SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Dina Blaes, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Thomas Cerruti, William Damery, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Lynn Morgan, and Robert Young. William Littig and Rob McFarland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the infom1ation presented.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the February 4, 1998 meeting, as amended. It was seconded by Ms. Miller. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Damery, Mr. Littig, and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 003-98, by Art Brothers. represented by Paula Carl. architect. requesting final approval to construct a new single-family house at 39 No. Q Street.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Ms. Giraud stated that if the applicant should pursue the variance for a covered porch in the corner side yard, she would write a letter of support to the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Paula Carl, representing the applicant, was present. She stated that a few changes had been made to the plans, after she attended the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. Ms. Carl said that the applicant had planned to file for a variance, but was told that it was unlikely that he would be able to obtain a variance. Mr. Wright said that the applicant would have to declare a hardship condition on the corner property. Ms. Blaes said that in the Subcommittee meeting, it was determined that the covered side porch, on the east elevation, would create a better design for the house and be more compatible. She said that she realized that a design issue would not be considered in a hardship case to the members of the Board of Adjustment, but it would definitely be an improvement to the design. Ms. Deal said that if the covered porch was allowed on the east elevation, a wall of continuity to the streetscape would be maintained.
Mr. Wright talked more about the size of the property and the footprint of the proposed structure. He said that the Board of Adjustment may take into consideration the enhancement issue to the design of the house and an improvement to the property. Ms. Carl said that the applicant was skeptical about spending the money on the filing fee if a positive outcome was so doubtful. Ms. Giraud said that the members of the Board of Adjustment would likely solicit opinions from the Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission. The discussion continued.
Regarding the other changes, Ms. Carl reported that the applicant said that he would be willing to corbel the chimney and step it back as much as possible. Ms. Carl said that if the applicant makes the decision to install a fence on the east elevation, the drawing of an iron fence, which was included in the staff report, would be the configuration the applicant would use.
As there were no questions, concerns, and comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed, prior to a motion being made.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 003-98, as presented, based on the findings of fact, included in the staff report, and with changes that were suggested in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission made a strong recommendation that the applicant pursue the variance request to have the covered side porch on the east elevation. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Damery, Mr. Littig, and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Blaes asked about the enforcement issue regarding the trash on the property, which was introduced at the January 7, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Wright said that he could not verify that the issue had been resolved, but he knew that the enforcement people had acted upon the request.
Case No. 002-98. by Lance Duffield and Paul Gardner of Black Oak Development requesting approval of a new construction project at 661-665 South 500 East of four town homes.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She discussed the changes which had been made on the plans for the proposed building and landscaping. Mr. Cerruti asked a question regarding the proposed trees. It was pointed out that the calipers and types of trees were listed in the staff report.
Mr. Lance Duffield and Mr. Paul Gardner from Black Oak Development, the applicants, were present. The applicants used a display board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Gardner proposed recessing the center of the west (front) facade and adding a second chimney, to break up the blank wall of the building.
Mr. Duffield continued to address the landscaping plans by saying that Maple trees would be planted in the front park strip, upon the approval by the City Forester, and indigenous trees would be planted in the rear, such as Paper Bark Maples, and tall evergreens. He said that xeroscape landscaping would be used, such as Buffalo Grass and native ground covers.
The subject turned to the proposed windows. Mr. Duffield provided a sample of the windows with the etched glass. He said that the size of the etchings would be wider than what the sample showed. Mr. Duffield said the wider etching would give the windows more definition.
Mr. Gardner said that cedar paneling, either stained or aged naturally, in a tubular steel frame, would be_ used for the proposed fencing. He said that the cedar paneling could be easily replaced if damaged.
Mr. Duffield also provided a sample board of the proposed exterior materials showing the colors, which would be natural beige/brown tones. He discussed the following exterior materials: 1) brick on the columns; 2) synthetic stucco system; 3) cast concrete for the window heads and sills; 4) feature strips at the top of the foundation and where the floors would be split; 5) oak grained wood for the soffits and fascia; 6) the garage doors would be painted to match the synthetic stucco; and 7) 40-year architectural shingles in weathered wood would be used for the roof.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the location of the utility meters. Mr. Gardner said that the electrical meters would be located in the rear, but were not certain where the gas meters would be placed. Mr. Gardner indicated that they would likely be in front because of the location of the gas line. Mr. Duffield said that if they were installed in front of the building, they would be screened by shrubbery, and did not believe that they would be visible from the street. Mr. Young asked if the gas meters would have to be visible from the street to be read. Mr. Gardner said he did not know, that these issues would have to be worked out with Questar Gas Company.
• Ms. Blaes inquired about the landscape lighting. Mr. Duffield pointed out the positions of the lighting throughout the landscaping drawing. Mr. Gardner circulated a copy of a brochure, of the proposed low-level incandescent lights, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Gardner said that the lighting would not be flood lights but would be placed on three-foot posts.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion took place regarding the question of the gas meters that Questar was presently using and if sensors were used to read them. Mr. Young said that if sensors were used, shrubbery in front of the meters would block the ability to read them. Ms. Blaes suggested that Staff could review those detail when the information became available, and could be incorporated into the motion.
Mr. Morgan said that the proposed windows would be a modern style with a traditional feel for a contemporary building, and he said he believed they would be very appropriate.
Ms. Deal asked that the following be included in the record of this meeting: "The etching on the proposed windows would be an abstraction of real panes and would not be a fake replication, like fake grids on the inside of windows. They were an 'abstracting' concept rather than 'replicating', and in this case, would seem to be quite successful."
Mr. Young moved to approve Case No. 002-98, based on the findings of fact, as presented in the staff report, and requested that the location and the issues surrounding the gas meters be verified by the Staff when that information became available. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms.Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Review of the findings of the Economic Review Panel. established for Case No. 014-97. by Jeff Jonas of the American Housing Development Company. requesting approval to demolish four structures at 334 South 600 East. 326 South 600 East. 550 East 300 South. and 558 East 300 South.
Ms. Deal asked why all four structures were listed for the economic hardship review. Ms. Blaes pointed out that the original application for Case No. 014-97, requested that all four structures be demolished, and at the December 3, 1997 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the Commission approved the demolition of the structure at 558 East 300 South, so that the Economic Review Panel reviewed the hardship request for the other three structures.
Mr. Wright indicated that Ms. Giraud had asked him to present the findings of fact which were determined by the Economic Review Panel, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said that the applicant, as well as two members of the Economic Review Panel were present, who could embellish more of the details and response to any unanswered questions.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the Staff had supplied the following three documents to the Historic Landmark Commission: 1) the report of the Salt Lake City Economic Review Panel for this case; 2) two sets of minutes from the February 2, 1998 and February 9, 1998 meetings of the Economic Review Panel; and 3) a copy of the City Ordinance which outlined the process, procedures, and criteria that had to be followed to determine economic hardship, as was requested by the applicant.
Mr. Wright made the following observations of the proceedings of the Economic Review Panel:
"In the report, there is an outline of the procedures to be followed and the selection of the members. The Historic Landmark Commission selected Mr. Craig Paulsen to represent the Commission, the applicant selected Mr. Rich Hall, and they jointly selected Mr. Rick Howa to serve as the third member of the Economic Review Panel. Mr. Howa was elected to serve as the Chair by the other panel members.
"The Economic Review Panel convened on February 2, 1998 at 4:00P.M. and at that first meeting, the Panel received a package of information. That package of information basically followed the ordinance, in terms of the criteria that was to be submitted for their review. The Panel asked questions, familiarizing themselves with the submitted information. After some general discussion, the Panel members determined that the information was too voluminous to absorb at this meeting. The Economic Review Panel members also indicated that they would like to make an onsite visit to the properties. That meeting was concluded.
"The second meeting was held February 4, 1998 which was an onsite field trip. It was attended by the Economic Review Panel members and some Staff members.
"On February 9, 1998, the Economic Review Panel reconvened. There were revisions submitted to the original documents by the applicant, which responded to questions that had been raised in the first meeting and which further detailed other information and cross analysis.
"The members of the Economic Review Panel decided that they should first go through the costs for renovation documents, which were submitted, to make some statement of validation and acceptability of the information, that was provided by the applicant. All three members, independently, reviewed the information and surveyed the scope of the project. It was decided in the discussion, that all three of the members were within approximately five percent of each other as they conducted their individual analysis and determination of what the cost of renovation likely would be.
"The Panel's first action, as stated in the motion on the third page of the report, was to accept the numbers as they were presented, as accurate renovation costs and recognize that there was a range of 5% in the total costs between the three Panel members, which they believed to be an important point. Once doing that, they thought they could go on to the other criteria in the ordinance and eventually make their conclusions on the matter before them.
"The Economic Review Panel proceeded to review the criteria in the ordinance. Information was submitted on each piece of criteria that was needed, as evidence. As the members went through the cost analysis for renovation and the market analysis of economic feasibility, they determined that there was a gap in this project of approximately 1.2 million dollars.
After the members reviewed the documents, their conclusion was that there was a determination of economic hardship, based on the criteria found in Section 21A.34.020 (K) (2) (a through e) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which was filed with the minutes, exclusive of the feasibility of the applicant obtaining a grant of 1.2 million dollars, which could be applied towards the project.
There was some discussion regarding other economic incentives that may be available. The applicant had assumed a full 20% tax credit for all the dollars that would be put into this project, although it was understood, that it was not likely that all the renovation dollars would receive full credit.
There was a general discussion about the possibility of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) participating in a project of this scope and this size, or other City funds that might be available. I contacted Alice Steiner of the Redevelopment Agency and Kathy Ricci of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division. Those two divisions, typically, are involved in housing development and renovation projects, gap financing, and grants which may be available. Their conclusion to me was that there would not be anywhere near that sum of money available which would only result in eleven housing units. They both said that it was not feasible for the City to provide that level of a grant or loan for the limited number of housing units that would be preserved.
The summary of the Economic Review Panel was that the three properties, under review, would not be economically viable for a reasonable economic rate of return. Therefore, the Panel's conclusion and recommendation to the Historic Landmark Commission was a determination of economic hardship for those properties.
Mr. Wright focused on the City Zoning Ordinance, which was cited earlier. He made reference to Section K which was the definition and determination of economic hardship, which states, 'The determination of economic hardship shall require the applicant to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the application of the standards and regulations of this section deprives the applicant of all reasonable economic use or return on the subject property." Mr. Wright spoke of the standards for the determination of economic hardship and the procedures that were followed. He said that all those standards were reviewed and the Economic Review Panel determined that there was evidence submitted to support the standards and regulations listed in the ordinance.
Mr. Wright continued outlining the fine points of the ordinance. He said that after the Economic Review Panel convened, the members had a 45-day time period to complete their studies and submit their findings in a report to the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Wright said that this meeting was the first regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission, following the conclusion of the Economic Review Panel, where the report could be presented to the members of the Commission. He read Subsection (K)(3)(c)(i), "...If after reviewing all of the evidence, the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application of the standards set forth in Subsection (K)(2) results in economic hardship, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition."
Mr. Wright read a portion of Subsection (K)(3)(c)(iii), "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. He said that the process in that subsection certainly puts the burden on the Historic Landmark Commission.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal, led the discussion by saying that she believed the entire discussion of the Economic Review Panel focused on two subsections of the ordinance, which was (K)(b)(ii), "the annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, for the previous three years"; and (iii), "remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, during the previous three years." Mr. Wright said that the Economic Review Panel reviewed those subsections, as well as the other subsections, which were the criteria of standards and regulations on which the members had to make their decision. He said that the Panel's discussion consisted of reading the criteria and reviewing the evidence that was submitted for that criteria. Mr. Wright said that the Panel had the choices of either accepting or rejecting the evidence, or asking for more information. Mr. Wright assured the Commission that the Panel went through each item in the criteria. He said that most of their discussion was focused on the renovation costs of the subject buildings, and validating the applicant's numbers as being acceptable costs.
• Mr. Young asked if the Historic Landmark Commission did not accept the Economic Review Panel 's findings of fact, would the applicant have to come back to this Commission with a new set of plans. Mr. Wright said that the Commission would just make a motion not accept the conclusions of the Economic Review Panel.
• Ms. Blaes inquired if the decisions that were approved by the Historic Landmark Commission at the December 3, 1997 meeting regarding the demolition request for the three subject properties would supersede a motion not to accept the Economic Review Panel 's findings as acceptable. She referred to Subsection (L)(2)(c) of the ordinance, which states, "Upon making findings that three to five of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall defer a decision for up to one year during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site, pursuant to Subsection M of this section." Mr. Wright pointed out that since the applicant had an economic hardship review, at the applicant's request, the Historic Landmark Commission now had the responsibility to accept or reject the findings of the Economic Review Panel. He said that if the Historic Landmark Commission determined that the findings of the Economic Review Panel were acceptable, then a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition would be issued. Mr. Wright further said that if the findings were not accepted, then the determination would have to be made on the assumption that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact.
• Mr. Cerruti referred to Subsection (K)(2)(b), "The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following: ", and asked if there was evidence presented for each criteria (i through viii), such as required in (viii), any state of federal income tax returns on or relating to the property for the previous two years. Mr. Cerruti asked if those tax returns were submitted because they were not listed with the other documents that were submitted by the applicant, in the report of the Economic Review Panel's Report, dated February 9, 1998. Mr. Wright said that he believed they were and inquired if Mr. Cerruti wanted him to find them. Mr. Cerruti indicated that he did not have to look them, he just wanted to know if they were submitted. Ms. Blaes said that the Economic Review Panel was charged with the application of that section of the ordinance, during the economic hardship review process, and that Staff indicated that the Economic Review Panel discussed the evidence for each criteria.
• Ms. Blaes asked for clarification regarding the information that the applicant had submitted. She said that when the request for demolition first came to the Historic Landmark Commission, the members reviewed, analyzed, and made a separate determination for each property. Ms. Blaes wanted to make certain that the documents provided by the applicant, were received and reviewed separately by the Economic Review Panel for each of the three subject properties, and that the information was not "lumped" together as one project. She said that the report by the Economic Review Panel implied that the review was not separated. Mr. Wright said that the information provided by the applicant was separated categorically by the address of each structure, itemized and reviewed, individually.
The applicant, Mr. Jeff Jonas of American Housing Development Company, as well as Mr. Rich Hall and Mr. Craig Paulsen, two of the Economic Review Panel members, were present.
Mr. Jonas concurred that the members of the Economic Review Panel, discussed each item of evidence and matched it to the criteria, as per Mr. Wright's recommendation, and that a copy of the pertinent sections of the City's Zoning Ordinance was made available.
• Ms. Deal said that she was concerned that the appraisals and the construction costs, provided by Mr. Jonas, were inflated. She wanted to know how the costs were entered into the discussion and she said that she would like to go through all these items to find out how they all figured into the discussion. Mr. Hall said that Mr. Rick Howa, the third member of the Panel, led the discussion because he was the most knowledgeable in those matters. He continued by saying that according to his recollection, the evidence was in order as it was individually reviewed by the Economic Review Panel. Mr. Hall added that Mr. Jonas prepared the summary costs and that Mr. Paulsen and he focused more on the renovation costs.
A lengthy discussion took place, as Ms. Deal continued to question that the Economic Review Panel did not specifically deal with some of the criteria in the ordinance and that the members did not go through the criteria "step-by-step" and make a ·finding on each criteria. Mr. Hall believed that all the components were provided and reviewed, which reflected the formula used to determine the rate of return on the properties. Mr. Jonas said that the main focus would be on renovation and construction costs, during an economic hardship review analysis. The discussion continued with Ms. Deal inquiring if specific questions were asked during the review process, such as turning the numbers over to come to a conclusion, or would it be necessary to renovate the properties. She further inquired if the amount the applicant paid for the properties was a reasonable amount, at a reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, or did the applicant pay an over inflated or an under inflated price.
Mr. Jonas said that those questions were asked and answered, and that all the items were submitted, including the current economic return based on actual numbers, the tax returns, as well as current financial statements on each property. Mr. Jonas said that based on the current property values, he paid more for the properties than they were worth. Ms. Blaes said that two members of the Economic Review Panel, as well as the applicant said that all the items were provided and each step was reviewed before the conclusion was reached by the Panel.
• Ms. Deal again expressed her concerns that there were no findings of fact listed for any of standards that were included in the ordinance. She read Mr. Howa's motion, w 1ich was included in the minutes of the February 9, 1998 meeting of the Economic Review Panel and also in the Panel's report for that date, which states, "Mr. Howa moved that the analysis and findings of fact, relative to the standards for the definition and determination of economic hardship, were based on the criteria included in Section 21A.34.020(K)(2)(a through e) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, exclusive of the feasibility of the applicant obtaining a grant of 1.2 million dollars which could be applied toward this project. If such a grant is not possible, then it is the Economic Review Panel's conclusion that the restoration of the Covey Apartment building, located at 326 South 600 East, the Mumford House, located at 334 South 600 East, and the Mozart Apartment building, located at 550 East 300 South is not economically viable and deprives the applicant of all reasonable economic use or return on the properties." Ms. Deal said that she wanted to find out how each finding of fact was determined by the Panel members to reach their ultimate conclusion. She expressed her concerns that the applicant's "own information was the findings of fact." Ms. Blaes said that the Economic Review Panel basically verified the numbers that were provided by the applicant within a 5% range.
• Mr. Cerruti said that he agreed with Ms. Deal that it was difficult for the Historic Landmark Commission to determine the consistency of the Economic Review Panel's report when there were no individual findings on the criteria in the ordinance. He said after reading Subsection (K)(3)(c)(iii), "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 that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner" Mr. Cerruti asked how could the Historic Landmark Commission determine if the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner when there were no findings of fact to consider. The discussion continued.
Mr. Paulsen concurred that every criteria was discussed and every piece of evidence was thoroughly reviewed before a conclusion was made. He also asked where it stated in the ordinance that every criteria had to have a findings of fact. Mr. Paulsen said that each item was considered but all the information was grouped together formulating one motion. Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission assigned Mr. Paulsen to act in the capacity of the Commission during that process.
• Ms. Giraud said that the intent of the ordinance, where the criteria is listed item by item, on which an Economic Review Panel must base its conclusion, was not to require a finding of fact on each specific item. She added that the intent of the ordinance was to provide a guide as to how thoroughly the Economic Review Panel reviewed the economic status of the applicant. Ms. Giraud further said that the criteria was a guide that provided, all those involved, something to "hang their hats on", and to critique the assertion that people had for claiming economic hardship.
• Mr. Cerruti said that it was important that the Historic Landmark Commission would know what the existing current cap rate was on the property. Mr. Hall said that it was formulated to be 9%. Mr. Cerruti said that when Mr. Jonas purchased the property he assumed that it had been operating as rental income property, he asked about the capitalization rate at the point of purchase. He kept pressing the panel members regarding the cap rate of return at the time of purchase; what it was a year ago, six months ago, or today, because he said in determining economic hardship, it was important for the Historic Landmark Commission to know if the cap rate of return was a conservative cap rate or if it was inflated. Mr. Cerruti asked the question, "What if it doesn't result in economic hardship because the income is sufficient and the property is being used?" Mr. Paulsen pointed out that Mr. Jonas provided analysis on the current rental flow.
Mr. Jonas said that he was getting very frustrated. He stated the following: "If this was what the process was intended to do, I think it is a horrible process to tell you the truth." He said that he guessed Mr. Cerruti's question was, was the purchase of the properties a reasonable value based on today's income. Mr. Jonas said that he did not have any information on these properties prior to the time of purchase. Mr. Cerruti alluded to the fact that kind of information should have been acquired when the property was purchased. Mr. Jonas pointed out that he provided information, based on the current income, and documentation was provided from a real estate broker, who had completed more transactions of this type than anyone he knew, and who had determined a reasonable cap rate which was probably a very conservative cap rate, within 9%, and that was the cap rate the Economic Review Panel used. Mr. Cerruti said that information was all speculation and he pointed out that he was asking for facts. The discussion continued. Some other members of the Historic Landmark Commission believed that Mr. Cerruti's questions had been answered. Mr. Cerruti disagreed.
The discussion turned to the actual value and the purchase price of each of the properties, concluding that Mr. Jonas paid more than what the properties were worth on the market at the time of purchase. The discussion continued.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Dee Dillman, an interested party, stated that he first became aware of the Mumford House, located at 558 East 300 South, when Mr. Jonas of American Housing and Development advertised that the house was being given away. Mr. Dillman said because he was interested, he put a considerable amount of work into this house, intending to move it to another location at 163 South 1100 East. He said that he surveyed the area and found that houses were selling from $220,000 to $260,000 in that area of the city. Mr. Dillman said that his desire was to restore the house. He said that he had not proceeded further with this possibility because he knew that there would be no margin for error for him just to break even. Mr. Dillman said that the cost of moving the house to that lot on 1100 East would be approximately $60,000 and that he would need some low interest financing to move the house. Ms. Deal asked Mr. Jonas what it would cost to demolish the house and if he had a demolition bid, yet. Mr. Jonas said it would be about $10,000, but did not have an actual bid for demolition process.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public. Ms. Blaes said she wanted the following statement to be included in the record of this meeting: "She was the Assistant Director of the Utah Heritage Foundation, and that Mr. Dillman had contacted her regarding low-interest financing from the Utah Heritage Foundation to move the Mumford House. The foundation was not able to secure financing for him, due to the requirements of CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) that the financing must benefit low to moderate income for the individual's geography. Ms. Blaes said that the lot he purchased on 1100 East did not fall within the low to moderate income geographically and was referred to a private lender." Ms. Devine inquired if it looked like he would be able to obtain the necessary financing. Ms. Blaes said that she did not know.
Ms. Blaes said that she had consulted with Mr. Wright regarding this issue, and he concluded that the issue would not prevent her from objectively reviewing the material regarding the economic hardship request. Ms. Blaes invited any member of the Historic Landmark Commission who had an issue with that to express his or her concerns at this time.
The Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had the responsibility to accept or reject the findings of fact concluded by the Economic Review Panel, which was convened by this body. She said that there had been some significant questions raised, but believed that it was the Commission's responsibility to support the conclusions of the Economic Review Panel, unless the Commission deemed that the Panel acted in an arbitrary manner or that the report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact.
Ms. Deal moved to accept the Economic Review Panel's findings of the economic hardship review for Mr. Jeff Jonas of American Housing and Development Co., Case No. 014-97. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
The discussion continued. Mr. Cerruti said that the ordinance states that the definition and determination of economic hardship requires the applicant to provide evidence sufficient enough to demonstrate that the application, based on the standards and regulations, deprives the applicant of all reasonable economic use or return on the subject property. He said that he was not convinced that the information had been provided. The evidence that was reviewed by the Economic Review Panel was not provided to the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Deal said that no findings of fact had been provided to determine if the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner. She said that she did not agree with how the report was presented, but she could not conclude that the Panel acted in an arbitrary manner. Ms. Deal said that she did not believe that spread sheets were findings of fact. Ms. Deal further said that the question was, regarding the renovation costs, was Mr. Jonas planning to do the things that needed to be done, or what he wanted to be done. She said that want and need are two different things.
Ms. Blaes said that the motion that was made by Mr. Howa, who at the time was serving as the Chair. She said that the Economic Review Panel's findings were not articulated in the same way that the Historic Landmark Commission might have. Ms. Blaes said the Panel members were expected to sort through a lot of material. She added that during their discussion, evidence was reviewed, and a conclusion was made. Ms. Blaes said that she thought the minutes were clear in how open the dialogue had been between the three members of the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Mitchell believed that it was the position of the Historic Landmark Commission to trust the person the members selected to serve on the Economic Review Panel, to review the material and come to a reasonable finding of fact, otherwise all the members would be serving on Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Giraud noted that a portion of the ordinance states that based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, and asked if the Staff had not provided enough information. She said that she agreed with Ms. Mitchell, that the Historic Landmark Commission was not the Economic Review Panel and should rely more on the representatives who were selected.
Mr. Wright pointed out that it would not have been beneficial to copy all the information, that was submitted by the applicant, and to have given all the documents to the members of the Historic Landmark Commission without analyzing and discussing each page, like it was done at the Economic Review Panel meeting.
Mr. Morgan said that the three subject buildings were old and had been operating as rental units. He said that the Economic Review Panel had looked at the costs of renovating those building to bring them to code.
Mr. Young said that there were many economic hardship ordinances around the country. He added that the economic hardship did not mean denial of any economic return. Mr. Young said whether or not the economic return is the highest, or the best use for the property is debatable. He said that one could maximize the rate of return with perhaps an 11%, 12%, 13% instead of 9%. He noted that he was trained that economic hardship means that there would be no viable return.
The discussion continued regarding what was a reasonable rate of return for a four-plex in Central City in Salt Lake City, the discussion between the Economic Review Panel members and the applicant during the economic hardship review, and other issues relating to this matter. The motion was restated.
Ms. Deal moved to accept the Economic Review Panel's findings of the economic hardship review for Mr. Jeff Jonas of American Housing and Development Co., Case No. 014-97. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, and Ms. Jeppsen, were opposed. Mr. Littig and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Requesting recommendations to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that the following properties be included on the National Register of Historic Places: Case No. 006-98. a request that the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company Garage. located at 1075 E. Hollywood Avenue. and Case No. 007-98. a request that the Lorenzo and Emma Price House and Barn. located at 1205 East 1300 South. be included on the National Register -of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud presented the findings of fact, included in the staff report, and outlined the points of eligibility included on the registration forms, as well as the Staff’s recommendation, copies of which were filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that the way the federal regulations were written that the State Historic Preservation Office would have to give the local agencies and the local elected officials, the opportunity to comment on the nominations. Ms. Giraud said that all the Historic Landmark Commission should comment and make a recommendation on the two properties. She added that these nominations were for the National Register and not for Salt Lake City's Register. Ms. Giraud expressed her concerns with National Register nominations, when the Landmark Commission sites were not in historic districts, that the nominations contained enough sufficient and accurate information.
As there were no comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no discussion before the motion was made.
Mr. Young moved to accept the findings of fact by the Staff for Case No. 006-98 and Case No.007-98 and forward positive recommendations to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office that the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company garage at 1075 E. Hollywood Avenue and the Lorenzo and Emma Price House and Barn at 1205 East 1300 South, to be included on the National Register of Historic Places. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 008-98. a request that the Morrison-Merrill Company Building located at 205 North 400 West National Register of Historic Places.
It was noted that this request was postponed, until the documentation was completed.
Case No. 009-98. by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett. requesting to list the James Freeze House at 734 East 200 South on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She spoke of the other documents, which were included with the staff report, such as the National Register Bulletin No. 15, titled, "How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property" and the designation form for the listing. Ms. Giraud said that if it was the desire of the Historic Landmark Commission to transmit a favorable recommendation that this property be included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, it would be forwarded to the Planning Commission before it would go to the City Council for adoption.
Ms. Giraud stated that the subject property was large and a bungalow house at the rear of the property, constructed in 1915, and other related out buildings, were included in the application. When Ms. Giraud was asked about the bungalow house, she said that the applicants had done more research on that building and could answer the question.
Ms. Nancy Saxton and Mr. Jan Bartlett, the applicants, were present. Ms. Saxton stated that the bungalow house had been a rental property for many years, according to the Polk Directory. She pointed out that, at one time, the two houses were on one single parcel of land. Ms. Saxton said that the property was eventually split, and currently there are three parcels. She added that they now owned the properties.
Ms. Saxton continued to describe the properties, and that one parcel was landlocked. She presented the history and told the story of the previous owners, the James Freeze family who owned the property from 1874 to 1902, and the William de Groot Family from 1902 to 1997, which was included in the staff report.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by asking if it was appropriate to have the bungalow house as part of the request to have the property listed on the City Register. Ms. Saxton pointed out that that the property was part of the historical land that was homesteaded.
• Ms. Giraud said that she believed that the large parcel of land was continuously owned by a member of the historical families. Ms. Deal said that she wanted to make sure that it was owned by someone in the family.
• Mr. Young said that he could find no reference and was puzzled why there was not a nomination request to the National Register of Historic Places so tax credits could be available. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant would be pursuing that. Ms. Saxton said that she submitted both the nominations simultaneously. Ms. Blaes said that the process to list a property on the City Register would not be as long.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no discussion before the motion was made.
Mr. Young moved for approval. It was seconded by Mr. Morgan.
• After a short discussion, the motion was amended.
Mr. Young moved to forward a favorable recommendation for Case No. 009-98 to the advancement of this property to be listed on the Salt Lake City Cultural Resources.
Mr. Morgan inquired if the motion should include an approval for the conditional use for a reception center. Mr. Wright said that would not be the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Deal asked if it would help. Mr. Wright stated that an application had not been filed, and if or when the application would be filed, the Historic Landmark Commission could be given an opportunity to offer a favorable comment. Mr. Morgan withdrew his reference to the condition use.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Morgan, as stated. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 010-98. by Joan Degiorgio. represented by Allen Roberts of Cooper Roberts Architects. requesting to construct a two-car garage in the front yard setback at 618 No. West Capitol Street.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had approved garages in the front yard previously, but thought it would be wise to include that observation in the findings of the motion.
The applicant, Ms. Joan Degiorgio, as well as her representative, Mr. Allen Roberts of Cooper Roberts Architects, were present. Ms. Degiorgio stated that Merrill Nelson, with the Board of Adjustment, explained to her that with the requirements in the new Zoning Ordinance, the building would meet the height limit. She added that the plans had been altered, prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing, so the garage would meet the height limit.
Mr. Roberts said that he concurred with the staff report. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He talked about the applicant's home being very small and that she needed more storage space. Mr. Roberts stated that the applicant first wanted to have the full ceiling height on the second floor of the proposed garage, but was made aware of the height limit in the Zoning Ordinance. He explained the height of the rafters and the 7-foot height of the beam. Mr. Roberts said that the second story would be considered a single-story garage with an attic.
Mr. Roberts said that the exterior of the applicant's house was stucco and the retaining walls were River Rock, like many retaining walls in the neighborhood. He said that the applicant selected River Rock to be used on the exterior of the proposed garage. Mr. Roberts added that there were many structures in the neighborhood which had River Rock on the exterior.
Mr. Roberts circulated a collage of photographs of several garages in the area, showing the great variations and sizes of garages. He pointed out the newer homes with garages on West Capitol Street, which had been approved by a previous Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Roberts said that many of the garages had gable roofs, with a variety of pitches; some had cross-gabled roofs; some garages were massive and some were on a smaller scale; some were on stilts on the downhill side of the property; some had windows; and some were without windows. Mr. Roberts noted that there was a variety of exterior material used, such as siding, brick, rock, and wood shingles.
Mr. Roberts continued to describe the proposed garage by saying that it would sit back from the street 28 feet and dug back into the hillside. He said that the front facade would be the maximum height, but the rear would actually be a gable roof and an entrance door off the proposed deck. Mr. Roberts said that the Board of Adjustment also required that the retaining wall be cut on an angle. He noted that the house sat 90 feet back from the street and the front yard of the property was terraced. Mr. Roberts addressed the suggestions and recommendations which the Architectural Subcommittee had made, but said that the applicant wanted the ability to enter the garage through the man door, walk up the covered stairs, and exit the garage from the rear onto the deck.
• Ms. Degiorgio said that she had contacted her neighbors, and with the exception of two who she could not reach, all were in support of the proposed garage. She said that the neighbors would like to have more cars off the street. Ms. Degiorgio pointed out that many of the houses in the neighborhood were small with small garages, and because of the lack of storage space, the garages were used as storage, and cars were parked on the street.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by stating that the Board of Adjustment approved the variance for a single-story garage and that these plans called for a second story with windows and a flight of stairs leading to it. She said that she believed that the proposed garage was not for a single-story garage. Mr. Wright said that the Board of Adjustment reviewed the same set of plans, and they were recognized as a proposal for a single-story garage. Ms. Giraud said that the structure would fall within the height limit of a single-story garage, and the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for the front yard location. Ms. Deal said that the Board of Adjustment looked at a garage that is 25 feet x 25 feet, and by the definition of the City's Zoning Ordinance, this proposal would not be a single-story building. She further discussed the issue.
• Ms. Blaes said that Ms. Deal's point was important and it would be critical to this case to understand what the Board was looking at when the decision was made. Mr. Wright said that the Board of Adjustment understood that there was a second floor with a walkout door where the property had a higher grade on the east side of the garage.
• Mr. Young said that the ceiling height on the second story would not be a full height to meet code.
The discussion continued regarding this matter. Ms. Blaes said that the Commission did not need to debate this issue, because the Board of Adjustment reviewed the same set of drawings that have been presented to this Commission.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public.
• Ms. Blaes made reference to a letter she received from Mr. Davids. Cleveland who resides at 611 No. West Capitol Street, indicating his support for the applicant's proposed garage, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
The Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A discussion followed. Ms. Deal reaffirmed her concerns, as she had done in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting, that the cross gabled roof was too massive and that part of the streetscape would be sacrificed, for increased storage space. She said that by putting the man door on the side, it would reduce the size of the gable on the front elevation.
Mr. Damery explained that he used to live on this street and that he still owned property on the street, which may result in a conflict of interest. Mr. Wright said that unless Mr. Damery would likely gain a financial interest upon the approval of the proposed garage, he should be able to participate in the discussion and the voting for this case. Mr. Damery assured the Commission that he would have no financial gain.
Mr. Damery said that he concurred with the parking situation on the street, as West Capitol was one of the most congested streets. He encouraged the idea of reducing the amount of parked cars on the street. Mr. Damery said that he believed that that priority of the neighbors would be to have less parked cars, rather than the scale and massing issue. He continued by saying that due to the steep terrain in the area, some garages were impossible to use in the winter. Mr. Damery said that he supported the proposed garage, which would be located in the front of the property, an urged the Commission to approve the proposal.
Ms. Deal said that she agreed with Mr. Demery’s comments, but said that the garage being proposed in the front was not the issue. She added that the size was larger than necessary to accommodate two cars. Ms. Deal said that this proposal could set a precedent to allow large accessory structures in the front yards of houses. She again expressed her concern about the scale and massing and said that the garage would become the prominent focal point.
Ms. Blaes talked about the fact that people living in those houses have the need for more storage. She said that she would rather see a garage solving the storage problem, rather than see large additions being built on the historic homes. Ms. Blaes said that she also supported the idea of the man door being located on the side, thus reducing the scale and massing, but after visiting the site on the field trip, she actually saw the steepness of the terrain, and realized that due to the uniqueness of the area, that she could support the man door being located in the front.
Mr. Morgan said that locating the man door in the front, the applicant would have access to a covered stairway out of the weather in the winter. He further said that the additional set of outside stairs would complete with the stairs leading to the main house.
Ms. Miller said that when she saw the plans, she was disappointed that the recommendations from the Architectural Subcommittee had not been incorporated. She said that she was torn between approving the better proportioned plans for the garage or allowing people to accommodate their needs and not be too restrictive.
The discussion continued regarding the scale and massing, and other related issues, with several members expressing their point of view.
Ms. Blaes reminded the Historic Landmark Commission that each member had to decide whether or not to support the Staff’s recommendation, which was included in the staff report, because the motion would have to be based on the Staffs findings of fact.
Mr. Cerruti moved to approve Case No. 010-98. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
After some discussion, Mr. Cerruti amended the motion.
Mr. Cerruti moved to approve Case No. 010-98, based on the Staffs ·findings of fact, included in the staff report, for the construction of the proposed garage, as contemplated by the staff report. It was still seconded by Mr. Young.
After a short discussion and Mr. Damery suggesting that the wording of the motion needed to include that this design was approved, due to the uniqueness of the neighborhood, Mr. Cerruti withdrew his motion.
Mr. Damery moved to approve Case No. 010-98, for Scheme A, based on the Staffs findings of fact. The Historic Landmark Commission recognized the uniqueness of this approval of the garage in the front yard by taking into account the nature and the character of the street. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Ms. Deal was opposed. Mr. Littig and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 011-98. by Emily Cannon. represented by Michael Upwall. architect. requesting to renovate a commercial structure at 1136 E. Third Avenue.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She talked about the plans for the business, which the applicant planned to open, called the "Avenues Arts and Wellness Center".
The applicant, Ms. Emily Cannon, as well as her architect, Mr. Michael Upwall, were present. Ms. Cannon circulated photographs of the existing building before and after the facade was removed. Additional drawings of the proposed project were also passed to the members, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Cannon said that building would be used primarily for a community arts exhibition, featuring arts and wellness education, as well as having a small organic delicatessen.
Ms. Cannon talked about the structural condition of the building and of the brick facade. She said that she had received a bid to repair the masonry, which was badly damaged, that was much more than the bid to apply real stucco. Ms. Cannon showed a sample board which displayed samples and colors of the proposed exterior materials. She said that the stucco would be applied using two colors, sandstone would be used in the exterior gardens, and the exterior trim would be wood.
Ms. Cannon discussed the proposed signage and displayed samples of the material for the lettering and the background. She said that the copper for the signage would be treated, which was called patina, and the letters would be out of natural wood. Ms. Cannon said that she may not paint all of the sign bands around the building, but they would still be recessed.
Mr. Upwall stated that when he was first contacted about the project, he was "very excited about maintaining the brick facades, because of the historical relevance." He explained that after exploring the condition of the masonry, and discovering the structural problems and the fact that the building was out of alignment, he came to the conclusion of applying a three-coat system to the exterior, using real stucco. Mr. Upwa-11 said that they were proposing quite an intricate series of steel channels around the exterior that would run to the extent of the wall and up to the parapet to brace the walls. He said that the existing parapet walls are able to move one foot, because of the poor structural condition of the building.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring further about the stabilizing materials. She asked if the applicant planned to build a sheer wall on the outside of the brick facade. Mr. Upwall said that they planned to do that. Mr. Upwall further explained how the structure would be braced to make the building solid. He continued by saying that the historical tax photos showed the solid to void ratio which would not be interrupted by keeping the recessed sign bands. Ms. Deal said that she ordinarily would never allow stucco to be applied over a brick facade, but changed her mind when the Commission made an onsite visit on the field trip and she saw the deteriorated condition of the facade.
• Mr. Morgan inquired if the applicant had considered removing the brick, restoring it and rebuilding the facades. Mr. Upwall said that they had, but the cost would be so astronomical that it would be more economical to tear the building down and build a new one in its place.
• Mr. Cerruti inquired if this building was listed as a non-contributory structure. Ms. Giraud said that according to the Avenues Historic Survey in 1979, the building was cited as non-contributory. However, she said that once the construction was underway, the structure was found to be much older than previously thought, and the historic appearance of the building became apparent. Mr. Cerruti referred to a previous case in the Avenues where the request for the application of stucco over brick on a similar commercial building was denied. He expressed his concerns regarding the consistency of the Commission. Mr. Cerruti asked if the applicants were coming before the Commission, at this time, just to have the application of stucco approved. Ms. Giraud said that the stuccoing was the big issue and the most permanent action. She said that the other issues, such as the fenestration, the trellis, and the signage would have to be considered, but that could be done at the Subcommittee level.
• Ms. Giraud referred to other requests to cover the exterior brick with stucco. She said that in most cases, stuccoing over a brick facade would not be allowed, however when the masonry was in such a deteriorated condition and could not be restored, the application had been approved, only under extreme circumstances.
• Ms. Miller asked if there was a more feasible way to stabilize the facade from the interior. Mr. Upwall said that it could be accomplished from the interior but it would be a more costly solution. Ms. Miller believed that stuccoing over brick was more for the aesthetics than the structure issue. Mr. Upwall and Ms. Miller talked more about the stabilizing process and how it could be accomplished. Ms. Deal said that pushing a wall to make it straight was easier than pulling it from within. The discussion continued.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Steven Neilson, who is an adjacent property owner, stated that he had no problem with the renovation project, but did not know exactly what the applicant was doing with the building. He said that he thought the structure was an "ugly building" and stuccoing the outside would make it look better. Mr. Neilson said that he had a drainage problem on his property, but believed that would be worked out. He also asked if the setback of the building would be changed. Ms. Giraud assured him that the footprint of the building would not be altered. She said that there would be some exterior lighting, which could also be addressed by the Subcommittee. Ms. Blaes suggested that he meet with the applicant after the meeting to review the plans of the proposed project.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no discussion before the motion was made.
Mr. Cerruti moved to approve the application for Case No. 011-98 to stucco the building, based on the Staff's findings of fact, included in the staff report, and that the Historic Landmark Commission was mindful of the particular circumstances that applied to this building, and that the remainder of the issues dealing with the rehabilitation of the building be addressed at the Architectural Subcommittee level. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
After some discussion by the Commission, Ms. Mitchell inquired why the other issues, such as the lighting, would not be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Cerruti said that the other issues, such as the lighting and signage, could be approved at the Subcommittee level, unless the members of the Architectural Subcommittee believed those issues should be approved by the full Commission. Mr. Gordon suggested clarifying the structural upgrading in the motion. Mr. Cerruti said he did not believe that was necessary and preferred to leave the motion as it was presented.
Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Mr. McFarland were not present. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Gordon. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:35P.M.