November 6, 2002

SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting

Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126

The field trip was cancelled.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Noreen Heid and William Littig were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.

Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. 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

The minutes from the October 16, 2002 meeting were postponed.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.

PREVIOUS BUSINESS

Mr. Simonsen announced that Mr. Gordon had to leave for the airport at 5:00 P.M. and expressed concern about the lack of a quorum of members without Mr. Gordon's presence.

Mr. Simonsen declared that he had a conflict of interest with Cases No. 019-01 and 005-02. There was a short discussion regarding how many members were needed to comprise a quorum, which is a simple majority of the members present at the meeting. Mr. Simonsen said that he talked to the City Deputy Attorney who said there was nothing in the City's ordinance that would prohibit him from being present to constitute a quorum; however the Bylaws of the Historic Landmark Commission do prohibit him from being present when there is a conflict.

Mr. Simonsen recused himself from the meeting and did not participate in the discussion or the voting proceedings. He turned the meeting over to Ms. Mickelsen, the Vice Chairperson.

(Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:12P.M.)

Case No. 019-01. at 340 South 600 East. by Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation. requesting a review of the findings of the Economic Review Panel relating to the request for demolition of the Juel Apartment Building. which is located in the Central City Historic District. This case was reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission on February 27, 2002. but was remanded back for further review upon an appeal to the Salt Lake City Land Use Appeals Board.

Ms. Giraud presented an outline of the economic hardship case focusing on the major issues, pursuant to Section 21A.34.020(K)(3) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The Historic Landmark Commission selected Mr. Doug Stephens, Developer, to represent the City; Mr. Ken Holman with Overland Development Corporation, the applicant, represented his company throughout the economic hardship process; and Mr. Stephens and Mr. Holman selected Mr. Burke Cartwright, Architect, with EDA Architects. The Economic Review Panel met on four different occasions.

Ms. Giraud stated that the Economic Review Panel found there was an economic hardship for the Juel Apartment Building. She said that it was determined that the applicant would receive an economic rate of 3%, based on the appraisals of the property. Ms. Giraud reported that Mr. Cartwright found that 3% was not a reasonable rate of return and so the vote was two to one that an economic hardship existed.

Ms. Giraud gave the following background information: Mr. Holman did not present the panel with an appraisal of the Juel Building property, when the Panel first met in November of 2001. In December of 2001, the Economic Review Panel found that there was no economic hardship for the Juel Apartments. Mr. Holman appealed that decision to the Land Use Appeals Board in April of 2002. The Appeals Board expressed a concern that no appraisal was submitted on which the panel could base its decision. Ms. Giraud stated that the members of the Appeals Board passed the following motion: "That the matter be remanded back to the Historic Landmark Commission with a request that an appraisal be obtained on the exact piece of property being considered under this application for demolition and a determination be made as to whether or not the additional information makes a difference in the economic hardship analysis."

Ms. Giraud said that the City hired an appraiser, Paul Throndsen, and Mr. Holman hired an appraiser by the name of Jeff Neese. The numbers turned out to be fairly similar in terms of coming up with a value of about $535,000. When the numbers were run, the rate of return came up to the 3%. A copy of the data, minutes, and report of the Economic Review Panel were filed with the minutes of this meeting.

Mr. Knight pointed out a typographical error on the first page of the economic hardship report. It should read "all reasonable economic use or return" and not "use of return".

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.

Ms. Rowland asked if the ordinance actually requires a reasonable return. Ms. Giraud quoted Section 21A.34.02043.020(K) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, 'The determination of economic hardship shall require the applicant to provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the application of the standards and regulations of this section deprives the applicant of all reasonable economic use or return on the subject property."

Ms. Mickelsen asked what was a reasonable return and Ms. Giraud said that it was her understanding that "reasonable" was what the market would bare. She said that exact percentages were deliberately not put in the ordinance because the market changes. Ms. Mickelsen asked what the current market was and if the Panel could identify what a reasonable return would be. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Holman believed a reasonable rate would be between 10% and 15%. Mr. Holman responded from the audience that he presented evidence that capitalization rates were at 10% and it would go up from there depending on the amount of risks that would be required in a development like this.

Mr. Parvaz said that the Commission has been faced with this issue for the last three or four years with the Economic Review Panel. He referred to item four of the motion presented by the Economic Review Panel, which says, "That while the expected rate of return was positive, it was not a reasonable rate of return as required by the zoning ordinance." Mr. Parvaz also commented that there was no set figure in the ordinance what a reasonable rate of return would be. He said that he has a "lot of problems with this figure on this report because this means that the way it was put together, any time the rate of return is less than 3%, then the building could be demolished". Ms. Rowland said that anything less than 10% in the developer's mind is not a reasonable rate of return. Mr. Parvaz said that in many cases there would be a negative rate of return, but in this case it was a positive rate of return. He talked further about this issue.

Ms. Giraud said that the key word in the ordinance is "reasonable"; therefore no rate was set, so when the findings in the report stated, "as required by the zoning ordinance", it meant that the zoning ordinance requires a figure to be reasonable.

Mr. Ashdown questioned the Historic Landmark Commission's purview in determining what a reasonable rate of return would be. Ms. Giraud said that is why the Economic Review Panel is comprised of people who are knowledgeable in the field of real estate economics, renovation, redevelopment, and other aspects of rehabilitation. Mr. Ashdown said that the applicant wants the Historic Landmark Commission's "stamp of approval" on the Panel's findings. Ms. Giraud concurred.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Ken Holman, the applicant, was present. He stated that it took four separate meetings with the Economic Review Panel to determine economic hardship. Mr. Holman reported that the in December 2001, the Economic Review Panel would not let him present information or any evidence relative to the purchase price of the property. He stated, 'We submitted evidence but the Economic Review Panel basically ignored that evidence, and without an acquisition price on the property you could not establish any kind of return because you could not do the calculations relative to what we were instructed to do to make a determination on economic hardship."

Mr. Holman said that the Historic Landmark Commission opted to accept the first findings of the Economic Review Panel, which put him in a position where "we were required to appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board. The Land Use Appeals Board agreed to hear our case and came back and said we don't want you to rehash every number that you have decided upon as an Economic Review Panel but the applicant should have the opportunity to be permitted to determine what the acquisition cost is and the Economic Review Panel must take that into consideration in making a determination of whether or not the applicant suffers economic hardship."

Mr. Holman continued by saying that the Historic Landmark Commission's appraiser actually came in with a less favorable percentage appraisal value than the appraiser he hired. He said, "Part of that whole discussion was the fact that our appraiser probably did not do us any favors in trying to establish what we thought was a reasonable acquisition cost. In the end, we [Economic Review Panel] spent approximately two hours on that issue after we got our appraisals. We talked about reasonable rates of return. We talked about acquisition costs. We reviewed the numbers that we had and came up with a final conclusion that there was economic hardship. My question is does the Historic Landmark Commission now debate the issue of whether or not there is economic hardship or does the Historic Landmark Commission now make a determination based on that finding whether or not demolition would be permitted?" Mr. Holman said it was his understanding that the Economic Review Panel made the determination of economic hardship, and now the Historic Landmark Commission was to accept that finding unless it was determined there was an error made in making that finding. He offered to provide the evidence to prove that economic hardship exists on the Juel Building, but did not think this was the "forum" to do that.

Ms. Giraud referred to the zoning ordinance, 'The Historic Landmark Commission shall be consistent with the conclusions reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, the Historic Landmark Commission finds by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) majority of a quorum present that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact."

The discussion continued regarding the findings of the Economic Review Panel.

Mr. Holman stated, "If they [Historic Landmark Commission] ignore the findings of the Economic Review Panel and deny it, then would I be back at the Land Use Appeals Board?" Ms. Giraud said that the Commission could not "ignore" the findings; the decision has to be based on whether or not the Economic Review Panel acted arbitrarily or the decision was based on erroneous findings of material fact.

Mr. Holman offered to clarify any question the Commission had on the evidence he submitted. He added that the 3% number was the conclusion that was reached at the fourth meeting after taking everything in consideration plus the relevant taxes. Mr. Holman pointed out that the actual rate of return went from 3% down to 1.37%, but "the Economic Review Panel made their decision based on a representation that the rate of return was 3%. We can produce evidence showing that it is 1.37% and not 3% at this stage".

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by saying he had a problem with setting a precedent for any future economic hardships that anything lower than a 3% rate of return would automatically be a call for demolition. He said that if the Historic Landmark Commission accepted the findings of the Economic Review Panel then the applicant could demolish the building when an economic hardship did not exist. Mr. Holman said that the conclusion of the Economic Review Panel was based on "your'' ordinance. Mr. Parvaz said that this was very confusing because even if the Panel found that any time there would be a positive return on the investment, the applicant could demolish an historical building. Ms. Giraud said that would not be setting a precedent because economic conditions change. She added that if the economy went into a major depression a 3% rate of return could be a "huge pile of money".

Mr. Parvaz persisted that there was nothing in the ordinance that said that a 3% return was not adequate and wondered what calculations the Panel used to come to the conclusion of economic hardship. Ms. Giraud said once more that the Historic Landmark Commission would have to conclude that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner or based its decision on an error in the material findings of fact.

Mr. Holman said that there was a lengthy discussion about what a reasonable rate of return would be on an investment like the subject property. He noted that the Economic Review Panel reviewed the factors used by the appraisers to determine the capitalization rate to establish the value of the building, and that capitalization rate took into consideration not only the cost of funds borrowed (debt) but the cost of equity dollars that are invested in the project and the amount of risk that is associated with this type of investment. Mr. Holman said that those components were encapsulated in the capitalization rate that was used by each appraiser. The discussion continued.

Mr. Holman believed that the findings of fact presented by the Economic Review Panel were based on evidence "at this moment in time, on this specific site, and on this project that a 3% [rate of return] was deemed unreasonable". He added that analysis would not be the basis of setting a precedent. Mr. Holman said that determining economic hardship was on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Parvaz stated that it was the first time that the findings of the Economic Review Panel read that they were based on the zoning ordinance, when no such figure exists in the zoning ordinance. He added that it was very confusing. The conversation between Mr. Parvaz and Mr. Holman continued.

Mr. Knight pointed out that the motion by Mr. Cartwright of the Economic Review Panel was in quotes in the minutes and the report of the Panel and the Staff produced the findings based on the facts presented at the meeting. Mr. Parvaz said that he had no argument with that issue; his argument was tying that 3% rate of return to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Holman said that it did not change the finding of the Economic Review Panel. He clarified that based on the factors used, the rate of return was even less than the 3%, but the Panel used the 3% figure.

Ms. Mickelsen stated that the Commission would be losing a quorum in 15 minutes, and if there were no more questions for the applicant, the Chair would like to move on with this case. Mr. Parvaz said that he did not have any further questions for the applicant.

Since there were no further questions for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen asked Mr. Doug Stephens to come forward and address the Commission.

Mr. Doug Stephens, who was the Historic Landmark Commission's selection to serve on the Economic Review Panel for the Juel Apartment Building, was in attendance. He stated that he would like to comment on future procedures for any Economic Review Panel. Mr. Stephens pointed out that it would be helpful to have an idea what the zoning ordinance and the Historic Landmark Commission considered a reasonable economic rate of return. He said that both appraisals showed a capitalization rate of 10% rate of return on the Juel property, but the Panel dealt strictly with the internal rate of return which would have required the developer to hold the property for ten years and he was not certain that it was the Historic Landmark Commission's intent that the developer hold it for ten years. Mr. Stephens thought it was a matter dealing with a developer, or owner, of a piece of property getting any kind of economic return on a property. He disclosed that in the matter of the Juel Apartments, both appraisers indicated if repairs were made on the building, the property could be sold for a fair market value without any loss. Mr. Stephens said that Mr. Holman pointed out that this procedure had gone on for a year and it would have shortened the process if the appraisals had been provided at the very beginning. He added that the appraisals brought forth new questions.

Mr. Stephens said that one statement of fact was, "That the cost of improvements would be $1,000,000." He said there was nothing to support that other than the fact that the appraiser indicated it would be $600,000 and Overland Development Corporation's estimates for improvements came to $1,400,000. Mr. Stephens noted that the Economic Review Panel ended up in the middle without documentation to determine the necessary amount of money it would actually take to bring the building up to a certain level of standards.

Mr. Stephens summarized the review of the economic hardship request by saying, "in conclusion, in the future it would be helpful for the Economic Review Panel to have a little more understanding of where the Historic Landmark Commission stands on some of these issue with regards to rate of return, internal rate of return, market value, selling the property, what the expectations are as far as why we should be looking at it at all."

Commission made the following inquiries concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Christensen inquired about Mr. Stephens' statement about a simple rate of return. Mr. Stephens said, "Mr. Holman and Overland Development Corporation were always presenting internal rate of return as being the standard of what is being used for evaluating the return on the property and I believe the ordinance says economic rate of return, which in my mind would indicate that any investment you had if you could either sell it or own and operate it, and if you could come up with a return on your investment then that would be one way to look at it. It's just not precluded to operating the building for ten years and calculating your internal rate of return. The appraisers both used the capitalization rate of return at 10% in calculating what the value of the property was. But without us having any idea of which one to be looking at we ended up dealing with the internal rate of return." Mr. Christensen inquired if the capitalization rate of return could have been considerably more and Mr. Stephens said that the appraisers' calculated the rate of return to be 10%.

• Mr. Parvaz mentioned that he heard of an owner who made a profit after 50 years of owning a building. He inquired about the statement that it would take 10 years for the property to be profitable. Mr. Stephens said that there has to be a meeting point in calculating an internal rate of return and the developer of the property chose a 10-year period.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for Mr. Stephens, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

Mr. David Baos, an interested citizen, stated that he lived downtown and this project falls within the boundaries of his community council. He believed Mr. Holman to be a good developer. Mr. Baos pointed out that the Juel Apartment Building is a very unique structure. He talked about a property on which he just closed a couple of days ago, where the capitalization rate was 9.5%, which was the rate of return, for his investment. Mr. Baos said that a 3% rate of return would be a bad investment. However, he stated that on another building, he might be willing to pay $40,000 or $50,000 over the market value because of a low investment risk. Mr. Baos said that if he purchased a building for more than it was worth, then found out it would be a high risk development, then it would be an economic hardship for him, as a developer, but if he purchased a property knowing that he could not demolish it or build anything that he wanted on the property, then it would not be an economic hardship. Mr. Boas said that if he knew he would only get a 3% return on the property, he would leave it alone. He said that the current market was from 9% to 10% economic rate of return. Mr. Baos concluded by saying that it would be a

"tough struggle" and one has to look at the value of a building and its value to the community in making a decision about development risks.

Ms. Ana Archuletta, Chair of the Central City Neighborhood (Community) Council, stated that the project by Overland Development Corporation is of much concern to troubling because in this case, she believed that the Juel Apartment Building is very compatible to the area and to people who can afford housing in the area. Ms. Archuletta stated that Central City has the lowest income in comparison to other neighborhood councils. She added that Central City also has the most substandard housing, the most boarded buildings, and the most open space than any other area in Salt Lake City. Ms. Archuletta stated, "If the residents are happy living in the Juel because it is affordable and it is compatible to the area and the character then I say let's keep it. It is in your hands here today to decide whether or not those residents have homes to live in. If not, they will be pushed out. We want families to stay here. Let's provide them affordable housing in this area and I hope you will consider that in tonight's vote."

• Ms. Sunshine Evans, an interested citizen, stated that she had attended other Historic Landmark Commission meetings where Mr. Holman's properties have appeared on the agenda. She said that Mr. Holman wants to have an economic hardship ruling so he can destroy this property. She said that this was an historic district before Mr. Holman came along and it was an historic district before Mr. Holman's predecessor was involved. Ms. Evans said that affordable housing is important. She thinks the Juel Building is beautiful. Ms. Evans stated that benefits of living in Salt Lake City and being part of the community far out weigh the higher salaries back east. She talked about the boarded buildings that have been reopened. Ms. Evans said, 'We have a diverse, unique community here." She talked about neighborhoods are like communities within communities and she would not want to see that lost because "someone wants to build bigger places that would be more expensive and create a hardship on people who live in the area".

Mr. Holman inquired if it would be appropriate for me to respond to some of those comments. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission was under a time constraint and it would probably be to Mr. Holman's advantage not to.

Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

(During this portion of the review for Case No. 019-01, Mr. Gordon asked if there could be a thirty-minute delay in the review of this case because he had to leave for the airport and the Commission would no longer have a quorum. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the appropriateness of the circumstances. Mr. Ashdown expressed a desire to continue on. Ms. Giraud thought this was neither fair to the applicant, the other applicants who were attending this meeting, nor to the others in the audience. A short discussion followed.

Motion for a recess:

Mr. Gordon moved that the case be tabled for thirty minutes. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Mr. Littig were not present. Mr. Simonsen was in a state of recusion. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

• The case was delayed for thirty minutes. Mr. Gordon left the meeting at 5:01 P.M.)

[Please note: For easier reading, the minutes were written as the cases appeared on the agenda.]

{Mr. Gordon returned to the meeting at 5:29P.M. It was agreed that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission would resume the review for Case No. 019-01. Mr. Simonsen recused himself and Ms. Mickelsen assumed the position of Acting Chairperson. There was a quorum of members in attendance. The review for Case No. 019-01 recommenced at 5:34P.M.)

Executive Session

Ms. Mickelsen entertained a motion for Case No. 019-01. A discussion followed.

Mr. Ashdown stated the following, "The past two economic hardships we received and the demolitions of Bill and Nada's and Promised Valley Playhouse, subsequently, we were confronted with angry e-mails after the demolitions took place. I hope that people in the future who are angry about this situation read the minutes and possibly it would save us from receiving some angry e-mails. There is no one on the Historic Landmark Commission who is in favor of demolition of historic landmarks. That is why we are here. We are here to protect historic landmarks. I think that low-income housing is also a high priority for people on the Historic Landmark Commission. In this case, we did not approve demolition from the start and that is why the applicant is going through economic hardship. We are not trying to decide whether this is an historic property or not, or whether low income housing is appropriate or not. Those are beliefs that I think most of us hold firm. What we are trying to decide is whether the Economic Review Panel did their job and I think that we are all fairly amazed when the first economic review came through as declined on the demolition and we accepted that fact. The hard part comes in accepting this fact that the Economic Review Panel found this not economically viable for the applicant, and that is all we are deciding today."

Mr. Christensen talked about some of the issues that Mr. Stephens brought up, such as the method chosen calculating the rate of return. He talked about Mr. Stephens' explanation of internal rate of return and the capitalization rate of return. Mr. Christensen said that he thought for future projects the Historic Landmark Commission might want to specify which method the Economic Review Panel should use as a base in determining the rate of return. He pointed out that the Economic Review Panel used the internal rate of return calculation. Mr. Christensen said that it appeared that the building had a potential rate of 10% return which made him concerned about the findings of fact.

Ms. Rowland said that she believed if Mr. Holman chooses to sell the property for what money he has put into the property at this point, he could get a fair price out of it and have some return. She said that the appraisals determined what the land was worth and if Mr. Holman chooses to keep it for 10 years, he would look at the kind of return he could earn in that period of time. Ms. Rowland said the applicant would determine what kind of rate of return could be earned on the initial investment. She said another frustration she has with the economic hardship process, is not taking into account all the tools that could be brought to bear on making this a financially viable property. Ms. Rowland said that the applicant is using low-income housing tax credits in his new construction projects, but if he did not have that property, it probably would not be viable. She said it is frustrating that the Juel could be rehabbed and be using those same low-income housing tax credits and that could probably make, if not a 10% return, something much more viable because there is a source of equity that is being ignored here. That equity might reduce the initial investment that the owner has to put in. She said that other factors, such as the length of time an owner must hold a property could also affect the potential return on a property. An owner could hold the property for a shorter term than the ten years Mr. Holman included in his analysis.

Ms. Giraud pointed out that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission are given a complete set of documentation and data containing all the figures used in determining the rate of return so if the Commissioners find that certain tools or figures are missing, the missing information could be brought to the attention of the Economic Review Panel. Ms. Giraud said that Staff does not always know what questions to ask during an economic hardship review.

Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion and she said that the members of the Commission should consider the criteria on which they should base their decision, which was inaccurate facts and arbitrary decision. It was pointed out that the ordinance states: The Historic Landmark Commission shall be consistent with the conclusions reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, the Historic Landmark Commission finds a vote of three-fourths (3/4) majority of a quorum present that the Economic Review by Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact.

A short discussion followed. Motion:

Mr. Parvaz moved for Case No. 019-01 that the findings of the Economic Review Panel were not accurate because the Panel determined that the property only had a 3% rate of return on the investment which was not a reasonable economic rate. A 3% rate is a positive rate and is not a loss to the developer. Therefore, the findings of the Economic Review Panel were erroneous and not based on fact. Any positive rate of return would not be considered an economic hardship. It is understood that a developer expects a return on the investment, but the return is not guaranteed. The Historic Landmark Commission does not accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon was opposed. Ms. Heid and Mr. Littig were not present. Mr. Simonsen was in a state of recusion. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed by a three-fourths (o/4) majority.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that Staff would work with the applicant on the next steps to be taken.

Mr. Gordon said that this was the second case the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed where there was confusion whether a certain property should be considered individually, or considered as part of the entire development scheme. Ms. Mickelsen suggested addressing this scenario in any future revisions of the ordinance.

Case No. 005-02, at approximately 321 South 500 East and Vernier Court. by Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation. represented by MHTN Architects. requesting approval of a revised design for construction of a new apartment complex located in the Central City Historic District.

Mr. Knight said that Ken Holman of Overland Development, represented by Geoff Woods of MHTN Architects, was requesting the Historic Landmark Commission to approve changes to his proposed apartment building at approximately 321 South 500 East and Vernier Court, which is located in the Central City Historic District. He added that the proposed building is the first of three phases of multi-unit construction proposed by Mr. Holman on Block 38, Plat B, located between 300 and 400 South, and 500 and 600 East.

Mr. Knight stated that since 1997, the Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed multiple demolition and new construction cases on this site. The Commission on March

20, 2002 approved the most recent proposal. Since that time, the scope and design of the

project has changed due to budgetary restraints and a height limitation imposed by the requirements of the R-MU zoning district. The changes to the building from the design that was previously approved by the commission include:

1. The building orientation on the site has been rotated 180 degrees from the original design with the retail space and brick column features remaining on the west elevation {500 East side);

2. By removing one level of parking from below the building, the overall height of the building has been reduced to approximately 75 feet, in order to meet the requirements of the R-MU zone;

3. As a result of rotating the building 180 degrees and lowering the height, the interior courtyard is now at the sidewalk level of 500 East. In the previous design, the courtyard level was one story above street grade;

4. There is now one level of parking planned under each wing of the building that starts at the east side of the retail space and extends approximately 60 feet beyond the east end of the building. There will be surface parking at the rear of the property back to approximately 210 feet behind the east end of the building. If Mr. Holman's bond funding is approved, additional underground parking may be constructed under the surface parking as part of this phase of construction. If bond funding is not approved, this parking would be constructed in Phase II of the project, along with a landscaped "lid" over the surface parking. Gardens and a private swimming pool for the complex are shown on the preliminary site plans;

5. The design for the buildings in Phase II and III has also been modified. These changes are not before the commission at this time and will be reviewed at a later date. However, drawings and massing schemes are provided in the applicant's submittal for reference; and

6. The new building will have 208 apartment units, up from the 190 in the previous approval, of which 48% of the units will be earmarked for low-income housing.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's previous finding of fact: The proposed development is larger in height, width, scale and proportion of both the residential and non-residential structures in the vicinity of the site; however, it should be noted that once the historic buildings that have been the subject of demolition requests for this project are razed, there is little historic fabric remaining on this block. Similarly, many of the buildings on the block across the street (not in the district) are similar in scale to the non-contributing buildings on Block 38. Therefore, staff finds that the application in terms of scale, mass and height cannot be evaluated within the context of the surrounding buildings.

With its curved profile, the roof form does not conform to the traditional shape of historic apartment buildings in the area. But unlike many recently-constructed multi family dwellings in Salt Lake City, the design is not an attempt to make an apartment building look like single-family dwellings by virtue of a moderately- or steeply-pitched roof line. The curved roof is unusual within the rubric of multi-family buildings in Salt Lake City, but its curve is minimal, and the front portion of the roofline (as seen from 500 East) is flat. Regarding the roof shape, staff finds the proposal to be in keeping with the surrounding properties, as many of the surrounding buildings have flat roofs, and to be consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Staff’s revised finding of fact: The height of the building has been reduced from 96 feet to 75 feet. With this reduction comes a commensurate reduction in scale and massing of the building. The roof shape has not changed. The application still complies with this standard.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staffs previous finding of fact: The proposed pattern has been switched so that the horizontal pane now forms a transom, and although this is a departure from the traditional use of one-over-one pane patterns, it is more in keeping with another window pattern used historically: the fixed light with a transom above. The rhythm and proportion of the openings are similar to that found in multi-family architecture in the East Downtown neighborhood. The use of balconies is in keeping with a historically used feature. The architects have extended the bays of the balconies out 'from the wall plane in order to mimic the vertical bays of balconies seen on historic apartment buildings in Salt Lake City. The proposed use of brick is similar to what is seen historically on multi-family buildings, but the combination of stucco and brick is not. Overall, the applicant meets this standard.

Staff's revised finding of fact: The proposed window pattern has been changed. Mr. Holman now proposes to use paired horizontal sliding windows; the horizontal transom windows have been removed. The proportions of the windows and rhythm of solids to voids in the facade has not substantially changed. The proposed balconies and use of stucco and brick has not changed. The application complies with this standard.

3. Relationship to Street.

a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;

c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and

d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.

Staff's previous finding of fact: The proposed project differs from the wall of continuity and the rhythms of spacing and structures on 500 East but in the context of this site these elements are difficult to assess. Historically, apartment buildings such as the Juel and even larger multi-family structures, such as the Hillcrest on First Avenue or the Kensington on 200 North have created a longer and higher street wall than the adjacent single-family dwellings. Thus a prototype for large-scale multi-family developments among small-scale commercial and residential dwellings developed during the historic periods in Salt Lake City's historic districts. The directional expression of the principal elevations would be consistent with the district and pedestrian improvements would be made. Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.

Staff's revised finding of fact: The reorientation of the building toward 500 East and the lowering of the height have brought the building closer to the historic prototypes referenced in the previous finding. Likewise, the central landscaped court rising from street level was commonly found on historic apartment buildings.

The pedestrian access that previously ran through the building's central court has been shifted to the north end of the building and de-emphasized. However, public access through the block would remain. The proposed surface parking lot could potentially have a negative impact on the streetscape, but the parking is located at the rear of the lot, and would be covered with landscaping if/when phase II of the project is developed. In the interim, the City would require a minimum level of parking lot landscaping and buffering.

A ten-foot high retaining wall at the east end of the parking lot would be required in Phase I due to grade changes on the block. The wall is not shown on the drawings, and would be removed when landscaping is built over the parking lot. The Commission should request additional information regarding this issue from the applicant, and examine ways to maintain pedestrian access across this area and mitigate the impact of the wall in the short term.

4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s). Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The application has no subdivision issues. Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Based upon the additional findings of fact contained in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Commission approve the changes with the condition that the ten-foot retaining wall on the east end of the property be further detailed and changes made to ensure pedestrian access and mitigate the impact of this wall in the short term."

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Parvaz inquired where the retaining wall would be constructed. Mr. Knight said that it would be built further east than what is shown on the drawings.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Geoff Woods, an architect with MHTN Architects, representing the applicant, was present. He used a briefing board to further describe the project. Mr. Woods said that they had been working on this project for about one year. He pointed out that the building was approved at 96 feet in height. Mr. Woods stated that the applicant found out that the 96-foot height of the building would not be allowed because it was in the view corridor. He also mentioned that the zoning ordinance only allows the height to be 75 feet. Mr. Woods noted that there had to be some changes to the design.

Mr. Woods detailed the features on the site plan as he described the project. He pointed out the buildings that were not included in Phase I. Mr. Woods characterized some of the changes, as follows: 1) The same fenestration would be retained that occurred on 600 East, using the balconies that were abstracted from something one might see in urban apartment buildings; 2) The parking would be accessed off 500 East; 3) The average height of the south elevation would be about 71 feet 6 inches; 4) The sidewalk for the pedestrian access has a 5% grade so that it would meet accessibility requirements. Pedestrians could also use the service access when the entire project is completed; and 5) The rhythm of the windows would be more traditional.

Mr. Woods made reference to the panorama of photographs of historic buildings in the neighborhood comparing the massing and scale of the proposed project.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by inquiring about the retaining wall. Mr. Woods said that the retaining wall would be constructed during another phase of the project and only on the east side of the property. Ms. Mickelsen commented that for the first phase, there would be open-air parking. She indicated that that it was a "great idea" turning the building around, however it will still be very large. Ms. Mickelsen said that it looked like there would be no openings into the parking area like there were before. Mr. Woods said that was correct which would make the parking completely secured.

• Mr. Knight asked if the service drive would be completed in Phase I, running through the block. Mr. Woods said that the service drive would be completed but it would not go all the way through the block.

• Mr. Ashdown clarified that the pedestrian walkway would go through the project. Mr. Woods said that the walkway would only be partially completed in Phase I. Mr. Ashdown asked what would prevent Phase II and Phase Ill from being constructed? Mr. Holman said, "Nothing". However, he said there always is a possibility that they would not be completed but "we hope that is not the case". Mr. Ashdown said he would much rather see a plaza than a parking lot. Mr. Woods concurred. Mr. Holman said that the plans show 100 low-income housing units in the first phase. Mr. Woods noted that 300 parking stalls are planned so “we are way over the number of parking stalls required". Mr. Holman said that the parking would also accommodate Phase II. Mr. Ashdown recommended constructing the plaza because it would be balanced. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the percentages of one bedroom and two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Woods said that 46 percent would be one-bedroom units and most of the rest would be two-bedroom units. He mentioned that there would be a few three-bedroom units. Mr. Holman said that the first three levels would be low-income housing.

• Mr. Parvaz stated that the changes that were made in the design of the project would be much better. He said that it would be a much friendlier environment. Mr. Woods commented that it would have a stronger relationship with 500 East. There was some additional discussion about the main entrance and the main lobby.

• Mr. Christensen inquired about the sliding glass windows. Mr. Woods said that the windows would have tinted non-reflective glass. Mr. Christensen asked about the solid railings on the balconies. Mr. Woods said that they would not be solid but a pre-finished perforated metal panel so there would be some voids in the design.

• Mr. Gordon referred to the buildings on the west elevation and inquired how they would be broken up. Mr. Woods said that the buildings would have some two-foot indentations. He said there were no changes in the south elevation, other than lower in scale.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Sunshine Evans, an interested citizen, inquired if the pedestrian walkway through the block would be opened to the public. Mr. Woods said that the public would have access to the walkway. Mr. Holman stated that it would not be dedicated as a public right-of-way, but any public could walk through the block. Mr. Woods said that the walkway would be neighborhood friendly with landscaping and it would be well lit. Ms. Evans said that affordable housing is needed in the area close to downtown. Her concern was historical buildings being demolished making the neighborhood more "homogenized". Ms. Evans asked the applicant what was his definition of low-income housing. Mr. Holman said that the one-bedroom probably would rent for about $550.00 a month.

Executive Session

Ms. Mickelsen said that she would entertain a motion at any time.

Mr. Christensen said that he liked the building and thought it would be a "modern interpretation of what the city was building 100 years ago". There was a discussion regarding the wording of a motion. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission should be apprised of any future changes. Mr. Gordon thought that the Architectural Subcommittee should evaluate a rendering of the plaza, the retaining wall, and the parking. Ms. Rowland suggested breaking up the surface parking by landscaping. Mr. Gordon noted that the parking would be about 150 feet from the street. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would not be too visible for the casual passerby.

Motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 005-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Staff's findings of fact and Staff's recommendation that this project be approved because it meets the standards specified in the ordinance, with the condition that staff review details on the parking lot, landscaping, and any additional structures that may or may not break up that space. Further, that the Commission approves the siting of the parking lot beneath the building. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Mr. Littig were not present. Mr. Simonsen was in a state of recusion. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS

(At 5:01 P.M. Mr. Simonsen reclaimed his position of Chair of these proceedings and the Commission heard Case No. 033-02.)

Case No. 033-022 at 127 South 500 East. by University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics, represented by Young Electric Sign Company (VESCO), requesting approval for signage on the office building located at this address. which is in the Central City Historic District.

Mr. Knight 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. He stated that the University Hospital and Clinics had recently consolidated its administrative offices in the former Ambassador Club Building, which is located on the west boundary of the Central City Historic District. This property is zoned R-0, Residential Office, the purpose of which is "to provide a suitable environment for existing and future mixed use areas consisting of a combination of residential dwellings and office use. This district should encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of appropriate existing buildings and neighborhood scale." (SLC Ord 21A.24.180.A) The purpose of sign regulation for this zone is "to establish standards that allow for modest commercial signage while protecting the predominant residential character of these districts." (SLC Ord 21A.46.080.C.1)

Mr. Knight gave the following background information: This building was constructed in the early 1980s on the site of the former Ambassador Hotel. Although the building is non contributing, it was included in the Central City Historic District when the district was created in 1991. The surrounding buildings are similar in scale to this building, and are mostly non-contributing, out-of-period structures. Further east on 100 South, the streetscape changes, with several three and four story contributing apartment buildings. One of which, the Waldorf Apartment building at 555 E. 100 South, is individually listed on the National Register.

Mr. Knight described the following proposal. The University Hospital Offices will occupy the entire building. Five signs were proposed:

1. Two monument signs located at the northwest and southwest corners of the property. The monument signs would be five feet high, eight feet wide and approximately one foot deep. The sign face would be thirty-two square feet, the maximum size allowed in the zone. The signs would be metal, with the Hospital logo and lettering routed out of the metal and backed with Plexiglas. The sign would be backlit, but only the lettering would be illuminated;

2. Two flat signs, each two feet by six feet (12 square feet) with a metal face and internal illumination. One sign would be mounted on the north (100 South) side of the building at approximately the second story level. The other would be mounted on the south side, above the main entrance; and

3. One flat sign, three feet by eight feet (18 square feet) similar in design and construction to the other signs. It would be mounted on the west side of the building at the second story level.

Mr. Knight said that the Architectural Subcommittee met with the applicant twice regarding this proposal, on August 14 and September 25, 2002. At the first meeting, the applicants proposed five signs: Two monument signs (at the northwest and southwest corners of the property) and three flat signs mounted on the building (one each on the north, west, and south faces). The materials proposed were similar to the current proposal, but much larger flat signs were proposed that would have been mounted at the building's roofline. The subcommittee felt that the size, materials, and placement of the signs were appropriate, but that the number of signs were excessive. The subcommittee directed Staff to issue an administrative approval for either the monument signs or the flat signs, but not both. Staff approved the flat signs on the building, but when the applicants submitted the plan for permit, the signs were too large to meet the base requirements for the R-0 zone.

The applicants returned to the subcommittee with a revised plan that met the base requirements for the zone. Again, the subcommittee raised the issue of the amount of signage proposed. The committee felt that five signs were redundant, but did not have issue with the size or materials proposed. The subcommittee referred the application to the full commission for review.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(11) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, which states: Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H historic preservation overlay district, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.

Staffs Discussion: The applicant is requesting to use two types of signs as defined by the zoning ordinance. One flat sign per street face is allowed on buildings in the RO zone. This building has two sides. The area of the signs is directly related to the frontage of the building on the street. They may be six square feet in area for each 50 feet of building frontage or major portion thereof. Thus, signs would be allowed on the 500 East (maximum size 18 square feet) and 100 south (maximum size 12 square feet) street faces of the building. The applicants have also requested a sign on the south side of the building, at the main entrance, and have justified this additional sign by pointing out that the entrance faces a private right-of-way off 500 East. The zoning administrator said this could not be approved for this building. His interpretation was that it would not be a street sign because it was a private right-of-way.

One monument sign is allowed per street face in the RO zone. The applicants propose two signs in this case, which would be allowed under the ordinance. A maximum face area of 32 square feet is allowed (per side) and the signs may not be taller than four feet. The proposed signs meet the square footage requirement, but are five feet tall so it does not meet the height requirement.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed signs comply with the requirements of Chapter 46 with the exception of the following: 1) The proposed flat sign on the south side is not allowed in this zone because it does not face a street; and 2) The height of the proposed monument signs exceeds the maximum allowed height of four feet.

Mr. Knight reported that in 1984 the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district. The criteria are listed below with an analysis and finding:

1. A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee [Commission] considers the entire principal facade as the "sign" (i.e. in context.) Signs should relate to the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and the streetscape.

Staffs discussion: This building is considered out-of-period and thus non-contributing in the Central City Historic District. The flat signs are placed at the second level of the building on a strip of stone veneer that forms the architectural base of the mostly glass structure. The size of the signs is based primarily on the maximum height allowed in the zone, and not on the architecture of the building. It is Staffs opinion that the size and scale of the existing building might justify a larger sign that is more in proportion to the mass of the overall building. However, in this case, the base zoning is very restrictive on the size and number of signs allowed in the RO zone. Surrounding buildings are similar or larger in scale and size of signage to these proposed signs.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed signs complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, materials, style, and color and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding building and streetscape. The small size is definitely compatible with the architecture of the building.

2. In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple,) the Committee [Commission] encourages the use of low-key, sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character etc. The Committee encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Back-lit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.

Staff's discussion: Although backlit illuminated signs have been discouraged by the Commission in most cases, they have been allowed for non-contributing buildings if the sign otherwise meets the standards of the signage policy. An example of such a case is the HK Engineering sign located across the street from the applicant's building. The Architectural Subcommittee approved a backlit sign in 1997 because the sign was in keeping with the overall scale of the building and would not negatively affect the streetscape.

It should also be noted that the sign proposed is metal, not plastic. It also is not fully backlit. Only the letters and the hospital logo would be illuminated. The style of the building probably makes typical indirect lighting method such as gooseneck lamps inappropriate. In-ground lighting may be another option to explore with the applicants.

Staff's finding of fact: Although backlit illuminated signs are proposed, they are similar to other signs that have been approved by the HLC on non-contributing commercial buildings. An indirect source such as in-ground lighting would also meet the intent of this policy.

3. The Historic Landmark Committee considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/ commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Committee [Commission]. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.

Staff's discussion: The Historic Landmark Commission has, for many years, held to the limit of one-building identification sign per building for office and commercial uses. Exceptions have been granted in cases of multiple retail spaces in a single building, such as with the Boston Market/Einstein's Bagels building at 475-479 E. South Temple. In that case, the Historic Landmark Commission approved a flat sign for each tenant and a monument sign with the logos of both tenants.

In most cases, the Commission has adhered to the policy of one sign per building with multiple tenants identified in a building directory. Recent cases in which this has held true are the Utah College of Massage Therapy at 312 E. South Temple, the LDS Business College at 411 E. South Temple, and Allstate Insurance at 807 E. South Temple. In all of these cases only one sign was allowed and additional signage was denied.

Staff’s finding of fact: Allowing all of the signs proposed would be in conflict with the adopted signage policy. Since the time that policy was adopted in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission, Architectural Subcommittee, and Planning Staff have made exceptions in similar cases to this one, but have not approved five signs for one building, as proposed in this case.

Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Overall, Staff finds that the size, scale, design, materials, and illumination for the proposed signs are consistent with the character of the existing depot. Staff recommends that the Commission consider and make findings related to the number of signs that would be acceptable. Once that number is established, Staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to revisions to the signs that would bring them into conformance with Chapter 46 of the zoning ordinance. The Architectural Subcommittee or Staff should review any of these changes to ensure that they are still in keeping with the Commission's decision."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Parvaz clarified that three sides of the building are public and one side is a private right of way. Mr. Knight concurred and said that the entrance to the building is on the south side.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the only entrance is off the private right-of-way. Mr. Knight that was correct and that the stairs go from the sidewalk to the entrance.

Mr. Christensen talked about the sign over the main entrance that was not permitted because it is on a private right of way. Mr. Knight said that it was the applicant's preference is to have that sign over the entrance directing people to the main entrance.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments for Staff, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Mr. Steve Bonney, of the University of Utah Hospital and Clinics, and Mr. Ray Watts, of Young Electric Sign Company {VESCO) were in attendance. Mr. Bonney said that he supported the Staff's analysis. He said that the issues with the Architectural Subcommittee was the sign over the doorway and he conceded at the second subcommittee meeting that he would be willing to remove that sign over the doorway, with the contingency that the proposal would be in concurrence with the Staff's recommendation.

Mr. Bonney said that this complex would serve all the business services for the University of Utah Hospital and Clinics. He said that he has a 30-year lease on the building and all the general services being located there, will generate a lot of traffic.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by asking about the directional signage and if the way to the main entrance would be clear or if some other optional directional signage is used. Mr. Bonney said that was our compromise when we eliminated that signage from the proposal.

• Mr. Christensen talked about the monument signs. Mr. Bonney said that the monuments signs would be dropped to four feet in height so they would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Watts said that the monument signs would be in planter areas. He added that the soil is recessed behind the concrete walls and the soil would have to build up to accommodate the loss of one foot in the signage.

• Ms. Mickelsen restated the signage proposal. Mr. Bonney said that he would prefer having the sign over the main entrance. Ms. Mickelsen thought that was a zoning issue, not an issue with the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Watts said that ''we were hoping that the side street was a public street but when it was discovered it was not, the applicant was willing to concede that one sign".

• Mr. Parvaz asked if there were medical services in the building. Mr. Bonney said there were no medical services, just business services.

• Mr. Simonsen spoke of the variance process by which the applicant could ask for the additional sign at the main entrance. Mr. Knight said that the applicant may be able to request a variance if it was a property-related hardship. Mr. Bonney said that he would be interested in pursing a variance for the sign over the door. Mr. Knight said that the only way they could get a modification to the ordinance would be to use the historic exception. Ms. Mickelsen asked if they would be allowed to have a small sign that would say "Entrance". Mr. Knight said directional signs such as that would be allowed, and it should be specified in the motion that the Commission would be open to directional signs. Mr. Knight said there was a limit on the size of directional signs.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Simonsen said that he would entertain a motion any time.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the signage proposal. Ms. Mickelsen said that she agreed with the subcommittee that five signs would be too many. Suggestions were made how the signage could be distributed. Ms. Rowland inquired if painted signs on the glass doors count toward the total signage allowance. Mr. Knight said that the applicant could explore other options.

Mr. Parvaz asked about signs inside the window. Mr. Knight said that signage inside a window is not regulated.

Mr. Simonsen stated the following: “It is becoming a growing frustration for me and that is, the more research I do into historic districts and historical areas as they were developed, signage was always a very important part of the areas. If you look at buildings in our vibrant commercial districts 50 years ago the buildings were filled with signage, both animated and stays, and provided a very useful function to invite people into these areas to shop or to do business I doubt that we would approve today signs like the Union Pacific Depot, the Walker Bank Building, and the First Security Bank Building because our current policies do not allow those and yet we revere them as very important parts of historic property. I think we ought to keep that in mind, as well, that what we are trying to do is create a vibrant district and I think signage is an important part of it."

First motion:

A short discussion followed.

First amended motion:

There was some additional conversation about the brass directional signage that Mr. Knight discussed.

Seconded amended and final motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 033-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the signage request, with the exception of the sign over the front entrance, which was marked "A" on the illustrations, and the applicant's choice of two monument signs. The applicant could be allowed other types of signage, as approved by Staff. The signs on the building could be substituted for signs on the doors, such as lettering or plaques and be approved by Staff. The Commission would still only allow two signs on the building and one monument sign reduced to 4 feet in height to comply with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Christensen's second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon abstained. Ms. Heid and Mr. Littig were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

(Mr. Gordon returned to the meeting at 5:29P.M. It was agreed that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission would resume the review for Case No. 019-01. Mr. Simonsen recused himself and Ms. Mickelsen assumed the position of Acting Chairperson. There was a quorum of members in attendance. The review for Case No. 019-01recommenced at 5:34P.M.)

(At 6:22 P.M., Mr. Simonsen reclaimed his position of Chair of these proceedings and the Commission heard Case No. 034-02.)

Case No. 034-02, by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, requesting approval of a landscaping plan as an interim reuse for the planned commercial and residential development site located at the northeast corner of 500 North and 300 West. which is in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Mr. Knight 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. He gave the following background information: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is returning to the Historic Landmark Commission with an updated site plan for the 500 North Commercial Node Project. The RDA has received approval to demolish four contributing buildings on the site to redevelop the property as a mixed-use development. RDA has marketed the property since 1999, but has not been successful in finding a development that meets the requirements of the numerous stakeholders in the project, including the RDA Board (City Council), the Capitol Hill Community, and the Historic Landmark Commission. The properties sit within two zones: The west portion of the site along 300 West is zoned CS-Community Shopping District, while the east portion, along Arctic Court and 500 North, is Zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District.

In September 2001, the RDA hired the IBI Group to prepare schematic site plans and design guidelines that could be used to market the property to developers. The site plans and design guidelines went through a community design process that consisted of a series of open houses and an advisory committee. Design specifics would be supplied when a developer for the property is secured and returns to the Historic Landmark Commission with a final proposal. As an interim reuse while a developer was being selected, the RDA proposed to demolish the buildings on the site and landscape the property. At the June 19, 2002 meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission approved the design guidelines, but found that the proposed landscaping did not meet the zoning ordinance's standards for new construction in Section 21A.34.020(H) and did not constitute an acceptable reuse plan.

The RDA appealed this decision to the City Land Use Appeals Board, stating that the zoning ordinance requires the Historic Landmark Commission to allow a landscaping plan as a reuse plan in demolition cases. The Land Use Appeals Board met on August 26, 2002 to consider the appeal. The Land Use Appeals Board agreed with the RDA's arguments, finding that under 21A.34.020(P) of the zoning ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission must allow landscaping as a reuse plan if the plan meets the City's standards in Section 21A.48.050 of the zoning ordinance, which outlines acceptable landscaping and planting materials and standards. Thus, the Commission's to not accept the landscaping plan was overturned.

Mr. Knight explained the landscaping proposal, as follows: The RDA has submitted two new proposals for a landscaping plan for the property. The first, Concept "E", calls for landscaping the entire portion of the site that is zoned residential, and first 15 feet of the commercially zoned property. The RDA prefers the second plan, Concept "D". This plan would reduce the amount of landscaping to a 15-foot buffer around the entire property. The parking strips along 300 West and 500 North would be fully landscaped in either concept, with existing street trees preserved and three new street trees added to fill in spaces along the park strip.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(P) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Review of Post-Demolition Plan for New Construction or Landscape Plan and Bond Requirements for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition requires the Historic Landmark Commission to approve new construction or a landscape plan for a vacant site before a demolition plan can be approved. The following section adds, that if the post-demolition plan is to landscape the site, a bond shall be required to ensure the completion of the landscape plan approved by the historic landmark commission. The design standards and guidelines for the landscape plan are provided in Part IV, Chapter 21A.48, Landscaping and Buffers, Section 21A.48.050.

1. The bond shall be issued in a form approved by the city attorney. The bond shall be in an amount determined by the zoning administrator and shall be sufficient to cover the estimated cost, to (1) restore the grade as required by Title 18 of the Salt Lake City Code; (2) install an automatic sprinkling system; and (3) revegetate and landscape as per the approved plan.

2. The bond shall require installation of landscaping and sprinklers within six months, unless the owner has obtained a building permit and commenced construction of a building or structure on the site.

Staff's discussion: The City does not have set areas of required landscaping after demolition occurs, although by policy, landscaping of the required landscape buffer area in commercial zones and the entire lot for residential zone is required. A request for waiver of this requirement for unusual or special circumstances may be obtained from the City Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. This property is within two zones: CS and SR-1. Thus, a landscaped area of fifteen feet in the CS zones and a landscaped area covering the entire lot in the SR-1 zone would be required.

The RDA's Concept "E" meets these base standards for landscaped area. Concept "D" does not, because the residentially zoned lots would not be entirely landscaped. The City Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB) may waive this requirement. The RDA has submitted the design to HAAB, which will consider the request at their next meeting.

In addition to Section 21A.34.020.P of the ordinance, Section 21A.48.050 includes standards for landscaping plans, such as minimum size for plants, tree protection guidelines, allowable mulch materials, and encouragements to use water-wise and drought tolerant landscaping. Staff has reviewed the standards with Permits Staff and has determined that the proposed plan meets the requirements of that section.

Staff's findings of fact: The submitted landscaping plans include a sprinkling system and planting areas. Concept "E" is in accordance with the requirements of 21A.34.020.P and 21A.48.050 of the Salt Lake City Code. Concept "D" will require an exemption from the HAAB Board. If such an exemption were made, either concept would be an acceptable re-use plan for the property.

Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Concept "E" as submitted by the Redevelopment Agency, subject to the RDA posting a bond ensuring completion of the plan, as required by ordinance. This concept complies with all City requirements, which are intended to protect adjoining properties from adverse impacts of a vacant lot."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Parvaz inquired about the grass that was proposed. Mr. Knight said that the landscaping that the RDA proposed would be mostly buffalo grass, which is a low water use turf.

Mr. Christensen said as the Commission moves forward with the landscaping plan, the Commissioners need to be mindful of the historic buildings that will be destroyed to accommodate that plan. Mr. Knight said that the documentation of the historic sites would have to be completed before a demolition permit could be issued. Also he said that the applicant would meet with the Documentation Subcommittee to review the documentation. Mr. Knight said that RDA is working with a consultant to complete the documentation.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if this landscaping plan would constitute the reuse plan for the proposed demolitions? Mr. Knight said that the RDA would have to submit separate landscaping plans for those properties.

Mr. Ashdown clarified that this project does not depend on demolition of the properties on Arctic Court. Mr. Knight said that was correct. Mr. Knight indicated on the map which buildings have already been approved for demolition.

A discussion took place regarding the approval process for demolition.

Mr. Simonsen said that the demolition of the cited buildings have been approved but the demolition cannot take place until an acceptable interim reuse plan has been approved and the appeal stated that a landscaping plan is by ordinance an acceptable reuse plan. Mr. Simonsen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission wanted a full schematic of the proposed project as the reuse plan.

Ms. Rowland thought there was a time period once the approval was made for landscaping to be installed. Mr. Knight said that the applicant would have to post a bond with the City and within a six-month period, the landscaping would have to be installed. The bond guarantees the installation of landscaping.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Mr. Danny Walz, Project Manager for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, was present. He stated that there was some confusion exactly what the requirements were in the zoning ordinance but the RDA believed that Concept “E” would be the strict interpretation of the ordinance in terms of landscaping the sites.

Mr. Walz said that Concept "D" would be a compromise between trying to achieve the standards of the ordinance and not necessarily doing a large-scale landscaping of the site. Mr. Walz pointed out that the parcel straddles two different zoning districts; therefore two different sets of zoning standards are required. He said that in this case where the Redevelopment Agency owns the entire property, "those of us in the Agency", do not believe it is the best use of resources to provide the 15-foot buffer between the two properties. The requirement for the residentially zoned area and calls for the entire property to be landscaped so it would mitigate the impact on the surrounding properties. Mr. Walz said that all the surrounding properties are owned by the Redevelopment Agency.

Mr. Walz continued by saying that in addition, the residential parcels on 500 North at one time were the parking lot for Movie Buffs so it was not as if the Agency destroyed two homes and needed to mitigate their loss.

Mr. Walz stated that the Agency has treated the parcels as one entire piece of property, and as a compromise a buffer would be provided and landscaping would be installed completely around that property. He said that it does not make sense to landscape 100% of the parcels that sit in the middle of the block. He added that the commercial lot does not have to be 100% landscaped and that area would be seen the most.

Mr. Walz talked about another concern. He said that those parcels on Arctic Court would be screened by the buffer and could become a location for transients to congregate and that would not be a good use of the property.

Mr. Walz concluded by saying that two options are being presented at this meeting. He reiterated that the Agency believed that Concept "D" would be a better use of resources in terms of landscaping, irrigation, and visual appearance. He noted that the Agency would be amenable to any suggestions made by the Historic Landmark Commission.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Gordon led the discussion stating that it appears that Concept "D" would increase the chance that the buffer would remain. Mr. Walz said if someone made an offer to develop the commercial parcels, as part of the development requirement, a buffer would have to be provided against the residential. Mr. Walz indicated that building the buffer now would not necessarily guarantee that the buffer would stay.

• Mr. Simonsen inquired how the areas that would be landscaped would fit within the master plan developed for this site. He said that planting trees is a "pretty significant expense". Mr. Walz said that was another consideration. He indicated that the trees might have to be moved during the construction if they are planted now. Mr. Walz said that any trees or landscaping would have to be removed from the commercial parcels because the master plan calls for the commercial buildings to be constructed at the property line. He said that the only portion where the trees and landscaping would remain a little longer would be the properties on 500 North because at this point the Agency is hoping a library would be build there. Mr. Walz added that those development plans are not yet finalized. He stated that those improvements would likely be demolished during the construction process of access and staging on the site. Mr. Simonsen inquired if the homes on Arctic Court and the ones on 300 West had basements. Mr. Walz said that they did and fill would have to be brought on the site to meet the fill requirements.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that it seemed like a lot less energy would be expended by putting a buffer down the middle and installing grass, rather than putting in a trail of shrubbery. Mr. Walz said either way, the buffer would probably have to be removed. There was some discussion about the irrigation system and using drought tolerant grass, such as buffalo grass. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the Redevelopment Agency has a potential developer. Mr. Walz stated that they met with the Advisory Committee and the Agency hopes that the site would be on the market with the new marketing terms the first of December 2002.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Sunshine Evans, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that she has lived in the area for almost eight years and she has seen many changes and much progress in the area. She talked about some of the boarded buildings being rehabbed and new businesses coming into the area. Ms. Evans indicated that she did not want to see the homes demolished, especially if people are still living in them. She continued to discuss the changes in the area and it becoming an attractive walkable community. Ms. Evans believed that the new development proposed for the site should have retail with residential above. Mr. Simonsen said that there is a conceptional reuse plan for this site that was developed by RDA several months ago that was approved by this Commission that has the number of uses Ms. Evans described, such as residential above retail and suggested talking further with the Redevelopment Agency to get a better feel for what the proposal includes. Ms. Evans concluded by saying that she believed that the site had a great potential.

Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Christensen talked about the two landscaping plans and wondered which plan would be the friendliest with which to interact, not only for the residents who live across the street on Arctic Court, but also in that large Capitol Villa complex that houses mostly elderly citizens. He said that Arctic Court is a major thoroughfare not only for those who still can drive but for people who are on foot. He asked, 'Which one would be the safest for these people?"

Mr. Simonsen inquired if there were elements in either landscaping plan the Commission would want to modify.

Ms. Rowland expressed her frustration with the ordinance, and feeling that the Historic Landmark Commission was "boxed in". She said it was tough for her to accept the landscaping plan as a "trade-off'. Ms. Rowland stated that the project is becoming larger and looking less like a small-scale infill development. She talked further about her feelings and frustrations. Ms. Rowland was not comfortable because "our dollars will be spent to put in a lot of trees and landscaping" just to be removed for construction. She said she worries that the scale of the potential project will become so large that it will be something that does not belong in the neighborhood. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission has some control to prevent that from happening. Ms. Rowland admitted that she did not feel that way.

Mr. Ashdown suggested putting in rocks instead of trees, landscaping, and expensive watering systems that likely will be bulldozed.

Mr. Parvaz said that saving some money was not the only solution. He said that the Commission needed to think of the families living in those homes.

Mr. Christensen said that he agreed. He added that the development possibly could still be several years away and the site should be "nice to live around" for the time being. He expressed his concerns that the redevelopment that hurt big cities in the 1960's, which was such a mistake, is what would be happening again, and the Commission seems powerless to do anything except to delay rather than continue losing more historic buildings.

There was a short discussion regarding the wording of the motion. First motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 034-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Staffs findings of fact and recommendations for a reuse plan for this parcel and specify Concept "E" as the general model for the reuse plan. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion.

The discussion continued. Ms. Rowland suggested removing half the trees from the landscaping plan. Mr. Christensen said that this site is one that the neighbors could enjoy, although it might be wasteful.

Amended final motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 034-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission

accept Staff's findings of fact and recommendations for a reuse plan for this parcel and specify Concept "E" as the general model for the reuse plan. However, it would be adequate and acceptable to the Commission if only half the trees that are specified are planted from the northern boundary of the properties on Arctic Court to 500 North. Ms. Mickelsen's second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Mr. Littig were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 035-02, by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, requesting approval to demolish the structures at 515 No. Arctic Court. 242 West 500 North. 564 North 300 West, and 271 West 600 North. All sites are located in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to include these properties in the planned commercial and residential development site at the northeast corner of 500 North and 300 West. The interim reuse plan for these sites would be landscaping.

This item was postponed.

OTHER BUSINESS

The house at 336 No. Quince Street.

Ms. Giraud said that some of the Commissioners would remember the case at 336 No. Quince Street, where Gary Bliss was the contractor. She said that a carport was constructed and the grade changes made without approvals. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Bliss went through the legalization process with the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that the Commissioners were specific in the changes that had to be made. Ms. Giraud said that she went over the "punch list" with the City Attorney's office, and Mr. Bliss has been making the changes in accordance with the plans that he first submitted and were approved by the Commission. She said that she felt like the conditions have been met and Mr. Bliss is going before the Board of Adjustment on December 19, 2002 to ask for an approval for the grade changes.

New members of the Commission:

Mr. Simonsen issued a plea for new members of the Historic Landmark Commission. He pointed out the districts that are not being represented.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 7:00 P.M.