SALT LAKE CITY
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Special Luncheon Meeting on
"Design Standards for Historic Properties" Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Robert Pett, Dave Svikhart, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. William Damery, Bruce Miya, and Lynn Morgan, were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, Cheri Coffey, and Val John Halford.
The meeting was called to order at 12:15 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Pett. Mr. Pett stated that this meeting would be a working session only, and although the public was welcome, the meeting would not be opened to the public for comment. Since there were no cases to be reviewed, no executive session was held.
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 in the order as comments 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.
CONTINUATION OF THE REVIEW OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Ms. Egleston presented a brief overview of the issues that were discussed of the design guideline standards at the November 1, 1995 Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
A document was passed to the members which contained information what Ms. Egleston considered "a new approach," as well as an accompanying agenda and comments from the public which was expressed at the September 14, 1994 meeting for design standards. She pointed out that she organized the sample section on bungalow design and style and Mr. Winter worked on the section on the guideline standards. Ms. Egleston stated that at t1he last Historic Landmark Commission meeting, she heard expressions of dissatisfaction from the members with the layout, the approaches that had been taken, and some of the context of the first draft that was presented to the commission. Ms. Egleston said that the guidelines needed to be directed towards the general public, and may be too elementary for professional architects. She also said that the guidelines should be helpful: in educating other City departments, as well as the City Council to historic preservation.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by members of the
Historical Landmark Commission:
• The format of the guidelines will be critical from the user's standpoint. The first draft was boring, monotonous, and tedious. It was too regulatory and was not user friendly. A thorough explanation of the intent of the document will be important.
• There should be separate sections for new construction and restoration of historic buildings because of the legitimate differences. Applicants could be shown the various styles that exist in a neighborhood, but the guidelines should not dictate style for new construction. Replication of an existing building should not be encouraged for new construction. However, because of new materials replication could still be differentiated. There was much discussion regarding these issues with many projects being cited.
• Since demolition criteria was documented in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, it should not be repeated in the guidelines. However, infill replacement/new construction would be under the jurisdiction of the guidelines and reviewed by the commission. This information should also include the relocation of a house into an historic district.
• In the education and maintenance section, there should be information such as the cause of wood deterioration and the best ways for prevention, brick cleaning, and other such valuable data for homeowners interested in preservation. There was some discussion about the duplication of information that could be acquired from the Utah State Historical Society, but was decided that to make the guidelines "user friendly”, maintenance suggestions should be included in the guidelines as a convenience to the applicant. As the City Council members are very concerned about the service his/her constituents, who are mostly homeowners, receive when dealing with the Historic Landmark Commission, the document should contain these issues to further educate the City Council members, as well as the citizens. To receive the approval of the City Council members, much thought should be given to the title of the document, the explanation of the basic preservation philosophy, and the reason that philosophy encouraged documents such as guidelines.
• A positive "upbeat" manner of the text should be given much consideration so the user would feel encouraged about preservation and not be discouraged if all the problems and difficulties take a more precedent ambiance in the guidelines.
• The text should allow the commission to be able to review proposals on a case-by case basis, whether the house or building was a contributory or a noncontributory structure. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the use of synthetic materials in some historic districts. The comment was made that there were economic hardship cases in each historic district and the guidelines should strive to make viable neighborhoods, but still stay within some historic range that the commission would find acceptable. Some of the issues in historic districts are the people living in that district which created the viability of the area, and if they economically could not afford to continually maintain the cost of replacing historic materials, they would leave and turn their home into rental property which would lose its value. There was further discussion regarding this commentary. The conclusion was that justification would occur but where would the line be drawn. Perhaps an alternate policy could allow the homeowner a longer period in which to complete a project without penalties.
• Although signage in historic districts is covered by the zoning ordinance, the criteria should be mentioned in the guidelines.
• The difficulty of enforcement was discussed. There are not enough City employees to enforce the rules and regulations that are currently found in the City's code. The principals of preservation should be encouraged in the guidelines so the citizens would have the desire to be more self-enforcing.
The discussion turned to the organizational structure of the guidelines and what the message the title should convey to make it "user friendly" to the public. There were several concepts presented.
In conclusion the following suggestions were recommended: The document should be a single unit having different sections, and possibly placed in a three-ring binder, which would make photocopying easier. The first part would contain the preservation philosophy; the second part would comprise the history and pertinent information on each historic district; the third part would have a description of individual styles of the area; the fourth part would explain the criteria for new construction; the fifth part would contain detailed information for renovation projects and additions; and the sixth part would describe individual elements such as windows, porches, dormers, and so on. There should be many illustrations and pictures, each with its own caption, which would refer to different sections for the appropriate information.
Ms. Egleston summarized the information that was discussed and said that she should have a draft of the document for review at a meeting in the near future.
RECIPIENT SELECTION FOR THE 1995 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AWARDS
Ms. Miller presented a brief overview of the information that led to the idea of rewarding deserving citizens who had completed a good project, whether it was reviewed by the commission or by staff. She explained the document that had been given to the members, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. The document included projects for the prior three years.
As the members reviewed the information, there were several suggestions regarding the categories and the projects. Ms. Miller concurred with the members that there might not be a project nominated for each category and that there should be several miscellaneous awards presented. Ms. Miller circulated some sample certificates that could be awarded.
The members were in full agreement with the staff when Ms. Miller suggested that former commission members for the last three years be recognized by a plaque for their service to the community. The decision was made that the recipients of the awards would be notified by invitation to attend the ceremony.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M.