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 Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Rob McFarland, and Elizabeth Mitchell were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners. Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, was also present.
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.
BUSINESS
Discussion - Mr. Alan Payne of Payne Appraisal and Company will present the business of real estate appraising.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had been in the process of revising the economic hardship ordinance and appraising historic properties has a large part. She said that Mr. Alan Payne was recommended by the City's Property Management because Mr. Payne has had much experience appraising historic properties. Ms. Giraud said that he works with commercial and residential properties.
Mr. Young introduced Mr. Alan Payne of Payne Appraisal and Company, and announced that he would make a presentation on the business of real estate appraising.
Mr. Payne said that he was pleased to attend this meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. He told of his background in appraising by saying that he had been a realtor one year before he graduated from the University of Utah as an appraiser. He said that he had been with the Utah State Tax Commission, the county government, and worked for a bank before he developed his own business in 1978. Mr. Payne mentioned that he had been on Sandy City's Planning Commission at the time the South Towne mall was in the planning stages and spent four years teaching night appraisal classes at Salt Lake Community College. He mentioned that he is currently serving on a national committee doing appraisal education and represents eleven states.
Mr. Payne gave a presentation by using an overhead projector. A copy of the illustrations, which summarized the appraisal process, is attached to the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Payne said, "there are 'millions' of people buying for 'millions' of reasons so there is no controlled market and many different opinions can form. He talked about the special role of an appraiser as an informed, objective, unbiased, third party. Mr. Payne continued discussing the evolution of professional appraising in the following manner:
The role of an appraiser developed during the 1920's. In 1926, the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers was formed. In about 1945, the American Society of Real Estate Appraisers was formed. The institute came out of the Board of Realtors, commercial brokers division. The society was formed from the home loan/mortgage business so each organization had different specialties. They merged in 1990 forming the Appraisal Institute.
In 1990, the federal government ruled that all appraisers had to be licensed to a minimum standard. The minimum standards were well below what the professional standards had been. Utah was one of the first states to pass the law in 1991. Because of the minimum standards, there are licensed appraisers who never graduated from high school, never took all the required courses, never been under supervision, or passed any tests.
In the last Utah State Legislature, the law was changed, effective in two years. At the end of the two-year period, a licensed appraiser will have had two years experience, passed exams, and been closely supervised.
To become certified, would be the next level to achieve as an appraiser, and would take college and master’s degrees. Appraisers who have the credentials of SRA and/or MAI, after their name, have had much education and experience, and passed through much scrutiny.
Mr. Payne had a slide presentation of some historic, church buildings, and residential properties that he had appraised. He described each property and the circumstances surrounding the appraisal. Some properties were in historic districts and others were landmark sites.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark
Commission:
• Ms. Blaes led the discussion by asking how an appraiser would appraise an historic property where the building had a large amount of detail work that might be difficult to replicate on a new building, such as the Crane Building, that was in the slide presentation. She also asked about the educational resources that would be available to an appraiser during the appraisal process. Mr. Payne said that usually the appraiser would not get into the detail work. He said that it is difficult to estimate the appreciation value on a building, such as the Crane Building, which is considered a Class B building. He said that a sales comparisons, and other Class B building comparisons would be resources. Mr. Payne said that experience is always a good resource.
Ms. Blaes asked Mr. Payne if he approached the appraisal process in a different manner when the property was historic. Mr. Payne said that he does and the first thing that he researches is if the historic significance of the property. He added that if there is a trend in a neighborhood of building restoration, that would have an effect on the appraisal. Mr. Payne added that there seems to be a current interest in historic properties. Mr. Blaes inquired about zoning. Mr. Payne said that the zoning is considered in an appraisal.
There was some discussion regarding the conformity of setbacks and maximizing setbacks in historic districts.
• Ms. Deal said that some appraisals of historic properties did not include the fact that a person could not rebuild to the maximum setbacks. She said that the highest and best use still has the terms "financially feasible" in it and it still has to be economically supported. She said that it also had the terms "legally permitted".
• Mr. Parvaz inquired how an appraiser appraises a building wl1en the building would not be for sale. Mr. Payne said that a building does not have to be for sale to do an appraisal. He said that appraisals are done for many reasons.
Mr. Payne displayed two books by appraisers, titled Appraising the Tough Ones and Historic Properties: Preservation and the Valuation Process, that he recommended regarding preservation. He said that they are both published by the Appraisal Institute. Mr. Payne said that there were Historic Landmark Commissions across the country that did not exist in 1989. He talked about the financing options that were available. He said that there is quite a "popular movement" with historic homes.
Mr. Payne said that financing affects the highest and best use scenario because things could be financially feasible if "free" money was available. He talked about the definition of market value again by saying that it is the value expressed in terms of cash or cash equivalent. Mr. Payne, referred to the market value, and said that a regular loan is called cash equivalent because the seller will get all money. He said that if the seller gets part money and party favors or donations, that information has to be disclosed and would not be the same as market value under that definition. He said that could affect the value analysis. Mr. Payne said that some appraisals could be extremely complicated, and experience comes with good and bad appraisals for a professional appraiser.
As there were no further questions or comments by the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Young thanked Mr. Payne for taking the time to give such an educational presentation.
Public Hearing- Regarding proposed changes to the Salt Lake City Zoning Code. regarding Standards for Determination of Economic Hardship in connection with the demolition of a landmark site or a contributing structure in an historic district. [Section 21A.34.020(K)].
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, and said that "we identified two burning issues regarding economic hardship [Section 21A.34.020(K) of Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance]". Mr. Pace assured Ms. Giraud, in their discussion, that revising the ordinance would not be complicated.
Ms. Giraud presented an overview of her memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting, in the following manner:
ISSUE: Historic Landmark Commission should make the final decision on applications claiming economic hardship.
Subsection 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c)(iii) Consistency with the Economic Review Panel Report. The Historic Landmark Commission decision shall be consistent with the conclusions reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, the
Historic Landmark Commission finds by a vote of three-fourths majority of a quorum present that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact.
Staffs comments: This paragraph would be eliminated so that (3)(c)(ii) would end that subsection. It would be the Historic Landmark Commission's responsibility to accept or deny economic hardship.
ISSUE: Inflated land values incurred during parcel assembly distort the rehabilitation numbers to the great advantage of the applicant.
New text to new Subsection 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c). The potential value of the properly, without demolition of historic structures, as demonstrated by:
i. an appraisal of the property in its present condition;
ii. an appraisal of the property if the historic structures located on the property were rehabilitated for a use permitted in the applicable zone; and
rehabilitated for a conditional use in the applicable zone, as administered in Section 21A.24.010(S). The current subsection (c) would become (d); the current subsection (d) would become (e); and the current subsection (e) would become (f).
New text to new Subsection 21A.34.020(K)(3)(g). The City may submit additional evidence relevant to the issue of economic hardship for the review and consideration of the Economic Review Panel.
Staffs comments: Ms. Giraud said that she believed that the appraisals should have a "three-tiered" approach in terms of establishing a potential value of the property. She said that this was the suggestion of the lawyer, with whom she talked, at the National Trust. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Pace suggested the language for this new section. Mr. Paterson said that the three different appraisals would provide more information for staff, the Economic Review Panel, and the Historic Landmark Commission for analysis.
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Mr. Parvaz said that an applicant has the choice of replacing a one-story building with a three-story building. He continued by saying that until the volume of a new building can be limited, he said that he "did not believe that demolitions will be stopped because a developer will always find a way to prove that a three-story building can have a higher economic return than a one-story old building".
Mr. Pace said that the new proposed text will not always work. Ms. Deal said that Mr. Payne, said that, as an appraiser, he will put a value on property to the highest and best use regardless of anything else. Ms. Blaes said that Mr. Payne also said that he would take into consideration all legal constraints, including base zoning and overlay zoning, such as historic status.
Ms. Blaes suggested that the following changes be incorporated into the language of the ordinance: 1) in new Subsection (c)(i)(ii)(iii) from "appraisal" to "complete, self-contained appraisal"; 2) in new Subsection(c)(ii) from "a use permitted" to "permitted uses in the applicable base and overlay zones". Ms. Blaes said that she would be concerned that the applicant would choose the use that would least likely succeed; and 3) in new Subsection (iii) from "conditional use" to "conditional uses". Ms. Blaes said that would force the applicant to look at alternative uses.
Ms. Deal said she believed even with the changes to the language, an appraisal will show that the land would be worth more than the building no matter what the zoning is.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the "takings" issue. Ms. Blaes said that economic hardship is a "takings" ordinance and suggested calling it that. She indicated that the Historic Landmark Commissions in North Carolina are starting to move in that direction because they are finding that the process is taken more seriously when the word "takings" is in the ordinance.
She said that she believed the courts would "strike the ordinance down".
Mr. Pace said that the ordinance is drafted after case law and it states that if a property owner is denied a reasonable economic use, then it would be "takings" legislation. The discussion continued regarding the "takings" issue.
ISSUE: Buildings should be reviewed separately. For example, if an applicant has assembled a group of single-family homes, he or she should be held accountable to prove that maintaining each home is economically infeasible.
Revised text to Subsection 21A.24.020(K)(2): Standards for Determination Economic Hardship. The Historic Landmark Commission shall apply the following standards and make findings concerning economic hardship for each separate structure proposed for demolition:
Staff's comments: Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Parvaz had suggested this change in the ordinance a few weeks ago in the subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Pace said that an applicant would have to pay the fee for each application. He continued by saying that it would be an advantage to an applicant to "pool" several buildings on one application, then all the buildings would be filed under one application and avoid multiple fees. Ms. Deal stated that she did not think the Commission needed to worry about saving fees for people filing applications for demolition.
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Ms. Blaes clarified that an applicant would only have to file one application for demolition for each parcel, even though there might be more than one building on the parcel. Mr. Pace said that the proposed language in the ordinance did not address the number of applications an applicant could file. Ms. Blaes said that she believed that this issue was already in the ordinance, but if not it should be so that every legal parcel would have a separate application.
Mr. Young was concerned how the issue of several legal parcels being assembled into one legal parcel. He said a developer might begin with an individual building on each single parcel, but by the time the parcels were assembled, there may be many buildings requested to be demolished on one single legal parcel.
Ms. Blaes said that was the approach that came to this Commission in the past. She said that after the assembling of eight parcels into one, there was only one application on Vernier Place on what was considered one property. However, she said that the legal description showed that the parcels were eight separate properties.
• Mr. Pace said that it would easy to insert the provision that a separate application should be filed for each parcel. Ms. Blaes said that she believed it should be inserted. Mr. Parvaz pointed out the inconsistency of the language in the economic hardship section of the ordinance. He said sometimes the words "principal building" is used and other times the word "structure" is used. Mr. Parvaz suggested clarifying the verbiage for each use. Mr. Pace said that he suggested using that language because the word "structure" was intended to have a broader meaning. He said that an applicant may have a house, which would be the "principal building" and a garage or carriage house, which would be "structures" on a property. Mr. Pace indicated that a property owner might file an application to demolish a garage, but not the house. Mr. Parvaz said that he understood that but a further clarification needed to be added, whether or not all the buildings would be contributing and included on a landmark site
Ms. Giraud talked about a previous case where the Historic Landmark Commission was asked to determine whether the house was considered a contributing structure or not. She said that the Commission determined that the house was contributing and that decision was overturned in an appeal. Ms. Giraud said that determination could apply to a garage or carriage house, as well as a principal structure.
Mr. Pace said that the Historic Landmark Commission would make that decision whether or not a building or buildings were contributing before any approval or denial on a demolition application.
ISSUE: At a subcommittee held several weeks ago, Mr. Parvaz raised another issue. He inquired whether the footprint, height, exterior building materials, and overall volume of a demolished landmark structure and site shall be used for the new construction of a principal building on the same site.
Staffs comments: Ms. Giraud said that this issue had not been addressed in the revised text. She said that in discussing the issue presented by Mr. Parvaz, the staff determined that this was not an option we would present in the revisions, but that it would instead require more careful thought and review at the staff level.
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Ms. Deal said that the Commission needed to be careful about addressing materials. She used a previous case to prove her point by saying a house that was demolished had very bad siding on it, and the new replacement house has a "gorgeous" brick on the exterior. Ms. Deal said that she did not believe that the Commission should force people to use the same kind of materials as what was on a demolished building. Ms. Deal said that in Marin County, California, any replacement building had to be in the same footprint as the former building, whether the loss was by demolition, fire, or any other disaster.
Ms. Giraud expressed her concern that the design of a new building could be compromised if it relied solely on the footprint.
• Ms. Deal said that historic districts were only a part of the city, and the small footprints were important to the district. She talked about a previous case where a single-family home was allowed to be constructed that was much larger than the footprint of the demolished house. She said that it was a mistake because it is so far out of scale for the neighborhood.
Mr. Pace said that these were legitimate policy issues that had been raised. He said that he believed that they are substantive and far reaching enough that there needed to be and in-depth analysis. Ms. Blaes suggested that staff discuss these issues with Mr. Wright, the Planning Director.
Mr. Pace discussed another new subsection that was not highlighted in the staffs memorandum. He said that if members of the Historic Landmark Commission believed that the information that was provided by an applicant during an economic hardship review process was "slanted" for any reason, the new text would give the staff the opportunity to submit additional evidence. Mr. Pace added that this new text would not "take away anything that is already on table"; it would allow the staff to supplement the information.
New text to new Subsection 21A.34.020(K)(3)(g). The City may submit additional evidence relevant to the issue of economic hardship for the review and consideration of the Economic Review Panel.
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Ms. Blaes inquired if the word "City" in the new text, meant the Historic Landmark Commission as an agent of the City. She continued that the Historic Landmark Commission could request additional information. Mr. Pace said that was correct. He added that the Historic Landmark Commission could not provide evidence of its own, because the Commission would be a decision making body. Ms. Deal said the Historic Landmark Commission might request a cost estimate with a different scenario than what had been provided.
Mr. Young said that if additional information is requested from staff, then a copy of that information, provided by staff, would be given to the applicant, prior to the meeting. He said that he did not believe there would be a problem with that new text.
Ms. Deal read the following subsection of the ordinance: "(3)(b) Report of Economic Review Panel. Within forty-five days after the economic review panel is established, the panel shall complete an evaluation of the economic hardship, applying the standards set forth in subsection (K)(2) of this section and shall forward a written report with its findings of fact and conclusions to the Historic Landmark Commission." She expressed her concerns about the forty-five-day time period which is stated in the ordinance. She said that she did not believe that was enough time to complete an evaluation, especially if additional information needed to be submitted. Ms. Deal suggested that either the time period be extended or completely eliminated from the ordinance.
• A lengthy discussion took place. Some members talked about previous Economic Review Panels and the evidence that had been presented and the need that additional evidence should have been requested. There was some discussion regarding the representatives who were selected for the Economic Review Panel.
At the conclusion of the discussion, it was determined by the Historic Landmark Commission that, 1) the current system of the economic hardship process was not working; 2) an economic hardship review meeting should not be scheduled until all the pertinent formation has been received and distributed to the members of the Economic Review Panel and the Historic Landmark Commission for review; 3) the proposed changes were supported by the Commission, even though there still may be some "holes" in the process; 4) the Historic Landmark Commission's representative on an Economic Review Panel needed to be briefed prior to a meeting so the representative would have a better understanding of the evidence that the Commission would be looking for and what would be expected; and 5) the process for all applications for economic hardship needed to treated equally by staff, the Economic Review Panel, and the Historic Landmark Commission.
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:
• Ms. Blakley Summerfield, a concerned citizen, stated that as a licensed real estate agent and a micro developer, she believed that there should be an exact percentage of the cap rate of return included in the economic hardship ordinance. She added that the economic hardship review process would be more fair if the ordinance were more specific about the required rate of return. Ms. Summerfield pointed out several inconsistencies in past review procedures. Mr. Pace said that the Economic Review Panel members would have expertise in real estate and should have a sense of what a reasonable rate of return would be in the current market. Ms. Deal added that there was no set cap rate of return because of the rapid market changes. She said that the cap rate of return would be judged on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Deal continued by saying that a reasonable rate of return would vary from case to case, depending on circumstances surrounding the development, the acquisition of the property, and the cost for renovation. Ms. Summerfield inquired if an applicant could bring twenty witnesses, who would testify that an applicant would be making a reasonable rate of return, would that have any influence on the Economic Review Panel or Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Summerfield was assured by Mr. Pace, staff, and the Commission, that witnesses have no authority over the process because no public comment is allowed during an economic hardship review. Ms. Summerfield talked about the loss of housing stock, especially in the Central City area. Mr. Littig said that it was unfortunate, but the Historic Landmark Commission only had the mandate over historic districts and landmark sites. He said that there were many corridors in the city that the Commission was working hard to save and he said that he believed strengthening the ordinance would help save historic homes in other areas.
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she had been following the Commission's deliberations on the revisions to the economic hardship ordinance. She said she thought that the Commission was dealing with the "takings" issue. Ms. Cromer said she was trying to facilitate the highest and best use when a permitted use that may bring a reasonable return is not attempted or even investigated. Ms. Cromer talked about past economic hardship reviews where it was believed that the applicant created his/her own economic hardship by paying too much for the property. She talked about parcels being massed together forming larger parcels. Ms. Cromer said that when she read the proposed ordinance in 1994 and 1995, before it was adopted, she believed the ordinance had something to do about "little old ladies" who were trying to save their properties. Ms. Cromer said "I haven't seen a little old lady on the horizon with an historic property since 1995. It has been aggressive developers and people with projects". Ms. Cromer said that she only attended one Economic Review Panel meetings and "that did me in. It basically consisted of two of the panel members with expertise ganging up on the dissenting party, who believed the building was viable, as it was". She said that as the meeting went on, the two panel members persuaded the dissenting member "to come along". Ms. Cromer said that she believed there was much "peer pressure" in those meetings without much supervision. She encouraged the Commission to obtain the necessary legal expertise to advise the members on strengthening the economic hardship ordinance. Some members of the Commission assured Ms. Cromer that was why the Commission was looking into revising the economic hardship ordinance.
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 wanted to express his appreciation for having this session regarding the economic hardship ordinance. He further talked about the overlay zone that has precedent over the base zoning. Mr. Parvaz said that he believed that unless the City down-zones certain properties, there would be no incentive for anyone "to come forward and go through the hardship to make something the same size".
Ms. Giraud stated that there was no question that there was a big conflict between the overlay zone and the base zone. She talked about the makeup of different blocks in the Central City Historic District. She said that the preservation staff had taken a strong interest in the Central City Master Plan that is being revised. Ms. Giraud said that Central City was "extremely challenging" where there was certainly room for improvement. She said that she was aware of new interest in community members. Ms. Giraud said that "I think there is going to be a new wave coming forward from Central City that is going to be more politically active and more positive about preservation".
• A lengthy discussion commenced regarding several issues that had been discussed earlier in this meeting, as well as the past economic hardship review cases that had been reviewed by the Economic Review Panel and accepted by the Historic Landmark Commission. Some members talked about some of the mistakes that had been made.
Ms. Deal moved to pass on this revision to its next stage with the suggested language changes.
Ms. Giraud said that she was uncomfortable with the motion because Mr. Pace had not reviewed some of the proposed changes to the language of the ordinance. She suggested that the discussion could be continued to clear up some of the unfinished issues. Ms. Deal amended her motion.
Ms. Deal moved to continue the discussion regarding revisions to the economic hardship ordinance to the June 16th Historic Landmark Commission meeting, pending review of the latest language changes by legal staff. It was seconded by Ms. Blaes. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Mitchell were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Young said that Mr. Owen had some commentaries that he wanted to relay to the Commission. Mr. Owen said that early on the Friday before the last regularly scheduled May 19, 1999 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, he had received telephone calls from some of the Commission members who were very concerned about the Roberta Apartments on South Temple, which had been a boarded building and recently burned. Mr. Owen said that the larger issue was the boarded buildings ordinance and the status of boarded buildings in the historic district. Mr. Owen indicated that he understood that Mr. Craig Spangenberg of the City's Building Services was going to make a presentation at that May 19th meeting. He said that he learned late that afternoon that the meeting was cancelled by Mr. Wright, the Planning Director. Mr. Owen said that he wrote a letter to Mr. Wright inquiring about the standards and authority of canceling meetings. He said that he also inquired about items that "are specifically requested by this body ignored on the agenda". He said that Mr. Wright told him that he would respond at the next meeting, which will be on June 16, 1999.
Mr. Owen said that he had attended the recent economic hardship meeting where the applicants were requesting an approval on an economic hardship so they could file an application for a condition use to use their historic house for a bed and breakfast. He said that he was glad that he attended because he said he was "appalled at what happened. I am here to witness to you that this is not an efficient process. We will hear at our July 7th meeting a recommendation from this panel that the economic hardship will be approved, and I will oppose that. I heard all of the reasoning that went on through these two meetings, and bless Kirk Huffaker for his efforts and he wasn't listened to and he pushed the issues as far as he could and was railroaded by the other two men who had the attitude that 'we'll show up and go through formality and we'll grant it so let's get this over with' without really looking at the issues. The petitioner presented three economic scenarios for the house that they purchased, as a single family residence, as a duplex, and as a bed and breakfast. One guy said that the numbers just speak for themselves. They can make a lot more money running this is as a bed and breakfast so obviously it’s an economic hardship. Wait a minute. It is not our job, as a Commission, to insure the highest percentage of return for the investor dollar. Also, these purchasers of this property went into this project with the idea that they would be approved for economic hardship. Since our field trip and the field trip that the panel members went on, I understand that there has been a tremendous amount of work done on the property. That it is being remodeled to become a bed and breakfast. I think that their presumption for approval speaks to us as a Commission as an abuse of this process."
Ms. Giraud said that "I need to respectfully offer a disagreement to Mr. Owen's comments. I perceived the meeting very differently. These gentlemen who are working on this bed and breakfast, or in their hopes, to be a bed and breakfast, purchased it with the idea of using it as their property. They came to Nelson and me to ask about what the process was and I explained that it was a very lengthy process. The building was not on the local landmark list when they purchased it so they went through that process. They knew that was a risk. I always explain that to people, that if you get something listed and it doesn't go through for the conditional use and you're not going to get that economic benefit, then you are left with a building that is a landmark site and that you've got some restriction that you thought would pay off as a benefit but it hasn't. They have always been fully aware that there was a risk with this conditional use, that it might not go through. The Planning Commission makes the determination as to whether or not it should be allowed as a conditional use. So that is something that is a little bit taken out of the purview of this Commission. They have done a lot of work on it. They are living in the building. They knew that there was a risk that they might not get the conditional use. They decided to proceed without that, themselves. I've never had the impression from speaking with them that they thought, 'we are going to continue with this because we think it is really easy'. If you talk to them, I think they feel like it is a pretty odious process, that it's too protracted, and that it's too difficult. In looking, as I explained yesterday at the meeting, I felt that it had merit that their building was a building that we would want to see preserved that is in a very disadvantageous location because it's right next to 700 East and the freeway, but it certainly is a building worthy of preservation and it shows a lot of wear and tear because of the fact that it was a rental for probably at least 50 years and hasn't been very well maintained. So, they have been working on it, but in my conversations with them, I never had the impression that they were trying to pull some sort of fast one over on this process at all. Using a building as a conditional use is a valid preservation mechanism."
Ms. Giraud continued by saying "we see that as a way of trying to encourage or offering some flexibility in the zoning ordinance that would allow people to save and renovate a structure. I don't really see that a bed and breakfast is a use that is going to be more harmful to the integrity of a building than turning it into, in this case its permitted use, which would be a triplex".
Mr. Knight said "you have to understand that the applicants submitted evidence that the Economic Review Panel believed would not work for other permitted uses. He said that it was determined that there was no rate of return as a duplex or single family dwelling. Mr. Knight said that Mr. Huffaker introduced figures on his own, without submitting any evidence to back them up, that he said showed a possible return on the property if the building were used as apartments". Mr. Knight added that those calculations were not submitted into the record. Ms. Blaes expressed her concern that there were no tax credits calculated into the applicants' evidence to maximize the possible return on the property if used as rental units.
Ms. Blaes said that "my point is not how they introduced it, my point actually has to do with economic hardship that the case is being treated differently for a conditional use than it's being treated for demolition. I just think that is a problem. I wasn't involved and I wasn't at any of those meetings so I can't say it was or it was not introduced and whether it was valid or not, but I think from the impressions that I heard, that it's being treated differently for a conditional use than for a demolition. I think that gets us into a real problem."
Ms. Giraud indicated that perhaps the Commission should look at separating those out because "one is supposed to be a mechanism for preserving a building and one is a mechanism is for a demolition of a building. She added that "ultimately you hope you will be getting to the same preservation point".
Mr. Payne inquired if that at the conclusion of an economic hardship review and a property was found not to be economically viable as a permitted use and it could not be demolished, if then it would not be viable for a conditional use either. Mr. Payne inquired if an applicant can be informed about a conditional use after a demolition was denied. He added that if the standards were the same for a demolition and a conditional use, they "both are going to rise or fall on permitted uses".
A lengthy discussion took place addressing the issues of demolition requests, requests for conditional uses, permitted uses within the zoning ordinance, the highest and best use for a property, and treating each process equally.
Mr. Young suggested that it was not appropriate to discuss the details of the information that was submitted on the previous economic hardship review until all Commission members had been provided all the evidence.
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 6:30P.M.