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 Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Sarah Miller, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Mr. Young introduced Mr. Soren Simonsen, a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. He was welcomed by the other members.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Owen moved to approve the minutes from the September 1, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Payne, voted "Aye". Mr. Simonsen abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Case No. 026-98. by Jeff Jonas with American Housing Development Company, requesting a review of the findings of the Economic Review Panel regarding an economic hardship relative to a request for the demolition of seven structures at 517. 524. 527, 538, 532, 533. and 538 East Vernier Court. which are in the Central City Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He stated that the subject properties were part of a larger project that Mr. Jonas had been planning for Block 38. Mr. Knight pointed out that there was a pending case for new construction for the block.
Mr. Knight said that the Economic Review Panel met on August 26, 1999 regarding an economic hardship for Mr. Jonas for the demolition of the structures on Vernier Court. He said that the report and the minutes of that meeting accompanied the staff report. Mr. Knight said that it was the responsibility of the Historic Landmark Commission to either accept or deny the findings of the Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Knight gave a brief history on the previous demolition applications requested by Mr. Jonas, which was included in the staff report. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission directed that a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the demolition of the structures for Case No. 014-97, when a re-use plan was approved. He stated that on March 3, 1999, the Historic Landmark Commission granted a six-month extension and that the extension was about to expire. Mr. Knight pointed out that the applicant would like to pursue another six-month extension. He stated that staff recommended granting the extension.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if Vernier Court was a public street. Mr. Wright said that Vernier Court was a private right-of way, so the applicant would not have to go through the street-closure process.
Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns that the properties on Vernier Court were "lumped" together under one application. He said that there should have been a separate application for each property. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that the value of each property was not included in the submitted information for the economic hardship review. He stated that by not submitting a separate application and data, the value of those landmark sites were deflated, and "that was not right". Mr. Parvaz talked about the applicant abusing the process.
Mr. Knight explained that the data, that was submitted by the applicant, was divided into three separate sections because some of the properties were combined by the seller and sold as one property to the applicant. He said that the three purchases for the properties on East Vernier Court were from MTB Enterprises, Inc., which included 517, 527, 532, 533, and 538; Robert Mugleston and Deanna Knight, which included 524; and Bert Leon Brewer and Roger Lee Brewer, which included 528.
Mr. Jeff Jonas, the applicant was present. He pointed out that all the properties on Vernier Court were "handled individually". Mr. Jonas said that Vernier Court is considered a private easement and the property lines of the houses go to the middle of the street and that was reflected in the data.
Mr. Jonas addressed the extension request and said that if the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the findings of the Economic Review Panel, and grants him an extension for the previous demolition requests, it will be the first time the entire parcel will have the approvals for the new project. He added that each portion had been “contingent on one thing or another". Mr. Jonas also mentioned his regret that the "RDA pulled the plug" on the houses on Vernier Court being moved to Pugsley Street.
As there were no questions, concerns, and comments, directed toward the applicant, by the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Littig stated that he, personally, was very disappointed with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) that the board did not endorse moving the houses to the site on Pugsley Street; they lost an opportunity.
Mr. Parvaz again referred to the Economic Review Panel's report. He said that Mr. White raised some issues, that were not properly addressed. Mr. Parvaz said that the first one was that the applicant had knowledge that the properties were landmark sites, included in the Central City Historic District. He said that he believed that it was not acceptable when an applicant has that knowledge, purchases the property, then applies for an economic hardship because, in the applicant's estimation, it would not be economically feasible to restore the property.
Mr. Parvaz said that the second item that was raised was that the applicant did not attempt to sell the properties and the applicant stating that he did not want to sell the properties. He said that he did not believe that the Economic Review Panel should have disregarded that issue. Mr. Parvaz talked about the letter from the broker, which was included in the economic review data. He said that the letter was a generic letter which made no direct reference to The American Housing Development Company or to the property addresses on Vernier Court. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that the Economic Review Panel should not have accepted the letter as a valid document. He indicated that he was opposed to accepting the Panel's findings and granting Mr. Jonas an economic hardship.
Mr. Owen also expressed his frustration with the economic review process. He said that he believed that the Historic Landmark Commission has to conclude that the economic review process was not serving historic preservation and "that is our charge" and not to allow the seven properties on Vernier Court to "just disappear from the historical fabric of the city".
• Mr. Owen said that he believed there was a point where those seven properties could have been rehabilitated as "an interior court to this larger project and seven very delighted residents would have had single-story houses in a garden apartment setting. This would have been a plus for both the developer and the city". He remarked that the opportunity had been lost. He also expressed his sorrow that the houses on Vernier Court were not able to be moved.
Mr. Parvaz moved to deny the findings of the Economic Review Panel because the Panel acted arbitrarily. The motion died for the lack of a second.
There was further discussion regarding the extension. Ms. Giraud said that if the extension was denied, the application would expire and the applicant would have to file a new application and begin the process again, only for the properties at 334 and 326 South 600 East, and 550 and 558 East 300 South, which were included in Case No. 014-97. The demolition request of the Lunt Motel Annex at 321 and 331 South 500 East was discussed, as well.
Mr. Wright said that the applicant had no control over the amount of time that was spent on the package that was assembled for moving the homes from Vernier Court. He stated that extension periods were adopted in the 1995 zoning ordinance rewrite so there could be an evaluation whether an abandonment of a proposal had occurred. He continued by saying that there were occasions that someone would try to reinstate a project five years after a permit had been issued. Mr. Wright said, "From the City's prospective, there is plenty of evidence that Mr. Jonas hasn't abandoned this project." Mr. Wright stated that it was his recommendation that the Commission allow an extension of time to give the applicant the opportunity to "pull all the pieces together" and allow the project to either advance or be abandoned. He also recommended that the motion on the extension of time and the motion of the Economic Review Panel's findings should be separated.
Motion on the six-month extension for Case No. 014-97:
Mr. Owen moved that the applicant be granted an additional six-month extension on the approval for Case No. 014-97. Mr. Payne seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
The discussion continued regarding the findings of the Economic Review Panel for the economic hardship. Ms. Mitchell remarked that in order for the Commission to deny the findings of the Economic Review Panel, the Commission would have to decide that the Panel had been arbitrary or the member's decision had been based on erroneous findings of fact. She said, "The members of the Commission can continue to discuss the issues, surrounding the economic review, but we are at a point where we need to approve the findings even though the Commission is unhappy with the economic hardship process."
Ms. Mitchell moved that for Case No. 026-98, the Historic Landmark Commission accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel, relative to the demolition of the seven structures on Vernier Court. The motion died for the lack of a second.
The issues continued to be discussed. Mr. Parvaz again expressed the matters, which he raised earlier in the meeting. He stated that the economic review process is discriminatory because a large development company is able to incorporate several parcels together to form one application and a property owner of a single parcel would only have one property for the one application. Mr. Parvaz added that a single individual does not have the same opportunity as a corporation. He said that he believed the applicant was very aware of this situation in the beginning. Mr. Parvaz expressed his opinion, once more, that there should be one application filed for each individual landmark site.
Mr. Payne asked if the Economic Review Panel was required to consider the applicant's knowledge if the property was in an historic district or a landmark site. Mr. Parvaz said that question is asked in the criteria that the Panel reviews. Mr. Wright said that the Panel was concerned with the applicant's response to that question because Mr. Jonas said that he had that knowledge. Mr. Parvaz said, "The applicant was aware of that. He doesn't bear any responsibility."
Mr. Knight said that the issues Mr. Parvaz raised were also raised by Mr. Rob White, who represented the Historic Landmark Commission on the Economic Review Panel. He pointed out that the other two members of the Panel said they believed those issues were not enough justification to make a finding against the economic hardship.
Mr. Parvaz said that he did not think the problem was unsolvable. He suggested that the houses not be demolished and included into the overall project. Mr. Parvaz added that incorporating old buildings into new projects was not unusual and is being done in every city.
Mr. Payne inquired what the statutes said about submitting an application for each building, as opposed to multiple buildings on one application. Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance does not address the issue. She said that the City was not anticipating a project like Mr. Jonas' when the ordinance was written.
Mr. Owen said that many people were unhappy that the homes were not moved, but he said that he wondered if that was unnecessarily penalizing the applicant at this point if the Commission petitions that the homes on Vernier Court be saved. He said that he agreed with Mr. Parvaz and the arguments he made for "this court of buildings". Mr. Owen said that old structures exist all the time within the parameters of new developments. Mr. Owen noted that a person would likely live in these small homes in this area of the city where access would be controlled from the streets and where there would be a sense of safety.
Mr. Wright said, "Let me remind you that your job is not to plan this project for the applicant. Your job is to review the data about the economic issues here and if you don't agree with it, we better find out what the reasons are that you don't agree with. The project failed on economics. It wasn't a political failure; it was an economic failure." Mr. Owen said, "He appreciated that and he knew it wasn't our job to plan the project, but obviously it will be more economical to bulldoze them than anything." Mr. Wright said, "The ordinance basically says, that in order to get the demolition permit, there has to be an economic analysis to determine hardship. That is where the applicant has proceeded to do to this point in the process." The discussion continued.
The motion regarding economic hardship for Case No. 026-98:
Mr. Payne moved that Mr. Parvaz raised some good points and with a different Economic Review Panel, the decision may have come out differently; however the Historic Landmark Commission's responsibility is to determine whether or not the findings, made by the Economic Review Panel, were arbitrary and capricious or based on erroneous findings of fact. Although the members of the Commission have some strong frustration with the process, he believes that the Commission's responsibility is to accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel for Case No. 026-98. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Payne voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Owen and Mr. Simonsen abstained. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young stated that in the past, the Historic Landmark Commission had placed a stipulation that the applicant could not demolish the structure without submitting subsequent plans. He inquired if a subsequent motion should be made to address that issue. Mr. Wright said he agreed that was a condition that was placed on the other demolition requests. Mr. Jonas said that Mr. Parvaz made a motion last time for photographic evidence and floor plans be submitted before the approval. Mr. Wright said that we could make that a motion or say that the same condition that was placed on the Lunt Motel Annex buildings, that there would be documentation and approval of the renewed construction plans.
Mr. Payne made a subsequent motion.
The subsequent motion regarding economic hardship for Case No. 026-98:
Mr. Payne moved that before demolition occurs, that the same conditions be imposed as in previous demolition requests on the site, that proper documentation of the houses be completed, and that a building permit be issued prior to the demolition. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Jonas thanked the members of the Historic Landmark Commission for their decisions.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 015-99. at 941 East 500 South, by Edward and Kathleen Scott. requesting a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the "Keyser/Cullen" house on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He stated that the staff proposed a favorable recommendation to have the house listed on the National Register.
Mr. Knight stated that part of the Historic Landmark Commission's jurisdiction is the Certified Local Government (CLG) Commission for CLG programs as a state and federal program that basically involved local governments and makes available grants to them for certain obligations, such as instituting a preservation ordinance, which Salt Lake City did. He said that part of the jurisdiction of the Historic Landmark Commission is that all National Register nominations have to come before this Commission, a CLG Commission.
Mr. Knight said that the "Keyser/Cullen" house was already listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and was listed some time ago, as part of an old application to get a conditional use approval. He added that the current owners decided to have the house listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which would make the owners eligible for tax credits for rehabilitation. Mr. Knight said that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) administers this program, in conjunction with the National Park Service, which is the agency that determines if the building is eligible for the National Register. He said that a National Register listing also gives a little protection if a federally-funded project would have a negative impact an historic building.
Mr. Knight gave a slide presentation on the "Keyser/Cullen" house which showed all facades, as well as the interior. He presented some of the highlights of the history of the house, which was included in the accompanying information.
Mr. Knight introduced Ms. Kathleen Scott, the owner, and Ms. Tania Tully from the Utah State Preservation Office, who were present.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that there were some errors in the documentation that needed to be corrected. She indicated out that the nomination states that this house is the last remaining remnant of the building associated with the Salt Lake Brewery Company, which is not true. Ms. Giraud said that the Diamond Lil's Restaurant in the Anniversary Inn building once was the location for the office and the bottling works.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the owners were seeking a conditional use or a change of use for the house. Mr. Knight said that the owners were not requesting a change of use. He also said that the house is already listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources
• Mr. Owen inquired about the conditional use that was applied for on this property. Ms. Giraud explained that in 1995 the previous owner applied for a conditional use for the building to be used as a bed and breakfast. She said that the process was not completed. Ms. Giraud said that the Scott's purchased the home and the process for a conditional use was dropped. Mr. Owen inquired if the present owners plan to continue to live in the house. Ms. Scott said that she bought the property because the family "loved it". She said, "We bought the property because we were committed to make city neighborhoods, places in which to live. Places where you can mix business and homes right next to each other. Where you can walk to school and walk to the store. We will live there until it's impossible to take care of. We have four boys, our oldest is 14, and I suspect probably another 20 to 25 years."
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, who is an interested person, praised the Scott's for purchasing this house. Ms. Cromer gave the following account of the conditional use: "This was one of the most bitter cases in the final year that she spent on the Planning Commission. It was a conditional use request based on this house being threatened with demolition. It got through the approval of the Planning Commission That approval occurred while the Scott's had an offer pending on the house to be used as a single-family dwelling. The Planning Commission knew that
the offer was pending when they declared the house eligible for a conditional use. I was the dissenting vote; I was livid. I am delighted that the Scott's have gotten this far along toward getting some help with the financing for the rehabilitation of this house. It is truly a wonderful and unique house in the neighborhood. It has had a very rocky past with its criminal history and its near brush with the commercialization of bed and breakfasts." Ms. Cromer expressed her "public thanks" to the Scott family and said that she was pleased to see that they were moving forward.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
• As there was no discussion, Mr. Young called for a motion.
Mr. Littig moved to send a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) for Case No. 015-99 to include the "Keyser/Cullen" house at 941 East 500 South on the National Register of Historic Places. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 016-99. at 1797 South 1400 East. by Jule Marine and Michelle Bachman. requesting a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the "Nephi and Laura Hansen" house on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was 1iled with the minutes of this meeting. He stated that this case would be processed in the same manner as the previous case.
The owner, Ms. Michelle Bachman and Ms. Korral Broschinsky, the consultant who prepared the nomination documents, were present. Ms. Broschinsky gave a brief overview of the history, which is included in the National Register documents. Ms. Broschinsky offered a slide presentation as she described both the exterior and interior of the home. She also circulated historic photographs, as well as current photographs of the house. Ms. Broschinsky pointed out that the house has had very little exterior modifications.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig inquired about the carport that appeared in one of the slides. Ms.
Broschinsky said that the carport was on the adjacent property.
• Mr. Parvaz asked about the architect. Ms. Broschinsky said that only the builder, Elijah Thompson, was listed on the permit and she said that she presumed he was also the architect. She said that Mr. Thompson built a few smaller bungalow homes and also built about fourteen L.D.S. chapels. Ms. Broschinsky said she believed the "Nephi and Laura Hansen" house was the largest residence that he constructed. Mr. Young said that he had seen the same art glass and woodwork in other buildings. Mr. Littig also said that he has seen the same windows in other buildings.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
As there was no discussion, Mr. Young called for a motion.