July 18, 2001

SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting

Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126

A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Cheri Coffey, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, and Mark Wilson were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.

Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:15P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Simonsen moved to approve the minutes from the June 20, 2001 meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

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

• NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 015-01, at 651 East 400 South, by Chasebrook Company, represented by Christopher Webb, requesting to construct a new retail building in the Central City Historic District. The building would replace an existing noncontributing office building, which is less than fifty years old.

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 stated that the applicants are proposing to construct a new retail building on the site of an existing small office building. He said like the surrounding parcels along this stretch of 400 South, the property is zoned CS - Community Shopping District, the purpose of which is to "provide and environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale." Mr. Knight pointed out that the Planning Commission would review the planned development amendment the applicants had previously received for the Fourth South Market Development (west of this property).

Mr. Knight talked about the demolition portion of the request by saying that the existing building was classified as a noncontributing structure in the 1994 reconnaissance level survey of the Central City Historic District, because it is less than fifty years old. He pointed out that under the provisions of the zoning ordinance, notice is sent out to the members of the Historic Landmark Commission, community council chairs, interested parties, and surrounding neighbors of the request for demolition. Mr. Knight added that if no objections are received within fourteen (14) days, the Historic Landmark Commission staff could issue an administrative approval for a demolition permit.

Mr. Knight focused on the new construction by saying that the applicants propose a single-story, flat roofed retail building, probably for restaurant use, that would be 24 feet wide by 83 feet deep (approximately 2,000 square feet). He said that the building would be covered with an E.I.F.S. (Exterior Insulation and Finish System) stucco system colored olive green, and topped with an E.I.F.S. cornice. Mr. Knight stated that the main building entrance would be at the southwest corner of the building, and a pedestrian walkway east of the building would allow passage to the parking lot north of the building.

Mr. Knight referred to the development of the adjacent Fourth South Market shopping center, where both the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission emphasized the desire to create a stronger street wall along this stretch of 400 South, along with a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape. He stated that the applicants adjusted the site plan of their development to better address these concerns, and included a patio for outdoor dining as a pedestrian-friendly amenity.

Mr. Knight indicated that the 400 South TRAX light rail line, currently under construction, includes a station stop along this block. He added that new sidewalks, street trees, and decorative lighting have been installed on the block as part of the light rail project.

Mr. Knight referred to the following requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance found in Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4), H Historic Preservation Overlay District:

(H) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staffs discussion: The height and width, proportion of principal facades, the flat roof and the scale of the structure will be similar to the neighboring Starbucks building and other buildings in the Fourth South Market development.

Staffs findings of fact: 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.

Staffs discussion: The proposed opening would consist of large, plate-glass windows and entrances typically found in commercial architecture. They do not appear in the renderings to vary 'from the fenestration pattern found in the previous phases of the development. Entrance porches are not an issue in this type of development. The applicant is proposing to integrate an outdoor dining area along the street frontage of the building. The E.I.F.S. material would be compatible with the adjacent Starbucks building, which is also covered with E.I.F.S.

No signage is proposed at this time; any signage will be addressed in a separate application.

Staffs findings of fact: 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.

Staffs discussion: The commercial structures along 400 South vary in their rhythm of spacing in relation to each other and the street. Generally they consist of strip development (Barnes & Noble, Wild Oats), large box retail stores in the middle of the block with smaller buildings on pad sites close to the street (Fred Meyer and Men's Wearhouse), and individual pad sites (Squirrel Bros., Taco Bell, Jiffy Lube). The proposed building would reinforce the street wall established by the Starbucks building to the west. The master plan for this area envisions that all future development will all be built near the sidewalk with parking located behind the building.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: Subdivision of lots is not an issue with this application.

Mr. Knight offered the following recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the application and refer Mr. Webb to the Architectural Subcommittee for final refinement of details, with final approval delegated to staff."

Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.

Mr. Protasevich inquired about the age of the existing building. Mr. Knight said that he could not remember exactly how old the building was, but according to the Central City Historic District reconnaissance level survey, it was less than 50 years old. Mr. Knight said that he would find out when the structure was built. Mr. Protasevich said that it was a very nice building and it would be a shame to demolish it.

Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Mr. Christopher Webb of Chasebrook Company, was present. Mr. Webb stated that he concurred with the staff report. He pointed out that the new proposed building would add much to the streetscape. Mr. Webb said that it would benefit the area by making it a more pedestrian-friendly area with the proposed outdoor dining.

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

• Mr. Littig led the discussion by asking if there would be any kind of screen between the proposed new building and the Jiffy Lube building on the corner. Mr. Webb said that there is retaining wall and a slatted fence, but the screening had not been addressed. Mr. Littig talked about the blank wall on the north elevation and suggested adding some high windows because it would soften the scale of that elevation and would not interfere with any retail business.

• Mr. Young inquired if the olive green color that was depicted on the elevation drawings was the color that had been chosen for the E.I.F.S. material on the proposed new building. Mr. Webb said that it was, and believed the color would complement the color of the building next door. Mr. Young said he noticed that the lintels and the Muntins differentiated the details of the window pattern from the other buildings in the development. Mr. Webb said that each building has its own characteristics and added that the developer does not want conformity in the details.

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked how much square footage would be gained by taking down the existing building and constructing a one-story building in its place. Mr. Webb stated that the applicant was gaining more space. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if the applicant had explored constructing an addition onto the existing building to gain the necessary space. Mr. Webb said that the existing building is only about 714 square feet and has a split-level entry that would not function well for a retail business. He added that the building is currently being used for offices and those who work there, also claim that the building does not function well. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired about the size of the new building and Mr. Webb said that it would be just under 2,000 square feet.

• Mr. Protasevich inquired further about the interior of the proposed building. Mr. Webb said that the space inside would be tall and large with the possibility of a mezzanine floor. Mr. Protasevich was curious about the height of the proposed building and asked if the walk-in level would be the same as the Starbucks building next door. Mr. Webb said that the walk-in level would be the same as the existing building, which is about two feet higher than the Starbucks building. When Mr. Protasevich talked about seismically retrofitting the existing building to make it usable, Mr. Webb said that it would be too costly, since the applicant believes that the building would be unusable for a retail business.

• Ms. Rowland suggested adding a second story to the proposed building to use as office space. Mr. Webb said that there is already approximately 4,000 square feet of office space available in the Starbucks building so the applicant was not interested in more office space.

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked why the space is not leased and wondered if it was due to the location. Mr. Webb said that they were not sure; it might be due to the light rail construction on 400 South. He added that is where Chasebrook Company is located and talked about the quality office space. Mr. Webb said that retail business is "hot" and the applicant has had many retailers who are interested in the site. There was some discussion about the height of the proposed building in comparison to the Starbucks building. Mr. Webb said that the building would be about the same height and scale as the buildings in the Sugar House Commons area. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the windows in the drawings look like there would be an upper level. Mr. Webb said that the tenant would determine the window design. She also talked about the high cornice element that appears on the buildings in the development.

• Ms. Mickelsen inquired how close the proposed new building would be to the Starbucks building. Mr. Webb said that the Starbucks building is built one foot west of the property line and the new building would be as close to the property line as allowed. Mr. Young asked about the gap that would be created between the two buildings. Mr. Webb said that the gap would be closed off so transients could not get in the space. Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the parking. Mr. Webb said that the proposal would meet parking requirements. Mr. Knight said that the applicant is required to have 229 stalls for the development, including the 12 stalls which will be required for this building. The development currently has 235 parking stalls. When asked by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Webb pointed out the dumpster enclosed by gates and masonry walls that is shown on the site plan. He said that the applicant would like to move it behind the Chevy's building, but the City would not allow that because of the neighbor's concerns. Mr. Webb said that the applicant petitioned again this year to move the dumpster, but that is the only place allowed by the City.

• Mr. Simonsen asked if there had been any exploration into any other materials other that the E.I.F.S. Mr. Webb said that the applicant chose the E.I.F.S. because of the Starbucks building. He noted that there are a variety of materials in the Fourth South Market development.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Ms. Coffey said that staff made an administrative decision to consider the existing building as a noncontributing structure. She indicated that Section 21A.34.020(F)(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance gives the Historic Landmark Commission the option of reviewing and holding a public hearing on a demolition request for a noncontributing building. Ms. Coffey also said that the Historic Landmark Commission has the option to determine whether or not the building is a contributing building or a noncontributing building, according to the criteria in Section 21A.34.020.34(C)(2). She added that because the building was not 50 years old, it would have to be exceptionally important to meet the requirements listed in the zoning ordinance.

There were some additional questions about the age of the building. Ms. Giraud said that she found out that on the 1994 reconnaissance level survey, the building is listed as being constructed in 1974. She said that she believed a residence was demolished when the building was constructed.

Mr. Protasevich said that he did not understand why a demolition request is determined by the age of the building. He asked the question, "If the building was 50 years old, would we give permission to demolish it?" He said that he thought it was a nice building. Mr. Protasevich said he believed that the massing of a building should determine whether or not a building would be demolished, and not age.

Ms. Rowland said that the ordinance is about preservation, and not necessarily about the quality of a building.

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the drawings of the proposed new building did not convince her that it would be more contributing to the neighborhood than the existing building.

Mr. Parvaz talked further about the determination of a contributing or a noncontributing structure. Mr. Knight said that the Historic Landmark Commission could make that determination after requesting additional information about the building. He said that staff could do a comprehensive research into the history of the building.

Mr. Young said that the "less than 50 years old" ruling is very rarely applied. He said that on a national level, there are only two that he could think of that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: Dulles Airport and the Graceland Mansion, due to the architecture and significance of the properties. Mr. Young pointed out that the subject building does not compare to those buildings.

When Mr. Payne inquired about the process of determination, Ms. Giraud said that it would have to be requested by the Commission, in a motion. Ms. Coffey said that the case could be continued to the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting. She indicated that staff could provide a staff report that would include the history of the property, then the Commission could make the determination of whether or not the building is significant enough to be considered "contributing" and go through the process for the demolition of a contributing structure as outlined in the zoning ordinance. There was some discussion regarding the wording of a motion.

Motion:

Mr. Protasevich moved that Case No. 015-01 be continued so that the staff has an opportunity to do some further study, write a staff report, and return to the Historic Landmark Commission, so the Commission can make a determination of whether or not the building at 661 East 400 South should be considered a "contributing" or "noncontributing" in the Central City Historic District. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Young were opposed. Mr. Christensen , Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

(Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich excused herself at 5:00P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.)

Case No. 016-01. at 613-615 East 500 South, and 479 South 600 East, by Prosperity Enterprises, represented by David Coats, requesting to demolish a duplex and the former "Bill and Nada's Cafe" building and construct a new restaurant at the approximate location as the cafe. Both buildings are contributing structures in the Central City Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that Mr. David Coats and Mr. Wayne Belka, representing Prosperity Enterprises, is applying for permission to demolish the duplex at 6143-615 East 500 South and the former "Bill and Nada's Cafe" building at 479 South 600 East, in order to construct a drive-through Carmack's Restaurant. She said that both buildings are rated as contributing structures in the Central City Historic District. Ms. Giraud stated that according to the Central City reconnaissance-level survey conducted in 1994, the restaurant was constructed in 1946 and the duplex was constructed about 1906, so both are over 50 years old and have maintained a high level of physical integrity.

Ms. Giraud indicated that the existing parcels would be combined for a total parcel area of 13,969 square feet. Ms. Giraud stated that the applicant would have to go through a planned development process

Ms. Giraud stated that William McHenry, Jr., a native of Rupert, Idaho who lived across the street at 464 South 600 East, operated Bill and Nada's restaurant from 1944 until his death in 1999. She said that the restaurant was a popular all-night gathering spot for people from many walks of life, and contributed "local color" to the Central City community. Ms. Giraud said that the brick building with plate glass windows is typical in design and materials to small restaurants constructed in the 1940's and 1950's. She noted that the restaurant closed on December 22, 1999.

Ms. Giraud said that the duplex at 613-615 E. 500 S. was constructed about 1906 and is Victorian Eclectic in style. She added that it is a brick structure with shingled gables, small porches and classical details and has been boarded since April of 2000.

Ms. Giraud explained that the applicant is seeking to demolish these structures to build Carmacks, a Bountiful-based restaurant serves breakfast, burgers, and milkshakes, but is known for its baked goods, particularly "Spudnuts". She pointed out that Carmacks had been in its location for 48 years until the building burned down, and re-opened at its current location in Bountiful.

Ms. Giraud said that the proposed design consists of a one-story structure with a brick veneer, an E.I.F.S. fascia, and a vertical sign above the entrance. She said that the new restaurant would be placed at the southwest corner of the lot, with a drive-through window on the north side of the building accessed from 600 East. Ms. Giraud indicated that the investors anticipate that the drive-through would generate between 30 to 35 percent of the restaurant's business.

Ms. Giraud stated that when the applicants submitted their plans to the Central City Community Council on June 19, 2001, the neighborhood residents voiced many of their concerns, which was included in the staff report.

In reviewing the demolition request for the Bill and Nada's Cafe at 479 South 600 East and the duplex at 613-615 East 500 South, Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(L)(1)(a through f) found in the City's Zoning Ordinance:

L Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall determine whether the project substantially complies with the following standards:

(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 for Bill and Nada's Cafe: The building is in its original location, and although its setting has been recently altered with the construction of commercial structures to the west, the florist building to the north was constructed about the same time as the restaurant, and thus Bill and Nada's was associated with the changing character of the neighborhood during the late 1940's and 1950's. The restaurant's simple massing and straightforward fenestration patterns are typical of small-scale commercial structures of this era.

Staff's finding of fact for Bill and Nada's Cafe: Bill and Nada's Restaurant continues to convey its early, if not original, appearance, and its physical integrity is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.

Summary of staff's discussion for the duplex: This building retains a high degree of integrity in terms of location, design, materials and workmanship. It exemplifies the Victorian Eclectic style, as seen in the shingled gables, classical porch details and the overall massing. Despite the loss of integrity of setting, association and feeling, the building exhibits its historic character because the original form and massing are intact, the original materials are evident, and details such as cornice returns and turned porch balusters are apparent.

Staff's finding of fact for the duplex: The physical integrity of the duplex 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.

Staff's discussion for Bill and Nada's Cafe: The frontage of 600 East between 400 and 500 South consists of the Fred Meyer store; pad sites; the Bill McHenry house (for which the owner has applied for demolition); a one-and-a-half story office building at 443 South 600 East and an L-shaped brick commercial building next door to Bill and Nada's at 461 South 600 East. The frontage of 500 South between 600 and 700 East consists of the late-Victorian duplex to the east, also proposed for demolition as part of this application; a warehouse for Modern Display; a small art gallery; a parking garage and a multi-story office building on the corner of 700 East and 600 South. Trolley Square is across the street to the south. The historic streetscape, which once consisted of small-scale, early twentieth-century homes, has been gradually demolished over the last half century.

Staff's finding of fact for Bill and Nada's Cafe: With the exception of Trolley Square, few historic buildings can be found in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant. The applicant meets this standard.

Nada's Cafe, this is the only contributing historic structure besides the restaurant on this block frontage. Trolley Square, across the street, is a significant historic site, but this duplex is the last vestige in terms of conveying the residential character that once existed on the streetscape of 500 South between 600 and 700 East. Thus, demolishing this duplex would not negatively affect the streetscape in terms of the overlay zone, as very little of its historic character remains on this block frontage.

Staff's finding of fact for the duplex: The applicant meets this standard.

(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures.

Staff's discussion for Bill and Nada's Cafe: The map associated with the 1994 reconnaissance level survey indicates three contributing structures on this block. Two are the subject of this staff report; the third is located at 444 South 700 East and is a house converted to a florist business, Every Blooming Thing. Aside from the McHenry house (464 South 600 East) and Trolley Square, Bill and Nada's Restaurant is surrounded by noncontributing structures.

Staff's finding of fact for Bill and Nada's Cafe: Because of the scarcity of contributing structures in the vicinity of the restaurant, the applicant meets this standard.

Staff's discussion for the duplex: Again, as with Bill and Nada's Cafe, the structures surrounding the duplex are noncontributing and are of a very different scale than the subject property. The commercial properties, such as the annex for Modern Display, located immediately east of the duplex, have encroached upon the environment of the duplex. The lack of surrounding contributing properties imparts little understanding of how this area of the district developed before 1950.

Staff's finding of fact for the duplex: The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures. The applicant meets this standard.

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

Staff's discussion for Bill and Nada's Cafe: The existing zoning of this structure is CS Community Shopping District, the purpose of which is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. Accordingly this zone allows restaurants. The minimum size lot in this zone is 60,000 square feet, however, the Planning Commission can modify this requirement as part of the Planned Development process. Restaurant pad sites are typical in this zoning district.

Staff’s finding of fact for Bill and Nada’s Café: Restaurants are allowed in the CS zone. Bill and Nada's Cafe could be used for other commercial uses. Therefore, the applicant does not meet this standard.

Staffs discussion for the duplex: The duplex is a historic, residential structure. The base zoning of the property is commercial. If the duplex were to be converted into office or retail use, these would also be allowed in the CS zone. Whether or not the duplex would be conducive to these reuses is unknown at this time. The feasibility of adaptively reusing the duplex could be provided as part of an economic hardship application or as part of the bona fide effort undertaken by the applicant. At any rate, the duplex is a legal, non-conforming use that is allowed in the CS zone.

Staffs finding of fact for the duplex: 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.

Staffs discussion for Bill and Nada's Cafe: The proposed reuse plan and its adherence to the standards of Section 21A.34.020(H) are discussed below. The proposed restaurant would be sited differently than the existing restaurant in that it would be situated on the corner with a minimal setback. The proposed restaurant is larger than Bill and Nada's by 1,611 square feet, but is similar to Bill and Nada's in its massing and materials (brick). The applicants are amendable to altering the design and want the new restaurant to evoke a friendly, neighborhood gathering place. Staffs finding of fact for Bill and Nada's Cafe: The applicant meets this standard. Staffs discussion for the duplex: As stated under the above discussion for Bill and Nada's Cafe, the applicant has submitted plans for a new restaurant on this site, and has tried to incorporate urban elements into the new design. These elements include a minimal setback, a corner entrance, and a vertical sign. The parking will be at the rear and side of the restaurant so that it will have more of a street presence. All plans will have to be approved by both Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission.

Staff's finding of fact for the duplex: The plans for the new restaurant appear to be consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H of this section. The applicant meets 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 structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs,

iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and

iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.

Staff’s discussion for Bill and Nada’s Café: The restaurant has been closed for a year and a half, and does not appear to have attracted vandalism in that time. It does not appear to have suffered willful neglect.

Staffs finding of fact for Bill and Nada's Cafe: The applicant meets this standard. Summary of staff’s discussion for the duplex: The duplex was in Mr. McHenry's ownership until his death in 1999. The duplex was boarded in April of 2000. The current owners, who purchased the duplex early in 2000 with the intention of demolishing it, have not invested money in its repair but staff finds no evidence that they willfully took steps to cause the building to deteriorate.

Staffs finding of fact for the duplex: The applicant meets this standard. Ms. Giraud concluded that the applicant meets four of the six standards for each property.

Mr. Giraud referred to the following requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance found in Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4), H Historic Preservation Overlay District:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The applicant has submitted two plans. The proposed height (19'), roof form (flat), and proportion of the principal facades in terms of width to height of the proposed structure are similar to the existing Bill and Nada's Cafe. The new restaurant is almost twice as large as the café (3,531 to 1,920 square feet, or 83 percent larger), but will be smaller in overall scale than the buildings adjacent to it. The surrounding commercial buildings, with the exception of Trolley Square, are also flat roofed and appear to range from about 1,000 to 3,000 square feet. The tallest in the immediate vicinity is the Affiliated Insurance Agency building at 443 South 600 East, and it is only one-and-a-half stories tall. The scale and form of either of the designs presented will not be out of keeping with the surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets these standards for the proposed design.

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

Staffs discussion: As stated above, the applicants submitted two plans. Neither has large plate-glass windows. Option 1 portrays square openings with a grid; Option 2 features a series of vertically-aligned multi-pane windows. The fenestration pattern of nearby buildings include plate-glass display windows for Ensign Floral at 461 South 600 East, steel sash and fixed windows for the Affiliated Insurance Agency building at 443 South 600 East, and a blank wall with no windows for the Ensign Floral warehouse at 625 East 500 South. The proposed Carmacks' windows are dissimilar to other commercial buildings in the immediate environment, in that there is no large expanse of glass and no indication of a hierarchy of elevations as expressed in the window pattern.

The only projection indicated on the plans is on Option 2, which portrays an awning that extends along most of the south wall and all of the west elevation, with an E.I.F.S. fascia, and a large blade sign. The proposed material is brick with E.I.F.S. above the fascia. Other buildings in the vicinity are brick, and while the Fred Meyer store is brick and E.I.F.S., brick is the dominant material for commercial buildings in this neighborhood.

Staff’s finding of fact: With the exception of the fenestration for either option, the applicant's proposed plans indicate that the new building will be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscapes in terms of rhythm of solids and voids, rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and the relationship of materials.

3. Relationship to Street.

and places to which such elements are visually related;

Staffs discussion: A consistent setback is not a characteristic of the streetscape of 600 East between 400 and 500 South. Although the scale of the buildings along 500 South between 600 and 700 East differ drastically, they have a consistent setback and are close to the street. The buildings also differ in terms of their directional expression, and few have streetscape-pedestrian improvements. The applicants are attempting to design a building that because of its siting will present an urban appearance.

Staff's finding of fact: Little inspiration exists on the block frontages near the subject property in terms of siting and the rhythm of spacing of the structures on the street. Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.

be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s)

Staffs discussion: Although the applicant is proposing to combine lots for the new restaurant, the proposed layout is consistent with typical historic lot layout for this area.

Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff’s recommendation: Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission defer its decision on the demolition of the structures at 613-615 East 500 South and 479 South 600 East to allow the applicant to either conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the structures or file applications for economic hardship. Staff further recommends that the Commission table its decision on the new construction application until the issue of demolition is resolved."

Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.

Mr. Littig said that he had a problem with the notion that buildings are being removed that are now out of character. He added, "This is one building in the historic district that I am not willing to just roll over and say they are no longer surrounded by good stuff. He said that he disagreed with some of staff's findings of fact. Mr. Littig said, "We did not choose to exempt that block. That block is in an historic district. We have to treat it that way. We need to be advocates for buildings in the district."

Ms. Giraud said the idea when the ordinance was rewritten that if there is such a scarcity of buildings in a particular area maybe that should not become the "big balance" to preserve that building.

Mr. Simonsen said that Trolley Square and the Bill McHenry house, with the historic fabric still intact, are contributing factors to both buildings.

Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern about the fact that the applicant is requesting more than one building to be demolished on one application, which weakens the argument. He added that the criteria were being mixed together. Mr. Parvaz read (1)(c) and said that the discussion referred to the "block" and not just the "streetscape". He said that he believed it was better to cover the whole district than just referring to the block. Mr. Parvaz indicated that each historic building supports the other.

Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicants, Mr. David Coats and Mr. Wayne Belka, representing Prosperity Enterprises, were present. Mr. Coats said that he wanted to present a brief overview of the proposal and Mr. Belka would discuss the site plan. A briefing board was used to further describe the project.

Mr. Coats said that he recently read an article in the newspaper that talked about the vacant space in the downtown area and that they needed to be filled for the Olympics. He said, "I think we have a tenant that fits the needs of what we are trying to do and I think it fits the needs of the history of the area. We are ready to construct and there are some issues that have to be resolved with staff, but it is important to Carmacks for their business to be opened as soon as possible, not only for the Olympics but to gain the business of the college students. It is important for us to give a good appearance and we are adjacent to Trolley Square, which is the second most visited site in the state of Utah. I think Carmacks will create a new 'Bill and Nada's tradition'. We personally had some questions about the contribution of the building, despite its age, but we certainly don’t have any questions about Bill McHenry, he was a contributing person to this city. We think we would capture Bill's icon and historical look of that building."

Mr. Coats stated that he believed the buildings should be demolished for the following reasons: 1) the restrooms that exist in Bill and Nada's Cafe are less than 12 square feet. There needs to be a minimum of 98 square feet for restrooms to meet the ADA requirements (Americans Disabilities Act); 2) the kitchen area in Bill and Nada's Cafe is about 640 square feet. Carmacks needs a modern kitchen that would take about 1700 square feet; 3) the duplex is not suitable or safe for residential use because of the 500 South access and the adjacency to Trolley Square; 4) it is the only remaining residential place that exists on that particular block; 5) the salvage rights to the property were given the former employees of Bill and Nada's; and 6) the existing conditions of the buildings make reconstruction or remodeling almost prohibitive. Mr. Coats talked about the Health Department and the Police Department requesting them to board the duplex structure for health and safety purposes.

Mr. Belka circulated some additional photographs of the existing buildings and explained what some of the photographs represented. He stated that the existing restaurant is about 1,920 square feet. Mr. Belka pointed out that the siting of the building presented some difficult issues and is in a very awkward position for use, as well as for the parking proposal. He added that in order to make the parking to even come up to standard, and present a building frontage that would be more "urban scape", there would be a small portion of the front elevation remaining. Mr. Belka also talked about the problems and expense of bringing the electrical service and the mechanical systems in the restaurant building up to code.

Mr. Belka said, "Certainly, it has been your decision that this is a contributing building as far as the historical building is concerned, but the contribution, in my opinion, is not aesthetic. If you look at the pictures of the building, it's a pretty non-descript building, painted, concrete block building. It has a little storefront that is reminiscent of the 1950's, and as far as the character, there are very few pieces of the building that we can utilize." Mr. Belka said that there were some designing elements the applicant would incorporate into the new construction, such as the eyebrow look over the windows and the vertical sign on the front elevation. He also talked about the brickwork, the "gridded" windows, the patio areas, and other character elements from the surrounding Trolley Square that would be incorporated into the new building. Mr. Belka said that the owner of Carmacks is willing to carry on the "Bill and Nada" tradition by displaying memorabilia from the cafe in the new restaurant, which would be starting a tradition of its' own. He mentioned that the "Bill and Nada's" name would not be available to them.

Mr. Belka stated, "The building is a contributing building because of its social contribution and the social contribution comes from the destination of where Bill and Nada's was at one point in time. I, myself, while I was in school, it was a "hang out". We would be working late in school and Bill and Nada's was always open. You could go down there for a meal at 2:00 A. M. I'm certainly aware of the history and the contribution that Bill and Nada's has made."

Mr. Belka talked about the input the received from the members of the community council, such as brick being a more appropriate material than block; did not like the repetitive nature of the windows; more appropriate to use large plate glass window; the 16-foot structural height to screen the mechanical equipment; and other related issues.

Mr. Belka said that the partners have tried to market the property site since they purchased it and there have been many potential tenants, but nothing "clicked" until Carmacks came along.

Mr. Coats talked further about a Carmacks Restaurant being built on the site of the "Bill and Nada's Cafe". He indicated that the Carmacks' people were in attendance if the Commissioners wanted to ask them any questions. Mr. Coats addressed the historical background of the Carmacks that was detailed in the staff report.

Mr. Coats said that his partners processed over 200 tenants, and they felt that of all the tenants that were processed, Carmacks was the most important because the proposal met all of their criteria. He said that he welcomed any comments from the members of the Commission.

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

• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by saying that the duplex building could be used for something other than a residence; office space for instance. He added that many residences have successfully been converted to office or some other use. Mr. Belka said that the partners were not interested in going through the lengthy process of a change of use, and it would be economically unfeasible to renovate the buildings. Mr. Simonsen said that there is more flexibility in the code for renovated buildings than for new construction. Mr. Coats said that of all the potential tenants, no one was interested in renovating the buildings. Mr. Simonsen said that it was unfortunate to lose two structures. Mr. Belka said that it is unfortunate, but the fact remains, "if something doesn't happen on the corner, you have the lesser of two evils. You have a vacant space that will stay vacant and might be leased, at a discount, which really doesn't make economic good sense, or you revitalize the corner and make it into something the city can be proud of again." Mr. Simonsen inquired if there had been any exploration into a proposal that utilizes the existing buildings. Mr. Coats said that utilizing those buildings have not created any interest. He added that the "Mom and Pop" operations would be out-of-business in a short period of time because they would not be able to survive under those economic conditions. Mr. Coats also said that there is enough vacant office space available. Mr. Belka said there was an article in the Tribune about the glut of office space and the incentive office developers had to offer to lease space.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquires, concerns, and comments:

Ms. Valerie Price stated that she was the Co-Chair of the Central City Community Council and currently the interim Chair. She stated she was heavily involved with saving the Bill McHenry house and thanked the Commission for its action on the property. Ms. Price said, "I think the restaurant is more important than the house. It is the thing that kept Bill's house standing. It was a social icon." She said that she has a problem with Carmacks, as it was in itself a "greasy spoon" diner in Bountiful. She said that she realizes that it is very popular, but it does not have that the same "home time" feel that it used to have. Ms. Price stated that in her opinion, Carmacks could do just fine in the Bill and Nada's building the way it is. She said, "I don't understand people talking about the cost of renovation, if everyone has that kind of opinion that renovating an old building is too expensive, we might just as well tear everything down and then you would have no history whatsoever." Ms. Price pointed out that she also had a problem with the drive-through window when Central City is trying to evolve into a pedestrian-friendly community. She said that she did not believe Carmacks needed a drive-through window to survive. Ms. Price concluded by saying, "You saved the house, now please save the restaurant building so we don't have more strip malls in the area."

• Ms. Elizabeth Kirkland, stated that she was an architectural student at the University Utah. She said that she just happened to find out about this meeting. She said that if more people knew about this meeting, there would be more people in attendance. Ms. Kirkland said that she was excited when she realized the possibility of Carmacks going on that site, but disappointed that the owners want to demolish the buildings. She stated that the Bill and Nada's Cafe building was a great building and a cultural icon in Salt Lake City and believes it is important to keep the building.

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

Executive Session

Ms. Rowland said that when she read the staffs findings of fact, she was confused with (1){b) and (1)(c). Ms. Giraud said that one has to think of just the streetscape or the frontage of a property and the other one is to consider an entire block or district.

A lengthy discussion took place regarding modifying some of staff’s findings of fact regarding the criteria in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Giraud suggested that the Commission discuss the standards and change the findings that staff recommended if the Commissioners desire to do so. Several members of the Commission expressed his/her opinion, such as: 1) need to work within the context of the historic district, not just taking down a building; 2) a building will be demolished on the site and another one will be constructed in its place. How can that have a negative effect on the streetscape; and 3) regardless of what goes in its place, if a building is significant enough, the loss of it would negatively affect the historic streetscape.

{Ms. Mickelsen excused herself and left the room for a few minutes.)

It was decided to make a separate motion for each building.

Motion on the findings of fact for 479 South 600 East (Bill and Nada's Cafe building) for Case No. 016-01: Mr. Payne moved that for 479 South 600 East, the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's findings of fact for Section 21A.34.020.020(L)(1)(a, d, e, f), and reverse the findings of fact for (band c). Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen voted "Aye". Mr. Young was opposed. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Motion on the findings of fact for 613-615 East 500 South (duplex) for Case No. 016-01: Mr. Payne moved that for 613-615 East 500 South, Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's findings of fact for Section 21A.34.020.020(L)(1)(a through f).

Mr. Littig said that he believed the duplex contributed to the district, and not out of character; it has not been trashed or covered with vinyl siding. He said that it has significance. Mr. Simonsen said that the duplex did not have the same significance as the restaurant building. Mr. Littig said that "we are not being asked to say that this is real important or this is not as important. This is a historic building in an historic district. I need to be an advocate for it, not just dismiss it because it is surrounded by things I don't like, or things out of historic character". Ms. Mickelsen said if these buildings go, there would be very little left on the block of historic character.

After a short discussion, Mr. Payne withdrew his motion.

New motion on the findings of fact for 613-615 East 500 South (duplex) for Case No. 016-01: Mr. Payne moved that for 613-615 East 500 South, Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's findings of fact for Section 21A.34.020.020(L){1)(a, d, e, f), and reverse the findings of fact for (b and c). Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen voted "Aye". Mr. Young was opposed. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

There was some discussion regarding the wording of a final motion.

Motion for Case No. 016-01:

Ms. Coffey said that since the Commission revised the findings of fact, the applicant only meets two out of the six standards and the only options for the applicant is economic hardship for both buildings, or appeal the decision to the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Simonsen accepted the amendment to the motion.

Amended final motion for Case No. 016-01:

Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 016-01, based on the revised findings of fact, that the application for demolition, as well as the application for new construction, for the structures at 479 South 600 East and 613-615 East 500 South, be denied. This allows the applicant to pursue other options including economic hardship. Mr. young's motion still stood. Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Discussion relating to time commitments of the Historic Landmark Commission members and meeting efficiency.

Mr. Parvaz pointed out that at the last Historic Landmark Commission meeting, we lost a quorum at the end when some important issues were discussed. He said that he would like input from the members how this could be avoided.

Ms. Coffey said that currently there are twelve members on the Historic Landmark Commission and there could be as many as fifteen members. She said that the paperwork on three of the members eligible for reappointment have not been completed, but after conferring with Lynn Pace in the City Attorney's office, she said that those three members can still participate in the actions of the Commission.

Ms. Giraud talked about the prospective new members for the Commission.

After much discussion the Commissioners concluded the following: 1) the chair reviews the agenda prior to distribution; 2) the members should prioritize their time and allow enough time for the commission meetings; 3) work towards the meetings being conducted more efficiently; 4) when possible, limit the amount of applicants and discussions; 5) if a member know that he/she has to leave by a certain time, check with staff to find out how that would affect the quorum prior to the meeting; 6) limit public comment to a certain amount of time and discourage redundancy; 7) long-range planning/educational issues could be discussed at special meetings, such as luncheon meetings, rather than evening or Saturday meetings; 8) discussions on long-range planning issues or workshops could be held three or four times a year; 9) encourage the applicants to give a more efficient and concise presentation focused on the proper criteria; and 10) schedule the agenda so items that do not require a quorum be placed at the end.

Other issues were discussed, such as setting a starting time for each case on the agenda was discouraged, and the members are not always able to assess their time schedule too far in advance to make a commitment to attend a meeting. Caution has to be exercised when limiting an applicant sufficient time for the presentation, as it could become a factor for an appeal.

Update on the appeal regarding the "Frederick Fail" house at 558 East 300 South: Mr. Parvaz asked Ms. Coffey if she would like to present up update on the Frederick Fail house property. She said that the Land Use Appeals Board overturned the Historic Landmark Commission's decision and allowed the demolition of the structure. Ms. Coffey stated that the members of the Land Use Appeals Board did not clarify why the decision was overturned. She said that it appeared to her that the discussion of the Land Use Appeals Board members focused on the fact that the Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition of the other buildings on the property and forgot about the Frederick Fail house. Ms. Coffey discussed this matter with Lynn Pace and he said that he believed that the members of the Land Use Appeals Board considered the actions of the Historic Landmark Commission as being inconsistent when the findings were not readopted, as they were on the other demolitions.

There was further discussion on the issues relating to this case and other matters.

Recognition of members whose terms have expired.

Mr. Parvaz extended appreciation to Sarah Miller for her service on the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Parvaz said that her term had expired and wished her well in her future endeavors. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland were eligible to extend their terms.

Adjournment of the meeting.

As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion.

There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:40P.M.