December 4, 1996

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 Thomas Buese, Rob McFarland, Bruce Miya, Dina Williams, Lisa Miller, and Elizabeth Egleston.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Buese, Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Rob McFarland, Bruce Miya, and Dina Williams. Lynn Morgan and Heidi Swinton were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, and William T. Wright, Planning Director.

The meeting was called to order at 4:10P.M. by Chairperson, Wallace Cooper. Mr. Cooper announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the Commission, the applicant will be excused. At that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed to the public and the Commission will go into executive session and make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Cooper said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal process was listed on the back of the agenda.

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 cases were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Miya moved to approve the minutes of October 23, 1996 after amendments are made. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimousl1y voted "Aye". Mr. McFarland abstained. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.

Ms. Williams moved to approve the minutes of November 6, 1996. It was seconded by Mr. Buese. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. McFarland abstained. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.

NEWCASES

Case No. 018-96. at 39 No. "Q" Street. by Art Brothers. represented by Paula Carl. requesting approval to demolish the house.

Ms. Miller 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. Also, a copy of the Application for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an Historic District was also filed with the minutes for clarification purposes. Ms. Miller stated that of the seven standards, which are stated in the staff report, the Staff believed that only Numbers Two (2) and Five (5) had been met by the applicant. She continued by saying that Numbers One (1), Three (3), Four (4), Six (6), and Seven (7) had not been met. As two or less of the standards had been met, the Staff recommended, based on the findings of fact, the Commission should deny the demolition request.

Ms. Paula Carl, representing the applicant, was present. She stated that Mr. Brothers, the applicant, disagreed with a portion of the staff report in that he did not believe that he willfully neglected the property as he had put quite bit of money over the years into patching and repairing the foundation. Ms. Carl said that originally it was their contention to try to rehabilitate the house and make it usable for the applicant and his family, but she said because of the substantial cracks in the northeast corner of the foundation, where it had settled, it was not worth trying to that. She said that the applicant believed the only way he could make the home large enough to accommodate his family was to add a second story and he did not think the foundation would support that.

Mr. Cooper said that he wanted to make one point of clarification, he said that he did not believe that the staff was suggesting that the applicant had willfully neglected the structure. Ms. Miller responded by reading Standard No. 6, included in the staff report, which states: "The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: (aa) Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; (bb) Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; (cc) Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant. Ms. Miller noted that there had been failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs in that the exterior paint was cracked and peeling, and the windows, soffits, and fascia were in need of repair. There was some discussion as the members viewed the circulated photo graphs of the subject house.

Ms. Carl said that if the applicant would not be allowed to demolish the structure and build a new house, he would probably would continue to use it as a rental property.

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

• Mr. Cooper led the discussion by asking if the applicant had had an engineer examine the building. Ms. Carl said that she has not had an engineer but has had contractors inspect it. Mr. Cooper noted that the applicant had to make a case for demolition by demonstrating that at least three of the seven criteria included in the staff report had been met. Mr. Wright said that if the applicant can demonstrate and the Historic Landmark Commission find that six of the Standards have been met, then they would be able to approve the demolition. Mr. Wright said that the applicant needed to present evidence to support the request for demolition and the Commission's findings needed to be factually based. Mr. Cooper said that it seemed to him that the Staff had presented evidence to the Commission that indicated that the applicant was not close to meeting the requirements of the ordinance and he asked Ms. Carl if she had additional evidence that would change the findings of the Staff or help the Commission to make a decision. Ms. Carl said that she did not have additional evidence to support the applicant's request to demolish the house, but asked if the Commission would be interested to see an itemization of what the applicant had done to the house or an engineer's report. Mr. Cooper commented about the Staff's strict interpretation of the Demolition Ordinance.

• Mr. Cartwright asked if the surrounding homes were two-story and Ms. Miller pointed out the two-story home directly to the south of the subject property and on the property across the intersection was a very large home. He inquired about the appropriateness of the construction of a two-story on the corner property. Ms. Miller indicated that as most of the homes in this immediate area are one story, the Staff did not think it would be appropriate. Mr. Cartwright asked Ms. Miller to explain how the Staff came to the conclusion that the applicant had not met Standard No. Three (3) "The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures." Ms. Miller said that if the house was demolished, or if a new house was construction, both circumstances would affect the district.

• Ms. Hatch pointed out that would not necessarily have a negative effect on the district. She inquired further into the foundation problems to the house. Ms. Carl said that several years ago there had been a problem with ground water.

• Ms. Williams said that if a hole would be allowed to be made in the fabric of contributing structures, then that would jeopardize the integrity of the district. She said that if that hole could be replaced with something that would be appropriate, then perhaps one could argue otherwise. Ms. Williams pointed out the Commission might feel differently about the demolition request if the house was surrounded by non-contributing properties. Mr. Cerruti speculated by saying that if next door a property had a new contemporary structure on it, then the criteria would be met for Standard No. Seven (7). She gave an example of the integrity of a streetscape definitely being affected if the middle Victorian house, in a group of three built by the same contractor, would be pulled out and replaced with something else.

• Mr. Buese commented on that most of the houses in the area of the subject property were turn-of-the-century, Victorian houses, and he felt as if the applicant's house, was out of context with the neighborhood. Ms. Miller noted that the house was defined as a contributing structure because it was over 50 years old.

A lengthy discussion to ok place regarding the controversy of the requirement to meet the standards for demolition of a contributing structure.

Ms. Carl stated that the appeal of an Historic district was the spontaneity in kind of an eclectic nature and to deny a neighborhood any change to ever grow, seemed counter productive. She did not think that the subject house was terribly significant and said that there were houses like this all over the City, and indicated that the proposed replacement structure would contribute more to the neighborhood.

Mr. Cooper 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:

• Mr. Paul Flandro, who resides at 1061 E. South Temple, stated that he had lived in his home for 45 years. He said that many years ago the foundation on the subject house cracked and that it had been a major problem. Mr. Flandro reported that the house had experienced 1loods, damage from a watermain breakage, and other disasters. He knew of several people who had wanted to buy the property but were discouraged when the foundation problems were recognized. Mr. Cooper asked if the house had a basement. Mr. Flandro responded affirmatively and said that at one time had an apartment in the basement. Mr. Flandro expressed his opinion that the house was not fixable and was an "eyesore" to the neighborhood. Mr. Cooper introduced the subject of the possibility of an economic hardship for the applicant.

• Mr. To m Rogan, who resides at 1112 E. Third Avenue, stated that he was Chair of the Avenues Neighborhood Community Council. He said that the community council had been kept out of the process regarding the project and would like to have the opportunity of reviewing the demolition application and the infill structure. Mr. Rogan cited another application request in the district that did not come before the community council, as well. He said that he concurred with the concerns that were raised by the Staff in the staff report, and if the Commission did not render a decision at this meeting, that the community council be given an opportunity to review this request.

• Mr. Mike McGinley, who resides at 26 No. "Q" Street, stated that he thought the subject house would be nice if it were to be fixed up. He asked if the Commission chose to approve the demolition request, how could he find out what the proposed replacement would be. Mr. Cooper said that the Commission would only be voting on the demolition request at this meeting, but the infill structure would be reviewed and ultimately approved by this Commission and he would be mailed a notification of the meeting, and at that time, he would be given the opportunity to review the proposed plans.

The discussion turned to the reuse plan if the demolition request was granted. Mr. Wright pointed out that a proposed preliminary reuse plan had been submitted with the demolition application, which was included in the staff report. Mr. Cartwright asked if the reuse plan was still part of the requirement for a demolition application. Ms. Egleston said that it was and that demolition request was partly contingent upon the reuse plan. Mr. Cooper said that only the reuse plan was contingent upon the demolition request, but not the details of the reuse plan. The Commission discussed the Standard for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-Contributing Structure, as outlined in Section 17-1.8, of the Salt Lake City Ordinances, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

Mr. Cerruti said that to him it was quite clear the alternatives are either to deny the demolition or to defer it for one year. He said that in his opinion, he could not determine in the presented evidence that the applicant had complied with the criteria listed in either Numbers Six (6) or Seven (7) of the Standards for Demolition. Ms. Deal stated that she was adamantly opposed to the destruct1ion of housing stock in an Historic neighborhood to make room for a larger house which would be constructed as a replacement, and that the Avenues Master Plan was very clear on this issue.

The discussion continued. Some members did not totally agree with Staff's findings and recommendation included in the staff report and addressed the possibility of tabling the decision enabling the applicant to submit additional evidence to support his case. Some member needed clarification and explanation on the details of why Staff felt certain criteria were not met. Mr. Cooper suggested that since this was the first demolition request application submitted under the new Zoning Ordinance, he did not think that it was inappropriate to allow an extension of time for the applicant to present further evidence for an economic hardship case. Ms. Egleston stated that economic hardship had not been considered, but she indicated that the decision could be tabled due to some missing information. Mr. Cerruti expressed his opinion that he did not think it would be appropriate to make the Commission's findings of fact contrary to the staff report due to the way the Standards of Demolition were worded.

Mr. Cerruti moved that because the Historic Landmark Commission found that two or less of the Standards for Demolition have been met, and therefore the Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition for Case No. 018-96 be denied. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.

The discussion continued. Ms. Williams inquired if the Commission should specify on which Standards the Commission based its decision. Mr. Cerruti felt that the Commission members were not in agreement with each of the specific Standards, and that is why he worded the motion as he did. Some members did not agree that Standard No. Five (5) had been met, as was stated in the staff report. Ms. Williams was concerned in case the decision was appealed. Ms. Deal said that in case Mr. Cerruti's motion was passed and the applicant chose to appeal the decision, would the Land Use Appeals Board consider the same Standards. Mr. Wright suggested that the Commission should specify in the motion which Standards had not been met as the basis for a denial for the demolition.

Mr. Cerruti amended the motion.

The discussion turned to the possibility of allowing the applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Director requesting the case to be reopened under the same case number and not requiring the filing fee to be paid again. Mr. Wright indicated that if the applicant submitted a letter to support his request, including any additional pertinent information, this could be allowed, however he added that it would be the Commission's right to reject that if the members so desired. Mr. Cerruti restated his motion.

Mr. Cerruti moved that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt the findings of fact and the recommendation made by the Staff included in the staff report, with the exception of Standard Number Five (5). The Commission found that two or less of the Standards had been met; therefore the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition for Case No. 018-96 be denied. It was again seconded by Ms. Cartwright. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, and Ms. Williams voted "Aye". Ms. Deal and Mr. Miya were opposed. Mr. McFarland abstained. Mr. Cooper as Chair did not vote. Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.

Mr. Cooper said that the Chair would entertain a motion that would allow the applicant to reopen the case to submit additional information if he desired.

Mr. Wright said if that occurs, the Commission could be assured that the application would be submitted to the Avenues Community Council for review before it was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission again.

Mr. Cerruti said that he was willing to support the motion because the Demolition Ordinance was new and this case was considered to be a learning process. He said he was concerned and did not want this case to set a precedent for any future cases. Ms. Deal restated her motion.

Ms. Deal moved that if the applicant, chooses to write a letter to the Planning Director to request a rehearing of the demolition application by submitting additional information, that the Commission would encourage the Planning Director to reopen Case No. 018-96. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. McFarland abstained. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.

Case No. 019-96, at 598 East 1300 South, by Marlayn Cragun, Director, requesting to replace a temporary office structure on the grounds of Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park.

Mr. Cooper declared recusancy and removed himself from the position of Chair for this case and took a seat in the audience. Mr. Miya, the Vice Chair, occupied the position of Acting Chair during this portion of the meeting.

Ms. Miller 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. Ms. Miller concluded by saying that if it was necessary that the proposed building would be needed beyond the two years expiration date, the organization would have to return to this Commission to ask for an extension.

The applicant, Ms. Marlayn Cragun, Director of Tracy Aviary, as well as Mr. Scott Mecham, the president-elect of the Tracy Aviary Board of Directors, were present. Ms. Cragun stated that she concurred with the staff report. Ms. Cragun reminded the Commission that in 1983, Tracy Aviary broke away from the City and is now privately managed. Mr. Cragun presented a brief history of Tracy Aviary. She said that the City was going to provide office space in the Chase Mill, which is also located in Liberty Park, but that did not work out, so the City agreed to have some alternative office space. Ms. Cragun spoke of the plan to have the proposed relocatable modular office space which would give them some immediate relief from the existing crowded space. She cont1inued by saying that the master plan for Tracy Aviary would be in place in two years, so the relocatable modular building would no longer be needed because the Staff would have the required office space. Mr. Mecham said that Tracy Aviary was still owned by the City, but under a management contract. He said that the City gave our organization a lump sum that will allow us to pay for the relocatable modular building, the sewer, water and electrical lines, as well as the needed office furniture.

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

• Mr. Cartwright led the discussion by inquiring about the building when it would no longer be needed to office space. Ms. Cragun said that it would be sold. Mr. Cartwright asked are there was office space available without the use of the proposed modular building. Mr. Mecham reiterated that the organization reached an agreement in lieu of the office space in the Chase Mill for the proposed structure.

• Mr. Miya asked about the reuse plans for the existing office building. Ms. Cragun said that it would be used to house people who would be doing research for animal care, or volunteers who help with the care of the animals in the aviary. She also said that the existing building would also be used for educational classes, as well as additional office space for the maintenance Staff.

A short discussion followed. Mr. Wright said that if by some chance after the two-year expiration date, the City would have the right to have the modular office building removed. He said that one of the requirements before a permit would be issued would be that Tracy Aviary would have to post a $1,000.00 bond to guarantee the buildings removal. Mr. Mecham again said that they had no intention of being in that space for more than two years.

• Mr. Cerruti inquired about the visibility of the relocatable building. Mr. Wright said that there would be some berming and vegetation around the building, but it would be very visible.

• Ms. Williams was interested in the aviary's capital campaign plan. Mr. Mecham talked about the future fund-raising ideas for Tracy Aviary. Ms. Williams asked if the organization had a contingency plan in the event that the City defaults on the agreement. Mr. Mecham assured her that the City would not default.

• Ms. Hatch asked if the proposed modular building would be skirted. Ms. Cragun stated that it would be skirted for better insulation, but it will continue to sit on the wheels and only have a temporary footing, secured by a steel tripod.

Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests to address the Commission, Mr. Miya closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

A short discussion followed. Ms. Williams was concerned regarding the issues surrounding the Chase Mill and that fact that the Commission might be asked to extend the approval for the modular building longer than two years. Ms. Miller stated that when Ms. Cragun and other aviary staff members appeared before the Architectural Subcommittee, the use of the Chase Mill was not mentioned. She said that the discussion, at that time, focused on a new office building, and the possibility of graduate students at the University using the program for a design class.

Ms. Hatch cautioned the Commission not to set a precedent that the Commission was interested in temporary buildings, especially in any other location. She said that the motion should be carefully worded so it would only pertain to this particular case. There was much discussion regarding the wording of a motion.

A short discussion followed. Mr. Miya suggested that a site plan was needed before a building permit could be issued and that the Commission's approval for this case would not set a precedent for other situations.

Ms. Deal amended the motion.

Ms. Deal moved to approve the application for Case No. 019-96 for a relocatable office building, based on the findings of fact and the Staff recommendation included in the staff report. Also the Historic Landmark Commission recognized that the approval of this relocatable office space reflected that the management of Tracy Aviary had been working in a unique situation due to the geographical constraints. Further, the approval of this relocatable modular building would be required to meet the City's regulations and a site plan must be submitted showing the skirting, the stairway, and the ramp, which could be reviewed and approved by Staff. The second still stood by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. McFarland abstained. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Miya welcomed Mr. Rob McFarland as a new member of the Commission. Mr. Cooper resumed his role as Chair.

Design Guidelines

Ms. Egleston discussed the Design Guidelines and suggested that the Commission members work out any concerns that they have at this meeting so that the Design Guidelines could be submitted for approval at the January 8, 1997 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. She discussed the public interest and the notification process to the public. Ms. Egleston stated that she and Ms. Jardine, the City Council liaison, were working out the details for a City Council briefing as the Design Guidelines would ultimately be approved by the City Council. Ms. Egleston spoke about some the changes such as the quality of the photographs, and so forth.

Mr. Cooper opened the discussion 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. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, stated that many residents in the Capitol Hill Historic District read through the standards and found them basically to be very good and think that it is a sound document. Since Ms. Mangold indicated that she was speaking in behalf of the residents of the area, she said that they thought this would be an important document to the City for a variety of reasons. She pointed out the three most important reasons: (1) that the document would encompass all the information that a person would need in one packet of material that would be easily available, whereas at the moment, it has been a difficult for people to access the pertinent information; (2) the descriptions of the Historic districts were educational and that the Capitol Hill District, especially, differentiated between the different styles in the areas within the district; and (3) the document, not only would be very interesting reading, but it touched on why Historic districts bring about a special sense of neighborhood and that was very real to those who live in these neighborhoods, but not necessarily real to other people in the City. Ms. Mangold pointed out that those people who would read the guidelines, would enjoy getting that perspective on Historic preservation. She would like to have the Commission support and adopt the document in a timely fashion.

• Mr. Mark Chambers, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, was present but had to leave the meeting so he had asked Ms. Mangold to read his written statement into the record in support of the Design Guidelines, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.

• Mr. Hardin Whitney, who resides at 258 No. Almond Street, stated that the Design Guidelines appeared to have been very carefully thought out and seemed to consist the mortar and fabric of the Capitol Hill area, in which he resides. He said that the Marmalade District, in which he resides, was the only community of its type in Salt Lake City, and the Commission should give careful consideration in supporting the Design Guidelines.

Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the discussion to the public.

The discussion continued. Ms. Egleston pointed out specific issues that individuals had brought to her attention. She talked about the research she did on those individual issues. She indicated that one issue was the allowance of metal roofs on a home in an Historic district. Through her research, she concluded that metal roofs were only used on institutional or commercial buildings. Not all members agreed. There was a discussion regarding metal roofs in Historic districts.

The following suggestions were made by Commission members: (1) the wording changed to reflect that metal roofs could be allowed under certain circumstances as long as they were appropriately scaled and detailed. Caution must be made to not allow the use of "Aluma-Lock" type shingles on an Historic house; (2) specify the use of stucco or an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (E.I.F.S.), or any other synthetic material; (3) the difference between stucco and any other synthetic stucco-type material should be defined in the Glossary portion and use those terms where appropriate; and (4) using different examples for the photo graph on Pages 124, the photo graph and caption on the top of 125, and the photograph on the top of 126.

The discussion turned to the various styles of Historic homes and how some of them would have been viewed many years in the past, such as the International style.

Ms. Egleston concluded that she would modify the wording the use different examples in the photographs in the pages mentioned above.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.