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 Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Sarah Miller, and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners. Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young 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. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
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.
The newly elected Chairperson, Robert Young, formally extended recognition to Dina Blaes and Susan Deal for their service this past year, serving as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, and with the mandate of the Historic Landmark Commission members extended an appreciation to both of them. Ms Deal was congratulated for her reelection to serve as Vice Chairperson for another term.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the January 20, 1999 meeting, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the February 3, 1999 meeting, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case 014-97, which was a request by Jeff Jonas of American Housing Development Company. to demolish the buildings at 326 South 600 East. 334 South 600 East. 550 East 300 South. and 558 East 300 South. The Historic Landmark Commission approved the demolition and Mr. Jonas is requesting an extension of time for that approval.
Ms. Deal raised a point of order and said that in the past she had recused herself from cases involving Mr. Jonas. She said that she had only been involved in a peripheral way in helping to find a place to move the Vernier Place homes. Ms. Deal indicated that she did not believe she had a conflict of interest if she remained seated as a Commission member but would like to open the issue up for discussion among the Commission members. She said that she currently did not have a working relationship with the applicant or the American Housing Development Company. Mr. Young inquired if a Commission member had a contention on this matter. No member of the Historic Landmark Commission indicated that he/she believed there was a conflict of interest if Ms. Deal remained seated as a member of the Commission.
Mr. Knight proceeded with his presentation of the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said that Mr. Jonas of American Housing Development Company and Winthrop Court LLC, was requesting an extension of the demolition approvals at the above addresses. He said that these properties were part of a larger plan to develop an apartment complex on the block.
Mr. Knight stated that on March 4, 1998, the Historic Landmark Commission made a final approval after a finding of economic hardship for the demolition for these buildings. He said that since that time, Mr. Jonas had revised the original plan and had purchased additional property along 500 East and Vernier Place. Mr. Knight said that the approvals for the demolitions were about to expire.
Mr. Knight said that the ordinance does not outline any specific expiration date or any procedure for extending the approvals, except that it states in Section 21A.06.050(M) of the Salt Lake City Code that "the Historic Landmark Commission shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning." He said that according to the ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission's adopted "Policies and Procedures" would apply.
Mr. Knight said that in Section 7.0 of the Historic Landmark Commission's "Policies and Procedures", Expiration of Approvals, it states: "All plans for new construction and demolition approved by the Historic Landmark Commission expire one year from the date of the Historic Landmark Committee (Commission) meeting, at which approval was granted. Upon written request by the applicant, the Historic Landmark Committee (Commission) may grant an extension of time for an additional six months. However, the Committee (Commission) may elect to have the plans submitted by the applicant as a new case." Mr. Knight stated that staff believed that a six-month extension of the original approvals was reasonable, under the circumstances that the project had been moving forward.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the length of the extension for which the applicant was requesting for the project. Mr. Knight said that the Planning Commission recently granted a one-year extension for the planned development approval for the project and suggested that the applicant address that issue.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the policy provides an allowance for a six-month extension, but that it does not limit the amount of extensions that could be granted. He said that it would be possible to allow more than one six-month extension because of the depth of the multi-faceted project.
Mr. Jeff Jonas, the applicant, was present. He said that he concurred with the staff report. Mr. Jonas said that this was a very difficult project to put together and complicated by many factors. He addressed some of the complications that have affected the project. He said that each day was costing him money so he was anxious to get the project completed as quickly as possible.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking about the complications of the project and inquired if the applicant was planning to buy additional land. Mr. Jonas said that he and his partners were through buying additional property. However, he said that if there was any way they could acquire the land the credit union on 300 South was on, they might proceed with that purchase. He gave a brief explanation of the acquisition of the properties on which the project would be located.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed.
Ms. Deal moved that the applicant for Case No.014-97 be granted a six-month extension to the Historic Landmark Commission approval, based on the staff's findings of fact. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon,
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of possible revisions to the demolition and economic hardship sections of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Giraud stated that many of the members were not on the Historic Landmark Commission in 1995 when the zoning ordinance was rewritten. She referred to the memo that was faxed to the Commission members and the memo that was in the packets, copies of which were filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud said that at the time, zoning ordinance was written, it was thought to be very tough and received national publicity. She said that recently there had been much frustration with the demolition and economic hardship sections of the ordinance.
Ms. Giraud said that she had been in contact with preservation planners from other cities, and also talked about a conference call with some attorneys with the National Trust Historic Preservation. She indicated that she received ideas and suggestions how the current ordinance could be amended.
Ms. Giraud pointed out some of the issues that had surfaced, such as the following: 1) the consideration of assembling parcels for a larger projects, which drives up the cost of land that gets factored in the renovation costs; 2) the appropriateness of using an Economic Review Panel and how binding the Panel's decision should be. She said the idea was to have members serve on an Economic Review Panel who had the knowledge, expertise, and capability of reviewing the data that the applicant provided;3) what level of building plans should be required before a demolition request would be reviewed. Ms. Giraud illustrated how other cities dealt with the demolition and economic hardship issues, which were included in the memo dated March 1, 1999. She said that some cities do not have an Economic Review Panel. She said that the Commission would deny any demolition and force the applicant go through an appeal's process, which would be heard by a hearing officer or an administrative law judge. Ms. Giraud said that factors, such as the viable use for the property if it was rehabilitated, and/or if there was an alternative use, such as a conditional use for the property. The market value of properties and zoning issues were discussed. Mr. Wright said that the market value of property in an historic district is not the same as in other areas; that there is an additional level of obligation. Mr. Young said that there was always a conflict when developers consider the highest and best use of a property, based on the zoning.
Ms. Deal suggested that the terms "viable use" and "reasonable rate of return" needed to be more clearly defined in the ordinance. She said that a reasonable rate of return should be adjustable. Mr. Young said that a developer should make the decision of what necessitated a reasonable rate of return. He added that if the percentage of the return was not what it should be, then the developer should reconsider investing in a property.
Mr. Pace offered the solutions of either exploring examples of case law or including in the ordinance that the Historic Landmark Commission would determine the reasonable rate of return. Ms. Giraud said there were many examples from which to draw.
Ms. Deal said that when she first was appointed to the Historic Landmark Commission, there were people who were not informed when they purchased property in an historic district or purchased a landmark site. She said that the Preservation Staff had worked diligently with the County Recorders' office to have that fact attached to the title of a piece of property.
A lengthy discussion developed. The following is a summary of the issues that were discussed:
• A developer needed to decide what a reasonable rate of return would be, but the Commission or the Economic Review Panel may disagree with the developer;
• A preservation-minded developer would discover other rewards than a financial return;
• When a proposed development is discovered, the purchase price for land increases;
• A developer dictates the level of rehabilitation. Some developers do not get as high a rate of return as the market would ordinarily expect, but they recognize the community value of a project. The Brigham Street Apartments was mentioned, as one of those projects;
• In case of an economic hardship request, the members of the Economic Review Panel are charged with the responsibility of reviewing the submitted evidence. Each member analyzes the land costs and carefully scrutinizes the cost of rehabilitation;
• Alternative uses for a building requested to be demolished should be considered;
• Per square foot for rehabilitation costs are usually higher than for new construction; and
• There are many circumstances that are factored into the expenditures of some rehabilitation projects, such as structural damage, asbestos removal, cost of demolition, seismic upgrade, and the level of restoration desired by the developer. Using the example of the developer considering "marble" instead of "porcelain" bath tubs;
Many options for improving the process were raised by Commission members and staff, including the following:
• The standards for economic hardship could be set on a case-by-case basis;
• A reasonable rate of return for a developer could be included in a policy, rather than written in an ordinance;
• Perhaps the base zoning of historic districts needed to be revised to clearly reflect the existing uses;
• Giving more latitude to the Commission to deny demolition once economic hardship was determined by replacing the word "shall" in the sections of the ordinance regarding demolition and economic hardship with the word "can". Mr. Pace said that this approach would be problematic. The Commission cannot deny all economic use of the property; this would constitute a taking. Mr. Wright said that "you cannot say that there has been economic hardship established but we are not going to let you demolish it." A more acceptable approach would be for the Commission to say that "we have found economic hardship but we prefer that you not demolish your building, and we will tell you what the public will pay to buy your property."
• The appeals process for an applicant and the possibility of some procedural changes with the Land Use Appeal's Board;
• Using a published national index that included guidelines that standardize costs for levels of rehabilitation;
• Perhaps the Historic Landmark Commission had delegated too much authority to the Economic Review Panel and the Panel should be more of an advisory group;
• The Historic Landmark Commission's representative on an Economic Review Panel should have a more common understanding and be in communication with the Commission. The possibility of having a member of the Historic Landmark Commission serve on the Economic Review Panel and the Commission being more pro-active; and
• The prospect of the members of the Economic Review Panel gathering their own data, rather than accepting the information submitted by the applicant, and the Historic Landmark Commission determining an economic hardship;
• Mr. Wright discussed the public process of amending an ordinance. He said that during the interim period a moratorium could be imposed. He added that it would be "best" not have a moratorium imposed. Mr. Wright said that it would be the Historic Landmark Commission's responsibility to do its "homework" to create the evidence, define the reasons why the ordinance must be amended, and convince the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council to adopt the ordinance revisions. The length of time the process would take was discussed. Mr. Wright believed that the least amount of time, after all the information had been put together and a petition initiated by the Commission, would be six months.
Mr. Pace pointed out that if there was a request for demolition already on file, during this process, it would not be affected by any changes to the ordinance.
After a short discussion, Ms. Deal, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to review the many options of amending the appropriate sections of the City's zoning ordinance. It was decided that the subcommittee would work with the Staff, and have some definite recommendations for the full Commission at the next meeting.
Expansion of Smith's Food and Drug Center in the Avenues.
Mr. Young announced that there should be representation from the Historic Landmark Commission to meet with the Avenues Community Council to have input into the expansion of the Smith's Food and Drug Center on Sixth Avenue. Ms. Deal said that she read in the monthly newsletter that the Avenues Community Council was putting together a task force to work with Smith's. A discussion took place regarding this proposal. Mr. Littig volunteered to represent the Historic Landmark Commission and communicate with the chairperson. Ms. Deal said that this representation should save them a lot of time in the future. The discussion continued regarding the concept of the expansion.
Demolition of historic buildings at the State Fair Park.
Ms. Giraud said that the State overrides any City ordinances, but suggested that the members write their legislators regarding the preservation of the buildings at the State Fair Park. There also was some discussion regarding the amount of signage that private vendors at the Fair Park are allowed to use. Mr. Wright said that the City has no control over the State's property. Mr. Wright also made the suggestion that the members call the administration office at the State Fair Park to voice a complaint about the destruction of the historic buildings.
Presentation by Amy Rowland and to work through a sample Pro Forma regarding economic hardship issues.
• Ms. Rowland is a member of the Historic Landmark Commission and works for a financial institution. She has knowledge and expertise in development financing. She was asked by the Commission, at a previous meeting, to make a presentation in development financing. She suggested that the Commission members take out their calculators as she went through a sample Pro Forma using simulated figures.
At the conclusion of this exercise, the importance of historic and low income housing tax credits to a developer was apparent. Ms. Rowland emphasized that projects that appear to be unprofitable on paper, and thus unfeasible in reality, can be quite feasible when tax credits are factored into the results. Ms. Rowland also explained how large companies will provide an additional source of financing by buying tax credits from nonprofit developers. Mr. Young thanked Ms. Rowland for the presentation.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Gordon so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:35 P.M.