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 Pete Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Soren Simonsen, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Oktai Parvaz and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney was also present.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Comrr1ission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Simonsen invited Mr. Zunguze to present his report. Mr. Zunguze announced that effective next month the Planning Commission would be having additional meetings to the regular Planning Commission meetings to discuss long-range planning issues. He said that he would like to use that opportunity to interact with the Historic Landmark Commission, so that long-range planning issues, as well as preservation issues could be incorporated into those meetings. Mr. Zunguze stated that the first meeting of the Planning Commission to discuss these issues would be August 21, 2003. He said that the Planning Staff is working on how the agenda for the additional meetings will be structured. Mr. Zunguze said that the Historic Landmark Commission may or may not be included in the first meeting. He noted that the meeting would be noticed, and open to the public. Mr. Simonsen inquired if the meetings would be open to all members of the Historic Landmark Commission and Mr. Zunguze said that was correct.
Mr. Simonsen opened the meeting to questions from the Commissioners. Since there were none, Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Zunguze for his report and said he looked forward to interacting with the Planning Commission on matters pertaining to preservation. He added that this would be a great opportunity for everyone concerned.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Giraud stated that last year two applicants appeared at one of Historic Landmark Commission's meetings who are raising funds to purchase the Alan Houser sculptures that were placed on the grounds of the City and County Building (Washington Square) prior to the Olympics. She pointed out that there have been questions by the Commission as well as Staff about the policy for placing art or other elements on the grounds of Washington Square. Ms. Giraud said that there is a City and County Building Conservancy Board, which is separate from the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that the Board reviews all interior and exterior work affecting the City and County Building and Washington Square. Ms. Giraud added that the Board acts in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, so its status within the City's framework is different than the Historic Landmark Commission’s. Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Staff asked the City to provide a policy for Washington Square, but that request died. However, she stated, that the Board has been requested to temporarily place a bust of Simon Bolivar, leader of revolutions against Spanish Colonial rule in South America and the founding father of Bolivia, on the Washington Square grounds. Ms. Giraud said that this raised some questions with the Conservancy Board. Ms. Giraud said that the Board has now realized the need to devise some guidelines for the building and grounds. Ms. Giraud indicated that she would be meeting with Mr. Steve Oliver, Facilities Manager, and Mr. Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, the next day to discuss these issues and ways to better coordinate efforts. Ms. Giraud pointed out that that Ms. Mary Lou Gotchall, chair of the Conservancy Board, said she might be able to attend this meeting to discuss these matters.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Chair would be glad to discuss these matters with Ms. Gotchall at the end of the public hearing if she arrives sometime during the meeting.
As there were no other public comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded into the public hearing portion of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2003 meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown abstained. Mr. Parvaz and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 016-03. at 748-752 North 300 West. the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. requesting to relocate the duplex at this address to 261 W. Reed Avenue. and review a conceptual site plan of a proposed mixed-use building to be constructed on this property and the adjacent parcel at 754 North 300 West. The properties are located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Christensen stated that he might find it necessary to recuse himself from this discussion. He said that when he received the June 27, 2003 notice of determination of non-contributing status for the demolition of properties located at 754 North 300 West and 261 W. Reed Avenue, he knew those properties would have an effect on the case to be reviewed at the public hearing at this meeting. Mr. Christensen noted that the notice asked for public comments. He said that in response to that notice, he sent some historical background and other information pertaining to one of the properties to people he knew who would be interested, Mr. Christensen said as a result letters were e-mailed to Staff questioning the non-contributing status. He said he thought that would put him in a position of advocacy on that basis. Mr. Simonsen asked if it would compromise his objectivity.
Mr. Ashdown asked that the information be submitted as part of this case. Mr. Simonsen said that the matter would not be under review by the Historic Landmark Commission at this meeting. However, he said he would entertain any questions members of the Commission might have.
Since Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, was in attendance, Mr. Simonsen asked him if he would come forward and respond to this concern. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission would be reviewing a case that was submitted by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency and Mr. Christensen has a question about the noncontributing status of the property and his involvement in responding to it and how that might interfere with his objective evaluation of the case. Mr. Christensen said that he did not want to be in the position of advocacy in this case but admitted that he had a strong opinion regarding one of the properties and its contributing status.
Mr. Pace said there were two issues: to relocate a contributing building to an adjoining site; and the demolition requests of two non-contributing buildings. He said that if a vote could be taken on a single issue and completely separated from each other, Mr. Christensen could do so. However, he said that if the one building could not be relocated unless demolition occurs on the other two properties, then they are packaged together, and Mr. Christensen's vote would be in question.
Ms. Rowland said because Mr. Christensen's advocacy and strong feelings about a certain property is something from which he should recuse himself, worried her because all the Commissioners have strong feelings about historic properties and would always have a conflict, but not from personal gain.
Ms. Giraud said that if the requests are packaged together and Commissioners are protesting the contributing or non-contributing status of a building, then those Commissioners put themselves in the role of a contestant and a party to the action. Ms. Rowland questioned if writing a letter is putting oneself in the role of the contestant.
Mr. Pace said that he appreciated the Commission's sensitivity to this matter and added, "You would not be on this board if you did not feel strongly amount preservation". Mr. Pace pointed out if Mr. Christensen has become involved to the point that he has publicly expressed his opinions about what ought to be the results of the status, it would make it difficult for him to appear unbiased if that case comes before the Commission. Mr. Pace asked if the duplex could be moved to its proposed site without affecting the contested building. Ms. Giraud said that question would have to be answered by the applicants. Mr. Pace said that perhaps a judgment should be reserved at this time.
Mr. Knight said that all three property sites were linked together in one application and it was his understanding that the relocation would not occur unless the Smoke Shop building on the corner, was demolished. Mr. Pace said that it sounded like the cases were packaged together with that input from Mr. Knight. He indicated that the Redevelopment Agency apparently wants an approval of all of it or they would not do any of it. Mr. Pace added, "If that is the case, then it would be one inseparable package."
There was some question about the quorum of members if Mr. Christensen left the meeting. Mr. Simonsen assured the Commission that a quorum of members would remain.
Mr. Christensen believed he should recuse himself and left the room for the remainder of the meeting.
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 of the project: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is requesting that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the relocation of the existing duplex at 748-750 N. 300 West to a site around the corner, at 261 W. Reed Avenue. The RDA further proposes to combine the duplex property with the existing lot at 752 N. 300 West and construct a new mixed-use building on the combined parcel. The properties are located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
The two 300 West properties are zoned MU- Mixed Use Zoning District, the purpose of which "is to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses. The district is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing mixed use areas while preserving the attractiveness of the area for residential use. The district is intended to provide a higher level of control over non-residential uses to ensure that the use and enjoyment of residential properties is not substantially diminished by non-residential redevelopment."
The Reed Avenue property is zoned SR-1- Special Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to "maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards lot sizes and bulk characteristics."
This application involves three buildings, all located on contiguous properties at the southeast corner of Reed Avenue and 300 West. The building located at 748-752 N. 300 West hereafter will be referred to as the "Duplex", which is a single story, brick, hipped roofed "double house." According to the site form completed as part of the Capitol Hill survey in 1980, members of the Morrison family, who retained ownership for many years after it was built, constructed the Victorian Eclectic style building between 1899 and 1910. The building currently is a residential rental. The building has been well maintained and retains its historic details and features.
The second building, hereafter referred to as the "Smoke Shop", is located on the corner of Reed Avenue and 300 West at 754 North 300 West. The one-and-one-half (1-1/2) story, hall-parlor with rear ell plan house has adobe masonry under a layer of cementitious stucco. John W. Kaulainamoku (or Kauleinamoku), built the ma.in portion of the house between 1879 and 1884. Mr. Kaulainamoku was one of about 75 Hawaiians who immigrated to Utah in the 1870s and 1880s. Many people from the Hawaiian Islands during this period settled around the Warm Springs area. At least four other houses in this neighborhood were owned by people from the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. Kaulainamoku was a laborer for the LOS Church and worked on the original ZCMI store and the Salt Lake Temple. He was also apparently prominent among the Hawaiians in Utah, and was the first ethnic Hawaiian to serve a mission for the LDS Church. He sold the house in 1889, when he moved to Losepa, a colony of Hawaiians established in Skull Valley. His wife, Kapukini, also apparently lived with him in the house and moved with him to Losepa. The house passed through a succession of owners until finally being purchased by Thomas H. Morrison in 1906. In 1923 the Morrison Family sold the house to Dora Steel. This building has been heavily altered from its original appearance, with a second building constructed in front of the house in the 1930s. The second building was originally brick, and was used as a residential rental. Later, the two buildings were connected with a small addition between the two buildings. The original front yard was also covered with a roofed structure with open sides. The entire yard was then fenced with six-foot chain link fencing. At some point, a portion of the building was converted into commercial space and until recently housed the "Up in Smoke" tobacco and novelty shop. The main block of the building houses three apartments.
The Morrison family, involved to a lesser degree with the other two buildings, operated the Morrison Meat Pies Factory at 261 W. Reed Avenue, hereafter referred to as the "Factory". Thomas H. Morrison Jr. constructed the building in 1907. The Factory is a rectangular brick building with a hipped roof. The interior remains open, although it has been substantially modernized to meet modern standards. The exterior has been greatly impacted on the other two sides of the building by the installation of vinyl siding, new windows, and an incompatible concrete block addition on the west end of the building. Two brick walls and original windows remain intact on the rear elevations of the building. The building housed the Morrison Meat Pie Factory until recently, when the company relocated its operations to West Valley City. The Factory had been considered a non conforming use in that area for many years, but had the right to remain in operation until it closed or the building was no longer used. When the company relocated, the non conforming status was lost. The property could then be used only for an allowed use in this zone.
The owners of the Factory property recently approached the RDA with a proposal to sell the parcel for redevelopment. The RDA is also exploring the possibility of purchasing the two adjoining parcels along 300 West and marketing the property in order to develop a mixed-use building on the 300 West parcel.
The Planning Staff determined that major, character-defining features have been removed or altered from the Smoke Shop and the Factory so that the buildings no longer possess enough physical integrity to be considered contributing buildings in the historic district. These buildings were also identified in an historic resource reconnaissance-level survey of West Capitol Hill completed in 2001 as non-contributing structures because of substantial alterations to their historical physical appearance.
On June 27, 2003, a notice of demolition was sent to the members of the Historic
Landmark Commission, surrounding property owners within 85 feet, the community council chairs, and the list of "interested parties" maintained by the secretary of the Commission. After a fourteen (14)-day waiting period, the Planning Director may issue a demolition permit or refer the matter for further review by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Three letters protesting the Planning Staffs determination of non-contributing status for the Smoke Shop were received by the date of the staff report. In response to the concerns raised in these letters, the Planning Director has elected to refer the case to the full
Historic Landmark Commission for a determination of whether the Smoke Shop should be considered a contributing on noncontributing structure. This question is not part of the case being considered by the Commission at this time, and may be considered at the Commission's August 6, 2003 meeting.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should consider the standards in Section 21A.34.020.34.020(1)(1-6) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for the relocation of the Duplex, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Relocation of Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following standards:
1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure.
Staffs discussion: The RDA's initial intent was to apply for demolition of the Duplex along with the other two buildings in the application. After discussions with Planning Staff and the RDA Board (the City Council), the RDA has chosen to pursue relocation of this building instead. This will allow the 300 West site to be redeveloped in a manner that meets the intent of the mixed use zoning, and of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan, while still preserving the contributing structure very close to its original site. Because the duplex is a contributing structure, moving it will also avoid a potentially lengthy and divisive demolition review process.
The RDA has stated that it is not interested in developing the properties as individual parcels. In addition, there is an existing parking access easement across the Factory lot for the Duplex. If the Duplex were to remain in its current site, this easement would have to remain, in order to provide access to the rear yard parking area. This would severely hamper the potential to construct a new house on the Factory site. For these reasons, if the relocation were not to be approved, it is reasonable to assume that the RDA would pursue demolition of the Duplex.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district.
Staff's discussion: Any building that is moved loses a certain portion of its integrity because it is no longer in its historic location. On a larger scale, typically the integrity of a district can be affected by the loss of one of its buildings, as much as it is diminished by demolition. In this case, there is no loss to the district because the Duplex would be moved to a nearby location. The new site is located on the same block in the district. Both the original site on 300 West and the new site on Reed Avenue are surrounded largely by small scale, one and two-story residential and commercial structures, with the exception of a three-story apartment building near both sites at 772 N. 300 West. Many contributing structures remain on both streetscapes. Although the orientation of the building would change and Reed Avenue is not a major arterial street, the setting and general environment is comparable to the building's historic location. The physical characteristics of the two lots are similar, allowing the building to be located above street level. Details regarding the landscaping of the site have not been completed, but Staff expects that a similar front retaining wall and steps would be constructed on the new lot. The building would still be located in the Reed Avenue neighborhood, and would fit well into the streetscape of workers' cottages.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The Duplex is considered a contributing structure in the Capitol Hill Historic District, which is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The historical overview prepared for the district when it was listed on the City Register notes that it is significant under (i), (iii) and (iv) of this standard as "the oldest surviving residential area in Salt Lake City. Its streets and houses document over 130 years of residential construction and neighborhood development. The district preserves a representative cross section of the city's and state's architectural and historical resources, ranging from the high style mansions of Arsenal Hill to the tightly packed workman's cottages of Reed Avenue. The buildings and patterns of neighborhood life on the Hill are representative of other early neighborhoods of the city now broken or vanished."
Because the Duplex would be relocated to a nearby site, its significance as one of the typical "workman's cottages" in this neighborhood of Capitol Hill would not be drastically compromised.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
4 The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Relocating the Duplex will probably have no detrimental effect on its structural soundness, if it is moved according to accepted building practices. The Staff will work with the Building Services Division to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect the structural soundness of the building when it is moved.
5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The Historic Landmark Commission may make this a condition of approval of this application.
6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the City. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount determined by the Planning Director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the Historic Landmark Commission and restore the grade and landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The Historic Landmark Commission may make this a condition of approval of this application.
Mr. Knight pointed out the following: In consideration of the new construction plans submitted by the RDA presupposes the demolition of the Smoke Shop building at 754 N. 300 West. Since the status of this building remains in question, the Historic Landmark Commission may wish to defer its discussion of the new construction until the contributing status of the Smoke Shop is resolved.
The RDA has submitted two conceptual site plans with different parking layouts for this site, along with two different renderings of early schemes for the building. The size and scale of the proposed building has been substantially modified, but Staff offered the renderings to give the Commission a sense of materials, fenestration, and architectural details.
As currently proposed the building would be a two-story structure of approximately 6,000 square feet (3,000 square feet first story retail and 3,000 square feet second story residential). The building would be located at the northeast corner of the lot. Stucco would be the primary material. The building would have a flat roof. The materials for windows, storefront, doors, and architectural details have not been determined at this time.
There does not appear to be any significant zoning issues with either site plan option submitted by the RDA.
Mr. Knight said that the Historic Landmark Commission should consider the construction of the new mixed-use building on the site in terms of the standards in Section 21A.34.020(H)(1-4) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The buildings on the surrounding streetscape of this site primarily consist of smaller scaled historic residential buildings and neighborhood scale commercial structures. Overall, this building resembles typical historic examples of small commercial buildings with apartments above the main floor. Examples of this building type were commonly seen in residential neighborhoods throughout the city before the 1950s. Orientation of the proposed building varies slightly in each of the two options proposed by the RDA, but this does not appear to make a significant difference with respect to this standard.
As a conceptual design, the proposed building respects this streetscape in terms of scale, roof shape, proportion of principal facades, height and width.
Staffs finding of fact: Insofar as can be determined at this time, the application complies with this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding
structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The conceptual elevation shows corr1mercial storefronts on the ground floor of the mixed-use building, and smaller, residential proportioned openings on the upper stories. Entries for the retail storefronts would be at the corner of 300 West and Reed Avenue, with entry to the upper-story residential from the adjacent parking lot. In general, the design is very similar to the "corner grocery stores" from the historic period.
The proposed materials are similar to those used historically. The Historic Landmark Commission has commonly approved stucco for new construction, although brick was traditionally used for commercial structures. Further details regarding other building materials should be supplied when the final proposal is submitted for review.
Staff's finding of fact: Insofar as can be determined at this time, the application complies with this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity
along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to
which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.
Staff's discussion: Surrounding structures are regularly spaced along the street. The regular spacing and narrow space between buildings presents walls of continuity along both 300 West and Reed Avenue. Most structures are one and two-story, rectangular buildings, with the narrow end of the building oriented toward the street. Repair of sidewalks, retaining walls, landscaping and park strips would probably be required by the City as part of a final development plan; these would be commensurate with the existing improvements along 300 West and Reed Avenue. The RDA is considering the installation of decorative, pedestrian-scaled street lighting in the Capitol Hill Redevelopment area as part of another project. The two site plan options supplied by the RDA differ in terms of this standard. Option No. 1 locates most of the parking to the south end of the site, with primary access off of 300 West. A second driveway to access a detached garage for use by the residential units would come off of Reed Avenue. The long side of the building would be on Reed Avenue. The location of the parking along 300 West respects the residential character of the Reed Avenue, but does not reinforce the street wall the City seeks to create along 300 West. This option does not include a ten-foot landscaped buffer between this property and the adjacent, residentially zoned lot to the east. This buffer is required by ordinance, and may require changes to the final parking layout if this option is pursued.
Option No. 2 has the long side of the building along 300 West. Parking is moved to the east side of the lot, with primary access off of Reed Avenue. Secondary access to the parking is maintained through a driveway from 300 West. Drive-through facilities are permitted in the MU zone, when located on arterial streets such as 300 West. A ten-foot landscape setback is included on the east side of the lot on this option. Staff has concerns about the location of the parking lot and its potential effect of the residential properties on Reed Avenue. Traffic in and out of the lot would primarily use Reed Avenue for access. In this case, it may be preferable to locate the parking along 300 West, as with Option No. 1, in order to prevent negative impacts on the Reed Avenue streetscape.
Staff's finding of fact: Insofar as can be determined at this time, both options comply with this standard; Option No. 1 is preferable in order to minimize potential impacts to the Reed Avenue neighborhood.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staffs discussion: The RDA will be required to complete a "minor subdivision" process with the City. The three existing lots would be combined, the existing easement across the Factory property would be extinguished, and two new lots would be created. The new lots created would be similar in size, shape, and orientation to other lots in the immediate area.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed subdivision will be compatible with the character of the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation for the relocation of the duplex: "Staff recommends approval of the relocation of the duplex at 748-752 North 300 West to 261 W. Reed Avenue, with the following conditions: 1) A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored; 2) A ·financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the city. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the city attorney, in an amount determined by the planning director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the historic landmark commission and restore the grade and landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs; and 3) Final approval of the site plan for the new site shall be delegated to Planning Staff."
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation for the development: "Staff recommends conceptual approval of the new construction on the parcels at 748-752 North 300 West and 754 North 300 West, with the following conditions: 1) This approval is for conceptual design only. The selected developer for this property shall return to the Historic Landmark Commission for final approval showing additional details as outlined in the Staff’s analysis and requested by the Commission; and 2) Primary access to the parking lot shall be from 300 West in order to minimize negative impacts to the adjacent residential properties along Reed Avenue.”
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the change from a three-story building to a two-story building was proposed by Staff or the applicant. Mr. Knight suggested asking the applicants because the Planning Staff had not made the change. He indicated that the applicants attended a meeting of the Capitol Hill Community Council, and there was some concern about the height and the relationship to other buildings.
Mr. Ashdown mentioned that Staff recommended the Historic Landmark Commission to approve a conceptual design with the preference of which design? Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the Staff indicated Option No. 1. Mr. Knight said that from the urban design standpoint and the residential neighborhood from the negative aspects of having the primary parking access off Reed Avenue, Staff would recommend moving the main parking entry off of Reed Avenue. He added that it would depend on the final design.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any issues with the State highway in regard to access off 300 West. Mr. Knight said that an approval for a curb cut from UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation) would be necessary.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Danny Walz, Senior Project Manager, and Mr. Bill Lassiter, Project Coordinator, with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, were present. Mr. Walz concurred with Mr. Knight's presentation.
Mr. Walz offered the following background information: The Redevelopment Agency was first approached by the Jones family, the owners of the Dan Morrison Meat Pie property when they relocated the business and became interested in selling this property. The RDA was interested in the property to eliminate the non-conforming commercial use from a residential area. It was RDA’s original intention of replacing the building with a single family home with the goal of restoring the street to primary residential. The easement across the property, the size of the lot, and the required setbacks became issues.
The RDA Board of Directors approved the acquisition, due to the issues, and directed the RDA to start looking at possibly acquiring the other properties on 300 West, the Smoke Shop and the Duplex, to improve the development opportunity for the entire parcel.
So as Mr. Knight indicated, the RDA's original intention was to demolish the properties and build the conceptual sketch that accompanied the staff report, which was the three-story building. The RDA continued to work with the architect, and developed the strategy that was circulated at this meeting, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. By owning all the parcels, lot lines could be adjusted through the subdivision process. Blighted properties would be addressed and the housing stock would improve in the neighborhood.
Mr. Walz reported that the RDA has not purchased the properties. He added that the Board of Directors wanted to find a resolution to the problems and a proposal that would work for everyone involved, before acquisition. Mr. Walz reminded the Commission that the proposal was purely conceptual at this point, which is meant to convey what the RDA would like to do with the properties in terms of size, scale, and density. He indicated that when a developer is selected the Historic Landmark Commission would ultimately have the final approval of the development plan.
Mr. Walz said that when RDA discovered the easement and the ten-foot set back off 300 West, the concept of the proposed building had to be scaled down to two stories due to the more limited parking.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the current zoning and asked if the zoning would change. Mr. Walz said that the zoning would stay and be adjusted at the lot lines. Ms. Mickelsen said if the parcels were rezoned to residential, would that alter the parking requirements. Mr. Lassiter said that would depend on the size of the building. He said in a Mixed Use (MU) zone, it is one parking stall per bedroom in the Capitol Hill area. Ms. Mickelsen commented that there would be a problem if the properties were zoned commercial. Mr. Walz said that would be correct.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the property was being sold at market rate or at a discount. Mr. Walz said that it was being sold for the appraised value and not at market rate, simply because it is a commercial property by nature and has a commercial value. Mr. Walz said that the RDA has negotiated a price for its residential value. He reported that both the RDA and the owners would be taking a substantial "hit" in terms of value. Mr. Ashdown was curious if other property owners had approached the RDA regarding the purchase of their property. Mr. Walz said the owners of properties think that the RDA is a "ready buyer'' which is not the case. Mr. Ashdown commented that the RDA would resell the properties. There was some discussion regarding the value of the properties, the cost of demolishing the buildings, and the cost or relocating and renovating the Duplex. Mr. Walz said it will take a considerable investment to do the proposed project, but "that is just our cost of doing business".
Mr. Simonsen pointed out all the vacant retail spaces on 300 West and asked why the proposed location would be viable as a retail space. He talked about proposing a small-scaled multi-family residential building. Mr. Walz said that the RDA would not be opposed to that proposal, and added that it would depend on the developer. Mr. Walz also said that commercial does not necessarily mean retail. He said that commercial could mean live/work units, small office spaces, a community center, and other small businesses. Mr. Simonsen implied that if the proposed building would be totally residential, considerable changes in the design to separate the doors on the first floor from the sidewalk and 300 West would be required. Mr. Simonsen said he preferred the rendering that accompanied the staff report. He said that the proposed mixed-use three story building could be an anchor on the corner of 300 West and Reed Avenue if the parking and setbacks could be resolved. He referred to the three-story apartment buildings on 300 West. Mr. Simonsen stated that Staff had given the Commission some direction about the appropriateness of the two schemes, and asked if the RDA had a preference. Mr. Walz replied by saying that the RDA can point out benefits in both designs. He reminded that the scheme could be totally changed, depending on the developer.
• Ms. Heid inquired about the parking requirements on the two options. Mr. Walz said the project would have to have off-street parking in the SR-1 zone. Ms. Giraud said that alternative parking is not granted very frequently. Mr. Knight said that parking is a zoning concern and Building Services would resolve the parking issue before a final site plan is filed.
• Ms. Giraud said that she could recall some mention of rehabilitating other properties. Mr. Walz said the RDA's beginning point was to take out the Factory and its non-conforming use. He added that the evolvement of the other properties made sense and would make it a better project.
Ms. Rowland inquired if the parcels would be marketed separately. Mr. Walz said that the parcels could be sold and developed separately, depending on the developer.
There was some discussion whether or not other properties adjoining the current site were on the market. Then the discussion turned to the need to buffer the parking area from the other properties.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. As a point of order, Mr. Simonsen stated that there might be some public who wanted to address the non-contributing status of the buildings that were noticed to be demolished. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission was not reviewing the status of those buildings. Mr. Simonsen added that there was a process for that and comments pertaining to the status should be directed to the Planning Staff. However, Mr. Simonsen invited the public to make any kind of comments, but the only decision that would be made by the Historic Landmark Commission would be regarding the relocation and new development proposals. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and
comments:
Ms. Analee Apgood who is a resident in the neighborhood, asked if there had been a residential feasibility study done due to the high vacancy rate in the area. She pointed out that the RDA already has residential buildings in the area that are having troubles renting and/or selling. Ms. Apgood stated that the proposal should not be developed as residential which would have an effect on other residential properties in the area. She said that she was not opposed to a commercial site on the corner. Mr. Simonsen thanked her for her comments and suggested that she discuss the matter of the feasibility study with the Redevelopment Agency.
• Ms. Shirley Mclaughlan stated that she was representing the Capitol Hill Community Council and expressed her concerns about the proposed building being constructed on such a historical street as Reed Avenue, which is only 66 feet wide. Ms. Mclauglan added that if someone parks a vehicle on Reed Avenue, another vehicle has a difficult time getting through. She mentioned that the George Washington Hill home is on the National Register of Historic Places and is directly across the street from this proposed site. There was some discussion regarding the width of Reed Avenue compared to other streets in the area. The conclusion was that it is a very narrow street. Mr. Mclaughlan referred to the development site on 300 West and 500 North that the RDA is trying to sell. She mentioned that there would be a lot of retail in just a few short blocks. Ms. Mclaughlan complimented the RDA on the development of 600 North and Pugsley Street. She said, "I think those homes are wonderful and I wish they would do more of them in our area."
• Ms. Mclaughlan introduced a letter from Ms. Hermoine Jex, a resident in the area and an interested party. She said that Ms. Jex wrote the letter when the building was proposed to have three stories. Ms. Heid said that a three-storied building might still be proposed. A copy of Ms. Jex's letter was filed with the minutes.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Fitzsimmons talked about how the buildings could be turned around. He said that if he were living in the relocated duplex, he would be more comfortable if it faced Reed Avenue. Mr. Fitzsimmons pointed out the vagueness of the schematics and said that it may or may not look like one of the sketches. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission was only asked to render a conceptual approval of something going in on the corner of 300 West and Reed Avenue.
Ms. Heid said that she was concerned if the Commission renders a conceptual approval, how soon would RDA demolish the buildings in hopes of finding an interested developer. She questioned the possibly of landscaped vacant lot. Mr. Knight suggested asking the RDA since a landscaping reuse plan had been submitted.
Mr. Ashdown said that the demolition should be contingent on the final approval of a reuse plan. Mr. Simonsen said that any demolition is contingent on the final approval of a reuse plan, and that reuse plan can be landscaping. He recommended that any additional details should be included in the motion. Mr. Knight thought it would be appropriate to find out from the applicants.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the meeting should be reopened to ask the applicants some additional questions. Mr. Simonsen reopened this portion of the meeting to public comment and invited the applicants to come forward for additional questions.
Mr. Walz said that the demolition of the Factory needed to occur so the Duplex could be relocated. He said that this has been discussed with the Planning Staff, and the RDA would be willing to say that the Smoke Shop structure would not come down until the RDA had a development ready to go. However, he said that the RDA was hoping the Commission would render an approval subject to an approved reuse plan so that the RDA could report to the Board of Directors that demolition would be possible as soon as a reused plan was approved.
Ms. Heid inquired about the landscaping plan. Mr. Walz said that a landscaping would remove the blighting impact of a boarded building in the neighborhood. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the buildings were still in use because they were not boarded. Mr. Walz said that tenants are still in the buildings. He pointed out that the RDA is not in the business to manage residential properties. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the buildings would only be boarded after the RDA takes possession of the properties.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about the marking plan strategy that the RDA proposed. Mr. Walz said that as soon as the RDA receives the approval to purchase the properties, standard marketing procedures would take place. He added that RDA would send out a request for proposal. Mr. Walz said to keep in mind that RDA would be looking at a small-scale developer.
Ms. Rowland asked the applicants about the feasibility of more residential or commercial properties in the area. Mr. Walz said that it probably would be at least two years before the development could be marketable and it was difficult to speculate where the vacancies would occur in the city. He added, "You don't necessarily stop investing in an area simply because the demand is not there. Sometimes you might have to initiate more investment and more interest in the area if you continue to develop properties. We have had a lot of success in the single-family sales of the homes on Puglsey Street. The condominium sales on 700 North are a little slower than what was originally anticipated. It may be a different mix."
Ms. Heid asked again about the consideration of single-family residences or other duplexes. Mr. Walz said the RDA was interested in commercial with mixed-use. However, he said that the potential developer would ultimately decide, if the project would have more residential or more commercial. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the test would be if the property sells. Mr. Walz said that the market would be driven by developers when the properties are ready to sell.
Mr. Mickelsen asked if a conceptual plan was approved at this meeting what would happen next. Mr. Walz said that the RDA would conduct its due diligence in terms of ·finalizing the cost of relocation and rehabilitation of the Duplex, and the cost of demolition. He added that the RDA would present the information to the Board of Directors for approval of the acquisition. Mr. Walz said that it could be the end of surr1rr1er or well into winter before actually doing the site work on the properties. Ms. Mickelsen inquired at what point would the vacant lot be landscaped. Mr. Walz responded by saying that it would be in the Spring of 2004. He added that the properties would not be "eyesores" to the neighborhood any more.
There were no additional questions for the applicants, so Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting and continued with the executive session.
There was further discussion regarding the non-contributing status of the two properties and with enough evidence, the staff's initial determination of status could be changed.
Mr. Ashdown said that he was concerned about the immovability of the duplex. Some references were made to buildings that had been successfully moved, such as the Park City Hospital, the Park City Library, the Odd Fellows Building is being considered to be moved to name a few. Mr. Knight said he saw a large brick home in Draper successfully being moved. Mr. Ashdown inquired about any failures. Mr. Simonsen indicated that there may have been a few, but he did not believe those occurred in Utah.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the Commission had any questions concerning the findings of Staff for the relocation or the new construction. There was none. Ms. Rowland did say that there were a lot of issues with parking, but she hoped to see a good urban design with at least a two or even better, a three-story development go in. She believed that a one-story building would give the effect of neighborhood sprawl.
Ms. Giraud read a section from the zoning ordinance, "The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape." Mr. Ashdown said that a multi-storied building would be about the same height as the Smoke Shop is now. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that half the lower Avenues have multi-level buildings next to one and two-story residences. He believed that a mix of buildings created a very rich neighborhood.
Ms. Giraud cited the Ward and Child building on the corner of 700 South and 700 East, which was originally taller than the surrounding homes.
Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she would like to make two separate motions. First motion to relocate the duplex:
In the matter of Case No. 016-03, Ms. Mickelsen moved that the request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency to relocate the duplex at 748-752 North 300 West around the corner to Reed Avenue, be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation with the following conditions: 1) With the assurance by a professional building mover who will move the building with a reasonable guarantee of its success and protect it while being stored; 2) A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to
the City; and 3) Final approval of the site plan for the new site shall be delegated to Planning Staff.
After a short discussion, Ms. Mickelsen amended her motion. Second and final motion to relocate the duplex:
In the matter of Case No. 016-03, Ms. Mickelsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency to relocate the duplex at 748-752 North 300 West around the corner to Reed Avenue, based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation on the standards in Section
21A.34.020(1)(1-6) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and contingent upon the demolition of the buildings at 754 North 300 West and 261 W. Reed Avenue, with the following conditions: 1) With the assurance by a professional building mover who will move the building with a reasonable guarantee of its success and protect it while being stored; 2) A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the City. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount determined by the Planning Director, sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the Historic Landmark Commission, restore the grade and landscape the property ·from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs; and 3) Final approval of the site plan for the new site shall be delegated to Planning Staff. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, was in a state of recusation. Mr. Parvaz and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion on the new development:
Further, in the matter of Case No. 016-03, Ms. Mickelsen moved 'that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the concept of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency's request for new construction on the parcels at 748·752 North 300 West, and 754 North 300 West, (corner of 300 West and Reed Avenue) based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation on the standards in Section 21A.34.020(H) (1-4) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, with the condition that the selected developer for this property shall return to the Historic Landmark Commission for final approval, pending the resolution of the demolition of the two buildings currently on the site. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen was in a state of recusation. Mr. Parvaz and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Response of the Historic Landmark Commission to the Legislative Action request from City Council.
Ms. Mickelsen circulated copies of a draft of the Historic Landmark Commission's response to the Legislative Action request from the City Council, which is the result of many discussions. A copy of the document was ·filed with the minutes. She mentioned she also e-mailed a copy to each Commissioner so individual changes could be made as the document is being edited. She indicated that a list of recommended changes by the Historic Landmark Commission was included in the document. One of which, she said, is a boundary change of the Central City Historic District for the corridor on 400 South. Mr. Simonsen said that he was not as interested in a boundary change as looking at where the overlay district conflicts with the zoning on existing buildings. Ms. Giraud said that the actual position and the direction from the Administration are to investigate changing the boundaries of the district. Mr. Simonsen encouraged that conflicts in zoning be included.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she was interested in Mr. Nore' Winter's idea of areas within an historic district having different criteria, defining sections of the districts by points.
Mr. Simonsen talked about the letter from Mr. Parvaz. Ms. Mickelsen said that she used sections of the letter in the document. Mr. Simonsen suggested attaching the letter to the document.
Ms. Mickelsen explained the Table of Contents and how the document was organized. She hoped that the document would compile the information to more clearly meet the intent of the request.
Mr. Simonsen said that his impression is that much of Councilmember Eric Jergensen's district is within the boundaries of historic district designations and he is the recipient of the benefits of the changes that have come from those historic designations. Mr. Simonsen believed that much of Mr. Jergensen's concern is about blighting conditions and the process that binds historic structures. Mr. Simonsen feels like Mr. Jergensen is an advocate for preservation and the Historic Landmark Commission should continue to work on outreach programs to make certain that the public also understands the issues of preservation.
A lengthy discussion took place as the Commissioners and Staff read the questions in the report and defined answers that were outlined in the draft copy, resulting from conversations with Councilmember Jergensen, or expressed personal opinions regarding preservation in Salt Lake City.
In conclusion, the Historic Landmark Commission decided that a draft copy should be given to some past members of the Commission for additional feedback. The deadline for completion is not clear but Ms. Mickelsen suggested that she receive the Commissioners' response by Monday, so the draft could be completed by the end of the month.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:00 P.M.