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 Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Peter Ashdown, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according 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. Young moved to approve the minutes from the January 30, 2002 meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz 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.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 019-01, at 340 South 600 East. by Overland Development Corporation, represented by Ken Holman, requesting a review of the findings of fact of the Economic Review Panel regarding an economic hardship relative to a request for the demolition of the Juel Apartments in order to construct a 200-unit apartment building complex.
Ms. Giraud stated that this case concerned the economic hardship request for the proposed demolition of the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East. She gave the following background information: The Historic Landmark Commission voted to have Mr. Doug Stephens represent the Historic Landmark Commission and the City on the Economic Review Panel. The applicant and developer, Mr. Ken Holman, and Mr. Stephens selected Mr. Burke Cartwright as the third person to serve on the panel. The Economic Review Panel met on three separate occasions, November 2, 2001, December 7, 2001, and December 20, 2001. The panel concluded with the finding that there was no economic hardship in conjunction with the Juel Apartments. The report of the Economic Review Panel and the minutes of those meetings were distributed to the members of the Commission prior to this meeting.
Ms. Giraud reported that all three members of the Economic Review Panel were in attendance at this meeting and were available to take more time to explain the findings, answer any questions, or clarify and issues the members might have.
(Mr. Gordon arrived at 4:10P.M.)
Mr. Parvaz asked if the Commission had any questions for staff. Upon hearing no questions, Mr. Parvaz invited Mr. Holman, the applicant, to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Ken Holman passed out copies of a written statement to each member of the Commission and staff, and a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He read his prepared written statement, which he said he believed was the most appropriate way to present the fairly technical issues in an expeditious manner.
Mr. Holman made the following statement: "Ms. Giraud informed the Economic Review Panel that 'the Historic Landmark Commission is obligated by ordinance to accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel unless the Commissioners find that the panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous findings of a material fact. (ERP Minutes, 11/02/2001, Page 2).
"The applicant contends that the Economic Review Panel, when making its determination of economic hardship, acted in an arbitrary manner and based its decision on an erroneous ·finding of a material fact. Acting in an 'arbitrary manner' means the decision was not based on fixed rules, but was left to one's judgment, choice, preference, notion, whim, or capriciousness."
Mr. Holman said that the Chair, Mr. Burke Cartwright, acted in the arbitrary manner for the following reasons:
1) In the November 2, 2001 meeting, he attempted to establish a different standard to the economic hardship hearing than the established criteria on which the decision should be based. His comments can be found in the ERP minutes of 11/02/01, Pages 7-11. In summary, he wanted to require the applicant to take a "holistic" approach and require the applicant to go back to the City and request concessions from the City for a variance in the density, height restrictions, and zoning of the site;
2) Although Mr. Cartwright had been given the mandate by Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, to stick by the established criteria, he again reiterated on Page 9 of the 12/07/01 ERP minutes, that he wanted to consider the project in "very general terms". He wanted to require the developer to go back to the City and obtain concessions for higher density and relaxed code requirements relative to building height and parking restrictions;
3) In the December 7, 2001 Economic Review Panel meeting, Mr. Cartwright acknowledged that, "based on the numbers and materialsubmittedthis is a financial hardship based on what I am seeing here". (ERP minutes of 12/07/01, Page 11);
4) In the December 20,2001 meeting, Page 13 of the ERP minutes, Mr. Cartwright, after allowing Mr. Stephens to introduce unsubstantiated hearsay evidence and to throw out any evidence of the acquisition price of the property, stated, "The Chair's position on this is that generally I think in the long run that it is in the best interest of the community and the intent of the hardship status and with the preservation movement to raise a higher standard for proving economic hardship. I would like to raise that bar, rather than lower it". Effectively, Mr. Cartwright changed the established standards; and
5) In the December 20, 2001 Economic Review Panel meeting, the applicant, after Mr. Cartwright changed the economic hardship standard, requested he [the applicant] be given an opportunity to ask questions to clarify what standards Mr. Cartwright was using, but the Chair refused to permit the applicant to ask questions on the subject and closed the meeting siding with Mr. Stephens who questioned several facts presented by the applicant, but never provided any supporting evidence for his blatant and erroneous comments. The Chair said that the applicant was basing his evaluation of economic hardship on the premise that the Juel would be demolished and not on the fact that this property was an encumbered piece of land. That statement made by the Chair is false.
Mr. Holman continued by saying, the following: "With regard to the decision being based on erroneous facts, the applicant was required to prove economic hardship based on the following criteria. That criteria is found on Pages 10 and 11 of the 12/20/01 ERP minutes. I have not reiterated everything, but there are basically ten, with some sub parts, and I have picked out just the first part of that and not all the explanation following itThese are criteria that are to be used in evaluating economic hardship. [Section 21A.34.020.34.020(K)(2) Standards for Determination of Economic Hardship]: 1) the amount paid for the property; 2) the annual gross and net income from the property for the previous three years; 3) the remaining balance of the mortgage, other financing and annual debt service; 4) the real estate taxes for the previous four years and assessed valuations; 5) any appraisals obtained within the previous two years; 6) the fair market value of the property as a landmark site; 7) the form of ownership or operation of the property; 8) any state or federal income tax return for the previous two years; 9) the marketability of the property for sale or lease; and 10) the infeasibility of alternative uses as considered to the following: (a) a report from a licensed engineer or architect; (b) an estimate of cost of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal; (c) the estimated market value of the property after completion of demolition or proposed new construction; and (d) the testimony of an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other professional experienced in rehabilitation. Those are the criteria that we were required to follow in making this determination."
Mr. Holman talked about the engineering report from Barry H. Welliver, a licensed structural engineer, that he submitted which indicated that the brick chimney stack at the rear of the building had separated from the structure, there was structural failure to the southwest corner of the building, there was cracking and spalling in several window lintels and sills, the parapets are weak and broken, and the unreinforced masonry bearing wall construction will require strengthening to assure lateral earthquake loading.
Mr. Holman stated that Mr. Welliver's proposed solution/recommendation was to apply new plywood sheathing on the roof diaphragm and to apply lateral bracing by using new plywood sheathing on the floor diaphragm. He said that the full description could be found on Pages 3 and 4 of the 11/02/01 ERP minutes. Mr. Holman said that there was a major concern that if there was an earthquake, this building would not stand. He further discussed the condition of the building by saying that the building is falling away from the rest of the building on the southwest corner and there are huge tie rods anchored with angle iron to the shear wall holding the weight of the building. Mr. Holman said that the two-inch crack running up the west face of the wall has been widened to four inches.
Mr. Holman said that he met with Mr. Don Davies of the Salt Lake City Building Services Division and was told that any time seismic reinforcing or upgrading is considered, it must comply with current Uniform Building Codes, the Fair Housing Act, and the American Disabilities Act (ADA), electrical and mechanical building codes, and all other building factors. Mr. Holman said, "We had to basically bring the building up to a current standard because of the seismic concerns."
Mr. Holman referred to Volume 1, Chapter 1, Administration, Section 102, Unsafe Buildings or Structures, of the Uniform Building code to demonstrate that the building was unsafe. He also made reference to Chapter 3, Definitions, Section 302, Dangerous Building, of the Dangerous Buildings Code to demonstrate that any renovation of the building must comply with every requirement of the Uniform Building Code.
Mr. Holman stated that he submitted documentation showing the cost to bring the building into compliance with the Uniform Building Code and other applicable code requirements would be $1,390,300 or approximately $80 per square foot. He noted that in the minutes it was erroneously stated that the cost was $800,000. Mr. Holman said that Mr. Cartwright, Chair, agreed with that conclusion. He said that Mr. Stephens also used it in his evaluation. Mr. Holman observed that Mr. Stephens had stated, "There were many buildings in Salt Lake City that are not seismically upgradedMr. Holman did not provide the figures for the cost or restoring the Juel, only, to just bringing it up to code. He believed the cost to restore the buildings would only be $105,000, not $1,390,300." Mr. Holman pointed out that Mr. Stephens never disputed the fact that the building must be brought up to current code standards only that other buildings had been renovated for less because they were not seismically upgraded.
Mr. Holman stated that he tried to establish the fair market value for the property by allocating a portion of the overall purchase price to the Juel Apartment site, which is one of the ten criteria. He said that the value was disputed and it was determined that the value of the building should be $800,000, which was confirmed by Mr. Stephens. He said that Mr. Stephens later contradicted himself and denied that he had agreed to that value, excluding any excess land above that needed to meet the parking requirement, and should be deducted from the subject property to determine the true fair market value.
Mr. Holman said that he presented evidence of what the purchase price was. He said that he used different ways to allocate that purchase price to adjust the Juel because the purchase price was for a four and one-half acre site, and the Juel is only on an acre and one-half. Mr. Holman claimed that those ways "got thrown out and ignored". He talked about the discussion he had with the other panel members where it was concluded that the true value of the building itself, was $800,000, excluding the land.
Mr. Holman procured and submitted evidence from Mr. Jeff Neese, a local apartment MAI appraiser, that the highest value paid for comparable RMF-35 zoned land was $14.07 per square foot. He noted that he was also required to have an architect establish the number of units and land that could be attributed to the development of the vacant land so that the subject property land square footage could be reduced by that amount. He said that the fair market value of the land and the building was determined to be $1,022,109. He said that Mr. Stephens disputed these figures, but offered no rebuttal except that he thought the City would allow less than the minimum number of required parking stalls which would reduce the square footage of the subject property site.
Mr. Holman explained that he tried to establish the rental rates of $1.00 per square foot for the property, referencing an apartment unit of 550 square feet in size. He articulated the information he provided by Mr. Mark Milburn, editor of the quarterly Equimark Multifamily Housing Study, showing that the rental rates for the property are currently significantly below that figure. He said that Mr. Stephens challenged that figure using an example of another apartment project that has higher monthly rental rates. Mr. Holman pointed out that it was later determined that these higher monthly rental rates was for a property that had significantly larger units and should be adjusted downward based on the size of the units for the subject property.
Mr. Holman focused on the operating expenses that he tried to establish based on past history which was an average of 50 percent of total revenue, but he said that Mr. Stephens challenged the percentage used and stated that "he compared those figures to the average figures prepared by the mortgage industry for residential rental properties", which use a 25 percent vacancy and operating expense. Mr. Holman said that Mr. Stephens made statements but did not provide any evidence of his statements, which in his opinion were erroneous statements.
Mr. Holman illustrated that he tried to establish a sales price for the property using generally accepted methods for appraising properties, such as using a capitalization rate and dividing that rate into the net operating income. He said that Mr. Stephens misquoted the appraisal and inferred that the value of the property should experience a 6 to 12 percent appreciation in value per year and should be adjusted accordingly.
Mr. Holman stated, "we had run out what the income stream was for the property and we based it on a 3 percent appreciation every year. Then at the end of the tenth year, in order to do a rate of return calculation to determine if you suffered economic hardship, you then establish a value for the property at the end of the tenth year; a sales price and plug that figure in. Mr. Stephens also put forth to the Chair that he should ignore the acquisition price of the property and that the fair market value should be reduced by an amount to be determined as investment risk, which was a term that he used. Although this is a novel concept, it is not a generally accepted appraisal technique. The Chair chose to ignore the purchase price of the property."
Mr. Holman stated, "Under every scenario, including using Mr. Stephens' own erroneous numbers, the applicant was able to show that a negative rate of return existed and economic hardship should be granted. However, Mr. Stephens persuaded the Chair to ignore the purchase price of the property and to disregard the established findings of fact that we had established in the previous two meetings, and to accept instead unsubstantiated arbitrary assumptions."
Mr. Holman stated that he had substantiated that the rent per square foot, after the building was renovated, was $.90 per square foot and that the operating expenses were 50 percent of effective gross income and these facts were ignored along with the acquisition price of the property. He said that the Chair based his decision, not on established findings of fact, but instead upon Mr. Stephens' unsubstantiated erroneous statements. Mr. Holman said that he was able to prove that he suffered an economic hardship and he requested that the Historic Landmark Commission ignore the decision of the Economic Review Panel and find that the applicant would suffer economic hardship and permit demolition of the Juel Apartments.
Mr. Holman concluded by saying that in his opinion the economic hardship hearing by the Economic Review Panel was not fair and that Mr. Cartwright acted in an arbitrary manner. He said that he objects to the decision of the panel because it was not based on findings of fact, but was based on supposition and innuendos and assumptions that were never documented. He said, "I understand that I have the burden of proof and as we went through this process I tried to document every finding of fact that I raised and tried to document with professionals, and with industry standards that I supported with references, and all of that was ignored and thrown out in the final evaluation. Mr. Cartwright made his determination on some standards I know not which because he would not let me respond or ask any questions on what that higher standard was that he had established."
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Young inquired on what basis did Mr. Holman establish a ten-year pro forma rather than a five-year pro forma. Mr. Holman said the question was asked about the period of time he needed to run out for a rate of return. Mr. Holman noted that an accepted industry standard on a new loan on a build that would have to be renovated would have a 25- to 30-year amortization, "but in all likelihood, we would have a ten-year call. So we based it on the fact that we would have to pay the mortgage off in ten years and the most likely way to do that is sell the building rather than get a new loan". Mr. Holman said that Mr. Stephens attempted to run the figures out to 20 years, and even in 20 years the rate of return was barely above zero.
Since there were no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz asked Mr. Stephens to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Stephens stated the following: "We came to the realization that a prudent investor would not take and create his own economic hardship." Mr. Stephens said that he considered the value of the property that would provide an economic return on the investment after improvements, rent, and so on. He said, "Anything over and above that price was an investment risk that was being taken by the developer with the hopes and anticipation that they could get a greater return on that investment by tearing the Juel Apartments down." He referred to the criteria in the City's zoning ordinance and said that the owner knew the "historic district designation of the property". He added that this knowledge was documented in the material submitted by Overland Development Corporation. Mr. Stephens noted, "so you can only assume that developers would not pay any more for the Juel Apartments than it would take to get a necessary return on their investment. Anything over and above that would be their risk that they were taking in anticipation of having the apartments torn down, building higher density on the property."
Mr. Stephens summarized the review of the economic hardship request by saying, "it really did not matter what the improvement costs were and it did not matter what the rental rates were. It did not matter what the vacancy factors were, a prudent investor would not pay any more for that property than what he would get as far as an economic return on. So a kind of catch phrase would be that you cannot create your own economic hardship by paying too much for the property." Referring to Mr. Cartwright's statement of "raising the bar", he said, " if we don't adhere to that standard, that there is knowledge of that kind of property in the economic situation, then anybody can go in and pay too much for a piece of property and would automatically be granted an economic hardship based on the value of the land underneath, and not only the building on top"
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for Mr. Stephens. The Historic Landmark
Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig inquired about the calculations and when the building could feasibly operate feasibility. Mr. Stephens said, " in my mind what it came down to was that you would not buy the property unless you felt like you were going to get an economic return on it, so I stopped trying to analyze the numbers that were given to us with regards to how the property was being divided up and to the sales price." Mr. Littig inquired if Mr. Stephens still thought that the applicant would be suffering at the end of ten years, by his own design. Mr. Stephens said that he believed the applicant would suffer at the end of ten years "by his own design because the purchase price of the property was too high to begin with".
• Mr. Young inquired how Mr. Stephens came up with the number of $105,000 as the renovation cost. Mr. Stephens said the picture the developer was painting for the Economic Review Panel was a full-blown, worst case scenario, for every situation, such as minimal inflation, high management costs, high construct costs, and high contingency factors. Mr. Stephens said that he suggested that, "if I owned that piece of property and I was faced with the situation where I had to make it work economically, what would I do to make that building be economical maybe there was less work that could be done on the property". Mr. Young asked about the analysis by using the historic preservation tax incentives, low income tax credits. Mr. Stephens said that the developer used the tax credits, but not low income tax incentives. Mr. Stephens added that he factored that into the cash flow analysis.
Since there were no further questions for Mr. Stephens, Mr. Parvaz asked Mr. Cartwright to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Cartwright stated, "Capricious and arbitrary describes my life in general most of the time, but I think there is a lot to respond to Mr. Holman about, and I don't want to take the time to go through it all over again. We went through it in three different meetings." Mr. Cartwright added that the Economic Review Panel based its decision on the information submitted at these three meetings. He said, "Rather than saying that we were capricious and arbitrary, I clearly understand that we said things and proposed things that Mr. Holman did not agree with, but I think if you take the time to read through the minutes in detail, you will see that the committee [panel] went down a lot of roads, a lot of diverse roads, and we did that in an effort to make sure that we fully understood the situation. I understood the numbers were being presented to us." Mr. Cartwright said that if a developer buys a piece of property in good faith and the property is zoned properly, then perhaps a few years later find that the property is located in an overlay zone, or some other circumstances may occur, that would constitute an economic hardship. He added that the decision was as simple as Mr. Stephens described.
Mr. Cartwright went on to say, "Developers have styles and each developer is very unique" which complicates the matter. He said that the financial circumstances of each developer are different, such as whether they have available cash, or whether they borrow money. Mr. Cartwright added that there could be any number of variables of handling their own problems. He stated that the ultimate result was that this potentially was a project where the building could remain and still show a profit to the developer; it is just a matter of how one looks at it. Mr. Cartwright stated that instead of evaluating the subject property with the Juel Apartment building in place, the applicant looked at a piece of land that would be "very clean and bulldozed like a piece of land in West Valley". He said that he and Mr. Stephens made it very clear that they would both like to see a housing project going in on this site; it is exactly what the area needs and have needed for a very long time. Mr. Cartwright said he tried to make the point that there are other ways to make the property work rather than a "narrow limited view, a very single-minded view of how to make this thing work financially". He talked about the fact that another developer could make the project be a financial success without having to demolish the Juel Apartment building.
In summation, Mr. Cartwright said, "I think Mr. Stephens said it very well. I think that the applicant is a very experienced developer. He is not a novice. He walked into this thing knowing that there was a potential that the Juel may not be torn down, I certainly would not have paid more for that property than I needed to and make a return on it, with the assumption that the building may very well never come down because all of the evidence was in place at that point to show exactly that. That building is a contributory building."
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for Mr. Cartwright. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig inquired if the Planning staff and City legal council were in attendance at the meetings and if Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Stephens believed if they were being fair and informative during the process. Mr. Cartwright said that they were in attendance and added, "when we felt that we might be going astray, as noted in the minutes, we requested that legal council join us to make sure that we were preceding according to the ordinance. I could hardly find that being capricious and arbitrary. We went to great lengths to make sure that we were doing this properly. I still believe, wholeheartedly, that being able to look at a variety of approaches to this is in the best interest of getting to the facts, and contrary to being reckless and arbitrary. Mr. Cartwright said that the panel members "went down every road we could possibly go down to make sure that we came to the right conclusion". Mr. Littig said that he had been very helpful. Mr. Cartwright reiterated, "I would strongly urge that the Historic Landmark Commission uphold the findings of the Economic Review Panel and not grant the applicant an economic hardship."
Since there were no further questions for Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Holman asked if he could make a final statement. Mr. Parvaz asked him to come forward.
Mr. Holman stated, "I'm glad that you had both of them to come up and respond because their comments were exactly what happened with that meeting. We were given a set of criteria, which we outlined. Those criteria were on Page 2 [of his written statement], and we looked at these ten things to determine economic hardship. It was very specific. It wasn't a general approach. It wasn't a broad approach. Mr. Stephens came in and said, you know you can't create your own hardship by paying too much for the property. Well, under that criteria, there would never be any economic hardship on any property because you would never pay more than what you could get a reasonable return on that specific piece of property for. So we even went to the point of saying, fine we will throw out what we paid for the property. We won't even use that in our criteria to establish what its value is. Let's look at the components and establish it that way, then they came back said, 'no we think you are still too high and we think it should only be $807,500 not the $1,822,000 you came out with'. We said fine, we'll throw that number out and we will use your $807,5OO number and we still came out with an economic hardship with a negative return on the investment."
Mr. Holman said that the other panel members would not focus on going through the exact steps that were required of us to determine economic hardship. He said that all the comments were very general. Mr. Holman stated that instead of attacking the elements of what establishes economic hardship, "they came out with this very broad brush approach and said you know you really should not have bought it. We think it should stay. We like it there, you know, you can find a way to make a profit. They totally ignored the fact that in order to take this building we had to completely renovate this thing and bring it up to a code to meet seismic standards because it is a dangerous and unsafe building. That is my threw out the facts; they threw out all of the conclusions and just came out of the air with this arbitrary decision that regardless of everything else, you know we think it should stay. So I guess that is my concluding comment."
Mr. Knight asked for clarification of when Mr. Holman mentioned that no one would pay any amount for property unless they could make a return on it. Mr. Holman said, "That was their standard, which is not the standard that should be used." Mr. Knight said that it seemed logical to him. He said, "You would not pay more for a property than what you could get a return on." Mr. Holman said that no one would ever buy a piece of property unless "they could get a fair market value and we were fine with that. We even used that value, their value, not our value, in establishing what the price should be for the property and we still came out with a negative rate of return. Then in the end, even after we showed that it was still negative using the $807,500 value that they recommended, it was still negative and they just threw that out. They ignored the whole conclusion and the whole findings of fact and just went off on the higher standard that was talked about".
Mr. Knight said that the purchase price that is in Mr. Holman's contractual agreement, was contingent upon everything being removed on the property and building up from there. Mr. Holman remarked that was one of the "fundamental problems" with the Economic Review Panel. He said that the other two panel members kept insinuating that Mr. Holman bought the property with the intent of "scraping it clean". He stated that when a person goes through the economic hardship process, that person cannot make the assumption that the property would be scraped clean; a person goes through the process with the assumption that the building would remain. Mr. Holman commented that if he could demolish the building, he would build something "nicer'' on the property. He expressed his opinion once more of how the Economic Review Panel members evaluated the information they were provided. He recognized the fact that Mr. Stephens and Mr. Cartwright were voluntary members of the Economic Review Panel and donated their time during the economic hardship process.
Mr. Knight said he was still a little confused and asked how Mr. Holman arrived at the highly debated purchase price if he did not believe he could get a reasonable rate of return on the property. Mr. Holman responded by saying that he "finally gave up and used the value that Mr. Stephens suggested of $807,500 which is absolutely ridiculous". He added that he even used Mr. Stephens' value and "still came out with a negative rate of return and could not prove economic hardship and they still ignored that and found against us".
Mr. Young asked if he recalled the capitalization rate they were using in their model. Mr. Holman said it was a 9 percent capitalization rate. He added that if the building was newer, one could probably justify an 8-% percent capitalization rate. Mr. Holman stated, "They said that we inflated the value and were using ridiculously low inflation rates." He added that he used a 3 percent appreciation in the value of the property and that was not "ridiculously low; that is a reasonable number. Mr. Holman also said that he was required to make a contingency payment of $200,000 to the current owner of the property.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Parvaz stated that the information, which had been submitted by the applicant had already been reviewed by this Commission. He added that the Commission has listened to the comments made by the applicant and the other members of the Economic Review Panel, and at this point the Commission has to make a determination whether or not to accept the findings of the panel. Mr. Parvaz asked the Commission to consider going back through the minutes of the Economic Review Panel meetings and investigating the claims made by the applicant.
Mr. Young clarified that the Commission was not here to question the numbers.
Ms. Giraud read section 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c)(iii) Consistency with the Economic Review Panel Report, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, "The Historic Landmark Commission decision shall be consistent with the conclusions reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, the Historic Landmark Commission finds by a vote of three fourths (3/4) majority of a quorum present that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material
fact."
Mr. Christensen inquired if the figure of $1,390,000 would be considered a "Cadillac" renovation. He said that he did not know for certain but the building did not appear to be dangerous if people are still living in the Juel Apartments. Mr. Parvaz said that there are many existing buildings that do not need that much renovation.
Mr. Littig said that he wondered if a full seismic upgrade was needed on a building when the use of the building changes.
Mr. Wilson said that the City has some "leeway" for historic buildings being in compliance with the current building codes. He said he did not believe it would mean that "you would have to do everything under the sun", even if the building had to be seismically upgraded. Mr. Wilson added that $80 per square foot would be a good renovation, but not a "Cadillac" treatment; $100 per square foot could easily be spent. Mr. Wilson said that generally cities are interested in improving and making buildings safer, so seismic upgrading would be an improvement. He added that cities are not going to penalize a person for making an improvement.
Ms. Heid expressed her concern whether or not the figure of $105,000 stated by Mr. Stephens was even "in the ballpark" for the renovation cost. Mr. Littig responded by saying that Mr. Stephens stated that if he were the developer, he would only have to spend that amount. He commented that Mr. Stephens probably would have considered just "fixing things and not replacing things" to make the building serviceable and safer. Mr. Littig stated, "It’s like going in with your car for a $29.00 brake job and getting the car back with a $300 bill. You don't get a whole lot for your money any more. $100,000 could go pretty quick."
Mr. Young inquired about the square footage of the building. Mr. Knight said that it was 13,500 square feet.
The discussion focused on the renovation of the Juel Apartment building. Motion:
Mr. Littig moved for Case No.019-01 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel regarding the request for economic hardship for the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East by Overland Development Corporation, represented by Ken Holman, based on the findings of fact in the record and information provided and the criteria in Section 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c)(i through iii) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Protasevich seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Protasevich voted "Aye". Mr. Wilson and Mr. Young were opposed. Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 005-02, at approximately 321 South 500 East and Vernier Court, a request by Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation, represented by Eric Migacz of MHTN Architects, for approval of a 190-unit apartment building complex. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development, represented by Mr. Eric Migacz of MHTN Architects, is requesting approval to construct a 190-unit apartment building at approximately 321 South 500 East and Vernier Court, consisting of 96 one-bedroom units and 94 two bedroom units. She said that 50 percent of the units would accommodate low-income residents. Ms. Giraud added that underground parking would be provided. She noted that this is the first of three phases of multi-unit construction proposed by Mr. Holman on Block 38, Plat B. (Please refer to the plans that accompanied the staff report for additional information.)
Ms. Giraud said that since 1997, the Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed proposals for demolition and new construction of multi-unit buildings on this block. She pointed out that the Commission approved the demolition of thirteen buildings in 1998 and 1999 and approved new construction for 326 units in May of 1999 for American Housing Corporation, represented by Mr. Jeff Jonas. Ms. Giraud said that when American Housing Corporation could not proceed with the project, Overland Development applied to redevelop the site.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed an application from Mr. Holman to demolish seven homes on Vernier Court and the two Lunt Motel Annex buildings at 321-331 South 500 East on March 7 and March 21, 2001. She pointed out that the Commission found that the buildings did not meet the standards of Section 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, and voted against demolition. Ms. Giraud said that on May 2, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission approved Mr. Holman's request to adopt the previous findings of economic hardship relating to American Housing Development Corporation's proposal from 1998 and 1999. She stated that the Juel Apartments were not part of this approval, as they had not been proposed for demolition under American Housing Development Corporation's proposal.
Ms. Giraud talked about the 1990 East Downtown Neighborhood Plan, that addresses the area bordered by South Temple, 600 South, and 200 East and 700 East, and said that it identifies the loss of residential units as the most pressing problem facing this area of the city. She pointed out that the neighborhood had a population of 7,314 in 1970, but by 1980 the population was reduced to 4,797 because the housing units were replaced by commercial uses, which in turn adversely affected the Central Business District. Ms. Giraud stated that the plan analyzed East Downtown as an area that should be medium to high-density apartment residential service district, that mixed-use development involving commercial and residential activities should be required to blend harmoniously with the existing character of the area, and high-rise building walls should be setback and encouraged to be terraced down to the street level. More information about the East Downtown area is included in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud stated that the zoning for Phase I, the subject of this report, is R-MU, or residential/mixed use district. She pointed out that the purpose of this zone is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial and small scale office uses. Ms. Giraud added that Mr. Holman would have to apply for conditional use approval from the Planning Commission because the height of the proposed structure of approximately 96 feet exceeds the allowed 75-foot height stated in the ordinance for the R-MU zone. She noted that the zoning ordinance allows an applicant to exceed the height limitation up to 125 feet as a conditional use.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission must base its decision on whether the application would substantially comply with the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape, as illustrated in the design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council, and is in the best interest of the city.
Ms. Giraud referred to the following standards that are outlined in Section 21A.34.020(H), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving new Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure, of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:
1. Scale and Form.
a. The height and width;
b. The proportion of principal facades;
c. The roof shape; and
d. The scale of the structure.
Summary of staff’s discussion: The proposed project is in the midst of small-scale commercial development, most of which consists of non-contributing buildings, and historic apartment buildings. With the exception of Fred Meyer to the south, the commercial buildings are one to two story and small in scale. The apartment buildings are four stories in height and are typical of the structures described in the "Urban Apartment Buildings" National Register nomination (1989).
The proposed development, with the first phase having 190 units, is larger in scope than those found in the immediate proximity of Salt Lake City. The roof form, on the east and west elevations, is flat, and then steps up to a curved form for the penthouse level.
Staffs findings of fact: The proposed development is larger in height, width, scale, and proportion of both the residential and non-residential structures in the vicinity of the site. The roof form conforms to the traditional shape of historic apartment buildings in the area.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of openings;
b. Rhythm of solids to voids in facades;
c. Rhythm of entrance porch and other projections; and d. The relationship of materials.
Summary of staff’s discussion: The fenestration of the proposed project consists of square panes of glass. The larger windows are divided into two asymmetrical horizontal and vertical panes. Balconies are proposed for each unit. E.I.F.S. (Exterior Insulated and Finish System) and brick are proposed for the wall material, with a greater proportion of stucco to brick on the west elevation; metal is proposed for the roof material.
Traditionally, windows on the historic urban apartment buildings are double- or single-hung sash and are constructed of wood with wood casings. They are usually one-over-one light in pattern. The historic apartment buildings have balconies if they are of a type known as a walk-up, in which the apartment unit extends from the front to the back of the building. Wall materials were almost always brick.
Staffs findings of fact: The pattern of window proposed differs considerably from those traditionally used on historic apartment buildings, but the rhythm and proportion of the openings are similar. The proposed use of brick is similar to what is seen historically on multi-family buildings, but the combination of stucco and brick is not. The use of balconies is in keeping with a historically used feature.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of continuity;
b. Rhythm of spacing structures on streets;
c. Directional expression of principal elevation; and d. Streetscape (pedestrian improvements).
Summary of staff’s discussion: Because the parcel is deeper than it is wide, its street frontage is disproportionately small to the number of units. The current development provides a negligible "wall of continuity" on the streetscape of the 500 East frontage of this block and the rhythm of spacing and structures on the streetscapes is inconsistent.
Staffs findings of fact: The proposed project differs from the wall of continuity and the rhythms of spacing and structures on 500 East but in the context of this site these elements are difficult to assess. Historically, apartment buildings such as the Juel and even larger multi-family structures, such as the Hillcrest on First Avenue or the Kensington on 200 North have created a longer and higher street wall than the adjacent single-family dwellings. This a prototype for large-scale multi-family developments among small-scale commercial and residential dwellings developed during the historic periods in Salt Lake City's historic districts. The directional expression of the principal elevations would be consistent with the district and pedestrian improvements would be made.
4. Subdivision of Lots.
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: Subdivision of lots is not an issue in this application.
Ms. Giraud said staff did not offer a staff recommendation at this time because this was the first review of this project by the Commission.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Gordon inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission should consider the scale and massing of the buildings across the street from this proposed project because they are on the same street and part of the streetscape but not in the historic district. Ms. Giraud reiterated that the application should be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape illustrated in any design standards and in the best interest of the city. She noted that the ordinance does not require that the buildings have to be in the historic district.
Mr. Parvaz said that perhaps the subject proposal would be setting the standards for the rest of the block and also the surrounding blocks. He talked about the fact that the proposed building would be higher than the surrounding buildings. Ms. Giraud pointed out several apartment buildings that were built in the teens, early 1920's, and even in the 1960's that are taller than their surrounding residential structures. Mr. Parvaz noted that at the time they were built, there were no historic districts.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant and his architect to come forward to address the Commission. The name on the site plans is Emigration Court Multi-Family Housing and Retail. Mr. Holman used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Holman pointed out the various phases of the apartment complex on the enlarged site plan. He said that the block slopes eighteen feet from 600 East to 500 East, which is quite dramatic. Mr. Holman pointed out that he wanted to create open space, a courtyard, for the residents. He added that the courtyard would be accessible to the public, as well. Mr. Holman said that to keep the courtyard on a level plane, the building would rise up higher on 500 East. He said that the first three floors would be affordable housing units.
Mr. Holman circulated copies of a scale and massing comparison of the perspective building and other apartment buildings in historic districts in the city, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Holman introduced Mr. Migacz, his architect.
Mr. Migacz stated that the project was perceived in conjunction with the current City Administration's objective of increased density in the RMU zoning districts, which would be beneficial to the community. He said that maintaining through block connections is a recommendation that was part of a study by Mr. Stephen Goldsmith regarding a "walkable" downtown environment. Mr. Migacz stated that the applicant has maintained the right-of-way on Vernier Court as a through block connection, encouraging pedestrian activity throughout the block. He also talked about the proximity to the mass transit connection.
Mr. Migacz stated that retaining the street wall was one of the guiding principles to incorporate into the urban design. He said that another principle was to develop a part of Salt Lake City's history by integrating the architectural surroundings but not to imitate them. Mr. Migacz indicated that the developer felt a strong respect for the architectural features of historic buildings but did not want to repeat them because things are seen differently in 2002 than they were in the 1800's or 1900's. He stated that the city fabric should reflect the development of its time. Mr. Migacz added that the proposed structure should read as a contemporary building and not an imitation of an historic building. He said the rhythm of balconies and porches, that were established in this part of the city, were very important to the developer.
Mr. Migacz addressed the grade change through the block. He said that he looked at examples of entranceways where grade changes occur and came up with a design similar to the Elks Building on South Temple for the elevation facing 500 East where the steps would be raised. Mr. Migacz said that it was also important to create an interest and activity at the pedestrian level by a mix of uses, such as retail.
Mr. Migacz stated that the proposed building would also create and interest and contribute to the skyline of Salt Lake City. He noted that the developer did not want another "box". Mr. Migacz cited the materials as a combination of brick and E.I.F.S., with a metal roof, but that he was still exploring color options. He displayed a material board, which depicted samples of the proposed materials.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Young led the discussion by mentioning the guidelines for the Transit Corridor (TC) zoning district proposed for 400 South Street and inquired if the size and scale of this project could be compared to the allowable height increase in the new zoning district. Mr. Migacz said the proposed district would allow a building 75 feet tall, which is the height of the subject structure. He commented that Ms. Giraud said that under a conditional use a building could be approved up to 125 feet tall. Mr. Migacz said as the community grows and develops, the city would not be able to support single-story densities in a commercial corridor like 400 South, especially with the arrival of light rail. There was some further discussion regarding the buildings that would be allowed in the proposed TC Transit Corridor district.
• Mr. Christensen talked further about the slope to the property and the height of the proposed building. Mr. Migacz pointed out on the site plans that the height on the 600 East elevation of the planned structure would be considerably lower due to the grade change. Mr. Holman said that the elevator shaft would rise up to 96 feet.
• Mr. Parvaz asked about the required setbacks of the buildings. Mr. Migacz said that the project is allowed zero setback requirements on the front and side yards. However, he noted that there would be a fire truck access around the building by providing a 20-foot wide setback. Mr. Migacz said that could also become a pedestrian pathway around the block. He stated that the pathway would have a combination of paving to support the fire truck and also landscaped with trees and planters to help soften the edges of the building. Mr. Migacz indicated that there would be retail shops on the first level, which might become restaurants or coffee shops, where people could enjoy outside dining.
• Mr. Littig suggested that maybe the people living on 600 East might not like the shops being there. Mr. Holman said that in the discussions with some people in the Planning Division, retail on 600 East was supported and believed that it would enhance the whole area. Mr. Migacz said that it would provide more opportunity for that kind of interaction along the light rail spur. Mr. Littig said that was open for discussion. Mr. Migacz said that there would be no parking on the site, because it would all be underground. He pointed out that there would be a service access to the building, which would include dumpsters, and a loading dock and elevator. He added none of that would be visible from the street. Mr. Littig inquired about the security risks. Mr. Holman said that the residents would use a key card or some other kind of security system. He also said that guest parking would also be provided underground. Mr. Littig inquired about the ADA (American Disabilities Act) requirements. Mr. Migacz said that the development would follow all ADA requirements. He added that there would be a two-stop elevator that would be accessible by anyone wanting to reach the courtyard plaza from the 500 East side. Mr. Migacz said that when the project is completed, the developer would like to see a reestablishment of the pedestrian core and pedestrian access through that property. There was further discussion regarding the elevations of the proposed buildings.
• Ms. Mickelsen noted that the parking structure would only be accessible from one entrance and exit and expressed her concern about the "bottleneck" that would be created in the morning. Mr. Holman pointed out the only ingress and egress would be on the south side of the building off 500 East. Ms. Mickelsen asked what the City requirements were because she said that it seemed like one ingress and egress would not be accessible enough for 192 units. Mr. Holman said that he chose to control the accessibility to the parking structures by only having one access. Ms. Giraud said that the Transportation Division did not have an issue with that and was more concerned with the parking space ratio. She said that it would be reviewed again in another DRT (Design Review Team) meeting. Mr. Migacz said that the development would meet those requirements. Mr. Holman said that he met with Fire Department, Public Works, Public Utilities, Transportation, Traffic, Zoning, and all other involved departments of the City. There was some discussion about the necessary ventilation and security issues for the parking structure.
• Mr. Wilson said that he would like to address the pedestrian issue. He said, "I think the words and the pictures are not consistent." He said that the proposed treatment for the entrance on 500 East would be "very imposing" for pedestrians. Mr. Wilson said that he did not believe people would want to enter the building from the 500 East side. Mr. Wilson suggested stepping the courtyard area to take up the differential, rather than the entrance shown on the site plan. Mr. Holman said that the grade change has to be taken up somewhere and he believed that it would be more conducive to people on that elevation. He added that his intent would be that it would be easier for people to walk through a level courtyard plaza.
A short discussion took place further describing the project and the fact that Phase I would have both one- and two-bedroom units. Some would be as large as 1,500 square feet, which would be larger than most three-bedroom units. Mr. Holman said that there was less of a market for three- and four-bedroom units than one- and two bedroom units. He talked about an easement through the property. He said that he would like to have some areas that are owner/occupied housing and make some larger spaces and sell them as condominiums. There were some concerns expressed by the Commission, such as the 500 East elevation and a more exposed walkway, wheelchair access, security risks, and public access.
(Mr. Young excused himself and left the meeting at 6:00P.M.)
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz 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. Cindy Cromer, an interested citizen, said that the loss of population from East Downtown occurred at the expense of historic housing, and now efforts to repopulate the area are occurring at the expense of what little historic housing remains. Ms. Cromer said, "It would be nice if we could redirect this kind of redevelopment to the intrusions, to the commercial and offices that unfortunately happened in this area because of some planning policies that did not work out. It seems that the efforts to repopulate this area are once again focusing on what housing there is." Ms. Cromer asked the Commission to consider the height of the proposed building, which could be tied to the design. She expressed he concern about the height issue if a conditional use is approved. Ms. Cromer said, "A project like this that brings in more people than the zoning permits, I think, needs to balance that increased height and density with an increased level of amenities, whether that is retail space that is very neighborhood friendly or increased open space, which would probably be the first thing I would want to see." She thanked the Commission for their time.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Protasevich said that he thought the building was well designed and would be a nice addition to the city.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the building could be built in "any city" in the world; there is nothing that represents Salt Lake City.
Ms. Heid wanted to clarify this proposal given the decision about the Juel Apartments and asked if the Commission was looking at this at one whole project or just Phase I of the project, because Phase II would probably have to be revised. Mr. Parvaz said that only Phase I of the project was being reviewed at this meeting.
Mr. Littig said he would like to see a better design solution for the parking structure openings. A short discussion followed.
Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was a unanimous decision to reopen the meeting. Mr. Parvaz reopened this portion of the meeting to the public and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Migacz suggested reducing the number of openings, and add some kind of screening of perforated metal that would allow the transfer of air and still provide the needed security.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any spaces strictly for the residents. Mr. Holman said there would be a fitness facility and meeting room space inside the building where people can socialize. He added there would be an individual balcony for each unit.
Mr. Knight asked about the balcony railings. Mr. Migacz referred to the color board and said that the railings would be metal and painted a sage green.
Ms. Lew inquired if inside storage would be provided. Mr. Holman said there would be inside storage in every unit, and also a place for bicycle storage.
Mr. Wilson suggested that the applicant do something "a little less interesting to the roof'. Mr. Migacz said that he would have to look into making the roof not so interesting. He said the concern was that there are so many flat top roofs in the city. He likened the proposed roof design to some rooftops in San Francisco.
Both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Gordon commented how helpful the illustration on building comparisons was.
Mr. Protasevich said that the applicant was not trying to hide the roof; they would be exposing the roof making it a part of the building. He added that he saw nothing wrong with it.
Mr. Christensen inquired about the window fenestration. Mr. Migacz said that up to the fourth 11oor the windows have to be operable for the required access. He said more detail is planned for the windows. Mr. Christensen said that the fenestration of the windows on the penthouse level should be consistent with the other levels. Mr. Migacz said that he could look at other ways to handle those windows.
Since there were no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz reclosed this portion of the meeting to the public.
Mr. Gordon inquired about the proposed metal roof. Ms. Giraud said that it would be allowed on new construction. Mr. Gordon said that he believed this was a good use for a metal roof.
The discussion continued regarding historical replication of building elements, the height, scale and massing of the proposed building to surrounding structures, the height allowance in an conditional use and setting a precedent near the TC Transit Corridor zoning district, and the height limit to maximize the density.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to table Case No. 005-02 and refer the proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee to review the issues of design, materials and then return to the full Commission for approval. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.
There was some discussion regarding the wording of the motion. Ms. Giraud suggested gMng the applicant more direction.
Final amended motion:
Mr. Littig moved to table Case No.005-02 and refer the proposal to the
Architectural Subcommittee to review the issues of design, materials, screening
the parking, entrance, height, and roofline and then return to the full Commission for approval. Mr. Wilson's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon was opposed. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There was a short discussion regarding the Architectural Subcommittee and how often the members meet.
(Mr. Wilson excused himself and left the meeting at 6:40 P.M.)
Case No. 006-02, at approximately 350 N. Canyon Road, a request by Laura Sanger to renovate and add a water feature to the James Austin Memorial and steps, located in Memory Grove Park, on the east slope of the canyon. Memory Grove Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
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 overview: Laura Sanger, who is a private citizen wants to improve Memory Grove and better the community, and is requesting approval to refurbish the existing James R. Austin Memorial and steps, located at approximately 350 N. Canyon Road, on the east hillside of Memory Grove Park. As part of the refurbishment, Ms. Sanger proposed the addition of a water feature and stone columns on the lower portion of the steps. Memory Grove is located at the north end of Canyon Road in City Creek Canyon. The Grove is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site, and parts of the park are located within the boundaries of the Capitol Hill and Avenues Historic Districts. The park is zoned OS- Open Space zoning district.
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: Memory Grove is located in City Creek Canyon, on land that was once owned by Brigham Young. Salt Lake City acquired the property in 1902 with the intention of creating a park in the mouth of the canyon. The park was dedicated as a war memorial in 1924 at the request of the Service Star Legion, a patriotic organization of women whose relatives had fought in World War I. Numerous monuments have been placed in the park to memorialize men and women who lost their lives in battle, including the James R. Austin Memorial, which was one of the first memorials constructed in the grove. It was dedicated in 1922 as a memorial to Captain James R. Austin, killed in action in the Argonne Forest, France on October 9, 1918. Captain Austin was one of only three Utah officers killed in World War I, and was the son of Mrs. E. 0. Howard, who was the drMng force behind the creation of Memory Grove Park in 1924.
Mr. Knight stated that the tornado that hit downtown on August 11, 1999 tore directly through the park, and prompted the completion of the Memory Grove Restoration Concept Plan, which outlined a phased approach to restoring Memory Grove and the lower portion of City Creek Canyon. He said that the concept plan recommends restoration of the Austin Memorial and steps, but the work was not included as part of the first phase. Mr. Knight said that Ms. Sanger represents a group that approached the City with an interest in refurbishing the steps.
• Mr. Knight said that the proposal is shown on the attached site plan. Existing features are shown with a solid line, while new or altered features are shown with a dotted line.
1. The applicants propose to repair and refurbish the flagstone steps and walls up to the first landing above the creek. Material from the portions of the steps proposed for removal would be used to replace damaged portions of the flagstone.
2. The center portion of the steps would be removed to accommodate the new water feature, and the top of the steps would be reconfigured around the base of two existing trees. The water feature would be a series of terraced pools, starting at an existing, but damaged, water fountain in the center of the landing, with water cascading down from each pool to a larger, lower pool. A channel at the base of the steps would steer water down into the creek bed. A new footbridge would allow the path along the creek to cross the channel.
3. Water for the pools would come from a storm drainage culvert that currently empties into the creek upstream of the monument. The city public utilities Division find this portion of the proposal acceptable. Ms. Sanger has checked the drainage at various times since June 2001 and found that there is a steady stream of water through the culvert.
4. Ms. Sanger also proposes six marble columns, similar to those used on the "pergola" monument near the entrance to Memory Grove. The columns would flank the water fountain, and would be approximately ten feet high.
5. Both the columns and the water feature are intended to emphasize the memorial aspects, as opposed to the purely function aspects of the stairway. Ms. Sanger chose water as an element because of its symbolism as the giver of life and of the blood sacrificed by those who died in war.
Mr. Knight said that Architectural Subcommittee reviewed this proposal at its June 13, 2001 meeting. He pointed out that the subcommittee members felt that the amount of historic material to be removed was excessive, and that the proposal should be redesigned to retain the historic design, and integrate any new elements to be compatible with the existing character of the monument.
Mr. Knight stated the it is staff's opinion that the proposal would be in keeping the recommendations in the 1999 Memory Grove Restoration Concept Plan of a quiet and wooded feeling by retaining landscaping and mature trees. Mr. Knight added that Ms. Sanger has support from the Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020.G, of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, which states: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city.
He said staff determined that the following standards are pertinent to this case:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
Staffs discussion: The proposed changes would maintain the functional purposes of the stairway and reinforce the memorial purpose of the existing monument.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;
Staffs discussion: The proposed addition of new elements is problematic in terms of this standard. The addition of new elements to an existing memorial presents the possibility of changing the intended message of the monument substantially. Staff has not located much information on the design intent of the builders of this monument, but presumes that the simplicity and practicality of this memorial was intended.
The proposed columns are found on other memorials in the park, but their classical character and materials are not in keeping with the more natural character of the existing memorial. Likewise, the water feature would take up over a third of the width of the existing stairway at their base, changing the character of the stairway substantially.
Staffs finding of fact: The application does not comply with this standard.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
Staffs finding of fact: The distinctive masonry of the existing memorial would be retained and repaired, with the exception of the elements that would be removed to make way for the water feature.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;
Staffs finding of fact: Salvaged material from the center section of the steps would be used to repair deteriorated portions of the stairway, matching the original in physical and visual qualities.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
Staff's discussion: It would be difficult to return the stairs to their original condition if the proposed water feature is constructed. In addition, much of the original material would be removed and almost a third of the width of the stairway would be taken up by the new fountain. It is staff's opinion that the width of the fountain would have a negative effect on the character of the monument.
Staff's finding of fact: The application does not comply with this standard.
Mr. Knight offered the following recommendation: "Overall, the proposed work to refurbish a long-neglected portion of the park is admirable and should be strongly encouraged by the commission. Staff has concerns about the addition of the columns and the size of the water feature in relation to the existing stairway. Staff does not recommend approval of the columns and recommends that the fountain pools be narrowed so that they occupy less of the existing stairway, or another approach so the water feature would not affect the existing historic fabric of the stairway. Staff proposed that the project be referred to one or more meetings of the Architectural Subcommittee for further detail development and review."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
When Mr. Parvaz inquired about the Architectural Subcommittee, Mr. Knight said that Ms. Sanger offered a different proposal at that time. Mr. Littig said that he was at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting and he personally believed that the steps should be preserved. Mr. Knight said that subcommittee members liked the concept of the water features but suggested that the applicant look at other options.
A discussion took place regarding some issues of the proposal.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Laura Sanger, the applicant, was present. She introduced Mr. Val Pope, who is the Division Manager of the City Parks Maintenance Division. She talked about her "passion" for this project and why she is proposing some changes. Ms. Sanger said that the memorial is overlooked because of its location and she believed adding some new features to it would catch the interest of more people. She pointed out that as a Psychologist at the Veterans Administration Hospital, she has the "prMlege of working with some older veterans that were from the World War I era". Ms. Sanger commented that she allows these veterans to talk about their experiences in war. She added that at times, World War I veterans are overlooked just as she feels that the James Austin memorial is overlooked.
Ms. Sanger said that she has tried to locate the existing family members of James Austin by searching through the resources available at the L.D.S. Family History library, the Utah Heritage Foundation, the State Historical Preservation Office, the Memory Grove Foundation, and the Internet. She said that she has not had any success.
Ms. Sanger described her proposal and the symbolism attached to the features. She said, "I feel that a symbolism of a memorial transcends generations and when someone goes to visit a memorial and they are able to ponder on the symbolism of it, it allows them to connect with that period in history." Ms. Sanger said, "Water gives life and out of the death of James Austin, life was given to countless numbers of people; the freedom of life. What I would like to do in restoring and redesigning a portion of this memorial is to bring more honor to those who have given their life and death. The cascading waterfall is symbolic of when people give their life in war, they give their blood as well. The water fall is symbolic of the blood that was shed to provide life for other people."
Ms. Sanger stated that the size of the waterfall was of no importance, only that it would increase in size as it cascaded down the steps. She also said that the proposed columns would represent pillars of strength for humanity.
Mr. Pope praised Ms. Sanger for her willingness and desire to restore the memorial. He talked about lighting the memorial, the restoration of the steps, and what once was a water fountain. Mr. Pope stated that there were a number of water fountains in the city parks that do not function properly. He said there were new plumbing codes that affect water fountains.
Ms. Sanger continued to describe the proposed project and discussed other matters relating to the memorial.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by saying that she noticed the pedestals, she felt might have been lamps at the base of the stairs, and said that area might be a place for smaller columns rather than around the source of the water. Ms. Mickelsen stated that the top of the memorial "is perfect" and it just needs to be repaired. She mentioned the symbolism of the mature trees to the columns. Ms. Mickelsen also talked about the water feature. She said that she saw a waterfall feature in Los Angeles where the stream would disappear underground then emerge again and again, and that it was very interesting.
• Mr. Christensen commended Ms. Sanger for her desire to restore the memorial. He said that one seldom sees a working old drinking fountain and it is such a treat when one is found. He said that he believed originally the fountain was the attraction to get people to climb the stairs to read the plaque. He expressed his preference of having the drinking fountain restored. Mr. Christensen said, "I would rather see a replica of that feature, rather than spending money on a water feature that never was there." Mr. Christensen talked about other restored monuments around town that have a drinking water feature to attract visitors, and while they are refreshing themselves, they would read the plaque. Mr. Christensen asked if there were exemptions to the new plumbing code like there is on certain building codes. Mr. Pope said that there is some latitude in the building codes when working on historic buildings, but the plumbing codes for water quality, water safety. He added that there are real issues of liability with backflow and venting, and how water quality from the point of source to the point of consumption is protected. Mr. Pope said that the City is looking at what to do about some of the older drinking fountains in Liberty Park, as well as in other areas. There was some further discussion about the possibility or restoring the drinking fountain and the source of the culinary water.
• Mr. Littig pointed out the light pole and inquired about lighting the memorial. Ms. Sanger said that she would like to have lighting restored for the memorial and is coordinating with the Greater Avenues Community Council to accomplish that. Mr. Littig focused on the water feature and said that he saw a water feature in Europe where the handrail was used as a channel for water. He also suggested water cascading down the sides of the steps rather than the center of the steps and recommended a pond at the bottom. He asked if there was a safety issue with a pond. There was much discussion regarding this concept. Mr. Littig said that a source of water would have to be found and noted that the volume of water could be very low. Mr. Pope said that the depth would only have to be about two or three inches. Ms. Sanger was concerned about the difficulty of the flow of water from the source to the pond. Mr. Littig also expressed a concern about the ADA requirements. Mr. Pope made a few suggestions.
The discussion continued. There were many opinions and suggestions expressed by members of the Commission, such as: 1) the width of the cascading water; 2) the enhancement of the water feature; 3) find a way to incorporate all aspects of the applicant's proposal; 4) not violating the historic fabric; 5) put any new features below the memorial 6) columns would clutter the memorial; 7) putting the cascading water feature on both sides of the stairs; 8) putting the cascading water feature down the middle of the stairs; 9) the symbolism of the proposed features; 10) obligation to protect the structure and not to memorialize it; 11) compatible changes are made to historic buildings; 12) encourage lighting the memorial; 13) a pool at the bottom of the memorial; 14) concern about the debris that would collect at the bottom; and 15) some interpretation of the lamp posts at the bottom of the memorial could be incorporated into the design.
Ms. Sanger concluded by thanking the Commission. She said she appreciated the "feedback" from the Commission and again expressed some of her desires of certain elements of the proposal.
Since the Commission had no more questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Giraud recommended more study be given to the proposal. She suggested that a special subcommittee be formed that would include Mr. Mickelsen, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Protasevich. The subcommittee could meet to discuss the memorial. Mr. Littig also suggested that any member of the Historic Landmark Commission could attend the Architectural Subcommittee to discuss this proposal.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she agreed with Ms. Giraud until the intent of the Commission is clarified.
Ms. Heid said that the historical purpose is to honor those who gave their life during World War I. She added if changes were made that would enhance the memorial and also enhance the historical purpose because more people would be drawn to the memorial, then more people would know why it was created. Ms. Heid said that she believed that people would think more about war heroes in general. She said that she considered this proposal differently than another kind of historic structure. Ms. Heid added that the Commission is trying to preserve the monument, and not preserve the reason why the memorial was created. Mr. Protasevich agreed. The discussion continued.
Mr. Knight said that he would do some more research on James Austin in accordance with the request by Mr. Christensen.
Motion:
Ms. Heid moved to approve Case No. 006-02 without the columns and with either a narrower water feature coming down the center or the exploration of an optional water feature, based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation. Further that the details be reviewed and refined by the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Protasevich unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 007-02, at 258 West 400 North, by Signature Books, requesting approval to install a carport' for a four-plex. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Ms. Lew 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 Signature Books, represented by Ken Day of Custom Carport Designs, was requesting approval to install a carport at 258 West 400 North. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District and zoned SR-1, a Special Development Pattern Residential zoning district.
Ms. Lew stated that Signature Books owns and has renovated numerous historic properties in the Capitol Hill area including the brick apartment building on the site. She added that renovation work on the apartment building is currently underway and a major portion of the rear of the site has been hard surfaced for parking. Ms. Lew reported that parking is permitted within the interior side and rear yards in the SR-1 zone and a right of-way provides access to the new parking area.
Ms. Lew gave the following proposal: The Petitioner is proposing to construct an 18' X 72' detached carport that will cover eight parking spaces at the northeast corner of the property as shown on the accompanying site plan. The corrugated shed roof structure is made of steel and will have a white finish to match the trim of the apartment building when repainted. The roof has a 4" steel fascia board that would provide a clean appearance. The posts will be coated with a white vinyl material for durability.
Ms. Lew stated that Section 21A.34.020(E)(5) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration or construction of accessory structures, such as garages on properties in established historic districts. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the Historic Landmark Commission should find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application.
Ms. Lew referred to 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City.
Staff determined that the following standards are pertinent to this case:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The carport will be located in the rear of the property and will not affect the appearance of the streetscape. Additionally, the structure will not destroy any historic materials and is visually subordinate to the historic building on the site. The proposed accessory structure, therefore, will not negatively affect the historic character of the property.
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The carport is clearly contemporary in design and material, will not destroy significant cultural or historical material and the use is compatible with the character of the property and the neighborhood. Historically, accessory structures including garages, carriage houses or sheds were important elements of a residential site.
Ms. Lew stated that the Historic Landmark Commission’s Design Guideline for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also addresses accessory structures. The applicable standards include:
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 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.
12.10 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, shall not be visually obtrusive. Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. An alley should serve as the primal}l access to parking, when physical conditions permit. Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.
12.11 Avoid large expanses of parking. DMde large parking lots with planting areas. Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.
12.12 Screen parking areas from view of the street. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas shall be screened from adjacent lots and the street. Fences, walls, and plantings, or a combination of these, should be used to screen parking.
Staffs discussion: The Historic Landmark Commission acknowledges that accessory structures have always been features in the historic landscape of Salt Lake City and garages have become a necessary part of maintaining the viability of historic properties and districts. However, the Commission has not adopted in the historic district design guidelines or as a separate policy, specific standards to address the various elements of carport design, particularly size and material. The design of the carport is simple and compatible with the historic character of the apartment building. Nevertheless, the proposed accessory structure will be large and has the potential to negatively impact the historic character of the neighborhood. The historic structure on the adjacent lot to the east is setback some distance from the street placing the home directly adjacent to the parking facility. Extending the solid wood fencing at least the length of the carport will help screen headlight illumination from the adjacent residential lot and reduce the visibility of the carport installation from the street.
The Commission should also evaluate whether using a non-historic building material to cover the steel posts is appropriate. In the past, the City has approved vinyl for additions to certain non-contributing structures, if already sided with a synthetic material, window sashes, providing the profile is similar and fencing in very limited
cases.
Staff's finding of fact: Staff believes the request complies with the pertinent standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, historic district design standards and the standards established by the commission in previous somewhat similar applications. The carport has been designed to be compatible and visually subordinate to the historic primary structure and will be adequately screened to mitigate any adverse visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed accessory structure will not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material.
Ms. Lew offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends the Historic Landmark Commission approve the request to construct a carport at 258 West 400 North based upon staff's findings that the project substantially complies with the standards that pertain to the application and subject to the condition that the parking area is screened from adjacent lots and the street. Fences, walls and planting, or a combination of these, should be used."
Staff also requests that the Commission provide direction to facilitate the administrative review of future requests for carports in the City's historic districts.
• Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Littig said that staff did not mention the height and suggested a six-foot fence be installed for screening. Mr. Littig said that the material is a powder coated product. Ms. Lew said that the applicant could better address this issue.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Ken Day, contractor, was present, representing the applicant. Mr. Day explained the process of a powder coating system. He said that the poles are galvanized steel set in concrete about six inches. Mr. Day said that the galvanized product is taken to a powder coater which is electrically applied and baked at 450 degrees. He added that the process gives the product a nice finish and stays that way for a long time.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by expressing his concerns about the use of vinyl in an historic district, but suggested that the Commission asked that the posts be powder coated, as well. Mr. Day said that would be fine.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the fence would be wood. Mr. Day said that the recommended material is wood. He said that it would be a six-foot fence, but because of a berm in the landscaping, the fence on one side would be about six foot six inches. Mr. Day said that the carport would be sufficiently screened by the fence.
• Mr. Christensen commented that there would not be a roof pitch to the carport; it would only have a slight angle to it. He inquired about the metal roof being noisy during a rainstorm and disturbing the neighbors. Mr. Day said than an aluminum roof if noisy, but the high-grade steel that is used for the roofing material, softens the sound. He added that he has used both for carports and patio covers and there is a big difference between aluminum and steel. Mr. Day said that he has done a lot of work for Signature Books. He gave accolades to the company. Mr. Christensen talked about another carport in the area and said that he did not realize that "a carport could be a nice thing".
Since the Commission had no questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz 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. Cindy Cromer, an interested citizen, stated that she is well aware of the reputation of Signature Books and what they have done to historic preservation. She suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission might need some direction on carports like the current study of signage that is underway. She said that guidelines and direction might be helpful. Ms. Cromer talked about a carport owned by an avid gardener that looks like an arbor, which fits in quite nicely with the Victorian house. Ms. Giraud said that staff does not receive many requests for carports. She added that most of the ones requested are for apartment buildings. Ms. Giraud stated that most of the ones that have been administratively approved, have been "pretty obscured from the street". She added that the Commission has done studies on garages and other elements, but carports do not consist of much. Ms. Cromer changed her mind on suggesting a study be done on carports if it is not needed.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Christensen said that the Commission cannot dictate color, but a carport should be as close to disappearing as possible; white is just the opposite of disappearing. Mr. Littig said that powder coating has a limited range of colors, but the white is the only one that holds up under ultra violet rays. Mr. Littig commented that the powder coating product is hard to repair, however it is a tough product.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission could suggest using foliage as a screen material. Ms. Giraud said that she did not believe that the carport would be very visible once the fence is installed. A short discussion followed.
Since there were some further questions for the applicant, the Commission unanimously agreed that the meeting should be reopened. Mr. Parvaz reopened this portion of the meeting. He asked the applicant to come forward and respond to the Commissioner’s concerns.
Mr. Day said that the white color is ultra violet resistant. He added that the other colors turn to powder after a few years. He explained how the corrugation would be covered by a four-inch trim around the edges that would give it a nice finished look. Mr. Day said that a galvanized product would not rust when chipped. He further explained how powder coating the product protects it from rusting. Mr. Day said that the powder coating process is done at the factory. Since there were no more questions, Mr. Parvaz reclosed this portion of the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen suggested that the fence should be installed on the front, as well as the east side of the property. Mr. Christensen was concerned that the fence would obstruct the ingress/egress to the carport. Ms. Mickelsen said she believed the access was on the west side. She also expressed her concerns about the neighbor because the six foot fence would be outside their windows. Ms. Lew said that she has not been contacted by any of the neighbors.
Motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved to approve Case No. 007-02, with the stipulation that there would be a six-foot fence that runs down the east side of the property and would obscure the carport from the street, based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion.
After a short discussion, Ms. Mickelsen amended the motion. Final amended motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved to approve Case No. 007-02, with the stipulations that the finish on the carport would be a powder coated process, that there would be a
six-foot wood fence that would be installed on the east side of the property which would obscure the carport from the street, and based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact. Mr. Christensen's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Protasevich unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the letter from Zions Securities Corporation.
Ms. Giraud discussed a letter addressed to Mr. Stephen Goldsmith that was written by Mr. W. Kent Money, President of Zions Securities Corporation talking about a recent Architectural Subcommittee meeting and the members who were present. The letter stated that "due to comments made by members of the Commission at this meeting, we have become concerned that the Landmarks Commission may be using a different standards for approving projects submitted by Zions Securities Corporation that for others who submit projects for review"
Ms. Giraud said that she attended the Architectural Subcommittee meeting, and did not have the same impression as what was stated in the letter. She said that members of the current Commission are very considerate to the public. Ms. Giraud said that she was asked to present the letter to members of the Commission.
Ms. Giraud expressed her concerns regarding cases that are appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board where the Board members consider derogatory comments made by members of the Historic Landmark Commission. She wanted the Commissioners to be cognizant about the subject matter of the letter, but not to "feel that fingers are being pointed at them". Ms. Giraud stated that she believes that the representative from Zions Securities Corporation have a misconception in terms of reviewing a new building located on a landmark site. She added, "Their ideas are that the property is not in an historic district and there is no historic context around it, why should it even be reviewed." Ms. Giraud said that she explained to the representatives from Zions Securities Corporation, at a meeting held today with Mr. Goldsmith and staff, that a Landmark Site is like a mini historic district with an overlay zone over it, which seemed to clarify the fact of a landmark site.
Ms. Giraud concluded by saying that staff appreciates all the time that members of the Historic Landmark Commission donate to the city, because the decisions rendered in Commission meetings are the most difficult to make. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Littig moved to adjourn the meeting. No second was required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 8:45P.M.