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 Noreen Heid, Janice Lew, Nelson Knight, and Sean Randall.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Peter Ashdown and Alex Protasevich were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Sean Randall, Intern.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn 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. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the June 5, 2002 meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Mr. Knight proposed that the Commission review Case No. 013-02 prior to Case No. 001-00. He said that Staff listed the cases on the agenda according to age, but after some deliberation with the RDA, it was believed that the reuse landscaping plan should be reviewed prior to the demolition of the structures. The Commission had no objections to reversing the order.
Case No. 013-02. by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, represented by the 181 Group, for final review of draft design guidelines and landscaping plan for the proposed commercial development located at 500 North and 300 West. in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The guidelines will be used to market the property to potential developers of the site.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that RDA was requesting final approval of the Design Guidelines for 300 West and 500 North 'The Capitol Hill Neighborhood Center': prepared by 181 Group intended as a reuse plan to be used to market the property to potential developers of the site.
Mr. Knight pointed out that the Commission had reviewed the application at two previous meetings, on May 18, 2002, and June 5, 2002. He added that RDA had provided the final draft of the guidelines to the Commission, along with a schematic site plan and elevations for a mixed commercial/residential development on the site.
Mr. Knight stated that in addition, the RDA had supplied a proposed landscaping plan for the site as an interim reuse plan to allow demolition of the four buildings on the site while the property is marketed and until a design for full reuse plan is approved and permits obtained from the City.
Mr. Knight described the following proposal: The site plans and design guidelines went through a community design process that consisted of a series of open houses and an advisory committee. Further information and color renderings can be viewed on the RDA's web page.
Several site plan options were proposed. IBI's "Arctic Court Option" was chosen by the RDA Board of Directors, who is the City Council, for further development. A schematic site plan, sections and elevations for the proposed building along 300 West are attached to the staff report, a copy was filed with the minutes. As noted in IBI's report, the purpose of this design is "to establish densities and massing and the character for the development." Design specifics would be supplied when a developer for the property is secured and returns to the Historic Landmark Commission with a final proposal.
The proposed landscaping plan includes a strip of landscaping along the edges of the site, and 55 new trees. No irrigation system is detailed on the drawings, but would be required by City ordinance. No scale is included on the drawing, but the landscape strip appears to be between 20 and 30 feet.
Mr. Knight referred to the following standards that are outlined in Section 21A.34.020(H) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
The New Construction section of the Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also should be used primarily for the residential structures in this case.
Staff and Commissioners raised a number of issues with specific language in earlier drafts in the project's design guidelines. Staff has reviewed the final guidelines and believes that those issues have been satisfactorily resolved in the final draft.
Accordingly, staff is making the following general findings on the schematic project:
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 Arctic Court option proposes two 3 or 3-1/2 story mixed-use buildings along 300 West, with first floor retail/commercial uses and upper story residential units. These two buildings would be oriented toward 300 West with parking at the center of the site. The schematic elevations and sections provide further detail of the scale and proportions of the existing structures. Although the original character in this portion of the block was residential, 300 West has evolved into a commercial strip, with a mix of one and two story commercial and apartment structures, and smaller scaled historic residential buildings. The proposed buildings respect this streetscape.
In addition, seven two story single-family dwellings are proposed for the west side of Arctic Court. Specific details on the design of these structures is not supplied, but would be guided by language in the design guidelines. The new buildings are smaller than the existing single-family residential buildings on Arctic Court, but are similar in scale to other historic inner court development in the city. Roof types for this portion of the development are addressed in the design guidelines.
Staff's finding of fact: Insofar as can be determined at this time, the application complies with this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the 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 design guidelines provide specific language regarding this standard, with commercial storefronts on the ground floor of the mixed use building, and smaller, residential proportioned openings and balconies on the upper stories. The residential buildings are similarly addressed in the guidelines, with a specific provision for entrance porches on each house. The proposed materials are similar to those used historically.
Staffs finding of fact: Insofar as can be determined at this time, the application complies with this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staffs discussion: Again, the design guidelines address this standard. Structures will be sited to maintain and reinforce a street wall along 300 West, 500 North, and Arctic Court, with parking located at the center of the site. This is in keeping with the historic development pattern of the streetscape and neighborhood. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements will be appropriate for the mixed-use character of the 300 West Buildings and the residential character of Arctic Court.
Staff's finding of fact: Insofar as can be determined at this time, 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 finding of fact: This project will require subdivision approval, but the exact nature of the subdivision is not established at this time. This issue can be resolved when the final project is reviewed.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(P) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Review of Post-Demolition Plan for New Construction or Landscape Plan and Bond Requirements for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition requires HLC to approve new construction or a landscape plan for a vacant site before a demolition plan can be approved. The following section adds: If the post-demolition plan is to landscape the site, a bond shall be required to ensure the completion of the landscape plan approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. The design standards and guidelines for the landscape plan are provided in Part IV, Chapter 21A.48, Landscaping and Buffers, Section 21A.48.050:
1. The bond shall be issued in a form approved by the city attorney. The bond shall be in an amount determined by the zoning administrator and shall be sufficient to cover the estimated cost, to (1) restore the grade as required by Title 18 of the Salt Lake City Code; (2) install an automatic sprinkling system; and (3) revegetate and landscape as per the approved plan; and
2. The bond shall require installation of landscaping and sprinklers within six months, unless the owner has obtained a building permit and commenced construction of a building or structure on the site.
Mr. Knight stated that in addition to Section 21A.34.020(P) of the ordinance, Section 18.64.040 Post-Demolition Use Plan Required also pertains to this application. This section states that a demolition permit shall not be issued until one of the following requirements has been met:
A. A permit for the use replacing the demolished building or structure has been issued by the Building and Housing Division.
B. A landscaping plan for the site, showing the sprinkling system and planted areas, has been approved and a performance bond to assure timely and proper installation and maintenance of the landscaping has been filed with the City in a form acceptable to the City. In the event the building official determines that landscaping is impracticable or unnecessary given the characteristics of the site and the neighborhood, the landscaping requirement may be waived subject to the provisions of Section 18.64.070 below.
C. In the event of a natural disaster, fire or other similar event or where immediate demolition and clearing of the land is necessary to remove hazardous or blighting conditions, the building official may waive the landscaping requirement and order immediate demolition. (Ord. 13-91 § 2 (part), 1991)
Staffs discussion: The City does not have set areas of required landscaping after demolition occurs, although by policy, landscaping of the required front setback area in commercial zones and the entire lot for residential zone is required. A request for waiver of this requirement for unusual or special circumstances may be obtained from the City Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. This property is within two zones: CS and SR-1. Thus, a landscaped area of thirty feet in the CS zones and a landscaped area covering the entire lot would be required in the SR-1 zone.
In previous cases, the commission has placed a condition that demolition permits for contributing structures shall not be issued until final plans are approved by the Historic Landmark Commission, in order to ensure that a project is likely to proceed before the buildings are demolished. This way, an irreplaceable resource is not removed, only to have a project fall through. RDA has requested that they not be required to maintain the properties in their vacant state, and that the Commission allow demolition to occur.
Staffs finding of fact: In past cases, the Historic Landmark Commission has required that a reuse plan be logged in for plan check before a demolition permit is issued.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Based upon the findings, staff recommends that the Commission conceptually approve the RDA's design guidelines and schematic plan for this site as a guide for marketing the site to potential developers, with the condition that the developer return to the Commission for review of a final development plan. Depending on the outcome of Case No. 001-00 requesting final approval of demolition of these structures, then the Commission may consider whether the submitted design guidelines and conceptual site plans, and/or the proposed landscaping plans provide a sufficient reuse plan to allow a demolition permit to be issued. Staff recommends that the Commission determine what will constitute an acceptable reuse plan, and require that the plan be logged in for plan check before demolition permits are issued."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Parvaz pointed out that the statement in the Public Art section of the design guidelines did not make sense, "The art program should not be to providing a statue or other similar features. Art may also be expressed in other ways, including the artistic structure". Ms. Mickelsen said there appears to be a word left out, such as 'The public art should not be 'limited' or other similar features". Mr. Knight said that would have to be clarified by the applicant. He referred to a previous discussion that public art should be more integrated into the building, rather than having a statue in the plaza.
Mr. Knight pointed out that the Residential Expression refers to “Brick used as a significant element such as: a wainscot, or vertical masonry covering." He said that the language could potentially give a developer the idea that only a brick wainscoting on the sides or the front of the building would be required. Mr. Knight stated that element would be an architectural feature that would not be in keeping with the character of the district. Ms. Giraud mentioned that a brick wainscoting was a residential requirement in West Jordan, but would not be in keeping with the Capitol Hill Historic District. She said that wording would be eliminated in the revised draft of the guidelines.
Ms. Rowland pondered over the landscaping plan by saying that the eastern half of the site is in a SR-1 zone, which requires full landscaping; however, in the CS zone, the requirement for landscaping is only thirty feet. Mr. Knight said that was not clearly reflected on the landscaping plan. He stated that the applicant could go to the HAAB board (Housing Advisory and Appeals Board) to request a waiver.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Mr. Danny Walz, representing the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, stated that RDA has spent nine months working on this reuse plan for a community based design review process. He commented that the Board of Directors approved the reuse plan and the currently revised design guidelines. Mr. Walz requested approval from the Historic Landmark Commission so the RDA could offer the property to developers with a sense of what could be built on the site.
Mr. Walz indicated that the landscaping plan would be an interim reuse for the site. He said that he realized that the landscaping plan was not as detailed as other reuse plans. Mr. Walz mentioned that the different zoning is not reflected on the landscaping plan. He added that RDA would comply with the conditions brought forward by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Walz said that he received additional comments from Staff and were transmitted to the consultant. He added that the comments mostly consisted of deleted words, grammatical errors, and other corrections.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by pointing out that the Commission should review the final draft of the design guidelines. Mr. Walz again said that the changes would reflect the comments from the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Mickelsen also inquired more about the landscaping plan. She pointed out the plan did not show 100 percent grass, and inquired if the "broken down parking lot" would stay the same. Mr. Walz said that the entire three-acre site would not be landscaped; only what was required for the reuse plan. He stated that RDA was still considering the percentage of grass that would be required for the two zoning districts.
• Ms. Rowland clarified that the landscaping plan would be put in during the interim period because it would be more pleasing for any potential developers. She added that it probably would not happen for another six months. Mr. Walz said that the landscaping would be put in immediately after the demolition occurs on the property.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated her concern about demolishing the homes on Arctic Court. Ms. Gardner said that she did not believe that "knocking down those houses on Arctic Court and putting in landscaping is going to make it any more desirable for a developer". She said that she would rather see those homes on Arctic Court be renovated so families could live in them rather than living over a commercial development with cars parking close around. Ms. Gardner noted that it did not seem like the most desirable thing for the neighborhood. She continued by saying, "I know those houses look like junk to you but they could be fixed up." A member of the Commission spoke up and said that they do not look like junk. Ms. Gardner added that she was attending this meeting to plead for something totally different on the site. She pointed out that there had been several stores that have gone out of business on the corner of 500 North and 300 West. Ms. Gardner commented that the RDA has done things to try to satisfy the people in the neighborhood as well as a potential Developer. Mr. Simonsen mentioned that the homes on Arctic Court were for sale through the RDA to anyone wanting to purchase them. Ms. Gardner said that she and her husband renovated a little home in Park City 30 years ago and could not do it again at this time. She added, "Thanks for the offer." Mr. Simonsen said that apparently no one else has taken them up on the offer either. In conclusion, Ms. Gardner said that she appreciated all that Mr. Walz and the RDA has done and she hoped for the best for the development.
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested citizen, stated that she is going to be very strident on the subject. She stated, "I spoke about this proposal a year and one-half ago to the Historic Landmark Commission and at that time I felt my comments did not make a whole lot of difference. So I went on to talk to a member of the RDA Advisory Board, which thoroughly frustrated me because this person actually said that the RDA owned other property on Capitol Hill and this person was hoping that there would be a better deal for historic preservation coming out of that proposal if they would acquiesce on this one. That was one of the most ridiculous statements for a politically savvy well-educated person to make that I have heard in a long time. This is government being the bad example. It is absolutely obscene to talk about taking down contributory structures in an historic district without there even being a developer or a proposal on the table. This is speculative demolition. It is what I expect from the bad guys or the people I refer to as the bad guys." Ms. Cromer also expressed her concern over the economic stagnation that the country is in. She stated that the housing market for rentals right now is the worst it has been in over a decade. She said, "I am thankful that the properties I have to rent are unique and historic and they offer people something they cannot get from a standard new development that is what attracts them and that is why I am able to keep them occupied. I .am grateful for that." Ms. Cromer said that constructing the residential units, without a subsidy, "did not make any sense". She added, "demolishing those homes on Arctic Court, would not make the site any more desirable for a developer or facilitate development any sooner." Ms. Cromer said that those homes are very important for the character of this historic district. She said that she realized there has been a lot of work gone into the development of the property. Ms. Cromer asked the Commission not to approve the replacement of the historic structures with landscaping. She said that she intends to discuss this matter with Mr. Mr. Eric Jergensen, a member of the City Council. In closing, Ms. Cromer asked the Commission to think about the slowing market and the number of buildings in the community that have stood idle "sometimes for decades" before they have had very successful reuses. She asked the Commission to appreciate the economic factors in this current market.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion took place. Some members of the Commission were confused that the landscaping plan, as a reuse plan for the site, was attached to Case No. 013-02 which was a final review of the design guidelines. Mr. Knight suggested making separate motions.
The discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as: 1) RDA has had two years to find a developer so RDA has met the criteria of a one-year bona fide effort to demolish the structures; 2) an approved reuse plan has to be submitted before a demolition permit can be issued and the landscaping plan was a temporary reuse plan; 3) RDA wants to market the site to developers with the demolition and the reuse plan in place; 4) a landscaping plan was submitted and approved for the Vernier Court property. However, Phase I of that development had also been approved; and 5) RDA desires an approval for the demolition and the reuse plan so additional boarding fees would not have to be paid for the boarded structures.
Since there were some additional questions for the applicant, it was a general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the homes on Arctic Court were vacant. Mr. Walz said that the one to the north has been for years and someone is temporarily living in the other one. Mr. Simonsen asked if the vacant home had been marketed as a temporary rental unit. Mr. Walz stated that the house is not in any condition to rent.
Mr. Christensen asked about the status of the "little rectangular wooden home" that is just beyond the one on the corner of Arctic Court and 500 North. Mr. Walz said that the house Mr. Christensen was referring to was on the same property as the triplex on the corner of Arctic Court and 500 North (244 W. 500 North). He noted that the two houses and the nine-unit apartment building at 248 W. 500 North are not on the list for demolition. He added that those three structures are being marketed for renovation.
Mr. Simonsen queried the economic issue of the residential development, and asked if there had been a market analysis done for the area. He added that he is currently working on three major large-scale residential units and his perception is that the market is still very strong for residential uses, especially with the interest rates being so low. Mr. Walz said that RDA did a market analysis. He brought up the fact that six renovated homes on Pugsley Street, which are a half block southwest of the subject site, sold very quickly.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the existing homes on the Arctic Court property ever been marketed individually and Mr. Walz said that they had not and added that the project has always been marketed as an assemblage. Mr. Walz said that RDA never intended to market those homes individually for fear of "piece-mealing" the property and perhaps jeopardizing the sale of the entire site.
Mr. Walz stated that this is the site where the RDA can do something of significant value for the community in terms of bringing services to the neighborhood. He talked about the compromise of leaving the structures on the corner of Arctic Court and 500 North by calling for the demolition of other structures. Mr. Walz said, "There is no place else in west Capitol Hill that would accommodate the development. This is your one-shot and that is why it was in the master plan like this."
Mr. Simonsen bought forth the idea of breaking off the Arctic Court parcels, and assembling the properties into a separate development, leaving those two structures to the disposition of the developer. He added that they could be renovated and three new homes could be constructed, of approximately the same scale. Mr. Walz said that RDA looked at that idea early on in the design process and decided that it would not be feasible to save those. He said that the consultants believed it would be better to construct new homes to recreate the residential feel of Arctic Court.
Ms. Giraud stated that she did not completely understand why the site had to be completely cleared. She suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the demolition but not allow them to be demolished until a developer is found with plans in place. Mr. Walz talked about the maintenance of the properties. He added that RDA has been working for two years trying to find a developer who would be willing to develop the site with the existing buildings still standing. Mr. Walz said that developers are "scared to death" to go through the demolition process in an historic district. He said the property looks "run down", and that is why RDA wants to clear the site. Mr. Walz noted that the property is one of the major blighting influences in that perception, and that could be eliminated, along with other projects under way and near completion, so hopefully that perception will be reversed.
Mr. Christensen stated that the proposal calls for seven new homes on Arctic Court and suggested building fewer homes with larger yards. Mr. Walz said that seven is the maximum that RDA proposed for the density. He added that building less would be the decision of the developer. This discussion continued regarding the historic structures and the residential units planned for the site.
Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting to public comment, since there were no further questions for the applicant.
Mr. Wilson stated, "I continue to think that the guidelines are a deterrent to a developer. I may be alone and I hope I am wrong." Others agreed with his statement. He continued by saying that he did not think the guidelines would lure more developers to the site.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she transmitted her comments to Staff regarding the design guidelines and suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission approve them only if the final draft is reviewed by members of the Commission. She stated, "I think if they are given to the public right now it would be disastrous to the City and the Historic Landmark Commission and counterproductive to all the efforts."
First motion for the design guidelines:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for case No. 013-02 to only approve the Design Guidelines for 300 West and 500 North "The Capitol Hill Neighborhood Center", with the condition that the final draft be reviewed by members of the Historic Landmark Commission before its release to the public. Mr. Young seconded the motion.
Ms. Giraud inquired if the draft was to come back to the full Commission for final review or Staff. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would not matter how this is accomplished. She said that it might be to RDA's advantage and more efficient if the final copy came straight to her for editing. Mr. Simonsen said that the applicant would have to make that decision.
The discussion continued with other suggestions as to how to separate the cases.
Mr. Parvaz talked about the procedure for approval. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission could delegate the final editing to Ms. Mickelsen, who could incorporate all substantive comments made this meeting, such as the architectural metals, brick wainscoting, and the public art.
Amended motion for the design guidelines:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for case No. 013-02 to only approve the Design Guidelines for 300 West and 500 North "The Capitol Hill Neighborhood Center", with the condition that the final draft be reviewed by members of the Historic Landmark Commission before its release to the public to be certain that the points raised at this meeting were addressed in the final version. Mr. Young's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Wilson was opposed. Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Motion for the landscaping plan:
Ms. Rowland further moved for case No. 013-02 that the landscaping plan be considered as part of Case No. 001-00 for the property located at 300 West and 500 North. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 001-00. by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, represented by Danny Walz. requesting final approval to demolish the structures at 519 North Arctic Court, 521 North Arctic Court, 548 North 300 West. and 554-556 North 300 West. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. It was noted by Ms. Heid that Case No. 001-01 on the agenda should be corrected to Case No. 001-00.
Mr. Knight stated that the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was requesting final approval of the demolition of four buildings on this site in order to develop a mixed use project. He said that portions of the property are zoned CS-Community Shopping District and other portions are zoned SR-1-Special Development Pattern Residential District.
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: The 1999 (amended 2001) Capitol Hill Community Master Plan calls for development of a neighborhood shopping node on this site. The RDA has acquired properties at this site in order to develop a neighborhood scale commercial center. In January of 2000, the RDA applied for demolition of six contributing properties on this site.
The Commission reviewed this case on January 5, 2000 and April 5, 2000. At that time, five buildings were proposed for demolition. The building (tri-plex/store at 242 West 500 North, was removed by the RDA from the application. Demolition was denied for one property on the site at 248 West 500 North.
The Historic Landmark Commission reconsidered the initial findings for 248 West 500 North and eventually found that the demolition request met enough of the standards to put the property into a one-year bona fide effort clause. Currently this property is not included as part of the demolition. The final "shot gun" property behind the store addressed off Arctic Court has not been included as part of the demolition as well.
Mr. Knight said that the findings of fact for each property were organized in a table format and included in the staff report. He noted that in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the Commission deferred final action on these properties for one year while the applicant conducted a bona fide effort to preserve the site.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.030(N) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Final Decision for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition Following One-Year Deferral. Upon the completion of the one-year period and if the applicant provides evidence of a bona fide preservation effort, the Historic Landmark Commission shall make a final decision for the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition pursuant to subsection (F)(2) of this section. The Historic Landmark Commission shall approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition and approve, with modifications, or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the reuse plan for new construction pursuant to subsection (F)(2),(H), or (P) of this section.
Mr. Knight stated that the Commission must determine if the RDA conducted a bona fide effort to preserve the site. Section 21A.34.020(M) lists four actions that define bona fide:
1. Marketing the property for sale or lease;
2. Filing an application for alternative funding sources for preservation, such as federal or state preservation tax credits, Utah Heritage Revolving Fund loans, redevelopment agency loans, etc.;
3. Filing an application for alternative uses if available or feasible, such as conditional uses, special exceptions, etc., and
4. Obtaining written statements from licensed building contractors or architects detailing the actual costs to rehabilitate the property.
Staff's discussion: Since the January of 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the RDA has attempted to market the property for sale and development, but so far no developer has proposed an appropriate project. Last June, the RDA Board (City Council) designated a subcommittee to review the overall development and marketing strategy for the Commercial Node property. In response to the limited interest from developers, the subcommittee recommended that RDA proceed with preparing a reuse plan and possibly developing the property. If a developer were willing to develop the site as approved in the reuse plan, this strategy would still allow RDA to sell the property.
The RDA Board selected the IBI Group to manage a community-based design process and develop a reuse plan for the property. The RDA and IBI hosted four open houses to receive comments and input from the community regarding the issues and proposed reuse of the site. The final design guidelines and schematic site plans, elevations, and sections were submitted for Case No. 013-02.
The plan proposes rehabilitation of the two structures at 242 and 248 West 500 North. It is expected that the developer of the site will obtain financial assistance from the City and could obtain state and federal rehabilitation tax credits for the renovation of the historic buildings.
Staffs finding of fact: The property has been marketed for reuse by the RDA since January of 2000. Financial incentives for developing the properties was offered by the RDA, and information provided to potential developers on alternative funding mechanisms and alternative uses. The RDA examined costs of rehabilitating the existing building with potential developers and the subcommittee designated to study the site by the RDA Board. The application meets the standard for a bona fide effort.
Mr. Knight also referred to Section 21A.34.020(0), Recordation Requirement for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. Upon approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall require the applicant to provide archival quality photographs, plans or elevation drawings, as available, necessary to record the structure(s) being demolished.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Documentation of the buildings in a format and standard acceptable to the HLC must be prepared before the buildings are demolished.
Mr. Knight noted that Staff is formulating a Recordation/Documentation subcommittee to review standards for the recordation of contributing buildings scheduled for demolition.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends final approval for demolition of the buildings at 519 No. Arctic Court, 521 No. Arctic Court, 548 North 300 West and 554-556 North 300 West with the following conditions: 1) an approved reuse plan is logged in for plan check before demolition permits are issued and the Commission would consider whether or not the landscaping is a reasonable reuse plan; and 2) historic and architectural documentation in a format acceptable to the Commission is prepared and copies are submitted to the Planning Division and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Parvaz inquired into the status of the buildings considered for demolition. Mr. Knight said that they are considered contributing buildings in a Salt Lake City Historic District, as well as being included on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the historic district. Ms. Giraud said that the western boundary for the Capitol Hill Historic District was recently extended to 400 West for the National Register.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Danny Walz, representing the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, stated that he did not have anything to add, but would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by inquiring into the results of the final analysis of the cost of rehabilitating the homes on Arctic Court. Mr. Walz said that a housing rehabilitation specialist did a cursory look at those structures and the renovation price ranged from $20,000 to $60,000 for one of the homes and the other one ranged from $75,000 to $100,000. Mr. Walz spoke of the homes RDA renovated on Pugsley Street where the cost ranged from $80,000 to $95,000 per home. Mr. Walz noted that the RDA received instruction from the Board of Directors not to proceed with any rehabilitation.
• Mr. Littig inquired about the selling price of the homes on Pugsley Street. Mr. Walz said that they sold for between $110,000 and $120,000, which included a $60,000 subsidy from RDA for each home.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated, "There was never to her recollection any intent in 1995 zoning ordinance rewrite that the one-year bona fide effort to find a reuse for the property on any requirement or understanding that historic property would be welded to an elephant during that year. It would have to go through the process attached to this elephant. That is what has happened here. The best marketing strategy for these historic properties would be to free them up and market them individually." Ms. Cromer believed that "they would be jumped on like a house recently was on 500 North and Wall Street". She said that there were four offers for the house. She said that in her opinion the best marketing strategy was the one that the RDA chose not to pursue, and that it was very clear to her that these houses never really had a chance in the one-year period of time. Ms. Cromer said, "If this is the way the ordinance can be interpreted, it certainly needs to be changed in the current fine-tuning process that is underway. Because I do not see how you can encumber an historic property this way and say, here's a little house and you have to buy all of this to get it". She concluded by saying that it did not make any sense to her.
• A letter was received and distributed to the members of the Commission from Ms. Hermoine Jex, an interested member of the community, where she stated that an attractive high wall with landscaping and trees in front of the wall should be included in the plan, separating the residential from the commercial portions of the proposal. She also mentioned that there must not be an entrance to the commercial area close to Arctic Court off 500 North. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Rowland disagreed with the comment Mr. Walz made that the site is not marketable because it looks "run down". She said that the problem is that the property is currently not marketable because of many factors, including the economy, the surplus of housing units in the local market because of Olympic housing development, and the commercial and pending gateway residential project. She added that it was difficult to keep all the available units filled. Ms. Rowland also said that most developers are perfectly able to look at a site and envision a development without having to demolish all the structures. She said, "I have a hard time believing that is the obstacle for doing this. It seems like there is an attempt to prevent people moving here." Ms. Rowland said that the neighborhood is in a transition.
Mr. Christensen said that, technically, RDA has met the requirement for the one-year bona fide effort, however, there are houses in the Capitol Hill area that are in a similar condition that come on the market and are quickly sold. He mentioned the sale of a rundown house in his neighborhood that was on the market for four days. Mr. Christensen said that the owners, with private funds, completely renovated the structure. He said, "If the properties on Arctic Court would have been marketed individually, there was no doubt in my mind, that they would have been purchased and well on their way to renovation." Mr. Christensen said that he remembered trying to make that suggestion but it was "slammed" because RDA insisted that the properties on the site needed to be marketed as an assembled parcel of land to increase the residential density.
Ms. Giraud said that RDA believed it would be best to package the site that way. She said, "I think this is kind of 20-20 hindsight." Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission agreed to package the properties on the site.
Mr. Simonsen mentioned two factors: One, that the single-family residential proposal planned for Arctic Court would essentially be the same as what is there now, except there would be more homes on the site. The other factor is that in the course of marketing the entire site, RDA could market the two homes on Arctic Court individually for a two-month period. Mr. Simonsen stated that it would be unwise for the property to go through another year of "bona fide effort" and end up with the same results. He added that would not be a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Simonsen said that he was "brain storming" as he talked about the site.
Mr. Knight said that the question is whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission accepts what the RDA has done as a bona fide effort.
Mr. Young said that RDA has marketed the property as a large parcel in good faith and has put forth a bona fide effort to sell the property.
Mr. Parvaz said that he believed that the Historic Landmark Commission had no choice but to approve the demolitions, because if the demolition request was denied at this point, the applicant could appeal the decision, or perhaps go through an economic hardship process.
Mr. Littig suggested by tabling this proposal, it would open up the possibility for RDA to investigate marketing those homes separately. He added that if RDA has a developer in the next two weeks, "we would not want to stand in the way for progress with the procedure".
Ms. Rowland said that the Historic Landmark Commission does not have to approve the demolition without the option of marketing the homes on Arctic Court individually. Ms. Rowland mentioned again that the ordinance was weak and talked about a bona fide marketing effort at an inflated sales price.
Mr. Christensen said that it "looks like we are boxed in by the legal requirements. We have to approve the demolition". Mr. Simonsen said that RDA has done exactly what the Historic Landmark Commission requested two years ago and met the bona fide effort.
Mr. Knight recommended that the Staffs finding of fact not be adopted if the Commission wants to pursue the approach of marketing those homes individually. He added that alternate findings of fact could be formulated and adopted.
Mr. Young said the argument made two years ago was if the applicant removed those properties on Arctic Court from the package, the applicant would end up with a typical strip mall because the depth of the lots were not deep enough due to the grade change to provide sufficient parking. He added that is why the Commission left them in the package. Mr. Simonsen agreed and said again that he believed RDA has met the bona fide effort requirement.
Ms. Heid referred to the letter from Ms. Jex and said she was confused where Ms. Jex recommended a wall with landscaping and trees be located. Mr. Simonsen clarified that Ms. Jex proposed separating the single-family residences on Arctic Court from the commercial portion of the property. He pointed out the fact that the wall would be separating residential from residential because the mixed-use development on 300 West, would have multi-storied structures with residential use on the top of commercial.
A discussion took place where the members of the Commission expressed their views regarding the proposal of marketing the properties individually. The discussion turned to the size of the existing lots on Arctic Court, and where the Division of the two separate zoning districts appears on the site.
First motion for the demolition of the structures:
Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 001-00 that the Historic Landmark Commission agrees with Staff's recommendation except that the landscaping plan does not constitute a reuse plan. No demolition permits will be issued until approved reuse plans for the site are logged in.
Ms. Lew recommended that the motion include specific findings of fact as to why the reuse plan was not accepted. Mr. Simonsen agreed because based on the ordinance, the landscaping plan can constitute a reuse plan.
There was further discussion regarding the criteria in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Rowland amended her motion.
Amended final motion:
Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 001-00 that the Historic Landmark Commission agrees with Staff's recommendation, except that the proposed landscaping plan does not constitute a reuse plan because it does not meet the requirements in Section 21A.34.020(H) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction such as the following: 1) scale and form; 2) composition of principal facades; 3) relationship to street; and 4) subdivision of lots. Further, that no demolition permits will be issued until an approved reuse plan for the site was logged in. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
A discussion took place confronting the issues at hand.
Mr. Young asked for a point of order because a motion was made with no direction as to the final approval process. Ms. Giraud said that any new plan would have to be reviewed by the full Commission. Mr. Simonsen said that it would have to come back here because the Commission only approved a conceptual proposal.
Mr. Walz expressed his confusion about the motion. Mr. Simonsen responded by saying that any landscaping plan that was void of structures would not be acceptable to the Historic Landmark Commission. He added that the demolition had already been approved by the fact that the RDA met the obligations of the ordinance, but the RDA cannot receive a permit for demolition until the Historic Landmark Commission approves a reuse plan.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 018-02, at 580 No. West Capitol Street, by Mark and Jenney Milligan. represented by Lynn Morgan, architect. requesting to construct a two-story rear addition. The house is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the applicants were requesting approval of a rear addition to the existing house. Mr. Knight pointed out that the base zoning of the property is SR-1, "special pattern residential district" and that the zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: According to County tax records and the historic site form completed in 1980, this house was constructed c.1907 for Charles Edward and Alice Cook Bedford. The house is one and one-half stories, with a front facing gable roof, a hipped-roof, and full-width front porch. The house is clad with horizontal wood siding and an asphalt shingle roof. Stylistically, the house exhibits elements of late Victorian and early Arts and Crafts styles.
Mr. Knight described the proposal in the following manner: The applicants propose a two story addition, with approximately 1,000 additional square feet of space (including storage and utility spaces). Calling the addition "two storied" is getting into the semantics of the zoning ordinance. The second story of the proposal would not be entirely within the roof structure; it would only be a few feet. The addition would house two additional bedrooms, with a basement storage space. The addition would be sited behind the existing house. The sloped topography of the lot allows the addition to be set into the hillside. There would be less wall area on the west than on the east elevation. The peak of the new two-story addition would be four and one-half feet above the ridge of the original house.
The applicants propose to use a combination of horizontal wood, vertical board, and batten siding on the addition, in order to differentiate the new work from the original portion of the house. The applicants have not stepped the footprint of the addition back from the existing sidewalls of the house because they would like to align the existing back hallway at the northeast corner of the house with the hallway in the new addition. Staff has traditionally recommended an addition to be stepped back. It is also recommended in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. The applicants propose asphalt shingles as the roofing material, to match the existing house, and Masonite six-panel doors for use in the addition. Wood columns would support the second story overhand on the south side of the house. A new chimney constructed of salvaged brick is proposed for the east end of the addition.
Mr. Knight said that there is a correction in the staff report. He said that the original drawings that were submitted called for vinyl double-hung and fixed sash windows. Mr. Knight pointed out that the architect informed Staff that the windows would be wood and not vinyl.
Mr. Knight said that the future of the existing outbuilding behind the main house is uncertain. He added that it might be moved to another part of the property if the owners determined it is feasible, or it may be removed.
Mr. Knight stated that the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed the project on June 12, 2002 and it received a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Knight informed the Commission that the applicants have been working with the City Zoning Office to ensure compliance with height, yard, and bulk requirements for the SR-1 zone. He said that a full explanation was included in the staff report.
Mr. Knight referred to the following standards that are outlined in Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
• 10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following:
a. Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and
b. Any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials;
11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined n Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46, Signs; and
12.Additiona/ design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and
City Council.
Staff's discussion: Although the addition is large in comparison to the size of the original footprint of the house, the mass of the addition is behind and subordinate to the original portion of the house. Although the peak of the new addition will be four and one-half feet above the existing roof peak, the addition is set back far enough from the front of the property that it will not be prominent from the sidewalk. The addition will be visible from the adjoining vacant lot to the east. Staff believes that the addition will not be higher than the two story, non-contributing apartment building to the north of this property.
The massing and wall materials of the addition distinguish it from the historic portion of the building. The two large masses are connected with a slightly narrower connector. The roof slope is cut back in this area in order to allow light through to the original upper story window. The existing soffit and fascia design and wood material on the eaves of the historic building would be continued on the new addition. The proposed roof material is acceptable for the district.
The front portions of the building are not affected, and staff believes that no character-defining architectural features on the back of the house would be affected by construction of the addition. The design of the addition allows the existing windows and doorway on the east wall to remain.
The proposed windows and doors are similar in proportion and configuration to the windows on the existing house. Vinyl and Masonite have been routinely allowed by the Commission on additions to contributing buildings, when the configuration, size, and proportions of the historic building are maintained with the new windows and doors. However, the vinyl has been clarified and is no longer an issue. Although the outbuilding is a charming feature and moving it should be encouraged, the Commission has not typically prevented demolition of an outbuilding unless it is a contributing building in its own right, such as a carriage house.
Staff's finding of fact: The house substantially complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance for alteration of a contributing structure, and approval is in the best interest of the city.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of this application."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.
Ms. Mickelsen said the proposed addition would be very visible from West Capitol Street. Mr. Knight agreed and stated that the proposed addition would not be as high as the apartment building on the north. He added that the neighbors to the north requested that there would be no windows on the south elevation of the addition to maintain their privacy.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Mark Milligan, as well as Mr. Lynn Morgan, architect, representing the applicant were present. Mr. Morgan stated that the project would add two bedrooms to their home. He said he believed that the materials the applicant had selected would be appropriate for the addition. Mr. Morgan explained how the mistake was made on the drawings that showed the vinyl windows. He said that it was simply a drafting error.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Young led the discussion by inquiring if the shiplap siding would be MDF or regular wood. Mr. Morgan said that it probably would be a number three pine that would have the same profile as the main house. Mr. Morgan noted that the applicant was in the process of obtaining a salvaged door for the entrance into the basement.
• Ms. Mickelsen said that it appears like there is a lot of staircases for such a small house. Mr. Morgan explained how the existing hallway would connect to the corridor and then up the stairs to the new bedrooms in the addition. He said that the applicant studied several different designs of the massing of the additional rooms before deciding on the proposed design of the addition. Mr. Morgan said that the applicants realize the additional bedrooms would be a little remote and disconnected from the main house. Ms. Mickelsen said, 'That is not all bad".
In conclusion, Mr. Morgan explained that no heating ductwork would be required because one bedroom would be heated by a gas fireplace and the other would be heated by a gas fired stove. Mr. Morgan stated that the five-foot knee wall on the second floor would minimize the height of the addition.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no further discussion. Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No.018-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Staff's recommendation and approve the application to construct a two-story rear addition at 580 No. West Capitol Street. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 019-02, at 258 West 400 North, by Kevan Nilsson. requesting to install new vinyl sash in arched second story windows.
This item was cancelled by the applicant.
Case No. 020-02, a request by the Boyer Company, to remove approximately forty feet of the first story original wall on the west elevation of the Union Pacific Depot located at 400 W. South Temple. The Union Pacific Depot is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
This item was cancelled by the applicant.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update from the subcommittee working with the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) on a site for the Hoberman Arch that was used on the Olympic medals plaza:
A subcommittee was formulated from volunteers, Vicki Mickelsen, Willy Littig, Scott Christensen, and Soren Simonsen, who are serving on the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Simonsen said that the subcommittee, as well as other interested parties, have met two times with Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director, and additional meetings have been scheduled. He said that last week SLOC presented a "non-negotiable" required item list that would be appended to this gift to the City.
Mr. Simonsen said at the meeting this morning, the subcommittee also developed a "nonnegotiable" list. He said that he wanted to present the items to the Commission to find out if there were additional comments or actions that should be presented to the full committee.
Mr. Littig was asked to read the rough draft of the list of "non-negotiable" items:
• 1. All work must be reversible;
2. The story of Pioneer Park should not focus just on the pioneer story or the Olympic story, or both, but should be inclusive of the history of the site including pre-history to the present. (City Beautiful, role within the Salt Lake City park system, role in neighborhood with industry and ethnic diversity, role in the life of transients, etc.);
3. No reconstruction of the historic fort or other missing features;
4. The Historic Landmark Commission subcommittee should determine a range of appropriate alterations to the contours and grading that might be proposed;
5. The park needs to remain Pioneer Park, not Pioneer Park at Olympic Legacy Park; and
6. We need to make a list of the items we think will pertain to any new design, including: a) circulation patterns; b) slope, contour, and elevation; c) handling missing historic features; d) introduction of water features or features like the caldron; and e) introduction of new structures, such as bathrooms, operational rooms, and museum space. Ms. Giraud asked the Commission if there were other items that should be on the list. Ms. Rowland suggested that "tree removal" in No. 4, should be replaced with "how this would impact the trees". She said that any alterations would have an impact on the trees. Ms. Rowland noted that piling dirt against the trunk could damage the tree.
Mr. Simonsen said that the tree issue is one that has to be carefully considered because there are no trees in Pioneer Park that are historic in their own right. Ms. Mickelsen said that there are some that would meet the 50-year criteria. Mr. Simonsen said perhaps the perimeter trees. Mr. Simonsen mentioned that trees have a life cycle.
Ms. Mickelsen mentioned that Mr. Goldsmith said that all the trees have been assessed as to their age and condition. She added that SLOC said that two trees would replace every one tree that has to be removed.
Mr. Young asked if there was a movement to change the name of the park to plaza so alcohol would be permitted within a certain distance. Mr. Littig said that he had not heard that, but he believed it might be reviewed at another time.
Mr. Young also inquired if the accessibility would remain to the Farmers' Market. Mr. Littig said that the Farmers' Market is a "sacred" entity. Mr. Simonsen indicated that, representatives from SLOC had said several times that the Farmers' Market would not be affected; it would probably be enhanced.
Ms. Giraud described some of the park renovations that had been accomplished in the last few years, such as new restrooms, tennis courts, new electrical units.
Mr. Littig said that he received a call from a reporter from the Deseret News that SLOC had released a design. The Commission members were surprised. There was some further discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Simonsen said that part of the process is to evaluate the plans from SLOC when they are proposed.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if anything else should be added to the list of non-negotiables.
Ms. Mickelsen concluded by saying that if any of the Commissioners think of other items to be added to the list, to let a member of the subcommittee know so it could be submitted at the next meeting which would be Friday, morning in Mr. Goldsmith's office.
New proposal for the Union Pacific Depot:
Mr. Littig mentioned that a representative for the Boyer Company introduced a new proposal at the last Architectural Subcommittee meeting to remove forty feet of the west wall of the Union Pacific Depot building. There was a short discussion regarding the project. Ms. Lew indicated that the applicant cancelled the public hearing for this meeting but the proposal would be on the agenda for the July 3, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Adjournment of the meeting:
Mr. Young noted that he recently read in the Robert's Rules of Order that a second is required for a motion to adjourn a meeting, but an individual vote is not necessary.
Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:15P.M.