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 Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Amy Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
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. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the December 1, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Owen abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 008-99, at 720 East Ashton Avenue, by Kelly Lamoreaux and Shawn Eva, requesting to review the evidence of economic hardship in relationship to a request for a conditional use permit to establish a bed and breakfast establishment in the "George M. Cannon" house, which is a landmark site.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She gave the following overview of this case: 'The Economic Review Panel first heard this application on May 26, 1999. The case was tabled and reheard on June 1, 1999. The Economic Review Panel found that a hardship existed by a vote of 2 to 1. The Historic Landmark Commission did not uphold the vote of the Economic Review Panel and denied the finding of a hardship. The applicants appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board (LUAB). The Land Use Appeals Board remanded the case back to the Economic Review Panel, stating that neither the Economic Review Panel or the Historic Landmark Commission made findings appropriate to Section 21A.34.20.(K)(2) of the zoning ordinance. The applicants decided to reapply for a findings of economic hardship. The Economic Review Panel re-heard the case on December 13, 1999. The three members voted that a hardship existed." Ms. Giraud said that a house has to be included on the list of the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources before a conditional use process could even begin. She continued to explain the conditional use process by saying that an applicant must prove that a structure is either too large, is in imminent danger of demolition, or is economically unfeasible to use for a use allowed in the existing zoning and could apply for economic hardship. She said that the conditional use process has been an effective tool for preservation in Salt Lake City since 1973. She said that the increased flexibility in the zoning code has provided an economic incentive resulting in appropriate adaptive reuse.
Ms. Giraud stated that there were three financial options presented in the staff report: 1) a duplex; 2) a luxury duplex; and 3) a bed and breakfast business. She said that regarding the first option, the assumption has been made that two units would be rented, rather than one unit used to generate income and the other serving as the residence of the applicants. Ms. Giraud added that this was in response to comments made by Mr. Huffaker at the June 1, 1999 Economic Review Panel meeting an Historic Landmark Commission members on July 7, 1999. She summarized the data used for the tax credits, the loan structure and debt service, the rental income, utilities, and the value of the property.
Ms. Giraud reported that such arguments as the feasibility of a bed and breakfast at the location on Ashton Avenue, the lack of a formal business plan, the flaws in the conditional use and economic hardship processes, the impact of a commercial use in a residential district, and the feasibility of rehabilitation as a residential structure for the "right owner", were appropriate for discussion within the scope of the current application.
Ms. Giraud said that the staff made the following recommendation: For the December 13, 1999 Economic Review Panel meeting, the staff recommended that the Economic Review Panel find that the applicants were faced with an economic hardship, based on the following findings of fact:
A. That the applicants applied for listing on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources after purchasing the property. The applicants were aware of the process of pursuing a conditional use approval to use the Cannon house as a bed and breakfast.
B. That the current level of economic return would not support the rehabilitation of the house, as evidenced by the expenses projected by the current owners and rental income obtained by the previous owners, and by the rental income information supplied by Equimark. The calculations of economic return are supported by available appraisals and assessments and the original mortgage.
C. The applicants have not presented evidence of sales offers or leases other than the fact that the applicants purchased the property in 1998 for $190,000.00.
D. The applicants have found that rehabilitating the house at a cost of $151,102 and marketing it as a 'non-luxury' duplex would result in a monthly pre-tax negative cash flow of -$791.00. Investing more money for the 'luxury' duplex option, $159,302.00, would result in a monthly pre-tax negative cash flow of $431.00. Furthermore, staff finds that if the property were maintained as a duplex with both units rented and no money invested for rehabilitation, the result would be a monthly pre-tax negative cash flow of -$164.50 [Footnote: Monthly gross income ($1,375.00) less total expenses ($533.00) less debt service on original loan ($924.00) less 6% vacancy ($82.50) equals a negative amount of -$164.50.]
In verifying the numbers presented by the applicants, staff has relied upon several professionals in different fields. These include the Salt Lake County Assessor's office; Garry Burg, housing rehabilitation specialist with the Salt Lake City Housing and neighborhood Development Department, Neil Olsen, Information Planner for the Salt Lake City Budget and Policy Division; Chris Child of Marcus and Millichap; and Melisse Grey of Zions Bank.
E. The applicants have considered the financial incentives of the state and federal tax credits in their calculations.
Mr. Parvaz suggested that there had not been enough study for the bed and breakfast option to make sure that there would be enough earnings to take care of the house. Ms. Giraud stated that staff believed that was not relevant to the application. Mr. Parvaz said, "It comes before us exactly because of this issue and our purpose is to take care of this building; we want to protect it."
Mr. Young said that it would be up to the applicants to determine if the bed and breakfast option would be economically feasible for them. He added that if the applicants were unable to obtain a conditional use and decide to demolish the house, that request would come before this Commission, as well as any design review.
Mr. Wright said that during the conditional use process, the Planning Commission would have some discussion pertaining to land use issues and the impact on the community and neighborhood. He said that the Planning Commission would not, typically, demand an economic pro forma on that use. Mr. Wright added that he believed the applicants were currently trying to preserve the building.
There was some discussion regarding the economic hardship process, the conditional use process, and the options for the applicants.
The applicants Mr. Kelly Lamoreaux and Mr. Shawn Eva, as well as their attorney, Mr. Tom Bowen, were present. Mr. Bowen stated, "For an attorney it is always difficult when you get a case that comes back to you or was reversed, and we understand that. We appreciate you taking the time to reconsider this. The last time this matter was here, Mr. Huffaker was advocating against the findings from the Panel. Since that time, the figures have been refined." Mr. Bowen talked about the Economic Review Panel being unanimous in the findings that they had made. Mr. Bowen said, "So unlike the last time here, there is no dissent as far as the figures are concerned."
Mr. Bowen stated, "One of the issues that got everybody side-tracked the last time this went up through the process, was the one you just talked about and that is the viability of a bed and breakfast." He said that both the Planning Staff and the City Attorney agree that the viability of the bed and breakfast option was not an issue.
Mr. Bowen said, "At the hearing, there was no information that was presented contrary to the findings of the Panel that were made, so I am not aware of any other information that has come forth, or to be presented to you tonight, that would contradict the findings that have been made by the Economic Review Panel."
Mr. Bowen continued by saying, "With that said, a couple of things, as you know, under the statute then, the Historic Landmark Commission's decision should be, or as the statute says 'shall be consistent with the Economic Review Panel unless one of two things happen: 1) that you find that their action was arbitrary and I can't see any basis or evidence upon which you could find that; or 2) is if you find that there was an erroneous finding of material fact, again, I am not aware of any allegation before this body that that, in fact, happened. So for the strict legal point of view, our position is that this Panel ought to confirm and affirm the findings that have been made.
Mr. Bowen introduced a copy of an article that was in the newspaper (Deseret News on October 2, 1999) which reported a campaign that aimed to fix-up old homes. The article talked about the "John Taylor House" which was located in the vicinity of the subject property. He said that the "irony of all of this is that my clients have been involved with this process of preserving the property for almost sixteen moths".
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by pointing out that the applicants had already started to make repairs to the house. Mr. Lamoreaux said, "They had been working on the structure trying to save what can be saved without it getting in any worse condition." Mr. Bowen also commented on what he called the "necessary improvements".
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Jerome Johnson, an interested person, who resides at 57 South 600 East, stated that he and his wife operate a bed and breakfast in the city. He noted that the amount of the applicant's taxes that were included in the information seemed to be too low because his taxes were "at least three times that amount operating a bed and breakfast".
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Owen stated that he had a motion but before he did, he wanted to "make some points that dealt with this case and some larger issues and larger parameters because I think we need to find out whether or not we really have an economic hardship to vote on here". Mr. Owen asked that the following statement be included in the records of this meeting: "It is common knowledge that since the Commission first heard this request for a conditional use permit, that construction was in process before and during that time that the conditional use was being sought. But it is also well known on this Commission that no building permits have ever been issued on this property. The City requires, not only permits, but also inspections, which are a matter of public safety. No action or enforcement has been taken in this case, which means that the oversight is obviously a deliberate gesture.
"Regarding the Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals Board notice, dated October 18, 1999, item five, which deals with Ms. Rowland, this information was not in the Historic Landmark Commission's notes and was therefore not a matter of public knowledge. This means that it was an obvious leak or plant intended to discredit this Commission and its' actions. With reference to Title 21A.34.(7) code, that was in our packet, it states 'no new evidence will be heard by the Land Use Appeals Board, than what was heard by the Historic Landmark Commission'. By comparison of the tape recording of that meeting on October 18, 1999, and the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission, should be made and will demonstrate that a substantial body of evidence was introduced. This places the City in violation of its' own code. For these reasons, I therefore move that Case No. 008-99 be referred to the Office of the City Attorney for an opinion as to the extent that this case has been compromised, if not entirely invalidated."
Ms. Miller said that she did not agree with the statement nor did she understand the extent of the comments. She said that she was in support of the findings of fact of the Economic Review Panel. Ms. Miller said that the Historic Landmark Commission was required to look at the work of the Economic Review Panel, and either adopt the findings of fact of disapprove them.
Motion:
Mr. Owen moved that Case No. 008-99 be referred to the Office of the City Attorney for an opinion as to the extent that this case has been compromised, if not entirely invalidated. The motion died for the lack of a second.
The discussed turned to the new "set of numbers" on which the Economic Review Panel based its findings of fact. Mr. Littig said that he questioned some of the expenses shown in the submitted information, such as $13,000 for renovating the conservatory portion of the house. Mr. Young talked about the labor intensity and the different cost calculations. Mr. Littig continued to discuss some of the reported figures. Mr. Littig said, "Being a home owner, I will never make a cent on my house until I sell it. It doesn't pay me to own it."
Ms. Mitchell said that she believed the Commission was relying on the Economic Review Panel members who were more "in-depth experts".
Ms. Rowland said that she believed the members of the Commission were "extremely frustrated" with the economic hardship process. She said that there had been a lot of time and effort on a "negative track", attempting to prove and then attempting to convince this Commission that it would be economically infeasible to own the building in the current condition. She said that she believed a better approach would be to attempt to show the merits of a bed and breakfast. Ms. Rowland said, "Our hands are completely tied, now". She encouraged the City to come up with a better process for future economic hardship inquiries.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that economic hardship issue was the only avenue that the Commission had. She mentioned the emotionalism of some Commission members. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she was willing to support the findings, because it may be the only way to preserve history.
Final motion:
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich moved for Case No. 008-99 to adopt the findings of fact presented by the Economic Review Panel for the "George M. Cannon" house at 720 East Ashton Avenue, based on the presented evidence. Further, that the applicants be allowed to pursue a conditional use permit. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. Owen were opposed. Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 018-99, at 165 South 1100 East, by Richard Wilson, requesting to construct a new single-family house in the University Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Knight discussed the fact that the case was removed from a previous Historic Landmark Commission meeting agenda because staff did not believe the application was ready for review. He added that the applicant refined the proposal and the Commission is reviewing the second reiteration of the plans at this meeting.
Mr. Knight stated that the vacant lot was once the site of a 1-1/2 story bungalow house that resembled the existing bungalow immediately to the north of this lot. Mr. Knight added that the building burned approximately three years ago, which is a correction to the staff report, and the building's remains were demolished. He noted that two years ago, this lot was the proposed site to relocate the "Case-Mumford" house on 600 East, after that house was approved for demolition. Mr. Knight said that the relocation eventually fell through because all of the problems could not be solved, so the lot has remained vacant.
Mr. Knight described the proposal for the new construction in the following manner: "The applicants propose a two-story house with 2,575 finished square feet. The house design is essentially rectangular in form, with a hipped roof and additional projections that are covered with additional, smaller hipped, shingled roofs. The proposed materials are brick veneer and an EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System). The roof material proposed is an architectural-grade asphalt shingle. The applicant proposed a detached, two-car garage, to be located at the rear of the lot and accessed by a concrete driveway. The remainder of the 0.19-acre lot would be landscaped."
Mr. Knight gave an analysis of the requirements of the zoning ordinance for new construction, as outlined in the staff report. He offered the staff's recommendation, as follows: "Because this is the first time the Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed this application, staff is making no recommendation on the proposal at this time. As per usual procedure in new construction cases, the Historic Landmark Commission may wish to assess the proposed design and then refer the case to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement or details. The proposal could then return to the full Historic Landmark Commission for final review before approval or denial."
The setback requirements were discussed, which were included in the staff report. Mr. Wright said that the issue was that the property had to be able to take care of its own drainage.
Mr. Littig inquired about the plans for the proposed detached garage. Mr. Knight said that those plans would need to be reviewed. There was a short discussion regarding the process for new construction.
Mr. Wright said that it was thought to be better that new construction requests needed to come before the Historic Landmark Commission before the plans were reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee, so the applicant could get a "broader viewpoint" of what the issues might be on the proposed design. Mr. Wright further said that the applicant should get "all the advice, as possible", out of the members on the first review, then have the subcommittee refine the details. There was some further discussion regarding the proposal for new construction.
Mr. Richard Wilson, the applicant, was present. He stated that he did not have much more to add. He said that he hoped the Commission would give him specific information that he would need to address before having his architect redraw the plans. Mr. Young assured him that the motion would address all the issues.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by asking if there was anything in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regarding the views into the building on the primary facade. Mr. Knight said that the charge of the Historic Landmark Commission was to review the exterior of the proposed building. Mr. Simonsen expressed his concern about uses inside the building, such as laundry baskets that might be piled in front of the window, which would be the primary facade. Mr. Knight said a protruding dryer vent from the front of the building may also be an issue. Mr. Young said that the Commission would have to make sure that the exterior would not be compromised by the organization of the interior of the building.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the roof, walls, and exterior materials. Mr. Wilson said that the house would be brick, although the plans showed stucco and brick. Mr. Parvaz asked about the proposed quoins that were drawn on the corners of the house. Mr. Wilson said that he liked them and suggested that they, too, be made out of brick. He indicated that they were architectural features that one would see on older homes. Mr. Wilson said that asphalt shingles would be used as the roofing material. Mr. Parvaz pointed out the mature trees that existed on the site.
• Ms. Mitchell inquired about the material and fenestration of the windows in the front facade. Mr. Wilson said that he planned to use wood windows. Ms. Giraud continued the conversation by inquiring if Mr. Wilson would consider changing the window configuration. Mr. Wilson said that he would be but did not want to have a further delay.
• Mr. Littig recommended that the architect attend the subcommittee meeting with the applicant. Mr. Young also suggested that the architect had access to a copy of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Richard Wilson said that he had lived in the area his entire life. He concluded by saying that his goal was to build a house on the site that is, basically, the proposed floor plan, but would consider any suggestions or recommendations that the Commissioners may make.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Jerome Johnson, an interested person, said he was concerned about the amount of concrete it would take for a three-car garage. He said that he believed there would be too much concrete on the site.
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested person, asked that the members of the Architectural Subcommittee and, subsequently, the entire Historic Landmark Commission members to address the protection of any mature street trees, during the construction phase, in the final action. She said that mature trees were a very important element in the University Historic District. Ms. Cromer talked about other newly constructed houses on a narrow lot, out of the historic district, where mature trees were lost. She claimed that it was "willful destruction. It was simply much easier to build the house". Ms. Cromer pointed out an example of another newly constructed house in the district on the corner of 1200 East and Bueno Avenue. She said that it is "quite a remarkable house" that was constructed on a very difficult lot. Ms. Cromer recommended that the staff use the house as an example of a "successful new house" in an historic district with its materials and drought-tolerant landscaping. Ms. Cromer also expressed her disappointment in the infill housing that was developed west of the boundary of the historic district
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no further discussion.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to table Case No. 018-99 and refer it to the Architectural
Subcommittee for further refinement, and return to the full Commission for final approval, after addressing the following issues: 1) eliminating the horizontal grid in the front windows, and suggest using casement windows, with large thick centers; 2) the configuration of the bathroom window in the front facade. It should be smaller and higher; 3) using brick on the front facade, as the owner as suggested, as opposed to stucco; 4) reviewing the details of the balustrade; 5) reviewing the plans for the garage; 6) reviewing the "keystone" element over the front window; and 7) reviewing the detailing of the quoins on the front elevation.
After a short discussion, Mr. Littig amended his motion. Amended motion: Mr. Littig moved to table Case No. 018-99 and refer it to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement, and return to the full Commission for final approval, after addressing the following issues: 1) reviewing the configuration, pattern, and proportions of all the windows; 2) reviewing the exterior materials and seeing a sample of the brick; 3) detailing of the balustrade and the columns on the porch; 4) reviewing the plans for the garage; 5) reviewing the "keystone" element over the front window; 6) reviewing the detailing of the quoins on the front elevation; and 7) protecting the existing mature trees on the site. It was seconded by Mr. Simonsen. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 001-00, a request by Danny Walz of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, to demolish six buildings in the Capitol Hill Historic District. including 248 West 500 North, 515 No. Arctic Court. 519 No. Arctic Court. 521 No. Arctic Court. 548 North 300 West. and 554-556 North 300 West.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Giraud stated the following: "On December 1, 1999, the Historic Landmark Commission heard Mr. Walz describe the issues of developing these properties. Mr. Walz explained that the RDA (Redevelopment Agency) would not be the developer because the site will be available for private-sector developers to bid on at a later date. The RDA does not have building or site plans, as this will be the responsibility of the developer to provide this information. The RDA Board must approve plans submitted by the developer before the property can be sold. Mr. Walz is applying for demolition so that he can begin to market the property. Because of the complexity of this situation, the Planning Division has allowed Mr. Walz to apply for demolition without submitting plans for new development."
Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission recently received a notice of demolition, for which Mr. Walz applied, to demolish Movie Buffs on the corner of 500 North and 300 West, which is a "non-contributing" building, in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. She said that the two-week notice would expire tomorrow and staff has not heard any comments regarding the demolition. Ms. Giraud noted that the rest of the buildings on the site are "contributing" structures. She added that the applicant was requesting demolition permit for the remaining structures.
Mr. Giraud discussed the recent update of the Capitol Hill Master Plan, which the City recently adopted, and the text that addresses future development for the subject site, which is included in the staff report regarding the "neighborhood shopping node". She said that there was an apparent need for retail and some commercial development in the Capitol Hill area. Ms. Giraud said that there were two policies that were particularly relevant to this petition and should be considered by the Historic Landmark Commission when reviewing this application. She read the following out of the master plan, "If an appropriate commercial or mixed-use development is proposed for the commercial node at 500 North and 300 West, which requires additional property, the western properties along Arctic Court may be rezoned to commercial shopping," and "strongly encouraging the reuse of existing historic structures within the new commercial development."
Ms. Giraud addressed the contributing status as outlined in the staff report by saying that staff relies on site and survey work that was done in 1983 for the Capitol Hill area. She said that the survey led to the establishment of the existing local district and listed the neighborhood on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Giraud reported that there were site forms for 300 West that staff could not locate, so in the staff report, it mentions that staff considers them contributing structures that are more than fifty years and still retain their physical integrity, she included the contributing structure definition in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud stated that Section of 21A.34.020(L) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Landmark Commission to base a decision on a request for a Certificate of Demolition on seven criteria when considering the application. Ms. Giraud explained that criteria in the following manner: "Six are listed in the staff report because the seventh is economic hardship. If six of the standards are met, then the Historic Landmark Commission must approve the applicant's request for demolition. If two or less are met, then the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the demolition application. If the Historic Landmark Commission makes a finding that between three to five standards are met, then it goes into what is called a "gray" zone and a decision can be deferred for up to one year, during which time the applicant has to conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The one-year 'clock' begins only when the bona fide effort has started." Ms. Giraud said that it does not have to be one year; it could be only thirty days, or any other period of time up to a year.
Ms. Giraud said that she also included in the staff report was a list of what constitutes physical integrity, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior of the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places, such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Ms. Giraud presented staffs findings and analysis on the criteria in subsection
21A.34.020(L)(I) of the zoning ordinance. She, then, summarized staff’s findings of fact in the following manner: "The staff finds that the applicant meets one standard for four of the properties (248 West 500 North, 515,519, and 521 North Arctic Court), and meets four standards for two of the properties {548 and 554-556 North 300 West). Without a finding of economic hardship and if the Commission concurs with the staff findings, the Historic Landmark Commission is required to deny demolition on the first four buildings. For the two on 300 West, if the Historic Landmark Commission concurs with the staff findings, the Historic Landmark Commission can defer a decision for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site."
Ms. Giraud proposed two options for the Historic Landmark Commission to consider:
1. Recommend that consideration of the demolition applicant be postponed to allow the applicant to pursue the economic hardship process for all six structures; or
2. Recommend that the Historic Landmark Commission deny demolition on the first four structures, anticipating that the applicant will pursue the economic hardship process, and defer a decision on demolition for up to one year for the two properties on 300 West, during which time, the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to Subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, it must be noted that the applicant would still have the right to pursue the economic hardship process.
Mr. Young inquired if the Commission members had questions or comments for staff. Mr. Parvaz stated that the Commission was being asked to make an exception in this case because there was no reuse plan submitted by the applicant. Ms. Giraud said that was correct and that City officials were allowing an exception to be made in this case because of the unique circumstances involving this case. She said that although the RDA is currently responsible for the site, it would ultimately be the developer's responsibility. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns that there was nothing mentioned in the zoning code that would allow an exception and that it would set a precedent for other developers. Mr. Parvaz said that he believed the RDA should give the Commission more details of what is expected to be built on the site. Mr. Wright said that the RDA could submit a landscaping plan as a reuse plan, but that would be deceiving because construction was expected on the site. Mr. Parvaz further expressed his views on this issue.
Mr. Jakovcev-Ulrich referred to another development site for an apartment complex between 300 and 400 South, and 500 and 600 East where, according to an article she read, retail space was being advertised. She said she agreed with Mr. Parvaz's comments. Mr. Jakovcev-Ulrich said, "If they are marketing this to developers, they should have a pretty strong master plan and guidelines so the developer would get a sense of what is allowed. Otherwise, if we don't, we will have a 'Sandy strip mall' in Capitol Hill."
Mr. Wright said that the RDA will respond to that but their position is just the opposite. He said that RDA has to have a better understanding what the constraints would be on the property before any kind of a site plan can be developed. Mr. Wright said that the applicant could better address this issue.
Mr. Young said that he thought the larger issue was that the City would have higher standards than a private citizen to create an appropriate historical edge of the district and still allow developers to feel comfortable with putting commercial in that location. He said that continuity and consistency was important for any of the Commission's evaluations.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the ordinance allowed a condition to be put on the demolition, based on future master planning when a developer is found. Mr. Wright said that the condition would be that no building would be demolished until a reuse plan was submitted and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission, the Planning Commission, and by the RDA's Board of Directors which is the City Council. Mr. Wright said there is no lack for a process to review a proposal.
Mr. Wilson said that he did not understand the value of requesting demolition before any reuse plans were approved. He said that if the RDA submitted acceptable plans, with the intent to demolish all of these homes, they would have a better chance for approval. Mr. Wright said that the RDA would not hire the designers to work through those issues and there has to be some certainty in the private sector before spending the money to hire urban designers and planners to design a proposal.
The discussion continued regarding the lack of a reuse plan. Some members of the Commission made suggestions and recommendations for the future development.
Mr. Danny Walz of the Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency, was present. Mr. Walz stated that the triplex at 515 North Arctic Court (244 West 500 North) was removed off the application for demolition. He said that there was agreement with the RDA and Planning Staff that the building would be marketable. The members of the Commission expressed their appreciation for that endeavor.
Mr. Walz read the following RDA's Board of Directors' description for a development of the site: "We are proposing to develop a neighborhood-scaled commercial center that relates to the Capitol Hill community and respects the historic context of the neighborhood."
Mr. Walz debated that there might be some detriment to the streetscape if the other structures were demolished but asked the Commission to look at the "bigger picture and see what can be done for the neighborhood". He asked the Commission to do the thing that would be more beneficial to the community. Mr. Walz asked if the Commission wanted to save the structures at the expense of losing something else.
Mr. Walz stated that there were many aspects in developing this site. He said that the RDA was trying to eliminate as many "complexities" as possible before the properties were sold to a developer because it would be the developer who would be taking the financial risk.
Mr. Walz said that the RDA believed that the property will be a very difficult site to develop and the more restrictions incurred, the harder it would be to find an interested developer. He explained in greater detail the importance of marketing the site without any encumbrances on the land.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by suggesting that the RDA market the site in a way that the structures would be preserved and used in the project, rather than demolishing them. Mr. Walz said that would be possible, but much more difficult, as he said that he already explained.
• Mr. Littig inquired if the RDA had considered moving the buildings. Mr. Walz said that they had not at this point. Mr. Littig said that there were vacant lots in that neighborhood that could accommodate the buildings. Mr. Walz explained that he could not spend the time or effort to consider that option. Mr. Walz discussed the years of planning it has taken for the RDA to obtain the properties and the problem of trying to conciliate his Board of Directors and other City agencies. Mr. Littig said that the RDA would have a "cleaner site" if there was an adaptive reuse for the buildings. He said, "I think the Commission would see that it is a real effort on your part, rather than just lose another historic building keep it in the context of the city and leave the historic fabric in the district." Mr. Walz said, "He was stuck now trying to get demolition for these properties without a reuse plan. No one is as frustrated as me. I'm here asking what can I do to get this going. You will see the reuse plan. That reuse plan will be badgered from all three commissions and the Board of Directors. I understand that we don't have one with our application, but I think that criteria will be met because we will not be able to do anything until its approved by this Commission. The RDA will not sell the property until the site plan is approved."
• Mr. Young changed the subject by asking about the allowable height for the proposed new construction. Mr. Walz said that any new construction would be from two to four stories. He said that he did know what the zoning allowed. He said that he did not believe that a building larger than that would have the required parking. Mr. Young said that he was concerned that the height of the future development would dominate over the one-story houses in the area. Ms. Giraud said that the proposed new building could not be higher than 45 feet or three stories high, whichever is less for the base zone.
• Ms. Rowland said that she believed there were view and height issues in regards to the Capitol building. Mr. Wright said that there were issues relating to the Capitol Building, but it was further north. Mr. Wright stated that those were the kind of issues that would be reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning Commission. Ms. Rowland asked a hypothetical question, "If we were to approve the concept of marketing a cleared site, what would you do in the interim with the site. Would you vacate the apartment building and board it up?" Mr. Walz said that during the interim period, the only difference that what is there now would be that the Movie Buffs building would be demolished. Ms. Rowland recommended that the Movie Buffs site and the historic homes be marketed separately. Mr. Walz said that that proposal had been discussed because there were few developers who like to do new construction and historic rehabilitation projects together.
• Mr. Simonsen said that would be an innovative way to market the site. He said that there were a few examples where that had been done successfully. Mr. Simonsen suggested that the RDA consider that option.
• Ms. Miller inquired about the benefits to the neighborhood to which Mr. Walz referred. Mr. Wright talked about the master planning process that took place during the West Capitol Hill Master Plan and the broader Capitol Hill Community Master Plan. He said that in both discussions, the subject site was selected as the best one for a neighborhood-oriented commercial center node. Mr. Wright said that the community is in need of more retail stores in the area. Mr. Walz said that was the reason why the RDA focused on the site.
• Ms. Mitchell said that she was not very clear on Mr. Walz's answer when Mr. Littig asked about why homes could not be considered for moving onto vacant lots within the district. She asked why that was not a feasible option. Mr. Walz said that may be an option in the future. Mr. Wright said that moving the homes that are on Arctic Court without demolishing the one on 300 North might not be viable; there might not be room to get the houses out.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich discussed keeping Arctic Court residential. Mr. Walz said that the RDA would like to keep a residential edge on that western side of Arctic Court. He added that it may not be the homes that are there now, but a new edge could be developed that would have retail on the lower level towards 300 West and because of the grade change, residential above facing Arctic Court. It was suggested that it would be a split level mixed use.
• Mr. Simonsen said that as I understand it, we are not recommending demolition of buildings, only suggesting that there may be structures that would be eligible, or are you say that we should recommend demolition. Mr. Walz said that I am just trying to get three "yeses" on the chart so that we can get to the "up to one year" bona fide effort. Mr. Wright said that he then could go to work on the criteria that we know that he is going to market the property ultimately, what does it take to preserve them. Mr. Walz said that our only option would be to go economic hardship and we are trying to avoid that and say, "please give us consideration for the reuse and the zoning and let us keep coming back to you, start bringing costs to you and try to get some decisions based on that rather than the whole process of economic hardship and just relying on that to decide this.
• Mr. Parvaz said that if the Historic Landmark Commission denies demolition that economic hardship was another option. Mr. Parvaz also recommended that the buildings be documented, if any eventually were demolished. Mr. Walz agreed to that recommendation. There was some discussion regarding the Movie Buffs site, but because it is a non-contributing building, documentation was not necessary.
Mr. Walz concluded by making the following statement: "The two points that I want to make are based on the reuse plan and the base zoning. What I am asking for is not necessarily to 'bend the rules' or make special exceptions, but to realize that although those standards are not met with this application, that they will be met in the process. If in fact you can say that the reuse plan will come before you. The base zoning, if it changes to commercial, will support this if you can get us into that 'gray' area which will allow us to start looking at costs."
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Randall Dixon, who resides at 726 North Wall Street, stated that when the RDA was invited into the neighborhood, the RDA had not "taken on" a more residentially oriented project before. He said that the RDA did not have a strong "track record" on historic preservation. Mr. Dixon said that he supported saving the homes on 500 North and Arctic Court. He said that the residential edge of the neighborhood needed to be "solidified". Mr. Dixon said that the removal of those homes, would "soften" the edge of the historic district. Mr. Dixon discouraged the option of trying to move the houses because that has not been done successfully in the past. He said that the buildings could collapse under their own weight. Mr. Dixon also said that if the houses would be moved, the obstacles would be removed from the site but the historic character of the area would not be saved. He said that he believed that something could be done that would benefit the neighborhood and also benefit historic preservation, as well.
• Mr. Louis Ulrich, who resides at 235 No. East Capitol Boulevard, said that he was involved as an architect and planner with the RDA master planning. He said that he believed the important issue was, not just the historic buildings, but also the land use patterns. He concurred that the discussions in the community centered around the need for a neighborhood shopping node, oriented toward 300 West, and not 500 North, because it was believed that it would "denigrate" the neighborhood. Mr. Ulrich said that he was "pro-development" and that there needed to be some way to create flexibility for the developer. He said that the community saw the potential for that site and people wanted to see what growth and new energy in that neighborhood would do. Mr. Ulrich talked about the phenomenal capital reinvestment on 200 West. He concluded by again pointing out that the commercial development should be oriented to 300 West.
• Mr. Scott Christensen, who resides at 594 No. Center Street, stated that the houses on the corner of Arctic Court and 500 North are important to many people who live in the neighborhood. He talked about the transitions that have taken place with losing houses to commercial properties. Mr. Christensen said that there was a risk of eroding the historical nature of the neighborhood from 300 West on 500 North, and that Arctic Court seemed like a nice "bulkhead" to draw the line. He said that he was delighted that RDA withdrew the house at 515 West 500 North from the demolition application. Mr. Christensen concluded by saying that he would hope there would be a way to down-scale any proposed development. He said that "in the spirit of compromise" save the buildings on Arctic Court and 500 North, and see what could be developed by removing the houses on 300 West.
• Ms. Katherine Gardner stated that she was the Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council. She said that she was "thrilled" by the RDA's decision of keeping the one house on 500 North. Ms. Gardner said that the community council was an advisory group, that had been working for years on the master plan and with the RDA. She said that many considerations were given in the master plan. She said that the first goal in the master plan was to have more residential neighborhoods. Ms. Gardner said that the people have watched Safeway fail and Movie Buffs fail on the site. She said that it is hard on a neighborhood when businesses fail because it makes the neighborhood look "run down". Ms. Gardner said that the community council gave the RDA the flexibility that it needed and voted to demolish the houses. She said that the community is anxious to have a business succeed. Ms. Gardner talked more about working with the RDA. In conclusion, she said that she looked to the expertise of the members of the Commission and save the houses that can be saved.
• Mr. Young said that copies of a written submission by Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested person, was given to each member of the Commission, and asked that the letter would be entered into the records. A copy was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was a lengthy discussion as the Commission evaluated the following staff's findings of fact:
248 West 500 North
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: While the house has been altered from its original appearance, it retains a high degree of physical integrity. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: In terms of a historic streetscape, this building acts as the western edge for 500 North. The streetscape would be negatively affected within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Although the historic integrity of the Capitol Hill district weakens along 300 West, this building is the last structure in a row of residential buildings that still exhibit historic integrity. The demolition of this building would adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is in proximity to several other historic homes, and its removal would weaken the architectural unity that currently exists on this block frontage. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The zoning of this site, SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, is compatible for the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The only plans that have been discussed between the applicant and the staff concern the landscaping that would be required of any owner of a vacant site. Should this building be demolished, the developer, not the RDA (Redevelopment Agency), would be responsible for the plans submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The property will not be sold until the RDA Board of Directors approves plans submitted by the selected developer. The applicant does not meet this standard, as no plans have been submitted.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The building appears to be in repair and is in use as a nine-unit apartment building. Neither the former nor the current owners appear to have willfully neglected the building. The site has not suffered from willful neglect. The applicant meets this standard.
515 North Arctic Court (also known as 242 West 500 North)
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Summary of Staff's discussion and findings of fact: When comparing the current appearance of this building with its appearance in the late 1930's tax photograph, it is evident that many of the character-defining features of this building remain intact. The application of vertical wood siding and vertically-oriented windows, and the removal of the original porch columns on the one-story house are the only substantial alterations to the structure. These alterations could easily be reversed. The physical integrity of this site is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: This structure is particularly significant under this criteria, because it is located on the corner of 500 North and Arctic Court, and visually provides an entrance to this inner block development. The removal of this structure within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay zone would be negatively affected. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Summary of Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The demolition of this building would adversely affect the Historic Preservation Overlay District. It is in proximity to several other historic homes, and its removal would weaken the architectural unity that currently exists on this block frontage. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The zoning of this site, SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, is compatible for the reuse of the structure as a residence. The Planning Division anticipates that the City would support rezoning in the future, as outlined in the Capitol Hill Master Plan, which would allow commercial uses in this structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The only plans that have been discussed between the applicant and the staff concern the landscaping that would be required of any owner of a vacant site. Should this building be demolished, the developer, not the RDA, would be responsible for the plans submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The property will not be sold until the RDA Board of Directors approves plans submitted by the selected developer. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The site appears to be in good repair. It is currently vacant, and was vacant when the RDA purchased it in February 1998. Neither the former nor the current owners appear to have willfully neglected the building. The applicant meets this standard.
519 North Arctic Court
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: As seen in last 1930's county tax photograph, it was originally covered with lap or novelty siding, but is now sided with asbestos shingles. With this exception, the house maintains its original massing, fenestration, form, character-defining details, such as the Tuscan porch columns. The house retains much of its earlier, if not original, appearance. The physical integrity of the site is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The 1950 Sanborn maps show eight houses on this block. Four homes, including No. 519, remain, and thus this house, along with No. 521, comprise a large portion of what is left on this small street. It could be argued that with only half of the early homes extant on Arctic Court, enough has been lost that a sense of the historic streetscape no longer exists. However, the scale of Arctic Court is such that the remaining structures, as a whole, continue to convey the type of architecture and the pattern of development that these inner-block streets represent. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be negatively affected if this house is demolished. The staff finds that the applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: As discussed above, there are still contributing structures on Arctic court. Staff finds that the nearby non contributing structures do not negate the historic appearance of Arctic Court. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The base zoning of this site is SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District. It is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The only plans that have been discussed between the applicant and the staff concern the landscaping that would be required of any owner of a vacant site. Should this building be demolished, the developer, not the RDA, would be responsible for the plans submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The property will not be sold until the RDA Board of Directors approves plans submitted by the selected developer. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Summary of Staff's discussion and findings of fact: This building is currently used as storage for the previous owner. If does not appear to be in disrepair. Neither the former owner nor the RDA appears to have willfully neglected the building. The applicant meets this standard.
521 North Arctic Court
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: It currently has a startling appearance owing to the painted design on the masonry. Other than this, the house looks very similar to that in the tax photograph. The massing, roofline, porch design and columns, and details of the house remain the same. The physical integrity of the site is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The relationship of this house to the streetscape of Arctic Court is described at greater length under 519 Arctic Court. The streetscape would be negatively affected if this house was demolished, and thus the applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Again, as described under 519 Arctic Court, there are only two non-contributing buildings in close proximity to Arctic Court. The remaining homes and configuration of Arctic Court still convey its historic development. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The base zoning of this site, SR- 1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The only plans that have been discussed between the applicant and the staff concern the landscaping that would be required of any owner of a vacant site. Should this building be demolished, the developer, not the RDA, would be responsible for the plans submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The property will not be sold until the RDA Board of
Directors approves plans submitted by the selected developer. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Summary of Staffs discussion and findings of fact: This building is currently used as storage for the previous owner. It does not appear to be in disrepair. Neither the former owner nor the RDA appears to have willfully neglected the building. The applicant meets this standard.
548 North 300 West
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: No official site/survey form exists for this property, and a tax photograph could not be located. The building still retains much of its late-nineteenth century appearance, but the most visible historic elements are confined to the massing, and roof configuration. Staff considers this structure to be contributing, but borderline. Staff admits that its contribution to the historic district is minimal. Staff finds that the physical integrity is still evident, and that the applicant fails to meet this standards.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: Although contributing structures can be found along the east side of 300 West, this particular block frontage (between 500 and 600 North) has little remaining in terms of contributing structures. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected. Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Summary of Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The only contributing structure on this block frontage is next door to the north (also part of this application). From the vantage point of 300 West, these buildings do not have a strong, if any, visual relationship with the historic structures that exist on this block to the east. Staff finds that the demolition of this structure would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures, and finds that the applicant meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The zoning for this parcel is CS Community Shopping. This zone does not allow residential units on the ground floor except where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage. Given the fact, however, that the purpose of the CS Zone is to allow for a shopping center at a community-level scale; this building would not lend itself well to a use envisioned for this zone. The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the
structure. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The only plans that have been discussed between the applicant and the staff concern the landscaping that would be required of any owner of a vacant site. Should this building be demolished, the developer, not the RDA, would be responsible for the plans submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The property will not be sold until the RDA Board of Directors approves plans submitted by the selected developer. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The RDA purchased this property in 1998. Mr. Walz described its condition, at that time, as "livable, but not great". He stated that it did not appear that the former owners had willfully neglected the property. The property is currently vacant, and does not appear to be in disrepair. The site has not suffered from willful neglect, and the applicant meets this standard.
554-556 North 300 West
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in Subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Staff finds that discerning the integrity of this structure is more difficult than that of the structure at 548 North 300 West. Because of the massing and the fenestration, however, staff still considers this building to be contributing. Although the physical integrity of the site is minimal at best, staff finds that the duplex still "reads" as an historic structure, and finds that the applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Although contributing structures can be found along the east side of 300 West, this particular block frontage (between 500 and 600 North) has little remaining in terms of contributing structures.
The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not negatively affected. Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The only contributing structure on this block frontage is next door to the south (also part of this application). Staff finds that the demolition of this structure would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures, and finds that the applicant meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The zoning for this parcel is CS Community Shopping. This zone does not allow residential units on the ground floor except where the unit is not located adjacent to the street frontage. Given the fact, however, that the purpose of the CS Zone is to allow for a shopping center at a community-level scale; this building would not lend itself well to a use envisioned for this zone. The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The only plans that have been discussed between the applicant and the staff concern the landscaping that would be required of any owner of a vacant site. Should this building be demolished, the developer, not the RDA, would be responsible for the plans submitted to the Historic Landmark Commission. The property will not be sold until the RDA Board of Directors approves plans submitted by the selected developer. Applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs;
iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Summary of Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The RDA purchased this property in 1998. Mr. Walz described its condition at that time as "livable, but not great". He stated that it did not appear that the former owners had willfully neglected the property. The property is currently vacant, and does not appear to be in disrepair. The site has not suffered from willful neglect, and the applicant meets this standard.
A lengthy discussion took place, with several members of the Commission expressing his or her concerns about the demolition of the structures and the new development that could be proposed for the site. The following is a summation of the discussion:
• Any commercial development should face towards 300 West and keep Arctic Court and 500 North residential to soften the commercial edge;
• If the structures on Arctic Court are demolished, the replacement should be residential the same level as what is there now, similar massing or scale;
• The new construction should have open areas between buildings, such as stairways;
• Developers become more sensitive when they are forced to deal with historic structures on a site;
• Allow RDA the option to subdivide the parcels and market them individually;
• The buildings on 500 North should be parceled off together;
• The commercial development should have front and back entrances in the buildings and be pedestrian oriented towards the street;
Ms. Mitchell inquired if the Commission should make findings on each individual property in the application. Mr. Young said that there had been a significant amount of work done already, so rather than trying to "re-dissect" all that work, Mr. Young suggested reinvestigating Staff's recommendations.
The discussion turned to the staff’s recommendation and the wording for the motion. First motion for the structures at 248 West 500 North. and 515, 519, and 521 North Arctic Court.
Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 001-00 to deny demolition on the structures at
248 West 500 North, 515 North Arctic Court, 519 North Arctic Court, and 521 North Arctic Court (515 North Arctic Court was withdrawn from the application), because they did not meet the criteria of three out of the seven standards, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, but defer the decision on demolition for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance; and that the applicant be allowed to proceed with the marketing the two properties at 548 North 300 West and 554-556 North 300 West, given a conditional approval on demolition.
Mr. Wright called for a point of order. He stated that the criteria in the ordinance needed to be modified to make that motion. There was some further discussion regarding the wording of the motion. The motion was amended.
First amended motion for the structures at 248 West 500 North. and 515, 519, and 521North Arctic Court.
Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 001-00 to deny demolition on the structures at
248 West 500 North, 515 North Arctic Court, 519 North Arctic Court, and 521 North Arctic Court (515 North Arctic Court was withdrawn from the application), because they did not meet the criteria of the seven standards, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, and to defer a decision for up to one year for the two properties at 548 North 300 West and 554- 556 North 300 West, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
There was further discussion and the motion was amended for the second time. Second amended motion for the structures at 248 West 500 North, and 515. 519, and 521 North Arctic Court.
Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 001-00 to deny demolition on the structures at
248 West 500 North, 515 North Arctic Court, 519 North Arctic Court, and 521 North Arctic Court (515 North Arctic Court was withdrawn from the application), because they did not meet the criteria of three out of the seven standards, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. It was seconded by Mr. Wilson.
The discussion continued. Mr. Simonsen said that denying the demolitions on Arctic Court would eliminate any developer from having the potential of doing some residential development that may actually strengthen Arctic Court as a residential street.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that if the homes are demolished on Arctic Court, the developer should not be given restrictive guidelines for the residential development. She said that those historic buildings have value, but modern architecture could be created to fit into the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Simonsen also said that the character of the street has already been changed because of "insensitive" development. Mr. Owen said that he agreed that the predominant character of Arctic Court were the carports for the new apartment building built to the east.
Ms. Miller said that the problem is that the findings are very clear that the physical integrity of the site is evident, that removing the house off the streets affects the historical context of the neighborhood.
Ms. Giraud said that the Commission could "re-visit" staff's findings. Mr. Wright talked about how that could be done by two criteria being placed in the deferred category. He added that if the properties are not rezoned, then this discussion is "moot". Mr. Wright said that the streetscape has already been compromised.
Ms. Rowland withdrew her motion and made the following new motion:
New motion for the structures at 248 West 500 North and 515 North Arctic Court: Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 001-00 to support staff's findings of fact and deny demolition on the structures at 248 West 500 North and 515 North Arctic Court (also known as 242 West 500 North), because six of the standards in the criteria were not met, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. It was seconded by Mr. Wilson. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed. [Please note that the Redevelopment Agency withdrew the structure at 515 North Arctic Court (also known as 242 West 500 North) from the application.
After a short discussion another motion was made.
Motion on the structures at 519 and 521 North Arctic Court:
Mr. Simonsen further moved for Case No. 001-00 to modify the following criteria in the standards found in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance: 519 North Arctic Court, band c; and 521 North Arctic Court, band c, which would defer a decision for up to one year for the for the applicant to evaluate the demotion. During which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. It was seconded by Mr. Owen. Mr. Owen and Mr. Simonsen voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were opposed. Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion failed.
Mr. Owen said that he thought that was a good motion because it still gave the applicant a year. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that if the demolition was denied, the applicant would pursue economic hardship, then it would be "out of our hands". There was some further discussion relating to economic hardship and other relative issues.
Ms. Giraud said that one thing to consider is that part of the historic character of any inner block court is that it is "carving out" of the larger block. She said that is part of the "charm" and "character'' of the street.
Mr. Parvaz suggested that the street, itself, was part of the landmark, and not just the buildings. He said that he would not like the buildings demolished. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that Arctic Court had already lost part of its character because some of the buildings have been demolished.
There was much discussion regarding the potential zoning change to the properties and how the change would affect the historic properties. It was a consensus of the Commission to reopen the meeting to public comment and allow the applicant to respond to some of the points of discussion.
Mr. Walz said the following: "If I brought in a plan that showed what we would build on this site, would that change any of these decisions tonight? Would that give anyone an affirmative, 'yes' you can demolish any of these structures? If the battle I need to fight is back with my Board of Directors, I would like to know that."
Ms. Rowland said that she could not foresee a developer proposing something very nice for the area that would convince her that the "trade-off' for the two houses on Arctic Court.
Mr. Simonsen said that a developer was always better off having a plan and the plan may convince someone to "come over on your side that to keep those structures would be beneficial to the development". Mr. Simonsen said, "I would strongly recommend that Mr. Walz go to the Board of Directors and say we need to find a way to get a plan in front of these people so that we can talk, because they may be thinking of the worst scenario and the Board may be thinking the best scenario" Mr. Simonsen said that any new development should meet the common goals and objectives of both the community and the developer in formulating a plan.
Mr. Walz said that he has numerous sketches for development on the site. He said that the money could be spent to design a project on the site but there would be no way of guaranteeing proposal would be built on the site.
Mr. Walz urged the Commission to change the "borderline" criteria to allow more flexibility in the development. The discussion continued.
Mr. Walz said, "The only thing I would say in closing is that I completely understand with that line of reasoning. My thinking is that I have looked at this site from numerous angles, not just the historic element, I have that luxury to know that we have done the market study, we have talked to developers, we have done all that. I look at it that if you save the two structures on 500 North and save the two structures on Arctic Court, you have nothing more than what you already have there. You basically throw out the master plan and said that you are not giving this development any more frontage than what every other commercial designation along 300 West has. If that is basically what you are telling me, then there is no reason to be arguing this point because if you are not going to allow for anything to go to Arctic Court, you have basically limited this development so much that you are just going to get a strip mall because you have not allowed for any more depth than what is already there. Given where the homes sit and given the grade change what you see is what you get right now, and you will have a strip mall"
Mr. Littig said that the strip mall is still in the historic district. The discussion continued regarding Staff's findings and the criteria that had a potential of being changed. Mr. Young reclosed the meeting again to public comment.
Motion on criteria {1){b) for the structures at 519 and 521 North Arctic Court: Mr. Simonsen moved that the Commission reconsidered the staff's findings of fact for both 519 and 521 North Arctic Court for criteria (1)(b) found in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, "The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected". Based on the fact that the streetscape had already been altered through past insensitivity and to consider demolition would not adversely affect the streetscape. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. Parvaz were opposed. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Motion on criteria (1)(c) for the structures at 519 and 521 North Arctic Court: Mr. Simonsen moved that the Commission reconsidered the staff's findings of fact for both 519 and 521 North Arctic Court for criteria (1)(c) found in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, "The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures." Given that these structures are relatively isolated and that they are surrounded by commercial to the west, and an apartment complex to the north and northeast. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. Parvaz were opposed. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Final motion for the structures at 519 and 521 North Arctic Court:
Mr. Simonsen further moved for Case No. 001-00 for 519 North Arctic Court and
521 North Arctic Court, that the Historic Landmark Commission determined that three of the standards found in the criteria in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance were met, which defers a decision for up to one year. During which time, the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. It was seconded by Mr. Owen. Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz were opposed. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Motion on the structures at 548 and 554-556 North 300 West:
Mr. Simonsen further moved for Case No. 001-00 to support staff's findings of fact for the structures at 548 North 300 West and 554-556 North 300 West that we allow a year for evaluation based on the findings of the staff. It was seconded by Ms. Miller.
There was further discussion on the wording of the motion.
Amended final motion on the structures at 548 and 554-556 North 300 West:
Mr. Simonsen further moved for Case No. 001-00 to support staff's findings of fact for the structures at 548 North 300 West and 554-556 North 300 West because only three to five standards found in the criteria in subsection 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance were met, which defers a decision for up to one year. During which time, the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The second still stood by Ms. Miller. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Ms Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
There was some discussion with the applicant. Ms. Giraud suggested that the applicant look at the numbers for both preserving and/or demolishing the structures, for residential and/or commercial uses, then bring the information back to the Historic Landmark Commission for review.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Giraud referred to the letter from the City of Logan, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that the staff and members of the Historic Landmark Commission have been invited by the City of Logan to visit the local preservation commission and spend a day with them looking at preservation in Logan. This will be on January 19, 2000, which was the day that was scheduled for the Citizens' Award Ceremony. After some discussion it was a consensus of the Commission members that the Citizens' Award Ceremony would be postponed until February 16, 2000.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Parvaz so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:30P.M.