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 Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.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. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2003 meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz, voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Ms. Rowland abstained. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, 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.
OTHER BUSINESS
Training and Discussion: Preservation in Salt Lake City
Ms. Giraud stated that this would be a good time to review issues pertaining to preservation.
Ms. Giraud referred to her memorandum, which pointed out the document she had prepared several years ago, along with an agenda for this meeting. The document, An Explanation of Historic Resource Surveys and Their Role in Salt Lake City's Preservation Efforts, discusses the role of surveys in preservation and included a map of the surveys that have been completed in Salt Lake City. Please note that the methods to complete some of the surveys on the map differ from what is currently required, and thus, as the text explains, most of the structures in these survey areas were not individually evaluated. In more recent surveys, all the buildings are evaluated, but few were researched in depth.
Also in the packets, was a paper Ms. Giraud wrote for the petition to City Council to adopt the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Briefing Paper for Salt Lake City Council Preservation Design Guidelines. The paper specifically addresses the design guidelines, but it has other information that she thought would be helpful. Please note that the items in Appendix B of the paper were incorporated into the design guidelines.
Copies of all the documents were filed with the minutes of this meeting. Cities disbanding preservation commissions.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Commissioners might have read in the newspaper that Park City is proposing to disband its preservation commission and she attended the hearing the previous Thursday night. She indicated that Park City had not come to a final decision. She said that it was very interesting. Ms. Giraud said that she thought that many who spoke were people who had an "ax to grind" with the preservation commission. She said that it was obvious that the public had not been content with the way the commission functioned. Ms. Giraud said that it was worth taking notes of the public's complaints. She added that it really does look like Park City is heading towards disbanding the preservation commission with community support.
Ms. Giraud stated that the staff and members of the Historic Landmark Commission need to be aware that preservation will always be valued by some, but it might not by others.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Zunguze mentioned that in some communities, entire Planning Divisions had been eliminated because politicians and their constituents did not want that layer of regulations. She said, "That was something to think about in our society and it is filtering down to preservation the end of regulation." She said, "We all take our jobs for granted."
Ms. Giraud continued by saying that Park City officials were not giving up on preservation; they just will not have a preservation commission. She said that they would have a nonvoting ex-officio member in the role of an advisor on preservation issues and an appointed preservationist on the planning commission. Ms. Giraud said that the preservation ordinance and the historic districts would remain. She added that they would still have three citizen-appointed people who would continue to write their grants. Ms. Giraud pointed out that their grant program has been very successful. She noted that the public in Park City would lose their public hearing process through a preservation commission.
Mr. Simonsen said that from his experience working with the officials in Park City their preservation commission functioned differently than Salt Lake City. He added that projects would have to go through the same design review process by both the preservation commission and the planning commission, which would add another layer of regulation.
Ms. Lew pointed out that it depended on the project.
Ms. Giraud indicated that most of the decisions were made at the staff level so that the preservation comrr1ission had not built up a collective institutional way of working with issues. She said that the public complained that the commission's decisions were not consistent or based on any fact. She heard someone say, "They are a "taste police," and people did not know what to expect. Another comment she heard was that members of the commission were "just interested amateurs" and they did not have any expertise.
Ms. Giraud said that no one representing the Utah Heritage Foundation or the Utah State Preservation Office attended the hearing and very few people spoke in favor of keeping the commission. Even former commission members wanted to eliminate the commission. Ms. Giraud said that The Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission has been fortunate because it has both community activists and people with a high degree of expertise, which has been helpful.
Mr. Zunguze disclosed the fact that the City of Cincinnati last year abolished the City's planning commission and the planning department based on such complaints as "too much regulation and reviews". He said that the political leaders believed the most important thing was to do away with the entities. Mr. Zunguze pointed out that Cincinnati has not seen the consequences of that act yet. He said that it was disturbing to see the actions of Park City so close to home. Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission take a pro-active part in highlighting the benefits of preservation in the community.
Ms. Giraud said that she wanted to make the Commission aware of the proceedings in Park City and hope that Salt Lake City does not get to that point. She mentioned that some of the complaints she heard in Park City have been said to her here in Salt Lake City. She noted that the forum and the service that the Historic Landn1ark Commission provides are very critical.
Historic Landmark Commission operating as a legitimate planning body.
Mr. Simonsen said that there are other things that the Commission needed to be conscientious about, such as that decisions which has been appealed and overturned by the Land Use Appeals Board, raised issues about consistency and legitimacy of what the Commission does. He mentioned the training meeting in January was vital. Mr. Simonsen said, "We need to be operating as a legitimate planning body in order to be seen as having an important role in the community."
Mr. Christensen referred to the case where the applicant, who was an attorney, found a loophole in the City ordinance, which set a precedent for this Commission. Ms. Giraud said that in her opinion things were working well for a long time but it definitely is the time for some fresh new ideas.
Ms. Mickelsen said that in her mind preservation is not keeping the status quo; preservation is helping the neighborhoods grow in a constructive way. Mr. Christensen said that he actually has been called a "Preservation Nazi". Ms. Giraud said that the Commission tries to strike up a balance with projects but conflicting policies are inherent with the many design issues presented.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that the staff and the Commission uses the Secretary of the Interior's standards as a framework within to work, but sometimes flexibility has to come into play. Preservation is about guiding people to good design in historic districts.
Outreach Program.
Mr. Zunguze suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission consider an outreach effort to the public. He added that if the Commission does not set an example in promoting preservation it would lose the overall debate regarding preservation and redevelopment in the public sector. Mr. Zunguze referred to the constant debate between the Commission and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), which is a good example of "mismatched" expectations. He mentioned that he and Ms. Giraud are determined to address those issues. He added that there needed to be collective objectives and some meeting of the minds.
Mr. Simonsen said that he has had a couple of conversations with Ms. Giraud regarding the development of an outreach program. He believed that would be an opportunity to be more involved with the public in preservation issues. Mr. Simonsen said that was the Commission's role and not the staff's because, "We are the appointed board." He pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission has an Architectural Subcommittee that does a great job of helping and advising applicants. He said that he was very interested in seeing what possibilities there might be to establish an outreach program. Mr. Simonsen asked if there was enough latitude within the structure of the Historic Landmark Commission to organize such a group. Ms. Giraud said that she thought there was. She expressed her concern about the staff time that would be required. Ms. Giraud indicated that a program such as that might have the potential of being really disastrous in some situations, but it also would have the potential of being really good.
Ms. Giraud said the members of the Commission would have to be kept abreast of any planning issues. She said that the Commission could be helpful in doing some research.
Mr. Simonsen suggested forming an Outreach Program subcommittee to develop ideas to interact with the community. He inquired about the process to organize such a program. Ms. Giraud said that staff could do some research and put something in writing, which could be reviewed by the Commission. She noted that any document should be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Giraud said that it would not be a change in the ordinance but in the policy document. Mr. Simonsen asked what a reasonable timeframe would be and Ms. Giraud said about three months; it should be ready to review by June 2003.
Mr. Simonsen asked the Commission for suggestions and comments. It was determined that an Outreach Program should include:
1. Communication with elected officials and staff in other City departments;
2. Attending community council meetings and interfacing with the members of the community councils;
3. Participating in community street fairs (booths);
4. Developing a Power Point presentation/portfolio for the public; and
5. Interaction with the Utah Heritage Foundation and the Utah State Preservation
Office (SHPO).
Communication with elected officials and staff in other City departments.
Mr. Christensen talked about the unfortunate disagreements the Commission has had with the RDA. He said he believed the Commission followed the pertinent City ordinances and statutes when decisions were rendered. Mr. Christensen said that the members of the Commission simply did their jobs in enforcing and interpreting the laws and ordinances. He referred to the loss of the Juel Apartments and the Promised Valley Playhouse through the appeal process. He said that be believed that other agencies are not compelled to follow the City statutes, and "yet we are the bad guys".
Some members talked about the interview they had by the City Council when they were first appointed to the Commission and when they extended their terms. They said that the City Council asked some very pointed questions. The City Council and the Mayor need to have a better understanding of what the Historic Landmark Commission does.
Through an Outreach Program, the members would have a better communication with the Mayor and City Council, and all other City departments. He noted that not every City Council member has an historic district in their area.
Attending community council meetings and interfacing with the members of the community councils.
Mr. Simonsen suggested attending community council meetings on a regular basis. He also talked about the vacancies remaining on the Historic Landmark Commission that needed to be filled. Encourage the public to attend the Historic Landn1ark Commission meetings to become more knowledgeable in preservation issues.
Use the community councils to distribute preservation information. Make arrangements with the community council chair to show a slide presentation of what happens to a neighborhood when properties are properly restored. Inform the members of the community council of successful restoration projects and ask the property owners if they could be a resource person to help them through the City process. Give the members of the community councils within the National Register districts incentives for restoration of the tax credits available to property owners. Some projects add much to a neighborhood and a district.
• There was some discussion about how the "stop work order" process functions.
The focus of the Commission turned to lecture material that the National Trust or other organizations might have available. The material would have to be geared to the districts in Salt Lake City. There are also local preservationists as resources.
Information to the community that preservation is important because it raises property values; it promotes neighborhood involvement; it keeps people owning property and living in historic neighborhoods; and it creates a tax base for Salt Lake City.
Participating in community street fairs (booths).
There is an opportunity for members of the Commission to participate in community activities, such as the Avenues Street Fair and the Ninth and Ninth Street Fair. In the past, architects on the Commission made themselves available to the community on such an occasion to give people some technological advice.
Developing a Power Point presentation/portfolio for the public.
A Power Point presentation could be developed that would include some nice visuals of successful renovations to be shown at community council meetings and also the realtors in Salt Lake City of what can be done within certain parameters to historic properties to provide more space for today's living requirements.
Interaction with the Utah Heritage Foundation and the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO).
Coordinating through the Utah Heritage Foundation or the Utah State Preservation Office to develop programs that might assist homeowners with financing, funding, or grants. Encourage workshops and technical seminars. Advertise the preservation web site in the Utah Heritage Foundation newsletter. Participate in the heritage tours. Have more interfacing with the Historic Landmark Commission, the Utah Heritage Foundation, and the Utah State Preservation Office.
Realtors selling property in historic districts.
Realtors need to be educated. Take the opportunity of attending open houses at historic properties and find out what the realtors are saying. Members would like to have a portfolio they could carry with them and present to realtors when they give misinformation to their prospective clients. They could be more informative so they could promote good restoration or additions to expand the living space.
There needs to be more communication with the real estate business, especially those who sell properties in historic districts. They should know the guidelines.
It might be beneficial for a realtor to place an ad in the newsletter circulated by the Utah Heritage Foundation newsletter regarding historic homes on the market.
Mr. Christensen told of an incident where he heard a realtor advice the buyer of the 1848 Hawk log cabin property in the Capitol Hill area to tear it down because it was unstable. Mr. Christensen said that the realtor took umbrage to Mr. Christensen's lecture on preservation in historic districts. The realtor commented, "so let's have a fire; it needs to go".
Ms. Rowland said she encounters that type of attitude when she looks at historic properties on the market. Realtors need to promote the "upside" of living in an historic district and not just the "downside".
Legal advisory for the Historic Landmark Commission to help prevent cases going to the Land Use Appeals Board.
Mr. Parvaz suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission have a legal advisor attend the public hearings to assist the Commissioners in the legality of verbiage in the motions. The Historic Landmark Corr1mission makes decisions at the highest level. The Commissioners have been told after the fact that they should have said this or they should not have said that. The Commissioners need legal advice, especially on sensitive issues.
Ms. Giraud that Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, has been assigned to attend the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, and the Historic Landmark Corr1mission meetings, especially when complicated cases are reviewed. In the past, there have been legal advisors who were members of the Historic Landmark Commission, which was very beneficial.
Perhaps when there is a question of the legality of the motion, based on findings of fact, the case could be tabled until a legal review would be forthcoming. Several past cases the Land Use Appeals Board overturned the Commission's decision due to the wording of the motion.
Suggest having an "Issues Only" portion of a meeting to address such issues before the public hearing. Staff could also receive legal advice for the verbiage used in the findings of fact in the staff report.
Certified Local Government (CLG) grants.
Ms. Giraud said that there was some CLG money available to hire a consultant to hold a retreat where the Commission would be evaluated and assisted in the review and decision-making processes.
Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Giraud spoke of Mr. Nore' Winter, consultant, who did the public presentations for the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. It was very well attended. They worked hard to identify the issues that should not be corr1promised and the ones that could be compromised. It was more of a sense of what is the practical reality of living and working in an historic district.
Administrative/Architectural Subcommittee reviews.
At one time, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed every proposal. That was changed in the zoning ordinance rewrite in 1995. Staff was given the opportunity to approve administratively the fairly straight-forward proposals, which shortened the Historic Landmark Commission meetings. What is reviewed at the Commission meetings are the large projects, new construction, demolitions, and the controversial projects, just to name a few. Sometimes there is almost an adversary relationship with the applicant.
The Architectural Subcommittee offers applicants some technical advice, and helps the applicant through the public process. It gives the applicants some comfort to know that they do not always have to go before the full Commission. The Architectural Subcommittee is very helpful and most people come out of those meetings with a better project.
The administrative approval helps people get moving on their good projects without having to wait to get on an agenda of the Historic Landmark Commission, which is a great help to the citizens.
Ms. Giraud showed the slide presentation she had prepared, which depicted many good and some not so good alteration projects. Some interesting new construction was also represented. There were comments made throughout the presentation.
Alterations to historic properties.
Ms. Giraud talked about a house on First Avenue where the case went to court. She had a slide that showed a picture of the house in 1992, where the owner did not make many changes to the look of the house. One day driving in the Planning Division van, she saw where the current owners had put up awnings, black and white tiles down the front stairs, a heavy balustrade was going around the second floor balcony, windows were removed and replaced with doors on the second floor, and a retaining wall was being constructed, among other things. The Historic Landmark Commission denied the legalization case and the applicant ended up taking it to court where the case was dismissed on some strange technicality, such as no one could prove exactly when the awnings were installed. It was a three-day jury trial. There were several people called to testify. The Historic Landmark Commission received some very bad press. The City Weekly called them the "Awning Gestapo".
A new owner has since moved in and has taken everything off. It now looks very much like it did originally.
There have been changes in landscaping. People are encouraged to use water wise plantings at this time. People have called staff to ask why some property owners are tearing up their lawn.
Additions in historic districts.
If the footprint of a proposed addition is more than 50 percent of the footprint of the house, it would have to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. When projects this large were approved administratively, the public was not given the opportunity of being notified. Some people want the Historic Landmark Commission to review everything because they feel it is a safeguard. Again, staff tried to find a balance.
New additions have to be differentiated from the old to the new. Applicants are encouraged to build a new interpretation that fits in with the scale of the neighborhood and not to replicate old styles on new projects.
Some large additions, not in historic districts, were shown which had huge impacts on the streetscape and the neighborhood.
Garages in historic districts.
Mr. Littig talked about an article he read from another city, where new garages had to match the roof pitch and height of the house. Some members liked that idea and some pointed out that the garage could become a very large expensive building. Discourage flat roofed garages from being built because they look like Tuff Sheds.
There is a lot of information available on garages. Lisa Miller, who used to work in the Planning office did her master's theme on garages in historic districts.
Some people want to build a garage that look like it was once a carriage house. Staff discourages that if the house never had a carriage house originally. However, staff is sometimes lenient with some detached garages, especially if they cannot be seen from the street. Many garages front alleyways in the middle of the blocks throughout the historic districts. A slide of such secondary streetscapes was shown that had a real historic pristine environment. There are many shapes and sizes of garages in historic districts.
"Gentrified" historic districts or a haven for rental properties.
Another issue is to try to make the historic districts so that they do not necessarily become "gentrified" or become a place where they are just havens for rentals and people who are in transitional phases of their lives. Historic districts are places where families could establish roots. Educate the public that an historic house can be remodeled with the proper guidelines and materials to make it very livable for today's families.
Issues regarding, "It's a matter of taste".
Staff has been asked why the Commission does not review colors. Staff considers colors of paint a "taste" issue and they stay away from regulating the color of paint chips. However, Staff reviews permanent colors for brick, dryvt, and roofing material.
New construction in historic districts.
The City has allowed a lot of new construction in historic districts. Architects complain that staff is hampering their creativity and the people feel like when it comes to a new building, everyone has their own opinion. The City's historic districts have a variety of new construction.
Slides were shown of the new bathhouse at Liberty Park. A slide was shown of an assisted living center, which was constructed next to the Armstrong Bed and Breakfast on First South and 700 East. It replaced three badly burned houses which were demolished.
The design was very respectful to the historic building next door. Slides were shown of modern contemporary interpretations that matched the scale of the neighborhood.
Roofing material in historic districts.
Mr. Simonsen said that he struggles with metal roofs. He also said that there is a paint that makes the roof look like asphalt shingles.
Siding materials in historic districts.
Vinyl siding is still a problem because people use it to cover up problems and the problems still exist so the house further deteriorates. Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission take a strong stand on vinyl siding. Staff has had contractors complain and say that staff was too hard on vinyl material. Staff could never monitor what would be covered up with the vinyl. A slide was shown of a house where all the details had been covered by vinyl siding. Other examples were discussed.
About ten years ago, there were many enforcement cases that were appealed to the City Council, where the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission was upheld. That is where the policy was developed that on a contributing building, no vinyl siding is allowed to cover up historic soffits or fascia. However, it is allowed on non-contributing buildings and on new construction. Garages seen from the street cannot be covered with vinyl siding.
A wood grain rough finish is not allowed for synthetic siding, such as Hardiboard. The surface has to be smooth.
Windows in historic districts.
Some window designs are more elaborate than others. Due to energy conservation and other circumstances, staff has allowed vinyl sash and casings in the existing openings. Grids are to be on the exterior and the windows to be recessed. There were some slides that showed some good examples of vinyl window replacements that were less expensive than wood windows. Staff would always rather see wood windows replace wood windows.
There were also some slides that showed examples of good aluminum clad window replacements. People think that white goes with everything. An almond color was used which blended in with the exterior of the house very nicely.
A slide showed an example of a small store on 800 South where the window replacement enhanced the look of the building. Staff insisted that the owner replicate the original design of the window because this feature was so important, but was lenient with the other aspects of the renovation. Windows are very important characteristics to a structure.
Satellite dishes in historic districts.
Mr. Littig said that he struggles with satellite dishes in front yards. Federal law allows mini dishes, but the City regulates the placement of larger satellite dishes, as well as solar panels on top of the roof.
New products and new technology.
New products and new technology need to be reviewed. Vinyl fencing is a big issue. Maybe the technology has gotten to the point where the vinyl is a better product. Staff needs to look at those kinds of things.
Ms. Giraud suggested that a consultant, such as Nore' Winter, who could put on a workshop showing new material.
There is a lot of new technology available. All new products should not be totally banned. The ordinance is very closed to new products. It should be opened to allow additional new products.
Don Hartley fron1 SHPO gave a presentation on new products at a recent CLG Conference that addressed the issue of new technology. This presentation was very interesting.
Maybe someone on the Commission knows others who are knowledgeable about new technology and new products. There are some manufacturers' reps who have worked with preservation commissions.
Mr. Fitzsirr1mons suggested forming a New Technology subcommittee.
The slide presentation was concluded. Mr. Simonsen thanked Ms. Giraud for her presentation.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:00 P.M.