September 1, 2004

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 Pete Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, and Janice Lew.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Lee White was excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.

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. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.

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

Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the sites.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.

REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Mr. Zunguze had nothing to report at this time.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2004 meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Heid abstained. Ms. Rowland and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Issues only for Liberty Park. Dell Cook of Salt Lake City Engineering Division. and Sharen Hauri of MGB+A Landscape Architects. requesting to present a concept for wayfinding and signage in Liberty Park. This is an "issues only" hearing that the Historic Landmark Commission to provide direction to the Salt Lake City Engineering Division and the Public Services Division. Liberty Park is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

The Salt Lake City Engineering Division, represented by Dell Cook and Sharen Hauri of MGB+A, are requesting input from the Historic Landmark Commission regarding a proposed wayfinding and identity program for Liberty Park. Liberty Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and requires HLC approval for alterations because it is also listed on the Salt Lake City of Cultural Resources. It is zoned "OS" Open Space, the purpose of which is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas.

Liberty Park is the city's largest park, and contains a variety of "venues" that are managed by state and city agencies, non-profit organizations, and private licensees. Because of the park's size (110 acres) and various attractions, wayfinding and signage were identified in the Liberty Park Landscaping Scoping Project as a proposed improvement. The Scoping Project states that the intent is to: Add consistent direction and information signing at the entries and throughout the Park to help people locate facilities and get general information and phone numbers. Locate kiosks at the entries. The HLC adopted the Scoping Project on February 3, 2000.

To this end, the City hired the firm of MGB+A Landscape Architects and a graphic designer, Gil Schaefer of Schaefer Design, to devise a wayfinding and signage system and prepare the associated graphics. The signage addresses entry, orientation, parking, announcements for special events, and specific venues. The six venues in the park are the following: The Chase House (Utah Folk Arts Council); The swimming pool; The tennis center; Tracy Aviary; Children's rides and the concession area; and Youth Cities (located in the north shelter)

The proposed signage is intended to accomplish the following goals: 1) Help people understand and appreciate the park; 2) Direct people once they're in the park; 3) Find attractions within the park; 4) Remove existing signs and consolidate signs to reduce clutter. Currently there are about 50 signs in the park; and 5) Provide a unified design and logo for signage. The logo could be used for stationery and for T shirts, mugs, and assorted Liberty Park memorabilia.

The location, type, and number of proposed signs are noted in a table in the attachment to the staff report, Liberty Park Wayfinding and Identity Improvements. Numerous issues exist with the proposed signage, in that only the proposed directional and identifier signs for the parking lots and venues meet the signage regulations noted in Chapter 21A.46 for the OS zone. These issues are noted in the table on Page 2. One option to assist the Engineering Division with the implementation of the proposed wayfinding program would be to add the OS zone to the zoning list in which specialized signage is allowed as an overlay zoning district. Special signage overlay districts have been used in other areas of the city with special signage needs, such as the Delta Center and Franklin Covey Baseball Park. Because this would entail changing the ordinance, the Planning Division has determined that it would be in all parties' best interest if the staff presented the proposed signage and wayfinding system to the HLC to gather their input, before a new ordinance is initiated.

The HLC is not being asked to make a decision regarding the wayfinding program at this time, but rather to provide comments and suggestions to the designers and City staff. It is appropriate; however, for the HLC members to consider their comments within the context of the ordinance. Normally, alterations are considered under 21A.34.020(G) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure.

Only one standard in this section specifically refers to signs:

11. 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.

The HLC could also consider the proposed signage within the context of several of the other standards, most notably the following:

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;

3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;

8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment; and

9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

The HLC sign policy pertains to buildings, and specifies that signage should have such qualities as being "low-key'' and "sophisticated." It states that the HLC consider the request for a sign in the "context of the owner's comprehensive (total} signage plan for the building" or in this case, the park.

Staff finds that the concept of unifying the signage is positive, in that it will preserve the beauty and serene nature of the park while providing visitors with a greater awareness of what the park has to offer and how to find it. However, staff has concerns with the proposed "announcement posters" that would be placed at the corners of the park, visible from the intersections. Staff finds that these would be disruptive to the bucolic and forested appearance of the park from the surrounding streets. Constructed of vinyl adhesive, staff finds that this material will clash with the natural park setting. Although the rationale of the applicant is to provide an orderly way to announce seasonal items, special events and openings and closings of various attractions, there will not be a way to monitor and control the graphic representation of the many events that occur in the park. Although "rogue" special event signs occur in the park, advertising special and seasonal events, these are usually very temporary and are technically illegal, thus the City has the power to enforce at any time. Aside from the announcement posters, staff finds that the proposed signage package is not out of character with the park, could be easily reversed (removed} in the future if a more appropriate alternative is identified or if the venues change, and do not destroy the character of the park. The purpose of the "issues only'' hearing process is to identify issues appropriate to the review of the proposed signage package.

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

Mr. Dell Cook of the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, the applicant, was present. He stated that he was the Project Manager for all things in Liberty Park. Mr. Cook used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He said that the Wayfinding and Identity Program is the culmination of much work over the past four or five years in order to help people find the venues, understand what exists in Liberty Park, and where to park to get to those various venues. Mr. Cook said that the way Constitution Drive is split, makes it difficult for people to find their way to a particular venue in Liberty Park. He believes that wayfinding is needed in the park. Mr. Cook said that the task he gave the consulting team was to make the graphics so obvious that people could be aware and identify the venues in the park even if the people are too young to read or not able to read or speak English. He added that it was important that people could identify by sight and color-coding where the different elements are in the park.

Mr. Cook introduced the consultant team who were Ms. Sharen Hauri and Mr. Jay Bollwinkel of MGB+A Landscape Architects, and their graphics consultant, Mr. Gil Schaefer of Schaefer Design.

Mr. Bollwinkel stated that Liberty Park has come a long way and the level of quality has increased with the investment Salt Lake City has made. He said that since the park is being revitalized the signage would have its identify and statement, like artwork in the park.

Ms. Hauri said that the wayfinding improvements are signage and design elements that help visitors get to their destination as quickly and easily as possible. She stated that the identity improvements are design elements that help give Liberty Park a sense of place and make it more memorable and festive. She added that they also help visitors understand special features and events in the park.

Ms. Hauri said that Liberty Park consists of 110 acres and currently there are only a few signs that give visitors any direction. She stated that this project aims to both help people better understand and appreciate Liberty Park. Ms. Hauri pointed out that this proposal recommends a comprehensive system for directing people around the park and increasing the appeal of the park and its identity. In addition, she said, that many existing signs should be removed or consolidated to reduce clutter and increase the impact of the new wayfinding signs.

Ms. Hauri gave a synopsis of the conceptual design of the project:

This proposal would be sensitive to maintaining the park's natural and historic qualities by employing a small number of simple signs and features to get the point across. These features are also concentrated along the primary circulation routes in the park, to maintain the park-like feel in the core green space areas.

These improvements would help visitors understand where they are and see where they need to go. Wayfinding elements direct every visitor, whether they arrive by car, bus, bike, or on foot. The park that is 1/2 mile long by 1/4 mile wide, and several different elements help direct people both inside and outside the park. The primary proposals for wayfinding improvements are: 1) identify the east and west sides of the park to help orient people. Place signs at the entry on each side of Constitution Drive identifying what can be found there; 2) create a map of the park for placement on a sign and for flyers; 3) use signs to direct people on foot to the entrance of attractions; and 4) use signs to direct people into the parking areas closest to the attractions.

Entry Drive Signs (2):

The first and most difficult challenge many people have upon entering the park is entering at the correct end of the park (900 South or 1300 South) to find their destination. Because the park loop drive has been closed and is only one way, people get stuck on one side of the park. The first step of orienting people is to identify attractions as being on "East Constitution Drive" or "West Constitution Drive". These signs would be placed near the auto entrances, so vehicles can quickly determine which side of the park they are on (east or west) and what attractions are found there. The signs would be 9'-9" tall, and are metal on a plain concrete base. The graphics would be silk-screened onto the metal. They are Olympic signs that are being recycled.

Staff reported that the 9'-9" high x 3'-3.3" wide, which is about 33 square feet, sign would not meet the ordinance because technically this proposed sign is a monument sign; monuments signs are limited to a height of 8 feet and 60 square feet. The proposed signs would be 2 feet too high.

Orientation Maps (2):

The next challenge those visitors encounter is understanding where they are in the park and where places are in relation to each other. An orientation map will be placed at each main entrance, at the ends of the 600 East walkway.

Directional/Identifier Signs (10):

These signs are support signs that help point people in the right direction once they are closer to their destination. Each attraction would be assigned a color that would be repeated on every sign and banner in the park. The supports would be a 6" diameter tube metal and the sign panels would be sheet metal attached by screws to the supports.

Staff reported that the 1'-7" wide x 2'-1" high, which is 3.3 square foot, sign would meet the ordinance. These signs are considered to be "private directional signs" in the ordinance, and are allowed to be 4 feet high and 8 square feet.

Parking Signs (3):

Parking signs would be located along Constitution Drive at the entrance to each main parking lot. These signs would be the same design as the directional/identifier signs.

Staff reported that the 1'-7" wide x 2'-1" high, 3.3 square foot, sign would meet the ordinance. These signs are considered to be "private directional signs" in the ordinance, and are allowed to be 4 feet high and 8 square feet.

The identity improvements would be design elements that would help give Liberty park a sense of place and make it more memorable and festive. They would also help visitors understand special features and events in the park. These improvements celebrate the park and its attractions. The primary proposals for identity improvements are: 1) place banners at the entrance to the six primary attractions to help people and find them and know what the park has to offer; 2) place banners with a Liberty Festive logo on them periodically around the park to create a new image of the park; and 3) place announcements of special and seasonal events at the corner of the park, visible from the major intersections.

Wayfinding/Attraction Banners (6 sets of 3 venue banners):

Wayfinding/attractions banners would help visitors find the major attractions and venues in the park, such as Tracy Aviary, City Youth, swimming pool, tennis courts, concessions, and the Chase Home. A coordinated banner program would help make the presence of the venues more visible. These banners would be located along the inside edge of Constitution Drive, as close as possible to the entrance to each venue. The banners would be hung from 2" tube metal posts in sets of three.

Staff reported that the 2' x 6' on 2" thick poles would not meet the ordinance. These would be considered pole signs; pole signs are not allowed in the OS zoning district.

Identity Banners (20):

Identity banners would add to the park's sense of place, and reinforce a positive image there. They also would help people feel they are in a special place. These banners would be hung in two different places on the perimeter of the park. First, the banners would be hung on existing light posts along the outside edge of Constitution Drive, spaced periodically. Second, a set of banners would be hung at the corner of each major intersection, to identify the park from the outside. The banners would be 2' x 6'.

Staff reported that the 2' x 6' on existing light pole brackets; 2' x 6' on 2" thick poles, would not meet the ordinance. The banners proposed for the individual poles would be considered a pole sign, which are not allowed the OS zoning district. Those hung from the light pole brackets would have to be approved by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, which administers the banner signs outside of the downtown area. These signs have a 30- day limit of installation.

Announcement Posters (4):

Announcement posters publicize special events, openings and closings of attractions, and seasonal items. They would provide an orderly way to allow announcements, instead of haphazard banners and posts that are often displayed. They would also add to the sense of festivity to the park. These posters would be placed on the corners of the park at four primary intersections of the roads that binds the park. The signs would be temporary vinyl adhesive signs attached to sheet metal held by a tube metal frame.

Staff reported that the 9' x 15' sheet metal held by a 1" tube metal frame does not meet the ordinance. These are considered pole signs, and are not allowed in the OS zoning district.

Mr. Schaefer stated that his company is called Schaefer Design and that they specialize in creating corporate identities and signage of the type that is proposed. He said that he has done extensive research on the proposed graphics and believed that he had to design something that would be classical, would hold up for a very long time, and be attractive and recognizable. Mr. Schaefer said that the new logo for the park was designed to remind people of the trees in the park.

Mr. Schaefer said that he looked at the signage that was placed in the park for the Olympics and decided that the signs could be reused. He mentioned that the drawing of the signs in the document appears to be large, but they will actually be dwarfed by the size of the park and the trees.

Mr. Schaefer said growing up in Switzerland, he was exposed to a lot of flags and this project gave him the opportunity to introduce the idea of banners and the logo that could be carried throughout the park.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Parvaz said that if people have to walk back to the entry drive signs and the orientation maps, why would they have to be nine feet tall?

• Ms. Mickelsen said that she appreciated the effort to minimize the number of signs, but expressed concern that she would have to park the car then walk back to find out where she was supposed to go. She suggested having more orientation maps throughout the park. They do not need to be so large.

• Mr. Parvaz also agreed that the orientation maps did not need to be so large. In the national parks, they are only about three or four feet high either vertical or horizontal.

• Another suggestion came from Mr. Cook to create a kiosk or information center that would have maps and brochures about the park.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested adding a little graphics to the picnic and the open water areas. There will also be a gazebo eventually.

• Mr. Simonsen mentioned that he bought a couple of vinyl banners after the Olympics and they were pretty tattered from the wind. The banners would have to look good years after they were installed. Mr. Schaefer said that he received guidance from Colonial Flags and nylon fabric would have more resistance to the wind.

• Ms. Giraud asked why attraction banners would be necessary by the entrances to the park when there would be directional and parking signs that would lead people to a parking lot or a venue.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons expressed his concern about graffiti so the signs would have to be able to be cleaned.

• Ms. Giraud suggested having framework to accommodate other things like traveling exhibits.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the horizontal posters on the corners would be high enough to be seen.

• Mr. Simonsen said that the framework for the posters would be fairly large, but the posters themselves would not be very large. Someone from an automobile would not be able to read the information. Perhaps develop guidelines how the posters would graphically represent something that is happening.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that someone waiting for the stoplight would look at the posters on the corners.

• Mr. Christensen wondered if the tubular poles on the banners and posters be galvanized. Some are portrayed as green and some are white. Mr. Schaefer said that he could not make up his mind between the two colors but believed that green would be a better color. Mr. Cook said that the framework would be powder coated metal tubes.

• Mr. Ashdown commented that a 9' x 15' sheet metal and a 1" tube seems like a perfect "sail" for the sign in a windstorm. He was concerned that a strong wind would bend it over. They should be strengthened.

• Ms. Giraud stated that only an event associated with the venue, such as a tennis tournament, would be on the announcement posters. That would eliminate someone from putting up a "RV Sales" poster.

• Mr. Simonsen thinks it is a good idea to provide a place for the venue events because it would avoid people putting up those garish vinyl signs.

• Mr. Simonsen also inquired if there would be some public process to solicit stakeholders. Mr. Cook said that there would be a public process when the overlay ordinance is finalized.

• Ms. Giraud expressed concern that illegal signs would pop up and there are not enough enforcement people for control.

• Ms. Heid said that she did not believe the entry drive signs and the orientation maps would come across as that large in the park compared with the size of the mature trees as a backdrop. It is a good idea to recycle the Olympic signs. A vertical presentation would fit better.

• Ms. Mickelsen cautioned that the banners would make great souvenirs so they should be printed in huge quantities.

• Mr. Parvaz expressed concerned that three posters together would block the view. He would prefer to see them separately.

• Mr. Ashdown believed that the announcement posters were on the verge of becoming billboards. He expressed concern that people might think they can put something like that outside their place of business.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons thought the announcement posters would be too small for a billboard but too large for pedestrian signs. There should be more consideration given to these signs. They seem to be less compatible with anything in the park.

• Mr. Christensen expressed concern that the framework for the announcement posters would almost look like a chain link fence structure without the chain link. Perhaps the finish of the powder coating would be a color so they would look less like a chain link fence structure. Mr. Christensen pointed out that that a permanent material like porcelain enamel would be completely resistant to weather and if it gets painted on, paint remover would clean it.

• Ms. Mickelsen mentioned that no one wants any of the posters to become message boards for lost cats or dogs for the neighborhood.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons said that there should be concern that the second generation would not have such good graphic design.

• Ms. Heid said that she would like to see alternative designs to the announcement posters, something that would be less likely to get defaced or abused, and vertical to match the others.

• Mr. Simonsen recommended that there would be guidelines about how the signage would be maintained and kept functioning over a long period of time.

• Ms. Rowland suggested that on the third announcement poster, having the logo of the venue and saying "now open". She actually questioned the need for announcement posters.

• Ms. Mickelsen expressed concern that people would slap a "yard sale" sign on the announcement posters.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons said that changing the announcement posters as needed would be interesting.

• Ms. Heid also suggested making them temporary and only to announce something noteworthy.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that since the color of the signage had been raised, she would like another color other than white for the directional/identifier signs. The gazebo on the island will be black.

Mr. Cook said that the Commissioners could call him at any time with recommendations or opinions.

Mr. Nephi Kemmethmueller, an interested citizen talked about the cost involved. He stated that there would be an initial cost, an annual maintenance cost, and the problem cost which includes defacing, illegal removal, replacement, patrolling, weather problems, liability, etc. Thank you.

Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission would not be taking any action on this proposal at this meeting since it was an "issues only" presentation, and because there were no findings of fact. He added that the applicants just needed direction.

Mr. Simonsen stated that the Commission seemed to be having the most problem with the announcement posters. Mr. Simonsen recommended that the applicants look to evaluate the design and permanence of the announcement posters and the proportions of them. He said that maybe they needed to be scaled more appropriately to the function, and also suggested looking at the detailing in the structure.

Ms. Giraud said that changing an ordinance is a long and complicated process arid the applicants wanted to get a sense of direction from the Historic Landmark Commission in keeping with the spirit of this project.

Mr. Simonsen suggested that staff also needed direction if the signs would be appropriate enough to merit a change the zoning.

Mr. Zunguze stated that the hope is that the members of the Commission would give direction to this proposed project; not so much personal opinions. Mr. Zunguze stated that this dialogue was an "issues only" discussion. He said that he did not know what the Commission's comfort level would be when the scope and the nature of the project were presented to staff. Mr. Zunguze indicated that this discussion has been valuable in giving direction and that was what he was looking for. He said that staff will find the solution as far as the ordinance is concerned.

Mr. Parvaz pointed out that there were no sidewalks so one could walk around the park. He said that he felt guilty when he walked on the grass. Mr. Simonsen said that might be a master planning issue that is beyond the scope of what we are doing at this meeting. He said that there are diagonal walks at each of the corners that get people into the walkway that goes around Constitution Drive; the intent is draw people into the park.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired of Mr. Cook the reason for closing off the loop. Mr. Cook said that Constitution Drive became a cruising zone where people would drive around and around and that created all kinds of negative activities associated with cruising. He said closing off the road solved a very difficult problem for maintenance and policing of the park. Mr. Cook said that it has proven to be successful. Mr. Parvaz said that closing the road to through traffic made it safer for pedestrians.

Mr. Simonsen thanked everyone concerned and believed the discussion provided much useful information.

requesting approval of a post-demolition plan for the Juel Apartment Building. The building is located in the Central City Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

Rob Fetzer, now with Salt Lake Apartment Builders and previously a representative of Overland Development Corporation (ODC), is returning to the commission with a site plan for landscaping the Juel Apartment Building site at 340 S. 600 E. ODC received permission to demolish the Juel Apartments after a lengthy economic hardship process. (The HLC found that a hardship did not exist, but the Land Use Appeals Board overturned their decision on February 3, 2003). The HLC extended the approval to demolish the Juel Apartments on January 7, 2004.

A landscape plan is attached. It indicates 30 feet of grass and two Norway Maples. An irrigation plan is also included.

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 HLC 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) re-vegetate 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. Because this property is zoned RMF-35, a landscaped area covering the entire lot 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 (HAAS), which may waive this requirement (Chapter 18.64.070 Post Demolition Use Plan Waiver Procedure).

In addition to the policies that the City has implemented regarding post-demolition landscaping, the City is concerned that post-demolition landscaping plans be as drought-tolerant as possible. The "Hydroseed" process can accommodate numerous types of grasses, some more drought-tolerant than others. Because all landscaping must receive irrigation to some extent, the proposed Norway Maples should receive a sufficient amount of water to grow.

Staff's finding of fact: The submitted landscaping plan includes a sprinkling system and planting area. The proposed plan will require an exemption from the HAAS Board. If such an exemption were made, staff finds that the proposed 30 feet of landscaping would be an acceptable re-use plan for the property.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the HLC accept the proposed landscaping plan, subject to the applicant posting a bond ensuring the completion of the plan, as requ1red by ordinance, and the applicant obtaining the waiver from the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAS)."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Ms. Mickelsen said that it would be nice to have an overall plan of the lot. Ms. Giraud suggested directing that request to the applicant.

Mr. Parvaz asked if the Commission can expect that every landscaping issue, there would only be a band of landscaping and not the entire lot. Ms. Giraud said that she thought that would be the case where the lots like this are so large. She thought that most people would not want to landscape the entire lot. Ms. Giraud added that issue is a "gray area" in the ordinance and the way the City administers it. Ms. Giraud said that a Committee of officials in the City needed to be formed to review the issue of no landscaping where buildings have been demolished. She added that there needed to be something more workable and forcible because it is only a City policy and not in the ordinance.

Mr. Parvaz stated that the problem cannot be ignored because the larger properties have more vastness, more soil, and more trouble for the neighborhood which is in the case of the Juel Apartment building property.

Mr. Parvaz said that he was bothered why it is incumbent on the Historic Landmark Commission to approve a 15 or 30-foot landscaping plan, which does not address historic preservation and that the Commission has to make these post-demolition decisions that the City should be doing. He said that the City should not ignore this problem and look for ways to solve them.

Mr. Simonsen said that the only reason why the problem addresses preservation is that poorly maintained vacant properties can also be the cause of blight on surrounding properties. He added that one of the things the Historic Landmark Commission needs to consider is, whatever happens with the landscaping is it in keeping with preserving anything that may be around the property, the other side of the street, down the street, or something like that, which could be negatively impacted. Ms. Giraud said that the problem could adversely affect and bring down the character of any neighborhood.

Ms. Mickelsen queried that if someone were demolishing a non-historic building in a nonhistoric district, would there be a landscape plan.

Mr. Zunguze stated that the same problem was happening downtown. He said, "We went through the Planning Commission and we have an ordinance that requires landscaping. That same issue was raised by those applicants with large lots and the Planning Commission was not persuaded to make changes. They said that they had a choice to make and so they required landscaping." Ms. Giraud asked if that was the property where the buildings were demolished on 300 South and Mr. Zunguze said that was correct and that is what generated the discussion. Mr. Zunguze said, "You say, what are we getting in return for the building coming down in the spirit of preservation and that is a call you have to make. So I don't think you should be tied down to specific studies."

Ms. Giraud explained that if the Commission agrees to a 30-foot buffer, then the applicant would have to get a waiver from the Housing and Appeals Board because any change to a post demolition plan has to go before that board.

A discussion took place regarding the extent of landscaping that should be required when this part of the country was having a drought. Ms. Giraud mentioned that the Planning Office has a list of drought-tolerant plants that need a very minimal amount of watering.

Mr. Simonsen said that it was a very complicated issue. Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Rob Fetzer, the applicant, and Mr. Scott Harmon, Project Manager of Emigration Court properties, which is under construction adjacent to this site, were present. Mr. Harmon said that the Juel property site is owned by the same owner. Mr. Fetzer said that he believed he could solve some of these problems right now.

Mr. Fetzer said that before he came down to this meeting he met with Mr. Larry Butcher, Development Review Supervisor, from Building Services, and Mr. Nole Walkingshaw from Housing and Zoning Enforcement. Mr. Fetzer gave the following background information why the applicants applied with only 30 feet of landscaping for the Juel. "When we demolished the other structures on 600 East we applied with only 25 feet and that was approved and bonded against. That was under Mr. Ken Brown's, Building Services, interpretation of the ordinance. When I met with Mr. Butcher and Mr. Walkingshaw and I said that I would happily support an application to the HAAB Board, and Mr. Butcher said that he was happy with 30 feet they were required to go to the HAAB Board, which is the same thing that you have been saying here. But we talked about it and rather than go through that process we would landscape the entire lot. My request to you would be that instead of following staff's recommendation that you approve it with the HAAB Board clause providing you don't make me put in trees that will have to be taken out when the building it built."

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

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking if it would be better to retract the request and put in a new request. Mr. Fetzer said that the lot actually does not go back 160 feet; it is actually an "L" shape because the lot lines have been redone. He added that where the Juel Apartment building sits the parking structure would come right behind it. Mr. Fetzer indicated that the corner of the Phase I parking structure would almost touch the Juel Apartment building.

• Mr. Simonsen inquired if Mr. Fetzer was proposing to landscape the entire lot would the remainder of the landscaping generally chosen be consistent with what is proposed on the landscaping plan and would it be irrigated the same. Mr. Fetzer said that he asked Mr. Butcher if he could place rocks and not install a sprinkling system all the way back, and Mr. Butcher's response was negative that the landscaping would have to be done per the landscaping requirements which would most likely be grass. Ms. Giraud said that in her conversations with Mr. Butcher, he said that it could be drought-tolerant plantings. Mr. Fetzer said that it would not be too hard to run a pipe right along that property line with some rain birds for the irrigation system.

• Mr. Christensen said that the Urban Forester for Salt Lake City had taken Norway Maples off the list of approved street trees because he said that they are not drought-tolerant. He said that they need to be watered well for a couple of years until they get established. Mr. Fetzer said that his landscape person made that suggestion. Ms. Giraud stated that the City is trying to get away from planting one species of trees in abundance in one area. She added that if tree species are mixed up, it was less likely that all the species of trees would be hit with a disease.

• Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the long-term plans for the property. Mr. Fetzer said that Phase I is currently under construction and should be completed by December of next year. Mr. Fetzer said that after meeting with the new partnership, Phase II would begin after that. Ms. Mickelsen said that the landscaping would be in effect for at least two or three years. Mr. Fetzer agreed.

• Ms. Giraud asked if the new partnership intended to landscape the area where the Mumford house used to be on 300 South Street. Mr. Fetzer said that they would. He stated that the property adjacent to the south holds a 12-parking space easement on Phase I, and they legally have to provide them parking stalls during construction period. When asked, Mr. Fetzer said that the partnership now owns all the parcels of property in question.

• Ms. Rowland inquired if the applicant plans to put trees in the park strip where they could stay and start their growth. Mr. Fetzer said that the City actually installs the trees in the park strip, but he has an application in with the City Urban Forester who would have to approve the trees. Mr. Harmon said that that trees would be planted wherever the Commission wanted them, if possible. Ms. Rowland suggested planting them now so they could start growing. Mr. Simonsen said that would certainly be consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Thomas Mutter, Chair of the Central City Neighborhood Community Council, said that he used to live in the Juel Apartment building. He stated the following: "I want to know why we are here in the first place. If he is asking for landscape plans for the Juel and that was supposed to be Phase Ill, they should just demolish it and start working on Phase Ill. Another thing is Overland Development Corporation came in here and they applied for economic hardship for a group of owners. Now you have a different group of owners and not Overland Development Corporation, should not they be going through the process again." Ms. Giraud said, "No, that economic hardship goes with the building." Mr. Mutter said, "They have obviously changed plans if they are talking about building Phase Ill before Phase II is completed. Besides that, they have been here before for this kind of landscaping plan for the property to the north. There is no landscape plan there. There is a bunch of rocks. It is obvious that that is a staging area, but that isn't part of the landscape plan. Thank you."

Upon hearing no additional comments 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 welcomed any discussion and entertained a motion at any anytime.

Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired about the relation of the other lots. Ms. Giraud said that there are lots directly to the north that once had the four-plex that was designed by Walter Ware and the Mumford House that had been demolished. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission approved a 25-foot landscaping strip on June 4, 2003 for that property.

Ms. Rowland said that she recalled that the bond that was posted was not very much. Ms. Giraud said that she did not know but that was something that had to be ironed out because the policy was not working.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the Commission needed to modify this to match Mr. Fetzer's new information about landscaping the entire lot. Ms. Giraud said that was correct.

Mr. Zunguze stated that the easiest way is to amend this then it falls back on the policy of landscaping the whole thing, which is what he wants to do.

Mr. Ashdown inquired what the time period to force landscaping after the bond kicks in. Ms. Giraud said that she did not know.

Ms. Rowland stated that if it is too late in the season, or if construction would be starting in a couple months, landscaping would not have to be done. Again, Ms. Giraud said that this is something that has to get fixed. Ms. Rowland said that she has a problem with accepting landscaping as a reuse plan.

The discussion continued regarding the issues at hand.

It was a general consensus the public portion could be reopened to public comment so the Commission could ask the applicant some additional questions. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.

Mr. Ashdown asked why the prior landscaping plan did not have parking on it. Mr. Fetzer said that once the period has expired then the City might pull the bond. He said that the bond is turned over to the City and the City turns it over to the State; it is a cash bond.

Mr. Zunguze said that the bond was so low it was ridiculous. He added that landscaping could not have been put in with that low of an amount.

The discussion continued. Mr. Fetzer felt that the Commission could not approve the landscaping with the caveat that it included the entire landscaping at this meeting. Ms. Giraud said that she did not see why not. Other members agreed.

Mr. Ashdown questioned that the applicant would do anything. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission could not regulate whether or not the applicant does anything.

Mr. Simonsen added that members of the Commission needs to decide they are comfortable not having a map that shows the boundaries and having a note that shows everything would be Hydroseeded.

Mr. Harmon said, "Part of this landscaping that we are talking about, the Hydroseeding, is replacing after the fact, after the demolition. You need to know that I am there every day, ten hours a day, and we are constantly chasing people out of these two buildings. The utilities have been turned off. They are not supposed to be in there. It went through a legal process and had everyone to leave, and those who would not leave, finally did in the last day or two. The weather is turning colder and we have vagrancy problems and vandalism in there. There is graffiti on the building and the Parks Department called us about the graffiti and they said if you are going to tear it down anyway then we won't mess with it. We won't try to clean it. That is understandable. I want you to be aware that we would like to see the buildings taken down mainly for safety, for our project, and for the people who may be living in there. Landscaping it is the easy part and believe me, you can ask us to bond $10, 000 if you want and that would easily pay for the Hydroseeding and we could do that. If we promised or someone promised it will get done. You have my word on that. We are not trying to avoid our responsibility, but during construction, if we have a legal responsibility to have parking for the property to the south and/or a staging area for the construction, and the same owners own the land, we have a right to use it. That is why it has gravel grading there and that is why we are using it. We are not trying to avoid our responsibility. We are trying to be good neighbors and work safely and responsibly."

As there were no other questions for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting and returned to the executive session.

A discussion followed. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission could not solve a lot of the issues suggested considering the submitted site plan.

Mr. Christensen said that in order to have a bond, a site plan or drawing that is official showing the specific boundaries of the property, was needed to be enforceable.

First motion:

Ms. Rowland inquired if Mr. Fitzsimmons wanted to include trees on the park strip. Mr. Fitzsimmons amended his motion.

Amended final motion:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to accept the proposed landscaping plan for Case No. 018-04 at 340 South 600 East, as amended at the owner's request and extend the irrigation and Hydroseeding over the entire lot in addition to the work that is already shown, if the owners post a bond sufficient enough as required by City ordinance. The land use plan should be submitted to staff for final approval. Further that an appropriate number of trees would be planted in the park strip. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown was opposed. Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Mr. Christensen said he would like to make a statement while the applicants were still present. He said that when the Documentation Committee reviewed the documentation for post-demolition for the Juel, there were a few gaps. He asked Ms. Lew if she had spoken to the applicant about those. Ms. Lew said that she had and there would be further discussion regarding this issue.

Mr. Simonsen extended his appreciation to the Documentation Committee who worked on that project.

(Mr. Christensen excused himself at 6:05 P.M. and left for the remainder of the meeting.) Mr. Simonsen stated that at 6:06P.M. the Historic Landmark Commission would be temporarily breaking for approximately thirty minutes for dinner. No formal procedure was necessary for this action.

At 6:41 P.M., Mr. Simonsen reconvened the meeting.

Case No. 019-04. at the property located between 300 West. Arctic Court. 500 North. and 600 North. by Mack McDonald of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. requesting approval of a post-demolition plan for the proposed commercial node at this location. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is returning to the Historic Landmark Commission with an updated site plan for the 500 North Street Commercial Node Project. The RDA has both demolished and received approval to demolish several buildings on the site to redevelop the property as a mixed use development, once a landscaping plan or reuse plan is approved. RDA has marketed the commercial node site since 1999, but has not been successful in finding a development that meets the goals for the site. The commercial node encompasses two zones. The west portion of the site along 300 West Street is zoned CS Community Shopping District, while the east portion, along Arctic Court and 500 North Street, is Zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District.

In September 2001, the RDA hired the 181 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 HLC's June 19, 2002, meeting, the Commission approved the design guidelines, but found that the proposed landscaping did not meet the zoning ordinance's standards for new construction (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 HLC 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 HLC's decision to not accept the landscaping plan was overturned.

The RDA returned to the HLC on November 6, 2002, for approval of one of two proposed landscaping plans. "Concept E, " called for landscaping the entire portion of the site that is zoned residential, and the first 15 feet of the commercially zoned property. "Concept D, " preferred by the RDA, reduced the amount of landscaping to a 15-foot buffer around the entire property. The HLC approved "Concept E", citing concern for neighboring residents who live near the undeveloped site. The landscaping that the HLC approved has not been installed.

On August 4, 2004, the RDA received HLC approval to put four properties in the "gray zone:" 564 North 300 West Street (Marsh Auto); 271 West 600 North Street (the "duplex); 248 West 500 North Street (the "nine plex"); and 515 No. Arctic Court (the "shotgun house"). The first three buildings can be demolished as soon as a landscaping plan is approved and the buildings are documented because the HLC credited the RDA with its previous marketing efforts as an attempt to mitigate the demolition. The Shotgun House is put in the "gray zone, " with the one-year clock beginning with the attempt to market the building known as the "Store, " located at 242 West 500 North Street. The HLC denied the demolition of the Store, so that the RDA must either find a developer to renovate the building or pursue the economic hardship process.

The RDA has submitted two new proposals for a landscaping plan for the property that are very similar to those submitted two years ago. The first plan (referred to in this report as "Plan 1" calls for landscaping all of the residentially-zoned property (fronting Arctic Court) with Hydroseeded buffalo grass, and the first 15 feet of the commercially-zoned property. The second plan ("Plan 2") reduces the amount of landscaping to a 15- foot buffer around the entire property. Both plans require irrigation. Several new trees are proposed to be planted to fill in space along the park strip in both plans.

Both of the plans contain an error, in that the site of the Store and the Shotgun house are included as landscaped areas. Because the RDA will try to find a developer to renovate the Store, and because the fate of the Shotgun house is tied to that of the Store, a landscaping plan for this portion of the parcel is premature. Staff has informed the RDA Staff of this error, and if approved, the plan will be corrected before submittal for final review.

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 HLC 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.

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 15 feet in the CS zones and a landscaped area covering the entire lot in the SR-1 zone would be required.

The RDA's Plan 1 meets these base standards for landscaped area. Plan 2 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.

Staffs finding of fact: The submitted landscaping plans include a sprinkling system and planting areas. Plan 1 is in accordance with the requirements of 21A.34.020.P and 21A.48.050 of the Salt Lake City Code.

Plan 2 will require an exemption from the HAAB Board. If such an exemption were made, either concept would be an acceptable reuse plan for the property.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the HLC accept Plan 2 as submitted by the Redevelopment Agency, subject to the RDA posting a bond ensuring completion of the plan, as required by ordinance. This is a reversal of the Staff recommendation from two years ago. This concept will require a waiver from HAAB, as per Chapter 18.64.070 Post-demolition Use Plan Waiver Procedure, but is in keeping with the drought-tolerant concerns that currently affect our community. Plan 2 would go a long in protecting the adjoining properties from adverse impacts of a vacant lot and the current un-landscaped environment, and probably has a better chance of implementation than the more extensive landscaping proposed for Plan 1. Staff further recommends that final approval be reviewed by staff, with the final submittal excluding the site of the Store and the Shotgun house."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Mack McDonald of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, the applicant, and who is Project Coordinator of this project, was present. He stated that the staff report was fairly representative of the proposed landscaping plan. Mr. McDonald said that he did not have anything else to add.

Mr. Simonsen 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 if the trees shown on the landscaping plan were permanent, especially along 300 West Street. Mr. McDonald said that some of the trees exist there. He said that the proposed new trees are indicated by the dashed lines on the landscaping plan.

• Mr. Parvaz wanted to make certain that there would be an irrigation plan. Mr. McDonald confirmed that there would be an irrigation plan.

• Ms. Rowland asked about Concept E and what happened to it. Mr. McDonald said that several things happened. He stated that when RDA contracted with 181 Group to make alterations and their estimate was $90, 000. Mr. McDonald said that the RDA Board believed that the estimate was too high for temporary landscaping and ways would have to be found to lower the cost. He pointed out that by the time the RDA scaled back and got the "scope" together to release this for bid, the time frame for landscaping was over. Mr. McDonald said that RDA requested funding this year from the RDA board to landscape the property. When Ms. Rowland asked about the cost, Mr. McDonald said that the proposal would cost between $70, 000 and $80, 000 on the high end. He added, "We are hoping for around $60,000."

• Ms. Mickelsen inquired if this particular approach was acceptable to the RDA Board. Mr. McDonald stated that the current plans would be more accommodating due to the drought condition. He said that they were really concerned about the 100 percent sod or buffalo grass on the residential pieces. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the time period for installing. Mr. McDonald said that it is the same situation for this year, to not landscape in October or November.

Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments 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 stated that he was open for discussion or would entertain a motion.

There was a discussion regarding the zoning split of the properties (one property is commercially zoned and the other one is zoned residential) and the different requirements by the City. Ms. Giraud said that this is more of an issue for the Zoning Administrator.

Mr. Simonsen observed that the City has some conflicting policies because of the policy of landscaping the entire parcel with irrigation, and that the City also has a more recent policy of conserving water due to the drought condition.

Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if demolition had been approved on all the properties. Ms. Giraud said that demolition was approved on the nine-plex. The discussion continued as the site plan was reviewed once more.

Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was the consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired if RDA planned to keep the trees in place that are proposed. Mr. McDonald stated that keeping the trees would be depended upon the developer and the development proposal. He said that if the trees they plant have to be removed, they will be offered to the community.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any more questions or clarifications for Mr. McDonald. Hearing none, Mr. Simonsen reclosed the meeting and returned to the executive session portion of the meeting.

Motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 019-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Plan No. 2 as submitted by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency with

a corrected map that would exclude the site where the Shotgun House and the Store exist. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons and Mr. Parvaz were opposed. Mr. Christensen and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

It is noted for the record that considered discussion took place before the vote was taken.

Case No. 020-04, at 748-752 North 300 West. by Danny Walz of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency requesting approval to demolish the duplex. a contributing structure, for redevelopment as a Mixed Use Development with retail on the ground floor. and four-residential uses in the upper stories. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency is requesting approval to demolish a contributing structure, referred to as "the duplex" in this report, located at 748-50 North 300 West Street, in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The RDA intends to use the land associated with the duplex as part of a mixed use development at the corner of Reed Avenue and 300 West. The duplex is zoned MU-Mixed Use Zoning District, the purpose of which is to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses. The district is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing mixed use areas while preserving the attractiveness of the area for residential use. The district is intended to provide a higher level of control over nonresidential uses to ensure that the use and enjoyment of residential properties is not substantially diminished by nonresidential redevelopment.

The RDA has acquired three parcels at the corner of 300 West Street and Reed Avenue: the subject property, the property at 752 North 300 West Street (currently known as "the Hawaiian house") and the former Dan Morrison Meat Pie Factory around the corner at 261 W. Reed Avenue (referred to in this report as "the Factory"}. The duplex and the Hawaiian house would be site of the mixed use development, with commercial use on the first story and four residential units on the upper story. The Factory site would be redeveloped as a single-family house. The RDA Board approved the purchase of the properties in November 2002.

The RDA has stated that it is not interested in developing the properties as individual parcels. The parcels are complicated by an existing parking access easement across the Factory lot for the duplex. If the duplex remains, this easement would also remain, in order to provide access to the rear yard parking area. This would severely hamper the potential to construct a new house on the Factory site.

Initially, the RDA intended to pursue its present plan of redevelopment. After discussions with the Planning Staff and the RDA Board (the City Council), the RDA chose to pursue relocation of this building instead. This would have allowed the 300 West Street site to be redeveloped in a manner that meets the intent of the mixed use zoning, and of the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan, while still preserving the contributing structure very close to its original site. Because the duplex is a contributing structure, moving it would have allowed all parties to avoid a potentially lengthy and divisive demolition review process. To this end, the HLC approved the proposed relocation of the duplex and the conceptual plan for the mixed use project on July 16, 2003.

In the meantime, as plans for the relocation and the mixed use development unfolded, the proposed demolition of the Hawaiian house garnered concern from several HLC members, other preservationists and the public, as well as support from nearby residents. The Planning Division staff determined that the Hawaiian house was a non-contributing building. Owing to its association with John W. Kaulainamoku, a prominent early LOS Hawaiian convert, the house met the requirements of the zoning ordinance in terms of historical significance. The Planning Division Staff and Director found that its numerous alterations and the removal of much of the physical fabric associated with period of historic significance rendered the house a non-contributing building.

On June 27, 2003, the Planning Division sent a notice of proposed demolition of the Hawaiian house and the Factory to HLC members, surrounding property owners within 85 feet, the community council chairs and the list of "interested parties" maintained by the secretary of the commission. After a 14-day waiting period, the ordinance indicates that the Planning Director may issue a demolition permit or refer the matter for further review by the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Director Louis Zunguze elected not to refer the matter of the contributing structure to the HLC, and presented his determination to the HLC at its August 6, 2003 meeting.

When the RDA staff presented its proposal for the mixed use development and relocation of the duplex to the Factory site on October 16, 2003, the RDA Board voted to pursue demolition of the duplex instead of relocation, and instructed its staff to apply accordingly.

The RDA's proposal consists of a 7, 000 square foot building sited at the corner of Reed Avenue and 300 West Street. The building would be two-stories, with a commercial use on the first story and four residential units above. Parking would be accessed from 300 West Street and Reed Avenue.

The HLC should consider the demolition of the duplex in terms of Chapter 21A.34.020(L), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an "H" Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance lists seven criteria for consideration, including economic hardship. If six of the standards are met, HLC shall approve the request for demolition.

If two or less of the standards are met, HLC must deny the request. If the HLC makes findings that between three to five of the standards are met, HLC can defer a decision for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The one-year "clock" begins only when the bona fide effort has started. Section 21A.34.01O(M) lists four actions that define bona fide: 1) Marketing the property for sale or lease. 2) Filing an application for alternative funding sources for preservation, such as federal or state preservation tax credits, Utah Heritage Revolving Funds loans, redevelopment agency loans, etc. 3) Filing an application for alternative uses if available or feasible, such as conditional uses special exceptions, etc. 4) Obtaining written statements from licensed building contractors or architects detailing the actual costs to rehabilitate the property.

The six considerations are addressed below with a discussion and finding for each property. The seventh criteria concerns economic hardship, which involves a separate process in which a committee of three people is chosen to determine if denying a request for demolition would entail an economic hardship. (HLC selects one person, the applicant selects one person, and these two people select the third member). Economic hardship takes precedence over the first six considerations. If the HLC finds that the applicant meets the standards for economic hardship, then the HLC must approve the demolition. If the HLC finds that the application does not meet the standards for economic hardship, the HLC must deny the demolition. The HLC decision must be consistent with the findings presented by the Economic Review Panel, unless the HLC finds by a three-quarter vote of a quorum that the Economic Review Panel either acted arbitrarily or based its report on an erroneous finding of fact.

(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.

Staff's discussion: Physical integrity of a structure is defined as "the ability of a property to convey its significance." In the case of the duplex, its significance lies in its role in the development of this area of Capitol Hill. Like most of the buildings in the city's residential historic districts, the duplex might not have individual significance, but when evaluated in the context as a component of a historic district, it contributes to the significance of the Capitol Hill Historic District. The historical overview prepared for the district when it was listed on the city register notes that Capitol Hill is significant as "the oldest surviving residential area in Salt Lake City. Its streets and houses document over 130 years of residential construction and neighborhood development. The district preserves a representative cross section of the city's and state's architectural and historical resources, ranging from the high style mansions of Arsenal Hill to the tightly packed workman's cottages of Reed Avenue. The buildings and patterns of neighborhood life on the Hill are representative of other early neighborhoods of the city now broken or vanished."

In 2000, the RDA hired Korral Broschinsky, a historic preservation consultant, to prepare a National Register nomination for the area bounded by 200 West to 400 West Streets, from 300 North to 800 North Streets. This nomination expands the original National Register Capitol Hill Historic District. In the nomination, Ms. Broschinsky describes the period from 1870 to 1910 as the boundary area's period of greatest expansion, spurred by the population growth ensuing from the completion of the transcontinental railroad. The nomination also points out that multi-family housing made up a substantial portion of the residential building stock in the boundary increase area, and that "the traditional double house accounts for almost one quarter of Victorian-era contributing buildings in the boundary increase area."

The duplex is a type of building defined in Utah's Historic Architecture as "Double House: A, " consisting of two living units under one roof. This type of residential structure has a similar scale and appearance to a single-family house. The two units usually have separate entries and may be either one- or two stories high.1 The duplex has features characteristic of residential architecture of the early twentieth century and is readily identifiable as a Victorian Eclectic double house that was built at the beginning of the twentieth century. It retains much of its original detailing, such as the Tuscan porch columns, porch balustrade, and cornice moldings and fascia. Its symmetrical form on the 300 West elevation is intact. It has minor alterations, such as the plywood skirting around the base of the front porches and the installation of awnings, but these could be easily removed without adversely affecting the historic character of the building. Chimneys have been removed, but this in itself would not render the Duplex non-contributing. Two lean-to additions on the back of the building have been modified and resided over the years, but these modifications are on secondary elevations and do not substantially detract from the building's historic appearance.

The site/survey form, completed in 1982, describes the duplex as having been constructed sometime from 1899 to 1910 the period during which the neighborhood developed and grew. In order to have physical integrity, the duplex must retain a substantial amount of the characteristics that enable one to associate it with this period of development in the history of west Capitol Hill. Because few alterations marred the integrity of the duplex, the building maintains this association.

Staff's finding of fact: The duplex clearly conveys its association with early twentieth-century residential architecture commonly found in the state. Because of its high degree of physical integrity, the staff finds that the applicant fails to meet this standard.

(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.

Staff's discussion: The streetscape of the blocks along 300 West Street in the northern end of the Capitol Hill Historic District is now characterized by new construction and historic structures whose physical integrity has been severely compromised. To the north of the duplex is the Hawaiian house (754 N. 300 W.). While the Hawaiian house has historical significance, it has been altered to the extent that its original and historic appearance is barely evident. The brick, Victorian Eclectic bungalow across Reed Avenue at 768 N. 300 W. is a contributing structure, as is the building behind it at 270 W. Reed Avenue. The Lorna Apartments (776 N. 300 W .) are rated as contributing in the 2000 survey undertaken by Ms. Broschinsky, but have deteriorated to such an extent that it is difficult to consider them an asset to the streetscape and the district. The boxcar apartment building (778 N. 300 W.) was constructed in 1970, while the office building at 784 N. 300 W. is typical of many of the small, commercial buildings found on the east side of 300 West in the district.

To the south, the building adjacent to the subject property is contributing as a bungalow (742 N. 300 W.). Its relationship to the streetscape as one of several tightly-knit structures would be lost if the duplex is demolished and the plan for the mixed use structure is implemented, but it would continue to reinforce the district as a contributing building because of its architectural integrity. The corners of Fern Avenue and 300 West are anchored by one-story commercial buildings. The structure on the north side of Fern Avenue (736 N. 300 W.) dates to the 1920's, but has been altered; the building across the street at 718 N. 300 W. was constructed in 1997.

Staff's finding of fact: In terms of the streetscape, the blocks from 700 to 800 North have been compromised by unsympathetic alterations to historic buildings. On the other hand, with the exception of the box-car apartments to the north, the recent construction is consistent with the siting, massing and scale of commercial buildings found in residential neighborhoods before the 1950's. The demolition of the duplex would not compromise the streetscape within the context of the historic district, especially if the RDA successfully markets its proposal for a mixed use building as shown on the site plan. The applicant substantially complies with this standard.

(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Staff's discussion: Although the Planning Division staff has determined that the streetscape will not be compromised on 300 West Street if the duplex is demolished, the duplex is in the midst of a high concentration of contributing structures. Few non-contributing structures can be found on the streets to the east {Fern Avenue, Reed Avenue, 700 North and 200 West Streets). As stated earlier, the historic overview written when the Capitol Hill Historic District was adopted specifically mentions the "tightly packed workmen's cottages of Reed Avenue" and their contribution to Capitol Hill's role as the oldest surviving residential area in Salt Lake.

Staff's finding of fact: The demolition of the duplex would adversely affect the district because of the high concentration of surrounding contributing structures. The applicant fails to meet this standard.

(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.

Staff's discussion: The duplex is located in an MU zone, intended to encourage a mix of residential and commercial uses. The MU zone exists only in Capitol Hill along North Temple between 500 and 600 West, and along 300 West between 500 and 800 North Streets. The creation of the MU zone evolved from recommendations in the Capitol Hill Master Plan that called for the following development:

A mixed use' area permitting both low-density residential and non-residential development and encouraging medium to higher density residential development is foreseen for the area between 600-900 North and 300-400 West Street. Properties in this area, which front on 300 West Street, are prime locations for market-rate, higher density residential development because of their access to a major arterial, as well as their proximity to Warm Springs Park and the Central Business District. Because of limited property depth, desired mixed use development along the 300 West Street frontage could be accommodated with retail on the first floor with residential units above. Development in the blocks between 600 and BOO North Streets and 300 to 400 West Streets may a/so include freestanding buildings of a separate retail and residential nature.

The high-density residential areas in the West Capitol Hill Neighborhood are limited to North Temple generally between 200 and 300 West Street and the mixed use area north of 600 North Street.

Although its current and historical use as a duplex is allowed in the MU zone, and although the MU zone permits a variety of other commercial services that could complement the proposed commercial node, the size of the duplex make it unlikely that the retention of the duplex could be compatible with the development envisioned in the adoption of the MU zone and described in the Capitol Hill Master Plan.

Staff's finding of fact: The base zoning is not compatible with the reuse of this structure. The project substantially complies with this standard.

(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.

Staff's discussion: The RDA intends to market the property for a mixed use development. As currently proposed the building would be a two-story structure of approximately 7, 000 square feet (3, 500 SF first story retail and 3, 500 SF second-story residential for four living units). The building would be located at the northwest corner of the lot. The RDA did not provide additional details regarding materials, fenestration and massing.

The siting of the proposed reuse is typical of small commercial buildings with apartments above the ground floor. Examples of this building type were commonly seen in residential neighborhoods throughout the city before the 1950s. The building would be consistent with the smaller-scaled historic residential buildings and neighborhood scale commercial structures found on the surrounding streetscape of this site.

Staff's finding of fact: The applicant substantially complies with this standard.

(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following:

i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure.

ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs.

iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and

iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The duplex is currently occupied, and does not appear to have suffered from willful neglect, either from previous owners or the RDA.

Ms. Giraud referred to the table summarizing the findings made for the duplex building included in the staff report.

If the HLC agrees with the staff findings, the duplex would be placed in the "gray zone, " meaning that the HLC can defer a decision for up to one year, during which time the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site. The one-year "clock" begins only when the bona fide effort has started.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "The RDA staff tried to save the duplex, not in situ but by moving it to a nearby location that would minimally affect its historic integrity and that of the Capitol Hill Historic District. The RDA Board (City Council); however, instructed the RDA staff to move forward with a demolition application. The Planning Division staff recommends that the HLC count this effort as a bona fide effort and allow the demolition to occur, with the provision that the duplex is not demolished until the RDA Board and the HLC approve a plan for redevelopment that is in accordance with the conceptual plan presented as part of this application, and until plans are filed for building permit review by the Building Services Division."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Mr. Ashdown questioned the time line of the application. He stated that the Historic Landmark Commission approved the new plan in February of 2003, and then it came back to the Commission in September 2004. He would like to know what effort has happened between July 2003 and October 2003, and October 2003 and September 2004 that constituted bona fide effort.

Ms. Giraud said that in fairness, the RDA gave the application to her quite some time ago but it has been a project she just has not been able to get to. She added that this has partially been the Planning Division's fault with the number of staff people that have left within a few short months. Ms. Giraud said that once RDA made the effort to move the building and was not approved, she believed that RDA had no intention of trying to save the building. Ms. Giraud said that RDA also knew that because of the easement that exists along the back of the duplex that they would have a difficult time redeveloping it as a small residence on the factory site and still provide an access to the duplex without having to do something like demolishing the Hawaiian House altogether, having access to that, and having that empty corner.

Mr. Ashdown referred to a memorandum Ms. Giraud wrote to the RDA in March of 2003, which stated, "In contrast to other blocks along 300 West, the streetscape of this block is reinforced by the contributing structures to the north an the south of the duplex along the east side of the street with the except of the altered Smoke Shop to the north of the structure. If the duplex were to be demolished, the appearance and the historic association of this block faces part of the Capitol Hill Historic District would be diminished.

In a similar way as the other demolitions and contributing structures have gradually eroded the character of other blocks along 300 West." Mr. Ashdown said, that Ms. Giraud then wrote, 'The finding of the removal of the duplex in this part of the historic district would negatively affect the streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District." Mr. Ashdown said that was a contradiction of what Ms. Giraud wrote in the current staff report. He asked, 'What has changed?"

Ms. Giraud said that it is a contradiction. She stated the following, "When we wrote that memorandum that went to the RDA we were addressing primarily the Hawaiian house. We were looking at every one of the physical integrity standards that are outlined in the zoning ordinance and the National Register Bulletin with every single building for all three buildings. That is how I recall that memorandum. That is a contradiction. It is something that when I went out and looked at it again I have a different viewpoint on it now."

Mr. Ashdown said that he noticed other contradictions. He said, "It seems to me all that is before us right now is a landscaping plan."

Mr. Parvaz talked about the historic overlay zone being able to override the base zoning. Ms. Giraud said that there is in a provision in the overlay zone in the very first paragraph Section 21A.34.010. General Provisions: 'Whenever there is a conflict between the regulations of a base zoning district and those of an overlay district, the overlay district regulations shall control."

Mr. Simonsen stated that is something that the members need to interpret as a Commission whether or not it is incompatible as it specifically relates to the base zoning. He added that the Commission needed to consider staff's findings of fact and recommendation as expressed in the current staff report. Mr. Simonsen said that he does not know what changed the current status but the Commission cannot respond to a previous argument.

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

Mr. Danny Walz, the applicant, was present. He stated that he was the Project Manager with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Walz referred to the staff report and said that he thought Ms. Giraud did a good job with the background of the RDA's involvement with the property.

Mr. Walz said that the RDA has been working with the Planning Division to come with a solution with this property. However, he said that the RDA gets direction from the RDA's Board of Directors, which is the City council. He said that the Board has asked the RDA to proceed with the demolition process for the duplex.

Mr. Walz inquired about the memorandum to which Mr. Ashdown referred. Mr. Ashdown said that the memorandum is dated March 10, 2003.

Mr. Walz made the following statement: "Just a point of clarification, if that is a memorandum between staffs of departments then that is how it should stand and not necessarily as a previous recommendation of the Planning Division staff. I understand that there are probably some discrepancies. We have gone back and forth on a lot of different plans for this site and I don't think necessarily an internal memorandum or recommendation should be brought up now and discussed. As far as the current summary and recommendation is concerned, we support it, but we do have some issues in terms of standard (1)(c), the demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. As an agency we probably have some philosophical differences on how that is considered. We understand that this property is on the boundary of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and we understand that criterion is basically asking would it affect the district itself. However, when you say that you are considering non-contributing structures I think you also have to look across 300 West Street to the west if you are going to look down Reed Avenue, Fern Avenue, and 200 West Street. If you did look across 300 West Street, you would not see any contributing structures on that western edge at all. At least not until you get to about 650 North Street where you would even start seeing residential units. Other than that, you have our new condominium development, you have a vacant lot, you have a vacant lot, and you have the commercial structures where the parachute company and the furniture businesses are. You have a vacant lot, Cedar Lounge, another vacant lot, residential units and then the old St. Marks Hospital. I don't think any of those are contributing to the H Historic Overlay District either. So, I would just throw that out as going on record that we probably would request that be a yes, but given that, we have four yeses and we are really not going to argue that other than if it comes out in the playing terms of your decision of overturning standard b or others. We would like to go on record for that."

Mr. Simonsen 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 asking what the main reason was that the RDA Board opposed the relocation of the duplex. Mr. Walz said that their initial reason for denying the relocation of the duplex was cost. He said that the RDA was already taking a substantial loss in doing this project and by adding another $150, 000 onto that, the Board did not find very prudent. Mr. Walz explained that the RDA offered the duplex for free, contributing the RDA's cost, to whoever wanted to relocate it. He said that the RDA board wanted to pursue demolition. Mr. Walz indicated that the board saw it as a better use of the property if the entire 300 West Street frontage could be developed. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the RDA had acquired all that property. Mr. Walz said that they have. Ms. Mickelsen said that the last time RDA had not acquired the property. Mr. Walz stated that under the direction of the Board, RDA pursued the different options for reuse before they closed on the properties.

• Mr. Ashdown asked if Option No. 2 as discussed in the Board meeting included demolition of the duplex. Mr. Walz said that it did not. He said that according to the minutes of the meeting, Option No. 2 had the duplex remaining where it is then given the size of the site where the Smoke Shop was, the only other thing the RDA could build on that property would probably be two twin homes or essentially a duplex. Mr. Ashdown commented, "That was not being presented to this Commission." Mr. Walz said that the Board indicated that they did not want to pursue option. They wanted to do the demolition. Mr. Ashdown said that the Board said that if we did not approve demolition then option No.2 would come into play. Mr. Walz stated, "If we could not get demolition approved or a successful economic hardship, then we would have to fall back to option No. 2 because the duplex would remain."

• Ms. Mickelsen said that this was simply a commentary and asked, 'When given the difficulty you are having marketing the one farther south, with a combination of retail/residence, why do they think this one is going to work." Mr. Walz said that there is still a lot of interest in mixed use buildings. He said that the commercial node property is a "whole another animal and has a lot of complications". Mr. Walz explained that RDA has not marketed just a simple mixed use site such as this. He said that it could be live/work units where there is commercial on the first floor and the residential units above which are directly tied to them. Mr. Walz pointed out that the concept has a lot of interest.

• Mr. Simonsen asked if there have been other similar samples of buildings of this scale that have been successfully marketed and developed through the RDA. Mr. Walz said that RDA had buildings in the West Temple Gateway (900 South and 200 West Streets) that do have a small commercial component in them with commercial on the first floor with residential units above. He said that this would be a smaller scale.

• Mr. Ashdown asked the applicant if he could give him a clarification of the timeline.

Mr. Walz said that RDA has spent a lot of that time working with the Planning Division staff in how demolition would be proposed. He said that the commercial node also took priority. Mr. Ashdown inquired what was happening with the project between July and October of 2003, when the Historic Landmark Commission approved the relocation plan and when it was submitted to the RDA Board. Mr. Walz said that RDA staff was preparing and reviewing all the reuse plan options. Mr. Ashdown asked if any developer marketing was being done in this time period and Mr. Walz said there was not. He added that in that time period, RDA staff was doing reviews on the cost of rehabilitation and relocation. Mr. Walz said that there were architects, contractors, building movers, and others looking at the site so cost estimates could be submitted to the RDA. Mr. Ashdown asked when the demolition proposal was submitted to Ms. Giraud. Mr. Walz said that he was not certain of the date. Ms. Giraud said that the date of the application was April 29, 2004.

The discussion continued regarding the demolition request. Mr. Walz said that if the demolition request is approved, the RDA would put notice out and it would be available for free as the documents are being prepared to put it out on the market. He seemed to think that it would be anywhere between four and six months before a developer is selected.

Executive Session.

Mr. Simonsen asked if the Commission wanted to discuss staff's findings of fact.

Mr. Ashdown said that he thought it would be worthwhile for the Commission to consider each one of the findings of fact. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission had done that on many occasions so he said he thought it would be appropriate. After Mr. Ashdown inquired, Mr. Simonsen said that he thought it would be worthwhile to take a straw poll for each finding. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the findings in the motion should be made very clear, if the Commission does not accept staff's findings.

Mr. Simonsen went through the standards as outlined in the staff report.

(1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section is no longer evident.

Staff's finding of fact: Because of its high degree of physical integrity, the staff finds that the applicant fails to meet this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Mr. Ashdown said that he agreed with the finding. This structure does have integrity. Other members agreed.

(1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H historic preservation overlay district would not be negatively affected.

Staff's finding of fact: The demolition of the duplex would not compromise the streetscape within the context of the historic district, especially if the RDA successfully markets its proposal for a mixed use building as shown on the site plan. The applicant substantially complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Disagreed with staff's findings and believed the demolition of the duplex structure would have an adverse effect on the streetscape.

Mr. Ashdown stated that in regards to this structure being on the edge of an historic district and the opposite side of the street having no historic structures, he thought that was problematic because that would allow for demolition of all historic structures on the edge of historic districts. He said, "There is a reason why the edge is there and if we allow for demolition of historic structures on the edge the historic district would shrink."

Mr. Simonsen said that there are a number of contributing structures between 300 and 400 West Streets but none immediately across the street, which the National Register District supports.

Ms. Rowland stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had been approached before with the idea that buildings encroaching the edge of an historic district. She believed that a building keeping the edge from going further is more valuable, rather than less valuable.

Mr. Simonsen pointed out the fact that all the non-contributing structures were built before the designation of an historic district and the fact that there are still some remaining structures on the block. He said that his personal opinion is that it is very justifiable that the duplex is a contributing structure to the streetscape, which still has the scale and rhythm that is consistent with the historical use of the block, even though there are noncontributing structures around.

Ms. Giraud stated that if the members of the Commission do not agree with staff's findings of fact, they have to be very specific what defines a streetscape and how negatively affected it would be if the duplex demolished.

The discussion continued regarding the matters at hand.

Mr. Simonsen stated that there are a few important considerations. He said, "The historic designation of this block has to do with the residential structures and not the commercial structures. The commercial structures were not built during the development of this district and what we are now trying to preserve is predominantly a residential district. I think that is a pretty clear argument for the fact that the historic district and the historic streetscape were laid not to the commercial structures but to the residential structures. If you look at the residential streetscape independently this is very much part of the contributing streetscape."

Ms. Giraud said that if the Commission is only looking at the block in the vicinity of this, that could be a good argument, but do not forget that there are contributing structures that were built as commercial structures along this streetscape such as the 0. P. Skaggs building.

Mr. Ashdown noted that the simplest way to look at it is if one stands across the street and looks at this block and asks would the historic character be diminished if that duplex was destroyed. He added that one would have to say that it would; that is the streetscape.

Mr. Simonsen stated that the duplex is actually one of the most predominant structures on the street in terms of the height and massiveness and is a larger building than the two commercial structures that are there. He said that it has a pretty substantial presence on the street.

Ms. Rowland said that there must have been a reason why those who surveyed the district chose the boundary where it is and decided to include that street along the edge of the historic district.

(1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H historic preservation overlay district due to the surrounding non-contributing structures.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: The Commission was in agreement with staff's finding.

(1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure.

Staff's finding of fact: The base zoning is not compatible with the reuse of this structure. The project substantially complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Ms. Rowland said that she could not see how that would be in this case because the zoning includes residential properties. The RDA said that they would consider another residential building there. It seems like it would be compatible with that zone. She disagreed with that finding.

Mr. Simonsen asked about the extent of the mixed use zone. Ms. Giraud said that it was along 300 West Street. Ms. Giraud pointed out the mixed use districts on the zoning map that was displayed.

Ms. Mickelsen said that the definition of mixed use is always problematic. She said that they went back and forth when they were working on the master plan. Ms. Mickelsen stated that the use has to be at least within the area but not necessarily mixed within the same building.

Ms. Giraud indicated that it was written in the master plan to allow flexibility in uses so that older buildings could be used for something else.

Mr. Ashdown clarified that the building could be used as a residence within the zoning district. Ms. Giraud said that it could.

Ms. Giraud pointed out that she was relying to a large extent on the master plan. She read the page out of the Capitol Hill Master Plan, where it states: 'The eastern portion of the neighborhood between 200 and 300 West Streets, (excluding the frontage of 300 West Street) is a residential area consisting of mostly /ow-density residential structures with medium-density developments scattered throughout. Historic preservation and the maintenance of existing low-density residential/and uses is propriety in this area. The area east of 300 West Street should continue to strengthen as an historically designated residential neighborhood."

Ms. Giraud said that was a standard with which she struggled but when she read the master plan carefully and thought about tying that to the whole purpose of the mixed use zone and the location in this block, and the fact that the master plan said exclusive of the frontage of 300 West Street, it tipped the scales for the applicant.

Ms. Rowland said if a private property owner owns a piece of property here and they wanted to build a duplex on that site it would be allowed in this zone. Ms. Giraud indicated that they could do that and if they had a square footage nonresidential development including mixed uses with greater than 25 percent of nonresidential use.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if a duplex could be built in a mixed use zone. Ms. Giraud said that a duplex could be built, depending on the size of the lot.

Ms. Giraud read the permitted uses in a mixed use zoning district, which included retail establishments, twin homes, and detached single-family residences.

Mr. Simonsen inquired if anyone agreed with staff's findings. No one did.

Ms. Mickelsen said that she did not think anyone could when it is listed as compatible.

(1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section.

Staff's finding of fact: The applicant substantially complies with this standard.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Mr. Simonsen said that there have been a number of reuse plans that have been submitted. The Commission agreed with staff's finding of fact that the applicant meets that standard.

Mr. Parvaz said the reuse plan should have elevation drawings and have more detail and the only plan submitted is a landscape plan.

Mr. Ashdown stated that as much as the Commission disagrees with the land use plan, it complies with the ordinance. Ms. Mickelsen said that she was confused which plan was the actual reuse plan.

Ms. Giraud said that the conceptual site plan would be the one that the RDA anticipates they would be building and what RDA would want the Commission to consider as their reuse plan. She noted that it might be something to clarify with Mr. Walz.

Mr. Simonsen pointed to what he believed was the proposed reuse plan for the site and what the Commission has to decide is whether or not this submitted reuse plan is consistent with the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District. He mentioned that the Commission had seen reuse plans for this property before. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not know how consistent this reuse plan is with what the Commission had previously seen. He noted that he was assuming that it did not stray very far from the concept plan in terms of scale and massing. Ms. Giraud indicated that she realized that it was not complete.

Mr. Ashdown asked, "Does it matter if they submitted a landscape plan and landscaping is acceptable. The thing we argued on 500 North Street is that they did not have an acceptable reuse plan. The Land Use Appeals Board came back and said that landscaping is an acceptable reuse plan." Ms. Giraud declared what the Land Use Appeals Board said was that the Historic Landmark Commission could not state that the building could not be demolished because there was only a landscape plan.

Ms. Mickelsen replied that it was up to the Commission to make sure that the actuality gets carried out that way. Ms. Mickelsen said that she agreed. She said that she was comfortable with this as a reuse plan.

Ms. Giraud stated that visually there is not that much one can really do with a two-story building which has commercial on the first floor and residential above. Mr. Simonsen said that there are many of examples of this.

Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern about accepting a reuse plan that does not say what is proposed. He said that he did not believe the Commission could do that. Ms. Giraud said that it depended on what is being proposed.

Mr. Ashdown said that he strongly felt that this is a loophole that should be closed. He noted that if someone comes in with a piece of paper colored green and claims that grass would be planted, does that constitute a reuse plan.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission has to determine whether or not the reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards.

Mr. Fitzsimmons noted that the reuse plan is not well developed architecturally but it is clearly a concept for the reuse of the property. He said that it describes the occupancy, the setbacks, the square footage, and so forth. Mr. Simonsen replied that he did not think the standards require a reuse plan to be a fully developed architectural site plan.

Ms. Rowland said that the concept might be compatible but it could change. Mr. Fitzsimmons pointed out that if the plans change, the developer would have to have the changes reviewed by the Commission.

The concept of the reuse plan was reviewed once more.

Ms. Giraud read: 'The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section." Ms. Giraud said that is involving new construction or alteration of a non-contributing structure, which includes scale and form; composition of principal Facades, which the Commission does not have at this time; relationship to street, (which I think would be very easy to envision); and subdivision of lots, (which is a big issue in this plan but not insurmountable). She pointed out the easement going across the property and said, "That is something that will have to be worked out." She said that RDA was aware of the easement.

Mr. Simonsen indicated that if the Commission uses that definition this plan does not constitute an acceptable reuse plan. He said that the Commission can conjecture that it will be similar to something the Commission has seen before, but it is not known, unless there is some additional information that can be provided by the applicant. Ms. Rowland noted that RDA wants to be flexible with a future developer. She wondered if the Commission was locking them into the concept of all commercial or residential and commercial.

Again, it was a consensus of the Commission to reopen the public hearing, so the applicant could address the issues that have been raised. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting and invited the applicant to return to the table.

Mr. Walz stated that the RDA's reuse plan for this demolition is the landscape plan. He referred to staff’s recommendation where it states, "The Planning Division staff recommended that the HLC count this effort as a bona fide effort and allow the demolition to occur, with the provision that the duplex is not demolished until the RDA board and the HLC approve a plan for redevelopment that is in accordance with the conceptual plan presented as part of this application, and until plans are filed for building permit review by the Building Services Division." He said that for the intent to meet these criteria, RDA's reuse plan is the landscape plan that is attached to the next case. Mr. Walz pointed out that the Commission needed to take action on this case at the meeting because RDA has agreed not to demolish the building until a developer is found. He noted that in meeting with the Planning staff, they said that one of the Commission's typical concerns is that the building is demolished before RDA knows what will be constructed. Mr. Walz again said that was the reason that RDA agreed not to demolish the structure until a solid reuse plan is in place. He said that in this case, RDA will not need to landscape the site because the building would remain on site. Mr. Walz pointed out that the RDA staff needed to have the flexibility to market the property with the option that the building can be demolished.

Mr. Ashdown said that this concept sounds a whole lot like Arctic Court; the structures the Historic Landmark Commission approved to be demolished contingent upon a developer but they were demolished. Mr. Walz said, "As you recall, RDA was denied demolition so RDA appealed HLC's decision to the Land Use Appeals Board which was overturned." He added that the buildings were demolished after that.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if the RDA cannot find a developer will the RDA come back to the Historic Landmark Commission in two years requesting demolition without the clause. Mr. Walz said that if RDA cannot find a developer, staff would be back here regardless with a new plan or new idea. He added that the RDA cannot let the property sit forever.

Mr. Walz stated that if the Historic Landmark Commission does not grant demolition with the option of leaving the duplex up, RDA has the option of pursuing economic hardship or appeal the decision to the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Walz said that the RDA staff has been trying to work with Planning staff to meet everyone's goals and "what we put on the table here is what we thought was a fair offer''.

Ms. Rowland said, "The meeting was reopened to ask the applicant about the reuse plan and I think we got the answer that it is the landscape plan."

Mr. Zunguze said that for us it is clear this is the direction of the City Council (RDA Board) to develop this property with the inclusion of the duplex. He added that what the Commission needs to do here is to communicate to the RDA staff so they can go back to City Council and say, here is what the Historic Landmark Commission said: "We understand what the City Council is saying but until you have a reuse plan that can be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission it would not be appropriate to demolish the duplex which has been determined to be contributing, until we get something suitable for that area. In our discussion with the RDA staff, they agreed with that reasoning. That is what we think is a fair compromise given the direction that the City Council had taken." Mr. Zunguze stated, "You can turn this down, but the question is what is next."

Ms. Rowland said that the Historic Landmark Commission has to abide by the standards in the ordinance for demolition. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission has to follow the ordinance. Ms. Rowland stated that the Historic Landmark Commission does not make the ordinance and it would up to the City Council to change the ordinance. She commented that the Commission is being thrown into a very awkward situation.

Mr. Parvaz pointed out that it has been his experience that those pursuing economic hardship has always been successful and it is very frustrating. He added that the Commission has to follow the same rules and be consistent.

Mr. Zunguze noted that he understood that the Commission had a job to do. He said that in these findings there is no set answer and that is what the discussion is about. Mr. Zunguze pointed out that if it is appealed, there is always an issue as to how the Commission interpreted the ordinance. He said that he thought Ms. Giraud had done a fairly good job. He added, "I don't think there is anything in here that says it is black and white. All these aspects are part of the findings and you are looking at seven things that are debatable. You have done everything. It is just a question of which ones you are looking at as being more important."

As there were no additional questions of comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting and returned to the executive session.

Ms. Giraud said that she was erroneous in assuming that it was the concept plan with this building on it as the reuse plan.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission had to resolve this one. He said that Mr. Walz clarified that the landscape plan is the submitted reuse plan whether or not the reuse plan is compatible with the zoning district. Mr. Simonsen indicated that it did not seem to matter if the Historic Landmark Commission agrees with the staff's findings or not on this one.

Mr. Ashdown advised the Commission to accept the staff's findings because that seemed to be the simplest thing to do to move forward. Mr. Simonsen noted that the Commission did not have to accept the findings of staff because the findings were based on a misinterpretation about what the reuse plan proposed, but the Commission could find that the landscape plan, based on the ordinance, is an acceptable reuse plan.

Ms. Giraud in your staff report for the commercial node, she read the following: 't the HLC's June 19, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved the design guidelines, but found that the proposed landscaping did not meeting the zoning ordinance's standards for new construction (21A.34.020.34.020.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.34.020.34.020.P (which is the review of post-demolition) of the zoning ordinance, the HLC 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 HLC's decision to not accept the landscaping plan was overturned."

Mr. Simonsen said that he would probably take the road that they would probably not challenge it.

(1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following:

v. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure.

vi. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs.

vii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and

viii. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The duplex is currently occupied, and does not appear to have suffered from willful neglect, either from previous owners or the RDA.

Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding of fact: Mr. Ashdown said that he agreed with that. Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone else agreed with the staff's finding. The Commission agreed with the staff's finding of fact that the site had not suffered willful neglect.

Mr. Simonsen recommended that whoever makes the motion, if the Commission's findings are different than staff's, then the reasons has to be clearly stated.

Mr. Ashdown read from the ordinance Section 21A.34.020(L)(2)(a through c): "Upon making findings that at least six (6) of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. Upon making findings that two (2) or less of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition. Upon making findings that three (3) to five (5) of the standards are met, the Historic Landmark Commission shall defer a decision for up to one year during which the applicant must conduct a bona fide effort to preserve the site pursuant to subsection M of this Section." Mr. Ashdown said that even regardless of the standing of (1)(e), the Historic Landmark Commission should deny it.

Mr. Simonsen said that the straw poll of the Commissioners indicated that the applicants do not meet the standards (a) through (d).

Motion:

Pursuant to Case No. 020-04, Mr. Ashdown moved that in regards to the requirements in the zoning ordinance, the six criteria regarding the Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the Historic Landmark Commission agrees with staff's findings on (1)(a) The physical integrity of the site as defined is Subsection of (C)(2)(b)of this section is no longer evident. The Commission determined that the physical integrity of the structure is evident so the applicant does not meet this standard.

The Historic Landmark Commission disagrees with staff on (1)(b) The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively affected. The Commission determined that the streetscape would be negatively affected for the following reasons: 1) there is a contributing structure to the immediate south of the duplex; and 2) if the block is looked at as a whole from across the street the absence of the duplex would erode the appearance of the historic streetscape.

The Historic Landmark Commission agrees with staff on (1)(c) The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures. The Commission finds that the demolition would adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

The Historic Landmark Commission disagrees with staff on (1)(d) The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure. The Commission determined that the base zoning of the site is compatible with the reuse of the structure for the following reason: 1) mixed use allows for residential, single-family, multi-family, limited commercial, and so forth and the reuse of the existing duplex structure would comply with that standard.

The Historic Landmark Commission disagrees with staff's finding on (1)(e) The reuse plan appears to be consistent with the standards outlined in subsection H of this section, because it was based on a misinterpretation what the proposed reuse plan was. The Commission determined that the proposed landscaping plan is an acceptable reuse plan for the site.

The Historic Landmark Commission agrees with staff on (1)(f) The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: i) willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure; ii) failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs; iii) failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; and iv) failure to secure and board the structure if vacant. The Commission determined that the site has not suffered from willful neglect by the owners.

Therefore, based on the Commission's findings, that two (2) or less of the standards were met in Section 21A.34.020(L)(2)(b), the Historic Landmark Commission must deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition.

Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 021-04. at 754 North 300 West Street. the "Hawaiian House", and at 261 W. Reed Avenue. the Morrison Meat Pie Factory, by Danny Walz of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, requesting approval of a post-demolition plan for two noncontributing properties. located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

The City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is requesting approval of a landscaping plan for two properties at the corner of Reed Avenue and 300 West Street. The two properties are the former Dan Morrison Meat Pie Factory (261 W. Reed Avenue- known as the "Factory" in this report) and the building known as the "Hawaiian House" (754 N. 300 W.). On June 27, 2003, the Planning Division sent a notice of proposed demolition of the Hawaiian house and the Factory to HLC members, surrounding property owners within 85 feet, the community council chairs and the list of "interested parties" maintained by the secretary of the commission. After a 14-day waiting period, the ordinance indicates that the Planning Director may issue a demolition permit or refer the matter for further review by the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Director Louis Zunguze elected not to refer the matter of the contributing structure to the HLC, and presented his determination to the HLC at its August 6, 2003 meeting.

The RDA is requesting approval to demolish a duplex at 748-50 North 300 West Street (HLC Case No. 020-04), which is also on the HLC agenda for September 1, 2004. The RDA proposes to construct a mixed use development of 7, 000 square feet on the corner, with retail on the first floor and four units on the upper story, and a single-family house on the Factory site. The Hawaiian House is zoned MU Mixed Use Zoning District, the purpose of which "is to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses. The district is to provide for limited commercial use opportunities within existing mixed use areas while preserving the attractiveness of the area for residential use. The district is intended to provide a higher level of control over nonresidential uses to ensure that the use and enjoyment of residential properties is not substantially diminished by nonresidential redevelopment The Factory is zoned SR-1 Special Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics.

Once the HLC approves a landscaping plan for the Hawaiian House and the Factory sites, demolition can proceed.

The RDA is proposing to Hydroseed the properties with drought tolerant native grasses. The plans call for the grass to be maintained at 18" maximum height, but the RDA has agreed with the Planning Division staff that the grass should be maintained no higher than 6." This will prevent the landscaping from becoming unsightly and becoming a crime hazard. The landscaped area will have to be irrigated. New trees are proposed for the parking strip.

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 HLC 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.

Staffs 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. SR-1; thus, a landscaped area covering the entire lot in the SR-1 zone would be required.

Staffs finding of fact: The submitted landscaping plan includes a sprinkling system and planting areas and is in accordance with the requirements of 21A.34.020.P and 21A.48.050 of the Salt Lake City Code. An irrigation plan will have to be submitted. As a point of clarification for the sake of consistency, although the Planning Staff recommended allowing applicants to landscape only a buffer for properties in a residential zone in two previous cases (Case No. 018-04- Juel Apartment site, and Case No. 019-04- Commercial Node/Arctic Court site) staff views this case differently. One, the site is much smaller, and more manageable for irrigation and maintenance. Second, if the HLC agrees with the staff findings in Case No. 020-04 to demolish the adjacent duplex, the RDA has agreed not to demolish the duplex until a developer is found for the mixed use project and plans are logged in. In this case, residents would be living in close proximity to two vacant lots. Third, the neighborhood east of the subject properties is densely developed, and again, residents are living in close proximity to these properties.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the HLC accept the proposed landscaping plan as submitted by the RDA, 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. Furthermore, staff recommends that the HLC allow the staff to review the final plans, which must include an irrigation plan and specify that the grass will be maintained at no higher than 6 inches."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Danny Walz, the applicant, was present. He stated that he was the Project Manager with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Walz said that he had nothing else to add to staff's recommendations.

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

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by inquiring if there was an issue with RDA to maintain the grass at a height no higher than 6 inches. Mr. Walz said that someone would be called more frequently to trim the grass. Mr. Ashdown asked if the RDA could select a drought-tolerant ground cover that would not grow to 18 inches high. Mr. Walz said that he did not know. He added that the intention is to have more native grasses rather than plants.

Executive Session.

Mr. Ashdown asked if the landscaping plan would include the duplex.

Mr. Simonsen said that this was only for the Hawaiian House and the Morrison Meat Pie Factory as per application.

Ms. Giraud said that it was the same plan but only for those two properties.

There was some discussion making certain that the Historic Landmark Commission understood that this case only pertained to the two properties in the MU zoning district.

Mr. Ashdown referred to the landscaping bond talked about earlier by another developer when he said that the bond would not buy the required landscaping. Ms. Giraud said that the bond would buy some landscaping and that would be reviewed by staff because that is part of the problem why properties are not being landscaped.

Ms. Mickelsen asked further about the bond. Ms. Giraud said that the RDA would have to post a bond with the City. When Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the full landscaping on the streetscape, it was determined that because there are existing houses in the back, the RDA would fully landscape both properties.

Motion:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved for Case No. 021-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission acknowledges staff's findings of fact and recommendation and accept the proposed landscaping plan as submitted by the RDA, subject to the RDA posting a bond ensuring completion of the plan, as required by ordinance. Furthermore, the Historic Landmark Commission recommends that staff will review the final plans, which must include an irrigation plan and specify that the grass will be maintained at no higher than six inches. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Presentation by Korral Broschinsky, consultant. for the findings of the Sugar House Reconnaissance-Level Survey.

This presentation was postponed but will be presented at the September 15, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting.

OTHER BUSINESS

Case No. 014-04 heard at the August 4. 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Giraud said that at the August 4, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the Commission overturned some of the staff's decisions on the findings on the Store at 242-244 West 500 North Street, which would require the RDA to go to economic hardship if they wanted to pursue that route. She referred to her staff report and said that in her recommendation she tied the findings of the Shotgun House and assumed that the Commission would agree with her findings. Ms. Giraud indicated that the Commission agreed with staff's findings on the Shotgun House. She reported that what happened was that the motion was that the Historic Landmark Commission adopted the staff's findings of fact and recommendation to place the structure in the "gray", and consider the beginning of the one-year "clock" in conjunction with that of the Store at 242-244 West 500 North Street.

Ms. Giraud said that was problematic because there are two different buildings in two different tracks or possible demolition. She added that there is one on the economic hardship track, but hopefully that building will be renovated, and the other building that is subordinate to the Store because it is on the same property is in the "gray" zone track.

Ms. Giraud said that in her conversations with Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, he suggested that the Commission clarify how long the requirement would be for the "clock" starting on the Shotgun House. She pointed out that clarification was needed that the one year only applied to the Shotgun House and not the Store and what would trigger that "clock" for the Shotgun House.

Mr. Ashdown stated that he did not attend the Historic Landmark Commission on August 4, 2004, would his comments be relevant. Ms. Giraud said that they would not be relevant. (Mr. Ashdown excused himself and left the meeting at 8:36P.M.) Mr. Parvaz also mentioned that his comments would not be relevant because he opposed the motion.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if the problem was that the wording in the motion indicating the Store. Ms. Giraud said that was part of it. Mr. Fitzsimmons indicated that he made the motion and tied the Shotgun House to the Store.

Ms. Giraud said that what ended up happening was that there would be two separate procedures that would have to be followed. She said that staff and the RDA wanted to be understood what the "clock" would be, what the "gray" zone implicated for the Shotgun House. Ms. Giraud referred to her e-mail and said that staff gave the Commission two options.

First option: 1) maintain the adoption of the staff's findings and keep the Shotgun House in the "gray" zone; 2) make sure that the Commission indicates that the motion only applied to the Shotgun House; 3) credit the RDA for its past marketing efforts; and 4) allow demolition once the building was documented and the landscaping plan was approved. That was not in accordance with the staff report.

Second option: 1) maintain the adoption of the staff's findings and keep the Shotgun House in the "gray" zone; 2) require that the RDA market the Shotgun House for reuse or relocation; or 3) state that remarketing would trigger the one-year "clock".

Mr. Zunguze said that the Commission would also have the option to come up with something different.

Ms. Mickelsen said that it seemed to her that the second option would be more in accordance with what the Commission was intending.

Motion for the Shotgun House at 515 No. Arctic Court:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to amend the motion made on Case No. 014-04 at the August 4, 2004, Historic Landmark Commission meeting to maintain the adoption of the staff's findings of fact and keep the Shotgun House in the "gray" zone, which triggered the one year "clock", and to require that the RDA market the Shotgun House for reuse or relocation.

The discussion continued. Ms. Giraud said that the "clock" would start with the applicant making the efforts to market the property or find someone who would use the tax credits. From a practical standpoint, she said, that she did not believe that the Commission or the staff have the expectation that the RDA will try to market the building separately.

Ms. Mickelsen said that if the Commission credits the RDA's efforts, it could be demolished right away. Ms. Giraud added that it could be relocated.

Amended final motion for the Shotgun House at 515 No. Arctic Court:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to amend the motion made on Case No. 014-04 at the August 4, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting to maintain the adoption of the staff's findings of fact and keep the Shotgun House in the "gray" zone and require the RDA to market the Shotgun House for reuse or relocation. Consider the beginning of the one-year "clock" in conjunction with efforts to market the reuse of the Store at 242-244 West 500 North. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 8:45 P.M.