SALT LAKE CITYHISTORIC 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, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Billie Ann Devine and Susan Deal were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners, Merrill Nelson, Board of Adjustment Administrator, as well as Janice Jardine, liaison to the City Council.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes 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.
NEW MEMBER
Ms. Blaes introduced Mr. Robert Payne as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. He was welcomed by the other members and staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the September 2, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Littig. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Mitchell, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 026-98. by Jeff Jonas of Winthrop Court L.C. requesting to demolish eight structures at 517. 521. 524, 527. 528. 532. 533. and 538 East Vernier Place.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She stated that the staff found only one of the six of the standards had been met. Ms. Giraud said that unless a finding of economic hardship be accepted by the Commission, the Historic Landmark Commission will be compelled to deny this petition based on Section 21A.34.020(L)(2)(b) of the City's Zoning Ordinance. She stated that staff recommended that the Commission table this petition pending the outcome of an Economic Review Panel review.
There was a short discussion regarding the separation of the previous demolition request by Mr. Jonas of two buildings on 500 East, the Lunt Motel annex, and the current demolition request of the eight properties on Vernier Place. Ms. Blaes explained the importance of limiting the conversation at this meeting to the current request because an economic hardship process had been executed by the applicant for the demolition of the two buildings on 500 East.
The applicant, Mr. Jeff Jonas, was present. He explained that he understood that the Historic Landmark Commission's charge was to interpret and uphold the City's Zoning Ordinance. He said that he respected the Commission's responsibilities, even though he did not always agree with the Commission's interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Jonas said that he had studied the ordinance and believed that the Historic Landmark Commission has more latitude than what the members had granted themselves. He explained his intentions when he filed for the demolition requests. Mr. Jonas expressed his opinion that perhaps the economic hardship process was the only way to decide on a demolition request of a contributing building.
Mr. Jonas declared his findings to the pertinent standards in the City's Zoning Ordinance, which differed somewhat from the staff’s findings of fact. The applicant's findings are included later on in these minutes.
In closing, Mr. Jonas said that at the August 19, 1998 Commission meeting, it was felt by some that he was threatening when he said that he would be submitting a demolition request. Mr. Jonas explained that the cost of relocating the houses would be significant to him, and he wished there was something the Commission could do to be more supportive and give him some "incentive" to relocate the houses instead of a "disincentive" by "forcing" him into a demolition application.
As there were no questions, concerns, or comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Blaes opened the hearing 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. Evan Barrow, who resides at 640 South 500 East, stated that he is the chair of the Central City Community Council and wanted to appeal to the human side of the issues. He said that he was walking the area, handing out flyers announcing the community council meeting, when he saw criminal activities in the neighborhood. Mr. Barrow said that portions of the Central City Historic District neighborhood looked very good and beautiful, but believed there were pockets that needed much improvement. Mr. Barrow asked that the Commission not table the project and to allow Mr. Jonas' project to move forward, so that changes could be made on the subject block to help alleviate the crime problem.
Mr. Jerome Johnson, who resides at 57 South 600 East, stated that the Central City Community Council voted to support the construction of Mr. Jonas' project. He also referred to the criminal activity that takes place in the empty centers of blocks in the area. Mr. Johnson talked about the increased drug-related burglaries. He believed allowing Mr. Jonas' project to go forward would be one of the solutions to the criminal element. Mr. Littig asked how the community council felt about the demolition ordinance. Mr. Johnson said that he had read a portion of the demolition ordinance and believed that the Commission had more latitude than it was using. He added that there must be ten-thousand houses, like the ones on Vernier Place, in the City. He said that these houses should not be standing in the way of the project. Mr. Johnson pleaded with the Commission to "help make something happen with this block."
Ms. Blaes said that she always appreciated representatives from the community councils being in attendance because she believed that input from the communities is a very important part of the process.
Ms. Claudia O'Grady, who resides at 1753 So. Windsor Street, stated that she is the Executive Director of Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation. She said that she represents a non-profit, affordable, housing development group in Salt Lake City who has been working with Mr. Jonas, because the group is interested in preserving affordable housing. Ms. O'Grady said that the group has been negotiating with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for a suitable site on the west side of Capitol Hill where these houses could be relocated. She said that the neighborhood would be a suitable fit for the houses. Ms. O'Grady said that there was every indication that the relocation undertaking would work as an affordable housing home-ownership program. She pointed out that Mr. Jonas has been very generous working with the group and she would like to see the houses moved and preserved.
Ms. Blaes asked if she anticipated any problems with the negotiations with the Redevelopment Agency for the property due to Mr. Jonas' demolition application. Ms. O'Grady said that the demolition permit puts more of an immediate time pressure on the group because Mr. Jonas also has time constraints with the project, as well. She indicated that she was concerned about impacting Mr. Jonas' project. Ms. Blaes spoke of the sources of funding and asked what the group considered "affordable". Ms. O'Grady said that if the group uses low income housing tax credits, then the income limit would be 60% of median income. She said that the Utah Housing Finance Agency has other types of programs to structure financing. Ms. O'Grady said that the group wanted to be certain that the relocation would be an economic fit and not be "overbuilding" or "underbuilding" for the neighborhood.
Mr. Young asked if all eight house would be included in the relocation project. Ms. O'Grady said that there are spaces for all eight houses so she anticipated that all would be included. Mr. Young asked if the Jot was currently empty. Ms. O'Grady said that the land was owned by RDA and three of the lots are currently vacant. She explained that RDA would have to do site improvements. She indicated that the other lots currently hold duplexes which will be demolished whether the relocation project goes through or not. Ms. O'Grady said that the area is part of RDA's blight district.
In conclusion, Ms. O'Grady again expressed her appreciation to Mr. Jonas and his generosity to pay half of the moving costs and his sincere commitment to relocate the eight houses. She pointed out that it would be much easier and less of a burden if he just "flattened" the houses. She appealed to the Commission's commitment to the preservation of housing and reiterated her request that the Commission find some way to work with the non-profit affordable housing group during this process.
The discussion continued regarding the possibility of relocating all eight houses onto the lot west of Capitol Hill. Mr. Young inquired if Mr. Jonas had compared the cost of relocation with the cost of demolition. Mr. Jonas said that the relocation costs would be significantly more than the demolition costs.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides at 816 East 100 South, stated that she attended the August 19, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting where she believed that Mr. Jonas was threatening and somewhat defiant. She criticized the Commission of showing "elitestism" when the members wanted to know exactly where the eight houses were to be relocated before an approval was granted. Ms. Cromer said that in all reality, the conduct of the Commission allowed Mr. Jonas to play his "trump card" by submitting a demolition request. She said that the Commission made it easy for Mr. Jonas, who has a big project with a "big head of steam" about which many people are excited. Ms. Cromer said that she "gets less excited about it every time I see more historic properties lined up on the demolition block."
Ms. Cromer referred to a previous economic hardship review, where Mr. Jonas was granted an economic hardship on another property for the demolition of an historic building, she said that the Commission’s behavior made it "extraordinarily easy" for the criteria of economic hardship to be met. She said that she will continue speaking out against the process. Ms. Cromer said that her professional background was in statistical analysis and said that the Commission automatically accepted figures a petitioner submits without any further study. She said that when a petitioner pays more money than the property is worth, that should not constitute an economic hardship. Ms. Cromer asked the members to think equivocally when an economic hardship issue comes before the Historic Landmark Commission. She also said that she believed the Commission accepted expenses that were not required, such as installing sprinkler systems and seismic retrofitting. Ms. Cromer continued to address the economic hardship process.
Ms. Blaes said that she wanted to respond to Ms. Cromer's seismic question because she had been involved in projects, through her profession, where the City had required seismic upgrading. She said that she believed that it was a relevant issue at an economic hardship review. Ms. Cromer said that the process may be evolving, but she said that it was too easy to meet the criteria to grant an economic hardship.
Ms. Blaes said that there had only been one economic hardship review with regards to demolition since the zoning ordinance was rewritten and adopted by the City Council, so she said that she was not convinced that we have a track record had been set. She said that the process had been improved. Ms. Blaes said that the Economic Review Panel has the authority to request an appraisal from the City, if the panel members believed that the submitted information was not complete. She said that the purchase price would be scrutinized more thoroughly so that the concept of "self-imposed hardship" would not occur. Ms. Blaes encouraged Ms. Cromer to attend any future meetings by the Economic Review Panel and to continue working with the City to refine sections of the ordinance pertaining to the economic hardship process.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Blaes closed this portion of the hearing to any further public comment and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes reintroduced the subject of the staff’s findings, which were included in the staff report, and analyzed by the applicant earlier in this meeting. She said that any motion needed to reflect the staff’s findings of fact. Mr. Young requested the chair to poll the Commission.
Ms. Blaes referred to Section 21A34.020.(L)(1) as the staff’s findings were reviewed.
L. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure in an H. Historic Preservation Overlay District. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall determine whether the project substantially complies with the following standards:
1. Standards for Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition.
a. The physical integrity of the site, as defined in Subsection C2b of this section is no longer evident;
Staff's finding: All of the houses are in their original location and have maintained their historic setting, association, and feeling. The materials, design, and workmanship are clearly evident. The physical integrity is evident for all eight properties. The applicant did not meet this standard. Applicant's finding: The applicant said that he agreed with the finding. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: There was no discussion and it was a consensus that the members of the Commission supported the staff's finding.
b. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay
District would not be negatively affected;
Staff's finding: The eight subject dwellings comprise the streetscape of Vernier Place. Without the dwellings, the streetscape would not exist. Therefore, the applicant did not meet this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that he disagreed with the finding because he believed that the streetscape refers to the entire district and not just the streetscape of Vernier Place.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: Mr. Payne inquired if there was a definition in the ordinance regarding "streetscape", responding to Mr. Jonas' concern. A definition was not found in the zoning ordinance. Other also questioned the staff's interpretation. Ms. Giraud said that she believed Subsection (1)(b) was closely related to Subsection (1)(c). She said that there was not a high concentration of historic buildings on Block 38, compared to some other blocks within the Central City Historic District. Ms. Giraud said that the interior court of Vernier Place forms its own streetscape. She said that there were very few inner block streets remaining in the City. Mr. Payne said that the "staff's interpretation was probably correct because staff reported that the streetscape was within the Historic Preservation Overlay District and not the whole Historic Preservation Overlay District." Ms. Blaes noted that as a good clarification. After a short discussion, the Commission members concurred with the staff's interpretation of "streetscape" and it was a consensus that the members of the Commission supported the staff's finding.
c. The demolition would not adversely affect the H Historic Preservation Overlay District due to the surrounding non-contributing structures;
Staff's finding: The concentration of the eight subject dwellings, their high degree of physical integrity, and their close proximity to each other lessens the impact on Vernier Place of the non-contributing structures on this block. As an intact example of an interior block street, Vernier Place still conveys its historic association as an early twentieth-century, working contributing intrusions found on the block. The applicant did not meet this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that he did not believe that the Commission should base its decision on the physical integrity of the buildings. He said that there were very few contributing structures remaining on the block, so losing the houses would not adversely affect the overlay district. The applicant said that he disagreed with the finding. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: There was no discussion and it was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
d. The base zoning of the site is incompatible with the reuse of the structure;
Staffs finding: The R-MU zone allows single-family detached dwellings, multi-family dwellings or commercial uses. The houses could be renovated for both residential or non-residential uses and still meet the base zoning requirements. The applicant did not meet this standard. Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that he was not the one who petitioned the City to rezone the property to residential/mixed use. He said that the City rezoned the property in order to have a high-density development on the block, and not to keep the houses on Vernier Place intact. Mr. Jonas said that a R-MU zone would allow, with a conditional use, up to a 120- foot high building, which he said was not compatible to the small structures on Vernier Place. The applicant said that he disagreed with the staffs finding. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: Comments were made about the base zoning of the property. Mr. Paterson read Section 21A.24.170(A) Purpose Statement. "The purpose of the R-MU residential/mixed use district is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, and small scale office uses." Ms. Blaes said that it should also be noted that single-family dwellings are also a permitted use. After a short discussion, it was a consensus that the members of the Commission supported the staffs finding.
e. The reuse plan is consistent with the standards outlined in Subsection H
of this section;
Staffs finding: Staff was only given a schematic site plan; a complete reuse plan has not been submitted to staff. It also stated in the staff report that staff put this item on the agenda without a complete set of plans under the assumption that if the demolition was approved and the applicant could not produce reuse plans, the applicant had the right to submit his application and landscaping would be the reuse plan. The applicant did not meet this standard.
Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that he decided not to be concerned about a reuse plan because he believed that it would not have mattered anyway. He described the reuse plan of the Winthrop Court development, which he said had already been reviewed by this Commission. The applicant agreed with the staff's finding.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: There was no discussion and it was a consensus that the members of the Commission supported the staff's finding.
f. The site has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following:
i. Willful or negligent acts by the owner that deteriorates the structure, ii. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs,
iii. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants, and
iv. Failure to secure and board the structure if vacant.
Staff's finding: The applicant recently purchased the site. Staff toured the buildings with the Historic Landmark Commission on August 19, 1998, and did not notice willful acts that the present or former owners had undertaken. The former owner had rented the units to tenants who occupied the structures until Mr. Jonas purchased the property. Mr. Jonas had secured and boarded the structures. The applicant has not willfully neglected the building, and thus met this standard. Applicant's finding: Mr. Jonas said that he agreed with this finding. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: There was no discussion and it was a consensus that the members of the Commission supported the staff's finding.
Mr. Young said that the Commission was charged with the preservation of buildings and the ideal Commission would be to preserve them in-place. He said that he believed that the Commission was correct in not supporting the relocation application until a relocation site was submitted. Mr. Young commented that the information to relocate had been changed, evidenced by the presentation given in behalf of the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation. He said that if the Commission approved the demolition request, it would eliminate the possibility of moving the houses from Vernier place. Mr. Young further commented regarding this issue.
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 026-98 be tabled due to the compelling information and the applicant to continue to work with the Multi Ethic Development Corporation to relocate the eight houses on Vernier Place. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell.
Ms. Miller said that she thought that the demolition request mitigated the application to relocate. Ms. Blaes believed that Mr. Jonas rescinded his application to relocate. Mr. Paterson said that Mr. Jonas' letter did not mention anything about withdrawing his relocation application, a copy of the letter was included in the staff report.
A lengthy discussion followed. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as:
1. Tabling the case would neither eliminate the applicant from applying for economic hardship, nor prevent the project from moving forward;
2. The houses would eventually deteriorate if they were to be moved and stored;
3. Negotiations for the relocation of the houses would not be confined to only one agency;
4. There were questions whether or not time constraints should be imposed on the applicant during the time that he is negotiating on a relocation site;
5. The applicant would be obligated to meet the City's bonding requirements;
6. Since only one of the standards of the demolition criteria in the zoning ordinance was met, should the Commission consider denying the request, rather than tabling it, pending the outcome of an Economic Review Panel review;
7. There was no public opposition to the demolition of the buildings; and
• 8. The Commission could evoke the economic hardship process.
There was much discussion regarding the Economic Review Panel's evaluation of economic hardship. Ms. Blaes said that if the applicant convenes an economic hardship review, and the result turned out to be that the requirements for economic hardship were not met, then the Historic Landmark Commission would be compelled to deny the demolition application because only two of the five standards in the zoning ordinance would have been met. She continued by saying that if the decision of the Economic Review Panel results in an economic hardship for the applicant, then the Commission would be compelled to allow the demolition, unless the Commission found that the Economic Review Panel acted arbitrarily or based its decision on erroneous information.
The subject of the discussion turned to future Historic Landmark Commission meetings and the manner in which tabled applications could be reintroduced. Mr. Paterson concluded that an opinion from the City Attorney's office was needed to clarify the public noticing requirements.
The wording of the motion was discussed. Mr. Young amended his motion.
Mr. Young moved that the discussion for Case No. 026-98 be continued until the next meeting with the direction of reasonable expectation that the project will be completed. The second still stood by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Rowland recused herself from the vote. Ms. Deal and Ms. Devine were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Jonas said that he intended to proceed with the economic hardship process and he had selected Mr. Rich Hall to be his representative to serve on the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Blaes said that it would be appropriate if the Commission selected a panel member for the Economic Review Panel to determine economic hardship for the demolition of the eight houses on Vernier Place. She said that the Historic Landmark Commission would select one person; the applicant would select one person, and those two individuals would select the third person to serve. Ms. Blaes recommended that Mr. Rob White, who is a Trustee for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, be selected to serve on the Economic Review Panel in regards to the demolition request by the applicant, Mr. Jonas. She pointed out that Mr. White will be serving on the Economic Review Panel for the economic hardship for the demolition of the Lunt Motel annex buildings, and she believed that the familiarity of the financial information would be beneficial and probably speed the project along. Ms. Blaes also encouraged other nominations.
Mr. Young moved to nominate Mr. Rob White to be the Historic Landmark Commission's representative to serve on the Economic Review Panel. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal and Ms. Devine were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Improving public input in the administrative approval process.
Ms. Blaes said that she had requested this discussion to be placed on the agenda with the intention to hear about the concerns that neighbors and people living within historic districts have with the administrative approval process. She pointed out that this was a process that had been in place since 1993. Ms. Blaes noted that prior to the change, every project was reviewed by the full Commission, whether it was constructing a new house, replacing a window, or installing a rain gutter. She said that she was told that the meetings would last for five or six hours.
Ms. Blaes said that, periodically, the staff would brief the Commission on problem projects which had been administratively approved. Ms. Blaes indicated that she knew that the problems could not be resolved at this meeting, but perhaps a policy statement or a change in the way administrative approvals are executed could be further studied.
Ms. Blaes asked staff to begin by discussing the project at 225 No. "A" Street. Mr. Knight said that it was a second story addition to an existing non-contributing building in the district.
Ms. Giraud said that when she first reviewed the project last February, she felt that the scope of the project was beyond what she could approve administratively, so the project was reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee. Ms. Giraud said that the required $200 fee discouraged her from scheduling the project on an Historic Landmark Commission meeting agenda for a review by the full Commission.
Ms. Giraud stated that there were several rarities in the process. She said that she anticipated that the Subcommittee would not approve the second story addition project; but it was approved. She said that the neighbors of the project were really upset about that approval. Ms. Giraud said that Zoning Administrator then rendered a decision that the height of the second story addition was within the zoning requirements. She said that the neighbors could have appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Board of Adjustment, within thirty days, but chose to work out something with the property owner by revising the plans. She said that she believed that the neighbors were supportive of the revised plans, which were similar to the original plans, so the permit was issued to the property owner. She said that now that the addition was being constructed, many of the neighbors are expressing their concerns and complaining about the project.
Ms. Giraud said that the zoning ordinance does not allow a way for an adjoining property owner or for anyone to appeal an administratively-approved decision, except the Historic Landmark Commission. She explained that the agendas for the Architectural Subcommittee meetings were not noticed by mail to the surrounding property owners. She said that the "Sunshine Law" was followed by posting the notices in the building twenty-four hours in advance. Ms. Blaes commented to the new members that agendas for the full Historic Landmark Commission meetings were mailed two weeks prior to the meeting to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.
Ms. Giraud said that the Preservation Planners "sign off' on many hundreds of administrative approvals a year, and very few of them ever get questioned. She said that she believed that there were several issues with administrative approvals. She reported the following: 1) the required $200 fee to appear before the Historic Landmark Commission is too high for some projects. $200 would be appropriate for new construction or demolition requests; 2) there should be some recourse for staff to have a project reviewed by the full Commission, when staff is unsure whether or not the project should be administratively approved. Lowering the fees would be a possibility; and 3) being given the authority to waive the fees would be another possibility.
Ms. Rowland inquired if the $200 fee reflected the staff time and the cost of mailing the notices. Ms. Giraud said she believed that was part of it. She said that the fees go into the City's general fund. Ms. Giraud talked about an audit completed in the City which compared the overall fee schedule with other cities. She said that the result was that all the fees were increased.
Ms. Blaes introduced Mr. Randy Dixon, who resides at 726 No. Wall Street, and Mr. Scott Christensen, who resides at 594 No. Center Street. Mr. Paterson also introduced Mr. Merrill Nelson, the City Board of Adjustment Administrator.
Ms. Blaes said that Mr. Dixon and Mr. Christensen were both residents of the Capitol Hill Historic District. She said that the "A" Street property has been a real problem but she has received concerns and comments from citizens in other historic districts.
Mr. Dixon said that he lived in his home before Capitol Hill was an historic district. He said that he served on the Historic Landmark Commission Committee for two terms back when the meetings ran late into the evening. He said that he would see construction projects in the neighborhood and would assume that the project had been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Dixon said that he would see construction projects that were approved, but were not completed the same way as was shown on the plans. Some of the Commission members also cited several examples where windows or other elements in a building were different than planned.
Mr. Dixon cited several situations where he had called the City enforcement people. He said that he did not remember one single case where there had been any visible action taken by the City. He asked, "what good was there in having rules if they were not enforced."
Mr. Christensen said that he came prepared to speak about enforcement. He told the members that he supported the Historic Landmark Commission and the influence appropriate decisions has had in the neighborhood. He said that he chose and really enjoyed living in an historic district. Mr. Christensen said he was attending this meeting to appear as "Mr. Joe Citizen" to relate some of the circumstances in which he had been involved.
Mr. Christensen believed that all major projects should be reviewed by the full Commission, even though a fee of $200 would have to be charged, which would remove any doubt by the Planners. He said if properties continue to be allowed to replace elements with non-historic material, historic neighborhoods would soon be degraded and the entire fabric would be eroded.
Mr. Christensen also cited samples of violations that he had called into the City's enforcement people, but to no avail. He said that he usually does not call in problems that he sees anymore because nothing would happen to rectify the situation.
Ms. Blaes said that comment brought up an important point regarding enforcement. She explained that when a violation is noticed, and a call made to either Ms. Giraud or Mr. Knight, since the staff has no authority to incite a violation, the staff reports the violation to the Building Inspection Division. She pointed out that the inspectors are not trained in historic preservation, so she said that she did not believe that an inspector was compelled to inspect the violation with any urgency. Ms. Blaes added that she was certain that the inspectors were capable or they would not be working for the City.
Ms. Blaes continued by saying that "one weak link" was that there was not an inspector who was trained in preservation issues like there would be if one or two inspectors were assigned to inspecting properties in the historic districts and individual Landmark Commission sites.
Some members also talked about projects that were started and completed on a weekend, that had not been approved. The discussion continued regarding violations that had been witnessed by Commission members. Ms. Blaes expressed her concern about the perception the public has of the Historic Landmark Commission, when violations occur and others go through the appropriate process of obtaining a building permit.
Ms. Giraud said that there was a list in the zoning ordinance which acts as a guideline for administratively-approved projects. She said that lists concern her because the staff needs to have some flexibility. Mr. Knight read Section 21A34.020(F)(1)(a)(i through iv). Procedure for issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness. (1) Administrative decision. Certain types of construction or demolition may be approved administratively subject to the following procedures: (a) Types of construction allowed which may be approved by an administrative decision: (i) minor alteration of or addition to a Landmark Commission 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. Mr. Knight noted that the cases outlined are the ones that can be approved administratively.
Many suggestions were offered by members of the Commission and others attending this meeting in an attempt to resolve some of the concerns surrounding administrative approvals. This portion of the discussion focused on the advantages or disadvantages of each of the following suggestions:
1. Alteration projects that were visible from the street should go to the full
Commission;
2. The fee to submit an application to the full Commission could be based on a sliding scale, which could be determined by the cost or size of the project;
3. Alterations that were not in-kind replacements would go to the full Commission;
4. The staff should have the authority to waive the application fees;
5. Incorporate the application fees into the cost of issuing a permit;
6. Review the fee schedule for the possibility of reducing the fees;
7. A small fee should be tacked onto every Certificate of Appropriateness whether it was approved administratively or by the full Commission;
8. Making the process easier for the public, rather than less expensive;
9. Public notification of the Architectural Subcommittee meetings through the mail, like the Historic Landmark Commission meetings;
10.Acquiring the signatures of abutting property owners for routine and uncontested matters, as required for Board of Adjustment cases;
11.Alterations for contributing structures should be reviewed by the full Commission and administratively approve only alterations on non-contributing structures;
12.Corner properties, when alteration projects could be seen from two elevations, should be reviewed by the full Commission;
13.Major renovation projects should be directed to the full Commission;
14.Garages and accessory buildings, that could be seen from the street, should be reviewed by the full Commission;
15.Because there would still be unique proposals presented, that the staff should continue to consider projects on a case-by-case basis;
16.Finding out more about the different mandates of the enforcement officers and the building inspectors and have continuous dialog on a regular basis; and
17. Communicating with the director of the Division of Building Services regarding re-prioritizing the violation complaints received on historic properties and the acquisition of building inspectors trained in preservation issues and assigned to historic districts and Landmark Commission sites.
Mr. Paterson said that the administrative approval process has been set by the zoning ordinance, which was adopted by the City Council, so any changes to the ordinance will need to go through the same procedure. He talked about an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would more clearly define the administrative approval process.
Ms. Jardine said that one of the rationales for readjusting the fee schedule, in the zoning rewrite, was that there is a large amount of administrative staff time that goes into the review of applications. She also said that the way the zoning ordinance was written, not even the Councilmembers could waive the fees. Ms. Jardine stated that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission needed to decide what action should be taken to resolve the problems with the administrative approval process, build a case on those resolutions, and lobby the pertinent City departments for support.
Ms. Blaes extended her appreciation to Mr. Dixon and Mr. Christensen, for representing the public, and to Ms. Jardine and Mr. Nelson for their input into the discussion. She added that if people did not bring these issues to the attention of the Commission and staff, then problems would never be resolved.
In conclusion, Ms. Blaes said that the staff would be looking into the recommendations and suggestions as the issues were further discussed. She said that the staff will report back to the Commission of the progress.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.