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 Burke Cartwright, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Sarah Miller, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. Thomas Cerruti, William Damery, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Supervisor, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller. Janice Jardine, representing the City Council Office, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Bruce Miya. Mr. Miya announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed to the public and the Commission would make a decision based on the information presented.
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. Miya introduced Sarah Miller and Robert Young, as new members of the Commission. He said that Maren Jeppsen, was also a new member, and will join the Commission at the next meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 1997, after a small correction. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Williams voted "Aye". Ms. Miller and Mr. Young, abstained. Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Certified Local Government (CLG) grant.
Ms. Egleston presented an overview of the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She reported that she had received many requests from neighborhoods for signa9e indicating historic districts, but that she did not feel a large number of signs would be installed. She said that the signage would be graphically the same for each historic district. Ms. Egleston suggested rather than spending the money on brick and mortar projects, because those dollars do not go very far, it is better to spend the money on other projects that were more difficult to fund. She indicated that she tried to keep the grant application very vague so there would be some flexibility. Ms. Egleston reported that the funds had been used in prior years for the conservation study on the Isaac Chase House, travel for staff, surveys for Central City and the Bryant neighborhood.
Mr. Miya inquired further into the process for the grant for the signage in the historic districts. Ms. Egleston said that she would have to submit the form for the grant proposal by February 17, 1997. She stated that the proposal would be an actual implementation, not just a recommendation to the City.
Ms. Deal inquired about the Guadalupe area survey for a possible National Register nomination. Ms. Egleston said that some of the grant money could be used for that project. She said that Lisa Miller had been working with a preservation program at the University of Utah which would make allowances for students to be used for the research. She also said that there was a reconnaissance survey done on the Guadalupe area that was completed in 1991 or 1992. Ms. Egleston said there also was a pending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) with the City which could be used for the research required for a National Register nomination.
Ms. Williams asked if these funds were available every two years. Ms. Egleston was affirmative. Ms. Williams inquired about the Commission meeting with staff to "brain storm" and prioritize goals, and then have an evaluation at the end of the year which would provide direction for the funds for the next year. Ms. Egleston said that would be possible. Mr. Cartwright agreed with that suggestion. He said that he was not sure what the options were for the money and would like to have a discussion. Ms. Williams said that she would be happy to organize such a meeting so it would not be a burden to the Staff. Ms. Egleston said that on the application she will add that the Commission would be meeting to discuss the money.
Ms. Hatch suggested that some of the funds be used for public workshops to discuss the Design Standards for Salt Lake City. Ms. Egleston said that the staff would have until June of 1998 to use any money received through the grant program. A short discussion followed.
Mr. Miya asked that the minutes reflect that the chair had been relinquished to Mr. Wallace Cooper.
Discussion with Harvey Boyd of the City's Building and Licensing Division, concerning the boarded building ordinance.
Mr. Cooper turned the time over to Mr. Harvey Boyd. Mr. Boyd presented an overview of the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He reported that the City's Administration asked him to look into the boarding ordinance and as part of that he asked the Preservation Staff if there were pressing issues that needed to be changed in that ordinance relative to historic districts and landmark sites. Mr. Boyd expressed his opinion that the boarded buildings would be greatly reduced through rehabilitation.
Mr. Boyd further reported that the City was also investigating the fees imposed on the owners of boarded buildings. He explained the breakdown of the fees which was included in the staff report. Mr. Boyd reported that currently there was a mitigation fee imposed on properties of $200.00, then added that amount might change. He said that the fees should be high enough so that the owners of the property would properly maintain the buil1 ding rather than vacating and boarding it. He said that non-profit housing organizations were encouraged to buy the properties on which boarded building1s were located, but the current owners of those properties would not sell.
Mr. Cooper stated that he thought the current fees for boarded buildings were too low, due to the costs incurred by the enforcement personnel because they were a real detriment to a neighborhood. There was lengthy discussion regarding the average and tl1e appropriate fee for boarded buildings. Mr. Boyd indicated that the City's Administration was considering to charge a nuisance fee, as well, for boarded buildings. Mr. Cooper suggested developing a graduated fee schedule, rather than a flat fee. He said that a single-family residence would have a lower mitigation fee than an apartment building. Mr. Cooper observed that the indirect costs, such as the personnel involvement, would have to be considered for a graduated fee schedule. Mr. Boyd said that those were good points and the consideration was a possibility. Mr. Cooper suggested making the fee such that it would be more profitable for a property owner to keep the building in good condition and in operation rather than boarding the building.
Mr. Cartwright asked how successful the City was in collecting the fees. Mr. Boyd said that the City was very successful, and continued by saying that a notice was sent annually for the applicable fees. Mr. Boyd said that monitoring the landscaping and maintenance was much more difficult.
The discussion continued regarding the reduction of the number of boarded buildings due to an healthy economy but that could change. Mr. Boyd said that there were a 100 buildings that remained boarded, which was a considerable reduction.
Ms. Egleston inquired further into the remaining boarded buildings. Mr. Boyd disclosed the fact that the remaining 100 boarded buildings have been boarded for quite a while and many of those property owners acquired the property on the speculation of developing the site in the future, and that none of them were consistent with the boarded building ordinance. Mr. Boyd said that also property owners would make marginal improvements, then let the building fall back into a boarded state. He said that the Building Services Division had initiated a pre-re-occupancy inspection for buildings with personnel highly trained for certain types of building problems. Mr. Boyd said that has also helped in getting a higher quality of renovation work.
Ms. Williams asked if the property owners, within a National Historic Register district, were provided with information on available financial incentives for restoration purposes. Mr. Boyd affirmed that they were informed. He also said that an information sheet was given to the owners of boarded properties that listed available resources through the City and various agencies. Ms. Williams asked how many of the remaining 100 boarded buildings were in historic districts. Mr. Boyd said that there were very few, that most of the boarded buildings were primarily around the freeway systems. Ms. Williams also asked about the involvement the City personnel has with the adjacent neighbors of a boarded building. Mr. Boyd said there was much communication and involvement.
Mr. Miya inquired about the length of time a building could be boarded. Mr. Boyd indicated that there was a limited period of time. He said that according to the ordinance, any structure which has been boarded and/or vacant over two years is declared to be a public nuisance as detrimental to the safety and public welfare of the residents and property values of the City.
Ms. Deal expressed her concerns about the level of security of a boarded building and cited the crime issue of the old Irving Jr. High School building. She continued by saying that the boarded school building was in accordance with the City's standards, but that the owner-caused blight was created because the owners had failed to maintain the standards to prevent people from breaking into that building and furthering the damage. Ms. Deal said that she was concerned that an owner-imposed blight would be a cause for demolition of a building. Other demolition sites like the Utah Technical School building were discussed.
Ms. Hatch suggested that if a boarded building was requested in an historic district, a member of the historic Preservation Staff be included in the on-site inspection. Ms. Deal agreed and said that if a Preservation Staff member submitted a report as to the status of the building when it was boarded, then at least the City would have it on record, which would help the Commission when a demolition request is reviewed. A discussion took place regarding the issues surrounding the hazards, repair, rehabilitation, and demolition of boarded buildings.
Ms. Miller inquired about the penalties for owners who do not comply with the required maintenance of a boarded building site. Mr. Boyd said that there were fines and administrative fees that would have to be paid. He continued by saying that if the owner still did not meet the requirements, then the City would hire a contractor to do the maintenance and the owner would be assessed the fees.
Mr. Morgan said that these fees and assessments, would be a strong incentive for someone to do something with the building, otherwise the losses would keep mounting.
Mr. Young inquired about the specifications of the materials used for the boarding of buildings. Mr. Boyd explained that painted 1/2-inch plywood is essential, to be attached over the openings with exterior-quality common nails or fasteners. He said that grabber screws were required at one time but too much of the window frames were being destroyed and added that it was not possible to prevent people from breaking into a building. Mr. Boyd said that the way the ordinance is written, no holes in the roofing, or walls are allowed, soffits and eaves have to be maintained and missing materials would have to be replaced.
In conclusion, Mr. Boyd said that the problems of enforcing the boarded building ordinance had to be addressed immediately and the City Administrators requested input from various committees and departments. Mr. Boyd said that a graduated fee idea would be suggested and that he would accept any other points of interest or comments from any member of the Commission. He said that a revised proposal would be presented to the Preservation Staff and the Commission for a future review.
Discussion with Scott Fisher, of the City Prosecutor's Office, concerning the Lauren Rudd case, (No. 054-94), at 587 E. First Avenue.
Ms. Egleston introduced Mr. Scott Fisher, Assistant City Prosecutor, and said that she wished to yield the time to him. Mr. Fisher stated that Ms. Egleston asked him to discuss a preliminary matter that needed to be brought to the attention of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Cooper suggested that an overview of the Lauren Rudd case be given for the new members of the Commission. Mr. Fisher stated that this case had on-going and potential litigation, which meant that there were certain issues concerning the City, and the City Attorney's office, who was representing Salt Lake City's interest, that should be discussed without the public being in attendance. He said that it was his understanding that this Commission, by a two-thirds vote, could close the meeting to the public, so that it would not be an open meeting, and added that the Commission might want to discuss that option before he proceeded. Mr. Fisher said that once the meeting was closed, it would have to be thoroughly recorded by hand or tape, because of future concerns regarding the case, and added that there were legal decisions that had to be made.
Ms. Deal inquired about the Open Meeting Law, and said that there was nothing in the Commission's by-laws regarding the closure of a meeting to the public. Ms. Jardine, reported that the City Council has done this in the past by making a motion to go into executive session for a discussion on sensitive legal issues, such as litigation, on-going labor negotiations, and other such matters.
Ms. Williams inquired about public access to the tapes of this meeting even though the meeting would be closed. Mr. Fisher stated that he was not certain what the procedure was for the recorded tapes. There were several opinions given in regards to those procedures.
Mr. Cooper stated that he was very uncomfortable with what Mr. Fisher had asked because he said that the Commission did not have sufficient information to evaluate whether or not the meeting could be legally closed. He added that there was no prior knowledge or anything in the Historic Landmark Commission Member's Handbook relative to this matter.
A short discussion took place with respect to the closure of the meeting. Ms. Deal stated she did not think that the proceedings of this meeting needed to be on television since on-going litigation concerning Ms. Rudd's case was to be discussed. She said that she would like to be informed by Mr. Fisher as to the court proceedings and not read about it in the "Rally and Wells" column in the newspaper.
Ms. Williams said that she would also like to know what is going on but also thought that the public had a right to know, as well. A discussion continued regarding how the Lauren Rudd case had been portrayed by the news media.
At this time, Mr. William T. Wright, the Planning Director, joined the meeting. Mr. Cooper explained that Mr. Fisher had asked the Commission to make a motion to close the meeting to the public, and added that he had no recollection of that being done in the Historic Landmark Commission meetings in the past and the Commission needed to be advised.
Mr. Wright said that he had spoken with Mr. Roger Cutler, the City Attorney, and in fact there was a procedure for this body to close a portion of the meeting to the public for very limited purposes and one of those purposes, under the Open Meetings Act, was for a discussion on litigation. He continued by saying that the Lauren Rudd case involved a denial of legalization of a permit by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Wright said that the decision was appealed to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission upheld that decision. He said that the City had some enforcement action and ended up in Third District Court. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Fisher was the Prosecutor on that action. Mr. Wright stated that the Commission needed to make some decisions concerning the rulings that were made by the Judge in that case. He declared that the City, and the Historic Landmark Commission, would have to make decisions in these matters without the City's or Commission's rights being vindicated.
Mr. Cooper expressed his concerns about the recorded tapes being made available to the public shortly after they were transcribed. Mr. Wright pointed out that there was a separate procedure for an executive session or a closed portion of a meeting and referred to Mr. Fisher, who had legal documentation, which upheld that intention. He proceeded by saying that there were requirements, under the Open Meetings Act, that the meeting would be recorded on tapes or that detailed minutes be provided, but not made available to the public, unless there was a challenge where the court would rule, after listening to the tapes, whether or not the meeting closure to the public was legal. Mr. Wright suggested that if the Commission members desired to close a portion of the meeting to the public, then a motion would have to be rendered and an approval would have to be certified by a two-thirds majority. He indicated that the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council has had to close a portion of a meeting to the public in the past for purposes of litigation or other related matters. Mr. Cooper entertained a motion.
Ms. Deal moved to go into a closed to the public executive session for the purposes of discussing litigation. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Ms. Williams was opposed. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Robert Walz, a reporter with KSL Television, stated that he was neither Rolly nor Wells and this legal notice was advertised that there would be a discussion with Scott Fisher regarding the City's Prosecutor's Office concerning the Lauren Rudd's case. He said that there was no indication on the legal notice that the Commission would move into a closed executive session. Mr. Walz said that there had been no prior notice that the Commission would do this and he officially protested the decision of a closed session. Mr. Cooper said that the protest would be noted in the minutes.
Mr. Wright stated again the Historic Landmark Commission was acting at the advice of the City Attorney. Mr. Cooper stated that Mr. Walz may want to read the information on the back of the agenda. Mr. Waltz indicated that the information on the back of the agenda did not address going into a closed session. Mr. Cooper pointed out that the information indicated that the Historic Landmark Commission would be going into an executive session. Mr. Walz agreed with that then reiterated that the agenda was advertised as a public meeting and it did not say the meeting would be closed to the public in order to discuss litigation. He continued by saying that if it turned out that the discussion included things outside litigation, then in his opinion the Commission would be in violation of the Open Meetings Law.
Mr. Cooper stated that the meeting would be closed so the Commission could hear the litigation and matters relative to litigation and recommended that the discussion be that specific and not discuss any other matters.
This portion of the meeting was closed to the public and the litigation was discussed a motion was made to re-open the meeting to the public.
Mr. Miya moved to leave the executive session of the Historic Landmark Commission and go back to a public forum. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and 'Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Cooper announced that the public portion of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting was now in session and gave a brief explanation why a portion of the meeting was closed to the public. He called for a motion pursuant to the Lauren Rudd case.
Mr. Morgan moved that this Commission recommends that the City not pursue an appeal of the dismissed criminal charges concerning the Lauren Rudd case at
587 E. First Avenue.
Mr. Young suggested that an amendment be added to the motion that the Commission did not reverse its decision on the inappropriateness of the awnings. Mr. Morgan agreed with that suggestion and restated the motion.
Mr. Morgan moved that the Historic Landmark Commission 1recommends that the City not pursue an appeal of the dismissed criminal charges concerning the Lauren Rudd case at 587 E. First Avenue and that the Historic Landmark Commission supported its original decision that the awnings were inappropriate. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Cooper thanked the public for its patience as the Commission reviewed this matter. He asked if there were any additional comments from the public. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Mr. Robert Walz again stated that he was a reporter for KSL Television. He asked if the City had any intention to pursue Ms. Rudd with an appeal of the criminal charges. Mr. Cooper stated that the motion regarding the Lauren Rudd case clarified the Commission's actions. Mr. Walz inquired if the City had any intention to file a suit under civil charges. Mr. Fisher advised him that it was under consideration.
Mr. Fisher addressed the Commission by praising the people whom he had called to testify on the case, and that they should all be commended for their hard work and the manner in which they represented the City during the proceedings.
Mr. Fisher conveyed to the Commiss1ion members and staff that the Historic Landmark Commission's issues dealing with histor1ic preservation, was an important part of the community in terms of maintaining the history and the economic base of the City. He said that there were effective tools, criminal and civil, that were tailored to meet the City's and the Commission's goal's and indicated that he would like to work with the Historic Landmark Commission in the future regarding those tools.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing and ended this segment of the meeting.
Discussion of the 1996 Historic Landmark Commission Awards.
Ms. Williams announced that the next discussion regarding successful projects the Commission had previously approved should also be of an interest to Mr. Walz, the television reporter, which would provide a balanced view of what the Commission does.
Ms. Miller indicated that she had tentatively set up the date of February 19, 1997 in the City Council Chamber to have the Historic Landmark Commission's Awards Ceremony. Photographs were circulated of projects of potential award recipients. She presented a brief outline of her memorandum, a copy of which was included with the minutes. Ms. Miller stated that the list of properties in her memorandum were only of projects the Commission had approved in 1996, but the awards did not need to be limited to only that year.
Ms. Hatch stated that she felt very strongly that the list of possible award's recipients should include projects done on a small scale but done correctly, such as a window replacement. Other members agreed with that suggestion. A short discussion followed regarding this matter. Mr. Cooper inquired if the list should be categorized. Ms. Miller stated that from the past experience, she thought it was best not to categorize the award but generally review the projects. Further, she said that a specific category would be written on the certificates. Ms. Egleston offered the suggestion of the Commission presenting a "Good Neighbor" award. Other thoughts were given regarding the suggestion.
The discussion turned to specific properties where several members expressed their opinions on certain projects, such as the Boston Market, which is located on South Temple. Ms. Hatch asked to have her project removed from the list of possible recipients because she said that she did not think it would be appropriate for a member of the Historic Landmark Commission to receive an award. The discussion continued.
Mr. Cooper recommended that the date of February 19, 1997 be canceled for the awards ceremony and that the discussion be postponed until the next Commission meeting. A short discussion followed. Ms. Miller said that she would revise the list of potential recipients and would appreciate any input from the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:11 5 P.M.