December 4, 2002

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 Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Doug Wheelwright, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Wayne Gordon was excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.

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. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Littig moved to approve the minutes from the October 16, 2002 meeting, as amended. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes from the November 6, 2002 meeting, as amended. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.

• (Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:10P.M.)

PREVIOUS BUSINESS

Case No. 031-02. at 98 W. Apricot Avenue. by Elizabeth Gilbert. requesting approval for construction of a new single-family dwelling on an existing vacant lot in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight gave the following brief overview of the project: Ms. Elizabeth Gilbert is requesting approval to build a new house, of approximately 2,600 square feet (not 4,503 square feet, as noted on the October 16, 2002 staff report), on the northeast corner lot at the intersection of Apricot Avenue and Center Street. The lot is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to "maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics". This project conforms to the base yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zone as referred in Section 21A.24.080(A) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The staff report listed the specific bulk requirements. The lot is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Mr. Knight said that the Commission first reviewed this case at the October 16, 2002 meeting and that discussion centered on the size of the proposed house, both in terms of its square footage, its massing, and its height. Mr. Knight indicated that the Commission referred the case to the Architectural Subcommittee, with direction to specifically review the following items:

1. The mass and scale of the structure;

2. The possibility of lowering the roof;

3. The texture and application of the stucco system;

4. The window sections, including details showing how the windows would be mounted in the wall;

5. The door types and materials;

6. The window and door trim;

7. The soffit and fascia;

8. The porch and balcony columns, stairs and railings;

9. The material and texture of the foundation;

10.The retention of the existing retaining wall and entry steps to the property; and

11.Addressing the grade changes on the north elevation.

Mr. Knight pointed out that the proposal was then to return to the Commission for final approval.

Mr. Knight noted that the Architectural Subcommittee met twice with Ms. Gilbert, on October 24 and November 13, 2002. He said that the subcommittee discussed potential solutions to these issues, and Ms. Gilbert submitted revised plans in response to the Architectural Subcommittee's comments.

Mr. Knight described the following revised proposal:

1. The proposed footprint, roof shape, and overall massing remain the same as the previous proposal;

2. The design proposed design remains 2% stories in height. The height of the building has been slightly reduced to 27'-9" to the midpoint of the roof (31'-6" to the peak of the roof);

3. The primary materials, synthetic stucco walls, a concrete foundation, and architectural grade asphalt shingle roofing, have not changed, but the applicant has added a stucco band (to be a contrasting color and texture) at the first and second floor levels in order to break up the massing of the walls. Similarly colored stucco sills and lintels (with keystones) have been added around the windows;

4. The applicants discussed using a material other than aluminum for the fascia and soffit, but decided that alternative materials were cost-prohibitive or posed maintenance problems;

5. Window types and details were clarified in the Architectural Subcommittee meetings.

The windows will be one-over-one, single hung vinyl sash recess mounted into the wall {see detail on drawings). The proposed doors would be fiberglass, with glass panels. The upper story doors would be French style doors with large panels of glass. Ms. Gilbert said she may choose another front door design than the panel door shown on the drawings; and

6. Railings and porch details were also clarified. The porch and balcony columns would be wood. The front porch railing would be metal, with square balusters and posts.

The balcony railings would also be metal, with curved balusters similar to the railings often seen on historic bungalows.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020{H), H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing 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.

Mr. Knight also pointed out the applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.

Mass and Scale:

11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:

- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.

- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.

- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.

- Using a solid-to-void that is similar to that seen traditionally and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.

11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.

11.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block. The front shall include a one-story element, such as a porch. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than those of typical historic structures in the block. A single wall plane should not exceed the typical maximum facade width in the district.

Height:

11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard, which should be met in all projects.

11.8 The back side of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.

Width:

11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings.

If a building would be wider overall than structures seen historically, the facade should be divided into subordinate planes that are similar in width to those of the context.

Building form standards:

11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.

11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.

Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and four-p/exes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.

Building form standards included in the Capitol Hill Historic District Architectural section:

13.18 Design a new building to be similar in scale to those seen historically in the neighborhood. In the Marmalade subdistrict, homes tended to be more modest, with heights ranging from one to two stories, while throughout Arsenal Hill larger, grander homes reached two-and-half to three stories. Front facades should appear similar in height to those seen historically on the block.

13.19 Design a new building with a primary form that is similar to those seen historically. In most cases, the primary form for the house was a single rectangular volume. In some styles, smaller, subordinate masses were then attached to this primary form. New buildings should continue this tradition.

Staff's discussion: As noted in the previous staff report, there is a mix of building heights nearby the proposed structure. After the last meeting, staff took photographs of a thirty foot surveyor's pole placed on the site, in order to provide a sense of the height of the proposed building, as well as the taller and surrounding buildings in comparison to other buildings nearby. The photos are attached to this staff report. Even the tallest nearby buildings, such as those at 92 W. Apricot Ave, 341 N. Center, 345-347 N. Center, 366 N. Center, and 370-372 N. Center, are all lower in height than the house that is proposed. The nearby Condominiums at 65 W. Apricot are similar in height to the proposed building. Most nearby buildings are substantially lower in height than the proposed house, although they may be taller on sides of the building that do not face the street.

There are taller buildings in the surrounding Capitol Hill Historic District, but generally the mass of these buildings is broken up by other factors, including an increased setback, use of multiple wall materials, or half stories with gables or dormers. The Architectural Subcommittee suggested these approaches to the applicant in order to reduce the impact of the height of the building. Ms. Gilbert explored these options with her builder and decided that the use of additional materials such as wood or hardiboard as a wall material would be cost and maintenance prohibitive. Ms. Gilbert also is reluctant to reduce the height of the building or roofline, because the roof of a lower structure could potentially be easily accessed from the lot immediately to the east. Ms. Gilbert agreed to the suggestion by the members of the Subcommittee to add a stucco band around the walls at the first and second floor lines. This band is shown on the revised drawings.

The 6:12 roof pitch is the minimum roof pitch suggested in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. A steeper roof pitch on this building with the walls at their current height would exceed the maximum height limit. The Architectural Subcommittee suggested increasing the pitch of the roof by lowering the eaves; this would also reduce the overall massiveness of the building. Ms. Gilbert is reluctant to further explore this approach, because her second floor plan would have to be modified and the overall square footage would probably be reduced. The proposed extension of the front porch roof around the side of the house is not typically seen on historic buildings, but does break up the wall plane on the south side of the house and helps reduce the visual impact of the garage door.

The proposed building is approximately 2,600 square feet, on three levels, and would be 31 feet wide on the Center Street side, and 44'-10" deep along Apricot Avenue. These dimensions are similar to other multi-family buildings on this block such as 345-347 N. Center, and 370-372 N. Center, but wider than nearby single-family dwellings.

Staff's finding of fact: The surrounding buildings are lower in height than the proposed new house. The scale of the structure is minimally mitigated by the additions of the stucco bands, but other means of reducing the visual impact of the height and mass of the building, which might justify additional height beyond that of nearby buildings, have not been used. The application does not meet 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 structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding 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.

Applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.

Setback:

13.15 Maintain the traditional setback and alignment of buildings to the street, as established by traditional street patterns.

Historically, the Marmalade district developed irregular setbacks and lot shapes. Many homes were built toward compass points, with the street running at diagonals. This positioning, mixed with variations in slope, caused rows of staggered houses, each with limited views of the streetscape. Staggered setbacks are appropriate in this part of the district because of the historical development. Traditionally, smaller structures were located closer to the street, while larger ones tended to be set back further.

13.16 Keep the side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition similar to those seen traditionally in the subdistrict or block.

Follow the traditional building pattern in order to continue the historic character of the street. Consider the visual impact of new construction and additions on neighbors along side yards. In response, consider varying the setback and height of the structure along the side yard.

13.17 Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. Define the entry with a porch or portico.

Landscaping:

12.7 Maintain established native or acclimated plantings on site.

Established trees should be preserved on site when feasible. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replace damaged, aged or diseased trees. If street trees must be removed as part of a development, replace them with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.

12.8 Incorporate indigenous plant materials in new landscape designs.

Drought-tolerant varieties that are in character with plantings used historically are preferred. The use of gravel and other inorganic surface materials in front yards is prohibited in the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. A list of drought-tolerant plants is available from the Salt Lake City Planning Division.

12.9 The use of traditional site structures is encouraged.

Constructing retaining walls and fences that are similar in scale, texture and finish to those used historically is appropriate. See a/so Section 1.0.

Accessory Buildings:

9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure.

In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits. In the case of a two car garage two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.

9.3 Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure.

Traditionally, garages were sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Staff's discussion: As staff noted in the previous staff report, the setbacks of the proposed house along Center Street and Apricot Avenue are similar to others on the block, although the house immediately to the east of this on is set back further off of Apricot Avenue than other structures along the block. The house is sited on its lot in a similar location and orientation as others on the block.

Generally, the Commission has not allowed attached garages for new construction unless there is some reason related to the size or topography of a property that would not make a detached and set back garage feasible. In this case, if a detached garage were located at the northwest corner of the lot, much less space would be available for a back yard.

A double-width garage door that is proposed for the south side of the house has not changed. The Architectural Subcommittee discussed the feasibility of changing the single garage door to two one-car garage doors. This is often required for other garages in the historic districts, and is included in the accessory structures portion of the design guidelines. The proposed double width driveway is wider than has typically been approved in this neighborhood. However, the door and driveway may be acceptable in this case, due to the steep slope of Apricot Avenue, and the difficulty of turning into a narrower opening. The Historic Landmark Commission has allowed a double width garage door in other cases in which topography limited the feasibility of a narrower door.

The applicant proposes to keep historic landscape elements such as the front yard retaining wall and corner steps, and the rock retaining wall on the east side of the lot. These elements will be repaired or replaced in kind if missing or deteriorated beyond repair.

Staff's finding of fact: The setbacks of the proposed house from the street, property lines and nearby structures of the proposed house is similar to nearby buildings and other historic examples in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The main facade of the house is oriented toward Center Street and is oriented in a similar way as other houses on the street. The proposed garage is attached to the main portion of the house, but this may be acceptable due to the size of the lot and the fact that it faces two streets. Using two single garage doors instead of a full width double door may reduce the prominence of the attached garage. With these changes, the proposed house meets the standards of the ordinance in terms of directional expression of the principal elevation, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, and walls of continuity.

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).

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: There are no subdivision issues in this case. This standard is not applicable.

Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff is of the opinion that the design of this house has progressed in terms of compatibility from the original design that was proposed, but issues with the massing and height of the building remain, along with the issue of windows on the east wall. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss solutions to these issues with the applicant. If they can be resolved, then staff would recommend approval of the proposal with whatever conditions are necessary to resolve those issues, along with these additional conditions:

1. The proposed garage door shall be changed to two single-width garage doors, unless this revision will not meet the requirements of the City Transportation Division;

2. That the that the design for the front porch rail be modified so that the balusters are spaced at no more than four inches on center; and

3. That the final design be approved by the Architectural Subcommittee before a permit is issued, and any exterior changes during construction, including changes to the windows or doors be reviewed by staff."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.

Mr. Littig inquired if the massing met the zone. Mr. Knight said that the overall height, the setbacks and the size of the building meet the requirements of the base zone.

Mr. Parvaz mentioned the lack of windows on the east elevation.

Mr. Simonsen said that he was concerned with the staff’s discussion and findings regarding the height and mass requirements. Mr. Knight said that staff found that the surrounding buildings are lower in height. He added that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City say that new buildings should be similar in height to the surrounding existing buildings. Mr. Simonsen expressed his concern about the phrase, "similar in height" because throughout the historic districts it is fairly common to see two, three, or four-story buildings next to one and two-story structures. He added that this could be discussed further in the executive session.

Mr. Ashdown inquired where staff took the measurement when using the surveyor's rod. Mr. Knight said that staff tried to get as close to the building as possible. He indicated that on the east side of Center Street where the sidewalk level is lower than the level of the houses, staff measured from the level of the proposed house. There was some discussion as members of the Commission studied the photographs.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Ms. Elizabeth Gilbert, as well Mr. Alex Gilbert, representing the applicant, were present. Mr. Gilbert stated that he appreciated the time given by the members of the Architectural Subcommittee and that it was beneficial to the project. He mentioned that the staff report should be corrected to read that the lot is at the corner of Apricot Avenue and Center Street, rather than Apricot Avenue and Wall Street.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by saying that he knew half the basement is underground, but it reads as a 2-1/2 story building because quite a bit of the basement shows on the Center Street elevation. He said that this was discussed in the previous meeting and ways that could be mitigated. Mr. Christensen added that he appreciated that a band has been proposed that would visually separate the floors. He reintroduced the subject of using some kind of composite rock material on the foundation of the proposed house on Center Street. Mr. Gilbert pointed out that the plastered five-foot wall in front of the house on Center Street would blend in with the plastered foundation. He also said that he explored the idea of using synthetic products but was told that synthetic products were not allowed in an historic district. Mr. Christensen said that he found that interesting because E.I.F.S. (Exterior Insulated and Finish System), vinyl windows, and aluminum soffits and fascia are proposed and they are all synthetic materials. Mr. Christensen talked about the pitch of the roof and suggested a way of doing that. He questioned why the applicant was not willing to pursue lowering the height of the house. Mr. Gilbert said, "I don't think we are not unwilling to do anything to get this thing built." He added that the applicant had paid a designer several thousands of dollars to get this far and "this is his best efforts". Mr. Knight said it was pointed out during the discussion of the subcommittee that one of the concerns about lowering the height was that there is a larger large retaining wall on the east side and the possibility of people jumping onto the roof of this property due to the steep topography. Mr. Christensen continued talking about lowering the house two feet and made some suggestions. He also suggested adding more windows to the rear (east) elevation and using two separate garage doors. Mr. Gilbert said that the applicant did not object to adding more windows and said that he would use two garage doors after consulting with the City's Transportation Division. He added that there might be some limitations getting into the garage. Mr. Gilbert mentioned there was no off-street parking.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, 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. Bonnie Mangold, who resides in the neighborhood, pointed out the error in square footage in the previous staff report. She expressed her concern about putting that large of building on a lot that did not meet today's requirements for a buildable lot. Ms. Mangold believed that the height and massing on the Center Street elevation would approximately be the same as the new Watts condominiums on Almond Street, which were too massive for the size lot on which they were constructed. She believed the height and massing would have an impact on the smaller homes in the neighborhood.

• Ms. Shirley McLaughlan, who resides in the neighborhood, stated that she totally agreed with Ms. Mangold. She pointed out a statement in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, "Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block." Ms. McLaughlan said that she was concerned that the scale and massing of the proposed building would have an impact on the pedestrian-friendly neighborhood and block the view from properties below of the State Capitol Building.

Upon hearing no additional requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

A discussion took place regarding the issues at hand. It was determined that certain synthetic materials were allowed on new construction in historic districts.

Mr. Knight said that the Architectural Subcommittee was not opposed to adding some decorative details like composite lentils and sills.

Mr. Littig talked about a texture in the stucco, or using a stone-like composite material for the foundation of the proposed house.

Mr. Parvaz said that the discussion in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting was to leave it to the discretion of the owner whether or not to use a concrete material for the banding and on the foundation, but they should be different than the rest of the building. He also added that the retaining wall needed to be repaired.

Mr. Christensen said there is certainly precedence for using concrete banding. He pointed out a new house on Center Street where E.I.F. S. was used on the sides, and red brick on the front elevation, where the owner used a concrete band.

When Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the distance between the wall by the sidewalk and the front wall, it was determined to be 15 1/2 feet. She pointed out that the top half of the basement windows would be at eye level for anyone walking by on Center Street.

Mr. Christensen asked the architects on the Commission, how difficult would it be to drop the height of the second story by two feet. Mr. Simonsen made some suggestions of how that could happen but would add expense to the cost of constructing he home. He said, "I would conjecture that you could probably drop the height of the eave by maybe two feet and not significantly impact the usable space inside the rooms because you would likely have a dresser or a desk on the perimeter wall, so you would not be standing against the wall and losing one foot or 18 inches of head height there." Mr. Simonsen added that the windows by the bathtub could be a potential problem. He also talked about adding dormers creating little gables.

Mr. Ashdown said that people would have to jump a great distance to be able to jump onto the house if it was lowered. He also pointed out that not all the suggestions made by the Architectural Subcommittee were made according to the revised plans.

The discussion continued as the Commissioners addressed these issues.

It was the consensus of the members of the Commission to reopen the public hearing portion of the meeting so the applicant could address some additional issues. Mr. Simonsen reopened the public hearing. Mr. Ashdown said that not much had been done to try to reduce the scale and massing on the planned house. He asked Mr. Gilbert if the applicant was not willing to do anything to reduce the height. Mr. Gilbert said that the applicant wants to build a house and did not believe the owner was "unwilling to do anything".

Mr. Ashdown said that the Commission gave the applicant eleven issues that needed to be undertaken, and the primary point was scale and massing and that has not been addressed. He apologized that the Architectural Subcommittee did not relay what was expected. Mr. Gilbert said that the only person at the last Architectural Subcommittee meeting was Mr. Littig. Mr. Gilbert said that he was told that the height of 27 feet 9 inches at the mid point of the roof would be acceptable. He said he would have to put a flat roof on the house to make it lower. Mr. Christensen said that he would not want to see a flat roof on the house. Mr. Gilbert noted that dropping the house into the ground would create a drainage problem because of the slope of the property.

Mr. Rowland also talked about the overall massing of the proposed structure. She said that it seemed to her that there would be more mass on this house than there would be on any other house in the neighborhood. Ms. Rowland believed that lowering the roof and putting in dormers would lower the height. Mr. Ashdown said that he would see more money spent on higher quality material than lowering the height.

Ms. Mickelsen suggested mitigating the height issue by raising the grade on the front elevation (Center Street) by 18 inches and landscaping the area.

Mr. Gilbert said that the applicant was not adverse to grading those two feet, when the basement is excavated.

Since there were no additional questions for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting and the Commission continued in the executive session portion of the

meeting.

Mr. Simonsen said that he would entertain a motion at any time.

First motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 031-02 to accept the Staff's findings of fact and the application be approved with the provision that the western landscaping be raised to approximately two feet.

After some discussion, Mr. Ashdown amended his motion.

Amended and final motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 031-02 to accept the Staff's findings of fact and recommendation so that the application can be forwarded to the Architectural Subcommittee for further review, pending the following provisions: 1) the grade level on the landscaping on the west elevation to be raised two feet from the top of the wall to the house; 2) one or two windows to be added on the east elevation; 3) two single width garage doors rather than a double-width garage door, unless the revision would not meet the requirements of the City Transportation Division; 4) the foundation clad in stone, concrete, or a stone-like composite material on the west and south elevations; 5) a banding course of stone or a stone-like composite material that differentiates the first and second levels; 6) porch railing to be modified so that the balusters are spaced at no more than four inches on center for a more historical appearance; 7) any exterior changes during construction, including changes to the windows or doors, be reviewed by Staff; and 8) the final design be approved by the Architectural Subcommittee before a permit is issued. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed. Mr. Gordon was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 035-02, by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. requesting approval to demolish the structures at 515 No. Arctic Court, 242 West 500 North, 564 North 300 West, and 271 West 600 North. All sites are located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Ms. Giraud announced that Ms. Lew actually wrote the staff report for this case, but since she had been involved with the case from the very beginning Ms. Giraud believed she should present the staff report.

The following is a summary of Ms. Lew's staff report outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which was filed with the minutes:

The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is requesting approval to demolish four contributing buildings in the Capitol Hill Historic District, which includes 515 No. Arctic Court, 242 West 500 North, 564 North 300 West, and 271 West 600 North. The buildings are located on a block bordered by 300 West, 200 West, 500 North, and 600 North streets and are zoned G-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 t 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 1999 Capitol Hill Community Master Plan, which was amended in 2001, calls for development of a neighborhood shopping node in this location. The RDA has acquired property in the area in order to development a neighborhood scale commercial center. The RDA applied for demolition of six contributing structures on the site in January of 2000.

The Commission reviewed the RDA's demolition application on January 5, 2000 and April 5, 2000. At that time, five buildings were proposed for demolition. The RDA removed the former store at 242 West 500 North from the application. Demolition was denied for the apartment building at 248 West 500 North. Demolition of the other buildings on site was deferred for a period of one year.

During this time, the RDA was required to make a bona fide effort to market the properties for rehabilitation. As part of the bona fide effort, the RDA hired the 181 Group to prepare design guidelines and a schematic site plan for the property. The Commission approved the design guidelines and also issued final approval for the demolition of those structures on June 19, 2002. The properties are still being marketed for redevelopment but the RDA received approval for a landscaping plan to be used as an interim reuse plan.

The RDA has been frustrated by the length of the demolition process for the buildings on the site. They are marketing the buildings at 242 West 500 North and 515 No. Arctic Court (along with 248 West 500 North) for renovation, but fear that if no developer is found to rehabilitate the buildings, the time spent marketing the buildings would not be factored into any bona fide effort the Historic Landmark Commission might require before they could be demolished. Thus, they are re-submitting the application to demolish the subject buildings in order to set the process in motion. (See the letter from Mr. Danny Walz, project manager for the RDA, which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.)

The properties at 564 North 300 West (Marsh Auto Building) and 271 West 600 North (Raleigh House) were recently acquired by the RDA. If demolition is approved and the RDA is able to acquire the adjoining properties to the south, the RDA intends to include this property into the planned mixed-use development. The existing structures on the adjoining properties to the south are non-contributing two-story red brick commercial buildings.

When the City Council adopted the updated master plan for Capitol Hill, the attached text addressed future development for this site, referring to the development as a "neighborhood shopping node". Two policies are particularly relevant to this petition at this time, and should be considered by the members of the Historic Landmark Commission when reviewing this application:

If an appropriate commercial or mixed-use development is proposed for the commercial node at 500 North and 30 West, which requires additional property, the western properties along Arctic Court may be rezoned to commercial shopping. (Note that the Marsh Auto and Raleigh House properties are already zoned CS.)

[Under design features] Strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures within the new commercial development.

Staff considers the structures to be contributing, according to the definition outlined in Section 21A.34.020(B)(2) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance: A contributing structure or site within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C2 of this section and is of moderate importance to the city, state, region, or nation because it imparts artistic historic, or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic material may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact.

Section 21A.34.020(L) requires the Historic Landmark Commission to base a request for a Certificate of 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 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 the discussion and finding of fact 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. 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 must approve the demolition. If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application does not meet the standards for economic hardshi9p, the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the demolition. The Historic Landmark Commission's decision 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.

Physical Integrity: One of the six criteria in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1) requires the Historic Landmark Commission to make a determination as to whether the physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident. Subsection(C)(2)(b) lists the terms of integrity as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The following are the definitions from the National Park Service National Register Bulletin 15:

Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property.

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.

Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.

Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of an aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Bulletin 15 concludes its discussion of integrity by stating that ultimately the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant.

The overall finding of fact can be found in the staff report.

Ms. Giraud made the following statement: "I wanted to get through how you [Historic Landmark Commission] had made your findings in the past on previous cases. When this first came to you in January of 2000, Staff made findings that would have put all the buildings on Arctic Court {only two buildings were being proposed then) and also the apartment building on 500 North the nine-plex into economic hardship. I found that they only met four out of the six standards. They did not meet the standards that would have put them into a bona fide effort. You overturned those findings for those houses on Arctic Court and found that on (b) and {c) which is the streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected, but the RDA did meet that and that demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. You found that the RDA met that as well. That put those two homes in the bona fide effort.

"Then there were two residential structures on 300 West and those I found met four standards and again what was critical about those was on (b) and (c) also (d) which was the base zoning of the site is incompatible with the raze of the structure.

"In going through the standards that Janice had prepared and I reviewed on Friday when the staff report went out, for the Marsh Auto building, I found that it would be hard for us to make a case that the RDA did not comply to those two (b) and (c) when in the past the Historic Landmark Commission had found that the other two buildings on 300 West did meet those standards. In April of 2000 the RDA asked the Historic Landmark Commission to reconsider the standards on the nine-plex and again (b) and {c) and you agreed that this put the nine plex into the 'gray zone'.

"In the meantime, the RDA board, which is the City Council, authorized about $100,000 to be used for preserving the structures or marketing the site, and coming up with design guidelines for the project. Also $25,000 was authorized to be used for the economic hardship process. Most of that money was used for hiring IBI Group to come up with the design guidelines which the Commission reviewed and approved last summer.

"I am not suggesting that you throw out what Janice has presented in the staff report. I am asking that you really carefully consider how you would defend the standards and the way that they are presented here given the fact that they are different buildings, certainly, but they are in similar locations and similar streetscape pattern and how you would make findings considering what had been approved in the past. I don't think it has been a secret certainly from you or the RDA that for me, personally, and professionally, the building I am most concerned about is the store on Arctic Court and 500 North and what I am really hoping is that the Commission and the RDA can find a way to really put their energy into finding an owner for that and finding somebody who would do a good job for renovation and be able to incorporate that visually with the redevelopment context."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

There was a short discussion regarding the properties Ms. Giraud described.

Mr. Christensen said that he had a concern that the 181 Group never considered those properties on 600 North as part of their development plan. Ms. Giraud suggested addressing that issue with Mr. Danny Walz who is in attendance. She added that perhaps the IBI plan could be amended.

Mr. Simonsen said that regardless of whether or not the demolition plan is approved, RDA could not proceed until a suitable reuse plan has been approved. Mr. Ashdown said that he believed the Commission did not approve the landscaping plan as a reuse plan, pending demolition of the properties. Ms. Giraud said that was correct and when the RDA appealed that decision, the Historic Landmark Commission lost the appeal.

Ms. Giraud said that what the RDA is trying to do is get all the properties in the "gray zone" so that they can make the bona fide effort. She said that the RDA is concerned about finding an owner who would be willing to rehab the building on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court. Ms. Giraud added, "If they cannot do that and the Commission finds that they have made a bona fide effort, then the buildings could be demolished." Mr. Parvaz talked about going through the economic hardship.

There was further discussion regarding the application and the involved properties.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Danny Walz, Senior Project Manager with the Redevelopment Agency, was present. He stated that Ms. Giraud's comments were correct about the length of time this was taking. He said they were coming past their third year on this process. Mr. Walz referred to the letter he wrote, which was RDA's response to the staff report, of which copies were passed out to the members of the Commission. A copy of which was filed with the minutes

Mr. Walz stated that it was the RDA's intention to market the properties at 500 North for renovation/redevelopment. He pointed out that he had been informed that the marketing RDA had already done and the "marketing period we are about to start again" most likely would not count towards a bona fide effort at the time that we came in for an application. He said that the RDA hoped to get these properties in the "gray zone" so that the marketing period would count towards a bona effort. Mr. Walz said that if a developer is not found, then

• the properties would be incorporated into the larger project.

Mr. Walz stated, as Ms. Giraud indicated, throughout the design process and talking to developers it became apparent that everyone was indicating to us that we should try to take the project to 600 North. He said that RDA already owned the Marsh properties and is in the process of negotiating with the office building property owner.

Mr. Walz stated that RDA is asking to be put into a bona fide effort so that the efforts the RDA make over the next six months to one year can count towards a bona fide effort.

In response to the staff report, Mr. Walz reiterated some of Ms. Giraud's concerns by stating the following: "In January of 2000 when we were discussing the properties at 519 and 521 No. Arctic Court, as Ms. Giraud indicated, the Commission did find that we met the standards on (1)(b) and (1)(c) and obviously we feel that given that we were put into the "gray area" for those properties and we have received approval to demolish those that it seemed logical that the same standards should be met for the property on the same street 50 feet away.

"In April of 2000, as Ms. Giraud indicated, when we requested a reconsideration for the nine unit apartment building at 248 West 500 North, and as part of that staff report we met standards (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(f), the first two being the streetscape and the overlay district and not having a negative effect. Again, since the standards that were met before should be also met for the other two west properties as well.

"With regard to the two buildings on 300 West and 600 North, it is our belief that there is no longer any historic streetscape along 600 North and 300 West given the presence of noncontributing structures, vacant lots and the apartment buildings. So we do not feel that these standards are not being met; in fact we feel it would not have a negative impact removing those structures given what uses are already on that intersection and on the west side of that block.

"Likewise we feel, as Ms. Giraud indicated, that since these structures are residential in nature and the CS zoning does not permit residential uses, that these do not conform with the base zoning similar to the same decision that was made for the residences on 300 West.

"As I indicated in the letter it is our intention to put these out for redevelopment and renovation and the Historic Landmark Commission would be the judge when we come back to you after the bona fide effort to determine if we have put forth that effort.

"So that is our goal and obviously the Planning Division is going to work towards that goal in trying to make that happen."

Mr. Walz indicated that these requests and the reuse plan have been presented to the Capitol Hill Community Council and received tremendous support so "we feel are working towards the goal of the Capitol Hill Master Plan" and hopefully doing what the community would like us to do. He pointed out that there are always going to be people who disagree.

Mr. Walz said that he believed the Historic Landmark Commission should make the same findings and put these additional properties in the "gray area" and that will allow the RDA to market the properties. Mr. Walz said that the RDA has received indications that the Board of Directors (City Council) does not want to go through the economic hardship process.

Mr. Walz said that RDA is in the process of working with the IBI Group to look at options for the property if it is expanded to 600 North.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

Mr. Mickelsen led the discussion by inquiring about the zoning for the residential units. Mr. Walz said that the zone allows residential above the first floor of commercial in the SR-1 and the CS zones. Ms. Giraud said it would be considered a nonconforming use. She added that a single-family house could not be built.

• Mr. Christensen clarified that if this Commission re-examines the findings and put all of the buildings in the "gray zone", then you would begin this "so called" bona fide effort, but what if we do not. Mr. Walz said that RDA would still market the properties, but RDA would also begin the economic hardship process because RDA's goal is not to let these structures sit. Mr. Walz reiterated that RDA's concern is the Historic Landmark Commission deferring a decision for up to another year and RDA having to market the properties for the third time to achieve a bona fide effort. He indicated that at the time he hoped RDA would be developing the rest of the project around the vacant and boarded structures. He believed that would be more of a detriment to the success of the project. Mr. Christensen talked about the circumstances of finding his house on Center Street. He said that eleven years ago Utah Heritage Foundation put a nice tasteful big board out in the parking strip saying "historic property available, $25,000" and the phone number. Mr. Christensen said that the Heritage Foundation received many phone calls and had much interest and "I was lucky enough to be the one who bought it. It still is not finished. It was boarded and was in poor condition like so many properties." Mr. Christensen indicated that he would like to see big signage out there for "Joe Citizen". He said that maybe it would not succeed now because "we are in a tighter economic period." Mr. Walz pointed out that RDA advertised in the newspapers and mailed notices to housing developers, preservationists, architects, other developers, and anyone else who might have an interest in renovation or developing. Mr. Christensen said he believed that if the RDA had a big billboard in front of say the Arctic Court property that said, "Buy this historic property at $30,000 and something on the signage about 40% tax credit potential". Mr. Walz said that is what RDA did originally. Any potential buyer was made aware of all the tax credits that are available and that can be done again. However, Mr. Walz said, "I'm not sure that billboards are allowed in this area." Mr. Ashdown suggested that Mr. Christensen means making certain the properties are well advertised by publicizing the price or that it is selling at a significant discount. Mr. Ashdown inquired what the RDA expects as a reasonable rate of return for selling the properties. Mr. Walz indicated that the properties were selling for the land value only. He added we were giving the structures away. Land values were discussed. Mr. Walz indicated that land values in that area probably would range from $20,000 to $25,000. He added that it would depend on the size of the lot.

• Ms. Rowland talked about RDA marketing the properties as one parcel. She suggested marketing the property individually. Mr. Walz said that the original marketing pattern was "to take all or nothing", because RDA did not want someone to buy one piece and RDA would be "stuck with the remaining pieces. Mr. Walz talked about the reuse plan and have sectioned off four different parcels for the entire property: the commercial piece along 300 West; the residential piece along Arctic Court; the two structures on 500 North; and one more piece on 500 North where the possibly a library or some other future use. He said that RDA was unsure at this point. Mr. Walz noted that the two structures on 500 North would be marketed independently from the residential and commercial pieces.

Mr. Ashdown inquired about the original marketing period. He asked if that was the time period after the destruction of the Safeway building. Mr. Walz affirmed that the marketing period occurred after that building was demolished. Mr. Ashdown said that the circumstances were different then. He said this Commission is talking about marketing each property individually. Mr. Ashdown mentioned that the RDA has been in this process for over three years and for the past few years, the economy has taken a "dump", and he was extremely skeptical that any developer would abide by the reuse plan. Mr. Ashdown suggested that RDA go back and try to market those buildings individually. Mr. Walz said that the homes on Arctic Court could be given away free to anyone who wanted to move them. Mr. Ashdown pointed out that he was not talking about moving the houses. This conversation continued with each one expressing his personal concerns.

• Mr. Simonsen said that he thought the Commission was deviating from the application being reviewed at this meeting. He said that he understood the strong feelings tied to this case. He noted that the Commission needed to consider the demolition request for the four additional structures. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed none of the four additional structures would meet the application requirement for demolition and as such, the Commission would have to deny the request. He indicated that RDA would likely proceed through economic hardship. Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Commission take a hard look at whether or not they want to create a situation at this meeting by reviewing the findings of fact with the possibility of putting the RDA through a bona fide effort. Mr. Christensen said that the questions of how would the RDA market the properties is a legitimate question because it is important how the properties would be marketed during the bona fide effort period. Mr. Simonsen again said that he did not think this was a forum for those issues. Mr. Ashdown believed that it would be the RDA's Board of Directors that would make any decisions. Mr. Christensen stated that he completely agreed with Ms. Lew's staff report.

• Ms. Rowland once again talked about the marketing strategy that RDA would use to sell the properties. Mr. Walz said that they will be parceled off as a unit and then what RDA would say is that if someone proposed just to renovate one of the buildings it would most likely be dependent of the other one. He said if by some chance someone proposed to renovate the store, then that would not be a problem, because I that is the edge along the street that can be dealt with, but if someone proposes to renovate the nine-unit apartment building and not the store, he was not sure if that would be the highest and best use for that property. Mr. Walz felt strongly that RDA needed to reserve that right. This discussion continued regarding the marketing technique that the RDA would use.

• Mr. Christensen said that he married into a family who collects paintings. He displayed a painting that has been in that family for years. The painting was a watercolor from the 1950s of the corner of 600 North and 300 West, which was one of the properties being reviewed at this meeting. Mr. Christensen said that the building was not called Marsh Auto then, it was called "Marsh Variety Store" and the house next to it has been gone for some time. He said that we see those buildings boarded up and they are just "hideous looking now" and it is very easy to dismiss them. He said that he wanted the Commissioners and Mr. Walz to see what this corner used to look like. There was more discussion regarding the painting. Mr. Christensen said that he thought there was a potential for this building on the corner to be some sort of a business again, if not a residence.

• Ms. Giraud explained to Mr. Walz that the bona fide effort did not count towards the store because staff had not received an application on the store.

• Mr. Simonsen stated that the Commission is not bound by any previous decision and suggested that the Commission did not necessarily need to make the same findings as a previous Commission. He pointed out the summary chart of staff’s findings in the staff report. The discussion continued regarding the length of time the demolition application has taken to process, when the bona fide effort time period begin, and the hope that the RDA would incorporate these historic buildings into the project.

• Ms. Sunshine Evans, a resident in the neighborhood, stated that she was concerned about the fact that these buildings on 600 North and 500 North are historical and make it would make a significant difference in the neighborhood if the historic fabric is lost. She talked about her love for the historic district and she did not want those buildings on this block destroyed.

• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested party, stated that she has a different perspective of the Capitol Hill Historic District because she has been living for three weeks in a home behind the Capitol building on Capitol Hill. She said it was an eye-opening experience. Ms. Cromer said that she understands why people in this neighborhood want neighborhood services closer by, using the business districts of Ninth and Ninth, Fifteen and Fifteen, and the Thirteenth East business community as successful neighborhood businesses. She also mentioned that each of these communities have encompassed historic structures. Ms. Cromer talked about her strong opposition to the demolition of these historic structures. She reminded the Commission that many of these successful projects sat idle for years. Ms. Cromer pointed out the old Miles Hotel downtown that was renovated into the successful Peery Hotel. She does not believe that the City would get the kind of development the RDA has proposed in this economy. Ms. Cromer talked against speculative demolition of historic structures. She feels strongly that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission should express their concerns to the RDA Board of Directors, which is the City Council. She also said that she did not believe a developer would use someone else's plans. She talked about the 181 Group's design guidelines. Ms. Cromer advised the Commissioners to get some handle on a definition of what constitutes a "bona fide effort" because it does not seem to be defined in the ordinance. She concluded by saying that there needs to be a lot of ordinance and educational work done.

• Mr. Kirk Huffaker, with Utah Heritage Foundation, stated that he is definitely supportive of the Historic Landmark Commission's strides that they have tried to make on the subject properties, historic buildings, and would like to participate further in whatever bona fide efforts that the RDA is going to make to market these properties. He said that the Utah Heritage Foundation had a meeting in late October with Mr. David Oka, the Director of the Redevelopment Agency, to discuss this issue and how the Utah Heritage Foundation could help market the properties. Mr. Huffaker used as an example, of creating a new section in their newsletter that goes to 1,100 people on their mailing list that would be a "for sale" section of very tough properties to sell and will be open to the subject properties that are in tough positions. Mr. Huffaker said that the Utah Heritage Foundation is trying to be supportive and offered to work with the RDA to do that.

+ Ms. Shirley McLaughlan, a resident of the area, stated that she was a member of the Capitol Hill Community Council. She commented on the testimony of Ms. Cromer explaining how the residents of Capitol Hill feel about neighborhood services. Ms. McLaughlan talked about the role she has taken as a volunteer in the community of assisting Ms. Hermoine Jex in documenting every historic property in the Capitol Hill Historic District. She commented that destroying historic homes is making her job too easy because "we are destroying them as fast as we can investigate them". Ms. McLaughlan said that she hoped the RDA would reconsider and save these historic properties. Mr. Ashdown pointed out a letter from the chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council included with the staff report that stated that the council voted to approve the demolition of the structures on this block. Ms. McLaughlan said that the properties on 600 North were not in the demolition request. She again asked that the buildings be incorporated into RDA's project.

Upon hearing no additional requests 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. Parvaz referred to the copy of the photograph of 242 West 500 North and asked if they were two properties or one. Ms. Lew said that she should have written 242-244 West 500 North. Mr. Simonsen said what is referred to as 242 is in fact 242 and 244. He clarified the addresses of the properties on 500 North.

There was much discussion regarding this application. Ms. Giraud suggested formulating a subcommittee which would include people from this Commission, people from the RDA, people from the Utah Heritage Foundation, and others so that they could focus on marketing the properties, so that Mr. Walz and the RDA are not put into the position of going through their process then getting criticized and always being put on the defensive. She said that one thing that is missing is the level of trust on both sides. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission could sit down with the Redevelopment Agency and discuss their marketing strategies.

Mr. Simonsen said that he was not convinced that staff was off on the findings in the staff report. He said that RDA should be given a chance to market these properties and see what they can do with them. Ms. Giraud said that she wanted to make sure that when the Commissioners make the findings, they clarify why the decision is being made. She cautioned the Commission to articulate the findings carefully.

Mr. Ashdown asked Ms. Giraud to read the motion from the minutes from that January 2000, meeting. He mentioned that some current members were members of the Commission at that time. Ms. Giraud read the following:

"Motion on criteria (1)(b) for the structures at 519 and 521 North Arctic Court. Mr. Simonsen moved that the Commission reconsidered the staff's findings of fact for both 519 and 521 North Arctic Court for criteria (1)(b) found in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, "The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected". Based on the fact that the streetscape had already been altered through past insensitivity and to consider demolition would not adversely affect the streetscape."

"Motion on criteria (1)(c) for the structures at 519 and 521 North Arctic Court. Mr. Simonsen moved that the Commission reconsidered the staff's findings of fact for both 519 and 521 North Arctic Court for criteria (1)(c) found in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, 'The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures." Given that these structures are relatively isolated and that they are surrounded by commercial to the west, and an apartment complex to the north and northeast."

"Final motion for the structures at 519 and 521 North Arctic Court. Mr. Simonsen further moved for Case No. 001-00 for 519 North Arctic Court and 521 North Arctic Court, that the Historic Landmark Commission determined that three of the standards found in the criteria in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance were met, which defers a decision for up to one year. During which time, the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance."

"Amended final motion on the structures at 548 and 554-556 North 300 West. Mr. Simonsen further moved for Case No. 001-00 to support staff's findings of fact for the structures at 548 North 300 West and 554-556 North 300 West because only three to five standards found in the criteria in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance were met, which defers a decision for up to one year. During which time, the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance."

Mr. Parvaz talked about doing something at the moment then solving the problem later. He said that sooner or later the buildings are demolished. Mr. Parvaz said that the Commission should not give any concession for a case like this.

Mr. Christensen said that he felt optimistic if these four properties were marketed as individual properties, that they would all find buyers. He pointed out if the Commission approves Staff's findings without modifications, then the RDA would file for economic hardship.

Mr. Littig reminded the Commission that "we lost Vernier Court because of the same argument. This is history. When it's gone its gone. Until that point I am here to be an advocate for historic structures. Whether people are living there or not, there are historic references in the area and we as the City chose this to be an historic district."

Ms. Giraud said that the Commission needed to make findings on the standards in the ordinance for each criteria.

Ms. Rowland said that it was possible that the findings the Commission made in 2000 were not correct. Mr. Ashdown said that they cannot go back and be changed. Ms. Rowland said that if mistakes were made, that doesn't mean we have to make the same mistakes during this review. Ms. Lew inquired how one could tie the current condition to the previous condition. Ms. Rowland inquired if one always had to go back and use the same interpretation of the standards that previous Commissions used. Ms. Giraud said that it might not seem realistic but it is something that the Land Use Appeals Board would consider.

Mr. Simonsen proceeded through the standards and staff's finding of fact for each subject property and asked the members of the Commission is any of the findings should be changed, as follows:

Mr. Ashdown made a suggestion that this case be temporarily tabled and continued after the other cases have been reviewed. He said that there were applicants who had been waiting for 2-1/2 hours. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not know how long it would take to get through the other cases, but he would prefer to continue in the agenda order.

515 No. Arctic Court -The Arnold and Nettie Poulton House

(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site, as defined in Subsection C2b of this section is no longer evident.

Staff's discussion and ·finding of fact: According to the site form, 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. While the house is vacant and all of the windows and doors are boarded, any alterations have been minor. 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.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the house retains a high degree of physical integrity and does not 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 and finding of fact: Arctic Court is typical of the narrow, innerblock 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. Currently, four contributing structures, similar in age, size and type comprise a large portion of what remains on this small street. It could be argued that with the most recent demolition approval for the RDA site, including Nos. 515, 519, and 521 No. Arctic Court, enough would be lost that a sense of the historic streetscape would no longer exist. However, the scale of Arctic Court is such that the currently extant structures, as a whole, continue to convey the type of architecture and the pattern of development that these inner-block streets represent. The streetscape of this property also consists of several residential structures to the east that were constructed about the same time and are similar in scale and materials. These structures include Nos. 520 and 528 No. Arctic Court. Given the recent demolition approvals for the RDA site, the cumulative negative affects to the streetscape within the context of the Capitol Hill neighborhood and the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be greater. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be negatively affected and does not comply with this standard.

(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The only non-contributing structures in close proximity to Arctic Court is the Capitol Villa apartment complex at 239 West 600 North. Aside from this, there are still contributing structures in the area of the subject structure. However more non-contributing are anticipated with the RDA's plans for redeveloping the site. Staff, therefore, finds that neither the existing non contributing structures nor the potential for new construction negate the significance of the character of this historic neighborhood. The demolition of this building would adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is in proximity to several other historic homes, and its removal would weaken the architectural unity that currently exists within the neighborhood.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: It was substantiated that there were no surrounding non-contributing structures, but surrounded by contributing structures. According to the maps and drawings that were presented at the Commission meetings, the other homes on Arctic Court were not surrounded by contributing structures. The Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the demolition of the structure would be a detriment to the historic character of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and does not comply with this standard.

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

Staffs 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 substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the base zoning for this site is compatible with the reuse of the structure and does not comply with this standard.

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

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The RDA has provided a landscape plan to serve as a post-demolition plan while the property is marketed and until a full reuse plan is designed and the appropriate approvals are obtained from the City. The post-demolition plan is to landscape the site. The design standard and guidelines for the landscape plan are provided in Section 21A.48.050 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The project complies with this standard, but an irreplaceable, historic resource may be lost for a vacant lot for an undetermined length of time.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H, which includes the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction or alteration of a non-contributing structure. The Commission was reminded that an historic resource might be lost for a vacant lot. However, the structure 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.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: Currently the house is vacant, and all of the windows and doors are covered with plywood. Not unlike other vacant buildings under similar conditions, the Staff has found that this building has experienced some deterioration from the lack of normal maintenance, use, and care. There also is no evidence that there has been an attempt to solicit tenants since the building is boarded. The property has suffered from the failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, but it does not appear that the current owner has willfully neglected the building. The project complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Some members would have liked to separate the four standards and consider them individually. However, the Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the structure has not suffered from willful neglect by the RDA, who is the current owner. The structure complies with this standard.

Motion for 515 No. Arctic Court- The Arnold and Nettie Poulton House:

In the matter of Case No. 035-02, Mr. Parvaz moved to accept Staff's discussion and findings of fact to deny the demolition of the structure at 515 No. Arctic Court, based on the criteria in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a through f) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

242-244 West 500 North- The James and Sarah Poulton House and General Store:

(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site, as defined in Subsection C2b of this section is no longer evident.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Built in 1903, this two-story brick commercial building has half a Victorian cottage built on the west side. Constructed in 1908, this is a rare, extant example of a combination store and residence. It is unusual because of it's 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 and Sarah Poulton. The Poulton's operated a general store from this location for thirty-four years. It was associated with the ZCMI store for many years. The commercial store sits at the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court, and features an angled entrance to the storefront. When comparing the current appearance of this building with its appearance in the late 1930s 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. The physical integrity of this site is evident. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Although the address of this property sometimes appear on documents as 242 West 500 North, the Commission declared from this time forward the property will be known as 242- 244 West 500 North. The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the physical integrity of this site is evident and does not 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 and finding of fact: Both this structure and 248 West 500 North (approved to be razed), form the western "border'' of historic homes along this block frontage at 500 North. This structure is particularly significant under this standard, because it is located on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court, and visually provides an entrance to this inner block development. If this structure and No. 248 are demolished, contributing structures along this block frontage would only extend to Arctic Court, and half of the frontage on this side of the block would have been removed. The removal of this structure within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone would be negatively affected. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and support Staff's finding of fact that the streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be negatively affected and does not comply 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 and finding of fact: The most conspicuous non-contributing structure in the vicinity of this building is the L.D.S. church building across the street at 225 West 500 North. Aside from this building, there are several contributing buildings in the vicinity of this former two-part store and residential building, particularly to the east. The demolition of this building would adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is in proximity to several other historic structures, and its removal would weaken the architectural unity that currently exists on this block frontage. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: It was determined that the L.D.S. church building is further west than this structure. The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the demolition of the structure would be a detriment to the historic character of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and does not comply 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 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. 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.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: A single-family residence could not be allowed for business use unless it is listed individually as a landmark site and goes through a conditional use process for an office or another allowable business. If someone wanted to renovate the property to be used as a single-family residence, the base zoning would support that use, although some members of the Commission did not think that was desirable. If the lot comprises enough square footage, a residential duplex could be constructed. The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion that rezoning could occur that would allow the building to be used commercially. The Commission supported Staff's finding of fact that the base zoning for this site is compatible with the reuse of the structure, so it does not comply with this standard.

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

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The reuse plan should include preservation of the building, if possible. The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H, which includes the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction or alteration of a non-contributing structure. The Commission was reminded that an historic resource might be lost for a vacant lot. However, the structure complies with this standard.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: This site 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. As mentioned above, 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. Some windows are broken and the close proximity of the existing tree in the front yard creates a potential hazard to the structure. There also is no evidence that there has been an attempt to solicit tenants since the building is boarded. Although it does not appear that the current owner has willfully neglected the building, the property has suffered from the failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs for several years. The project somewhat complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the structure has experienced some deterioration from a lack of normal maintenance, use, and care, but has not suffered from willful neglect by the Redevelopment Agency, who is the current owner. The structure complies with this standard.

Motion for 242-244 West 500 North- The James and Sarah Poulton House and General Store:

In the matter of Case No. 035-02, Mr. Christensen moved to accept Staff's discussion and conclusions included in the staff report. The Commission determined that in Section (1)(b) and Section (1)(c) the building at 242-244 West 500 North complies with the historic district that resides within because it is surrounded by historic structures with only one non-contributing structure, which is not directly across the street. The Commission supports Staff's findings of fact to deny the demolition of the structure at 242-244 West 500 North, based on the criteria in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a through f) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, MR. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

271 West 600 North - The James A. Raleigh House:

(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site, as defined in Subsection C2b of this section is no longer evident.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The original adobe structure located to the rear of this property was built about 1884 for James A. Raleigh 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 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 areas extant adobe dwelling 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. 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.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the house retains a high degree of physical integrity and does not 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 and finding of fact: The southern frontage along 600 North has only a few non-historic intrusions as documented in the National Register nomination. If this structure and 564 North 300 West are demolished, the continuity of contributing structures along this streetscape would be further

diminished, as half of the frontage on this side of the block (between 200 West and 300 West) would have been removed. The intersection of 300 West and 600 North that forms the western boundary of the Capitol Hill district would no longer be tied to the history of the neighborhood. This is an area of the district where a significant number of historic buildings remain intact as a group and establish a strong historic streetscape. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be negatively affected if this house were demolished. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the streetscape from an historical perspective would be negatively affected within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District if the structure is demolished and does not comply 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 and finding of fact: The non-contributing structures in the vicinity of this building are the FasTrac business across the street at 610 North 300 West, the Capitol Villa apartment complex at 239 West 600 North, and the apartment complex at 228 West 400 North. Aside from these, there are still contributing structures on the majority of 600 North. Staff finds that the nearby non-contributing structures do not hinder one's ability to perceive the historic character of the area because of the number of historic resources remaining on the block. Continued erosion of the area's historic fabric will cause a loss of integrity of the historic neighborhood and thus, adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Although there are a few non-contributing buildings in the vicinity, there are a number of historic resources remaining on the block. There was some discussion regarding the word "surrounding" and whether or not it means structures facing the subject property or just structures in the area. The Commission found the property on Arctic Court to be "surrounded" by contributing structures. It was mentioned that Arctic Court is a much narrower street than 600 North. Overall, the Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staff's finding of fact that the demolition of the structure would be a detriment to the historic character of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and does not comply 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 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. However, 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. In addition, the CS zone does permit a variety of commercial services that would compliment a shopping center at a community-level scale and provide an adaptive reuse for this structure. The base zoning is compatible with the reuse of this structure. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The CS zone does not allow residential units on the ground floor except where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage. The subject property could be renovated into a commercial structure as an adapted reuse. It was pointed out that a table of permitted and conditional uses for the CS zoning district was included in the staff report, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. It was suggested that if some members of the Commission had a question on the interpretation of the ordinance, this portion could be tabled and forwarded to the City Attorney's office for a conclusive interpretation. The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the base zoning for this site is compatible with the reuse of the structure, so it does not comply with this standard.

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

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The RDA has supplied a landscaping plan for the site, which they propose as an interim post-demolition plan while the property is marketed and until the property is redeveloped. The plan must meet the design standards and guidelines provided in Section 21A.48.050 of the zoning ordinance. The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H, which includes the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction or alteration of a non-contributing structure. The project complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The intent of this section was questioned. Landscaping is a temporary reuse of the property unless the intended use of the site would be open space. The ordinance forces an owner to landscape a site in the interim of constructing a project. Landscaping is intended to be a fill-in when a structure is demolished to keep the site attractive. Some members believed that a reuse plan has not been submitted for this site. A landscaping plan does not constitute a reuse plan that would be consistent with the site because the building has not been approved for demolition. It was pointed out

that the Land Use Appeals Board overturned a decision by the Historic Landmark

Commission where the applicant appealed that a landscaping plan did constitute a reuse plan. However, the difference in that case was that the building had been approved for demolition. The Commission did not support Staff's finding of fact that the reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H. The Commission found that the property does not comply 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 and 'finding of fact: As evidenced by the age of the structures 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. There is also no evidence that there has been an attempt to solicit tenants since the building is boarded. Although it does not appear that the current owner has willfully neglected the building, the property has suffered from the failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs. The project complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion that it appears that the previous owners failed to perform normal maintenance and repairs, but since the Redevelopment Agency is the current owner, the Commission supported Staff's finding of fact that the structure has not suffered from willful neglect by the current owner. An example of "willful neglect" was cited on another property. The structure complies with this standard.

Motion for 271 West 600 North – Raleigh House:

In the matter of Case No. 035-02, Mr. Christensen moved for 271 West 600 North to accept Staff's discussion and findings of fact, included in the staff report, for Sections {1)(a), {1){b), {1){c), {1){d), and {1)(f). Finding especially that in Sections (1){b) and {1)(c) the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be seriously harmed by the loss of this building because it is still within the context of historic structures. The Commission finds variance with Staff's finding of fact for Section (1)(e) as the reuse plan is not consistent with the standards found in Subsection H because the structure has not been approved for demolition. The Historic Landmark Commission denies the demolition of the structure at 271 West 600 North, based on the criteria in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a through f) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

564 North 300 West- Marsh Auto Building:

(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site, as defined in Subsection C2b of this section is no longer evident.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: No official site/survey form exists for this property. Most of the early commercial buildings were built at the north end of 303 West because of the available land and the travelers entering the 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 a typical example of this kind of development. According to the National Register nomination, the owner of this property built a grocery and fruit stand in front of the circa 1890 house in 1924. Although the structure has been modified to accommodate other uses, the building maintains much of its earlier, if not original, appearance. The earlier massing, form and roof configuration remains intact. The physical integrity of the site is evident. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Although the structure has been modified and material added, the Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the physical integrity of the site is still evident. A member of the Commission commented that he has a desire to see the inside of that structure to see if there is evidence that the original porch was still in tact and the structure in front was simply attached to the porch. The modifications could be contributing in their own right. The structure does not 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 and finding of fact: The relationship of this structure to the streetscape is particularly significant because it is located at the corner of 600 North and 300 West. The east side of 300 West, between 500 and 600 North, has little remaining in terms of contributing structures. To the south is the vacant site of Bob’s Motel/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 North 300 West) on the block with questionable integrity have been approved for demolition. Therefore, a case could be that there is little historic fabric that ties this street frontage to the historic neighborhood. On the other hand, as discussed above under 271 West 600 North, both of these buildings contribute to the high level of historic continuity along the southern side of 600 North. From the vantage point of 600 North, these buildings have a strong visual relationship with the historic structures that exist along this street to the east. The streetscape within the context of the historic neighborhood and H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be negatively affected if this building was demolished, and thus the project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be negatively affected if the structure was demolished. The property does not comply 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 and finding of fact: As stated above, there is a strong visual relationship with the extant historic structures along 600 North that would be compromised if this structure was demolished. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Although the house to the east of the property faces 600 North, it is an historic contributing structure. There are other contributing structures on 600 North, as well. The Marsh Auto building faces 300 West. This property has a two-story brick non

contributing building adjacent to it. Since the building faces the corner of 300 West and 600 North, it is the "gateway" into that neighborhood. The fact that this structure yielded to the pressures of existing on a highway and became a commercial building is an interesting part of history. The building was included in the historic district for a reason and it clearly contributes to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact. The property does not comply with this standard.

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

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The base zoning of this site is Community Shopping (CS). Although there is evidence that Marsh Auto Sales occupied the building until1998, this zone does not currently allow automobile sales. The CS zone does permit a variety of other commercial services that would complement a shopping center at a community-level scale and provide an adaptive reuse for this structure. The base zoning is compatible with the reuse of this structure. The project does not substantially comply with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission’s discussion and finding of fact: The structure has been used as a commercial building. Commission agreed with Staffs discussion and supported Staffs finding of fact that the base zoning for this site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure, so it does not comply with this standard.

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

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Again, as described above, the RDA has supplied a landscaping plan for the site, which they propose as an interim post demolition plan while the property is marketed and until the property is redeveloped. The plan must meet the design standards and guidelines provided in Section 21A.48.050 of the zoning ordinance. The project complies with standard (1)(e).

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The same debate occurs as with the property at 271 West 600 North. A landscaping plan does not constitute a reuse plan that would be consistent with the site because the building has not been approved for demolition. The Commission did not support Staffs finding of fact that the reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H. The Commission found that the property does not comply with this standard.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: As evidenced by the age of the structures 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. There also is no evidence that there has been an attempt to solicit tenants since the building has been boarded for some time. Although it does not appear that the current owner has willfully neglected the building, the property has suffered from a lack of proper maintenance, use, and care. The project complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission agreed with Staff's discussion and finding of fact that the structure has not suffered from willful neglect by the RDA, who is the current owner. The structure complies with this standard.

Motion for 564 North 300 West- Marsh Auto Building:

In the matter of Case No. 035-02, Ms. Rowland moved for 564 North 300 West North to accept Staff's discussion and findings of fact, included in the staff report, for Sections (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(d), and (1)(f). Finding that in Sections (1)(b) and (1)(c) the removal of this property would negatively impact the H Historic Preservation Overlay District because the building faces the corner of 300 West and 500 North and is the entry gateway into the historic district. The Commission does not support Staff's finding of fact for Section (1)(e) as no demolition plan has been approved for this structure. It is not consistent with the standards found in Subsection H. The Historic Landmark Commission denies the demolition of the structure at 564 North 300 West, based on the criteria in Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a through f) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

There was some discussion during the course of this review whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission's findings of fact could be supported by the Land Use Appeals Board if the Redevelopment Agency files an appeal for the demolitions included in this case.

(At 7:05P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that the Historic Landmark Commission would take a three/four-minute break. Ms. Mickelsen left for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Simonsen reconvened the meeting at 7:09P.M.)

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 037-02, at 205 East First Avenue. by the Madeleine Choir School, represented by VCBO Architects, requesting approval for demolition of portions of the existing buildings, new construction. and other alterations to the former Rowland Hall/St. Mark's School complex. to accommodate the new choir school campus. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District and is also a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.

Ms. Rowland declared a conflict of interest and recused herself from this case.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He gave a brief overview of the proposal by saying that the applicants propose several major projects to the buildings on the campus:

"A" Building: The greatest amount of changes is proposed for "A" Building. The Choir School proposes to demolish the existing chapel and library wings in order to construct a new addition with a new chapel, rehearsal hall, library, and gymnasium. The new addition would be separated into four distinct volumes of space for each separate use. The new chapel would be located in the same general location as the existing chapel, east of the farmhouse and 1985 addition. It would be two stories, with the chapel located on the second story. The new chapel would be larger than the existing chapel, but would have a similar steeply pitch gable roof, north-south orientation, building height (48 feet) and similar fenestration, and design details. The materials for the new chapel are not noted on the applicants' drawings. The library, rehearsal hall, and gymnasium would be constructed east of the chapel, and would extend into the existing faculty parking lot. The addition would be separated into three distinct volumes, with different wall materials and detailing. Materials include brick, stone, and architectural concrete. The addition would be approximately thirty-five feet high, with a flat roof. The original farmhouse portion of the building would be retained and restored. The 1985 addition would also be retained.

Van E Renovation: The school proposes to renovate this 1970 building as phase two of the overall project. Most of the work would be on the interior of the building, but the existing open-air passage would be enclosed with an aluminum and glass storefront system.

Renovation of three "B" Street buildings: The historic Rawlins, Caine, and Jennings homes along B Street would be restored and would remain in use by the school as classroom and office space. The sequence of this work relative to the other projects is not set, but it is expected that the buildings would be rehabilitated as funding becomes available.

Cloister and campanile: The applicants also propose the construct a one story covered walkway connecting the main buildings on the campus. Construction of this element would create the feeling of a quad in the open space south of Building "A." In addition, the applicants propose construction of a bell tower or campanile connected to the west side of the cloister, along 'A' Street, opposite the Hillcrest Apartments.

Mr. Knight said that after Rowland Hall/St. Marks (RHSM) disclosed their proposed move to a new campus, architects approached staff with tentative proposals for redevelopment of the block for multi-family uses that would have severely compromised the integrity of the historic campus. Staff believes that relocating the Madeleine Choir School to the RHSM campus is a perfect use for the historic buildings on this block and helps ensure that this valuable piece of the lower Avenues is not lost to short-sighted development.

Staff strongly endorses the restoration of the Farmhouse, Jennings, Caine, and Rawlins houses. Their preservation was an issue when the commission reviewed expansion proposals by Rowland Hall. Staff also does not believe that the proposed work in Van E hall will affect the historic fabric of the campus or the Avenues district. Barring any major changes to the project scope, staff proposes administrative review and approval of these projects. Several issues remain for the Historic Landmark Commission to consider:

Demolition of historic additions: The applicants have studied seismic and code compliance issues for the current structures, and do not feel that the existing chapel and library additions to 'A' Building are safe to retain in their current condition. They also do not believe that the buildings could be feasibly upgraded. In addition, the school's programmatic requirements, such as a full size gymnasium and auditorium space with fixed seating, do not mesh with reusing the existing buildings. Finally, the applicants believe that the buildings, especially the chapel, no longer possess the interior integrity to justify keeping the buildings. The ordinance generally requires that additions that have acquired significance in their own right should be preserved. (Standards two and four) This is especially true of additions that have a level of architectural and historical character that the chapel and library additions possess. However, it has been the past practice of the HLC to allow for additions from the historic period to be demolished, provided the design for the replacement addition meets the ordinance's standards for compatibility. This usually occurs with residential buildings; it is not uncommon for a homeowner to request that an addition be removed so that a larger addition can be built that would better suit the changing needs of a family. A similar situation exists here -the new user of the building has needs for space that can't be addressed wholly by the existing building. The demolition of this portion of the building and construction of the new addition would allow those needs to be addressed.

The commission may wish to request further details on the feasibility of renovating the current buildings, especially with the emergence of new, less-invasive and cheaper technologies for seismic upgrade, such as those that were used on the Capitol Hill Ward building. The commission may also request that the applicants further detail the infeasibility of retaining the most significant portions of the additions, such as the chapel and south end of the library, and demolishing the less significant portions to construct the new addition.

If the commission looks at this request in terms of the buildings on the entire campus, it can be argued that these additions would be demolished, but, in exchange, four other buildings on the campus would be renovated. The commission could then find that overall, the proposed changes would retain the overall historic character of the campus.

Addition to Building "A": The new addition would be located on the site of the former chapel and library additions. The proposed uses for the building, including a 400 seat auditorium and full size gymnasium, dictate the configuration of these buildings to some degree. The materials proposed are similar to those used historically for school buildings. Staff does have concerns, however, that the scale and massing, fenestration pattern, detailing, and ratio of solids to voids in the facades are not similar to the historic portions of the building that would be retained, or to other historic buildings on the campus. These issues should be further explored by the applicants and the Commission. The connection between the new addition and the historic farmhouse should be further detailed, and care taken to assure that the historic farmhouse is not overwhelmed by the size of the addition.

Construction of cloister and campanile: Further details should be supplied on how the cloister would be connected to the existing historic buildings on campus. If the cloister were to be constructed in front of the existing farmhouse, as shown on Sheet 0.1, it would be difficult to prevent the structure from detracting from the architectural character of the existing porch, and could impact the integrity of this historic structure. Little detail is supplied on the possible campanile, except that it would be located at some point along the cloister facing the new quadrangle.

Mr. Knight stated that Staff did not discuss or make findings of fact, at this time, on the relevant segment of the City's Zoning Ordinance: Section 21A.34.020(G), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure.

Mr. Knight also indicated that Staff did not make a recommendation at this time, since this is the first time this proposal has been to the Commission. He suggested that the Commission discuss the issues outlined in the staff report and provide direction to the applicant with regards to the appropriateness of pursuing the proposed project further in the design review process, or if another approach would be more suitable. Mr. Knight added that if the Commission finds that the proposed approach is suitable, he suggested that the proposal be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for further development of the design and details. He continued by saying that the project should then return to the full Commission for final review.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments for the Staff, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Mr. Peter Brunjes of VCBO Architecture, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that he understood that this was "quite a bit to swallow in one gulp". Mr. Brunjes used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He said that the drawings in the Commission's packets were developed to assist in establishing the cost of the project.

Mr. Brunjes said that fund raising goes hand-in-hand with developing the master plan. He mentioned that he would be meeting with the community council this evening to present his plan.

Mr. Brunjes stated that the new user of the campus, the Madeleine Choir School, is an excellent reuse of the entire campus. He mentioned the possibilities a developer would have had if the property had publicly gone up for sale.

Mr. Brunjes said that the Madeleine Choir School is based on excellence, based on tradition, and based on a very traditional form of education for the children who wear uniforms. He said that the children attend a choir school and they perform. Mr. Brunjes stated that the Cathedral of the Madeleine contributes to the artistic and musical fabric of the city and he said that the performance hall on this campus will contribute further and will be used as a public venue for excellent musical performances.

Mr. Brunjes stated that the Madeleine Choir School had to purchase the entire property. He said that the applicant has looked at reuse of the structures and when it just became clear the school could not function in some uses. Mr. Brunjes said that the chapel is an existing narrow chamber. He said the applicant would like to replace the chapel with one that would better serve their expanded needs. Mr. Brunjes said that the applicant is trying to make good use of each of these buildings. He said that completion date is three to five years, depending if the fundraising efforts come through.

Mr. Brunjes described the project in the following manner:

1. The cloister idea that creates an ecclesiastical school open space where the buildings are arranged to unite the buildings, the walkways, and an enclosure for the yard for protection for bad weather within that quad;

2. A clock tower has been added;

3. The Van E hall will be remodeled into new classroom spaces;

4. The buildings along "A" Street would stay as smaller offices for childhood education, and other uses:

5. The old farmhouse is the original building on the site and will be retained and remodeled;

6. The new urban hall (currently Building "A") will be remodeled up to code and to create a different arrangement for the classrooms;

7. The chapel is too narrow and too small to use. The chapel will have a 400 seating arrangement with flexible seating, new organ, a new alter, a carved wooden screen to separate the choir from the audience. The choir rehearses and performs in this hall. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing chapel with something similar but twelve feet wider. It would be a much nicer entry into the building. The large box for the performance hall has to have the proper acoustics; and

8. A new building housing a library, gymnasium, and the performance hall is being added for the children's use; The gymnasium will have translucent windows.

Mr. Brunjes explained how the campus would work together bringing the cloister across to where the children would be protected as they enter the gym and the library.

Mr. Brunjes said that the applicant is looking 50 years down the road.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by stating that he was a bit lost regarding the need for expanding the chapel when the Cathedral of Madeleine is across the street and owned by the same property owner. Mr. Brunjes said that the intent is for the Madeleine Choir School to have their own chapel, which is typical all across Europe where the children can rehearse and perform. He said that the Madeleine Choir School travels internationally and competes on a very high performance level. Mr. Ashdown asked further about the expansion. He mentioned that all through Europe there is a pattern of large cathedrals and smaller chapels. Mr. Brunjes said that he wished the director of the choir school was in attendance, but he had rehearsals and could not be here tonight. He mentioned that the applicant's capital campaign director was here but had to leave to set up for another meeting. Mr. Brunjes said that it was not appropriate for the Madeleine Choir School to continue using the cathedral and also talked about the danger of crossing the street. Mr. Brunjes said that the current chapel does not meet codes. He said that there are acoustical problems. He said that he should point out that when Rowland Hall left the campus, the current chapel was stripped of light fixtures, windows, the organ, among other things and took them to their new campus. He said that the interior of the chapel is very basic without any of the finishes. Mr. Brunjes said that is mostly bare brick and not very good brickwork at that. Mr. Ashdown said that on the tour he found many remarkable things in the chapel. He said that he was amazed at the architecture of the vaulted ceilings. Mr. Brunjes said that the workmanship was very poor.

• Mr. Littig said, 'We are very selfish about losing any buildings. We are not seeing any proposals to demolish the new buildings on campus, but we are seeing is the demolition for the major significant buildings to the neighborhood." This is a lot of information. Mr. Littig suggested plans that highlighted what would be lost. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission has seen proposals for the buildings on this site before. Mr. Littig expressed his concerns about the accommodations for a 450- seat concert hall, such as parking. Madeleine Choir School will soon learn "to have to work with what they bought".

• Mr. Simonsen said that Mr. Littig brought up some interesting points. He said that the major reason Rowland Hall/St. Marks moved because they were not allowed to demolish the significant buildings on campus. He mentioned that he was involved with a similar project with the school, with similar kinds of spaces, and the demolition of similar areas. Mr. Simonsen did not recognize that this was a formal application for demolition otherwise there would be criteria and findings of fact offered by the staff, although the agenda stated that it was. Mr. Simonsen said he would start with the Van Evra Hall if the applicant is looking at the kind of spaces on site. He further suggested with preserving the historic buildings and construct new buildings in the open space areas where there is room. Mr. Simonsen said that in the proposal, the applicant only planned to save the original farmhouse, which is only a fraction of the historic part of the site. He added that those suggestions may offer some direction to consider for alternative schemes. Mr. Brunjes stated that the chapel was poorly constructed and in need of seismic upgrading. He said that the stairways were very narrow and dangerous. He spoke of other issues such as no air conditioning and not having the appropriate ductwork for air conditioning. Mr. Brunjes said that even if it would be more expensive a new chapel would serve the needs and be the best future plan for this campus. Mr. Brunjes continued by pointing to the different elements of the campus on the drawings that were displayed. He said that the old buildings were inadequate. Mr. Brunjes said that part of the basement of the gymnasium was built over a swimming pool. He added that it makes you wonder what the foundation is sitting on.

• Mr. Littig said that buildings needing to be seismic upgraded are having it done. The Salt Lake Hardware building is much bigger and it still gets saved. Mr. Brunjes actually some of those buildings were built as warehouses to deal with heavy loads and forklifts. Mr. Brunjes said that many old schools are being torn down and replaced for the safety of the children. Mr. Littig said that the problem comes with those older structures that they do not have an advocacy, and the Historic Landmark Commission is an advocate for saving old buildings. He added that is a major concern for this Commission.

• Mr. Parvaz talked about the buildings at Snow College, which are very old. He said that they were altered by keeping the shell of the buildings, remodeling the interiors, and adding some additions. He said that they seismically upgraded the buildings and they are very functional. Mr. Brunjes said that he did not expect to change any philosophies or directions of the Historic Landmark Commission I think you do a great job in maintaining great historic fabric, when possible. Mr. Brunjes pointed out that any new fabric would be historic in 50 years. He talked further about replacing the old buildings or making some trades.

• Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission is bound by limitations of the zoning ordinance, which highly favors preservation as opposed to any reuse. He commented that he believed Mr. Brunjes heard the strong sentiments of this Commission to preserve historic structures. Mr. Simonsen said that the additions are historic structures in their own right.

A lengthy discussion took place regarding the matters at hand. Some members of the Commission made suggestions what could be done with the campus to accommodate the Madeleine Choir School.

Mr. Brunjes suggested holding a charrette to discuss other proposals for the campus. Mr. Simonsen said that perhaps it could be done at the subcommittee level. Mr. Simonsen said that he appreciated all the hard work that has gone into the master plan and did not want to turn Mr. Brunjes away discouraged. Mr. Brunjes said that the applicant needed direction. Mr. Simonsen added that he believed the Madeleine Choir School to be wonderful tenants and hopefully by working together ways could be found to accommodate them.

opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.

Mr. Kirk Huffaker, with the Utah Heritage Foundation, stated that he was fortunate to tour the site in behalf of the staff of the Madeleine Choir School in order to see the property. He said that he had read the staff report. He said that recent additions are historically significant. Mr. Huffaker said that there were many examples of "intact history on this site". He said that following his tour of the campus, he sent a letter back to the Madeleine Choir School encouraging them to take another look at seismic options for Building "A", the chapel, and the library space they could be viable with rehabilitation. Mr. Huffaker said that the owners of the campus knew that it was a landmark site. He also said that it looked like the seismic reports they provided to us on the tour were done in 1995. He said at that time, seismic retrofits were only one dimension. Mr. Huffaker said that other techniques have been developed such as center core seismic technology. He said that he would strongly encourage the Commission to seek this in the consideration of this application now and in the future. Mr. Simonsen said that the wall coring was just used successfully for the Capitol Hill Ward meetinghouse. He said that it was very cost effective. Mr. Simonsen said that his firm did a study for a building at Southern Utah University and showed about a $400,000 cost savings for one of their projects on a total seismic retrofit budget of about $1,000,000. It was a pretty significant cost savings.

Ms. Susan Deal, a resident in the neighborhood, stated that she did not often wait four hours to say something at a meeting but she felt quite strongly about the subject property. She said, "The Cathedral of the Madeleine did not have to buy this property and I urge you not to get 'sucked up' into this." She said that the owners should have known exactly what this property entailed. She said that they should have known what the laws are and what they would be facing with demolition. Ms. Deal said that it is the owner's responsibility to work within the ordinance, not the responsibility of the Commission members. Ms. Deal said that she read through the pertinent standards in the zoning ordinance and said she could not find one standard that applies that this proposal would meet. Ms. Deal read a portion of Section 21A.34.020(G)(1) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structures, '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." They failed to meet the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Deal said that the Secretary of the Interior Standards are there to protect us from having a large gymnasium and performance hall shoved into the middle of a single-family residential neighborhood. She informed the Commission that she was sitting on the Historic Landmark Commission when all the Rowland Hall/St. Mark's school proposals were brought before us and they were denied because of the demolition proposal. Ms. Deal said that fortunately for everyone that that Rowland Hall/St. Marks "took the high road" and decided that it was not going to work and the appropriate thing was to move and they did. She stated that about 16 years ago, the City decided to remodel this building (City and County Building) rather than tearing it down. She added, "Look what we would have lost."

Mr. Knight pointed out a statement from Kate Little who was in attendance at this meeting but could not stay to comment. He said that she asked that her statement be submitted for the record, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. Ms. Little's concluding statement is as follows: Given the aspects of the current plan which are inconsistent with the historical and residential nature of the neighborhood, and with their publicly indicated use of the site as an elementary school, the Madeleine Choir School site plan should be re-designed to adhere to their stated use, and to accommodate the historic and residential character of the surrounding area. No city or neighborhood approval should be given for the plans as they currently exist."

Upon hearing no additional requests 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

The discussion continued relating to this informal application. It was suggested that the application be tabled and perhaps it would be more productive to have an "issues only" discussion. Mr. Knight said that the Madeleine Choir School submitted a formal application but it was not clear that it was a request for demolition or alteration of an existing structure. Mr. Simonsen said that it was the same kind of thing for Promised Valley Playhouse.

First motion:

Mr. Littig moved to table Case No. 037-02 until such a time that the applicant returns to the Commission with a formal proposal.

Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Brunjes heard the comments from the Commission and a copy of the minutes could be sent to them for direction. Mr. Simonsen again said that there were no staff findings or recommendation.

Mr. Knight stated that when Rowland Hall/St. Marks came before the Commission with a demolition application and they had a "cold" response. They decided to drop it. The Commission did not make a formal denial of the case.

The discussion continued regarding further communication with the applicant and assistance the Commission could offer them.

Final amended motion:

Mr. Littig moved to table Case No. 037-02 until such a time that the applicant returns to the Commission with a formal proposal or exploration of further options. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was in a state of recursion. Mr. Gordon and Ms. Mickelsen were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 038-02, by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, represented by HFS Architects, requesting approval to construct a new tennis center building on the west side of the existing tennis courts in Liberty Park. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.

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. She stated that the Salt Lake City Engineering Division is requesting approval for a new tennis center, to be built north of the existing tennis center west of the tennis courts in Liberty Park. The entire park is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, and is also a National Register Historic District.

Ms. Giraud gave the following background information: Liberty Park sits on land that was originally on the outskirts of Salt Lake City. Isaac Chase was the first owner of this plot of land, and built his house (which now houses the Utah State Folk Arts Program) and a gristmill (soon to be used by the Tracy Aviary). 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, and the park opened on June 17, 1882.

The City has undertaken several major upgrades and numerous smaller construction projects during the last century. In 1997, planning for another major upgrade began. Landmark Design and the City Parks Division completed a major scoping plan for the park in 1998. The consultants and the City gathered extensive public input, which indicated that no major changes should be made to Liberty Park, but that major maintenance was needed and should be undertaken. The Historic Landmark Commission agreed with this assessment when the scoping plan was presented to the Commission on April 15, 1998.

Tennis courts were first constructed in the park about 1915, and tennis continues to be a popular activity in the park. According to Linda Vincent, the director of the Utah Tennis Association, between 6,000 to 7,500 people play tennis on Liberty Park's 16 courts from the beginning of April through October. The existing tennis center, at only 900 square feet with two unisex bathrooms, has long been inadequate for the staff and users of the courts. A new tennis building or an addition to the existing structure was identified as proposed improvement in the scoping plan.

The following is a description of the proposal: The proposed center will be jointly funded by the City and the Friends of Liberty Park, a non-profit organization directed by Cal Nelson, an avid Liberty Park tennis player. The new building would be directly north of the existing center and would be separated by an entry plaza and ramp. It would mimic the existing structure in roof shape and materials. The new building would be about 3,000 square feet, and would include four public restrooms on the north elevation, accessed independently from the tennis center from the sidewalk to the west. The existing tennis center would remain.

Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on Section 21A.34.020(H) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, 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 noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing 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.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: In this case, the surrounding streetscape of the proposed building is the park landscape and the existing tennis center. The size of the new tennis center is comparable to other service buildings in the park. Its scale, width, height, proportion and roof shape are identical to the existing building.

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

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The design of the new tennis center very clearly reflects its function, as it is essentially a locker room, restroom and storage facility. For this reason, there are few openings in the facades and no porches or "other projections." The use of brick as a wall material and asphalt shingles for the roof is visually compatible with the existing tennis building, which has brick walls and wood shingles as a roof material.

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.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: Because the proposed new building is so similar to the existing tennis structure, it reinforces the existing "wall of continuity," both along the public sidewalk. This “wall” is broken by the entry plaza, and thus introduces a new rhythm of spacing as one walks west of the courts. For obvious reasons, the new building would be oriented to the tennis courts, as is the existing tennis center. Streetscape improvements will include consistent fencing materials, landscaping and lighting.

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 of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends the Commission approve the proposed tennis center." Ms. Giraud said that she was an avid tennis player.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff.

Mr. Ashdown asked if grass existed on the site. Ms. Giraud answered in the affirmative.

Ms. Heid inquired if this was just going to be built on the north side of existing building. Ms. Giraud said that on the very north end of the proposed building are four public restrooms that was something that the City Council wanted to have there which helped get the funding from City Council for this new building. Ms. Giraud said that they would not be accessed from the east from the tennis courts, so they would be more accessible for people passing by and using the park. She said that the City Council wants to see more public restrooms in Liberty Park. Ms. Heid clarified that the restrooms would not be accessed from the tennis courts. Ms. Giraud said that was correct. Ms. Giraud said that there is a discrepancy between the size and the number of stalls between the men's and the women's; however, this is part of a research that Linda Vincent, who is the director of Utah Tennis Association did as she surveyed other tennis centers and kept track of how many men and how many women used the tennis courts. Mr. Ashdown said that she was talking about the lockers and shower accommodations.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Steve England, Project Coordinator for the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, the applicant, was present. He introduced Mr. Barry Smith of HFS Architects, and Mr. Cal Nelson who is the director/president of Friends of Liberty Park. Mr. England stated that Friends of Liberty Park is a non-profit organization that strives to improve the facilities and programs at Liberty Park Tennis Center. He said that the Tennis Center is operated by the Utah Tennis Association. They have a contract with the City to operate the center and the Friends of Liberty Park is a support/fund raising group, specifically for the purpose of supporting the Tennis Center. Mr. England indicated that this project is being proposed by Salt Lake City Engineering Division and it is really a joint project with those organizations, particularly the Friends of Liberty Park as they are providing a substantial portion of the funding and the City is matching that. Mr. England stated that the funding is in place to go with this improved building. He talked about inadequate the existing facility is, with two single-use restrooms, and no changing facility.

Mr. England spoke of the proposed new center, which will provide an increase in restrooms, changing areas, lockers rooms, showers, and lobby with a counter area. He said that the lobby was a place to have control of people going in and out. He said there also will be storage in the building.

Mr. England said that early on the decision was made to retain the existing building because it is in good condition. He mentioned that the roof is getting to the point of replacement and some exterior trim needs to have some maintenance done. He said that the Tennis Association may use it for some additional space that could be accommodated in that building.

Mr. Smith stated that most of the preliminary work has been done. He said that when this project was started, the only question was whether the existing building would be removed or retained because the building was in sound condition. Mr. Smith said that he believed the new building could be integrated with the existing building very well. He said that they came up with a design that worked well with the existing building, but because of what was perceived to be a design guidelines for the park, the materials were different and Ms. Giraud was helpful in getting us to rethink whether this building should really follow the materials of some of the newer buildings that had been done in the park. He said that in terms of materials and forms, the buildings can be tied together.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by asking if the roof pitch was the same. Mr. Smith said that the roof pitch would be the same and the width of the buildings would be the same. The original building has a deep overhang, which would be matched by the new building. Mr. Smith said that the floor to soffit windows and doors would be duplicated. He explained that the courtyard between the buildings would have new fencing and ramps. Mr. Christensen asked if the brick color was fairly close. Mr. Smith said that he believed he could match it very closely.

• Mr. Littig inquired about using shake shingles. Mr. Smith said that he considered using shake shingles. He said that he was still struggling with the roofing material. He said that architectural textures asphalt shingles would be his first choice. He said that all options were being considered. Mr. Littig talked about the proposed west elevation and the long blank wall. Mr. Smith believed the best solution would be to keep the brick smooth so that it matched the original building. He said that he would not be opposed to using some pilaster elements to break up that facade. He said there would also be landscaping on that elevation as long as it is not with deciduous trees where in Autumn, the fall the leaves would fall onto the courts.

• Ms. Giraud said that she thought the landscaping on the south part of the existing building is really beautiful. Mr. Smith said that is one of the reasons why we are putting this building to the north because there is a very nice landscaping and sidewalk area. He said that it really is an asset and he wants to see that pattern continued on to the north.

Mr. Parvaz asked about the mechanical units for heating and cooling on the rooftop. Mr. Smith said that there plans to be three residential gas-fired units and there will be two condensing units, which is not shown, but everything would be done to conceal those. There was further discussion about the roofing material. Mr. Smith said that if they use the asphalt shingles, the existing building could be re-roofed.

• Mr. Ashdown has there been any movement to burry the electrical cable for power. Mr. Smith said that the electrical power cables would be buried. He said that Mr. England could address that issue. He said there is another utility infrastructure upgrade project and a new transformer that would be underground. Mr. England said a project is planned that would get rid of all that overpower lines. Mr. Parvaz asked if the courts would be lighted at night. Mr. Smith said that there are some lighted courts now. Mr. Nelson said that the courts have had lights on at night for thirty years but the lights are not very good so they will be upgraded. Mr. Smith said that there is a separate project that upgrades the court lighting. He said that it is far removed from the residences that there have not been any complaints. Mr. Nelson said that the City is putting in security lights all through the park. He said that the courts open at 6:30 A.M. and close down at 11:00 P.M. Mr. England said that the new lighting would be lower and more shielded than what is there currently on poles about 22 feet high and would be flooded. Mr. Nelson said that right now they are inadequate ballpark lights.

• Mr. Lee Hammal, an interested citizen, stated that he has been playing tennis for 70 years and praised Mr. Cal Nelson for all his efforts in raising the money. He said that the courts are a very nice place and he supports the proposed building project. Mr. Nelson said that Mr. Hammal is a member of the Friends of Liberty Park. He said that Mr. Hammal is a nationally ranked senior tennis player and he played with Bobby Rigg years ago. He is in the Hall of Fame. He is one of the advisors in the organization.

Mr. Nelson said that the Friends of Liberty Park started about 6 or 7 years ago, under the administration of Mayor Corradini. At that time there was an improvement of the courts and "we have a good performance with matching funds. We put in beautiful trees in the park and they are all living."

Upon hearing no additional requests 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

There was no other discussion

First motion:

A short discussion followed and Mr. Christensen amended his motion.

Amended final motion:

Mr. Christensen moved to accept Staff's findings of fact and Staff's recommendation for Case No. 038-02 and approve the new tennis building and urge the applicant to consider a high profile textured material for the shingles that would be approved by Staff. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Mickelsen were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Architectural Subcommittee.

There was a short discussion regarding the attendance at the Architectural Subcommittee and the importance of having more than one person attend. Ms. Giraud said that it is a subcommittee that is formed mostly of the architects on the Commission; however, any of the Commissioners could participate on that subcommittee. It was announced that the next Architectural Subcommittee meeting would be held on December 11, 2002. Mr. Simonsen asked who would be able to attend the meeting and Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Ashdown indicated they could attend.

Proposed new members of the Historic Landmark Commission.

Ms. Giraud announced that there were two applications that have been forwarded to the Mayor for recommendation and other potential applicants. She said that all the historic districts needed to be represented. A short discussion followed.

Land Use Appeals Board.

Ms. Giraud said that the Land Use Appeals Board will hear the appeal of the vinyl fence in the Capitol Hill Historic District on December 17, 2002. She asked that the members of the Commission attend the meeting to show support.

Mr. Simonsen suggested having a training session in the next four to six weeks to help clarify and give added strength to the decisions that the Historic Landmark Commission make to avoid appeals, which are difficult philosophically and mentally, but could also be detrimental to the image of preservation and the presence of the Historic Landmark Commission in the community. The members discussed this matter further.

Refinement of the zoning ordinance.

The members expressed a need to refine the zoning ordinance, pointing out that definitions should be more specific. Mr. Ashdown used, as an example, the term "surrounding structures" that was discussed at great length in an earlier case. Ms. Giraud said that staff was continually working on this refinement project. She said that she understood the frustration of the Commission.

Ms. Giraud expressed her appreciation of Mr. Wheelwright's attendance at this meeting. She mentioned that the Administration and Planning Staff is more integrated with the Planning Commission and felt that there has been a void at the Historic Landmark Commission meetings.

Tax credits for commercial properties.

Mr. Simonsen said that Representative Chad Bennion plans to introduce a bill in the next Utah State Legislative session, which would propose a tax credit for commercial properties at the state level. He added that currently, only owners of rehabilitated historic residential properties could apply for a tax credit.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission is an advocacy group as much as a decision-making group and members should be communicating with their elected representatives. A discussion followed regarding other pertinent matters.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown 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 9:00P.M.