SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Thomas Cerruti, Sandra Hatch, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, Bruce Miya, Dina Williams, and Lisa Miller.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Rob McFarland, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Heidi Swinton, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. Burke Cartwright, Sarah Miller, and Lynn Morgan were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Supervisor, and Lisa Miller, Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Wally Cooper. Mr. Cooper announced that since no cases will be reviewed, a general discussion will take place. Mr. Cooper stated that after hearing statements from the Commission, the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed to the public and the Commission will continue to discuss the issues based on the information that had been 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Hatch moved to approve the minutes of April 2, 1997. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya abstained. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Damery, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
General discussion of demolition procedure, including guidelines regarding garages and accessory buildings.
Because portions of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance were referred to throughout this meeting, a copy of Chapter 21A.06, Decision-Making Bodies and Officials; Chapter 21A.10 General Application and Public Hearing Procedures; Chapter 21A.34, Overlay Districts; and Chapter 21A.62, Definitions, were filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Cooper explained the importance of discussing the subject of accessory buildings and for the Commission to come to some kind of a consensus on this issue. He suggested that the Commission discuss the demolition procedure, then accessory buildings. Since the Commission had questions, relative to the City's ordinances on demolition, Mr. Cooper said that he had hoped that either the Planning Director or the Deputy Planning Director would have been in attendance. Ms. Miller indicated that, both, she and Mr. Paterson had discussed this subject matter with Brent Wilde, the Deputy Planning Director.
Mr. Paterson read the general definition of demolition which is found in subsection 21A.34.020 (B) (6) Any act or process which destroys a structure object, or property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site, other than solely interior elements." He said that the definition could be interpreted in any number of ways. Mr. Paterson pointed out projects that had come before this Commission, in the past, where there was a significant demolition to a contributory structure, which was reviewed as an alteration of a contributing site, rather than a demolition. Files of cases which have had approvals of either demolition or alteration, were circulated.
Mr. Cooper informed the Commission that the word "destroy" was a key word in the definition of demolition. He read the dictionary's definition of destroy: 'To ruin completely; spoil so that restoration is impossible; consume ancient manuscripts destroyed by fire; to tear down or break up; raze or demolish. Mr. Cooper stated, the following: "if that definition of the word 'destroy' is acceptable, 'to ruin completely', then the definition of 'demolition' would not app.ly to a partial removal of a building and would only apply to a complete destruction of the building."
When Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Paterson about the original intent of the City's demolition ordinance, Mr. Paterson said that he did not have a complete history of the changes in the ordinance. Mr. Paterson said that under the old ordinance, an applicant would only have a six-month delay in a demolition request so it was understood that the procedure for demolition had to become a more rigorous process to protect the integrity of the structures located in historic districts and on landmark sites.
Ms. Hatch talked about the difficulty the Commission has had in the past when an applicant wanted to demolish a building. She said that sometimes an applicant's interpretation of the criteria that determined the deterioration of a building was different than members on the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Hatch cited some subject properties.
Mr. Paterson continued by saying that there had been some discussion, regarding the definition of demolition, to use percentage figures progressively, such as 50% to 75% of the exterior of the structure that would be destroyed, would be considered a legal demolition. He said that formula created a problem in historic districts and on landmark sites. Mr. Paterson theorized that if an applicant wanted to demolish a portion of the structure, within the percentage formula, and that part of the exterior had a character defining feature, the results would be devastating and irretrievable.
Mr. Paterson explained that an applicant had three options for demolition, under the current ordinance:
1. To prove that a structure was a public safety threat. A City building official would make the finding that a structure was an eminent public safety hazard and may fall over and kill someone. The City would have the authority to issue a permit for demolition;
2. To prove that the restoration of a building would be an economic hardship. A three person Economic Review Panel would be organized. The applicant would appoint one person to serve on that panel, the Historic Landmark Commission would appoint one person, then those two members would agree on a third person. If that third panel member was not be selected within a 30-day period, the Mayor would have five days to appoint that third person. After reviewing the information received by the applicant, if the review panel's findings were in favor of the applicant, then their findings would come to the Historic Landmark Commission and the Commission would issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition; or
3. To prove to the Historic Landmark Commission that the building would not meet the seven standards listed in the ordinance for the demolition of a contributing structure, found in subsection 21A.34.020 (L) (1 and 2) (a through c).
Ms. Deal pointed out that the Administration could make decisions regarding the demolition of accessory structures. in an H Historic Overlay District. Mr. Cooper read subsection 21A.34.020 (F) (1) (a) Types of construction allowed which may be approved by Administrative decision: "i. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site; ii. Substantial alteration of or addition to a non-contributing site; iii. Demolition of an accessory structure; and iv. Demolition of a non-contributing structure," could be approved by Administrative decisions.
Mr. Paterson stated that since there had been inconsistencies in the determination of some Administrative decisions, in regards to accessory structures, that was the reason for this discussion at this meeting. He suggested that the Commission devise a policy on accessory structures in historic districts and on landmark sites so decisions would be more consistent across the board.
Mr. Miya made the comment that if Staff had questions whether or not to allow a demolition of an accessory structure, it would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Miller indicated that usually a request for demolition of an accessory structure would be reviewed by the Architectural1 Subcommittee for assistance in trying to make a determination. There was some discussion regarding the fact that not all applications would be charged a fee to have a full Commission review, which affected many applicants. Mr. Cooper said that the subcommittee generally tried to avoid making decisions that were policy or precedent setting. Ms. Miller agreed and said that the subcommittee served in an advisory capacity to the full Commission and Staff.
The subject of the fee schedule was discussed, it was the general consensus that the fees were too high and cost prohibitive for an Historic Landmark Commission review. Ms. Miller added that was the reason why the full Commission usually only reviewed new construction, large alterations, and demolitions.
A lengthy discussion took place in relation to the decision-making bodies. Subsection 21A.34.020 (F) Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness, as well as subsections (E) Certificate of Appropriateness Required, (G) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, and (H) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-Contributing Structure were read and discussed. Some inconsistencies were found in some of the segments, which were noted by Staff. Mr. Cerruti discovered, while reading several subsections, that there was nothing in the ordinance which indicated that the Administration absolutely had to make a decision relative to the demolition of a non-contributing accessory building.
Mr. Cerruti, who referred to several subsections of Chapter 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, pointed out that there were definite distinctions in the wording of the sections for demolition and alteration to a contributory building or an accessory structure. He said the list of general standards were in place, and wanted to make certain that those same criteria were being used to determine the findings of fact, either by the Administration or the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Paterson read the definition of an accessory building or structure, which is found in subsection 21A.62.040, "Accessory building or structure means a subordinate building or structure, located on the same lot with the main building, occupied by or devoted to an accessory use. When an accessory building or structure is attached to the main building in a substantial manner, as by a wall or roof, such accessory building shall be considered part of the main building."
Mr. Cooper noted that in the definition of the subsection in which the conditions were listed that required a Certificate of Appropriateness, there was no mention whether or not the accessory building or structure was listed as contributing or non-contributing. He inquired about the historic surveys on properties and asked if accessory buildings were listed. Ms. Miller said that they were listed on some, more recent, surveys. She pointed out that the standards for alterations which the Staff used were for contributing main structures, and there were no provisions for contributing accessory structures or accessory structures on a contributing site. Ms. Miller said up until recently, this had not been a problem as most homeowners in historic districts were willing to move forward with alternatives, rather than demolishing a garage which was determined contributing or sat on a contributory site. She said that she made those decisions based on a field inspection and on the fact that the primary building had been surveyed, inventoried, and listed as a contributory site. Ms. Miller circulated photographs of accessory buildings in historic districts.
An in-depth discussion took place regarding the definition of a "site." Several members were concerned with the following issues: 1) the concept of land ownership had to do with a parcel's property lines going from the center of the earth up to infinity; 2) according to the Secretary of the Interior's definition, a "site" refers to a piece of land such as the site of the "Battle of Gettysburg"; and 3) in one of the requirements for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, found in subsection 21A.34.020 (E) (9), it states that the construction or alterations of site features including, but not limited to, fencing, walls, paving, and grading.
Mr. Cooper expressed his opinion that the Commission had taken on more and more under the umbrella of historic preservation and he questioned whether or not that was wise. He said that he had seen this Commission go from an advisory committee to a full Commission with authoritative power. He said that it appeared that the Commission was trying to regulate literally everything within an historic district and said he was concerned that the districts would end up being stifled. Ms. Miller informed him that there were many historic districts in the country that regulate even more than this Commission does, such as paint color and the placement of landscaping materials. Ms. Hatch added that those communities were trying to create a living museum and did not think it would be allowed to happen in this community.
Ms. Hatch said that people have a commitment to living in an historic district and she found it ironic that when the Commission discussed large scale developments the commitment did not seem to apply as much. Ms. Hatch cont1inued by saying that the Commission protects an individual developer of a particular piece of property within an historic district and comes down awfully hard on individual homeowners. Not all members or Staff agreed. Ms. Deal thought that the Commission tried to deal with all applicants in the same reasonable and professional manner. It was pointed out by Ms. Williams that most of the parcels in historic districts had already been developed and those that have not, were the problem areas. Mr. Cooper concurred by saying that the Commission was dealing with tougher issues. Ms. Williams reminded the Commission that its oversight evaluations were long-term decisions. Mr. Miya mentioned that he thought the Historic Landmark Commission has had a positive input to historic districts, especially when he drives through the Avenues Historic District and sees the improvements.
The discussion focused on accessory structures. Ms. Deal said she had assumed that when a property was listed in the surveys as a contributing site, the accessory structures were also included. Ms. Williams agreed and said especially if the accessory buildings were 50 years ol1d or older. It was pointed out that some accessory structures were viewed as part of the streetscape of a neighborhood and that some alleyways were as significant as the streets. Ms. Hatch said that part of the historic fabric of the Avenues Historic District were the small garages. Other members noted that the historic fabric should be preserved. Ms. Swinton commented that people usually want to put their money in the restoration of the main building rather than an accessory building. Ms. Miller stated that she thought that there was a possibility that an accessory building would be eligible under the new federal tax credit requirements. Ms. Miller informed the Commission that perhaps the Avenues and the Capitol Hill Historic Districts should be resurveyed so that historic accessory buildings could be inventoried. She said that the newer surveys, such as the one that had been done for the Central City Historic District, had a place on the form that specified the accessory buildings.
Mr. Cooper 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. Tom Buese, who is an architect and working on projects in historic districts, explained that he was working on a project where the homeowner would like to demolish an existing historic garage in the rear of a residence and build a new, larger, garage to accommodate the needs of the family. He stated that there should be opposing standards that apply to accessory structures rather than to the primary buildings and the Commission should view them differently.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public.
A lengthy discussion followed. There were hypothetical circumstances presented as the Commission members discussed the issues of accessory buildings, mostly garages, and the streetscape. It was pointed out during this discussion, that there were some significant carriage houses in historic districts that merited preservation, and the need for a policy that would assist the Staff and the Commission to make the findings of fact so further demolition would not take place. Many subsections of the Zoning Ordinance was read and the Commission members pondered over points of interest that were raised.
Ms. Williams introduced the fact that in the Accessory Structures section of the "Design Guidelines for Residenti.al Historic Districts in Salt Lake City", which is the Commission's new guidelines publication for historic preservation, there is a policy statement, which reads: "Historic accessory structures should be preserved when feasible. This may include preserving the structure in its present condition, rehabilitating it or executing an adaptive use so that the accessory structure provides new functions." She said that this might be the policy to be used or be incorporated in a new policy for the review of alterations and demolitions.
In conclusion, there was a consensus among the members that some of the language in the Zoning Ordinance needed to be redefined and articulated, such as the fact that no authority was found that could prevent a non-contributing structure from being demolished; that approval was not necessary Administratively or by the Commission; that Staff will obtain a copy of the reconnaissance survey for the University Historic District from the State of Utah where accessory buddings maybe included on the forms; that a legal opinion from the City Attorney's office will be acquired to define the difference between a "contributing structure" and a "contributing site"; that an updated survey of the Avenues and Capitol Hill Historic Districts would be requested and find the funding to do that; and that the discussion regarding the need for a policy would be continued.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M.