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, Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Craig Paulsen, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, Lisa Miller, Joel Paterson, and William Wright.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Craig Paulsen, and Robert Young. William Damery, Wayne Gordon, Rob McFarland, and Lynn Morgan were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Lisa Miller, Planners. William T. Wright, Planning Director, Brent B. Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, from the Planning Staff, and Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, were also present.
• The meeting was called to order at 4:05P.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 information 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
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the October 15, 1997 meeting, after a small correction. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Paulsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye”. Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Morgan were excused. The motion passed.
• NEW CASES
Case No. 010-95 at 356 South 700 East and Case No. 011-95 at 358 South 700 East, by I. Wells Stevens, represented by Bruce Baird, Attorney, requesting to demolish two duplex buildings and one commercial/residential building called Williams Beauty Salon.
Mr. William T. Wright asked that he be allowed to make a few remarks before the staff report was reviewed. He reported that the Historic Landmark Commission first reviewed these cases on May 17, 1995. Mr. Wright said, at that time, the City was in the process of changing the zoning ordinance and referred to what was called the "old", the "interim", and the "new" zoning ordinances. He gave a brief overview and referenced the Commission's action on these applications at that meeting. Mr. Wright spoke of the moratoriums that were imposed on the City by the City Council, during that period, and the Council's concern that the City would be caught with a rush of applications where there were significant zoning changes proposed in certain areas of the City. Mr. Wright introduced Mr. Lynn Pace, the Assistant City Attorney, to present the conclusions of the City Attorney's review of these cases and how they were to be processed.
Mr. Pace stated that he was asked to assist in an administrative decision as to which ordinance applied to Mr. Stevens' applications. The following points of interest were presented by Mr. Pace:
1. The applications were filed on March 3, 1995, and were deemed complete at that time;
2. The cases were heard by the Historic Landmark Commission on May 17, 1995. The Commission tabled the applications, pending a decision from the City Attorney as to which ordinance these applications would be applied.
3. The old zoning ordinance was in effect in 1994, while the City was working on a zoning ordinance rewrite;
4. On October 18, 1994, the City Council enacted a temporary moratorium prohibiting the issuance of any approvals or permits, within certain described boundaries, pending the adoption of a comprehensive new zoning ordinance;
5. This legislation indicated that any change of use filed after October 14, 1994 through April of 1995 would have to be processed under the terms of an "interim zoning ordinance." At that time, the most current version of that ordinance was a public draft dated June 28, 1994;
6. When these applications were filed, the old zoning ordinance had expired; and
7. The question was whether or not the interim zoning ordinance or the new zoning ordinance applied when these applications were filed by Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Pace said that in the new current zoning ordinance, it reads in Section 21A.02.060 Transition Rules, "Any complete application for a development project that has been filed with either the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or City Council shall be allowed to comply with the zoning regulations in effect at the time the complete application was filed." He said that in his opinion, if an application was filed and deemed complete, under the old zoning ordinance, then it would be entitled to proceed under the old zoning ordinance. However, Mr. Pace said that Mr. Stevens filed the complete applications after the old zoning ordinance had expired and before the new zoning ordinance was enacted, therefore, he was entitled to proceed under the interim zoning ordinance.
Ms. Deal suggested that since these cases were tabled at the Commission meeting on May 17, 1995, and the Commission's rules specifically say that if a final decision was not rendered within sixty days, it would die, and the Historic Landmark Commission was the only body that could extend that period of time. Ms. Deal said that she did not believe that these applications were valid. Mr. Pace said it was his understanding that in the new zoning ordinance it states that a decision had to be rendered within sixty days, but it does not declare what would happen if a decision was not rendered within sixty days. He said that, according to the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting of May 17, 1995, the Commission tabled its decision, pending the opinion of the City Attorney. Mr. Pace said that the wording of the approved motion did not put a time limit on the tabling or indicate what would happen if a decision was not rendered within that time period. He pointed out that the applications were neither approved or denied. Mr. Pace noted that the legal opinion from the City Attorney's office only came within the last thirty days.
The discussion continued. Ms. Deal addressed the Roberts Rules of Order, and the Rules of Procedure, which she said that the Historic Landmark Commission observed. She said that there was a specified time period upon making decisions. Mr. Pace said that he was not familiar with the content of those documents but did not believe they "carried the same weight as the ordinance that had been codified by the City Council."
After further discussion, Mr. Pace said that the City "put off the petitioner for two years, waiting for a legal decision. I don't think we have a good basis for saying that the petition is dead and that they have to refile." It was pointed out by Mr. Cerruti that Mr. Pace was not responding to Ms. Deal's statement about the Roberts Rules of Order.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding this matter. Mr. Cerruti suggested that Mr. Pace locate a copy of the Roberts Rules of Order and report his findings later on in this meeting. Mr. Pace said that he would do that and stated again that those rules had not been incorporated into the Salt Lake City Code, so the sections of the zoning ordinance in which he had referred, had the force of law and the Roberts Rules of Order did not, unless they were consistent with the law. Ms. Blaes addressed a prior debate regarding the Roberts Rules of Order which had taken place in a prior Commission meeting. She said that it was her understanding that the Commission was not tied specifically to the “letter of the law of Roberts rules of Order. It was a framework for us to make sure that our procedures were clear, understandable, have some logic to them, and then to move forward." Ms. Blaes indicated that she believed Mr. Pace brought up a very important point, that the Commission failed to state in the motion of the May 17, 1995 meeting about a time limit in obtaining that legal opinion. Ms. Blaes said that she did not understand why the process had taken two years, but the ruling had been rendered and she suggested that the Commission move on. Mr. Pace again said that he would review the Roberts Rules of Order and the Rules of Procedure, and report before the end of the meeting.
Mr. Pace continued by saying that his purpose of attending this meeting was to explain the structuring of the staff report. He said that the applicant might argue that he believes the cases should be reviewed under the old zoning ordinance. Mr. Pace said that he did not agree with that position, but that the applicant was entitled to address that issue.
Mr. Cerruti inquired about the differences in the standards of the old, and new ordinances. Mr. Pace said that the functional differences between the old and the new ordinance was in the length of time an applicant had to wait if the application for demolition was denied. He said that under the old zoning ordinance, the waiting period was five months and no standards had to be met. He said that in the new zoning ordinance, the waiting period is twelve months. Mr. Pace pointed out that there were standards upon which the Commission had to base its decision. He said that under the interim zoning ordinance, the waiting period was also twelve months, but the standards were not as strict as in the current zoning ordinance.
Ms. Lisa Miller said that included in the staff report were copies of the staff reports from 1995. She asked Mr. Pace to explain why those staff reports were based on the old zoning ordinance, and why the Commission was being asked to review the criteria for these cases under the interim ordinance at this meeting. Mr. Pace said that it was the Planning Staffs impression that the cases were to have been processed under the old zoning ordinance in 1995. He said that it was his conclusion that it was a mistake and should not have been done. Mr. Pace reiterated that it was clear to him that the applications were filed after the interim zoning ordinance went into effect and should have been processed under that zoning ordinance in 1995.
Mr. Pace addressed the parallels between Mr. Stevens' applications and the request for a demolition permit for Imperial Apartment Building on South Temple, which was filed during the same period. He said that the difference between the applications was that Mr. Stevens' applications were deemed complete by the Zoning Administrator at the time they were filed, and the other application was not completed until after the new zoning ordinance had been enacted in April of 1995. Ms. Deal inquired if the City made any consideration of the fact that the requested demolition permit exceeded the allowable time period, when Mr. Stevens filed the applications. Mr. Pace said that no deficiencies were identified at that time.
At this. time, Ms. Lisa Miller presented the Staff report by outlining the major issues of the cases, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She said she would only make a brief presentation because the information in the staff report was very complete. Mr. Wright pointed out that the data in the new staff report was evaluated per the City Attorney's instructions, based on the interim zoning ordinance.
Ms. Lisa Miller explained the following "Procedure for Application for Demolition Permit" section of the interim zoning ordinance, a copy of which was included in the staff report:
Review Criteria: In order for the Historic Landmark Commission to approve a demolition request, at least three of the five following findings must be met. If less than three standards are met, then the demolition is found to be inappropriate, and the Commission defers the demolition approval for one year. During this one-year waiting period, the Historic Landmark Commission may negotiate with the owner and other interested parties to find a means of preserving the building(s). If at the end of one year, no solution has been found, the application for demolition is approved and the owner may demolish the building(s).
a) The property is not classified as contributing to the district.
Discussion: The 1980 survey evaluates all of the buildings as contributory, with all of the buildings being in good condition. The building at 356 South 700 East is noted as having minor alterations; the other buildings have been evaluated as unaltered. These survey forms are included in the staff report. The 1993 Standard Reconnaissance Survey classified all three of the buildings as contributing. The survey form is included in this staff report.
Finding: All three of the subject properties are classified as contributing to the district. This standard has not been met
b) The property is not eligible for the National, State or Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Discussion: When the Central City Historic District was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1996, the boundaries for the district were not the same as those for the City District, and did not include much of the commercial development. The standards for a National District require that a certain percentage of buildings located in the district be "of the historic period," that is a minimum of fifty years old. The boundary line for Block 39 was drawn across the center of the block, including as many of the historic buildings as possible, yet excluding several recent commercial buildings. This delineation of the boundary does not mean that the subject buildings were not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The buildings meet the criteria of location, design, setting, materials, feeling, association, and workmanship. There is no state register in Utah.
Finding: The property is eligible for inclusion in the Central City National Register District. This standard has not been met.
c) Demolition of the property would not adversely affect the character of the district and/or the adjacent property.
Discussion: Demolition of the buildings would negatively affect the character of the district but not the adjacent properties. However, if the building at 356 South 700 East were to be moved to a location on 300 South, on a parcel which is owned by the petitioner, the demolition would not affect the character of the district.
Finding: If the building at 356 South 700 is moved to a location on 300 South, then this standard has been met. If the building is not moved, then this standard has not been met.
d) The owner has reasonably demonstrated that rehabilitation of the property would not be economically feasible, as outlined in the analysis section of the interim zoning ordinance (Section 17-1.20.)
e) Plans have been submitted to redevelop the property if the demolition proceeds, and such plans will have a positive effect on the Historic Landmark Overlay District and/or other adjacent properties.
Discussion: The reuse plan that was submitted with the demolition applications is for a parking Jot. The proposed parking lot is a permitted use that would provide parking for the Northshore Outlet retail store. Eventually, this and the surrounding parcels will be commercially developed. The loss of the building at 356 South 700 East will have a negative impact on the historic district. However, if this building was moved to a location fronting on 300 South, the demolition and reuse plans would not have a negative impact on the district.
Finding: Providing the building at 356 South 700 East is moved to the 300 South frontage, then this standard is met. If the building is not moved, then this standard has not been met.
Ms. Lisa Miller said that if the Commission finds that three out of the five standards would not be met, then the applications for demolition should be denied.
Mr. Young inquired further into the suggestion of relocating the four-square building to 300 South. He asked if the property, on which the building was to be moved, would then be zoned commercial so the building would be maintained as a commercial property. Ms. Lisa Miller stated that was a good question and would have to be considered at some time in the future.
Ms. Blaes asked what the current zoning was on the south side of 300 South. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the zoning was divided down the center of the block and pointed to the properties on an aerial zoning map that was displayed. She said that the property on 300 South was zoned RMF-35, which is moderate density, multi-family, residential district. Ms. Blaes also made reference to an accessory building behind the adjacent retail outlet that would be demolished, although it was not noted in the staff report.
The applicant, Mr. I. Wells Stevens, was present, as well as his attorney, Mr. Bruce Baird, who was representing the applicant on this request for demolition. Mr. Baird said that he as in a rather unique situation and he would do his best to comply with the ethical guidelines of the Bar Association, regarding work on matters in which he previously had some involvement. He said that he would not claim any special knowledge about matters of the past, but would simply argue from the facts.
Mr. Baird gave the following two points of interest in his opening statement:
"First of all, let me make it clear that Mr. Stevens' goal is simply to tear the buildings down. As you will see, there is no possibility of rehabilitation. Simply making him wait five months, a month, a week, is utterly punitive and has no legitimate purpose here, and I will get to that in more detail."
"Second point is that we don't want to get involved in other matters. We do not want to be used as a 'cat's paw' to get rid of a district that shouldn't exist in this area. Staff has suggested to us that the proper way to do this is get the district removed. Of course, they suggested two and one half years ago that they were going to do that themselves. Nothing has happened. Mr. Stevens doesn't want to get in that contest. We don't want to get into a fight about the legitimacy of the 300 South historic district and the houses there. We don't want to get into a fight about the legitimacy of the residential houses on the south end of this district. Frankly, as you drive by the houses on 300 South, an argument can be made about the historic nature of those houses, and the same on the south end. That is not the case here."
Mr. Baird expressed his opinion why the City had been negligent to allow these applications to become dormant for two and one-half years. He commented that Mr. Pace's interpretation was correct when he said that these applications were not governed under the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Baird indicated that Mr. Pace was also correct when he said that these applications were complete at the time they were submitted.
Mr. Baird stated that where Mr. Pace was clearly wrong was when he said that these applications should be reviewed under the interim zoning ordinance. He talked about the staff reports (in 1995) consistently referred to the old zoning ordinance because Staff made the right decision in 1995. Mr. Baird said the following: "Not that Mr. Pace is making a completely unfounded decision, he is simply going into a vacuum, where Staff knew what had happened."
Mr. Baird referred to Mr. Stevens' section of the series of documents which accompanied the staff report. He made reference to the moratorium ordinance of October 1994. He said that the interim zoning ordinance bore no resemblance to the final City zoning ordinance because it was "unintelligible."
Mr. Baird discussed the changes that were made for certain uses in zoning districts in the moratorium areas. He said that "every single process, under the old ordinance changed to the new ordinance virtually every process."
Ms. Blaes inquired, of the applicant, if his representative was going to proceed on the findings of fact that these applications would be reviewed under the interim zoning ordinance.· She said that if Mr. Baird was going to suggest that the Historic Landmark Commission review these demolition requests under the old ordinance, that option was not within the purview of the Commission. Mr. Baird stated that Mr. Pace had indicated that the applicant was entitled to present evidence supporting his desire to be heard under the old ordinance. Mr. Baird discussed this matter further.
Mr. Baird said that there were some uses which were available under the old ordinance, as well as under the interim ordinance. He said that what the moratorium sought to do was not to stop all those processes. Mr. Baird claimed, that according to Mr. Wright and Mr. Wilde, the moratorium was interpreted to mean, "if a use was appropriate under the old ordinance and the interim ordinance it would then be processed under the old ordinance." Mr. Baird said that he knew of no other application, submitted during the entire period of the moratorium, whether it was for a conditional use, establishment of a non-conforming use, a variance, an historic demolition, or any other application that was processed under the procedures of the interim zoning ordinance, and he said that no one in the City had contradicted him on that statement. He added that Mr. Stevens' applications were the only ones that were being asked to be processed under that ordinance.
Mr. Baird referred to the "Prohibitions" section of the Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 94 of 1994, where it stated that "the City shall not accept, process or grant an application if such application is not in compliance with the Public Review Draft, dated June 28, 1994, of the proposed new City zoning ordinance." He said that Mr. Stevens' applications were in compliance with the Public Review Draft because "both, the use proposed before and the use proposed after, are perfectly acceptable, so the moratorium, by definition, doesn't even apply to this. The moratorium is talking about a change of use in the way that it says, it means a use that would be allowable under the ordinance but not allowable under the interim ordinance. That is how Staff consistently and reasonably interpreted it."
Mr. Baird pointed out that, according to the minutes of the May 17, 1995 meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Wilde said that "no one disagreed that Mr. Stevens' applications satisfied requirements." Mr. Baird followed up by saying that "everyone agreed that this application should have been approved in 1995."
Ms. Deal, who sat on the Commission, at that time, spoke up and said that she had not agreed to that, and "I don't think anyone else who sat on this board agreed to that." Mr. Baird said that there was nothing in the record that indicated that anyone from the Historic Landmark Commission disagreed. He again expressed his opinion that the
Staff had been clear that these applications met the standards of the old zoning ordinance and should have been processed and approved in 1995.
Mr. Baird stated that the interim zoning ordinance bore almost no resemblance to the new zoning ordinance because the interim zoning ordinance was riddled with errors. He said that one of the key errors was in the definitions of the criteria. Mr. Baird pointed out in the interim zoning ordinance 17-1.17 (d) that it speaks of economic feasibility, then referred to 17-1.20 where the language changed to economic hardship. He said that drafting error did not survive new zoning ordinance, but it made it clear that the standards were vague.
Mr. Baird made the following statements, in reference to the five review criteria in the Procedure for application for Demolition Permit:
"The building at 356 South 700 East was not contributing. Ms. Miller relied on a 1993 survey of the district. Since that time, Fred Meyer and the Hollywood Video has been built. Contributory implies "contributory to something." Nothing in the core of this district has survived for this building to be 'contributory to'. Contributory implies contributory to something, and this district is not a something."
"In a letter from Ms. Lisa Miller to Mr. Stevens, which was included in the documents accompanying the staff report, where she said that 'she wanted to get rid of this portion of the district to make it more appropriate for the other portions to be included in the National Historic Register.' It is logically impossible for this structure to be contributory to any part of a district that should not exist."
"The same weakness applies to the district's eligibility. The City never should have approved an area, as a historic district, that would not be sustained in court against a reasonable challenge, which constitutes a Burger King, a Snelgroves, a Baskin Robbins, and a vacant lot. Ironically the vacant lot was the most historical of the properties because it was part of the Salt Lake Technical College."
"Ms. Lisa Miller had said that the building at 356 South 700 East was somewhat out of context. It is utterly out of context. The question was how did it become more in context if it was moved to 300 South."
"Essentially two of the standards were written to be almost automatically against any demolition. The other three standards would have to be perfect to obtain any demolition under this ordinance. That is utterly indefensible."
"Ms. Miller had modified her position. In the current staff report, she claims the building at 356 South 700 East was economically feasible to be moved or to be rehabilitated, with sheer speculation. Any engineer will say that a building is feasible if you throw enough money at it."
"There are two applications pending; one is to tear down the two back buildings and the other is to tear down the brick building facing 700 East. They should be considered separately and should not be lumped together. Ms. Miller does not segregate. Her analysis is that the two back buildings can come down tomorrow, that there is no reason to keep them up."
"It was only a week or two ago that Mr. Stevens learned of this rather strange request to move the building. A document called, "Regarding Staff Findings of Economic Feasibility Criteria" was circulated to the members of the Commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. It was noted that to make that building economically feasible, would require rents higher than the most expensive building in town. It would be utterly unrealistic for anyone to believe, even if the building was magnificently restored, that it could justify that kind of rent."
"Moving this building would be absurd. Mr. Stevens has a bid of $100,000 just to move it to the site on 300 South. If it stays a residential zoning, to generate a reasonable return on an investment, it would require monthly rents for the four units of $2,750 per unit. Absolutely impossible."
“The conclusion is relatively simple. First, this should be considered under the old ordinance and the building should be demolished. Second, under the new ordinance the building still should be demolished. Third, the City simply does not have the moral or legal power to blackmail Mr. Stevens into moving this building or keeping it there. The City is not capable of imposing that kind of penalty under historic preservation law on this landowner. Please let him take it down. We don't want to have to sue, but we will."
Mr. Stevens said that he had asked Mr. Baird to represent him because he had a good understand of the City's zoning ordinance and the processing of applications. He said that he had been a resident of Salt Lake City and had been in the construction business for many years. Mr. Stevens introduced his brother, and said that his family had owned many businesses in the building at 356 South 700 East and one was the Stevens Henegar Business College, which began in 1958. Mr. Stevens said that when he learned that there would be a change in the zoning ordinance which would be much more restrictive in the event of an application for demolition, he worked very hard to be heard in 1995. He stated that his request for demolition was approved by the Central City Community Council and the City's Housing Advisory Appeal's Board in preparation for the review by this Commission.
Mr. Stevens continued to discuss his preparation for the demolition review. He said that "two hours before we were to be heard, the City chose to table us so we never had a chance to be heard. If we would have been heard, there would only have been a five month delay, if it would have been approved."
Mr. Stevens said that he was "very shocked" when he found out about the interim zoning ordinance, and wanted to be handled fairly. He referred to the minutes of the May 17, 1995 Historic Landmark Commission meeting by reading a portion that quoted Mr. Brent Wilde, the Deputy Planning Director, " Mr. Wilde said that no one disagreed that Mr. Stevens' applications satisfied requirements, and that was the reason why they met with the applicant to ensure Mr. Stevens that the act of tabling these cases would not trigger an enforcement so they would have to be heard under the new zoning ordinance." Mr. Stevens said, at that time, there were only the two zoning ordinances which were discussed. He added that no one talked about an interim zoning ordinance, during those discussions. Mr. Stevens spoke of the Planning Staff, basing the staff report on the old zoning ordinance, which assured him that the demolition request would be heard under that zoning ordinance.
Mr. Baird circulated some documents and asked that they be filed with the records of this meeting. They were letters from Mr. Stevens to Ms. Lisa Miller, which were filed with the minutes of this meeting.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Cerruti led the discussion by asking how much land Mr. Stevens owned on the block which encompassed the subject property. Mr. Stevens said that he owned nearly two acres. Mr. Cerruti wanted to know who the Assistant City Attorney was when these actions were taken in 1995. Mr. Baird said that he was that attorney, but not involved with providing a legal opinion on this matter; otherwise he said that the City Attorney's office would have disqualified him from representing Mr. Stevens. Mr. Baird stated that he had an opinion from the Bar Association that he could "attack" the constitutionality of an ordinance in which he "personally wrote."
• Mr. Littig stated that on the field trip, prior to this meeting, the Commission drove through two parking lots on the block, that was divided by a swinging gate. He inquired when the property on 300 South became a parking lot. Mr. Stevens said that in 1960, his father received permission to use those lots facing 300 South by the City Board of Adjustment. He pointed to other properties on the map that was displayed.
Mr. Stevens concluded by saying that he had been speaking with two different groups who were interested in purchasing the subject property, and representatives from both asked how long would it be before the land could be cleared so they could proceed with the development. Mr. Stevens said the following, " most of the Staff that are sitting here with us now, were in those meetings and they said to proceed with the proposition that you will take the lead in sending a petition to us petitioning that the south half of Block 39 to be removed from the Central City Historic District and no longer would be considered part of the historic district, so the commercial area would no longer be heard, used, or recognized as a historic district." Mr. Stevens said that the City took a strong position to "get this property out of the historic district." He added that he had been given "two different signals." Mr. Stevens talked about, what he thought, was an inconsistency in the City's discussions.
Ms. Blaes said that the current boundaries encompass the subject structures and the purview of this Commission was to review any contributing building within those boundaries, and that was the reason why these cases were being heard.
Ms. Blaes gave Mr. Bill Wright, the Planning Director and Mr. Brent Wilde, the Dep ty Planning Director, an opportunity to respond to any of the comments, which had l:)een made, before the meeting was opened to the public.
Mr. Wilde said that the minutes and the documentation spoke for themselves. He said that the Staff was under the opinion, at the time the applicant's original applications were reviewed, that they should be heard under the old zoning ordinance. Mr. Wilde said that opinion was based on many in-house discussions, and the fact that Chapter 17, the historic chapter of the new zoning ordinance, was in such an unfinished condition at the time.
Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Baird made an incorrect analysis of the minutes when he believed that Staff would have approved an application for a demolition. He said that the minutes stated that the Staff agreed that the applications, which were submitted in 1995, met the standard requirements and the minutes did not reflect that the Staff recommended approval of a demolition of the subject structures. Mr. Wright said that he understood why Mr. Stevens was so diligent in his attempt to have his request heard under the old zoning ordinance, because the waiting period was much shorter. He noted that the applications were denied.
Mr. Wright discussed the changes in the zoning ordinance and the moratorium, which was in existence during the time Mr. Stevens' applications were submitted, and said that the Planning Staff made an error by indicating that those applications be processed under the old zoning ordinance.
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:
• Ms. Evelyn Johnson, residing at 545 East 600 South and representing the Central City Neighborhood Community Council, as Chair, stated that the community council heard Mr. Stevens' request for demolition in April of 1995. She said that the community council had been in a "stagnant state reacting to damage control or whatever was thrown at them." She talked about the deteriorating structures in the neighborhood, and the fact that housing had become substandard. She said that the community council went pro-active and actually initiated the request for the demolition of the subject properties. Ms. Johnson said that Fourth South had become so heavily commercialized that there was nothing historic left on that street. She said that the subject residential properties no longer fit into the zoning district, and it seemed absurd to her that the City wanted to take this remnant of residential housing and want to save it. Ms. Johnson said that if the buildings were saved, a situation would be created that would not be conducive to a community, and actually a "magnet for crime". She pointed out that she had been involved with the zoning rewrite process and the intent to have multi-family units constructed between commercial properties in the area. Ms. Johnson said that she disagreed the contributory status of the subject buildings and if the City wanted those structures saved, then it "should have been initiated a long time ago." She concluded by saying that the Central City Community Council strongly supported the demolition of the buildings at 356 and 358 South 700 East without any further delays, so development could continue on Block 39.
Mr. Kevin Marcoux, who resides at 636 East 300 South, stated that two years previously, Mr. Stevens owned a duplex on that block which faced 300 South, that was demolished by Mr. Stevens. He said that he believed that the Commission should have a clear understanding of the development of Block 39 before any decision was rendered.
Ms. Suzanne Grazier, who is part owner of the beauty salon located in one of the subject buildings, said was concerned why these cases were being reviewed at this meeting because the Housing Advisory Appeal's Board approved the demolition of the buildings, but not before five years. Mr. Wright stated that he understood that Mr. Stevens reapplied with that Board to reconsider that decision. Ms. Grazier expressed her disappointment of the possibility that the business would have to relocate before that five-year period.
Ms. Roxanne Holmes, who is the other owner of the beauty salon, also expressed her concerns that the location of their successful business of 15 years might be in jeopardy and believed that their business should be considered in any decision rendered regarding the properties. She said that she did not understand about the zoning issues or the way the City was structured. Ms. Holmes continued to discuss her disillusionment of the possibility of losing the salon before the year 2002.
Mr. Young said that the Residential Mixed Use Zoning District, that overlays much of east downtown area, is primarily set up to include commercial enterprises such as Ms. Holmes and Ms. Grazier's business, to ensure, as people begin to develop residential properties, that there would be needed services that people would not have to drive to the suburbs to receive. He said that he would challenge future developers of the east downtown area to create more service-oriented projects, which he believed would be a “win, win situation for everybody."
Mr. Cerruti inquired further into the hearing for which Mr. Stevens was scheduled before the Board of Adjustment and the Housing Advisory Appeal's Board. Mr. Wright said that the applicant had filed an application to have the Board of Adjustment review the administrative decision under which zoning ordinance these applications should be reviewed. Mr. Wright said that the hearing had been previously scheduled and postponed until the November 17th agenda.
Mr. Baird stated that he believed that it was best to give the Commission the first opportunity to review Mr. Stevens' applications because he thought the staff report was going to be more moderate. Mr. Cerruti expressed his concerns that the Historic Landmark Commission was asked to review these applications before the appeal was heard by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Baird said that Mr. Pace agreed with him to try all options at this time. Mr. Bird said that the hope was that the staff report would have been favorable for demolition! under the interim zoning ordinance, then "we would not need to fight over which ordinance applied." He continued to say that the secondary hope was that the Historic Landmark Commission would overturn the findings in the staff report, then the other hearings would not matter. Mr. Baird said that "if you support the Staffs decision and deny the demolition, we will proceed on every track available to us to get these buildings torn down. We will go to the Board of Adjustment, the Land Use Appeal's Board, or to Third District Court if we have to the buildings are coming down and we hoped to do it peacefully and easily."
Mr. Cerruti discussed the fact of the possibility that if the Board of Adjustment approved the appeal, then the demolition request would have to heard by this Commission, once more, but under the old zoning ordinance. He asked why the appeal was not heard before the request for demolition came before this Commission. Mr. Baird said that the applicant was "stuck in a what should be do first situation. We determined to do it this way." Mr. Baird said that another option would have been to go to City Council to try to remove the subject area from the historic district. He said that he understood that this matter may result in a conflict of law situation where the Commission would hear a case at two different times, under two different ordinances. Mr. Baird said that ''we did not make that choice. We were stuck into making that choice, due to the erroneous opinion of the City Attorney's office and the erroneous staff report. We had no other option. These buildings are going to come down and we are going to take them down they are coming down faster than one year. If they come down by going to court, we will fight against the entire historic scheme of this State, the City, that district may come down and a whole bunch of other things may come down. We will be forced to do it because Staff, for some reason, is fighting for buildings they determined should not even be in an historic district."
Mr. Young said that the applications, which were heard by the Housing Advisory Appeal's Board, were based on the premise that there would be a five-year lease on the building which was occupied by the beauty salon. He inquired about any protection being offered to protect the current lessee of the beauty salon. Mr. Baird said that there was none. He said that due some changes in the applicant's leasing agreement, that five-year window was no longer necessary.
Mr. Stevens said that what he had asked the Housing Advisory Appeal's Board to do was to allow him to demolish the buildings anytime within the five-year period, which was misinterpreted by Mr. Harvey Boyd of the City's Building Services Division.
Mr. Young inquired how the demolition of the duplex on 300 South was handled. Mr. Wright said that the application for demolition of that duplex was reviewed and denied by this Commission, and the applicant only had a five-month waiting period before it was demolished.
Mr. Bill Bleazard, who resides at 329 Vincent Court, stated that he owns property in the area on 300 South. He expressed his concerns about the possibility of relocating the subject building next to his property. Mr. Bleazard talked about that the City had recently down-zoned his property to single-family units, only. Mr. Wright said that was not correct because the zoning on Mr. Bleazard's property was zoned Residential Mixed Use (RMS-35), which would allow everything from single family to multi-family units. Ms. Blaes said relocating that building was a recommendation by the Staff and the applicant had made it known that he was not willing to explore that possibility. Ms. Bleazard concluded by saying that he also did not think it would be feasible to relocate that building.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides at 816 East 100 South, spoke of the involvement she had with the zoning rewrite project, as well as many other civic projects. She said that she recognized that this demolition request was a difficult one for the Commission to make. She made the following statement: "We have paid over and over again for this part of the City. First, we paid for the City's inaction in protecting this part of the City's historic fabric and we watched it deteriorate and watched historic structures disappear. We stepped in, we filed a petition, we volunteered our time to do the research, we paid again by giving our time and our hard work and now it appears to me that we are going pay again." Ms. Cromer reminded the City Staff that the City adopted boundaries for an historic district, and "as a citizen advocate, that it was the City's job to defend those boundaries."
Ms. Gloria McCandless, who resides at 330 South 700 East, said that she was not going to comment at this meeting, but when she heard Mr. Baird state that the buildings were going to be demolished, she wanted to express her concerns because she felt threatened by Mr. Baird's statement. She said that she lived in an asphalt jungle now and what would prevent someone else try to take her property.
There was a lengthy discussion about the possibility of Mr. Stevens relocating the building at 356 South 700 East to the 300 South site. Mr. Stevens talked about the expense that would occur if the building was moved. He said that a contractor told him that he was wasting his time, even talking about moving that building. Ms. Blaes said that the Historic Landmark Commission could not make Mr. Stevens move the building, and that it was a recommendation made by Staff. Ms. Lisa Miller inquired if Mr. Stevens had any idea what it would cost him to demolish the structures. Mr. Stevens said that he did not know, but that expense was already included in the price of the property, if the property was sold. The discussion continued.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to any further public comment and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
Mr. Wright stated that he wanted to clarify the Staffs position. He said that the Staff had to analyze the five criteria that appeared in the interim zoning ordinance and determine whether or not positive findings could be recommended for at least three out of the five standards. He read the standards on which the Commission had to base its decision, a copy of which was included in the staff report. Mr. Wright said that the idea of taking the resource of the four-square building and moving it to another location in the district was one that would allow a positive finding to be made. He said that there would be adjacent properties that were non-contributing. Mr. Wright stated there was a much broader picture of the entire district that had to be considered, and not just a property site. He said that the Commission would need to analyze the information that had been presented and determine whether or not it would be feasible to relocate the subject building. Ms. Blaes inquired about the possibility of tabling the matter until the result was made of the Board of Adjustment hearing. Mr. Wright said that could also be an option for the Commission, but he did believe that was necessary.
Mr. Pace stated that he wanted to respond to some issues that were raised. He said that the City Attorney's office had no objection to Mr. Baird's representation in this matter. Mr. Pace said that Mr. Stevens' appeal was initially scheduled to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment in October of 1997, but the applicant withdrew his appeal at that time. He also advised the Commission that he thought it would be a waste of time to table its decision on these cases until the Board of Adjustment reviewed the appeal. Mr. Pace said that his advice to Mr. Baird, regarding this appeal, was that he would lose, and the Zoning Administrator would determine that these demolition requests would be reviewed under the interim zoning ordinance.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the options the members of the Commission had in determining their decisions on this matter. The history and an explanation of the moratorium was presented once more.
Mr. Pace made the following remarks: "I think mistakes were made by Staff Mr. Baird was correct that I am looking at this in a vacuum after the fact. I think it would be helpful to point out that the statements made by Staff cannot contradict the legislative declarations of the City Council."
Mr. Pace also said that he had been reviewing the Historic Landmark Commission's Policies and Procedures and was unable to find any wording that there was a sixty-day limitation to rendering a decisions. He said that he could not find a copy of Roberts Rules of Order.
Ms. Blaes declared that it would be the Commission's decision to accept the recommendation from the City Attorney's office that the members be prepared to review these applications on the interim zoning ordinance. She invited any member who did not believe that, to speak up so the Commission could move forward.
Ms. Deal made the following statement: " this was disturbing. For those of you, who have been on the Commission for a long time, can understand how frustrating it was to operate under the old ordinance where we had no power to stop demolition. We would sit through these reviews and deny applications, and after five months, the building could be torn down anyway. One of the goals when the new zoning ordinance was rewritten was to secure a very strong emollition ordinance which I support. However, we are not hearing this under the new zoning ordinance; we are hearing it under the interim zoning ordinance." Ms. Deal made a comment that was originated by a former Chair of the Historic Landmark Commission that "property owners needed to be stewards, having more of a bigger picture outlook than just their own use." Ms. Deal said that she did not believe that Mr. Stevens had been a good steward of the community when he "destroyed a perfectly nice duplex that could have been rehabilitated on the residential side of 300 South."
Ms. Deal addressed her next comments to Mr. Baird, " that if he comes before this body again, I wish he would not threaten us with law suits. We are professional volunteers. We don't take kindly to that. We are here to do a job and threatening us with law suits, I personally find offensive." She said that the only difference is the waiting period before the applicant could demolish the buildings. Ms. Deal said that she agreed with Mr. Baird that it seemed "punitive", so she recommended approval of the demolition request. Ms. Deal stated the it had been made clear, that the applicant would not make an effort to rehabilitate these buildings. She said, "I have a difficult time sometimes picking and choosing my battles, but I think in the picking and choosing, this is not one to fight because we have nothing to gain except keeping it here and letting it run down even more and further deteriorate the neighborhood."
Ms. Deal moved to approve Cases No. 010-95 and 011-95 for the demolition of the three structures, as requested, with the reuse plan for the parking lot, as submitted. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
After a brief discussion, the motion was amended.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Cases No. 010-95 and 011-95 for the demolition of the three structures, as requested, with the reuse plan for the parking lot, as submitted, based on the findings of fact found by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Blaes said that the Commission needed to tie the motion to the findings of fact, and according to the staff report under the interim ordinance, there were five issues; three of which must be met in order for the Commission to approve demolition of all three structures.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Cases No. 010-95 and 011-95 for the demolition of the three structures, as requested, with the reuse plan for the parking lot, as submitted, based on the following findings of fact which were determined by the Historic Landmark Commission: Demolition of the property would not adversely affect the character of the district and/or the adjacent property; the owner has reasonably demonstrated that rehabilitation of the property would not be economically feasible, as outlined in Section 17-1.20 (of the interim zoning ordinance); and plans have been submitted to redevelop the property if the demolition proceeds, and such plans will have a positive effect on the Historical Landmark Overlay district and/or adjacent properties. The second still stood by Mr. Young.
The discussion continued. Some members of the Commission had a problem with accepting the fact that a parking lot and demolishing contributing buildings, would have a positive effect on the overlay district. M. Deal said that she had to look at that in terms of a continuation deteriorating buildings, which would be demolished in one year anyway. She reminded the Commission members, that she would not have approved this request, if the Commission was reviewing it under the new zoning ordinance, and hoped that everyone was clear on that point. The discussion continued and the motion came to a vote.
Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye" in favor of the motion. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Littig, and Ms. Sarah Miller were opposed. Mr. Paulsen and Ms. Mitchell abstained. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Morgan were excused. The motion passed.
• Ms. Blaes said that the appeal's process was explained on the back of the agenda.
NEW CASE
Case No. 014-97. on the Salt Lake City Survey Plat B. Block 38, located between 300 and 400 South. and between 500 and 600 East Streets. by Jeff Jonas of American Housing Development Company, and Max Smith of MJS Architects. requesting approval to demolish five structures at the following locations: 326. 334. 340. and 352 South 600 East. and 550 East 300 South. and replace them with a 319-unit multi-family development.
Due to the complexity of this application, a brief overview was presented at this meeting. The Commission discussed and decided that this review would not be processed as the first presentation of a new project in the historic district.
Ms. Elizabeth 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. Ms. Giraud circulated photographs of the structures in the area that would be proposed for demolition.
Mr. Jeff Jonas of American Housing Development Company, the applicant, was present, as well as his representative, Mr. Max Smith of MJS Architects. Mr. Smith read the following brief statement, which was addressed to the commission: "What we are presenting to you is a culmination of a process that had its origins in the RIUDAT study nine years ago. That study concluded that the east downtown neighborhood will again become a predominately urban apartment district serving the downtown core. This district had originally functioned precisely in this manner." He spoke about a study made by Roger Roper indicating that forty apartment buildings had been destroyed or demolished in this district since the turn of the century. Mr. Smith said that by destroying those buildings, the character and land use patterns of this district literally were lost.
Mr. Smith continued by saying that in 1988, much of the neighborhood was characterized by office buildings and surface parking lots. He said that efforts were made by many interested people, and the East Downtown Neighborhood Master Plan was drafted. Mr. Smith said this draft was a rather revolutionary document that had the audacity to proclaim that east downtown needed to become a vibrant, alive, urban, residential, host, mixed-use neighborhood, serving a renovated downtown core within a live-in, twenty-four-hour, population. He said that the final draft was adopted sometime in 1990.
Mr. Smith, using a briefing board to further demonstrate the proposed project. He said that the applicant was proposing from 315 to 319 residential units in a combination of three to six story buildings, with underground parking. Mr. Smith said that the main focus of the project was pedestrian accessibility, through a series or courtyards. He also said that the project would include the demolition of some structures on the block. Mr. Smith also spoke of the inner-block parcel that would be part of this project.
There were many inquisitions and suggestions made by members of the Commission, as the project was described. Mr. Jonas explained how the company was able to obtain the property.
Ms. Blaes invited anyone in audience who was interested in this project to comment at this informal discussion. Some of the remarks made by the public was that residential units were welcomed, and that there would be a. problem with the ingress and egress off of Vernier Place, as well as 600 East and the increased traffic.
Ms. Blaes said that she thought it would be helpful if Mr. Jonas could provide information on other projects he had done, so the commission could see the level of quality of his work.
Mr. Wilde concluded the discussion by saying that there would be a. request for the demolition of contributory structures and the design review of new construction. He also said that there would be a requirement for some zoning changes. Mr. Wilde said that there was no projected completion date for these processes and believed that project would appear on the agenda. of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting in December, so the details of the project would be discussed at that time.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wright spoke of a draft of the "Conflict of Interest Ordinance, which was mailed to the members prior to this meeting. He said that portions of the draft that could have a severe impact on the members of this Commission. He suggested that the members carefully read the draft and discuss it at the Commission's training meeting scheduled for November 19, 1997.
Ms. Blaes reminded the members that the Commission would continue with the two meetings a month schedule through the winter months, but the second meeting would be solely for training opportunities for this Commission. Ms. Blaes circulated a tentative schedule for the next few training sessions to the members.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Ms. Deal moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. It
was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M.