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, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Dave Svikhart, and Dina Williams. Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Lynn Morgan, Robert Pett, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, William T. Wright, Planning Director, Brent B. Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, and Douglas L. Wheelwright, Planning Programs Supervisor.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Bruce Miya. Mr. Miya announced that the issues would be discussed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that after hearing comments from the Planning staff and the commission members, the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment. Since there were no cases to be reviewed, the commission will not hold an executive session.
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 same order as the discussions 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
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of May 15, 1996. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as acting chair did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Pett, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A discussion with the Planning Director concerning the Historic Landmark Commission's review of subdivision requests for properties in Historic districts.
Ms. Miller presented a brief review of the staff report which was an outline of the subdivision process, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Bill Wright introduced Mr. Doug Wheelwright, as a senior planner, who is primarily in charge of subdivision reviews and who has been familiar with both the state and local laws regulating the subdivision process for the past 20 years. Mr. Wright stated that in the course of those 20 years, there has been many changes in the way subdivisions have been handled.
Mr. Wright said he recognized that it was the Gary Bliss property at 334 North Quince Street that had generated the commission member's interest in the subdivision process of properties located within the boundaries of an Historic district. He said that Mr. Bliss had submitted a petition to have his property subdivided. Mr. Wright indicated that if
Mr. Bliss' request is granted, he would have a parcel with frontage on Quince Street and another parcel in the rear, which would create a flag lot.
Mr. Wheelwright said that there was not enough frontage to do a side-by-side split, so Mr. Bliss' proposal called for both properties to have access off Quince Street by using a shared driveway which would be the "flag pole" for the flag lot.
Mr. Wright reported that in the past, the County had allowed houses behind houses and multiple structures on one lot, but in the City, a typical flag lot development with a house in back of another house has been used on a limited bases. He added that there are times when a property that has no frontage for access, a flag lot proposal could solve problems rather than creating them.
Further, Mr. Wright pointed out that there has been debate at the Utah State Legislature to make it mandatory that a county recorder's office would not be allowed to record a subdivided property without the stamp of approval from the local municipality or the governing body.
Mr. Wright explained that during the recent Zoning Rewrite Project process, there had been some discussion whether or not a flag lot provision should be allowed in the zoning ordinance to deal with infill property issues. He said that there could be a better way to confront flag lot issues and noted that he would consult with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the ideal planning situation would be to have one house for every lot and that every lot would have frontage on the street. He said that flag lots could be a usable to O'I to get the balance of allowing some reasonable development, that would not require the public streets to be extended. Mr. Wheelwright said that the creation of public streets generates storm water and an ongoing maintenance, responsibility for the City. He indicated that most of the flag lots that are found in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas predate the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that zoning regulations started in 1927 in the City, but subdivision regulations were not in place until the 1950's.
Mr. Wright offered to explain the process of the subdivision of, land, according to the Utah State Law, a copy of which was included in the staff report. He said that the law basically recognizes the Planning Commissions in the municipalities and county governments as the authority for the subdivision of property, with the mayors as the executive officer. Mr. Wright said that Salt Lake City's Planning Commission's function has been delegated even further to the Planning Director, as an Administrative Hearing Officer, to review insignificant subdivision issues. Mr. Wright indicated that, as the Planning Director, at times he may delegate that responsibility to Mr. Wheelwright. He said that notices are mailed to the public for administrative hearings where public comments would be taken. Mr. Wright stated that if the hearing seemed to be controversial, then the request would be referred back to the Planning Commission to address the issues. He continued by saying that once the Planning Commission has certified that the subdivision of the property is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the subdivision criteria, then a decision would be rendered and all the public issues would be included in a formal document, which would require the mayor's signature. Mr. Wright addressed the subdivision amendments by saying that prior to four years ago, the applicant would have to get the signatures of every homeowner in the subdivision, which made it impossible no matter how good the proposal was. He said that subdivision amendment requests are heard both by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mr. Wright explained that during the Zoning Rewrite Project, a provision was added to the zoning ordinance which required the Planning Director to be consulted for consistency in the subdivision process in Historic districts. He said that provision prevented applicants wanting to create odd shaped lots, as was recently experienced. Mr. Wright pointed out a subdivision proposal on Sixth Avenue a few years ago where the applicant wanted to make a pie-shaped lot. He said that after consulting with the Planning Director, the applicant made the appropriate changes and settled for a rectangular-shaped lot, which was more consistent with the Avenues area. Mr. Wright indicated that the staff tries to provide an increased level of review and discernment in a subdivision request for property in an Historic district and to consider the Historic of a district in a subdivision proposal.
Mr. Wright also spoke of the process, which had been suggested by staff, to review a subdivision or a subdivision amendment for properties in Historic districts. He assured the commission members that they would not want to be burdened with the review of every request for a subdivision or subdivision amendment. Mr. Wright continued by saying that communication and input from the commission, regarding subdivision issues, would come through the preservation staff. Mr. Wright said that on controversial matters, the members could get a consensus of commission and convey the comments at an Administrative or a Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Wright said that the responsibility would be on the preservation staff to keep the commission members informed of subdivision requests on properties within the boundaries of Historic districts.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Cartwright led the discussion by asking if it was the intention of the staff, when the flag lot provision was included in the zoning ordinance, to gain the utilization of some of the problem lots that otherwise were too large and that had no access. Mr. Wright confirmed those comments and said that it was not the intention of the City to become a City of flag lots. He said that the provision was intended to be a tool that would help address problem properties as they were down-sized. Mr. Cartwright referred to the Bliss property on Quince Street, as he expressed his concerns regarding the possibility of that property becoming a flag lot and creating a harm to the streetscape and the Historic integrity to the neighborhood. In conclusion, Mr. Cartwright commented on the subdivision process, that apparently was already in place, and encouraged the staff to alert the commission when they foresaw a subdivision problem in an Historic district.
• Mr. Miya inquired further about the accessing of rear flag lots. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the concept of a flag lot is to have the building area of a piece of ground that connects to, what the staff calls, the "flag pole", and that the flag pole has access to a street and not just an alley or right-of-way. Mr. Miya voiced his opinion by saying that he had confidence in the Planning Director, the staff, and in the subdivision process, and understood that the Historic Landmark Commission would be involved in the design review of a project and its relationship to the neighborhood as the property was being developed.
• Ms. Hatch also expressed her concerns about the Bliss' property on Quince Street and said that when the commission reviewed the project, the members were asked to make decisions on matters over which they had no control, such as the traffic issue, the topography of the access driveway, the site location of the project, perimeter fencing, and other matters that were completely related to the assumption that the flag lot would be approved. Mr. Wheelwright responded by saying that the staff understood the concerns of the commission members and wanted to update them on the Bliss case. He stated that at the administrative hearing, since there were some grading technicalities of the driveway access that needed to be worked out, the petition was tabled. He continued by saying that because of the controversy of the hearing, it was being deferred to the Planning Commission. He added that the Planning Commission hearing would not be scheduled until the driveway issues were resolved. Ms. Deal said that she thought that one of the credible things about that property was the shared driveway, but expressed her concerns about the row of mature trees that were cut down. Ms. Hatch asked about the appeal's process of a decision that would be rendered by the administrator or the Planning Commission and if there was a fee to the applicant to submit an appeal. Mr. Wheelwright said that there was no fee, and further explained that any decision by the administrator or the Planning Commission could be appealed. Mr. Wright stated that an appeal of a subdivision decision could be heard in a formal hearing by the Planning Commission before the documents reached the mayor for signature; after that the appeal would be heard in the courts. Ms. Hatch pointed out the many examples of excellent Historic preservation which are on Quince Street.
• Ms. Deal remarked that this commission would like to have an input in the subdivision process when the property is in an Historic district. Mr. Wright reiterated the point of the members attending the Administrative or Planning Commission hearing and expressing the views of the Historic Landmark Commission. However, he continued by saying that if a member would like to submit something in writing to staff expressing his or her perspective, the issues would be analyzed. Mr. Wright said that the staff might not come to the same conclusion, but would try to be as discretionary as possible under the law.
• Ms. Egleston said that she did not consider the flag lot proposal as the only problem and concurred with the other issues that surrounded the Bliss petition. Mr. Egleston noted that if the property was located in a flat area such as in Central City, then topography would not be an issue. Mr. Wright indicated that if the flag lot proposal1 is denied, it would leave a parcel of land that has a very large buildable area in comparison wi1th the rest of the neighborhood. There was much discussion regarding the issues surrounding the subdivision process in Historic districts and the resolution to some of the problems. Mr. Wright commented that it was like the "chicken and the egg" theory.
The discussion turned to the requirements for both a planned development and a subdivision proposal, and the fact that a planned development has to go through a conditional use process.
Mr. Miya opened the discussion to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Miya closed the discussion to the public.
The discussion continued. Mr. Wright affirmed that this discussion had been valuable to the staff. He assured the members that a workable solution could be developed regarding subdivision issues on properties located within the boundaries of an Historic district.
The selection of a person to participate in the Economic Review Panel to review evidence for the determination of an economic hardship for the A.P. Mickelson House. located at 511 South 900 East. The Procedure for Determination of Economic Hardship is being undertaken as part of the conditional use request for this building.
Ms. Miller presented a brief overview of the conditional use request for this building. A copy of the staff memorandum was filed with the minutes. Ms. Miller noted that this will be the first time the Historic Landmark Commission will be confronted with the process of determining economic hardship on a landmark site. She indicated that part of the process was to review all the facts and figures that the owner, Mr. Patrick Mundt, had compiled. Ms. Miller proposed that the commission would choose one person to serve on the Economic Review Panel, the applicant can chose one person, and those two will select the third person. She said that the panel will review the proposal, analyze the information, and then submit its findings to the staff.
Mr. Wright stated that the Planning Commission makes all determinations on conditional use applications, and not the Historic Landmark Commission. However, he said that if the request was to demolish the building, it would be heard by this commission.
There was much discussion regarding the selection of a Economic Review Panel' member. Mr. Wright suggested that the member could be anyone who had the expertise to review and determine the economic feasibility outlined in the application. However, he recommended that if the commission selected one of its own current members, it may be difficult for that person to be further involved in the decision process.
Mr. Wright remarked that the economic review panel was set up like an arbitration, regarding the selection of the third party. He said that if that third party was not selected within a 30 day time period, the mayor would make the selection, which was outlined in the zoning ordinance for the prevention of a possible gridlock.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Miya led the discussion by asking Mr. Wright to explain the time period involved for the review process. Mr. Wright said that after the three members have been selected, the Economic Review Panel will have 45 days to complete their report. He said that during that period, the panel members can, at their discretion, convene a public hearing, only if they desire to do so, as it is not required. Mr. Wright said their findings, based on all the evidence, would be submitted to the staff in writing. He indicated that their report and all the evidence would become a public record.
• Mr. Cartwright asked if the panel members had an option to seek outside professional people for assistance in determining the outcome of the review. Mr. Wright affirmed that would be acceptable.
• Ms. Williams asked who would direct the litigation during the panel review. Mr. Wright said that the litigation matters were under his direction and he would provide staff. Ms. Williams then inquired if financial resources were available to the panel in the event that an outside professional person was consulted, such as a commercial real estate appraiser. Mr. Wright clarified that there were no funds in the budget at this time for that type of expense, then added that it would be the hope of the staff that the three panel members would be skilled in those matters.
Mr. Miya opened the discussion to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Mr. Patrick Mundt, the owner of the subject property, stated that he was under a deadline and would like to get this process completed as soon as possible, since the roof of the building was leaking and causing damage to the interior. He then added that he also had a mortgage that was due. He expressed his appreciation if the commission would select a panel person at this meeting, so he would 'know the direction in which he could proceed with the project. Mr. Mundt said that his choice for his selection to the Economic Review Panel would either be John Williams or Louis Ulrich.
• Ms. Linda LePreau, chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that the council was concerned that there would be no input from the community council on the selection of the Economic Review Panel. Mr. Wright suggested that the community council could submit a list of qualified names of potential panel members to the staff, the Historic Landmark Commission, and/or the two selectees of the Economic Review Panel. He added that it would be the discretion of that governing body to select a name from that list, however that would not be a requirement. Mr. Wright asked Ms. LePreau if she already had a list of names of qualified people that could be submitted to the commission at this meeting. Ms. LePreau said that she was not prepared with a written list but offered the names of Michael Leventhal and Stephanie Turner for consideration to be selected to serve on the Economic Review Panel.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Miya closed the discussion to the public.
After a short discussion, Mr. Miya announced that nominations were in order for the Historic Landmark Commission to select its representative for the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Deal moved to nominated Dave Svikhart, as the Historic Landmark Commission's designee, to serve on the Economic Review Panel to review evidence for the determination of an economic hardship for the A. P. Mickelson House, located at 511 South 900 East. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright.
As there were no other names placed in nomination, the nominations ceased and Mr. Svikhart was elected by acclamation by Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams. Mr. Miya, as acting chair did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Pett, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed. It was noted that Mr. Svikhart’ s term as a member of the Historic Landmark Commission will expire in July of 1996.
At the suggestion of Mr. Wright, information will be communicated to the preservation staff so arrangements could be made for the future meeting. Mr. Wright recommended that all proceedings regarding the Economic Review Panel be formally documented.
The election of officers for 1996-1997.
There was much discussion regarding the election of officers and whether or not the election should be held at this meeting or deferred to the next full commission meeting, since there were several members who were not present. The list of members that would remain on the commission during the next two years was read. Several names were suggested.
Ms. Egleston said that there was an option that a third term for any member could be requested to the mayor. Ms. Hatch stated that she would like to have more input from the members who were not present. The discussion continued.
Mr. Cartwright moved to hold the elections at this meeting and not defer the election to the next commission meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams voted "Aye". Ms. Hatch was opposed. Mr. Miya, as acting chair did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Pett, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Miya announced that nominations were in order for the position of chairperson for the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Cartwright nominated Ms. Deal and it was seconded by Mr. Miya. Ms. Hatch nominated Ms. Swinton. There was no second.
The Preservation Planners spoke about the importance of their interaction with the chair, as well as the additional responsibilities that would be incurred.
After a lengthy discussion, the Historic Landmark Commission voted to withdraw the nominations for chair and rescinded its earlier action. It was decided that either a special luncheon meeting would be set up to hold the election of officers for the 1996-1997 period and a "farewell” would be presented to the members whose terms would be expiring in July of 1996, or it could be accomplished at the June 19, 1996 meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:40P.M.