SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Billie Ann Devine, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPRECIATION TO A FORMER COMMISSION MEMBER
Mr. Young extended a note of appreciation to Dina Blaes for her past services. He said that she had served as Chairperson for the past two years. Mr. Young added that she had moved out of Salt Lake City, and no longer eligible to serve on the Historic Landmark Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Owen moved to approve the minutes from the May 5, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. Mitchell abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Devine, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the June 2, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. Mitchell abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Devine, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
BUSINESS
Case No. 006-99. by Jeff Jonas of Winthrop Court, L.C., requesting to construct 326 apartment units on Salt Lake City Survey, Plat B, Block 38. bounded by 500 and 600 East Streets, and 300 and 400 South Streets.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that staff found that the proposed structure met the criteria established in the ordinance in terms of height and width, the proportion of principal facades, scale, the proportion of openings and rhythm of solids and voids. Ms. Giraud stated that staff found that the proposed project did not meet the criteria in terms of roof shape and materials, and that the applicants should submit more information regarding entrances and balconies. She pointed out because this was the first review of the project by the Commission, and because approval of the demolition of the Vernier Place houses was pending, staff did not make a recommendation at this time.
Mr. Young inquired about the incompatibility of the roof line. Ms. Giraud said apartment buildings in the area generally have flat roofs or the roof line is hidden behind a parapet.
Mr. Wright talked about the split zoning on the property (RMF-75 on the eastern half and R-MU on the western half of the property). He also stated that the height had been limited to 35 feet, and the biggest portion of the project would be in the center part of the block.
Mr. Parvaz expressed his opinion that the design of the proposed project did not match any of the characteristics of the historic district. He said that the scale was too large for the block. Mr. Parvaz said that the project did not meet the continuity of the neighborhood. He talked about the footprint of the contributory historic buildings. Mr. Parvaz said that he did not believe that the new project should have as many as four stories, even though it met the zoning requirements. He said the overlay zone should take precedence and the new project should be more in context with the surrounding buildings and the buildings that are currently on the site.
Mr. Owen said that the historic precedent would be to step back the height from the sidewalk along the streetscape that would have one and two stories and put the three and four stories in back, like the Governor's Plaza on South Temple.
Ms. Rowland said that there is a variety of heights in the historic district. She inquired about a recorded developer agreement with whomever would be doing the development. Ms. Rowland clarified that the developer would have to deal with the conditions that would be proposed at this meeting. Mr. Wright said that the Commission would make findings of order with any approval, and that would be recorded on the property and would also be a condition placed on the building permit. He added that conditions would be transferable to any developer of the project.
The applicants, Mr. Jeff Jonas, Mr. Max J. Smith from MJSA Architects, Salt Lake City, Mr. John Smart from Kaufman Meeks Architects, Houston, and Mr. Scott McFadden from Trammell Crow Residential, Denver, were in attendance. The applicants used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. A sample board of the exterior materials was also displayed.
Mr. Jonas said that the applicants were in agreement with most of the staff report. He pointed out that the applicants did not maximize the amount of units or the 75-foot height restriction which were allowed. Mr. Jonas said that he disagreed with the idea that there was no precedent for a four-story building because there is an existing 3 % story building on the site that will be demolished as part of the project. He said that the project was scaled down from six stories to four for the eastern portion of the block. Mr. Jonas stated that he believed that with the R-MU zoning on the block, that the noncontributory buildings, such as ADT, Su Casa, and Squire Hair Products, would eventually "go the way of many other buildings" to better utilize the properties.
Mr. Jonas declared that the applicants had recognized that the site was in an historic district and designed the project with that in mind. He said that he thought that it was unfair to say that there would be nothing of historic character. Mr. Jonas added, "I can guarantee that if this was not an historic district, there would be a much different building proposed here."
Mr. Jonas said that the focal point of the project would be the 600 East elevation with the renovation of the Juel Apartment Building. He said that the applicants were trying to be consistent with the nature of an adaptive reuse for the building. He indicated that the applicants did not want the new structure to replicate a building of the 1920's or 1930's; they wanted the building to be of its own time. Mr. Jonas said that the applicant believed that there needed to be divergence between the old and the new, but considered it necessary that the buildings would be compatible with each other.
Mr. Jonas concluded by saying that he had been working on this project for a long time. He said that he had met with a number of people who have walked away because of the economic difficulties in developing the project. Mr. Jonas said that he believed the project would be "something that is attractive for the City" in terms of showing that density can be well done in something other than a 10 to 20-story building. Mr. Jonas said that if the Commission entertained the idea of scaling the project back, and proposed to move it back off the street, he said that the finances would not work. He added that the applicants had cut out as much density as possible to still make the project work financially.
Mr. Jonas introduced Mr. John Smart, whose architectural firm had done a number of projects similar to this one and who was acknowledged in the country as being one of the foremost firms in terms of historic and infill development sites.
as the one proposed in this application. He indicated that his firm has a patent on the apartment building design with a parking garage in the center. Mr. Smart said that by constructing a project in such a manner, the parking for the residents would be close, and by putting the parking in the middle, urban housing edges would be created. He indicated, "This is something that we are doing in a lot of major cities like Houston, Dallas, and San Francisco. People are trying to get back to that street experience. We believe that it is a wave of the future".
The following points of interest were presented by the applicants:
1. The Juel Building would be renovated and be the focal point of the complex. It would be used as a clubhouse with some small housing units in the front portion. The rest of the building would have exercise rooms, entertainment areas, a computer and office space, management and leasing offices. The swimming pool and courtyards would have access from the building. Under the proposal, with this adaptive reuse, the Juel would have a "whole new life, and yet it will retain the original residential character along 600 East".
2. The parking structure would have access from both 500 East and 600 East streets. The residents would be able to park on the same level as their unit;
3. Public parking would be available;
4. A few apartments would have a private access from the street with front doors and porches, which would reinforce the urban character of the building. Most apartments would have access from a corridor.
5. Metal gates would restrict access to the courtyards from the street;
6. The created open spaces would be landscaped with gardens and fountains;
7. On the 600 East elevation, the new building would consist of a three-story structure, which would relate to the Juel Building;
8. The rhythm, materials, cornices, and other architectural elements would also relate to the Juel Building;
9. All three stories of the street fa<;ades would be faced with brick;
10.There would be a combination of synthetic stucco (EIFS) and brick on the first level, only, on the other facades. Mr. Jonas said that they were considering using the traditional stucco because the EIFS systems are subjects of a number of law suits around the country; would be interspersed with the existing building, most of which are small in scale and are one and two-stories high. Because the plan bisects the block, its street frontage is disproportionately small to the number of units and would not dominate the whole streetscape between 300 and 400 South and 500 and 600 East Streets;
12.The principal facades would be stepped in and out; and
13.A 4/12 roof pitch is proposed. Movement occurs in a wood-framed project, such as this, and because of the massing, flat roofs do not work. They leak over a period of time and become a hardship for the development.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the applicants respectfully disagreed with staff regarding the sloped roof issue. He said the following: "We feel very strongly about the sloped roof as a design element, and I think we are really on very solid footing with this. I don't have to remind most of you of this, but the standard I think we all consult, is the Secretary of the Interior's. (He referred to The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.) He recognized the guidelines were for rehabilitating historic buildings but he believed in this context we are rehabilitating and working with an historic neighborhood." Mr. Smith read Article No.3 from the ten most important guidelines: "Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken."
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the element on the drawings on either side of the windows on the first floor. Mr. Smart said they would be shutters, and not side lights. When Ms. Deal asked about the material on the chimneys, Mr. Smart said that the surface would be stucco. Ms. Deal said that on 600 East, where the facade would be all brick, she said that she would like the chimneys to be faced with brick and not stucco. Ms. Deal said that she was curious why the name changed to "The Reserve at Trolley Square" when it was not very close to Trolley Square. Mr. Jonas said that the name would "tie in" with the proposed east/west light rail stop at 600 East and 400 South would be called "The Trolley Square Station".
• Ms. Rowland pointed out that the drawings in the staff report were "flipped" from the larger drawings that were on exhibit. She said that she would like to be able to see a "hint" of open space from the street, rather than a solid block wall of buildings. She said that she realized the porches and balconies would help by breaking up the façade, but observed that the successful apartment complexes in the city, have entrances, stoops, porches, and balconies, he said that he doubted that one would get the feeling of looking at a big, monolithic, building.
• Mr. Gordon made some comments about the height of the some of the apartment buildings in the area of the proposed project. He indicated that the streetscape on 300 East, had buildings with three and four stories. Mr. Gordon said that when a building is tall enough and the roof pitch is low enough, "it would read pretty close to being flat".
• Ms. Mitchell reminded the Commission that the original plans for the site showed that the parking would be underground. Mr. Jonas said that the cost was too prohibitive and the water table was too high. He added that the underground parking also created security risks for the residents. Mr. Wright pointed out that the same problem exists with underground levels of parking in the new Gateway project.
• Mr. Young noted that Trolley Square frequently has water in the underground parking structure. He inquired if the top story of the parking structure would be covered. Mr. Smart said that it would not be covered.
• Mr. Littig inquired about the chimneys and standpipes on the roof. Mr. Smart said that the chimneys and standpipes would be placed on the back side of the building and would not be seen from the street. He said that there would be fireplaces only on the third and fourth floors. Mr. Littig said that he appreciated that the cornice on the new building would be modeled after the Juel. He indicated that he would like to see the cornice step further in and out from the primary wall plane. Mr. Littig said that he thought that the cornice appeared too flat on the elevation drawings. Mr. Smith said that there would be an overhang of 3-1/2 feet at the top. Mr. Smart said that the building would read more like row houses.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
+ Mr. Matt Wolverton, who resides at 555 East 100 South, stated that he is a board member of the Central City Community Council. He said that he prepared a letter to the Commission that he wished to read into the records of this meeting, which was passed out to the members, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. The letter stated that although he voted to approve the project at the community council's May 5, 1999 meeting, he explained the reasons why he was reconsidering his original intentions.
The following issues were raised in his letter: 1) the use of stucco and roof design would not contribute to the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood; 2) the demolition of housing stock in the neighborhood was not a just cause to construct the development; 3) the project is not in keeping with the community council's effort to preserve single-family housing and create affordable housing project of this magnitude; and 5) the structure would not be "downtown" quality; it would be more like "Sandy or Murray" quality.
Mr. Wolverton that he was encouraged by the following: 1) the courtyard design of the project would allow the residents to sit outdoors and help contribute, positively, to the neighborhood and the urban living; 2) the willingness to allow the Central City Community Council to hold meetings in the courtyard and/or in, what would be the renovated Juel Building; and 3) the Historic Landmark Commission's efforts to consider changes to the Salt Lake City Zoning Code regarding the Standards for Determination of Economic Hardship in connection with the demolition of a landmark site or a contributing structure in an historic district.
In conclusion, Mr. Wolverton said that he appreciated the time he had been given to speak to the Commission and extended his appreciation to the Historic Landmark Commission for its effort in historic preservation. Ms. Deal inquired if Mr. Wolverton spoke as a private citizen or as a representative from the Central City Community Council. Mr. Wolverton responded by saying that he was speaking as a private citizen.
Mr. Young noted that copies of a letter by Mr. Robert M. Rowan, Chair of the Central City Neighborhood Council was circulated to the Commission members and was entered into the record, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. The letter denoted a conditional approval for the project by the Central City Community Council.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Parvaz indicated that Mr. Jonas would be requesting to demolish the homes on Vernier Place, which were single-family homes, in order to construct the project. He said that "there was no trace of that request with the proposal". Ms. Giraud explained that the two requests would be separate. She said that even if the Commission approved the proposal, as presented, or with certain conditions, nothing could go forward until a decision was made about the homes on Vernier Place. Ms. Giraud remarked that the reason why the proposal was on the agenda for this meeting was that it was important that the Commission reviewed what the reuse plan would be for the entire site. She pointed out that it was a "chicken and egg" type of situation. A lengthy discussion took place.
• Mr. Young stated that that one of the requirements necessary for a demolition proposal, was a site plan indicating what the future use of the property would be. He said that in most cases, all the Commission would see would be a parking lot or landscaping. Mr. Young also indicated that the demolition request would be a separate application.
the current proposal until the outcome of the demolition request would be realized. Mr. Young reported that the demolition issue would probably be decided by an Economic Review Panel after an economic hardship review. He added that, if for some reason a demolition permit would not be allowed, the applicants would have to reconfigure the design of the project to accommodate the loss of the Vernier Place property. Ms. Giraud added that the Commission could table the proposal until the outcome of the demolition request, but suggested that the Commission give the applicants some kind of indication if they are going in the right direction. Mr. Parvaz said, "I think we are out of sync. I don't think we should be reviewing this until we find out about the demolition of those homes on Vernier Place."
Mr. Wright presented a brief history of the subject proposal and property site, talking about the original proposal and the previous demolition requests as the applicants began acquiring more property. Ms. Deal said that she thought the Commission had approved the demolition on those houses on Vernier Place. Mr. Wright reported that the Historic Landmark Commission approved the relocation of the houses, but not the demolition. He added that the relocation process fell through. He suggested that a decision could be made by the Commission contingent upon certain conditions that could be refined in the Architectural Subcommittee, or the outcome of the demolition of the houses on the Vernier Place property. Mr. Wright said, with assurance, that neither a demolition permit nor a building permit would be issued until the process was completed.
The discussion continued, with some of the members of the Commission, as well as staff, expressing his/her opinions on the issues that were discussed earlier in the meeting.
Ms. Mitchell said that she liked the direction in which the project was going. She added that she thought the facades would be "pretty handsome". Ms. Mitchell said that her only concern was that the materials would be of a good quality. She said that she had observed in some buildings, that the design would be good but the details would look very cheap. She added that it would just "kill it". Ms. Mitchell encouraged the applicants to use quality materials.
The discussion turned to some building code issues that Mr. Wright said would be reviewed by the City's Building Services, such as the natural light going into the building on different elevations. In response to a question, Mr. Wright pointed out that the project did not require a planned development because all the buildings would have adequate frontage off the street. Ms. Giraud also indicated that there were no unresolved zoning issues.
• Mr. Parvaz again said that he not believe the proposed apartment complex met the character or the footprints of the traditional buildings that exist on the property.
The wording of the motion was discussed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 00699, contingent on the disposition of the Vernier Place properties and based on the resolution of the following details: 1) chimney details; 2) window details; 3) sections and elevations; 4) balcony details; 5) railing details; 6) lentil details; 7) building and wall sections showing window placement; 8) exterior lighting plans; 9) roofing materials; 10) a landscaping plan; and 11) examination of the creation of visual breaks that
would give a glimpse inside to the middle of the courtyard. Further the project is required to go to the Architectural Subcommittee for refinement and return to the full Commission for final approval. It was seconded by Mr. Owen.
After some discussion, Ms. Deal amended her motion.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 006-99, contingent on the disposition of the Vernier Place properties and based on the resolution of the following details: 1) chimney details; 2) window details; 3) sections and elevations; 4) balcony details; 5) railing details; 6) lentil details; 7) building and wall sections showing window placement; 8) cornice and window details; 9) exterior lighting plans; 10) roofing materials; 11) a landscaping plan; 12) examination of the creation of visual breaks that would give a glimpse inside to the middle of the courtyard; and 13) a streetscape drawing showing the elevations to get a better sense of scale. Further, the project is required to go to the Architectural Subcommittee for refinement and return to the full Commission for final approval. The second still stood by Mr. Owen. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Devine, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 007-99, by Jeff Jonas of Winthrop Court. L.C., requesting to renovate and alter the Juel Apartment Building at 340 South 600 East.
Ms. Deal disclosed the fact that she met with the applicants before the plans were developed to renovate the Juel Apartment Building regarding an adaptive reuse. She added she was not paid or an employee of the applicants.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the project required any change of land use in the ordinance. Mr. Knight said that it was still an allowable use but the occupancy, as defined in the building code, may change. He said that would be a building code issue reviewed by the plans examiners in the building permits office. Mr. Wright said that the Juel Building would be used as a support space and is allowed in the City code. Mr. Young inquired about changes to the seismic upgrade plan and Mr. Wright said that he was not aware of that because it was a building code issue. It was recognized that the drawings of the Juel Building, included with the staff report, were directionally incorrect. Mr. Gordon inquired about the proposed floor plan, Mr. Knight said that a floor plan was not submitted.
The applicant, Mr. Jeff Jonas, was in attendance as well as Mr. Max J. Smith from MJSA Architects, Salt Lake City, Mr. John Smart from Kaufman Meeks and Partners Architects, Houston, and Mr. Scott McFadden from Trammell Crow Residential, Denver. The applicants continued to use a briefing board to further demonstrate the project.
Mr. Jonas said that the applicants concurred with most of the staff report and the staff's findings for this project. He said that he believed that it was an attractive reuse for the building and would fit into the larger project. Mr. Jonas stated that engineering work needed to begin to start looking at the seismic and other construction issues. He asked for the Commission's approval on the proposed renovation of the Juel Building at this meeting. Mr. Jonas pointed out that by opening up the north elevation, a lot of brick would be available for use where necessary. He commented that there was no desirable way to put a handicap entrance in the front so the access would be a ground level on the north elevation.
Mr. Jonas repeated his description of the Juel Building renovation project, which was already included in these minutes.
Mr. Smart said that there was an existing mansard shingles entrance on the building that the applicants would like to tear down because he said that he did not believe it was part of the original building. Ms. Deal recommended that an old photograph or drawings be researched to make certain that element was not on the original structure. Mr. Smart said that it would be replaced with a cornice that would be compatible with the style of architecture. Mr. Smart also talked about the existing windows and how the pattern would be repeated. He added that the little bathroom windows would be eliminated.
Mr. Smart said that he was aware that more refinement of the details of the colonnade that is planned for the north elevation of the building, would be needed. He also said that the colonnade would connect the apartment building to the club house.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Gordon led the discussion by inquiring further about the proposed floor plan of the building. He also talked about the proposed entrance on the south elevation. Mr. Jonas said that the doorway would be symmetrical to match the symmetrical facade of the building. Mr. Gordon said that he wanted to go on record and express his appreciation that "beefy" columns would be used for the colonnade which would have "a good diameter to them".
• Ms. Rowland expressed her concern that some of the proposed entrances, that appeared on the drawings, would be not be accessible. Mr. Wright said that all the entrances would be used. He added that the front entrance would access the front residential units. Mr. Wright also talked about having access to the light rail stop on 600 East and 400 South.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Deal said that the project would be similar to the development at Irving School, which was a landmark site. She said that the developers incorporated the original front fa9ade into the clubhouse, leasing office, and amenities center. Ms. Deal indicated that she thought it was really successful and set a precedent for the kind of project that was proposed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 007-99 as presented with the condition that details of the colonnade, particularly a railing section, can be refined by the Architectural Subcommittee, without effecting the rest of the renovation of the Juel Building. This approval is to be effective immediately so work could begin for seismic upgrading. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Devine, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update on the revisions to the Economic Hardship Ordinance.
Ms. Giraud discussed the memorandum she had included in the Commissioners packets, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She pointed out that there were several items that the Commission wanted researched by Lynn Pace, the Assistant City Attorney. She pointed out that his comments were included in the memorandum.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about any written guidelines or policies that outlined what should be rebuilt in the case where an historic landmark was demolished. Ms. Giraud explained that the standards in the zoning ordinance had to be followed and there was information in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Mr. Parvaz talked about his suggestion regarding the footprint, height, exterior building materials, and overall volume of a demolished landmark structure and site to be used for new construction. Ms. Giraud said that will still take a lot more research.
Mr. Wright said that restrictive ordinance might have an impact on whether or not a home owner could put an addition on a house. He then used the Governor's Mansion for example, when he said if that ordinance would have been in place, and the building would have been totally destroyed in the fire, there would have had to be a similar structure rebuilt in its place. He said that, with his experience with members of Historic Landmark Commissions, they would not want any structure that would have a "fake" sense of history. Ms. Deal said that would be violating The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Wright added that "you don't replicate, you build something of the current time period". Mr. Young said that even if a building could be built, which replicated a landmark site, it would no longer be an historic structure and would have to be removed from the register; it would lose its status. Ms. Giraud said that the Juel Apartment Building may have, at one time, replaced a small adobe structure.
Ms. Giraud addressed the Fred Meyer property by saying that would not have been built because the buildings that were demolished were small one-story structures. She added that it would have prevented development of almost any kind and "she did not believe that would have been doing the Central City Historic District any favors".
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich remarked that Ms. Giraud was talking about the highest and best use/value thing. Ms. Giraud said that it was not only a matter of the highest and best value, but could be a deterrent, not only historic districts, but for master plans of the city and other procedures. Ms. Rowland said that when people are successful in getting through the demolition and the economic hardship process, that becomes less of a deterrent. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission needed to continue to be involved with zoning issues in historic districts.
The members of the Historic Landmark Commission continued the discussion with several members expressing his/her concerns and opinions. Mr. Wright said that the footprint issue would raise a huge debate with the City Council. He said that each council member would be concerned about the impact that language would have in his/her area.
Mr. Young inquired if a vote on this issue from the Commission was appropriate. After a short discussion, Mr. Young called for a motion.
Mr. Parvaz moved to process the portions of the economic hardship ordinance where there was no controversy and postpone the footprint issue until more study could be done. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Devine, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the
vote.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Deal so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M•