SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COIVIMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Scott Christensen, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Sarah Miller, and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.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's 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 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 7, 2001 meeting after the addition of a few comments. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2001 luncheon meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW 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.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the applicant is requesting approval to demolish fourteen contributing structures in the Central City Historic District in order to construct an apartment complex of over 500 units. She said that the properties straddle several zones: those on Vernier Place and 500 East are zoned RM-U (Residential Mixed-use); those on 600 East are zoned RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential); and those on 300 South are zones RO (Residential Office). She said that Mr. Holman also requested permission to demolish two non-contributing buildings, located at 345 South 500 East, and 352 South 600 East. Ms. Giraud said that demolition of non-contributing structures requires the Planning Staff to notify all property owners within 85 feet, as well as the members of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Holman stated in a letter to staff, that if he was successful in his application, he planned to construct the project in three phases; the first phase would incorporate Vernier Place, and the subsequent two phases would occur at the rate of approximately one phase per year over three years.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that Mr. Holman also stated that "in consequence, some of the buildings approved for demolition will not be demolished for several months following the beginning of the project. Buildings waiting to be demolished will be maintained at current state until demolition. Due to the time limits set by the Historic Landmark Commission, Overland Development Corporation also requests that if the demolition requests are approved, the Commission grant a two-year extension on demolition, above the one-year approval, to allow for the phasing of the entire project."
Ms. Giraud stated that the East Downtown Master Plan was adopted in 1990, which includes a section on historic preservation and describes several core policies. She said that the text for these policies area, as follows: "East Downtown is one of the most historical and unique areas of the city (Salt Lake City). The City must encourage preservation of historic and architecturally significant structures and sites. The East downtown area has the oldest neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, and consequently many historic buildings. Of particular importance are the old brownstone apartment buildings, as well as other housing units. The large tree-lined streets and the center street medians are also historic features of East Downtown. These combine to add a special character and flavor to the neighborhood and should be preserved, enhanced, and re established."
Ms. Giraud talked about the some of the historic preservation issues of East Downtown, which were included in the staff report. She said that the City had implemented several of the policies, such as designating the Central City Historic District and strengthening the demolition ordinance. Ms. Giraud added that in 1993, state tax credits became available for residential buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places that provided a substantial incentive to preserve this neighborhood's historic housing stock. She said that the state tax credit is particularly important in the preservation of rental housing, as developers, willing to rehabilitate contributing multi-unit buildings, could qualify for both state and federal tax credits of 40 percent of the renovation costs.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Central City Community Council reviewed this issue at its meeting on February 7, 2001. She said that the residents who attended the meeting, voted on the applicant's request for demolition. Ms. Giraud reported that the Community Council voted in favor of demolition with the exception of the Mozart Apartments at 550 East 300 South, the Mary Ann Mumford house, at 334 South 600 East, and the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East. Ms. Giraud added that the results of the voting and the transcript of the minutes accompanied the staff report.
Ms. Giraud noted that in 1994, the Planning Division hired a consultant to conduct a reconnaissance survey of the Central City Historic District, in accordance with the standards established by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). All eight properties were rated "B-Eligible" which SHPO defines as: "Built within the historic period and retains integrity; good example of a style or type, but not as well-preserved or well-executed as 'buildings; more substantial alterations or additions than buildings, though overall integrity is retained, eligible for National Register as part of a potential historic district or primarily for historical, rather than architectural, reasons."
Ms. Giraud said that in April 1995, the Salt Lake City Council adopted a new ordinance, providing a more specific definition of "contributing" in Section 21A34.020(B)(2) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance: ·contributing structure is a structure or site within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection (C)(2) of this section and is of moderate importance to the city, state, region, or nation because it imparts artistic, historic, or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character-defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic material may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact."
Ms. Giraud concluded that based on information from the 1994 survey, Staff found that the fourteen subject buildings are contributing under both of the definitions cited above.
Ms. Giraud described the requests of the previous owner of the subject properties and the subsequent actions of the Historic Landmark Commission for demolition and economic hardship, and the Planning Commission for rezoning, which were included in the staff report. She added that the applicant would be required to go through a conditional use process, if the Historic Landmark Commission approves the request.
Mr. Giraud spoke briefly about Section 21A.34.020(L) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance that requires the Historic Landmark Commission to base a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure on seven criteria when considering the application. She explained the criteria in the following manner: "If six of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall approve the request for demolition. If two of less of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the request. If the Historic Landmark Commission makes ·findings that between three to five of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission can defer a decision for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The one-year 'clock' begins only when the bona fide effort has started." [Section 21A.34.01O(M), of the zoning ordinance, lists four actions that define bona fide, which are included in the staff report.]
Ms. Giraud defined "physical integrity" as characterized by the National Park Service National Register Bulletin 15, which is one of the criteria found in Section 21A.34.020(L) of the zoning ordinance. She said that Bulletin 15 concludes its discussion of integrity by stating, "Ultimately the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant." [The full definition was included in the staff report.]
Ms. Rowland referred to the economic hardship criteria in the ordinance and inquired how that criteria would be applied to an applicant who was not the owner of the site. Ms. Giraud said that issue could be referred to the City Attorney's office for an opinion.
Mr. Gordon clarified that the main purpose for this meeting was to allow the Historic Landmark Commission to make a decision on the demolition request, and not on the reuse plan.
Mr. Parvaz referred to Subsection (1)(e) and asked staff to elaborate on that section. Ms. Giraud said that by City Ordinance, one of the reuse plans could be landscaping. She said that this has been a difficult subject to evaluate when a demolition application is submitted. Ms. Giraud said that an applicant usually is not willing to put much money into a reuse plan until the demolition is approved. She noted that Subsection (1)(e) would be considered for each property.
Mr. Ken Holman, the applicant, who was present, stated that a summary of the application and the staff’s findings of fact had been prepared. He circulated copies to the Commission members and staff, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Holman said that Mithun Partners is the architectural firm out of Seattle in which he engaged for the project to prepare all the architectural drawings. He introduced Mr. Bill Kreager, architect, and Mr. Bryon Ziegler, planner. Mr. Holman talked about the national awards Mr. Kreager had received in urban housing and mixed communities.
He said that Mr. Ziegler is a key figure in Seattle's open space strategy. Briefing boards were used to further demonstrate the project.
Mr. Ziegler stated that Mithun has had much experience in urban planning, urban context development, architecture, landscaping design, and other divisions of development. Mr. Ziegler said that the people associated with Mithun were sensitive to historic districts and the area in which the project would be located. He talked about the Central City Master Plan where it states the need for housing in the East Downtown community. Mr. Ziegler said that the master plan also states that new infill development in the historic district should be contextual with the existing significant development in surrounding areas. He cited the many old historic homes in the area, but also said that it was right next to downtown Salt Lake City and with light rail coming into fruition, this block is very valuable property. Mr. Ziegler talked more about the surrounding historic areas, and the fact that they were more "intact' than the area in which the subject property is located. He continued by saying that the property site had been "blown apart" being right next to strip malls and fast food restaurants. He said that the value and location of the land and the evolution of Salt Lake City has made the subject site "grown past what is there, but that doesn't mean we have to blow apart the historical context."
Mr. Ziegler discussed the planned multi-unit project by saying that smaller streets would lead into the project, that there would be pedestrian activated spaces through the complex, and the edges of the development would only touch the streets in a few spots where the potential buildings would be "finer grained" and "smaller" to create more character.
Mr. Ziegler said that the applicant is asking to demolish the existing onsite structures to allow revitalization of the project area. He referred to the summary sheet, which had been circulated by Mr. Holman. Mr. Ziegler pointed out that the applicant would have to meet the standards in the ordinance. He said that he believed that it would be impossible to meet all six criteria, outlined in the zoning ordinance, because the existing buildings do not have the physical integrity that can be compared to some of the national historic places and sites. Mr. Ziegler said the concept of interpretation is a big issue in determining what these buildings are. He said, "According to code, are they buildings or ruins? I interpreted them as being ruins." He said that he came to the conclusion that "if you squint and you could tell it is an old building, 50 years old or older, that is the criteria for it (physical integrity), because some of these buildings are pretty far gone as far as physical integrity is concerned".
Mr. Ziegler clarified that the applicant is not asking to "take things down" without "putting things back" that will not only be historically contextual but economically vibrant, and a "spark" for the rest of the community.
Mr. Kreager noted that he had roots in Salt Lake City when he was a member of the Peace Corps several years ago. He said that there is pressure on Salt Lake City to grow and to change and talked about the lack of infill development. Mr. Kreager stated that he understood the concerns of the members of the Historic Landmark Commission when fourteen buildings are requested to be removed, even though they are a "B minus" rating as opposed to an "A", based in the historic standards. Mr. Kreager said that he was disappointed that none of the buildings had the "architectural integrity" that could be incorporated into the "theme and character" of the proposed infill development in "eastern downtown Salt Lake City".
Mr. Kreager said that the applicant's team had two positive meetings with the Central City Community Council. He pointed out elements on the drawings that were submitted with which the members of the Community Council were comfortable. He noted that the drawings did not have the detailed analysis. Mr. Kreager displayed drawings of new buildings in historic districts in other cities with which he had been associated that were, in his opinion, "very successful". He described the buildings as having balconies, dormers, porches, and pedestrian ways that he said are seen in historic neighborhoods.
Mr. Kreager talked about the "Utah/Salt Lake City" feature of multi-story porches that appear on front elevations of buildings and how they would be incorporated into the project. He also discussed other elements on buildings seen in this locality, such as the scale, the masonry, the prominent cornices, and the courtyards off the street that "must be incorporated into any development in the east downtown area". Mr. Kreager continued to promote the proposed project by pointing out these features on the drawings.
Mr. Kreager expressed his opinion about the South Temple section of the new Brigham Street apartments and said that the building "towers" over the street and has a "sterile relationship" with the street.
Mr. Kreager addressed the underground parking, the central open space of the complex that would be available to pedestrians in the entire neighborhood, the strong front porch related architecture, and the scale, color and materials of the buildings that would comprise the proposed project. He stated that the development would be integrated with affordable housing rentals with potential, marketable, sellable units to people who want to live in the downtown location.
In conclusion, Mr. Kreager said that the project, when it is completed, would be the first major transit-oriented development in Salt Lake City. He talked about the importance and benefit of developing a good and much needed housing, project in what he called a "down-trodden" neighborhood. He added that a revitalization of the neighborhood would increase property values and create more avenues for financing to rehabilitate "truly" historic buildings.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Young led the discussion by saying that the area is zoned Residential/Mixed Use and asked if there would be anything beside residential use planned for the complex. Mr. Kreager said that street-level retail/neighborhood services were planned for 500 East and added that they would not be a "K-Mart" type of retail. Mr. Young said that Mr. Holman mentioned in his opening introduction Mr. Kreager had won several awards for housing and inquired if any of those projects were located in historic districts. Mr. Kreager said that they had done a lot of
both residential and commercial redevelopment in historic districts.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired if Mr. Kreager had been involved in projects with a mixture of affordable housing and sellable units. Mr. Kreager talked about some successful projects, funded by the federal government, that have subsidized affordable units with marketable units blended in such a way that the look of the units did not differ. He added that the success depends on the understanding of the marketplace. Mr. Ziegler referred to a private, non-profit, housing project that Mithun was doing. Ms. Mickelsen asked if there would be provisions for children. Mr. Kreager said that there would be provisions for children in the complex because of the growing number of "single moms" in every major city who want to live close to where they work.
Mr. Holman said that he was excited to build the project and hoped in 50 years that a future Historic Landmark Commission would not want these buildings to be torn down. He summarized by saying that all the subject buildings, with the exception of the Juel Apartments, went through the demolition process before, including economic hardship, and were given "the green light" to be demolished.
Mr. Holman said that he had the proposed project under contract, and one of the conditions is that permission is granted to demolish the buildings on the site. He said he believed the architecture of the development would be a viable enhancement to the community.
Mr. Holman said that about half of the 200 units in Phase I of the project on 500 East would be affordable housing. He noted that would more than double the amount of affordable housing units on the block at the present time.
Mr. Holman said that he did not know if there was a project around that would meet all six of the criteria that was detailed in the staff analysis. Mr. Holman requested that the Historic Landmark Commission grant him permission to demolish the buildings, so there would not be the further delay of going through another economic hardship process. He said that he would rather take the money that would be used to pay appraisers and engineers to prove economic hardship and give some of it to the Central City Community Council to help landscape and place artwork on the 600 East stroll, which is an element about which the community is exited.
Mr. Holman said that he knows the Planning Staff and the community has expressed a desire to save the Juel Apartment building, but he believed it would not be feasible to keep the structure.
• Mr. Gordon inquired about the grade of the roadway that would lead to the underground parking. Mr. Kreager pointed out on the drawings where the entrances to the underground parking would be and said that there would not be much of a grade change. Mr. Kreager talked about other apartment complexes where one would see a black hole from the street leading to underground parking, and explained that the design of the proposed underground parking would be different. Mr. Kreager also said that the Fire Department requires a truck entrance into the underground parking area. He further said that the entrance roadways would have ground level units with front doors and porches facing the roadway to give it an appearance of an "old fashioned neighborhood". Mr. Kreager also said that there would be elevator access to the underground parking. Mr. Holman said that all units would meet handicapped requirements. Mr. Gordon talked about keeping the Juel Apartments or Vernier Place and incorporating those buildings into the project. Mr. Gordon indicated that he was not convinced that all fourteen units had to be destroyed. There was some additional discussion regarding this suggestion.
• Mr. Wilson clarified that the sidewalks would be the same level as the roadway leading to the entrances to the underground parking. Mr. Kreager said that the roadway would follow the elevation and there would not be steps up to the sidewalk. Mr. Kreager indicated that there was more work to be done on the plans.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the parking spaces that were required for the project. Mr. Holman said that there has to be one parking space per bedroom to meet code. There was some discussion about the carbon monoxide and Mr. Holman said that air quality would be handled through the ventilation system. Mr. Holman added that the underground parking would have security access codes to the users. Ms. Mickelsen expressed her concern about adding more cars on the surrounding streets that were already crowded. Mr. Holman said that a traffic study had not been done at this point.
• Mr. Christensen inquired about the amenities for the complex. Mr. Holman said that each building would be designed to stand alone with an amenity package in terms of club house, exercise rooms, social rooms, business center, etc. He indicated that there would not be tennis courts, but a large outdoor swimming pool will be constructed during Phase II of the project. Mr. Christensen suggested that the applicant give something back to the community in the form of some refurbished buildings. Mr. Holman said that it would be easier to "replicate" facades, than to try to save the old buildings.
• Mr. Young asked about the sizes of the front porches. Mr. Ziegler said that they would vary in size, but would be functional and large enough for some pieces of outdoor furniture.
• Ms. Rowland inquired about the timeframe for the phases of construction for the proposed project. Mr. Holman said that his only option was to buy all five acres. He stated that he would like to build the first phase of the project, then relocate the tenants living in the Juel Apartments into those units, before demolishing the other buildings.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the zoning of the parcels and the parking standards for each zone; the design of the proposed buildings, including the height and the roof slopes; the alternate light rail transit system; the rental rates and the prices of the sellable units; the land and building costs; the glassed-in open interior corridors; and the possible tax credits offered to the applicant. Concerns were also expressed about other demolition/reuse projects where the applicants failed to get the funding.
Mr. Holman talked about the condition of some of the remaining structures. He said that some have been gutted by fire and have been vandalized by transients trying to enter the buildings. Mr. Holman stated that trying to refurbish and incorporate any of the remaining structures into the project would not be financially feasible. He said that constructing new buildings oriented to have an "historical feel" would be his preference, rather than trying "to save some old building that would cost three times more than you would ever get out of it in rent". Mr. Holman pointed out that sometimes there is a benefit to refurbishing old buildings, but not the ones on the subject property because they were "too far gone". He indicated that it would be virtually impossible to retrofit some of these old buildings to meet the requirements of the fire and safety codes or to make them handicapped accessible.
Mr. Holman concluded by saying that it would be important to have approvals on the demolition and the reuse plans in April when he endeavors to finalize the bond funding.
Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
• Mr. Kirk Huffaker, who is with the Utah Heritage Foundation, stated that he was skeptical of out-of-state architects because he believed that the architects would not know buildings or sites and which could have a drastic effect on the community. However, he complimented Mr. Kreager on some of his other successful projects. Mr. Huffaker questioned the developer's potential use of the taxes and bond financing and said that he believed that funding was only available to tax-exempt organizations. Mr. Rowland clarified that it was just the opposite.
• Mr. Matt Wolverton, Chair of the Central City Community Council, read a
prepared statement that was circulated to members of the Commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. The following is a summary of Mr. Wolverton's remarks: The City should strengthen the current economic hardship clause because owning property in an historic district should be thought of as a "privilege", not just a "right". Crimes are allowed to occur because of poor property management, thus poor property management should be considered a crime. The community should never be in a position to say that building "anything" is better than what was already in place. The character of our urban neighborhoods makes Salt Lake City unique. If we are unwilling to protect history, we have encouraged the "financial degradation" of our neighborhoods and "cheapened" our historic districts.
Mr. Wolverton referred to inclusions in the staff report of other comments and the minutes of the Central City Community Council meeting where the applicant's request was discussed. He said that there was a precedent set in Salt Lake City because the developer came to the community first for a conceptual plan, rather than coming late in the process "under the guise of doing us a favor" without getting to know the neighbors. He added that some of the recommendations made by the community were integrated into the potential new development. Mr. Wolverton requested that the Central City community have salvage rights to the buildings if they are demolished. He said that the people in the community could incorporate pieces of the historical brick as a border of their garden, stained glass for an ornament, or other artifacts. Mr. Wolverton also promoted the idea of using the open space, in the interim of demolition and construction, for community gardens, minority vending, or art gardens. He talked about the possibility of a 600 East stroll from South Temple to Liberty Park. Mr. Wolverton concluded by saying that the desirable end result would be to create a "neighborhood building" in the Central City Historic District rather than a "large building in a neighborhood".
Mr. Peter Ashdown, an interested citizen, said that he was unclear as to the comments the applicant had made regarding the Central City Community Council meeting. He said that there was frustration among the people that this project was the only alternative to keeping the buildings in their damaged condition. Mr. Ashdown inquired if Salt Lake City owned or had any control over the development of the property. Ms. Coffey said that the City has control over the development, but has no control over the sale of the property. She also said that the City could condemn the property and have the buildings razed, but could not acquire ownership. Mr. Ashdown said that he could not think of one apartment complex that is "particularly pleasing" or "historically apt" in the area and believed it was difficult for a new development to reach that goal.
• Mr. David Berg, who is a board member of the Central City Community Council, pointed out that he was speaking for himself, rather than for the council or the board. He said he had examined the condition of the buildings proposed for demolition, and believed that the buildings were "not in that bad of condition". He added that there is a great diversity of people who now live in some of the buildings. Mr. Berg said it was not just the facade of these buildings that he would like to see preserved, but also the interiors, with the unique woodwork, ceilings, and other elements. He pointed out that if the City officials would have decided to just keep the facade of the City and County Building, it would be a much different building today. Mr. Berg encouraged Mr. Holman to preserve and incorporate some of these buildings into the new development.
• Mr. Keith Neilson, an interested citizen, talked about the crime and gang activities that are in the Juel Apartments. He further declared that no one has been able to walk through those boarded buildings. Mr. Neilson said that most of them have burned out interiors and are not habitable. He said that the houses were listed in a national magazine for sale for one dollar and there was no response. He said, at one time, the owner tried to move the houses, but after talking to a professional, it was determined that it would not be economically feasible and the houses would be damaged if they were moved. Mr. Neilson talked about the crime on the subject property and the protection needed of the workers who were called just to maintain the buildings to code.
Ms. Sunshine Evans, an interested citizen, talked about the 100-year-old house in which she lives, that has been refurbished, as well as others in her neighborhood. She said that due to the concerns of the community, changes have taken place where people now feel safe walking in the neighborhood. Ms. Evans said that she had walked along Vernier Place to view the houses, without ever being accosted. She said that the area could become a very nice residential community again. Ms. Evans said that she had recently noticed where some of the houses have been damaged due to neglect. She said that she believed that the buildings on the block were worth saving and expressed disappointment that the new owners did not want to save them. Ms. Evans said that if the area had better lighting and other improvements, there might be other projects that could be constructed without destroying the historical buildings. She pointed out the commercial advantages of the area. Ms. Evans pointed out other apartment buildings in the area that have vacant apartments and expressed her concern about being able to rent the units in the proposed building. She again stated that the buildings should not have to be destroyed.
• Mr. Thomas Mutter, who resides in the Juel Apartment building, said that there were no gang activities in the building, but people were "trashing" the units. He reported some incidences where the police, fire, and health departments were called. Mr. Mutter said that he could not afford to live where the rent may increase. He was concerned that if the residents of the Juel were asked to vacate, the building would become boarded which would attract more crime. Mr. Mutter discussed the new proposal and pointed out some potential problems. He suggested that the applicant find another property for his development rather than destroying the historic structures.
• Ms. Jen Colby, who resides in the neighborhood, stated that she liked living in Central City because it is a walkable community. She said she was interested in attending the meeting to find out if the proposed development would be more commercialization because the neighborhood had already been significantly impacted by inappropriate commercial development. Ms. Colby said that she is "quite pleased" that planning has been given to new urban design of a transit oriented development. However, she questioned the need for demolition of some of the structures, especially the Juel Apartments, and reiterated the same concern that was expressed by others. Ms. Colby stated that if demolition is approved for all the structures, she hoped that salvage rights would be required. She encouraged the developer to install wood trims, wood floors, and other details in the interior of the proposed new buildings. Ms. Colby also said that public access through the proposed complex would be an enhancement. She said that she liked the idea of a community garden.
• Ms. Giraud circulated copies of a letter dated December 9, 2000 that was written by the Central City Neighborhood Council which states that the council did not support the demolition request by Winthrop Court, L.C., but looked forward to the opportunity of working with the new owner/developer, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Gordon inquired about the extension of time requested by the applicant to phase-in the segments of the proposed development. Ms. Coffey said that the applicant would have three years to do the demolition work.
Mr. Christensen asked if Vernier Place was a City-owned street and if it would make a difference in the project. Ms. Giraud said that it would not make a difference but she would investigate to find out if the street was privately owned or owned by the City. Ms. Coffey said that the process would be a little different for the applicant.
A lengthy discussion took place. Several members of the Commission expressed his or her opinions regarding the demolition request and the proposed development, such as having a true picture of what would be built if the Historic Landmark Commission decides to approve the demolition; the track records of previous owners; how the extension of the requested time would be managed; the demolition permit being contingent upon the approval of the site plan; the Historic Landmark Commission having the flexibility of revising the staff's findings of fact but not to set a precedent that might affect other properties in the area; trusting the criteria in the ordinance to guide the Commission in making a decision; the plans that were presented had many amenable characteristics; much attention would be given to the design and materials of the proposed project; a developer having the ability to assemble parcels of land for redevelopment; increasing the density in the zoning ordinance; and the feasibility of saving and refurbishing the structures.
Because of a further inquiry of the applicant, the Commission made the decision to reopen this portion of the meeting to the public. Mr. Parvaz reopened the meeting and asked Mr. Holman if he was available to meet at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting on the 2151 of March. Mr. Holman said that he was. As there were no other questions, Mr. Parvaz re-closed the meeting and the Commission continued in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Motion:
Mr. Payne moved that Case No. 007-01A be tabled and continue the discussion at the March 21, 2001 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
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 6:40P.M.