SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Lee White. Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, and Noreen Heid were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were 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. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes of the March 19, 2003 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown abstained. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. Heid, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
(Ms. White arrived at 4:13 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 006-03, Proposed text amendment to Section 21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv). Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission of the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Decisions would be sent to applicants within ten working days after the Historic Landmark Commission adopts its minutes. rather than ten days following the Historic Landmark Commission's decision as the ordinance currently requires.
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. Ms. Giraud gave the following overview of the project: Salt Lake City Planning Division is proposing a text amendment to Section 21A.34.020.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv) of the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. The text amendment would stipulate that findings and orders would be sent to applicants ten (10) days after the Historic Landmark Commission adopted the minutes, rather than ten (10) days after the Historic Landmark Commission meeting at which the decision is made.
Section 21A.34.020.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv) currently states that findings and orders will be sent within ten (10) working days following the Historic Landmark Commission's decision. Findings and orders are the official notification provided to applicants stating the outcome and conditions of the Historic Landmark Commission's decision. They are extracted from the minutes and sent with a cover letter from the Historic Landmark Commission secretary and thus can only be sent once the minutes are adopted. The minutes are not adopted until the subsequent Historic Landmark Commission meeting, which does not occur for at least another two weeks- longer than the ten (10) day period within which the Planning Division is now required to send the findings and orders.
The current text corresponds to Section 21A.34.020.10.030(H) Public Hearing Notice Requirements, which states that a letter notifying the applicant of the decision shall be sent by mail within ten (10) days of the decision, and is applied to all boards governed by the zoning ordinance. This is reasonable for the Planning Commission, because Planning Commission decisions are effective at the meeting at which the minutes of the decision are ratified. However, the existing requirement poses a dilerr1ma for the Historic Landmark Commission, because the Historic Landmark Commission's decision is effective at the time of the meeting at which the applicant is considered [21A.34.020(F)(2)(g)(ii)]. The Historic Landmark Commission requirement regarding the timing of other effectiveness of the decision was written so that applicants could obtain a building permit immediately, and not have to wait until minutes are ratified.
Because the secretary cannot mail the findings and orders to the applicant until the minutes are adopted, this discrepancy has left the Historic Landmark Commission vulnerable on appeal. In order to insure that applicants appealing an Historic Landmark Commission decision receive a copy of the findings and orders pertaining to their case before filing an appeal, the Planning Staff is proposing to extend the appeal period from thirty (30) days following the Historic Landmark Commission decision to thirty (30) days following the mailing date of the findings and orders to the applicant. With this proposed text amendment, the Planning Staff intends to accommodate both the due process of the applicant and to protect the decision-making outcomes of the Historic Landmark Commission.
The proposed text (Exhibit A) was filed with the minutes.
A text amendment must follow the procedure outlined in Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The process requires the Historic Landmark Comrr1ission and the Planning Commission to recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendment and then submit its recommendation to the City Council, which may adopt or deny the proposed amendment. Because this petition addresses a discrepancy in the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, the staff is soliciting a recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission to the City Council to approve or deny the proposed text amendment.
The Historic Landmark Commission is required to review the proposed text amendment in the context of the zoning ordinance in Section 21A.50.50 Standards for general amendments.
Reference was made to Section 21A.50.50 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Staff's decision: All of the master plans that cover areas that include historic districts promote the importance of historic preservation. This petition will clarify the administrative process that enables an applicant to receive the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission in an official format, and thus enable the Historic Landmark Commission to function more effectively by protecting the due process of the applicant and the decisions of the Historic Landmark Commission upon appeal.
Staff's findings of fact: The proposed amendments are consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Staff's discussion: The proposed amendment addresses an administrative function and does not involve actual property.
Staff's findings of fact: This standard is not applicable to the proposed amendment. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Staff's discussion: Again, the proposed amendment is an administrative matter that does not involve actual property. The proposed amendment is only intended to bring the requirements of notification of applicants in accordance with applicable sections of the ordinance.
Staffs findings of fact: This standard is not applicable to the proposed amendment.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Staff's discussion: The proposed amendment concerns text in an overlay zoning district: The H. Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. The intent of the proposed amendment is to rectify a discrepancy in the notification of applicants concerning the outcome of their case before the Historic Landmark Commission.
Staffs findings of fact: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection.
Staffs discussion: The proposed text amendment does not involve public facilities and services.
Staff's findings of fact: This standard does not pertain to the proposed text amendment.
The following staff recommendation was included in the staff report: "Staff recommends that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council to adopt the proposed text amendment."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Simonsen led the discussion and asked about the process for approval of the text amendment. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and then the Planning Commission would forward a recommendation to the City Council for final adoption. He then asked if the recommendation would be made just to Planning Commission or to both the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Giraud believed it would be wise to make it to both agencies. Mr. Simonsen believed that the "loophole" should be closed. Ms. Giraud that it is easier for an applicant to appeal, on the basis that the ordinance is not being followed. Mr. Simonsen stated that an applicant would not be able to appeal a decision based on a technical error in the ordinance.
Mr. Parvaz clarified that a decision made by the Historic Landmark Commission is final at the meeting. Ms. Giraud said that with the text amendment an applicant would not be detained waiting for the findings and order. She added that there would be no change in the time period for decision-making. Ms. Giraud said that the secretary would send the findings and order, which are excerpts of the minutes with a cover letter, within ten days of the approved minutes. Mr. Parvaz was concerned about the demolition of a historic building. Ms. Giraud explained that the demolition would still have to go through the appropriate process. She pointed out that the text amendment change would have no effect on the decision-making process.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons concurred that the applicant would still have to go through the proper permit procedure.
• Ms. Mickelsen clarified that an applicant does not have to wait for the findings and order to apply for a permit.
Ms. White inquired if the text amendment would have any effect on the appeals process. Ms. Giraud said that an applicant has thirty days to file a written appeal after the Historic Landmark Commission has made a decision. She pointed out that the City has extended that term if the applicant did not receive the findings and order within that thirty-day time period. She added that there are times when the Commission does not meet more than once a month. Ms. Giraud said that with the text amendment, an applicant would have thirty days to file a written appeal as of the mailing date of the findings and order. Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested giving the applicant forty-five days to appeal a decision, rather than pursuing a text amendment. Mr. Simonsen said that there would still be no guarantee that the minutes would be approved within that period.
The discussion continued. Mr. Simonsen cited a case where an applicant did not receive the findings and order within the ten-day period, after the Historic Landmark Commission made the decision. A written appeal was submitted to the Land Use Appeals Board regarding that issue as well as other matters. The Land Use Appeals Board reversed the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission and the ten-day period was one of the factors.
Mr. Simonsen inquired about what would happen if the words of the motion were wrong. Ms. Giraud stated that the secretary listens to the tape and writes the motion and then the motion is given to the applicant for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness if needed for clarification. She said that the minutes are clear and the members very rarely find where their statement was misquoted. Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission has a "pretty good track record for making motions". She mentioned that the Board of Adjustment deals with this issue in the same manner.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, inquired why the minutes were not emailed to the members prior to the meeting and either approved or amended before the next meeting of the board. She said that the minutes have not been an issue with the Historic Landmark Commission. Again, Ms. Giraud said that the motion was the more critical portion of the minutes.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the Commission was not conforming to the rules. Ms. Giraud reiterated that the Commission could not follow those rules, as written, because the findings and order could not be sent to the applicant before the minutes were adopted. Others agreed. Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission is taking a greater liability risk with this loophole in the procedure.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion took place regarding the Land Use Appeals Board. Ms. Giraud mentioned that the secretary to the Land Use Appeals Board was now producing minutes of the meetings and staff would make certain that copies are provided to the Commission members.
Mr. Simonsen stated that if there were no further comments, he would entertain a motion at any time.
Motion:
Regarding Case No. 006-03, Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the proposed language to amend the text in Section 21A.34.020.34.020(F)(2)(g)(iv) of the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and recommend that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the amendment. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. Heid were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Giraud said that staff would keep the Commission informed. She said that it is very helpful when members of the Commission show support by attending these meetings when issues pertaining to the Historic Landmark Commission are discussed.
OTHER BUSINESS Enforcement on properties.
Mr. Littig mentioned that he saw a metal roof being constructed on Third Avenue and windows being changed on a house on Fourth Avenue. Ms. Giraud suggested calling the staff with the address of any properties using inappropriate materials and staff would inform the City's enforcement officers to investigate.
Demolition on 400 West.
Mr. Ashdown mentioned a demolition that occurred on 400 West between 500 and 600 North. Ms. Giraud stated that was out of the Capitol Hill Historic District, but it was in the extension of the district, which is on the national register. Mr. Ashdown said that he could not recall what was there. He suggested having the historic overlay district extended to cover 400 West so some of the historic homes there might be saved. Ms. Giraud said that might be one option.
Preservation seminar.
Ms. Giraud stated that there was CLG (Certified Local Government) money available to hire Mr. Nore' Winter, a Consultant who is educated in preservation guidelines. She said that Mr. Winter talks about the four things a preservation commission should do: regulate, educate, advocate, and facilitate. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Winter also is a consultant who evaluates comrr1issions all over the country to determine the strongest and weakest points. She added that he is knowledgeable in new technology, new building materials, as well as designating conservation districts. Ms. Giraud pointed out that Mr. Winter developed the Historic Landmark Commission's design guidelines and is familiar with Salt Lake City.
There was some discussion about how much time to which the members of the Commission could commit meeting with Mr. Winter. Mr. Simonsen opted having a seminar the same day either in the afternoon or after working hours would be better than spending an entire day.
Mr. Littig suggested having Mr. Winter give a public talk as well as hold a workshop for the Commission. Ms. Giraud thought that would be a good idea. She said there should be some interface between Mr. Winter and public officials. Ms. Giraud recommended inviting the City Councilperson whose jurisdiction includes historic districts, City Council Staff, people from the Redevelopment Agency, members of the Planning Comrr1ission, and other interested individuals. Ms. Giraud said the problem with inviting the general public is getting the word out. She said that it sounded like it would be simple to send a post card to everyone living in an historic district, but such a mailing would be too costly. There was a suggestion that an article could be included in the community council's newsletters. The discussion continued regarding the consultant and other related matters.
Ms. Giraud reported that she would keep the Commission merr1bers informed when the seminar date is confirmed. She thought it would be sometime in June.
East Liberty Park area.
Ms. Giraud reported that there was enough CLG money to hire Mr. Alan Barnett, to do the Reconnaissance Level Survey for the East Liberty Park area of the city. She added that the contract has been signed and Mr. Barnett should be getting started.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Littig moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:00P.M.