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 Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Susan Deal, Rob McFarland, and Elizabeth Mitchell were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners. Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, Robert Glessner and Doug Dansie, Planners, were 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Blaes moved to approve the minutes from the March 17, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Payne. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Mitchell were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
BUSINESS
Ratification of Kirk Huffaker by the Historic Landmark Commission to serve on an Economic Review Panel which will review a request for economic hardship by Shawn Eva and Kelly Lamoreaux for a conditional use for a bed and breakfast at the "George M. Cannon House" located at 720 E. Ashton Avenue.
Mr. Knight gave a brief presentation regarding the issues of the case. He stated that the house was recently included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Mr. Knight said that the applicants had submitted a petition for a conditional use for a bed and breakfast in the house. He added that bed and breakfasts, reception centers, and offices were allowed for landmark sites if they met certain criteria. He explained that the applicants were requesting an economic hardship review for the "George M. Cannon House".
Mr. Knight said that he faxed or mailed a memorandum to the members of the Commission asking each member to choose one of the four listed individuals to serve on an Economic Review Panel, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said the result was that the majority of the members selected Mr. Kirk Huffaker. Mr. Knight further stated that it would be the Commission's responsibility to formally ratify Mr. Huffaker to serve on an Economic Review Panel.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring further into the economic hardship process. Mr. Knight said that there was no meeting date set, as yet. He said that the applicants had not submitted a complete application. He explained that information would be supplied to the Economic Review Panel members and those members would determine if an economic hardship exists for the property. He said that the panel would forward its decision to the Historic Landmark Commission where the panel's findings would either be accepted by the Commission or rejected, based on the criteria in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the members of the Economic Review Panel. Ms. Giraud said that, according to the ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission would select a member, the applicant would select a member, and the third member would be chosen by the other two, already selected, members of the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Giraud explained the relationship between an economic hardship and a conditional use. She said that in order for an applicant to receive a conditional use, as it related to using an historic building, the applicant would have to meet the following criteria: 1) probable demolition of the landmark site; 2) excessive size of the landmark site for residential use; and/or 3) economic hardship, as defined in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. She added that an economic hardship application would require the applicants to request an economic hardship that the costs of renovation warranted a determination that the building would have a higher use or a commercial use. She added that the Planning Commission would eventually review and make the determination for a conditional use request for the property. Ms. Giraud further explained that the only portion of the process that would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission would be Economic Review Panel's report of its findings.
A brief discussion followed.
• Ms. Rowland moved to ratify Mr. Kirk Huffaker to serve on an Economic Review Panel to review an economic hardship request by the applicants, Shawn Eva and Kelly Lamoreaux. It was seconded by Mr. Payne. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Mitchell were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Briefing by Planning Staff on the East-West Light Rail Project.
Ms. Giraud introduced Robert Glessner, a member of the planning staff assigned to the east-west light rail project. She said that there were very few areas of the east-west light rail alignment that would affect historic districts.
Mr. Glessner distributed maps of the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Trax corridor east west light rail alignment and elevation drawings of the standardized platforms for the project, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He mentioned that the City Council would have a briefing on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Mr. Glessner explained that the sub areas of the project would be the airport, North Temple, downtown, Fourth (400) South, and the university. He said that discussion would be continued whether the east-west alignment would be central running or would be side running.
Mr. Glessner stated that the east-west alignment would encroach into the Exchange Place, Central City, and University Historic Districts. He talked about the stations along the alignment corridor and pointed out that there would be a station at 400 South and 600 East, which would be in the Central City Historic District, that would have certain design features added to it. Mr. Glessner said that the Historic Landmark Commission would have a design review of the station platforms in historic districts, but added that there was only a ten-day turn-around time frame for any build/design reviews. He offered the suggestion that a subcommittee be formulated of members from the Historic Landmark Commission, who could represent and made decisions in behalf of the Commission as a whole. Mr. Glessner said that he was aware that notices to the public had to be mailed fourteen days in advance, so language may need to be included in the MOU regarding that issue.
Mr. Glessner said that a presentation was made to the East Central Community Council. He added that the public was encouraged to comment regarding the possibility of adding a station at 400 South and 1200 East Streets. Mr. Glessner said that the projected ridership was not very large and the following options were presented to the community on two separate occasions: 1) build a station on the east side of 1200 East; 2) build a station on the west side of 1200 East, or 3) not build a station at either location.
Mr. Glessner talked about some of the concerns the public had, such as the elimination of on-street parking, which serves as a barrier between the pedestrians and the traffic, the grade change issues on 500 South, and the loss of front yard space. Mr. Glessner said that in the current proposal, the curb face would be moved two feet into the park strip on both sides of the street, which would remove the park strips.
Mr. Glessner stated that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) controls the right-of-way on 500 South. He said that UDOT plans to have three travel lanes going each way on 500 South with no on-street parking because of the projected travel generated by the university. He pointed out that the people in the community wanted two travel lanes in each direction, as well as an on-street parking lane, which would be in opposition to LIDOT's proposal.
Mr. Glessner continued by saying that standardized light poles, like the "Indian head, cactus design" pole that exists on 600 North by the 1-15 overpass, would be used on the entire east-west alignment corridor. He said that they would be placed in tree wells in the sidewalk area.
Mr. Glessner said that representatives from UTA and the City's Transportation Department were present and available to answer any questions, as well. He introduced Mr. Steve Green, Project Manager from UTA and Ms. Robin Lewis of the City's Transportation Department.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Blaes led the discussion by inquiring about a ten-day decision-making process. Mr. Glessner said that UTA made that decision because it seemed to be a consistent coordination pattern between the applicable agencies. Mr. Green added that the length of time would be ten working days.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked what the process would be if the Commission found the design of the station objectionable. Mr. Glessner said that any objections would go to the Staff or liaison person from the Planning Office and be forwarded to the design-build team at UTA.
• Mr. Littig said that there were many good architects, locally, and he did not believe the station buildings were designed very well, but he inquired further about the design. Mr. Glessner said that the design on the existing stations on Main Street and Fourth South would be continued on 400 West and 400 South to finish the
downtown loop. He said that there would be some limitations because the platforms
on 400 West and 400 South would be about 4 or 5 feet narrower and there could either be a single-pole canopy or double-pole canopy, whichever would be appropriate. Mr. Littig inquired about the width of the rights-of-way. Mr. Glessner said that the widths would vary in certain areas because of certain obstacles. Mr. Littig inquired about the trees along the corridor. Mr. Glessner said that the City was working towards a continuous planting of street trees and street lights from North Temple to the university. Mr. Green said the spacing would depend on the existing landscaping and the type and caliper of trees along the corridor.
Mr. Littig inquired about the projected ridership and inquired if the calculations included students attending East High School and Judge Memorial School for the possibility of a Light Rail Station on 1100 East at 500 South. Mr. Glessner said that the calculation was made by the Wasatch Front Regional Council, based on the student population, projected users in the neighborhood, and the area population density. Mr. Glessner reported that there was no comment at the community council meeting regarding the student ridership.
• Mr. Owen asked further about the light rail alignment project and said that he was surprised that there were no stops between 900 East and the university campus on 500 South. Mr. Glessner said that the designated stations were optimized to serve the community in the best way possible. He added that UDOT did not want the system to become a "milk run" for anyone traveling from the airport to the university, where the train would have to stop every two blocks or so.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if more stations could be added if there was a need for more stops on that particular route. Mr. Green said that, as the shape of the valley changes, stations could be added to the system in the next thirty years. Mr. Green said that UDOT may find that the stations are not located in the best spots.
• Ms. Giraud asked about the removal of the curbs on 400 and 500 South Streets. Mr. Green responded by talking about the space that would be needed and said that it had not been determined if the curbs would be removed on both sides of the street or only on one side. He added that the decision would be based on the varying widths of the park strips and the obstacles in the park strips.
• Ms. Blaes said that there were valid concerns about the State-control of 500 South and asked about the legal standing the City would have, since 500 South runs through the City. Mr. Pace assured the Commission that the City had no legal standing on a State-owned right-of-way. Ms. Blaes talked about the issues of the proposed loss of on-street parking lanes, and the addition of two traffic lanes and asked how those conditions would be handled. She added that it did not seem like UDOT was concerned because it would end up being Salt Lake City's problem. Mr. Glessner said that those details had not entirely been worked out. Ms. Blaes inquired if the State felt the need to "come to the table to work that out" because UDOT's action would directly impact the City Planners, who would be left to solve the parking problem, especially in the University District. Ms. Blaes said that parking was a "huge" issue when the historic district was established. Ms. Lewis said that there were several ways the City would mitigate the parking impact.
Mr. Dansie, the downtown planner from the City's Planning Staff, said that there would be the possibility of turning vacant lots into neighborhood parking lots like those that were created in the Capitol Hill Historic District. He said that the planners were also looking at pull-outs that would extend beyond the State's right-of-way footage, but could encroach into resident's yards, and striped angled parking in the center of streets. Mr. Dansie added that the proposal would not affect the streets that had medians in the center. He said that the City would not eliminate those green spaces.
Mr. Wright said that the City would continue to work with UDOT and try to influence UDOT's thought process regarding the issues that had been discussed. He said that one option that would deal with the traffic and parking issues, would be to only allowing two travel lanes each way, at first, and have on-street parking lanes to find out if the roadway could function with only having those traffic lanes, rather than "dealing with the fear of the unknown". He said another option would be to disallow on-street parking during peak traffic hours.
Ms. Blaes inquired about how UDOT defined traffic "congestion" and "gridlock". She also inquired about UDOT's worst scenario for traffic. Ms. Lewis said that
congestion and gridlock was determined by the amount of seconds a person had to wait at a traffic signal. Mr. Wright added that the analysis was based on the delays in right and left turn lanes versus the center lanes of the street.
• Mr. Young expressed his concerns about the ten-day turn-around time frame. He discussed the notification time period for Historic Landmark Commission meetings, which is fourteen days, and added that the design review by the Commission would be more like a twenty-day time frame. Mr. Young said that the Commission would like to be pro-active and talked about the advantages of a design being reviewed and advice provided by the professional members of the Historic Landmark Commission's Architectural Subcommittee before a project is reviewed by the full Commission. Mr. Glessner said that in basics, like the design of the station canopy and platform, the time frame would not be an issue, but he expressed his concerns about "unforeseen" circumstances that would necessitate a quick response.
In conclusion, Mr. Green discussed, in great detail, the length of the trains versus the length of the platforms that would be used, as well as the challenges of trains not blocking intersections while stopped. He displayed drawings of some of the platforms and he talked about the grade changes that occur on the east bench and that challenges that presented in the design of the stations.
Mr. Young explained that this meeting had not been open to public comment, however the public was allowed to present hand-written correspondence to the Commission. Those letters filed with the minutes of this meeting.
As there were no further questions or comments, at this time, Mr. Young thanked all the participants of the discussion and for their attendance at the meeting to inform the Commission on the east/west corridor of the light rail system.
Update from the Economic Hardship Ordinance Subcommittee.
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, who was present to answer any questions and to make comments on the proposed text changes to the economic hardship section of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance [21A-34.030(K)], a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Giraud said that after conferring with attorneys from the National Trust, it was suggested that the following be incorporated into the ordinance: 1) an appraisal of a structure in its current condition and with its current use; 2) an appraisal of the structure if it is rehabilitated for a permitted use in the applicable zone; and 3) an appraisal of a structure if it is rehabilitated as a conditional use. Mr. Pace said that those suggestions could be incorporated in a couple of places in the ordinance. Ms. Rowland asked if just the land value would be considered, disregarding the actual cost that was paid by the applicant. Mr. Pace said that the three appraisals would be additional information. He added that the proposed changes would not eliminate information.
Ms. Giraud presented an overview of the memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting, and said that the Staff, as well as members of the Historic Landmark Commission had expressed frustration with the economic hardship sections of the ordinance. She said that despite what were believed to be strict provisions to prevent the demolition of contributing structures and landmark sites several contributing buildings in the Central City Historic District have been demolished or are approved for demolition. Ms. Giraud said that various ways of fine tuning the economic hardship section of the City's zoning ordinance had been discussed among Commission members, Staff, and other preservation and real estate professionals.
Ms. Giraud said that a subcommittee of the Historic Landmark Commission was established. She pointed out that the following Commission members volunteered to serve on the subcommittee: Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Deal, and Mr. Young. She said that the subcommittee considered adjustments to the ordinance. Ms. Giraud said that she believed that the following were two major issues that needed to be addressed: 1) the effect of inflated land values paid by the applicants to assemble property; and 2) the narrow latitude afforded the Historic Landmark Commission in accepting the findings of the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Giraud stated that the following text addressed the above issues. However, she said that other problematic areas could be introduced by the text changes.
ISSUE: Historic Landmark Commission members are compelled to accept an Economic Review Panel's finding. Currently the only way that the Historic Landmark Commission cannot accept the findings is: 1) if the review panel acted in an arbitrary manner, which is not defined; and 2) if the report was based on an erroneous finding of fact.
Ms. Giraud reported the following: "Even in these scenarios, there must be a three quarter majority vote to deny the finding. Assistant City Attorney Lynn Pace has suggested that the Economic Review Panel may have too much authority given that they are not appointed by the Mayor, hired by the City, or elected into an office, and
that it might be appropriate for the Historic Landmark Commission to reclaim greater decision-making authority."
Historic Landmark Commission's subcommittee's comments: Concerned about how wise it would be to have a subcommittee of the full Commission convene to review and accept or deny the Economic Review Panel's finding, or would this simply be adding another layer of bureaucracy.
Staffs comments: Staff believes this would be an extra layer of bureaucracy that does not address the issue, that it would cause more frustration for the applicant and that it would not clarify whether or not a hardship existed.
Proposed new text: Chapter 21A.34.L(3)(c)(1) After considering the finding and recommendation of the Economic Review Panel, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find by a majority vote of a quorum present a determination of economic hardship. The determination to approve or deny shall be based upon the material submitted by the applicant and by the analysis submitted by the Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Pace said that under the existing ordinance, the Economic Review Panel makes a recommendation and unless there is something really outrageous about the recommendation, the Historic Landmark Commission has to accept the panel's findings. Mr. Pace reported that he had discussed this issue with Roger Cuter, the City Attorney, and Mr. Cutler believes that this is an illegal delegation of authority to unappoint, unelected, non-employee representatives. He said that Mr. Cutler recommended that the Economic Review Panel make the recommendation and the Historic Landmark Commission make the final decision whether or not an application was an economic hardship.
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Mr. Young said that the Economic Review Panel would just become an advisory panel because the burden would be on the Historic Landmark Commission to make a final decision.
Ms. Blaes inquired if the Economic Review Panel would have any standing in the event that a decision by the Historic Landmark Commission would be appealed to the courts, which was the next level after the City's Land Use Appeal's Board. Mr. Pace said that the only standing they would have would be as private citizens; they would have as much right to appeal as the applicant.
Mr. Pace said that this change would create a timesaving mechanism. The Economic Review Panel would assemble the data and when the package is complete, the panel would use their expertise to analyze the information.
Ms. Blaes inquired if the Economic Review Panel meetings would be working sessions and not be open to the public. Mr. Pace said that the meetings could continue to be public meetings. He added that the agenda would only have to be posted in the pertinent areas in the City and County building twenty-four hours prior to the meeting.
Mr. Payne asked if a representative from the Economic Review Panel would present the panel's recommendation and concept to the Commission. Mr. Pace inquired if that had been done in the past. Ms. Giraud said that sometimes they have attended. Mr. Young said that unfortunately the persons who really understood the process had not represented the panel before the Commission. Mr. Pace said that idea could be structured any way the Historic Landmark Commission would like. He added that a panel member or staff could present the recommendation and analysis to the Commission.
Mr. Young said that the representative should be someone with insightful information because this would be a critical part of the process. He added that as the Commission deliberates, the representative could be present to answer questions and provide an insight into the panel's recommendation.
ISSUE: Preservationists are frustrated by the effect of inflated land values incurred during parcel assembly on rehab costs.
Ms. Giraud reported the following: "Currently the ordinance requires that the current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to [Chapter 21A.34.K(2)(b)(vi)], the fair market value of the property immediately prior to its designation as a landmark site and the fair market value of the property as a landmark site at the time the application is filed.
"Staff assumes this section was supposed to address the inflated land value issue but because landmark or historic district designation has not had as substantial an effect as market values as zoning or assemblage, this sentence has not addressed the land value situation. Staff recommends language that requires an applicant to submit an analysis that considers a tiered approach of both renovation and demolition. The analysis would rely on an appraisal of the building or site that explored three possible strategies of retaining the structures in question: 1) use of the structure, site or building in its current condition; 2) use of the structure, site or building if rehabilitated for a permitted use in the applicable zone; and 3) use of the structure, site or building if rehabilitated for a conditional use in the applicable zone, as administered in Section 21A.34.K(2)(b)(vi). "This could replace the existing language under Section 21A.34.K(2)(b)(vi) cited above. "Mr. Alan Payne, an appraiser recommended by the City's Property Management Division, assuaged my concerns about the possibilities of obtaining appraisals with this approach, and told Staff that the proposed language would be a reasonable way to approach the inflated land value dilemma.
"The argument always presented by applicants, of course, is that they are entitled to the highest and best use of their property, and that anything less than this constitutes a taking. However, extensive case law exists that supports anti-demolition ordinances, and that a taking occurs only when an owner is stripped of all use of his/her property."
Staffs comments: Its difficult to understand why that paragraph is in so many ordinances. It’s like asking what the fair market price of the property was six years ago or thirty years ago.
Mr. Pace said that the Historic Landmark Commission can delete the paragraph or change the text. He said that he wanted to make certain that there would be adequate information provided the Commission on which to make a decision. Mr. Pace added that he did not want to "take anything off the table"; that he wanted to make sure that the Commission had "everything relevant on the table".
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Ms. Blaes stated that she believed the language would improve that section of the ordinance and would help the Commission to be provided with more complete information. She expressed her concerns about how that information would be used. Ms. Blaes said that an applicant, who would like to demolish a building, should be compelled to look at alternative uses. Ms. Blaes suggested that the language be changed to force the applicant to look at alternative uses.
Ms. Blaes talked about a recent economic hardship process on a demolition request, where the applicant provided calculations for several different land costs, and the Economic Review Panel made findings that the land costs were not found to be inflated. She said that the overlay zoning, in an historic district, should be a protector to historic buildings and that "demolition by neglect" should not be considered as a viable reason to demolish an historic building. Ms. Blaes said that if a permitted use in an historic building fails to perform and fails to bring in any reasonable economic gain, alternative uses should be considered. She said that she believed those changes in an appraisal requirement would solve the problems
Ms. Blaes continued discussing the same economic hardship review and said that the owner did not want to "deal" with the buildings. She said that the applicant's desire not have to "deal" with those buildings resulted in an economic hardship. Ms. Blaes pointed out that the Commission's representative, Rob White, wanted the other panel members to consider alternative uses but the other members did not.
Mr. Pace said that all the appraisals would be provided by the developer. He added that if the Commission did not believe that all the facts and information were provided, then an option can be added to the text changes that staff could supplement the information on record.
Mr. Pace stated that if the Commission believes that the appraisal to rehabilitate a building is based upon the "marble bathtub" scenario, it could be said that the appraisal will be included in the records, but staff would like to have the opportunity to supplement the applicant's information by putting together a "bare bones" appraisal.
Ms. Blaes said that if an owner of a property does not want to rehabilitate a building, "how far is the City willing to push to say this is an historic resource and its important to the district. When do we decide that it is not a taking? That is really what this is about".
Mr. Pace said that the City could not force an owner to rehabilitate a building; all the City (Historic Landmark Commission) could do would be to deny the demolition.
Mr. Young said that in his opinion, recent applicants had included reasonable baseline numbers in their pro forma, but that they had neither projected the pro forma out five years, nor had they included the proceeds of the sale of the property. He added that most projects in and of themselves do not realize the greatest proportion of their return in the first three years of the project or in development fees. He said that instead the largest proportion of returns comes in the long term or upon sale of the property. Mr. Young asked if the ordinance could include a requirement for a pro forma examining a five-year scenario, the sale, and proceeds. Mr. Pace said that he thought that could be possible.
Mr. Pace stated that what might occur would be something that happens in court all the time. He said that a group would look at one factor, that they might think would be persuasive and compelling. He pointed out that another group might look at the same evidence and say that the factor was there, but did not think that it was compelling and find another factor more compelling. Mr. Pace clarified that with the proposed changes, the Economic Review Panel and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the same evidence, but that they may place different weight on the pieces of evidence.
ISSUE: Staff and Historic Landmark Commission members have not received information from applicants in a timely manner for review.
Proposed new text: The applicant shall submit all necessary materials to the Planning Division Staff at least fifteen (15) days prior to the Economic Review Panel hearing in order that Staff may review and comment. The materials submitted by the applicant and the related Staff comments will be distributed to the Historic Landmark Commission prior to the first meeting of the Economic Hardship Panel. The applicant must submit a sufficient number of copies.
Staffs comments: This is an administrative matter, but one that has been problematic. She believed that this issue could be handled better by the administration.
Mr. Pace said that apparently what had happened in the past was that the applicant provided the information only a few days before the Economic Review Panel meeting and that was not enough time to analyze the data. He said that the City's position should be not to schedule an economic hardship hearing until staff has received all necessary information. Mr. Pace pointed out that the extra time would give staff the opportunity to review the information, and if there was some concern about the objectivity of the information, it would give staff time to assemble additional information.
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Oktai Parvaz, a member of the Historic Landmark Commission's subcommittee proposed the following, which was included in the memorandum to the Historic Landmark Commission members:
Additional language in Section 21A.34.020(E) Certificate of Appropriateness required. After the establishment of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District, or the designation of a landmark site, no alteration in the exterior appearance of a structure, site, object, or work of art affecting the landmark site or a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made or permitted to be made unless or until the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for each property individually has been submitted to, and approved by, the Historic Landmark Commission, or administratively by the Planning Director, as applicable, pursuant to subsection F of this section."
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Mr. Parvaz said that every principal building would have to come before the Historic Landmark Commission in a separate application and not grouped together. He said that when one separate applicant includes several buildings, by one motion by this Commission, all the buildings would be gone. Mr. Parvaz said he believed each building should be reviewed and analyzed on its own and not "lumped" together with other buildings. He added that with one vote, the history of an area could be taken away.
Mr. Young referred to Vernier Place, where eight homes were included on one application. He said what Mr. Parvaz is suggesting that each one of those homes should have been reviewed individually. He added that all eight homes were included on one application.
Ms. Blaes said that if multiple buildings would be reviewed parcel by parcel, the whole aspect of destroying the character of a district might have been a much stronger argument instead of lumping them together.
Mr. Pace clarified that one application could include a single parcel that had multiple contributing buildings already on it, but each parcel would require a separate application.
Addition to Subsection (3) to Section 21A.34.020(J): The footprint, height, exterior building materials, and overall volume of a demolished landmark structure and site shall be used for the new construction of principal building on the same site. Usage of original architectural features and elements of the demolished structure shall be encouraged. Other standards for new construction complies with Section 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c).
Staffs comments: Ms. Giraud said that she had not seen this language in another ordinance. She said that the proposal is intriguing but asked that Staff be allowed time to study this concept further.
Historic Landmark Commission's comments: Mr. Parvaz said that when an historic building is demolished then he believed that a developer should not be allowed to construct a building with two, three, or more stories as a replacement. He said that the requirement should be that a building with one story would replace a building with one story. Mr. Parvaz said that the base zoning allows a developer to build large buildings and that is not a good thing.
Ms. Blaes said that this issue had been discussed before. She said that when there is a conflict between the base zoning and the overlay zoning the overlay zone takes precedent. Ms. Blaes added that it is difficult getting that point across to the developer and members of the Economic Review Panel. However, she said that if this language is added to the ordinance and "if I were a developer, this condition would put the 'kabosh' on any plan I would have". She added that a developer would want to maximize building area within the required setbacks and would not want to stay within the same footprint
Mr. Young suggested that the overlay ordinance have language that would address specific districts. He said that new buildings should conform in mass and scale to the predominant building types in a given district. As an example, Mr. Young cited the Avenues Historic District. He said that a six-story high rise would not be appropriate in the Avenues, but a one or two-story building would be. Ms. Blaes added that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes that kind of information. Mr. Young said that he was in agreement and added that problem areas, such as portions of Capitol Hill, still existed in which the base zoning of a area did not conform to the existing historic character of the district.
Ms. Giraud said that a project like Winthrop Court would not be built on the Avenues because there are no R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use) zoning districts in that area. She also talked about the conflict with the base zone and the overlay zone. She added that "even though we might have some qualms about some of the single-family homes that have been approved in Capitol Hill, there is a big difference between those homes and what is in Capitol Hill now versus a project like Winthrop Court that would include Vernier Place". Ms. Giraud said that the base zoning "drives the development".
Mr. Owen said recently Ms. Blaes provided the Commission members information
about how the economic hardship review process worked in other areas of the country. He continued by saying that in Washington D. C. a severe limit to how much assemblage can be done in historic districts is written in the ordinance. He added that the city officials assume that whatever would replace the historic structures would not be of the same scale or massing. Mr. Owen said he believed that "we should start establishing some parameters so we don't face these monstrous projects that are too large".
Mr. Payne inquired if Mr. Parvaz's initiative was feasible. He said that if a demolition were allowed, the applicant would have to construct a structure that would incorporate the scale, massing, and footprint of the demolished building. Mr. Payne said he believed that a developer would say that there was no point in pursuing a project. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the proposal might be too limiting.
Ms. Blaes discussed the idea of increasing the allowed number of stories of a proposed multi-storied building if it stayed within the same footprint as a demolished one-story building.
Mr. Pace said that another approach could be that the base zoning is the historic zone. He said that "you get what's there. If for some reason its declared non-contributing and you tear it down, there would be a subsequent determination what the appropriate zone would be". Mr. Pace said that this would eliminate the potential conflict between the base zone and the historic district, which is currently an overlay to the base zone. Ms. Rowland asked if under this scenario, any other zoning would be conditional. Mr. Pace said no, but that properties would be zoned as projects were approved. Ms. Blaes asked is this was remotely possible. Mr. Pace said that he did not know, without studying the legal issues further.
Mr. Pace said that any revision would require an ordinance change that would have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, then ultimately be approved by the City Council.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding zoning issues. Ms. Giraud stated that the City established the Historic Landmark Commission and historic districts. She added that by doing so, the City said that there was a public benefit for preserving contributing structures. Ms. Giraud said that even though a developer could not get the highest and best use on an historic property, they would not be stripped of every use, as long as they would be getting a reasonable return. She indicated that this was "a vague concept".
Ms. Blaes said that Ms. Giraud's point was important. She continued by saying that the City says "on its left hand that we really want to preserve buildings, but the right hand says let's zone it R-MU because we want to have 850,000 people living on the block between 3ro and 4th South between 5th and 6th East. The two are mutually exclusive". Ms. Blaes said that perhaps the base zoning could be changed to be more in support of the overlay zones and not have such a negative impact on historic districts.
Mr. Pace said that the overlay zone "trumps" the base zone. However, he said that people know how to get around that.
Ms. Giraud said that "the secret is always a system of balance". She indicated that when the City changed the zoning districts, she did not believe that an R-MU zone was a bad idea because there is vacant land that exists on the blocks in Central City and many non-contributing structures that could be demolished.
Ms. Blaes reported that when the R-MU (Residential/Mixed Use) and the RO (Residential/Office) zones were proposed for the Central City neighborhood, the Historic Landmark Commission objected to that proposal and presented, what she believed, were good arguments against the proposal. She stated that she did not "feel like the administration really cared what the Commission thought because there was this false sense that the overlay zone would take precedent". She said she agreed with Ms. Giraud when she said that it created a conflict.
Ms. Giraud said that she certainly felt as discouraged as anyone about the possibility of losing the houses on Vernier Place. She indicated that every time a conflict arises, the Commission cannot think that changing the zoning would solve all problems. Ms. Giraud said that she believed by strengthening the economic hardship ordinance, the developer should have more of an understanding what the stricter requirements would be before seeking an economic hardship. She added that everyone should be treated equally, but that the process would never be perfect.
Ms. Giraud talked about other areas of the city where new development and historic buildings had worked together. She said that the point was trying to get the developer to see how the well the mix could work.
Ms. Blaes discussed a lawsuit regarding a "takings" issue. She relayed a case where a judge ruled against a "takings" claim due to a natural disaster because the claimant could still get some economic benefit from the property, although the use may not be the use which the claimant desires.
Mr. Young inquired about the language of the historic district ordinance included maintaining the overall historic context for which the district is significant.
Ms. Blaes said that is the approach of a lot of districts in Georgia use, and Jacksonville Florida, as well. She pointed out that those cities have a statement of philosophy that goes along with their designation for a district. Ms. Blaes added that if it had been a mixed district, and that was kind of building type that gave the district its character, there would be more latitude with regard to new development. Ms. Blaes continued by saying that if a particular housing type or style gives a district character, such as the "shotgun" housing type popular in the southeast, another housing type or style would not be allowed.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said would that mean that in an historic district, there might be a number of very strict, and very different, sub-districts. She said that she did not believe that the Historic Landmark Commission's purpose was to make a "terrible hardship for development, just to guide it for better solutions".
Ms. Blaes said "that is what it tells the developers in these instances. It clearly tells developers that the Commission consider a broader range of projects in this district versus a narrower range of projects in this district. The districts in Jacksonville are a lot smaller than the districts in Salt Lake City. She added that even in the Central City District, the area right around 400 South handles greater development rather than some of the other areas that are more residential".
Ms. Giraud said that there is a philosophy statement in the design guidelines for each residential historic district, and she added that "it is easy to overlook how eclectic our districts are to begin with". She continued by saying, "what if Main Street between 200 and 300 South where Continental Bank Building is was a district and you were looking at things in terms of heights. The building towers over all the other little buildings. We think it is great. No one wants to lose the little buildings and no one wants to lose Continental Bank Building."
Ms. Blaes said that height was only one element, and that she realized that there was a philosophy statement for each district, but that the philosophy statements in the design guidelines were very broad and maybe excessively vague. She suggested that it might be worthwhile to look at the development patterns in smaller sub-areas. Ms. Blaes said that in Central City, there are obvious areas where the district could handle more new construction of higher density and some obvious areas that could not handle the same type of construction.
Ms. Giraud said that much of that is reflected in the zoning. Ms. Blaes said that she disagreed. Ms. Giraud said that the neighborhood that is directly south of South Temple is zoned very differently than Vernier Place. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the area around Trolley Square is different and that the Green Street area is different. She concluded by saying that the zoning in some ways has taken that into consideration.
Ms. Blaes moved to continue the discussion on updating the economic hardship ordinance to the May 19,1999 meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Miller. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Mitchell were not present for the vote.
• Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Blaes so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:45P.M.