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 Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Elizabeth Mitchell, Craig Paulsen, Joel Paterson, and Elizabeth Giraud.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission Dina Blaes, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Craig Paulsen. William Damery, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller Lynn Morgan, Heidi Swinton and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Planner.
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.
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. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the September 3, 1997 meeting, after a small addition. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal1 Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Paulsen, unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Young were excused. The motion passed.
NEW CASE
Case No. 011-97. at 810 So. Green Street. by Ms. Michal Staber Madsen Hayes. requesting approval of an appeal of an administrative decision denying legalization of the application of vinyl siding to a contributing structure.
• Ms. Elizabeth 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. She stated that, in the past, the Commission had shown a consistency of denying and not legalizing aluminum siding on structures in historic districts.
The applicant, Ms. Michal Staber Madsen Hayes, was present. She stated that she was uncertain as to the boundaries of the historic district. Ms. Blaes explained where the boundary lines were for the Central City Historic District. She said that boundaries of historic districts were established when the reconnaissance level surveys were done and they generally were set with a logical definition of a neighborhood.
Ms. Hayes stated that her house was not historical and added that her father built an addition onto the home 30 years ago in 1967, which comprised ninety percent of the size. She said that the house was very plain and had no gingerbread work on it. Ms. Hayes said that she inherited the home from her parents and had no idea that it was in an historic district. She pointed to a copy of a photograph of the house, that was being circulated. Ms. Hayes also said she did not know that a building permit was required to apply siding material, as she was not building onto it or making structural changes.
Ms. Hayes talked about the letter she received from the City's Building Services when her home was "red tagged" and said that she was told that no other homes in the area had vinyl siding. Ms. Hayes noted that she found a number of homes on which vinyl siding had been applied. Ms. Giraud responded by saying that there were no approvals to apply vinyl siding to homes in the area. She referred to the section of the staff report which included the building permit history on the list of homes that Ms. Hayes submitted. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the homes where no building permit was recorded, it was not known if the siding was applied before or after 1991, when the Central City area was established as an historic district.
Ms. Hayes said that the vinyl siding had been completed by her son-in-law on three/quarters of the house. She said that the color was light beige. She said that she was not doing anything to "undermine the neighborhood. In fact, it looks a lot better than most of the homes on Green Street." Ms. Hayes stated that finances were a problem and that she was her only means of support. She pointed out that if she was forced to remove the vinyl siding, she would not only lose the money she had paid for the vinyl siding, but would have to pay to have someone repair the wood and repaint it.
There was some discussion and an explanation was given to Ms. Hayes that her home was located within an historic district and when it was discovered that vinyl siding was being applied, and no building permit had been issued, the work was forced to be curtailed, and then it was reported to the Preservation Planners in the City's Planning Office to provide assistance to the applicant. Ms. Hayes asked if a City inspector was in the area and reported the work that was being done on her house. Ms. Giraud said that someone called the City with respect to the vinyl siding being installed on the house.
Ms. Hayes inquired if she painted her house a bright or psychedelic color if it would be permitted. Ms. Deal said that it would and pointed out that the difference between paint and siding. She said that painting an exterior of a home was a temporary measure that could be easily remediated, but apply siding was a permanent measure which would cause damage to the wood. Ms. Hayes expressed her concerns that she could not do what she wanted to do to her home, because the City was telling her what she could or could not do. Ms. Deal explained that the restrictions that the City placed on contributing homes in an historic district or a landmark site was no different than restrictive covenants placed by the homeowners in a subdivision development. Ms. Hayes commented that the house was an inheritance and that she would not have purchased a home in the Central City area. She further expressed her concerns that she had no jurisdiction over what had been given to her and again discussed her lack of finances.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by asking how the siding had been applied. Ms. Hayes said that it had been applied directly over the wood. Ms. Hayes talked about the home and the work her father did.
• Ms. Blaes stated that based on the reconnaissance survey, which was done in
1994, the building was deemed contributing and therefore considered as having historic value. Ms. Hayes was concerned how the house could be considered historic when most of the structure was only thirty years old. Ms. Blaes explained that there was criteria that was followed by those who did the research. She said that the Historic Landmark Commission followed the same criteria when it designated an historic district, which included contributing and noncontributing buildings. Ms. Blaes said that the Commission relied on the research that was done by preservation professionals in property and material assessments. Ms. Blaes further explained that the applicant's home was found to be contributing to the neighborhood, and that was the reason why she was appearing before this Commission. Ms. Hayes said that it had not been cleared up in her mind, and that she did not understand.
• Mr. Paulsen made comments as to the financial hardship that the applicant mentioned and suggested that there were funding programs, for which Ms. Hayes could apply, that could be of assistance to her. He said that money could be provided, at a low-interest rate, for restoration purposes. Mr. Paulsen said that he could make further suggestions on other ways to finance the restoration of this home. Ms. Hayes said that she would have to look into those possibilities to finance all the work that had to be done on the home, such as the roof, landscaping, and repairs on the inside. She talked again about losing money by removing the vinyl siding, and going into debt to do the necessary work on the house and yard, and the time that had been wasted during this process. Mr. Paulsen said that he wanted to assure the applicant that, although she thought that her house did not seemed to be important to the neighborhood, that it was a common style and the entire community was based on homes like the applicants. Mr. Paulsen continued by saying the historic homes were not just the fancy ones with all the gingerbread on them, and that the applicant's home on Green Street was just as important in the community as the large historic mansions, such as the Simon Bamberger House, which was only a few blocks away.
• Ms. Jeppsen inquired about the original sections of the house. Ms. Hayes talked about the original parts of the house, as she pointed to an old photograph which showed the front of the original house. The photograph was circulated to the members of the Commission.
• Mr. Gordon inquired if a building permit was issued in 1967, when the applicant's father added onto the home. Ms. Giraud said that she did not go that far back in the records. Ms. Hayes said that she remembers building inspectors coming to the home at that time. Mr. Gordon said that if a permit was issued, that might verify what part was the old and what part was the new addition. Mr. Gordon spoke of the onsite field trip that the Commission made, prior to this meeting, and the trees that were in the yard. He also mentioned that the vinyl siding had not been applied to the rear of the house.
The discussion turned to the subject of the surveys which had been done of the area. Ms. Blaes said that if the applicant had not already received a copy of the survey that was done in 1980, staff would provide her with a copy. She explained the type of data that was included on the survey. Ms. Blaes reported that the survey showed that the date of construction was in 1903; that the building was in good condition; and that based on the primary elevation, the house was considered contributory. She noted that it was unfortunate that a building permit was not requisitioned because information would have been given to the applicant, at that time, regarding the historic district restrictions; then she would have been referred to the Preservation Planners in the City's Planning Office for direction. Ms. Hayes asked if she would have to pull the vinyl siding off. Ms. Blaes said that the Commission would render a decision later on in this meeting after the members go in executive session. She said that the decision would be based on the information-that had been provided, as well as the application of the appropriate sections of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Blaes explained that the Commission was tied to making sure that the standards in the ordinance were applied when a decision was made.
Ms. Williams 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:
• Ms. Shannon Anjewierden, an interested person and a relative to the applicant, asked why the other houses in the historic district, which had illegal vinyl siding on them, were not inspected and why the City did not make those owners remove the siding. Ms. Blaes referred to the staff report, and pointed out the homes where no building permit had been issued and the question of whether or not the artificial siding had been applied before the area was designated an historic district, which would not have come under the jurisdiction of the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Anjewierden asked if a City inspector would go by and knock on those doors to inquire when the siding was applied, and if the applicant has to remove the siding from her house, that the illegal siding would have to be removed from all the houses in the area. Ms. Blaes said that there would be an enforcement action against those property owners just like the one against the applicant. Mr. Paterson said that in that type of situation, the City inspectors deal on a complaint basis, and pointed out that when they were doing their own inspections, they were not looking for violations. He said that the inspectors have plenty of work just to keep up with their own inspections. Ms. Anjewierden asked how that action took place. Ms. Blaes said that if a person wanted to make a complaint, a call could be made to an enforcement inspector to ask that an inspection be made of the subject properties. She said that if it was found that a violation incurred, enforcement action would begin against the violator. Ms. Hayes made the comment that she wondered why someone would complain when a home was being improved. Ms. Blaes said that she concurred with the applicant's frustrations, and was surprised to see the number of home owners who had not applied for a building permit when siding was installed to the exterior of the structure. Ms. Hayes and Ms. Anjewierden continued to discuss the installation of vinyl siding and the fact that the applicant was told that there were no other houses in the areas that had vinyl siding on them. They spoke of taking photographs of those houses, which they presented to staff. Ms. Deal explained what was probably meant by the statement regarding that no other houses with vinyl siding which the Historic Landmark Commission legalized or allowed. She stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had never allowed vinyl or aluminum siding, even on a minor part, on a contributing structure in an historic district.
Ms. Anjewierden claimed it was difficult to understand that it was better for a house to be in poor condition and "disgusting looking than to have nice vinyl siding on it " Ms. Blaes said that the Commission and the staff shared her concerns with regards to dilapidated buildings and maintenance issues in an historic district, but the Commission also had the responsibility to protect the identified historic resources within Salt Lake City. She reminded Ms. Anjewierden that the Historic Landmark Commission had jurisdiction over historic districts and designated landmark sites within the City and reiterated the responsibilities of this Commission. Ms. Anjewierden continued her comments by asking if a person would get fined by the City for letting his or her home to become dilapidated and in shambles, if that person did not have the financial resources to keep the home in good repair. Ms. Blaes said that there was language in the City's Zoning Ordinance that pertains to the health and safety issues of a structure and if the inhabitants or the public would be in danger as the result of not maintaining a structure.
The discussion continued regarding the historic district. Ms. Hayes commented that it would have been more logical if both sides of a street is designated as an historic district. Ms. Deal said that the east boundary lines of the Central City Historic District had to be drawn some place and 700 East was a natural barrier. She added that it was not like a little residential street where activity on one side of the street would have an effect on the other side. Mr. Cerruti said that this body does not decide on the boundaries of an historic district, that the City Council makes the laws and the Commission's responsibility is to enforcement them. He suggested that the applicant discuss this matter with the City Council person in her district.
Ms. Hayes inquired if she had the right to appeal the decision it she was forced to remove the siding. Ms. Deal said that she could appeal to the City's Land Use Appeals Board within thirty days of the Commission's action. Ms. Hayes again said that this situation was a hardship on her part and she felt that Mr. Paulsen was the only member who realized that. Ms. Blaes stated that he was the only member who verbalized that, but added that she thought she could speak for the entire Commission, that each member recognized that hardship was an issue. Ms. Hayes again spoke of the difficulty it would be for her to have the siding removed and the wood restored. Ms. Blaes declared that, it was not easy for this Commission to render decisions on matter such as this case, but as a Commission, the members were charged with reviewing information then applying the standards of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The discussion turned to the various funding resources that could be available to the applicant. Ms. Blaes said that the Utah Heritage Foundation was a state-wide preservation organization that has low-interest funds available for work on the structure itself. She assured the applicant that the Staff would provide that kind of information to her.
Upon receiving no further requests, Ms. Williams closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion took place. Mr. Gordon said in trying to determine which section of the house was the original and which section was the addition, he looked at the shapes and sizes of the windows, the roof pitch, and the fact that there was no trim on the house. Ms. Deal pointed out that the entire house was a contributory structure and it was not broken into parts.
Ms. Blaes said that she had several questions on the architectural survey of the district that was done in 1980 and that many of the questionable alterations were not clarified in the reconnaissance survey that was completed in 1994, such as the siding and the addition. She said that she would have appreciated it if more information would have been noted.
Ms. Blaes stated that the Commission was being asked to look at a legalization matter and would have to base a decision on the twelve standards of a Certification of Appropriateness for Alterations of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure found in Section 21A.34.020.G of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She remarked that she was not certain that the findings of fact, which were included in the staff report, were complete. Ms. Giraud acknowledged Ms. Blaes' comments and asked if Ms. Blaes' comments leaned towards the point that the house might not be contributing. Ms. Blaes said that she had no doubt that the house was contributing. She spoke of the substantial changes to the house during the period of
1967 and 1980 and that it would have been helpful to know what substantial changes were made. Ms. Blaes said that she felt like it made a difference in how a decision should be rendered by this Commission on the issues being reviewed at this meeting.
Mr. Cerruti stated that the house was listed as a contributing structure in an historic district and the ordinance read that vinyl or aluminum siding was not permitted to be placed on a contributing structure. Ms. Blaes explained that she thought that the decision of the Commission should be based on all twelve standards found in the ordinance.
Ms. Deal pointed out that she thought that Standard No. 10 overruled the criteria found in any other standard. She said that the other standards would be considered if the siding issue would have been any other kind of material other than vinyl or aluminum, such as re-stuccoing the house or restoring the house to its natural material. Ms. Deal read the following portion out of the City's Zoning Ordinance, (21A.34.020.G.1O.a), "Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: (a) Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material." She indicated that the house is in an historic district and that vinyl siding had been applied directly over wood; therefore, that application violated the ordinance and could not be legalized.
Ms. Deal moved to deny Case No. 011-97, based on the following findings of fact:
1) that the house is located at 810 Green Street, which is within the Central City Historic District; 2) that vinyl siding has been applied directly onto the wood material; 3) that Section 21A.34.020.G.10 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states that, "vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material is prohibited". As far as the survey is concerned, this is the original wood material. Whether or not the wood material is historic, is open for debate but it is the original material. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Paulsen, unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Young were excused. The motion passed.
Ms. Blaes explained the appeals' process to the applicant. Ms. Giraud said that she would provide information on funding programs and the applicant was encouraged to contact the Utah Heritage Foundation to apply for a low-interest loan, as well.
OTHER BUSINESS
Review of the Land Use Appeals Board hearing for Art Brothers.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud said that Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney was present to update the members on the Art Brothers' appeal of an Historic Landmark Commission decision.
Mr. Pace stated that he was asked to attend this meeting to report on the first appeal that was heard by the Land Use Appeals Board. He said that it involved the property owned by Art Brothers at 39 No. Q Street, which the Historic Landmark Commission declared a contributing structure. He said that the Land Use Appeals Board reversed that decision and declared it noncontributing. Mr. Pace stated that he was not invited to debate whether the decision the Land Use Appeals Board was right or wrong, but to present information to the Commission, from his observations at that meeting, as to how that Appeals Board operated, what he thought the members would be looking at, which he thought would be of assistance to the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Pace said that the standard that is set forth in the ordinance states. " that the Land Use Appeals Board will review Historic Landmark Commission's decision and they will uphold the decision, unless there has been a prejudicial procedural error made." He explained that a procedural error would be something like someone not getting a notice of the meeting, attending the meeting anyway, but not be given an opportunity to speak because they were not officially noticed; or the Board could reverse the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission if that Board found that the decision was not supported by the findings of fact, based upon the applicable standards of approval.
Mr. Pace said that this Commission could debate whether or not there were adequate findings to support the standards, which he thought there were in the Art Brothers case. He said this Commission had to be sure that motions were based on the findings of fact, as Ms. Deal did earlier in this meeting, then it would be clear to the Land Use Appeals Board that the findings would support the motion. He said that the Commission would protect its decisions more if the members make certain they followed that format.
Ms. Pace continued by saying that another issue was that if the Land Use Appeals Board reversed this Commission's decision, what recourse would the Commission have, and the answer was that this body had no recourse. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission was a decision-making body, who had no standing right to appeal, and was neither the petitioner nor the respondent. However, Mr. Pace said that the City had a standing right to appeal. He said that if the City believed strongly enough that the Land Use Appeals Board made an error, then the appeal would be filed with the Third District Court. He said that the appeal could be based on the fact that the Land Use Appeals Board was wrong when it substituted its decision for the Historic Landmark Commission's and should be reversed.
The Commission discussed that fact that Mr. Brothers first came before the Historic Landmark Commission requesting to demolish the house at 39 Q Street, which was denied. The applicant next came to the Historic Landmark Commission requesting that the structure at 39 Q Street be considered noncontributing, which was also denied. Mr. Brothers appealed that decision and the Land Use Appeals Board reversed the Commission's denial and deemed that the structure had a noncontributing status. Mr. Pace said that the members of the Land Use Appeals Board believed that they had the right to reverse a decision made by this Commission, and that is what the Appeals Board did.
Mr. Pace continued by saying that during the appeals hearing, there was an elaborate discussion regarding the burden of proof. Mr. Brothers pointed out that he thought it was his responsibility to convince the Appeals Board that the house on Q Street was a noncontributing structure, so he thought he had the burden of proof. Mr. Pace said that he thought that the burden of proof would be on the applicant and the City Planning Staff.
Ms. Blaes stated that she believed that the Land Use Appeals Board made an error. She said that she had have never felt stronger about a motion, and that she believed the motion for Mr. Brothers was correct. Ms. Blaes said that the findings of fact were clearly stated. Ms. Deal said what the Appeals Board decided was that there was not enough evidence to convince the members. She said that they noted that they drove by and the house and it did not look historic to them. Ms. Deal said that the real issue was regarding the allowance of the Appeals Board to rethink the Commission's decisions. This discussion continued.
The discussion continued regarding that the Land Use Appeals Board did not consider the comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission members as evidence. Ms. Deal said that members of the Historic Landmark Commission were "considered experts and knew preservation issues very well." She inquired if the members, in the future, had to recuse themselves as a member of the Commission, in order to testify and present evidence at a Commission meeting.
Mr. Paterson referred to a statement made by the counselor for Mr. Brothers, by saying that the Staff did not present any evidence or make a recommendation for this case. He noted that the Staff had made a concrete decision not to make findings and a recommendation for this case because Mr. Brothers had previously indicated that the Staff had been prejudicial He said that the staff report gave the history of the case, defined the terms and the standards that the Commission had to follow to make the findings. Mr. Paterson also said that he agreed that the findings of facts were stated in the motion. He further said that Mr. Brothers' counsel repeated several times during that hearing, that had had been no evidence presented at the Commission meeting. from watching the members in action for the first time. Mr. Pace said that all those involved were getting educated as to this new appeals process.
The subject was introduced that if the City chose to appeal Mr. Brothers' case, would the City Attorney's office represent the City or the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Pace said that he spoke with the City Attorney about this matter and he said that the City Attorney's office would be an advocate for the City. Ms. Blaes asked Mr. Pace to keep the Commission informed of the City's decision whether or not to appeal Mr. Brothers case.
There was some discussion regarding the case reviewed earlier in this meeting and the motion that was made. and concern was expressed by the members that the applicant might appeal the Commission's decision. Mr. Pace thought the motion was adequately stated.
The discussion turned to cameras and video cameras being allowed in Historic Landmark Commission meetings, and Mr. Pace said that he would explore that issue and provide the members with an answer.
In conclusion, Mr. Pace reported that Mr. Todd Holloway also filed an appeal of the decision the Commission made regarding his request to construct a twin home on North Main Street. Mr. Paterson added that the hearing was scheduled for September 24, 1997 at 5:30P.M. Ms. Blaes urged the Historic Landmark Commission members to attend that hearing to become better educated as to how the appeals process worked.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Ms. Deal moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M.