns about losing that type of house which opened out to the center parking median on 600 East which she believed represented what Central City was all about. She urged the Commission to move forward with this project.

Upon receiving no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to any further public comment and the Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion took place regarding the proposed project and the way a motion needed to be made by the Commission. Several members expressed his/her opinion in this matter. Ms. Blaes suggested that the Commission make a finding and a motion on each individual site. Mr. Littig stated that the Mumford house would be the structure that he would fight the hardest to keep. He continued by inquiring what would happen with the Commission's motion if someone was able to move the house to another site in the same historic district. Ms. Blaes said that would be considered a bona fide effort to preserve the site, on the part of the applicant, during a one-year deferment. Ms. Blaes read that portion of the staff report. Ms. Giraud noted that there was a separate process in the ordinance for relocation.

Subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, states: "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:" A copy of Chapter 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District was filed with the minutes of this meeting. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following findings on each standard for each subject property and voted to determine if the members agreed, or did not agree, with the findings in the staff report:

550 East 300 South, the Mozart Apartments.

Subsection (1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.

Staffs finding: Although it has undergone changes that are not in keeping with its historic appearance, the physical integrity of this structure is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Deal said that she did not agree with the Staff's findings. She said that based on the discussion portion of the staff report regarding location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship of the structure, she believed that the structure substantially complied with all of them. Ms. Miller asked to have clarified the terminology of "site" and "structure" use in the staff report. Ms. Giraud said that the standards address other elements of appearance, other than just the building itself, but the Commission should consider the use of the word "site" rather than "structure" in the finding. The discussion continued.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staff's finding that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.

Staffs finding: If the Mozart Apartments are demolished the streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay district would not be negatively affected. The applicant meets this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Miller said that she believed that the loss of this building would negatively affect the streetscape, even though there had been many changes in the streetscape. Mr. Littig said that he considered this issue like "pulling a good tooth; that the bad teeth would still remain in the mouth." He said that the Mozart Apartments was an historic building in an historic district and the streetscape would be affected by its loss. The discussion continued regarding the wall of continuity in the streetscape.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staff's finding that the applicant met this standard. preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Subsection (1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Staffs finding: Demolition of the Mozart Apartments would not negatively affect the streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district. The applicant meets this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Mr. Morgan said that he believed the building was "standing alone" in the context of the streetscape. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant met this standard.

Subsection (1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.

Staffs finding: The base zoning is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Deal inquired about the parking required in the zoning of the subject property. Mr. Wright said that the applicant would have certain non-conforming rights. The discussion continued regarding the mixed-use of the zoning requirement.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards a copy of which was filed with the minutes, of this outlined in Subsection H, section.

Staffs finding: The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section. The applicant meets this standard. Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant met this standard.

Subsection (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 structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.

Staffs finding: The site has not suffered from willful neglect. The applicant meets this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant met this standard.

Ms. Blaes announced that the Historic Landmark Commission's finding was that the applicant met four of the six standards; therefore, the Historic Landmark Commission could defer a decision for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site.

558 East 300 South the Frederick Fail Hosue

Subsection (1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.

Staffs finding: The physical integrity of the site is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Deal pointed out that she believed that the physical integrity of the site was no longer evident. She said that the appearance had changed; the design, setting, material, feeling, and association are no longer evident, and a parking lot existed on the site and on the adjacent property, as well.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members did not support the Staffs finding and believed that the applicant met this standard.

Subsection (1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.

Staffs finding: The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected if this house was demolished. The applicant meets this standard.

Subsection (1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Staffs finding: The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. The applicant meets this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant met this standard.

Subsection (1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.

Staff's finding: The base zoning of this site is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Deal suggested that the RO zoning of this property was for a combination of multi-family dwellings and office use. She pointed out that this property would not meet the 20,000 square foot minimum for office use and the base zoning of this site was not compatible with the reuse of the structure. Ms. Giraud stated that she consulted the Zoning Ordinance as to what would be allowed on this property. She said that she found out that, if the house was to be renovated in the spirit in which it was constructed, it would be allowed. Mr. Wright spoke about the discussion which took place during the zoning rewrite regarding areas in the City where single-family homes existed in the RO District.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members did not support the Staffs finding and believed that the applicant met this standard.

Subsection (1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section.

Staffs finding: The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section. The applicant meets this standard. Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant met this standard.

Subsection (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 structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.

Staffs finding: Although the house has suffered from willful neglect, it is not the fault of the applicant. The Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant met this standard.

Ms. Blaes concluded that the Historic Landmark Commission's findings believed that the applicant met six of the six standards, therefore, the request for demolition could not be denied.

326 South 600 East, the Stephen M Covey Apartments

Subsection (1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.

Staff's finding: The physical integrity of the site is still evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(b) the streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.

Staffs finding: the streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would be negatively affected. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Staff's finding: The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. The applicant meets this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members did not support the Staff's finding therefore, the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.

Staff's finding: The existing use of the contributing structure is compatible with the base zoning. The applicant does not meet this standard. Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staff's finding that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section.

Staff's finding: The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section. The applicant meets this standard. Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staff's finding that the applicant met this standard.

Staff's finding: The site has not suffered from willful neglect. The applicant meets this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: No discussion followed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staff's finding that the applicant met this standard.

Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission's finding of fact was that the applicant met two of the six standards, therefore, the Historic Landmark Commission could defer a decision for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site.

334 South 600 East the Mary Ann Mumford House

Subsection (1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.

Staff's finding: The physical integrity of the site is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: The discussion was short because the members were in agreement with the Staff. Ms. Blaes stated that she had made note of the issues that were introduced by the applicant. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.

Staffs finding: The streetscape within the context of the district would be negatively affected. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: The house is contributing to the streetscape. The house would not fit into the reuse plan of the project. Mr. Morgan inquired if the stipulation could be included in the motion that the house be moved, rather than demolished. Mr. Cerruti said that the Commission had to make its own findings and if it is found that the applicant can demolish this structure, then conditions could not be placed on that decision, at this point. Mr. Cerruti talked about the one-year deferment where the applicant could make a bona fide effort to preserve the house, which would give the Commission a little more leeway as to what it could do.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staffs finding that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Staffs finding: The demolition would not adversely affect the overlay district because of the surrounding non-contributing structures. The applicant does meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Deal said that the key words were "due to the surrounding non-contributing structures." Mr. Littig pointed out that the streetscape of 700 East was different than streetscapes in other historic districts, such as South Temple, but should be viewed in its own context. Ms. Deal said that that word "streetscape" contained in the criteria of the first two findings was considered a very narrow view, while the word "district" created a much wider view. Ms. Giraud clarified the Staffs position on this finding. She said how it was assessed was that it was the last remaining vestige of anything historic in a commercial district. There was some discussion regarding these comments.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members did not support the Staffs finding that the applicant and believed that the applicant did not meet this standard.

Subsection (1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.

Staffs finding: The base zoning is compatible with the reuse of the structure.

The applicant does not meet this standard.

Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Deal spoke of the

City's vision when the property was rezoned and how this structure fit into that picture. She said she did not believe that the base zoning was compatible with the reuse. She said that this is a single-family home on a lot size that did not meet the minimum in an RMF-35 Zoning District. Ms. Miller said that the Staff's discussion that single-family dwellings were an allowable use in that zoning. Ms. Deal said that was not the "spirit" of the district's zoning. Mr. Wright stated that during the rezoning process medium density was encouraged for the RMF-35 Zoning District. He said that the result of the discussions was that a single-family house should be permitted so that an owner would not run into problems when that type of housing would be rehabilitated or remodeled, and not have to deal with the non-conforming section of the ordinance. Ms. Blaes said that the Commission had the responsibility to look at a longer term, and not just one application. Ms. Giraud clarified that the determination was made by asking the question, "Has this property become obsolete?" The discussion continued.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members did not support the Staff's finding and believed that the applicant met this standard.

Subsection (1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section.

Staffs finding: The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section. The applicant does meet this standard. Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission: Ms. Deal said that she wanted to stipulate for the record, that she concurred with the way this was written in the staff report because the applicant would be required to obtain an approval for the new construction of this property. Ms. Blaes said that was the reason that it was not necessary for the applicant to present construction drawings at this point in the process.

Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The majority of the members supported the Staff's finding that the applicant met this standard.

Staffs finding: The applicant meets this standard.

Ms. Blaes said that based on the Historic Landmark Commission's findings, the applicant met three of the six required standards, which compelled the Commission to defer a decision for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. However, she pointed out that the Commission had not received direction for an economic hardship procedure. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the results of these findings.

It was requested and the decision was made to reopen the hearing to inquire if the applicant intended to propose an economic hardship case for the "Mumford House" property. Mr. Jonas said that it was his intention to do so. Ms. Blaes reclosed this portion of the meeting to any public comment. The discussion continued among the members of the Commission.

Ms. Blaes read Subsection 21A.34.020(L), the demolition portion of the Zoning Ordinance, which was included in the staff report. She announced that the Chair would entertain the motions dealing with the requests to demolish four contributing structures in the Central City Historic District.

Discussion and motion for 550 East 300 South. the Mozart Apartments. Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission found that the applicant met four out of the six standards. She stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had two choices for this motion; (1) to table this decision until the issue of economic hardship had been determined; or (2) to defer the decision for a period of one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. Ms. Miller inquired if the applicant went through the economic hardship process and it was proved that the applicant would have an economic hardship to retain this property, would that be an automatic approval for demolition. Ms. Blaes answered by saying that the Commission would have to accept those findings by the Economic Review Panel and would have to approve the demolition. Ms. Deal reminded the members that it was the applicant's right to follow through with the economic hardship process. Mr. Cerruti observed that

the procedure would give the applicant a little more flexibility. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the results of the findings, economic hardship, and other matters.

Ms. Blaes read the definition of economic hardship found in Subsection 21A.34.020.K), which read: "Definition and Determination of Economic Hardship. The determination of economic hardship shall require the applicant to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the application of the standards and regulations of this section deprives the applicant of all reasonable economic use or return on the subject property."

Mr. Cerruti moved that the decision for the demolition request be postponed for the structure at 550 East 300 South, as the Historic Landmark Commission found that the applicant met four of the six standards, as previously discussed. Based on that discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission would defer the decision for up to one year, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, as pertained in Subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. If the applicant decides to invoke the economic hardship issue, the Historic Landmark Commission would concede to the conclusion of the Economic Review Panel. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.

A short discussion followed. Mr. Wright said that the applicant could return to this Commission before the one-year-period, but must demonstrate how the bona fide effort was conducted. He also said that there was a time constraint on the economic hardship procedure.

Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Young were excused. The motion passed.

Discussion and motion for 558 East 300 South, the Frederick Fail house. Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission found that the applicant met six of the six standards. Ms. Deal said that she would not like to see this house be demolished until such a time that it would be a hindrance to the project, just in case something might happen to reverse the decision. A discussion took place regarding Subsection 21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(ii) which read, "On the basis of its written findings of fact, the Historic Landmark Commission shall either approve, deny, or conditionally approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. A decision on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure may be deferred for up to one year, pursuant to Subsections L and M of this section."

Mr. Morgan moved to approve the demolition of the structure at 558 East 300 South, as the applicant met six of the six standards, subject to the imminent issuance of the building permits for the reuse plan. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.

After a short discussion, it was decided that a stipulation could not be added to the motion which would obligate the applicant to the possibility of moving the structure onto another site.

Discussion and motion for 326 South 600 East. the Stephen M. Covey Apartments. Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission found that the applicant met two of the six standards, therefore, according to the ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the request for demolition.

Ms. Deal moved to deny the request for demolition for the structure at 326 South

600 East, based on the Historic Landmark Commission's findings of fact, that the applicant only met two of the six standards. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Young were excused. The motion passed.

Mr. Wright clarified that the denial for the request for demolition did not prevent the applicant to pursue an economic hardship review for this property. The discussion continued.

Discussion and motion for 334 South 600 East. the Marv Ann Mumford house. Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission found that the applicant met three of the six standards.

Ms. Deal moved to defer the decision for the request for demolition for the structure at 334 South 600 East for up to one year, based on the Historic Landmark Commission's findings of fact, that the applicant met three of the six standards, during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. It was seconded by Ms. Miller. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Morgan unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Young were excused. The motion passed.

There was some discussion and proposed names given by members of the Commission, to be selected to serve on the Economic Review Panel. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant would also have the opportunity to select a person, then those two people would select a third panel member. After a short discussion, it was suggested that nominations and information about that person be given to Ms. Giraud, then she would present the list to the Commission for a vote at the next meeting on December 17^th.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Blaes asked Mr. Wright to give a brief presentation on the two-day meetings he had attended with the people from the federal GSA (General Services Administration). Mr. Wright said that the City was successful in convincing the GSA that they should go through a public process, although the federal government is not subject to local zoning regulations. He further said that there was no agreement that the decisions made by the Historic Landmark Commission or the Planning Commission would be held valid. He said his next efforts of discussion would be to convince the pertinent people that GSA should be bound by the Commissions' decisions and then set up an appeal process. Ultimately, he said that the federal government could "trump" anything the local governments would do. Mr. Wright said that it would be better if they entered the process with an expectation that the Commissions would make a decision on a high quality project of stature so that the federal government would not be fearful of that issue.

Mr. Wright discussed the next meetings and public hearing which would be held on December 19, 1997, as well as the joint meeting on January 22, 1998 with the Planning Commission to review the concept design phase which would include three to five alternatives prepared by the architect. He said that February of 1998, the proposals would be narrowed to one or two and a public forum would be held to provide input.

Mr. Wright said that a decision would be scheduled to be made in April of 1998.

Ms. Blaes proposed, that the joint meeting with the Planning Commission on January 22nd would take precedent over the scheduled training meeting of the Historic Landmark 21st Commission on January

Mr. Wright also spoke of the proposed "Conflict of Interest" ordinance. He said that the City Council delayed the scheduling of the public hearing, because the members wanted to more thoroughly study the issues surrounding this draft ordinance.

A discussion took place regarding the South Temple Street reconstruction. presented by RB & G Engineering and Salt Lake City Corporation's Department of Public Services.

Ms. Giraud presented a brief overview of this reconstruction project. A copy of the preliminary recommendations and the historical reports were filed with the minutes of this meeting. She spoke of the Historic Landmark Commission's steering committee who had been working on this project. She pointed out that the Commission would eventually make a decision on the reconstruction. Ms. Giraud stated that one of the biggest issues was concrete for the roadways versus asphalt paving. It was discovered, that both materials were historic.

Ms. Giraud introduced Peter Goss, Dell Cook, Carl Cook, and Dow Richardson, from RB & G Engineering, (Rollins, Brown and Gunnell), who are consultants for Salt Lake City Corporation. Mr. Rick Johnston, the City's Department of Public Services, Engineering Division, was introduced, as well. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project. The discussion included, the following:

• The federal government funding of the project;

• The project consisted of reconstructing or replacing the deteriorated street pavement section, curb and gutter, and drainage systems of South Temple from State Street to Virginia Street;

• There would be no intent to widen the street;

• The project was proposed to commence in 2000 or 2001 and would be subject to historic preservation standards of the Secretary of the Interior;

• The elements that the steering committee identified involved sandstone curb set on concrete gutter, sandstone sidewalks, carriage steps, one hitching post, and the landscaping. An assessment had been made of the historical sandstone and

• it would be reused, where possible;

• No signage would be attached to the restored existing lattice light poles;

• The proposed new light poles;

• Most of the City's existing trees would remain and a variety of new trees would be planted;

• Concrete cobble-type material would be used to introduce the residential street crosswalks, and the major street crosswalks would be painted;

• The mast arms holding the traffic signals; and

• Enhanced bus stops with benches facing the traffic.

The discussion continued with a question and answer session. Most of the questions were regarding the existing and proposed tree types and locations, and the lighting systems. The signage issue had not been resolved. The project would be discussed more in detail when it would be fully reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission in a future meeting.

A proposed five-lot subdivision located on a one-acre vacant parcel in the 600 North block of Darwin Street. in a Residential SR-1 Zoning District was discussed.

Ms. Giraud said that in the City's ordinance, there is a subsection that enables the Historic Landmark Commission to discuss subdivision proposals when they would be located in historic districts. She said that the Commission would not vote on the subdivision but would eventually review each proposed building design. She briefly spoke of the subdivision ordinance which requires a different process. Ms. Giraud introduced Margaret Pahl, a Planner from the City's Planning Division, who would welcome comments and suggestions from this Commission. The owners of the property, Albert and Aria Funk, who were also in attendance, would not be the builders.

Ms. Pahl gave a brief presentation of the staff report, which was filed with the minutes. She used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Ms. Pahl talked about the steep topography of the area and the location of the water and sewer lines that would service the subdivision. She said that the lot sizes and the access to each lot would have an impact on the design of the buildings in the future when applicants would come before this Commission for a new construction approval. Ms. Pahl said that the subdivision proposal would be decided by the Planning Commission, where a thorough and more detailed staff report would be presented which would include the issues discussed at this meeting.

Ms. Pahl said that the proposed lot sizes were large enough to accommodate a duplex or twin home, which would meet the zoning requirements. There was a lengthy discussion regarding accessing each proposed lot, shared driveways, the maximum allowable building height, the location of the intended garages, and that the size of the planned lots would be maximized and generate proposed buildings that would be too large and out of character with the Capitol Hill Historic District. The discussion continued.

The conclusion was that the project would be more successful if the proposal called for more but smaller lots, where single-family dwellings would be encouraged, and/or incorporate a provision into the restrictive covenant which would restrict the size, the location, and the height of the proposed buildings, and accessing some of the lots from the alleyway. The owners were also informed that the Commission would review each proposed building design on a case-by-case basis.

• As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Ms. Deal moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Morgan. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:38 P.M.