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 Scott Christensen, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Sarah Miller were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
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 Planning Division office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the March 7, 2001 meeting, as amended. Ms. Rowland commented that Mr. Keith Neilson who spoke at the meeting on March 7, 2001, as an interested citizen, works for the previous owner of the property. It was so noted for the record. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Simonsen abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 007-01A. by Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation. requesting approval to demolish fourteen (14) contributing buildings at 326. 334. and 340 South 600 East; 550 and 558 East 300 South; 321 and 331 South 500 East; and 517. 524. 527. 528. 532. 533. and 538 East Vernier Place in order to construct a three-phase multi-unit housing development in the Central City Historic District.
[Please note: Mr. Holman, who is referred to as the "current owner" is under contract with the actual owner to purchase the properties with the option of demolishing the structures. The owner, Mr. Jeff Jonas, is referred to as the "previous owner".]
Mr. Parvaz stated that Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation was requesting approval to demolish fourteen contributing structures in the Central City Historic District. He said that Mr. Holman had also requested to demolish two noncontributing buildings. Mr. Parvaz announced that this discussion was a continuation of the executive session portion of the meeting on March 7, 2001 and, therefore, the public hearing would not be reopened.
Ms. Giraud did not present the staff report because the major issues of the case were outlined during the previous meeting. The staff’s findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation were discussed so they were incorporated into the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Coffey referred to her memorandum that had been given to the members of the Historic Landmark Commission and a copy of which was filed with the minutes. The memorandum states that the Commission, in its deliberations of the case, should focus on the following: 1) determine whether the buildings are contributing or noncontributing; and 2) if the Commission finds the buildings are contributing, then determine how many of the standards for demolition the project meets.
Ms. Giraud said that the properties straddle several zones. She pointed out that those on Vernier court and 500 East are zone RM-U (Residential Mixed-use); those on 600 East are zoned RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential); and those on 300 South are zoned RO (Residential Office).
Mr. Littig stated that although he was not at the last meeting, he was very concerned with the subject properties and the changing ownership. He said that he believed that all the properties should be reviewed as if they were being seen for the first time. Mr. Littig indicated that he obtained a recent police report showing the increase in criminal activities in the last five years. Copies of this report were circulated to the Commissioners, staff, and filed with the minutes. He pointed out that the properties have gone into ruins since the first project was reviewed, due to neglect. Mr. Littig stated that if the applicant obtains approval to demolish the buildings, all the historic fabric would be lost on the block. Mr. Littig spoke at length regarding the lack of concern the developers have shown for these historic properties. However, he said that Mr. Jonas had been willing to move some of the structures to new locations. Mr. Littig said that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission realized that the subject buildings were not occupied by some historical person, or affected by an historical event. He said that the common city workers lived in these houses but added that they are still historic buildings. Mr. Littig said that he was very troubled that the proposed project would remove two additional historic buildings on the block, even though they were noncontributing. Mr. Littig recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission review Case No. 007-01 as a new proposal and not be influenced by the request for demolition that was submitted by the previous owner. Some other members agreed with that determination.
Ms. Giraud stated that the current proposal was a new application and was being presented as one. She added that the previous approvals had long since expired.
Mr. Protasevich questioned why the Historic Landmark Commission needed to review the application as a new application. He stated that the buildings did not become more historical. Mr. Protasevich pointed out that they are in fact, more in disrepair. Mr. Knight responded by saying that the previous owner had proven economic hardship and the demolitions were approved based on that fact.
Mr. Parvaz commended the staff for doing their "homework" on the analysis and findings of fact included in the staff report. He talked about the difficulty in trying to decide on the fate of the subject properties when the applicant had not submitted a concrete proposal for the reuse plan. He said that the applicant could incorporate some of the historic buildings into his project. Mr. Parvaz raised the issue, as he had done in previous demolition requests, that the applicant wanted to replace a single-story building with a three or four-story building and he said he was not comfortable with that option. Mr. Parvaz said that he believed that the City had different standards with large applications such as this involving multiple buildings, as compared to the average homeowner. He expressed his concern that the City sends the wrong message to developers, which gives them the impression that they can demolish all the historic buildings in order to construct a large development, or anything else they want to do. Mr. Parvaz stated that an applicant needed to understand what the limitations are on properties having historic buildings on them. He said that when the zoning was changed for the block, the members of the City Council wanted higher density multi family residential units, but they also must have wanted the contributing historical structures to remain because they did not reconsider the historic overlay zone. He said that the City should have one "semblance" for the city. Mr. Parvaz added that he believed that this proposal would set a precarious precedent for the Commission. He also said that the economic hardship is an "expensive" way of finding out that one cannot do what one expects.
Ms. Giraud stated that the issues were the same as in other historic districts, not due to higher density zoning. She said that the City Council changed the zoning to encourage high-density multi-family housing downtown. Ms. Giraud said that the process would be the same if the demolition request had come from the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Coffey said that the applicant did not want to invest much money into detailed plans of a new design before he knew if he would be allowed to demolish the existing buildings. She added that the reuse plan required by the ordinance could be landscaping over that entire block. Ms. Coffey noted that the Historic Landmark Commission could require that the applicant post a bond for landscaping. She reminded the members that the Historic Landmark Commission would review any reuse plan.
Ms. Giraud cited examples of other demolition requests where full sets of reuse plans had not been submitted with the application.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the Commission's decision on demolition was based on the reuse plan. Ms. Giraud said that it was an important aspect in making a determination and the Commission should look closely at the reuse plan. Ms. Mickelsen clarified that the zoning would allow a multi-story building to be constructed on a site where a single story building had been. Ms. Giraud said that was correct.
Mr. Simonsen said that he was not troubled because detailed drawings had not been submitted at this point. He said that it was very challenging to put a lot of effort in something when the outcome is not known. Some other members agreed. Mr. Simonsen said that perhaps the Commission should review the reuse plan for each property, individually, rather than as a whole development.
Ms. Rowland said that it was fairly easy to make a case for economic hardship when the cost of the land was based on being able to develop a high-density project on a site where low density was currently in place. She added that the possibility of replacing a multi-story building with another multi-story building would not be such a "big trade off'. Ms. Rowland also talked about the compatibility of the reuse plan with the streetscape and the district.
Ms. Coffey said that the Commission should discuss the reuse plan and if the multi storied project would be compatible to the neighborhood. She added that the Commission should review the height and scale of the proposed project, even though detailed plans were not submitted.
Mr. Protasevich said that historic districts were created to protect historical buildings. He said that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City are available to anyone. Mr. Protasevich pointed out that if a developer does not follow the guidelines and the standards in the ordinance, a project would not be approved. Ms. Mickelsen said that the design guidelines might have an impact on the economic feasibility of what a developer wants to do.
Ms. Mickelsen questioned economic hardship being pursued by someone who actually did not own the land.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the reuse plan, the context of the historic district, and other issues relating to the proposal.
Mr. Wilson suggested that the Commission review the structures, individually.
The Historic Landmark Commission referred to Section 21A.34.020(L) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure n an H Historic Preservation Overlay District: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall determine whether the project substantially complies with the following standards:
550 E 300 South (Mozart Apartments)
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staffs discussion: Early photographs from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor's office of this structure, known as the "Mozart Apartments," were not available. The building is in its original location, but its setting has been altered because of the buildings nearby non-historic structures including a gas station, a restaurant and office buildings constructed in the 1960's and 1970's. The "character of place" in which the building played its historic role has been diminished. The dismantling of the historic environment has similarly lessened the Mozart's integrity in terms of feeling. The apartments retain their integrity of association, which consists of being related to a particular building type that existed to meet Salt Lake City's urban development from about 1905 to 1930. The materials have not been altered, and remain brick with a prominent wood cornice. The workmanship and design have suffered due to the replacement of the windows on the north facade and the entrance porch. The existing porch was constructed after 1980. Despite these alterations, the building exhibits physical integrity in terms of design as the original form and massing are intact, as are character-defining features such as the wide cornice and parapet.
Staff's finding of fact: Although it has undergone changes that are not in keeping with its historic appearance, the physical integrity of this structure is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: The frontage of 300 S. between 500 and 600 East streets contains six contributing structures: this building, the Frederick Fail house at 558 E. 300 S. that is also part of this application; a similar Greek Revival-style home at 515 E. 300 S., Classic Cleaners at 509 E. 300 S., the Marquette Apartments at 569 E. 300 S., and the Art Floral business at 580 E. 300 S. Eleven buildings on these street frontages are non-contributing because they are of recent construction. Sanborn maps from 1911 portray these frontages as consisting of single-family, duplex and low-scale multi-family dwellings. The streetscape has been substantially altered due to the intrusion of non-compatible office and commercial structures and variations in the historic setback and "wall of continuity."
Staff's finding of fact: If the Mozart Apartments are demolished the streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overly district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures.
Staff's discussion: As stated above in (l)(b), few historic structures remain in proximity to the Mozart Apartments.
Staff's finding of fact: Demolition of the Mozart Apartments would not negatively affect the streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district. The applicant meets this standard.
• (1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The existing zoning of this structure is Residential/Office District (RO). The purpose of the RO zone is "to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed-use areas consisting of a combination of multi-family dwellings and office use. "Accordingly this zone allows multi-family dwellings with no minimum lot area and office use with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Its use is a permitted use in the RO zone.
Staffs finding of fact: The base zoning is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(I)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staffs discussion: Subsection H of Chapter 34 instructs HLC to consider scale and form, composition of principal facades and relationship to the street when considering this standard. The reuse plan proposes three phases of development that will consist of over 500 one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Because the applicant is required to obtain approval from HLC for new construction, it is assumed that he applicant meets this standard.
Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staffs discussion: The building appears to be in repair and is occupied. Neither the former or existing owner appears to have willfully neglected the building.
Staffs finding of fact: The site has not suffered from willful neglect. The applicant meets this standard.
Staff concluded that the applicant meets four of the six standards.
558 E 300 S (The Frederick Fail House)
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staffs discussion: This house, cited as the Frederick Fail house in the 1994 survey, is Greek Revival in style. Staff could not locate a historic photograph from the County for this property. It has maintained its physical integrity in terms of location but like the Mozart Apartments it has suffered in terms of setting because of the surrounding non-contributing structures. The proximity of the adjacent Utah Federal Credit Union is especially damaging. The feeling of this house has also been damaged by its environment, as it detracts from the property's "expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." The porch has been altered by brick posts that are not compatible with the style or age of the house. Aside from this action the building itself has undergone few visible alterations, and thus maintains its integrity of design, materials and workmanship. The house maintains its integrity of association because it still imparts its original use as a single-family home that was constructed in the late-nineteenth century and is Greek Revival in style.
Staffs finding of fact: The physical integrity of the site is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected
Staffs discussion: As stated under the discussion for 550 E. 300 S., the streetscape pertaining to the Fail house has been significantly altered. The non-contributing buildings outnumber the contributing by almost two to one. This streetscape does not impart a sense of what historically existed on this streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay zone.
Staffs finding of fact: The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected if this house were demolished. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overly district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staffs discussion: There are few surrounding contributing structures. Low-scale office and commercial buildings have encroached upon the environment of the Fail house, as described under (1)(a). The paucity of surrounding contributing properties imparts little understanding of how this area of the district developed.
Staffs finding of fact: The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staffs discussion: The zoning of this property is RO. The purpose of the RO zone is "to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed-use areas consisting of a combination of multi-family dwellings and office use." Accordingly this zone allows multi-family dwellings of with no minimum lot area and office use with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The application of this zone in East Downtown recognizes the mix of residential and office uses that exists in this neighborhood. If renovated, this home could continue to be used as a single-family dwelling, which is a permitted use in this zone. It could also be renovated for use as an office.
Staffs finding of fact: The base zoning of this site is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staffs discussion: Subsection H of Chapter 34 instructs HLC to consider scale and form, composition of principal facades and relationship to the street when considering this standard. The reuse plan proposes three phases of development that will consist of over 500 one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Because the
applicant is required to obtain approval from HLC for new construction, it is assumed that he applicant meets this standard.
Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staffs discussion: The house has been boarded for many years and shows obvious signs of neglect and deterioration. However, the applicant recently purchased an option on this property and is not responsible for the lack of maintenance by prior owners.
• Staff's finding of fact: Although the house has suffered from willful neglect, it is not the fault of the applicant. The staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.
Staff concluded that the applicant meets four of the six standards.
236 S 600 East (Stephen M Covey Apartments)
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staffs discussion: A tax photograph taken in the late 1930's was available for this four-plex, which is attributed to prominent Salt Lake architect Walter Ware and is cited as the "Stephen M. Covey Apartments" in the 1994 survey. The location has not changed. The integrity of the setting, remains because of the four-plex is situated in the midst of four contributing structures and has mature landscaping as a backdrop. The building continues to convey its original use as a four-plex; it is identified as an early twentieth century building type known as a "four-unit block" in Utah's Historic Architecture, 1847-1940 and thus retains integrity of feeling and association. The historic photograph reveals that the existing entrance porch is not original and that the parapet and cornice have been altered. These alterations detract from the physical integrity of the design, materials and workmanship. The Covey Apartments, however, still have many character-defining features as seen in the fenestration, quoins, masonry details between the stories and the scale and mass.
• Staff's finding of fact: The physical integrity of the site is still evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staffs discussion: All but one of the contributing structures on this blockface (with the exception of the cedar tree shrine in the median strip) is adjacent to this structure. The non-contributing structures are similar in scale to the four-plex. The concentration of contributing buildings is uneven on the blockface but the overall appearance of small-scale structures under three stories is consistent, reinforcing the role of this small multi-unit building in the existing visual context of the street.
Staffs finding of fact: The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would be negatively affected. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures.
Staffs discussion: As stated above, the majority of the contributing structures (six in all) in the immediate vicinity are clustered around this structure. The blockface has suffered an erosion of contributing structures, particularly on the east side of 600 East. As portrayed on the attached map, this part of the district does not have a heavy concentration of contributing structures.
Staffs finding of fact: The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staffs discussion: The zoning of this property is RMF-35. The purpose of this zone is to "provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including multi-family dwellings." This zone allows multi-family dwellings from three to eleven units with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet for three units and requiring 2,000 square feet for each additional unit. The current use, a four-plex, is a permitted use in this zone.
Staffs finding of fact: The existing use of the contributing structure is compatible with the base zoning. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staffs discussion: Subsection H of Chapter 34 instructs HLC to consider scale and form, composition of principal facades and relationship to the street when considering this standard. The reuse plan proposes three phases of development that will consist of over 500 one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Because the applicant is required to obtain approval from HLC for new construction, it is assumed the applicant meets this standard.
Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staffs discussion: The building has been occupied until recently and does not appear to have been neglected from the exterior. While the building has not been maintained to a high standard (as evident during a tour undertaken by staff and HLC members in 1997) on the interior, it does not appear to have suffered significant deterioration.
Staffs finding of fact: The building has not suffered from willful neglect that has substantially harmed the building. The applicant meets this standard.
Staff concluded that the applicant meets three of the six standards.
334 S 600 East (Mary Ann Mumford House)
• (1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staffs discussion: A tax photo of this property was not available. This house is cited as the "Mary Ann Mumford house" in the 1994 survey. The location of the house has not changed; like the four-plex next door, the integrity of the setting remains because of the proximity of contributing structures, historic landscaping and surrounding structures that while not contributing reinforce the low-scale appearance of this block. The form, style, architectural details, scale and massing have not been altered, and thus the historic materials, design and workmanship remain. The house still conveys its original use as a single-family structure and thus has maintained physical integrity in terms of association.
Staffs finding of fact: The physical integrity of the site is evident. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staffs discussion: The Mumford house is in the center of a strip of contributing structures on this blackface. The streetscape pertaining to this structure consists of low-scale buildings with uniform setbacks, and although there are non-contributing buildings on this block along 600 East, their similarity in scale and setback do not overwhelm the visual presence or substantially lessen the integrity of the contributing structures. The demolition of the Mumford house would negatively affect the streetscape in terms of weakening the number and location of contributing structures in the historic district.
Staffs finding of fact: The streetscape within the context of the district would be negatively affected. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staffs discussion: This block (Block 38) does not have a strong concentration of contributing structures within the context of the district, with the exception of the buildings that are the subject of this application.
Staffs finding of fact: The demolition would not adversely affect the overlay district because of the surrounding non-contributing structures. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staffs discussion: The zoning of this property is RMF-35. The purpose of this zone is to "provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including multi-family dwellings." This zone allows multi-family dwellings from three to eleven units with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet for three units and requiring 2,000 square feet for each additional unit. Single-family dwellings are an allowed use in this use.
Staffs finding of fact: The base zoning of the site is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staffs discussion: Subsection H of Chapter 34 instructs HLC to consider scale and form, composition of principal facades and relationship to the street when considering this standard. The reuse plan proposes three phases of development that will consist of over 500 one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Because the
applicant is required to obtain approval from HLC for new construction, it is assumed that the applicant meets this standard.
Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(l)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and v. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staff discussion: The building has been in decline since the long-term owner, Mr. Hunt, passed away several years ago. The house has been boarded for at least five years and shows obvious signs of neglect and deterioration. However, the applicant recently purchased an option on this property and is not responsible for the lack of maintenance.
Staffs finding of fact: Although the house has suffered from willful neglect, it is not the fault of the applicant. The staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.
Staff concluded that the applicant meets three of the six standards.
340 S 600 East (The Juel Apartments)
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is longer evident.
Staffs discussion: Known as the "Juel" Apartments, this 22-unit apartment structure was constructed in 1927. It was named for one of the relatives of Eber Case, who constructed the house next door to the north (as in "Julia"). Like the Mozart Apartments (550 E. 300 S.), the setting of this structure has been compromised because of its location to recently constructed buildings, such the Fourth South Marketplace across the street. There are several historic buildings on this side of the street on this block, however, that reinforces the Juel Apartments' visual relationship to the development of Central City, and thus the building's integrity in terms of feeling is still apparent. In terms of association, the Juel Apartments are similar to the Mozart Apartments in that its integrity of association consists of being related to a particular building type that existed to meet the changing demographics of Salt Lake City during the first three decades of the twentieth century. The materials of the Juel Apartments have not been altered, and details that help define the design and workmanship of the building -the pronounced lintels, Chicago-style windows, stepped parapet with contrasting coping, and heavy cornice line- are all intact.
Staffs finding of fact: The Juel Apartments retain much, if not all, of their original appearance, and continue to contribute to our understanding of the transition Salt Lake City underwent from an isolated village to an urban center of regional importance. The physical integrity of this structure is very high, and the applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staffs discussion: The Juel forms the southernmost boundary of contributing buildings along this blackface. Because of its high degree of integrity, it acts as a strong reinforcement of historic fabric on a block and streetscape that has suffered intrusions. The removal of the Juel Apartments would create a gap in the streetscape.
Staffs finding of fact: The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.
Staff's discussion: Again, as stated above, there are few contributing structures on this block, with the exception of the properties that are the subject of this staff report. Most of the contributing structures of this blockface are immediately to the north, but because of the proximity of the commercial corridor of 400 South, there is a scarcity of contributing buildings that surround this structure. Furthermore, it would remove a resource cited as historic in an additional context, that of urban apartments constructed in Salt Lake from 1905 to 1930. This context was the subject of a National Register nomination prepared and submitted to the National Park Service in 1989.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The zoning of this property is RMF-35. The purpose of this zone is to "provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including multi-family dwellings." This zone allows multi-family dwellings from three to eleven units with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet for three units and requiring 2,000 square feet for each additional unit. Single-family dwellings are an allowed use in this use.
Staff's finding of fact: The base zoning of the site is compatible with the reuse of the structure. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staff's discussion: Staff was only given a schematic site plan; a complete reuse plan has not been submitted to staff. (Staff put this item on the agenda without a complete set of plans under the assumption that if the demolition was approved and the applicant could not produce reuse plans, the applicant had the right to submit his application and landscaping would be the reuse plan).
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(l)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structures, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staff's discussion: The Juel Apartments are currently occupied. From the exterior, they do not appear to have suffered from willful neglect.
Staff’s finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
Staff concluded that the applicant meets three of the six standards.
321 and 331 S 500 East (Lunt Motel Annex)
(Because of the similarity of these structures, the analysis is being considered together)
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staff's discussion: According to the Structure/Site Information Form prepared in 1980, these buildings were constructed in 1909 by William Covey. Covey had substantial real estate holdings in the city, including the Kensington and LaFrance apartments. (Vernier Place was originally named "Covey Court"). Although the massing indicates that the buildings were originally built as four-plexes, only one owner is listed at each numerical address in the Polk City Directories; perhaps they were first intended for use as duplexes. In 1941 they are first listed in the Polk directory as the "Lunt Motel Annex." The Lunt Motel itself was located at 525 E. 400 South. Vernon Lunt, the owner, advertised that his enterprise included "88 units, 44 kitchenettes" with buildings on Fourth South, 700 East, and the subject properties. From 1949 until 1981 the structures on 500 East are listed as an annex. Despite their original use as low-density multi-family dwellings, the 1950 Sanborn Map indicates that in that year the two structures accommodated 22 units, and thus have served as small, efficiency-type units for at least 48 years. When the previous owner/applicant purchased the property the buildings together had 23 units.
In terms of integrity, the buildings are in their original location. The setting has been somewhat altered because of the intrusion of recent commercial buildings (the convenience store to the north) and the incompatible remodeling of structures to the south (lvographics). The large trees that remain on this block, particularly those in front of the buildings, the site layout and the buildings on Vernier Place supply much of the setting and feeling of the original appearance of the buildings. The flat roofs, brick masonry, porches with Tuscan columns, large windows with transoms and frame secondary spaces on the back are very typical of an early twentieth-century multi-family housing type. The design, materials and workmanship clearly convey the buildings' original use and appearance. The buildings' original purpose and design are associated with Salt Lake City's population growth and emergence as modern, regional center at the turn of the century and the resulting need for housing.
Staff's finding of fact: The physical integrity of this structure is intact. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: The streetscape on the 300 to 400 S. block of 500 E. consists of non-historic, commercial structures, with the exception of the subject properties and the fact that Vernier Place and the small houses that line this inner court street are visible from 500 E. Aside from Classic Cleaners at 501 E 300 S, these are the only contributing structures from 500 South to South Temple left on 500 East. The streetscape no longer conveys a sense of the historic development of the Central City Historic District. Unlike the 600 East streetscape, the in-fill development along 500 East is not consistent with the scale, massing design of the Lunt Motel Annex.
Staffs finding of fact: The removal of the remaining historic buildings in this part of the historic district would not negatively affect the streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district. The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures.
Staffs discussion: As stated above, with the exception of the Vernier Place buildings, there is only one structure along 500 East that is a contributing structure (Classic Cleaners).
Staffs finding of fact: The Lunt Motel Annex is in the midst of noncontributing structures. The applicant meets this standard.
(l)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with reuse of the structure.
Staffs discussion: The property is zoned Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The R-MU zone was adopted as part of the 1995 zoning rewrite to encourage high density residential development in the neighborhood with supporting commercial uses in the neighborhood bounded by 200 E., 500 E., South Temple and 400 South. The purpose of this zone is to: Implement the objects of the adopted East Downtown master plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial and small scale office uses.
The East Downtown master plan supports the retention of historic buildings in this area, and while it encourages the development of high-density residential units it should be pointed out that the R-MU zone was intended to allow for a mix of uses, not only high density. This mix could facilitate other uses besides residential in historic structures. The zone also allows density as low as two-family dwellings with minimum lot areas of 8,000 sq. ft., so if the Lunt Motel Annex were to be renovated as residential units, they would be conforming in this zone.
While the City has established intent to allow high-density uses in a downtown neighborhood by the adoption of the RM-U zone, it has also established recognition of intent to preserve old structures that are also a part of this neighborhood by adopting the historic preservation overlay zone. The RM-U zone does not indicate intent to encourage development to such an extent that high-density development occurs at the expense of the demolition of buildings in the historic district.
Staffs finding of fact: If the Lunt Motel Annex is reused, it would comply with the R MU zone. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(l)(e)The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staff's discussion: Subsection H of Chapter 34 instructs HLC to consider scale and form, composition of principal facades and relationship to the street when considering this standard. The reuse plan proposes three phases of development that will consist of over 500 one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Because the applicant is required to obtain approval from HLC for new construction, it is assumed that he applicant meets this standard.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(f) The site has suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs, iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retrain tenants, iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staff's discussion: The applicant recently acquired an option to purchase the site. When staff toured the apartments in 1999, staff noticed that negligent actions and a failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs appeared to consist primarily of water-damaged ceilings and broken windows. The building was occupied until the tenants were evicted around 1998.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant has not willfully neglected the building, and thus meets this standard.
The staff concluded that the applicant meets four of the six standards.
517, 524, 527, 528, 532, 539 E Vernier Place
(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.
Staff's discussion: These seven houses are in their original location and have maintained their historic setting, association and feeling: that of small dwellings situated on a narrow, interior street in a downtown neighborhood. The materials, design and workmanship are clearly evident. Details such as segmental brick arches and heavy frieze boards (527), sandstone foundations and rough-faced water tables (528) and dentils (524) that have disappeared from homes not threatened by demolition are intact on the subject properties.
Because the homes have been vacant for three years, they have suffered deterioration due to vagrancy. Window glass is missing, and some details, such as spindles on the porches, have been destroyed. Despite the unfortunate treatment of these dwellings in recent years, they continue to impart a sense of the urban development and the transition Salt Lake City underwent at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Staff's finding of fact: The physical integrity is evident for all eight properties. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.
Staff's discussion: The seven subject dwellings comprise the streetscape of Vernier Place. Without the dwellings, the streetscape would not exist. Staff's finding of fact: The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding noncontributing structures.
Staff's discussion: Non-contributing structures on the block include a convenience store, small-scale office buildings, and restaurants. The concentration of the seven dwellings on Vernier Place and the Lunt Motel Annex, their high degree of physical integrity, and their close proximity to each other lessens the impact on Vernier Place of the non-contributing structures on this block. As an intact example of an interior block street, Vernier Place still conveys its historic association as an early twentiethcentury, working-class neighborhood that lessens the adverse effect of the noncontributing intrusions found on the block.
Staff's finding of fact: The historicity of Vernier Place is not adversely affected by the non-contributing structures on this block. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.
Staff's discussion: The property is zoned Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The R-MU zone was adopted as part of the 1995 zoning rewrite to encourage high density residential development in the neighborhood with supporting commercial uses in the neighborhood bounded by 200 E., 500 E., South Temple and 400 South. The purpose of this zone is to: Implement the objects of the adopted East Downtown master plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial and small scale office uses.
The East Downtown master plan supports the retention of historic buildings in this area, and while it encourages the development of high-density residential units it should be pointed out that the R-MU zone was intended to allow for a mix of uses, not only high density. This mix could facilitate other uses besides residential in historic structures. The zone also allows density as low as two-family dwellings with minimum lot areas of 8,000 sq. ft., so if the Lunt Motel Annex were to be renovated as residential units, they would be conforming in this zone.
• While the City has established an intent to allow high-density uses in a downtown neighborhood by the adoption of the RM-U zone, it has also established a recognition of an intent to preserve old structures that are also a part of this neighborhood by adopting the historic preservation overlay zone. The RM-U zone does not indicate an intent to encourage development to such an extent that high density development occurs at the expense of the demolition of buildings in the historic district.
Staffs finding of fact: If the Vernier Place homes are renovated, they would comply with the R-MU zone. The applicant does not meet this standard.
(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.
Staffs discussion: Subsection H of Chapter 34 instructs HLC to consider scale and form, composition of principal facades and relationship to the street when considering this standard. The reuse plan proposes three phases of development that will consist of over 500 one-, two- and three-bedroom units. Because the applicant is required to obtain approval from HLC for new construction, it is assumed that he applicant meets this standard.
Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(1)(f) The site has suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure. ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retrain tenants iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staffs discussion: The applicant recently acquired an option to acquire the site. Staff toured the buildings with HLC on August 19, 1998 and did not notice willful acts that the present or former owners had undertaken. The former owner had rented the units to tenants who occupied the structures until the prior applicant purchased the property. This applicant has attempted to secure and board the structures, but they are continually vandalized. However, the applicant recently purchased an option on this property and is not responsible for the lack of maintenance.
Staffs finding of fact: Although these homes have suffered from willful neglect, it is not the fault of the applicant. The staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.
Staff concluded that the applicant meets two of the six standards.
The following staff recommendation was offered: Staff proposes that the Commission table the application so that the applicant can pursue the economic hardship process, or defer a decision on demolition for up to one year during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site pursuant to subsection 21A.34.020(M) of the zoning ordinance. The applicant would still have the right to pursue the economic hardship process.
Mr. Simonsen said that he was struggling with the idea that a multi-story building would not be compatible. He said that there were many examples of multi-story family historic housing adjacent to single-story housing. Mr. Simonsen indicated that most of the subject buildings were more than one story and said that he did not believe the reuse plan would be incompatible. He also said that two-story buildings were compatible with one-story buildings.
Mr. Parvaz said that he believed that a new building should meet the same footprint and setbacks as the demolished building.
Ms. Coffey said that the Commission could consider the character of the entire area rather than just the structures on this block, because a variety of building heights can be found.
Motion for Vernier Place:
Mr. Payne moved that the structures at 517, 524, 527, 528, 532, 533, and 538 East Vernier Place regarding Case No. 007.01A do not meet the criteria to allow demolition, based on staff's finding of fact and staff's recommendation. Therefore, the applicant has the right to proceed with the economic hardship process. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Payne inquired that if the Historic Landmark Commission found that the applicant met the economic hardship requirements, would he be given the right to demolish all the structures, especially when the applicant talked about the project being constructed in phases. Mr. Payne expressed his concern that all the buildings might be destroyed and something might happen where the applicant would not complete the development.
Ms. Giraud said that one of the things that the Commission can require in an approval for demolition is that a plan review fee, which is 65 percent of the building permit fee, is paid before demolition can occur.
The discussion turned to the decisive factors in an economic hardship case, such as:
• The cost of rehabilitating historic buildings;
• The standards for whether an applicant is getting a reasonable rate of return on his/her money;
• Whether the price paid for the property in this case was inflated;
• The value of comparable properties;
• The appraised value of the property, and many other issues.
Motion on the remaining structures:
Mr. Young moved that the structures at 326, 334, and 340 South 600 East; 550 and 558 East 300 South; and 321 and 331 South 500 East regarding Case No. 007-01A do not meet the criteria to allow demolition, based on staff's finding of fact and staff's recommendation, as presented. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, were opposed. Mr. Payne abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young asked for clarification of the rules for abstention. Ms. Coffey said that she believed that there were a variety of reasons why someone abstained from a vote.
The focal point of the following discussion was the Lunt Motel Annex and the structures on Vernier Place. Mr. Wilson said that if the structures on Vernier Place were not demolished, then the reuse plan for the Lunt Motel Annex site would not be compatible with the structures on Vernier Place. Mr. Wilson requested to change his vote on the motion for ''the rest of the structures".
Ms. Rowland said that she also questioned the finding that the streetscape would not be negatively affected.
Mr. Littig said that when he reviewed the impact that the reuse plan might have on Vernier Place and the link between the properties, he also wanted to change his vote. There was some further discussion on this matter.
Ms. Coffey said that an individual, who voted in favor of a motion, has the right to bring the motion back for reconsideration. Mr. Wilson made a motion to reconsider the previous motion. The members of the Historic Landmark Commission agreed to reopen the motion made by Mr. Young on the remaining structures based on some issues that were not clarified before the vote.
Reconsidered motion on the remaining structures:
Mr. Young moved that the structures at 326, 334, and 340 South 600 East; 550
and 558 East 300 South; and 321 and 331 South 500 East regarding Case No. 007- 01A do not meet the criteria to allow demolition, based on staff's finding of fact and staff's recommendation, as presented. Mr. Protasevich seconded the motion. Mr. Protasevich and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were opposed. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion failed on the second round.
There was some discussion regarding the criteria on the Lunt Motel Annex. Mr. Littig said that the Lunt Motel Annex is the "gateway" to Vernier Place.
Motion on the Lunt Motel Annex:
Mr. Littig moved to change the staff's finding on (1)(b) criterion on the Lunt Motel Annex buildings at 321-331 South 500 East, for Case No. 007-01A, from "yes" to "no" because the streetscape would be negatively affected due to the impact on the property. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Protasevich and Mr. Young were opposed. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There was some discussion regarding changing the staff's finding of fact for the Juel Apartments. Ms. Mickelsen said that the same argument could be made for the Mozart Apartments. Ms. Giraud said that the Mozart Apartments were not included in the National Register of Historic Places nomination for historic apartments in the city. She added that the Mozart might not have been included because there are only six apartments in the building, and the nomination only included apartment buildings of at least three stories and a certain number of units.
Motion on the Juel Apartments:
Mr. Payne moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the findings of fact on the remainder of the buildings with the modification of the last motion and with the exception of the Juel Apartments. Mr. Young seconded the motion.
There was some confusion regarding the wording of the motion. Mr. Payne amended the motion.
Amended motion on the Juel Apartments:
Mr. Payne moved to change the staff's finding on (1)(c) criterion on the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East, for Case No. 007-01A, from "yes" to "no" because the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be negatively affected because the building is part of a larger development of historical apartment buildings. Mr. Young's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
A short discussion followed.
Motion on the Covey Apartments. the Mumford House. Mozart Apartments. and the Fail house.
Mr. Young moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's findings of fact and staff's recommendation on the remainder of the buildings at 326 and
334 South 600 East, and 550 and 558 East 300 South, for Case No. 007-01A. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Coffey clarified, for the record, when between three and five of the six standards are met, the applicant has the option of conducting a bona fide effort or economic hardship; when two or fewer standards are met, the applicant has the option of economic hardship. She also stated that any of the Historic Landmark Commission's decisions could be appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board.
OTHER BUSINESS
Long Range Preservation Projects for 2001.
Ms. Coffey discussed the contents of her memorandum that had been given to the members of the Commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes, regarding long-range preservation projects for 2001. She stated that after members submitted their choice of projects, the following were recognized as priorities: 1) demolition; 2) economic hardship; 3} Transit Oriented Development [TOO] and historic preservation; 3} Commission's role; and 4) Commissioner training. A short discussion followed.
Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Staff would be working with the Commission to "beef up" its role regarding preservation issues in Salt Lake City, provide training on how to conduct meetings, and would request that the City Attorney's Office discuss issues relating to conflict of interest.
Ms. Coffey recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission hold a luncheon meeting at 12:00 Noon on Wednesday, March 28, 2001, where Robert Glessner, Stephen Goldsmith, and other planning staff members would discuss the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) district and historic preservation. The members of the Commission were in agreement.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if staff would distribute some information on the proposed TOD ordinance before the luncheon meeting. Ms. Coffey said that she would.
Ms. Giraud recommended that the Architectural Subcommittee be held at 11:30 A.M. that same morning because there was only one case, rather than at 4:00 P.M. in the afternoon. The Commission members agreed to that recommendation.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:45P.M.