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 Scott Christensen, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Janice Lew, Doug Wheelwright, and Everett Joyce.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White. Pete Ashdown and Noreen Heid were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Ray McCandless, Principal 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. Wheelwright stated that Mr. Zunguze, the Planning Director, had conflicting meetings and hoped to be at the meeting later on. Mr. Simonsen said that he would postpone the report from the Planning Director until the end of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Fitzsimmons n1oved to approve the minutes of the September 1, 2004 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland, unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 022-04. at 218 E. Fifth Avenue. a request by Amy Clements to construct a carport in the rear yard. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Mr. McCandless 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:
Ms. Amy Clements is requesting approval to construct a two-car carport in the rear yard of the property located at 218 5th Ave. The primary structure on this lot is a contributing structure, originally constructed as a single-family dwelling. It is currently used as a residence. The property is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, and is located in the Avenues Historic District.
The Site/Survey Historic Site Form indicates that this building was constructed in 1907. This building is very similar to two other buildings originally owned by the Ella Sears Family at 212 and 216 5th Avenue. This is a two-story gable-roofed Victorian home with a gabled front bay. The gable ends have wood shingle siding. Walls are of buff brick, and front windows have stone sills and lintels. The original wooden columns of the one-story gabled front porch have been replaced with wrought iron ones. This is an example of the many investment properties historically built in the Avenues. Also, the Victorian style and massing contribute to the architectural character of the Avenues.
Based upon the criteria established by the HLC for administrative approvals in 2000, staff decided to refer this case to the full Commission because it is a carport associated with a contributing structure.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 20' x 24' carport at the southernmost end of a narrow but deep parcel (28.5' x 115.5'). The carport is open on all sides with the westernmost support posts shifted inward to allow for adequate vehicle maneuvering area. The steel support posts will be covered with wood. Wood shingles will be installed on the gable ends and asphalt shingles to match those on the existing house will be used on the roof. Access will be provided by a narrow shared driveway that extends southward from Fifth Avenue. The driveway provides access to several garages behind the property. There is no alley behind this property.
The Historic Landmark Commission should base a decision on the following requirements in Section 21A.34.020(H), H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The proposed location of the carport is behind the primary structure, and has little visibility from the street. It is very similar to other multi-car carports that the HLC has approved. Its height and width, proportions, and scale are subordinate to the primary structure. The shallow pitch of the carport roof is consistent with the roof of the contributing structure.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: No walls, windows or enclosed spaces are proposed and the proposed building materials are consistent with those used on the main building. The proposed carport is 27 feet away from the house, and relates more to the adjacent garages on the neighboring properties. With this in mind, the staff finds that the proposed carport is far enough away from the contributing building so that it does not interfere with its historic character. Staff does not have an issue with the proposed carport because it is an accessory structure, barely visible from the street, and will not be readily seen from other vantage points on thoroughfares traversed by the public.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The proposed building is located on the interior of the block, and is set back from the street and has no relationship to the streetscape. The proposed building meets this standard.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: No subdivision is proposed thus this standard does not apply.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City addresses accessory buildings in Section 9 and Section 12. One guideline in Section 9 addresses preserving existing historic accessory buildings where feasible, and another requires garages to be detached structures in most cases. The third deals with the details of constructing a new garage:
9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits. In the case of a two-car garage two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.
The standards in Section 12 address the location and design of parking areas:
12.10 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multifamily uses, shall not be visually obtrusive; Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit. Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.
12.11 Avoid large expanses of parking. Divide large parking lots with planting areas. Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.
12.12 Screen parking areas from view of the street. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas shall be screened from adjacent lots and the street. Fences, walls, and plantings, or a combination of these, should be used to screen parking.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The owner has attempted to make the proposed carport visually compatible with the main building by designing it with a low pitched roof and using shingles on the gable ends of the roof. The carport is located near a mid-block clustering of residential outbuildings that are all accessed by the private driveway. The structure will be screened from the street by the main building. The proposed carport meets applicable design guidelines.
Mr. McCandless offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application, based upon staff's findings that the project substantially complies with the applicable standards of the ordinance and adopted design guidelines, and subject to the following condition: 1) This approval is for design only; all other City requirements must be met prior to obtaining a building permit. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City requirements, staff shall refer the proposal back to the full Commission for final review."
Mr. McCandless said that on the field trip the members may have noticed that the rear yard is barely visible from the street, but he received two telephone calls and an e-mail from concerned neighbors because the driveway serves as access for a number of residents located to the south of this property. He remarked that there is a number of garages mid-block and the owners have invested a lot of money in upkeep of those garages. Mr. McCandless expressed the neighbor's concern that a carport would be inconsistent with those mid-block structures.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the proposed steel posts. Mr. McCandless said the posts would be steel encased in wood.
Mr. Parvaz asked about the setbacks. Mr. McCandless said that the proposed structure would be set back three feet from the east property line and three feet from the south property line, as well.
Mr. McCandless went on to explain that the westernmost support posts would be recessed to accommodate an adequate vehicle maneuvering curve.
There was some confusion regarding the dimensions shown on the site plan. Mr. Simonsen suggested getting a clarification from the applicant.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the fence would stay. Mr. McCandless said that it was his understanding that the fence would stay.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Amy Clements, the applicant, was present. She stated that she wanted to answer some of the questions asked by the Commission. She said that there would be a set back from the driveway because she did not want the runoff draining onto someone else's yard. Ms. Clements pointed out that the City required the posts to be set back ten feet from the property line of the adjacent apartment building to the east. She added that the recessed forward posts would be thirteen feet ·from the back posts.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Fitzsimmons led the discussion by pointing out that the drawing of the proposed carport indicated that the posts would be twelve feet apart. He stated that by those dimensions the turning radius would be very tight. Ms. Clements said that she received approval from the officials in the Transportation Division of the 18.9-foot turning radius. There was some discussion as the site plan was viewed once more.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the applicant chose to construct a carport rather than a garage was due to the limited turning radius. Ms. Clements said that was correct however it was distressing that she could not build a garage. She remarked that she has made every effort to make the proposed carport match the house and be appropriate for the neighborhood. Ms. Clements said that two of the sides of the structure would be next to fences and one side would be next to the driveway. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the color of the proposed carport. Ms. Clements said that it would be painted to match the house, which is white with dark brown trim. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the wood posts. Ms. Clements said that she did not think the steel posts were attractive but they would add the needed strength to the structure so they would be encased in wood. When asked by Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Clements explained that there would be about a 16-inch slope for the concrete, but decided to split the difference so the ramp would not be too steep. The applicant said that the concrete pad would be about eight inches on the front then slope down for the first two or three feet.
• Mr. Christensen inquired about the roof pitch. Ms. Clements said that she did not want to make the roof too tall so she chose a 3:6 roof pitch. She added that she did not think a flat roof would have been appropriate. Mr. Christensen said that the plans called out using wood shingles. Ms. Clements said that wood shingles would be used in a pattern that would match the house.
• Mr. Parvaz clarified what would be the entry to the carport on the site plans. Ms. Clements pointed out that the property drops away a little and there will need to be some sort of wall to level the property.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Staff circulated an e-mail response to the proposed new structure from Mr. David Stanley, a concerned neighbor, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Stanley stated, "It may seem to be 'just a back yard', but in fact the interior of this block is a common area shared by twelve different households totaling about forty I people. We park our vehicles there, we meet each other there, and we interact there. All of the covered parking in the interior of the block is single-car garages, either historic to the site or designed to blend in with the historic structures of the block I really think that an open-sided structure of modern design would clash with the rest of the block. Many of us are trying to landscape and remodel in keeping with historical standards, even though we're technically dealing not with the facade of our homes but with the rear." Mr. Stanley's letter stated that a carport would not be in keeping with the character or spirit of what the neighbors have been trying to achieve.
• Mr. Dave Richardson, who resides at 220 "A" Street, stated that the proposed carport would be constructed off a public right-of-way that is shared by all the homes in that inner court. He said that the neighborhood is called Cobble Knoll, because of the cobblestone walls. Mr. Richardson said that the neighbors consider the right-of-way their front yard. He said that the neighbors come and go from this right-of-way and their mail delivery is also from the right-of-way. Mr. Richardson said that Mr. Stanley's letter sums up what the neighbors feel about the proposed carport and they take issue with certain design items. He pointed out that the proposed structure would have gable ends with shingles in the gable ends but the house has a hipped roof. Mr. Richardson said that the proposed stucco structure would not fit in with the eclectic mix of historic garages and open parking pads. He believed that there would be room for a garage to be built on the site.
• Ms. Elizabeth Ann Muster, an interested and neighboring resident at 228 "A" Street, said that her home had been in the family for almost 100 years. She said that her garage is directly south from where the proposed carport would be built. Ms. Muster expressed her concerns that the property line is observed and every reasonable effort is made not to infringe on her property. She also said that she was concerned with the historical consistency in the neighborhood. Ms. Muster said that she was first concerned about the height but now she did not believe that would be a problem.
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. Wheelwright said that the right-of-way was discussed on the field trip. He said that the City does not and never has owned the "alley", so it is not a public but a private right-of way. Mr. Wheelwright said that the private right-of-way pattern was common in the Avenues area which was originally created by easements and agreements in the past. He added that the right-of-way is not gated but is shared by the neighbors on that inner court. Mr. Wheelwright said that the only people using that shared space would be people who had an easement interest.
Some of the neighbors spoke from the audience. Ms. Muster said that her great grandfather and grandfather issued the agreement among the neighbors to use that rightof-way.
Mr. Simonsen reminded the audience that the Commission was in Executive Session and the public hearing was closed. He said that he noticed on the field trip that the right-of-way seemed to be more than a service access and mail was delivered from there. Mr. Simonsen said that the right-of-way and especially in the inner court where many of the garages front, seems to be well maintained.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the fence would go up to the proposed carport. Mr. Simonsen said that the fence is not part of this application; only the carport. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern for the Commission to follow the criteria in the guidelines and zoning ordinance. He asked if the same consideration should be given to a private right-of-way as a public right-of-way. Mr. Simonsen stated that it seems like the drive should be considered as any private drive whether it would be serving a single garage or multiple garages.
Ms. Rowland pointed out that a few meetings ago, the Commission reviewed the plans for a new carport in the University Historic District. She added that the staff recommended approval for the structure because it would not be visible from the street and did not believe that the looks of the garages or carport to be that critical. Ms. Rowland said that the Commission pointed out that the proposed carport would be adjacent to contributing buildings in the vicinity. She said that the Commission struggled with being consistent with the standards. Ms. Rowland added that in some alleys in the city, the quality of the garages were of fairly high standards, but determined that was not the case. She indicated that the subject proposal seemed to be a little more in the line of what the Commission was talking about because the setting was different in conjunction with contributing structures.
Ms. Mickelsen remarked that she tried to point out, at the carport review in the University Historic District, that the proposed structure was totally visible from the alley and from 400 South, although it was not visible from 1200 East, but that was not considered a valid point. However, she said that the Commission may need a clarification on that point.
Mr. Fitzsimmons clarified that the site of the proposed carport in the University Historic District was on a public right-of-way where this one would be on a private court, and asked if that would make a difference. He pointed out that the circumstances of the common space that the neighbors' use for purposes other than cars and the visibility from houses was different than it is on the subject property.
The discussion continued. Ms. Rowland mentioned that she and Mr. Christensen lived next to what was a public alley, but the City abandoned it a long time ago, so it is now a shared access space.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that the only place one could see the site of the proposed carport would be from the driveway because of the narrowness of the drive and the way the garages were sitting. He added that even considering the "handsomeness" of the auto court in back he did not think there would be a huge visual impact from that area although the drive is a primary access.
Mr. Christensen mentioned that even though there are no carports in the shared access area, he noticed a carport across the fence slightly south of the apartment building. He observed that the applicant would prefer to build a garage but found that the access to a two-car garage would not meet the turning radius requirements. Mr. Christensen asked the architects on the Commission if the subject parcel was big enough to accommodate a two-car garage.
Mr. Parvaz commented that it would have to be configured differently and would have to be built at the edge of the walkway to the building. He said that if a fence is constructed, there would be no need to have the door right next to the walkway.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he was not certain that there would be enough room to construct a garage unless it was configured differently. He added that the concrete pad would probably go from the edge of the property line to the edge of the drive, which would be 26 feet. Mr. Simonsen said that if a wall is built, there would be less than 20 feet and did not believe that would be long enough for a garage.
Mr. Christensen reminded the Commission that comparing the two carports being discussed, the carport the Commission approved in the University Historic District would be far less "handsome" because painted metal posts were proposed. He said that the applicant was making an effort and with additional expense to make the subject carport look much nicer with the pitched roof, wood shingles in the gable ends, and steel posts encased in wood. Mr. Christensen stated that although he sympathized with the neighbors, carports have been approved in historic districts. The discussion continued where additional questions were noted.
Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was a general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.
Ms. Rowland promoted the idea of having the opening of the proposed carport towards the house and building a solid wall along the driveway, which would obviously change the configuration but it would look like a garage from the driveway.
Ms. Clements stated that according to the City requirements approximately 21-22 feet of turning space is necessary. She said that her home is narrow and she wanted to have a nice patio and at least three feet of grass in the back yard, which would be eliminated if the entry would be from the back yard instead of the driveway. Ms. Clements did not believe there would be enough room.
Ms. Clements pointed out that although the proposed carport would be taller than the neighbor's fence, she did not believe it would be very visible because she plans to put a fence across the driveway.
The discussion continued confronting the issues at hand.
Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting to public comment, since there were no additional questions for the applicant.
Ms. Rowland stated that the Commission has concerns that approving the carport would open more doors to construction "not visible from the street". She said that she realized that the Commission tries to be careful to explain why each decision is being made which gives a little room to approve projects for different reasons other than just because it would not be visible from the street. She continued to express her concerns,
Mr. Christensen asked if it would be prudent to table this issue and go on with the agenda giving enough time that staff could research and provide the Commissioners with a copy of the minutes from the meeting where the carport in the University Historic District was approved. Mr. Simonsen said that a motion was needed to table the item.
Motion to temporarily table Case No. 022-04:
Mr. Christensen moved to table Case No. 022-04 until later in this meeting when the Historic Landmark Commission would have access to the minutes of the previous meeting so the Commission could understand any precedence that might be established that would affect this case. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Lew left the meeting at 4:43 P.M. to retrieve copies of the August 18, 2004 minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission's meeting. The discussion of the agenda item will resume when she returns.
At 5:07 P.M., Mr. Simonsen reconvened Case No. 022-04. [Please note that for consistency in the minutes, this case was actually reconvened after the following two cases were heard.]
Mr. Simonsen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission was back in executive session. He said that staff had some additional information for Case No. 022-04. Ms. Lew circulated copies of the minutes from the August 18, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting which included the motion made for a carport structure recently approved by the Commission in the University Historic District. Mr. Christensen commented that he believed the motion that Ms. Rowland made at that meeting was explicit and precise.
Ms. Rowland stated that it would be helpful to the Commission if staff would include in their findings a previous staff recommendation and the reasons given for a previous Commission approval when the issues are related, rather than "blanket" findings and staff recommendation. She continued by saying that facts such as not visible from the street, public right-of-way versus private right-of-way, contributing buildings on a right-of-way, and so forth. Mr. Wheelwright said that Ms. Rowland's ideas were good and that staff would incorporate her thoughts and suggestions.
Mr. Christensen inquired if the carport in the University Historic District was a public right of-way that the City maintains. Ms. Mickelsen said that the garbage is collected from the alley. Mr. Simonsen believed it was a dedicated alleyway.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the City owns the alleyway in the University Historic District. He said that dedicated alleys came to the City from old subdivision plats just as the streets were dedicated to the City through the subdivision plats. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that the alley was not in very good shape and asked if the City had plans to maintain it. Mr. Wheelwright said that the policy for alleyway maintenance seems to be one of the lowest priorities of the City for street resources. He added that if there are enough complaints or there is a serious hazard or problem, like a gigantic pothole, the City would at some point make the repairs using left over asphalt from another projects. Mr. Wheelwright said that the preservation of alleys is not part of the routine scheduled maintenance; however they have to be maintained enough so the garbage trucks can get through the alleys.
The discussion continued. There were opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission.
Mr. Christensen said that the two cases were a little different because one alley is public and one has no City ownership or management status. He thought the Commission could treat the inner court like a back yard even though it is not really a "back yard" to a building. Mr. Christensen pointed out that there are no structures that are addressed off that private right-of-way.
Ms. Mickelsen commented that the relevant issues on the subject carport review are the size of the lot and the physical impossibility of a full-scale garage for two cars; there would be room for a single-car garage.
Mr. Christensen indicated that the drive is narrow and tight, that his personal preference would be to welcome a carport being constructed so there would be a "little elbow room" that one would have an easier time driving into. He said that he did not believe that the proposed carport would jeopardize the character of the private right-of-way; it would be better than a large two-car garage with a solid wall.
Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that the design and orientation of the proposed carport would contribute more potential green space in the back yard and less hard surfacing that would create additional runoff problems.
Mr. Simonsen cautioned the Commission that staff recommended approval so if the Commissioners were looking at not following staff recommendations, findings needed to be made.
First motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 022-04 that after a thorough review and based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation, the Historic Landmark Commission moves to approve the construction of the carport at 218 E. Fifth Avenue. Although the structure is not the ideal structure for an historic district, it would not be visible from the street and because the location site is so small that the construction of a typical two-car enclosed garage would seem to be impossible for that site. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion.
After a short discussion Mr. Christensen amended his motion.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 022-04 that after a thorough review and based
on staff's findings of fact and recommendation, the Historic Landmark Commission moves to approve the construction of the carport at 218 E. Fifth Avenue. Although the structure is not the ideal structure for an historic district, it would not be visible from the street and because the location site is so small that the construction of a typical two-car enclosed garage would seem to be impossible for that site. Further that this is considered to be an exception because of the unique geographic factors and would not set precedence for any future cases. Mr. Fitzsimmons' second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 023-04. a presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resources. to solicit comments for listing "The Bigelow Apartments" at 225 South 400 East on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Korral Broschinsky, consultant, introduced herself and stated that she had prepared the nomination.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out staff's memorandum which lead into the nomination form for the Bigelow Apartments. The memo stated that the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was requesting input from the Historic Landmark Commission for National Register nominations within Salt Lake City's boundaries. The input is provided to the Board of State History, which votes on the nominations. The nominations are then sent to the National Park Service, the federal organization responsible for the National Register.
Ms. Broschinsky gave a narrative description of the property along with her slide presentation:
The Bigelow Apartment building was built between 1930 and 1931 at a cost of $120,000. The building's first owner and developer, Archelaus Fillingame, also served as architect and builder. The apartment house is a three-story brick building on a concrete foundation with a flat, built-up roof. The building is long and narrow measuring 33 feet by 173 feet. The Bigelow consists of thirty units arranged along three floors of double loaded corridors. The stylistic elements are period revival and Jacobethan. The west, north, and south elevations are constructed of a dark red striated brick in a running bond with flush mortar joints. The rear (east) elevation is commercial grade brick. In December 2003, a complete rehabilitation of the Bigelow Apartments using state and federal tax credits was completed.
The main entrance is in the central bay and features a half-glass door (probably not original, date unknown) flanked by sidelights and a case concrete elliptical door surround. Above the entrance is a sign reading "BIGELOW". The sign was restored and is now functioning. The windows are multi-paned double-hung. The second floor window is a pair of six-over-six double-hung windows. The third floor window is multi-pane with a rounded brick hood highlighted by case concrete keystones. The gable is capped with light-colored cast concrete with a cast concrete diamond at the apex. Between the second and third floor windows, the brick is laid in a decorative basket weave pattern. The other bays feature the apartment windows, pairs of one-over-one double-hung windows. All the windows on the facade and rear elevation are original and were refurbished during the rehabilitation. The wood trim is currently painted yellow and green. The concrete foundation is barely visible above ground and there is a one-step concrete stoop at the main entrance. The windows on the north and south elevations were replaced with wood windows similar to the originals. The rehabilitation included cleaning the brick and repainting mortar joints. Historic doors and hardware was retained and restored where feasible.
On the interior of the building, the space is divided between the three residential floors and a partial basement in the rear. There are ten apartments per floor. The original configuration apartments included nine one-bedroom units and twenty-one studio apartments.
The building sits on a deep, narrow lot. Most of the space is covered with asphalt for parking. A concrete wall along the north property line at the rear was once part of a covered parking structure (built in 1931 and demolished probably in the 1980s). the only landscaping is lawn in front with two trees in the parking strip and some overgrown vegetation near the north elevation of the building.
The building is a contributing resource in its Salt Lake City neighborhood and is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Ms. Broschinsky.
[Please see Case No. 024-04 for questions and comments from the Historic Landmark Commission as well as the public hearing portion of the meeting.]
Executive Session.
There were no comments.
Motion:
In the matter of Case No. 023-04, Ms. Rowland moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to list the Bigelow Apartments at 225 South 400 East on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 024-04. a presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resources. to solicit comments for listing "The Benworth/Chapman Apartments and Chapman Cottages" at 227 South 400 East on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Korral Broschinsky, consultant, introduced herself and stated that she had prepared the nomination.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out staff's memorandum, which included the Benworth/ Chapman Apartments and Chapman Cottages. [Please see the full context of the memorandum what was included with the earlier review of the Bigelow Apartments.]
Ms. Broschinsky gave a narrative description of the property along with her slide presentation:
The Benworth/Chapman Apartments, built in 1927, (at a cost of $25, 000) and the Chapman Cottages are located at 227 South 400 East. The apartment building faces 400 East and the cottages, also known as 408- 432 E. Chapman Place, are located to the rear. The Benworth/Chapman Apartments' first owner, Benjamin L. Farnsworth, had the building constructed both as an investment and as a residence for his extended family. The architect was not listed. The apartment building was named Benworth, presumably derived from the owner's name. Clarissa G. Chapman purchased the property in 1937 and changed the name to Chapman Apartments, the name by which it is known today. Chapman Place was developed and the cottages were built.
The apartment building is a rare version of a Mission revival with a very muted and rounded parapet on top. This is only one of two apartment buildings in Salt Lake City that uses that style. The apartment building is a three and one-half story walk-up with eight units. The building is constructed of red brick with a concrete foundation and a 1 at built-up roof.
The Chapman Cottages consist of seven one-story rowhouse-type units built in the minimal traditional style. The five one-bedroom units to the east have built-in garages and were constructed in 1937. The two units at the west end were originally built as a four-car garage in 1937 and converted to apartments in 1940. The cottages are constructed of red brick on a concrete foundation and connected with a common ridgeline running west to east. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles.
The Benworth/Chapman Apartments and Chapman Cottages are located on a deep, narrow lot. Rehabilitation work was completed in December 2003.
The facade (west elevation) of the Benworth/Chapman Apartments is faced with a high quality multi-colored red brick in a running bond and raked mortar joints. There are four colossal brick pilasters capped with cast concrete dividing the facade into three bays. The other three elevations are constructed of commercial grade brick. The facade entrance features a three-quarter-glass door with kick plate. The door is flanked by sidelights with a shallow eyebrow-shaped roof over a concrete stoop and two steps. The central bay features pairs of narrow windows used to light the stairwell. The apartment windows are tripartite with a large fixed frame window flanked by narrow six-light casements. The windows were restored. All wood trim is currently painted yellow.
On the interior of the building, the space is divided between the four floors. Each apartment extends the depth of the building with stairs and a front and rear with door for each apartment.
The majority of the property is paved with asphalt for parking. The only landscaping for the Benworth/Chapman Apartments is lawn in front (400 East) with two trees in the parking strip. Landscaping for the cottages consists of a little area of grass around the stoops. There is some grass and shrubbery in the shallow back yard.
The buildings are a contributing resource in its Salt Lake City neighborhood and are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Ms. Broschinsky. The Historic Landmark
Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the brick had been changed in the back on the Benworth/Chapman Apartments. Ms. Broschinsky said that brick was original on the building. He also asked if the cottages used a right-of-way for access. Ms. Broschinsky said that the cottages were on a shared private right-of way.
• Mr. Christensen asked if Ms. Broschinsky had found other cottages that have garages built into them the same way as the Chapman Cottages. He said that it was like a motor lodge development. Ms. Broschinsky said that she had not found any other. She said that she looked on the Sanborn maps and checked the SHPO database and could not find one that was similar. Mr. Christensen said he could not recall seeing a similar development.
• Ms. Rowland talked about the financing and tax credits. She noted that the rehabilitation was completed before the owners went through the tax credit process. Ms. Broschinsky said that the owner submitted the application and the plans to SHPO and she submitted a draft nomination a year prior to the work being done. She stated that the work was approved by the National Parks Service. Ms. Broschinsky said that since the properties are residential rentals they qualify for both the federal and state tax credits. Ms. Broschinsky added that if for some reason the buildings do not meet the rehabilitation requirements for the 20% tax credit, they can fall back and get a 10°/o credit. She said that there is a reason for delaying the National Register process in certain circumstances.
Ms. Broschinsky said that both properties have the same owner but are separate parcels. She mentioned that the Bigelow Apartments are being listed separately from the Benworth/Chapman Apartments and Chapman Cottages. Ms. Broschinsky said that the best way to describe the multiple listing is to use the term "umbrella document" which means that the parcels would be listed individually but tied contextually to the other parcel and any other listings in the future.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no 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.
A short discussion took place regarding the issues at hand. Motion:
In the matter of Case No. 024-04, Ms. Rowland moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to list the Benworth/Chapman Apartments and Chapman Cottages at 227 South 400 East on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid 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.
Mr. Simonsen asked Ms. Broschinsky to return to the table to give her slide presentation and make her narrative comments regarding the Sugar House Reconnaissance-Level Survey. He asked how the survey was funded. Ms. Broschinsky said that it was funded by a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
Mr. Simonsen noted that there would be no action by the Historic Landmark Commission at this meeting after the presentation; it was for information only.
Ms. Broschinsky said that there are 2, 420 sites in this survey area and she visited each one which took eight months to complete. She said that the survey excluded the Sugar House Business District because a survey had already been completed when the multiple properties for the business district were listed on the National Register of Historic Places a few years ago.
Ms. Broschinsky gave a narrative description of the property along with her slide presentation:
The boundary of the Sugar House Reconnaissance-Level Survey - West Sugar House Neighborhood is noted on three separate maps due to the large geographical area. The purpose of this Reconnaissance Level Survey was to provide information about the historic and architectural resources of the West Sugar House neighborhoods. The results and recommendations of the survey will be used to create a plan for managing the historic resources and to provide recommendations for Salt Lake City to consider in development plans for individual and community-based preservation efforts within the survey boundaries. Additional objectives of the survey are: 1) Evaluate all surveyed properties to determine current condition, contributing/non-contributing status, and eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) Update the database of historic resources maintained by the Utah Historic Preservation Office; and 3) Provide photographic documentation of the primary resource of each property.
Each property was evaluated for age, type, style, materials, height, outbuildings, and National Register of Historic Places eligibility. The majority of the buildings are residences built between 1900 and 1930. Ninety two percent of resources surveyed were residential. Forty percent of the historic residences show type and/or style elements of the bungalow period. The dominant material in the survey area was brick with sixty five percent of the buildings using brick as a primary material. Eighty-six percent of the buildings are one story tall with another thirteen percent, one and one-half to two stories high. Sixty percent of the outbuildings were contributing. Five percent of the contributing housing included double houses, duplexes, or other multi family units. The survey also includes 26 historic commercial buildings, seven religious buildings, and two educational buildings. Seven contributing resources are associated with recreation and culture. Three are associated with transportation and landscape features.
About one week after a small contingent of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley, under the direction of Brigham Young, the City of Great Salt Lake was surveyed according to the City of Zion plat, an ideal city layout designed by the church's founder, which provided for a residential core surrounded by farmland. The system was designed to promote self-sufficiency and efficient land use, provide security, and discourage social isolation. Within the community, opportunity and space were provided for education, worship, social gatherings, and the arts. The city featured the ten-acre blocks divided into eight 1.25-acre lots, streets 132 feet wide, alternating frontage, and a public square. In 1848, the surveyors laid out what became known as the Big Field Survey.
Water and transportation were the critical issues in determining the development of the survey area. Parley's Creek, running from the mouth of Parley's Canyon to the Jordan River, was the only natural water source in the area. Another early source of water was the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, one the city's largest water projects authorized in 1855 but not completed until 1882.
The Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway, built in 1884-1887, paralleled the canal near 1100 East and became an important early transportation connection between Sugar House and downtown Salt Lake City. Because of the presence of the creek, the Sugar House area was an important early center of industry (mills, foundries, factories, etc.) by the 1850s and 1860s. The Salt Lake and Eastern Railroad, built 1888-1890, connected Sugar House to Park City.
One of the first and largest subdivisions was the Forest Dale Subdivision, which was recorded on August 21, 1890, and included a total of 776 lots. The subdivision was fairly successful and the residents petitioned in 1901 to incorporate the town of Forest Dale (500 East to Highland Drive and 2100 South to 2700 South).
However, the demand for municipal services proved too costly and the town was disincorporated and annexed to Salt Lake City in 1912.
By 1927, the year the last of the historic subdivisions were platted, nearly every home was within walking distance of a streetcar line. During the 1920s, the streets were improved and automobile ownership increased. Garages lined the alleys between the blocks and even more were accessible from the street-side driveways.
The period between 1930 and 1960 was a period of slow urban growth and infill. In a few neighborhoods of the late 1920s, period cottages were built in the first part of this period, but the depression, war years, and a shortage of vacant lots constrained growth. In the post-war building boom of the early 1950s, new housing was constructed on many of the scattered empty lots in the survey area. During this period, the Sugar House business district was modernized and became a major shopping destination for residents throughout the Salt Lake Valley.
The construction of the Interstate 80 'freeway in 1961-1962 cut a large east-west swath out of the residential neighborhoods at approximately 2400 South completely bisecting the area and increasing the traffic. These conditions exacerbated the urban decline of the 1960s and 1970s experienced by many Salt Lake City neighborhoods. Most of the new construction during those decades was in the form of multi-family housing. In the 1980s and 1990s, a renewed interest in the Sugar House business district coupled with a desire for many residents to remain within the city limits became the impetus for a revitalization of the many west Sugar House neighborhoods.
Ms. Broschinsky said that Ms. Giraud was currently in the process of preparing a nomination for the Forest Dale Historic District, which is part of the Forest Dale subdivision. She said that the district is a strong candidate for a historic district, but there are many other neighborhoods, which would qualify, as well.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Ms. Broschinsky.
• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by referring to the old farmhouse, built in the late 1870s, which was covered with aluminum siding, and asked how one would deal with a property like that. He asked if it would become non-contributing. Ms. Broschinsky stated that if a person were to do more in-depth research on that property, it would probably be discovered that the aluminum siding was more than 50 years old, and in that case it might be so significant, it could be listed because the house was originally on a huge farm. Mr. Christensen asked if Ms. Broschinsky had any idea what the original farmhouse looked like. He also mentioned that the exterior treatment would be reversible and probably could qualify as a contributing structure. Ms. Broschinsky agreed that would qualify for a contributing structure.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked where the survey goes next. Ms. Broschinsky said that the purpose of this Reconnaissance-Level Survey was to provide information about the historic and architectural resources of the West Sugar House neighborhoods. She said that the results and recommendations of the survey will be used to create a plan for managing the historic resources and to provide recommendations for Salt Lake City to consider in development plans for individual and community-based preservation efforts within the survey boundaries. Ms. Broschinsky said that the Sugar House area has a potential to be a large district but there has been so much cutting apart with the freeway and the widening of 700 East in 1957, it has been sliced up into little neighborhoods.
• Mr. Simonsen asked further about the boundary of the proposed Forrest Dale Historic District. Ms. Broschinsky pointed out the entire subdivision plat but the district would only be part of it.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for Ms. Broschinsky, Mr. Simonsen thanked her for her presentation. He extended his appreciation to Ms. Broschinsky for her excellent slide presentation and for all of her work. Mr. Simonsen said that he hoped the area would continue to move forward.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR (Continued)
Mr. Zunguze apologized for coming in late to the meeting. He said that the Mayor was back in town, but is leaving town again so there were many things on which the Mayor had to be informed. He said that he wanted to still catch up with the meeting because there were a few thoughts he wanted to share with the Commission. First of all, he said that he wanted to say a few words of encouragement.
Mr. Zunguze said that he felt there was some discomfort given the remarks that individual Commissioners made with respect to the RDA (Redevelopment Agency) projects that were reviewed at the last meeting. He said that he sensed that the Commission believed the projects could have been handled a little better by the RDA and could have had a different strategy or approach.
Mr. Zunguze encouraged the Commission to come forward and address such issues and communicate to the RDA Staff whenever the Commission sees that things are "off track", which could then be communicated to the RDA Board of Directors. He said that the RDA is responsible for many City projects and public dollars are funding those projects. Mr. Zunguze stated, "It would make sense that we could all contribute to the betterment in terms of design of projects and I think it is worthwhile for all of us to assume that responsibility in ensuring that the City implements well designed projects."
Mr. Zunguze continued by saying that it has been difficult, but the Planning Staff has taken an approach to better inform the RDA on issues pertaining to preservation. He said that it has been useful because the RDA Staff has shown appreciation for much help and particularly helping them see the "big picture" and how valuable and important historic community assets are. Mr. Zunguze said again that he sensed a heightened level of discomfort at the last meeting. He said that it seemed like "we were going in circles without achieving much". Mr. Zunguze stated that he wanted the members of the Commission to speak up when there is a need to communicate such sentiments, as a Commission, because he believed that it would help all who were involved. He said that it especially helps the RDA Board understand just how serious the individual members of the Commission take their work. He added that the RDA needed to set an example and not treat preservation as a secondary thing to redevelopment. Mr. Zunguze believed that preservation and redevelopment are important issues and all involved needed to work towards a better understanding.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the suggestions and recommendation should be shared collectively or should the Commissioners, individually, approach members of the RDA Board. Mr. Zunguze said that it would be more effective if the Commission made it known that the members share the same views regarding preservation and communicate those views to the Board, as a Commission.
Mr. Zunguze mentioned that the Planning Commission often does that in his monthly meetings with the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council. He suggested that he will explore having the same opportunity afforded to the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Zunguze added that the core of those discussions would be to relay all concerns and issues that the Commission, as a whole, might communicate to the RDA Board. He said that he believed it would help minimize misunderstandings, but more importantly, it would help make the projects a lot better.
Mr. Zunguze said that the lack of understanding and appreciation of preservation is not primarily the RDA's fault. He added that the RDA lacks people educated in historic preservation; they have people trained in financial matters and putting together projects, which are their predominant functions. Mr. Zunguze pointed out that that is why the RDA Staff gets frustrated when the Planning Staff or the Historic Landmark Commission brings the "big picture" element to them and say that a project could be done better. He noted that the RDA thinks, "Why can't we just tear down the buildings because it is more cost effective?" Mr. Zunguze said that there are always more issues involved than just money.
Mr. Zunguze talked about the recent presentation given to the Commission of the valuable resources the city has in terms of historic preservation. He said that those issues needed to be communicated to the RDA Board. Mr. Zunguze said that he gets the impression that they are trying to do a lot better, but they need our consistent encouragement.
Mr. Simonsen stated that as Chair he would be happy to participate at the appropriate times if there is something that would be regularly scheduled. Mr. Zunguze said that he believed a lot could come out of those one-on-one meetings with the Chair and Vice Chair. Mr. Zunguze said that the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission could communicate, "Here are some of the things that are problems for us when these projects come before the Commission." He added that he has found out that when the Planning Staff explains, the RDA Staff has a better understanding and they have been trying to reach out more.
Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Zunguze for his thoughts and suggestions and said that the Commission appreciated his words of encouragement. He asked if the Commission had any questions or comments for Mr. Zunguze.
Ms. Mickelsen pointed out the article that appeared in the Tribune outlining the accomplishments of the City Council and what the Council was contemplating for the rest of the year. She said that preservation was mentioned in the very last line. She asked if Mr. Zunguze had heard anything from the City Council. Mr. Zunguze said that he had heard more from the RDA than from the City Council. He said that he understood that the City Council was laying out the agenda for the rest of the year. He said that he thinks that he will be informed at the appropriate time.
Ms. Mickelsen stated that the one thing that makes her uncomfortable with the RDA Staff is that they do not seem to have a real understanding that the Commission cannot bend the rules for their projects. She added that the Commission was "stuck" at the last meeting. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission has to make decisions on its design guidelines and standards in the zoning ordinance or it would lose all value as a legal body, and that does not seem to "sink in". She asked, "How do we get past that?" Mr. Zunguze mentioned again that he could see that the Commission was uncomfortable. However, he said, that constant communication is the key.
Ms. Mickelsen read from the minutes of the September 1, 2004 Historic Landmark Commission meeting: "Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking what was the RDA Board's main reason for opposing 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." Ms. Mickelsen said that she thought to herself, “Why are they doing it? Why are they in a project that they have already taken such a substantial loss?” Mr. Fitzsimmons said that it is the difficulty of grasping intangible values and those intangible values are the things that have to be sold to get people excited.
Mr. Zunguze stated that one of the things that needed to be discussed was the state of action the Commission has as a legal body and that the Commission should be more empowered, in his view, and not just rely on the ordinance. He said that he believed that this form of communication would help the Commission to reach out to the RDA Board with suggestions and recommendations to help them see the "big picture". Mr. Zunguze said that that is the way the Planning Commission does it. He added that the Planning Commission also has rules and regulations governing its decisions, however it also takes the opportunity to communicate more broadly.
Mr. Zunguze said that this communication has to be carefully carried out to show the other side how projects could fit into the "big picture". He added that when the Commission talks about the streetscape at meetings, the RDA Staff just looks at a project and does not go beyond that. Mr. Zunguze talked about the context of historic preservation and how a "domino" effect could happen so quickly. He said that value assets can be destroyed when proposals are looked at "willy-nilly" simply from project to project.
Ms. Mickelsen commented that there are certainly many places around the world where redevelopment and preservation work together.
Mr. Zunguze endorsed that statement and said that they should work together. He mentioned that he has observed that the RDA Staff dreads coming to the Historic Landmark Commission and they should not feel that way. He said that it saddens him to think that they fear the City's own rules and these fears should be cleared up.
Mr. Christensen said that he believed one of the problems is that the Commission never feels that the RDA Staff is making much of an effort of meeting the Commission on middle ground. Ms. Mickelsen said that the RDA Staff was willing to move the duplex believing that was a viable situation, but the Board declined that proposal. She said that she did not think the RDA was interested in those buildings on 300 West and Reed Avenue until the owners of those properties approached the RDA staff, then all of a sudden it became a project and buildings were proposed to be taken down, so "something nice could be built there".
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the RDA Board is driven by creating a property tax increment to generate funds that provide the biggest increment and the biggest development that can be done. He pointed out that they borrow money on anticipated incrementation. Mr. Wheelwright added that unless one can deliver some actual tax increment, there is no revenue generated to pay back the loans. Mr. Zunguze pointed out that they have so much pressure to produce and do not have the patience to go through what needs to be taken care of.
Mr. Wheelwright said that one of the difficulties is that one of the RDA's powers and goals is to remove "obstacles" to redevelopment. He added that they are supposed to be doing development that the market cannot do so they sometimes are over motivated to remove all "obstacles".
Ms. Mickelsen indicated that Mr. Wheelwright's comments were interesting about the market because it seemed to her that nothing has happened on the RDA's Commercial Node on 300 West between 500 and 600 North because they do not have the market to do something with that property. Mr. Zunguze said that in some cases they are just bad investments that they make. Ms. Mickelsen noted that those bad investments lead to more pressure to create more increments and that leads to the loss of more buildings.
Ms. Mickelsen stated that in the Historic Landmark Commission's letter to the City Council, it was stated that the Commission was not opposed to change or development but see it coming organically out of what is already there and what the needs of the community are.
Mr. Zunguze said that that is the message that needed to be communicated more often. He said that he looked forward to the communication process being improved.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any more questions from the Commission or any more issues that needed to be addressed. If not, he asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
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. White seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:30 P.M.