SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the
Annual Planning Meeting Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building. 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. Gordon, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 12:00 Noon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda.
• Ms. Coffey conducted the meeting. The following is a summary of the discussion that transpired at the annual meeting:
MEMBERSHIP
A. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
The election of officers takes place on an annual basis. There is no written policy or ordinance that prevents an officer to serve consecutive terms.
Mr. Christensen nominated Mr. Oktai Parvaz for the office of Chairperson and Mr. Simonsen for the office of Vice Chairperson of the Historic Landmark Commission for the year 2001. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Both were elected by acclamation by the members of the Commission. Congratulations were extended to Mr. Parvaz and Mr. Simonsen.
Recommendation for membership to fill vacancies.
No recommendation was given to fill the remaining vacancies on the Commission.
ANNUAL REPORT
A report should be issued on an annual basis that includes the number of projects reviewed during the year, highlighting the foremost projects, the demolition projects, the list of winners of the annual citizens awards, and the goals and successes of the Historic Landmark Commission. A draft should be presented to the Commission at the next meeting.
DISCUSS AND PRIORITIZE PRESERVATION PLANNING PROJECTS 2001
A. Commission's Roll.
1. Initiation of ordinances relating to preservation.
2. Increase advisory capacity to Mayor and City Council on issues relating to historic preservation especially on City-owned properties whether designated on local or national register.
DISCUSSION: The Historic Landmark Commission's current role is a design review committee. The members have not been out in the public promoting preservation issues like the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Preservation is the "key" ingredient that makes Salt Lake City a desirable place in which to live. People are in support of preservation unless it becomes "inconvenient".
• Elevate the status of the Historic Landmark Commission in the eyes of the City Administration and the public.
Be aware that there is a fine line between a "volunteer" commission and a commission that would "represent" the City on preservation issues. The Mayor has his own press person who filters information to the public through the news media. The Historic Landmark Commission and the Preservation Staff could use this resource to make statements regarding preservation issues.
Citizens in many areas of the city want to be included in historic districts. At this time, there is not enough staff that could support additional districts.
Should the Historic Landmark Commission take on a consultant's role and be at the forefront consulting with the City Administration on preservation issues? Therefore, perhaps the City Administration would not rely on the Utah Heritage Foundation for advice in matters such as the Brooks Arcade, but would confer with members of the Historic Landmark Commission, instead.
The Hansen Planetarium building on State Street is a City Landmark Site and the Historic Landmark Commission should have some involvement on how the building will be reused.
When matters of preservation become an issue in the community, the Historic Landmark Commission's voice should be heard by written communication to the appropriate agency.
As volunteer members of the Historic Landmark Commission, nothing would prevent any member from attending public meetings where preservation issues would be discussed.
The Governor established a new agency called the Quality Growth Commission and one of the Commission's principles is to protect the quality-of life by conserving historic resources. The policy went before the Utah State Legislature.
It might be a good thing for the audience to hear that the Historic Landmark Commission discuss other policy issues relating to preservation, and not just a body associated with reviewing additions, garages, materials, and other such projects.
B. Commissioner Training.
1. Ordinances/jurisdiction and purview.
2. Rules of order.
3. Conflict of interest.
DISCUSSION: It would be valuable to have someone who was a parliamentarian expert, knowledgeable of "Robert's Rules of Order" to spend some time with the Commission in a training session.
Members also expressed interest in having Lynn Pace, or another representative of the City Attorney's office, speak to the Commission about conflict of interest and due process issues.
C. Update policies and procedures. Originally adopted in 1984. Many of the substantive policies have either been incorporated into the new zoning ordinance or design guidelines.
1. Analyze what is still relevant and appropriate and what needs to be eliminated or changed.
2. Include section on procedures and guidelines for the review of new types of building materials.
DISCUSSION: It is essential that the Historic Landmark Commission's "Policies and
Procedures" be updated to meet today's needs.
D. Web Page. Purpose: Provide educational information, existing regulations, funding options, and public hearing information on the City's web page.
1. Create a map of all historic districts with a link to information about each district.
2. Provide examples of various types of projects.
3. Post the design guidelines and other preservation policies.
4. Create virtual walking tours of historic sites and districts.
5. Highlight quality preservation projects.
6. Provide information on funding options.
7. List ways citizens can get involved in preservation in their communities.
8. Provide links to other preservation resources, such as: a) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); b) Utah Heritage Foundation; c) National Trust for Historic Preservation; and d) National Park Service.
9. Publicize the web page address by the following methods: a) newsletter in utility bills; b) messages on voice mail; c) notices to people listed on "interested persons" mailing list; and d) notify the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
DISCUSSION: The Historic Landmark Commission members believed this would be a valuable tool for the public, commissioners, and staff.
The City would have to hire someone to work with the City's Web Master to design the web page.
E. Central City Preservation Planning. Purpose: To actively pursue ways to increase preservation efforts in the Central City Historic District.
1. Create a map of the historic district identifying contributing and non-contributing buildings, vacant property, housing condition information, where multiple properties are owned by one entity, owner occupancy, existing land use, existing zoning, etc. to determine where redevelopment pressures are likely to arise.
2. Review census information for the area to gain an understanding of the demographics for the area.
3. Review development activity for the last 10 years (by analyzing the HLC and Administrative Approvals) for the historic district to determine what types of projects have been undertaken in the district.
4. Determine if Central City Historic District is in a CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) target area.
5. Identify funding sources available to property owners or for larger projects to promote preservation in the Central City Historic District, such as: a) Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND); b) Utah heritage Foundation; c) Redevelopment Agency (RDA); and d) State and Federal Tax Credits.
6. Coordinate with the community to identify ways to increase awareness of preservation tools, such as: a) 600 East stroll from South Temple to Liberty Park; b) workshops; c) walking tours; and d) specific preservation plan document for the Central City Historic District.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Karen Denton, the director of the City's Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is "pro" preservation and is willing to work with the Historic Landmark Commission and be actively involved with preservation issues. The City has quite a bit of money for housing projects, and some of that could go for historic rehabilitation projects.
The Central City community has many active citizens who desire to preserve the historic buildings remaining in the historic district.
F. Conditional use. Purpose: Explore ways to provide incentives for preservation while not impacting adjacent less intensive land uses.
1. Explore performance zoning.
2. Analyze whether the conditional use in landmark site process should be liberalized to allow more circumstances where this can be used or retain its purpose as a last result option.
3. Determine whether additional uses are appropriate such as: a) museums; and b) institutional uses.
DISCUSSION: Conditional uses are difficult to administer and review. Having such a difficult process eliminates many potential applicants. There needs to be more work done to facilitate the process in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, it also eliminates potential applicants, such as the owner of the "Wilford Woodruff' farmhouse on 500 East, who does not meet the criteria in the ordinance, but are dedicated in preserving a very significant home.
G. Demolition. Purpose: Amend either the demolition section of the City code, or find ways of amending the demolition portion of the HLC zoning regulations to strongly discourage the willful neglect of historic structures.
DISCUSSION: Revisions are needed in the demolition ordinance. The recent frustrations of the Commission with the economic hardship section of the ordinance are only a part of larger issues that need to be addressed.
Need to continue working with the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, the Police and Fire Departments, and other agencies to develop an ordinance that promotes preservation, but would eliminate the criminal and fire hazards of boarded up buildings. The ordinance needs to encourage property owners not to neglect their buildings.
The penalty fees for boarding a building have substantially increased, but some say that they should even be higher.
These issues are city-wide and seem to warrant having their own section in the City ordinances and not include them in the demolition ordinance. Studies are necessary to look at other jurisdictions or to find out how other cities handle this matter. Not all property owners have the funding to repair or restore historic properties. There are many issues to consider. Sometimes it takes a long time for the "right" owner to come along who has the desire and the finances to restore properties. There has to be more done to eliminate the same property owners accumulating properties with the intention of eventually demolishing the buildings.
H. Designation/Survey. Purpose: Determine where survey work is needed to study nomination potential.
1. Create map-identifying recommendations from 1980 surveys and community master plan policies.
2. Possible locations include: the area between 200-500 East and South Temple to 900 South, west Liberty, east Liberty, Sugar House, and Harvard/Yale area.
DISCUSSION: The Preservation Staff supports surveys for designation of communities eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This summer an intern will use CLG (Certified Local Government) money to do a National Register nomination for the Harvard/Yale area because much of the work has already been done. The residents of that area have shown a great amount of interest.
The staff applied for CLG money for a survey to go from 900 to 1300 South Streets and from 700 to 1300 East Streets. If the Historic Landmark Commission decides that the CLG money is better spent on another project, the residents of this area could apply for CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money to hire a consultant to survey the area and to write the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
The Historic Landmark Commission can determine what areas merit a National Register designation. Also, the Commission can make a decision whether or not to continue this course of action.
A suggestion was made about the possibility of nominating the community south of Liberty Park to the National Register. This area would benefit greatly from the designation because most of the residents have limited resources. The light rail interchange on 2100 South Street might have an impact on the area.
The Historic Landmark Commission cannot be seen as promoting gentrification, which is the restoration of deteriorated urban property especially in working-class neighborhoods by the middle and upper classes. The Sugar House area has gentrification written into the master plan as a goal. The residents in the area also want more families moving into Sugar House who can support the school system. Sometimes there is a ·fine line between "gentrification" and "speculation".
The Preservation Staff would eventually like to add the entire area from State to 1300 East Streets, and from South Temple to 2100 South Streets to the National
Register.
I. Designation of City Owned Historic Resources.
1. Obtain list of all City owned properties.
2. Identify which properties/structures should be preserved.
3. Request zoning amendments to designate City-owned historic resources to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
DISCUSSION: The only protection that can be given to historic properties by the Historic Landmark Commission, that are located outside an historic district, is by designating them as Landmark Sites. The staff was asked to do an assessment of the historic properties owned by the City for possible future "Landmark" designation.
There was a question years ago why the Brooks Arcade was not designated as a Landmark Site. At that time, it seemed that the Planning Staff believed that the building would be restored. There have been many City-owned sites that have been renovated or in the process of being renovated.
• The Historic Landmark Commission could initiate a petition to designate certain properties. The petition would be processed the same as any other rezoning petition. The Commission should take a more active role in these matters.
The Historic Landmark Commission could educate private owners as to the advantages of designating an historic property as a Landmark Site. The property owner would have to be amenable to that idea. There would be less cost involved to a property owner to have the Historic Landmark Commission initiate a petition, rather than the property owner do it, as an individual.
J. Economic Hardship.
1. Amend existing ordinances clarifying the Economic Review Panel's advisory role to the Historic Landmark Commission.
2. Clarify the decision-making authority of the Historic Landmark Commission in the Economic Hardship Review process.
3. Survey other cities regarding how they deal with takings issues relating to demolition of historic structures.
DISCUSSION: The economic hardship ordinance needs to be revised. This is a big issue with the Commission and should be a "top priority" item.
Not all members, who make up the Economic Review Panel, have the same advantages. One person is hired by the applicant to prove economic hardship. The volunteer Panel member, who the Historic Landmark Commission chooses, might not have the time to fully review all the data to come to a conclusion. Likewise, the panel member chosen by mutual consent of the other panel members is volunteering his or her time.
Suggestions were made to eliminate the Economic Review Panel and have the members of the Historic Landmark Commission review the data and make the determination of economic hardship, or to hire an unbiased expert in these matters, who would be available to study the information and make the determination; someone who would work on a retainer basis. Other departments in the City seem to have that available.
The future rate of return has been a conflicting issue in making the determination of economic hardship. There is nothing in the ordinance to prevent the Historic Landmark Commission from asking for an analysis of the possible rates of return for several different scenarios, including leaving a property in its current state.
K. Sign Policy. Purpose: Update the existing sign policy for historic districts and Landmark Sites.
DISCUSSION: The Historic Landmark Commission's signage policy needs to be updated to include guidelines for monument signs, pole signs, banners, temporary signs, and new materials.
The Historic Landmark Commission needs to be aware that requests for temporary signage that would cover the entire facade of a building may surface.
Invite the City's "in-house" signage people to attend a meeting to inform and educate the Commission members about the updated signage ordinance.
Some franchises have clauses in their franchise agreements to allow for different signage for buildings located in historic districts.
L. Transit Oriented Development and Historic Preservation. Purpose: To alleviate the conflicts between Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and historic preservation in designated historic districts (both local and national, or proposed for national).
1. Determine whether TOD is only proposed for Light Rail Transit (LRT) lines or also along bus corridors and bus routes.
2. Create a map identifying the proposed TOD areas, designated historic districts, contributing and non-contributing buildings and existing density. Determine where the conflicts arise and brainstorm various options of how to resolve the issues.
3. Review draft ordinance and information from Central City Master Plan issues.
DISCUSSION: The TOD zone will encourage mixed use and higher density, so more people would be in closer proximity to the light rail and bus systems. TOD will become a base zone and not an overlay district when adopted. The TOD will include portions of two historic districts, Central City and University Historic Districts. The Preservation staff believes that the Historic Landmark Commission should be consulted in matters such as these. Someone from the Historic Landmark Commission should be included in any of these discussions. A recommendation letter from the Historic Landmark Commission to the City Administration will be forthcoming.
The establishment of a TOD zone can be a good thing, as it applies within the historic districts. The Historic Landmark Commission would want to be assured that there were no conflicting measures between the TOD zone and the historic district guidelines. The commission discussed where the TOD designation would be appropriate in the historic districts. The Commissioners also decided to request that the planners assigned to the TOD project brief the Historic Landmark Commission on transit oriented development and its implementation in the city.
M Zoning Analysis in Historic Districts. Purpose: Analyze existing zoning in historic districts to determine whether the zoning is conducive to preservation.
1. Analyze zoning and master plan policies relating to the City's local historic districts and landmark sites.
2. Initiate rezoning petitions where appropriate to ensure preservation.
DISCUSSION: Part of this discussion took place in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) section. There was no more discussion regarding this issue.
IV. DISCUSS AND DETERMINE THE ALLOCATION OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLG) GRANT MONIES
DISCUSSION: Certified Local Government grants are provided by the State. The amount granted to the City will be about $16,000 for this year. The Preservation Staff plans to use the money for parliamentarian procedures training for the Commission, hire an intern for a nomination designation, and for the web page.
No money would be used for travel and expenses this year because the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) conference is only held every two years. There was some discussion that the organizers of that conference might select Salt Lake City to be the site in the year 2002.
V. DISCUSS RESTRUCTURING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SUBCOMMITTEE
1. Expectation of staff and members.
2. Meeting times.
3. Membership.
DISCUSSION: The members of the Architectural Subcommittee determined that the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month at 4:00P.M., were still the best times to hold the subcommittee meetings. It was suggested that since there are nine members of the subcommittee that the members could be split and only expected to go to one subcommittee meeting each month.
VI. AWARDS CEREMONY FOR 2000
DISCUSSION: The annual Historic Landmark Commission's Citizen's Award Ceremony will be held in May to coincide with the Utah State Preservation Month. The Awards Ceremony was tentatively set for May 9, 2001.
At the conclusion of the meeting, members of the Historic Landmark Commission found that a meeting such as this was stimulating and informative and believed there should be time set aside for these kinds of discussions on a regular basis. The members of the staff were commended for the well-organized agenda.
It was also suggested that preservation issues could be structured as part of the meeting agenda under "Other Business" or "Commission Business" where public comment would not be allowed.
Another suggestion was made that the staff could inform Commission members of pertinent matters or receive comments from the Commission through E-Mail.
The members of the Commission wanted to analyze the information acquired at this meeting and then set priorities for the projects as outlined on the agenda.
As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 2:15P.M.