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 Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. 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 Planning Division office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the March 28, 2001 luncheon meeting, as amended. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the Apri14, 2001 meeting, as amended. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
• Mayor's Conference on Preservation and other matters.
Mr. Simonsen announced that Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, the Planning Director for Salt Lake City, had asked to address the Commission.
Mr. Goldsmith complimented the members of the Historic Landmark Commission on the professionalism that each member shows interacting with staff. He said that his absence from the Historic Landmark Commission meetings was not one of neglect, but one of trust. Mr. Goldsmith talked about how the Historic Landmark Commission, Planning Commission, and other boards function independently and do not need "undue influence" from the planning director "to impose his will" on the decisions made by these bodies. He added that he acts as a participant and not as a director at any of the meetings held by these official groups.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that there has been appropriate concern in the community about the loss of any historic structure or historic fabric of neighborhoods. He said that the kinds of reactions that many have when a property is threatened, is to say that the historical site is not to be touched. He continued by saying that those who have been observing preservation practices for many years, know there is sometimes a "gray'' area. He stated that there are things that can be done for an adaptable reuse of a building or even the removal of a building for a more intense use that may bring greater density that would justify the removal of a historic structure. Mr. Goldsmith said that could only happen with open communication with each other. He pointed out that one of the things he has observed, as a planning director, was that so many decisions are based upon fear; the fear of loss. He said that developers worry about losing their ability to make money and neighborhoods worry about losing the historic low density. He added that everybody has a legitimate fear. Mr. Goldsmith indicated that through a "healthy dialogue of community building" one can continue to reinforce appropriate development patterns, scale, and density.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that the Mayor, "who is a very strong advocate for preservation, irrespective of what some people may say about the administration", has decided to hold a Mayor's Conference on Preservation. He went on to explain that he would bring together "all voices who want to be heard citizens, neighborhoods, and associations". Mr. Goldsmith said that the Mayor was considering holding the conference in the fall and he hoped the conference would be an annual affair. He talked about the Historic Landmark Commission being "essential stakeholders in the dialogue about preservation in our community" and asked that the members help develop the event.
Mr. Goldsmith asked that two members of the Historic Landmark Commission volunteer to join him and others in the administration to pull an agenda together. He mentioned the discussion the Commission had at one of the meetings last month where a potential list of topics was developed. Mr. Goldsmith noted that he discussed the list with the Mayor. He said that hopefully some people would be brought in from around the country to talk about preservation practices using visual techniques.
Mr. Simonsen asked for volunteers from the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Mickelsen and Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich volunteered to be involved with formulating the agenda for the Mayor's Conference on Preservation. Mr. Goldsmith said that he would be in touch with the volunteers in the next ten days to explore the possible subject matter for the conference.
Mr. Goldsmith stated that he also wanted to discuss an exhibition that he was pulling together, under the auspicious of the administration. He said that it would be a two-part cultural program that would begin February 1 through March 30, 2002, in conjunction with the Olympic Winter Games and the Paralympic Winter Games. Mr. Goldsmith indicated that the symposium would be called "The Physical Fitness of Cities". He said that the symposium would highlight state-of-the art architecture, urban design, and transportation projects from cities throughout the world, establishing an exclusive record of the world's city-building achievements. Mr. Goldsmith stated that the symposium would invite world leaders whose professional lives are devoted to shaping cities and will be structured along the concurrent topics of "Vision and Ethics". Mr. Goldsmith stated that he has been working with the University of Utah's Graduate School of Architecture, as well.
Mr. Goldsmith closed by expressing his gratitude to the members of the Commission and the two volunteers for their good work and for letting him take this time during the meeting.
Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Goldsmith and said that the Commission would look forward to further reports.
BUSINESS
Case No. 028-00 - Initial review of the application for economic hardship submitted by Zions Securities Corporation requesting to demolish the rear portion of the Orpheum Theater at 132 South State Street, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse", and construct a parking structure.
Ms. Giraud referred to her memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She presented some background information regarding the case including Zions Securities Corporation’s, request to demolish the rear portion of the Orpheum Theater, also known as "Promised Valley Playhouse" and replace it with a multi-level parking garage. She said that at the December 6, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the members voted to process the application as a demolition. Ms. Giraud noted that the process for demolition of a "landmark site" allows demolition to occur only if the applicant can prove economic hardship or the building official determines that demolition is necessary to alleviate a threat to public health, according to Section 21A.34.020(J) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Landmark Site. She added that in this instance, the applicant had applied for the economic hardship process.
Ms. Giraud said that the role of the Historic Landmark Commission, at this meeting, is to review the material submitted by the applicant to determine if the applicant should submit additional information, determine if any of the facts presented by the applicant are erroneous, and to choose a Historic Landmark Commission representative to serve on the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Giraud said that the main body of the information submitted by the applicant consists of a Market Performance Analysis submitted by the real estate appraisal firm of J. Philip Cook and Associates, and a real estate appraisal submitted by Gary Free and Gordon Nixon. She indicated that other documents in the packet included an engineering study by Tanner, Wilmore and Smith, a the feasibility study for a renovated theater by Cooper/Roberts Architects, which is now Cooper/Roberts/Simonsen Architects, a cost analysis by Parametrix, Inc., the economic hardship worksheet, miscellaneous correspondence, news articles, and applications forms.
Ms. Giraud stated that staff believes that the application is thorough and well organized. She indicated that staff asked two outside sources to review the report. Ms. Giraud said that the comments made by Chris Child, an analyst and realtor with Marcus and Millichap, and Marian Iwasaki, Director of the Salt Lake County Fine Arts Division, were included in the memorandum.
Ms. Giraud explained that the J. Philip Cook Analysis analyzed the differences between a "production" and a "presentation" theater, and compared the feasibility of operating the Orpheum Theatre as one of these venues with other theaters in the Salt Lake valley. Staff found this analysis helpful, but after consulting with Ms. Iwasaki, found the tone of the report in terms of operating the Orpheum as a presentation theater unduly pessimistic. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the report stated, "It is reasonable to assume that some of the performance groups currently utilizing the larger venues, actually would be better suited to a smaller site. Ms. Iwasaki confirmed this information, and reported that ballet and dance ensembles, chamber concerts, and small theater groups are well suited to a theater the size of the subject."
Ms. Giraud remarked about Ms. Iwasaki's statement that if the Orpheum Theatre could be renovated, she could easily find local performing groups to use it, and that local demand to use the recently completed Rose Wagner Theatre has already surpassed its availability. However, she said that staff’s discussions with Ms. Iwasaki did not address how the ongoing operating costs would be covered.
Ms. Giraud stated that she conferred with Mr. Cooper regarding the Cooper/Roberts Feasibility Report completed in 1998. She said that the firm was hired to prepare a feasibility report assessing the costs to rehabilitate the theater if it were upgraded to a "state of the art" theater similar in function and structure to a new building, and how these costs compared to the construction of a new theater with similar configurations. Ms. Giraud added that the Capitol Theatre staff further instructed Mr. Cooper to provide costs for a theater that could accommodate national touring productions, which meant that the depth of the stage and the height of the fly to the grid had to be expanded. She said that Cooper/Roberts Architects estimated that renovating the theater would cost $24,000,000, with contingency, and that this would cost $5,000,000 less than the construction a new theater similar in size to the Orpheum. Ms. Giraud clarified that the expansion of the stage and fly was the most expensive part of the proposed total cost. She concluded by saying that Mr. Cooper was instructed to provide costs associated with a "Cadillac" version of renovation, but stated to staff that there would be many less expensive ways to approach the renovation.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff. There was none, so Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Gary Chaston and Mr. Robert Money were present, representing Zions Securities Corporation, the applicant. Mr. Chasten said that he appreciated the opportunity of responding to any questions regarding the economic hardship information. He indicated that he believed Ms. Giraud had been "fairly unbiased in her research".
Mr. Chasten said that the applicant did not understand that Mr. Cooper's report was for a "Cadillac" renovation. He said that even though the applicant may not have agreed with Mr. Cooper's review, he wanted the opportunity to respond to what he believed would be the minimum renovation of $15,000,000 from a liability standpoint. He said that Mr. Cooper thought it would be a minimum cost of $2,000,000 to upgrade the building and make it seismically safe for utilization. Mr. Chasten said that no one has come forth who would spend that kind of money plus the encumbrance of $200,000 per year ongoing operating costs. Mr. Chasten said that being subsidized by the County or another entity "is not really the applicant's concern. The applicant's concern is how to make money for the owner". He added that the owner needed to have a return that is at least as good or better than a different use. Mr. Chasten said it was better to build a parking structure rather than keep it for the existing use.
Mr. Chasten said that the applicant understands the desire of trying to preserve the building. He said that is the reason the applicant is considering salvaging a "reasonable part of the building" the "aesthetic front of the building" rather than demolishing the entire structure, even though the Historic Landmark Commission is technically defining this proposal as demolition. Mr. Chasten remarked that the applicant cannot continue to keep the building in its current condition, so the decision was made to consider an alternate use.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic
Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by inquiring further about the $200,000. Mr. Chasten said that there were two major renovations on the property in the past years. He added that the $200,000 represents the cost to cover the renovations that were done on the structure in the past. Mr. Chasten said the applicant had to analyze what use would allow a good return on the property because of the investments in the property. Mr. Chasten said that when those two are compared, there would have to be a $200,000 operating cost per year to keep the building as a theater.
• Mr. Wilson talked further about the proposed $200,000 operating cost. Mr. Chasten said that the property would have to earn a net income of $200,000 per year as it exists. He said that the applicant is not willing to be involved with the operations of a theater. Mr. Wilson said that when the proposed parking structure was initially presented to the Commission, there was an indication that there was a strong need for additional parking downtown. He inquired about the percentage of occupancy the applicant expects for the proposed parking structure. Mr. Chasten said that there is expected to be a 120 percent lease level for the property and the vacancy factor is included in that that figure. He added that as a general practice, Zions Securities Corporation oversells leased parking spaces. Mr. Chasten said that there is a loss of parking in the downtown area and light rail has assisted in mitigating some of the parking needs. He indicated that businesses will lease a certain amount of spaces which are not always occupied. Mr. Chaston stated that the applicant believes there is a need for additional parking and the proximity of the building would be the appropriate location to construct a parking structure. Mr. Wilson pointed out the vacancy that he observed in the parking structure on Regent Street, which is adjacent to the Orpheum Theatre and owned by Zions Securities Corporation. Mr. Chaston explained that the vacant parking spaces are leased by tenants who pay for the spaces whether they are used or not. Zions has to provide those spaces. He added that parking needs change during certain times of the year.
• Ms. Rowland made an inquiry into the non-profit status of the applicant, as mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Chaston said that the owner of the property is considered a non-profit entity and does not pay income tax. He added that Zions Securities Corporation is a for-profit management corporation that pays taxes on the earnings from a property. Ms. Rowland said that the same ownership structure would remain, so she said that she was confused about the public purpose part of the requirements of a non-profit entity. She inquired if it was because the parking is serving a non-profit use. Ms. Rowland said that she did not understand how a parking structure is considered an exemption. Mr. Chaston said that the property might not be taxed, but the income generated from that property is taxable.
• Mr. Knight asked the applicants to expand a little more where they got the figure of $200,000 per year cash ·11ow. Mr. Chaston said that the applicant uses the term "net operating income" rather than "cash 11ow". He said that the net operating income is generated after the expenses. Mr. Chaston said that the focus is split on the economic as well as the demand issue. Mr. Knight inquired if the $200,000 figure was a projected sum. Mr. Chaston concurred that it was a projected amount of operating cost. Mr. Knight talked about the depreciation figures that were on the economic hardship work sheet. Mr. Chaston said that the owner has obviously been losing money ever since the building has been vacant. Mr. Knight said that the loss was listed as $109,000 a year on the worksheet. Mr. Chaston said that figure was included in the depreciation. Ms. Giraud said that depreciation is normally a tax benefit. Mr. Chaston said that it usually could be considered as a tax benefit, but because of the property owner's non-profit status it could not. He stated that the applicant spent money in the past on renovations of the theater and is looking at amortize that expense over a certain amount of time. Ms. Rowland said that she believed the figure the applicant has come up with is "expected" and not "projected". Mr. Knight said that the ordinance says that you have to prove that there would be a zero rate of return not an expected rate of return.
• Mr. Gordon talked about the "Cadillac" renovation to which staff referred. He said that the Rose Wagner Theatre was just completed. He stated that a theater has a large number of people using the facility that requires the use of durable finishes and the use of high quality carpeting. Mr. Chaston said after receiving the structural report, which acknowledged the unstable seismic condition of the building, the applicant knew that that the cost would be too exorbitant to keep the current use. He noted that asbestos removal would also be an issue. Mr. Gordon inquired if there had been studies done or if the applicant considered demolishing the entire building and not just leaving the facade. He also mentioned some projects in the downtown area where only the facade remains, but an entirely new building is being constructed behind it in place of the historic building. Mr. Chaston said that the applicant believes this is a reasonable way to solve the problem.
• Mr. Christensen said the drawings, for the proposed parking structure, show the major entrance/exit located on Orpheum Avenue. Mr. Chaston suggested that Mr. Money, who is the architect, respond to any architectural questions. Mr. Christensen indicated that Orpheum Avenue is very narrow and inquired if there had been a traffic study showing the impact of a 400-car parking structure on the surrounding streets. Mr. Christensen commented that the City may find it necessary to install additional semaphores for some traffic control. Mr. Chaston said that he did not believe that the City would install more semaphores on the block. He noted that the City would have to analyze the traffic impact and the stacking of vehicles. Mr. Christensen said that if the City finds that the traffic pattern would not be workable, the applicant might consider another use for the property. Mr. Chaston introduced Mr. Money. Mr. Money said that the applicant has a traffic study done by Sear Brown and would be happy to present it to the Commission. He said the traffic study indicates that vehicles would probably enter/exit on/off Regent Street from 100 South Street, rather than State Street. Mr. Money pointed out that the traffic study does not propose any problem with the additional traffic. Ms. Coffey asked whether Mr. Christensen was inferring that some of the traffic circulation issues might actually increase the cost of building the parking structure. Mr. Christensen said that was one of his concerns, especially on State Street. He said that he believed the bus stop would have to be moved because it is so close to Orpheum Avenue. Mr. Money again said that the City had not addressed those issues yet, but the traffic study did. Ms. Giraud said that the parking structure is proposed to face Orpheum Avenue because parking structures in the Downtown Zoning District, that have frontage on a street, are allowed as a conditional use with approval authority granted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Chaston said that if the traffic has a greater impact than what has already been surveyed, the applicant would have the responsibility to propose something else. He added that the applicant would not make a recommendation that would not be economically or functionally in the best interest of the owner.
• Mr. Simonsen asked about the kind of marketing that has taken place on the property, other than the discussions with the County. Mr. Chaston said that the applicant does not hang "for sale" signs on available properties. He made the point that the contacts are made with the realtors. Mr. Chaston reiterated that no realtors have brought any clients to the owner. He added that there have been some discussions with a few people but these discussions were always based on a request for the owner to subsidize the reuse. Mr. Chaston talked about the media interest every time the historic property was discussed. Mr. Knight inquired if the owner had discussed the possibility of another use for the building that might preserve more of the historic fabric of the building. Mr. Chaston said that a different use had not been the point of discussion because from an economical standpoint, the cost of renovating the building would be more than building a new structure.
• Ms. Rowland asked about the offering price for the property. Mr. Chaston said that the price was typically not the issue in the discussions. He said that the needs of the client take precedent. Ms. Rowland said that she was trying to compare the marketing price of the property to the renovated cost. She said that she believed that if the liability expenses were so great, the owner would want to sell the property and get rid of it. Mr. Chaston said at one time in the discussions with the County, that was an option, but not anymore. He said that the City could not compel an owner to sell a property. He added that the issue is whether it is feasible to reuse the building and get a reasonable rate of return on the property.
• Mr. Wilson asked if it would bother Mr. Chaston, as a citizen, to see the demolition of the Orpheum Theatre building. Mr. Chaston said that it absolutely would because his great-grandfather had ties to the old theater. He continued by saying that the owner knows the building is an historic asset, but the reality is that the renovation expenditures would be too high. Mr. Chaston noted that the applicant was concerned about the vacant building. Mr. Chaston continued to discuss the cost of renovation and the seismic upgrading to make it safe, as well as the fact that no one has been interested in leasing the building, unless the owner subsidizes the expenses, and the owner's unwillingness to do that.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Christensen talked about the expense if an additional traffic control system would have to be installed. He also inquired of staff if the City or Zions Securities Corporation would incur those expenses or a portion thereof. Neither Ms. Giraud nor Ms. Coffey knew the answer. Ms. Coffey said this is the type of informal data that the Commission could request to be submitted by the applicant for the economic hardship review. She also said that the Commission could also request to see the traffic impact study.
Ms. Giraud reminded the Commissioners that they could also request that 65 percent of the permit fee be paid, which would be a very substantial sum, and the proposed use plans be logged with the Permit's Counter before any demolition occurs. A short discussion followed.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved to accept the material as presented. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion.
Mr. Christensen suggested asking the applicant to submit a traffic impact analysis and the required City regulations. He said he believed that information should be part of the economic hardship review. Mr. Young accepted that amendment.
Ms. Rowland talked more about the proposed generated revenue and the operating costs. She then recommended that an updated study on parking demands at the specific location of the theater site in the downtown area, and not just in the broad sense of the downtown area. Mr. Simonsen said he believed that it would be the responsibility of the Economic Review Panel to make that analysis. Ms. Rowland expressed her concern that the panelists might not have a clear knowledge of parking demands in downtown Salt Lake City. Mr. Knight said that there was a parking analysis in the J. Philip Cook study that pointed out that some parking companies were consulted about the average rents of parking spaces. Mr. Rowland inquired if the analysis covered the issue of deficit parking requirements for the current market. Ms. Coffey said that the City just recently completed a parking study that said that there was available parking, but the location of the parking downtown was not convenient. When Ms. Giraud asked if the Historic Landmark Commission wanted to see the additional information before it was submitted to the Economic Review Panel, Mr. Simonsen, in agreement with the members, stated that it could go directly to the panel. After some further discussion regarding these topics, Mr. Young said that he would accept further amendments to his motion.
The discussion turned to other previous cases trying to compare the current request to other requests for economic hardship. Ms. Giraud said that the subject case was a unique situation.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Young moved to accept the material, submitted by Zions Securities Corporation for an economic hardship review, as presented, with the addition of a traffic study showing the financial impact of the proposed parking structure and a current market analysis of parking demands in the vicinity of the proposed parking structure. Further, the additional information should be submitted
directly to the Economic Review Panel. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Protasevich abstained. Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Payne were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Selection of the Historic Landmark Commission's representative for the Economic Review Panel to review the application by Zions Securities Corporation requesting to demolish the rear portion of the Orpheum Theater at 132 South State Street, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse".
Ms. Giraud referred to the memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud said that staff had identified two nominees who were willing to serve on the Economic Review Panel for this case. The following are the two nominees:
Doug Stephens. Mr. Stephens in an accountant by profession. He has worked in public accounting, for private real estate development firms, and as a small business consultant. Recently he has worked as a private accountant and contractor for real estate investors of historic buildings. He is currently renovating five structures on Linden Avenue in the Bryant neighborhood, and has renovated several homes in Park City. He is the chairperson of the Revolving Loan Fund Committee of the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Marian Iwasaki. Ms. Iwasaki is Director, Salt Lake County for the Arts, and has had this position since 1996. She is the general manager of the Rose Wagner and Capitol Theatres, and Abravanal Hall. She oversees the contracts for the arts organizations that use these facilities. She has worked for Salt Lake County for sixteen years.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by saying that he had been involved with some feasibility studies for other communities that are looking at constructing performing arts type venues, he discovered that they are never "money makers", at least the assessment he had seen. He said that discovery adds to some interesting challenges into the economic hardship because there are provisions in communities that help fund those. Mr. Simonsen proposed the name of Robert Springmeyer of Bonneville Research to the Commission as another nominee. He said that Mr. Springmeyer had done several of those kinds of studies and understands the complexities of projects that are not set up as moneymaking ventures. Mr. Simonsen said that he knows of Mr. Springmeyer’s competency and experience in the kind of evaluation that would be required on the Economic Review Panel. Mr. Simonsen also said that Mr. Springmeyer has done consulting work with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency.
• When Mr. Christensen inquired if the Commission could nominate more than one person, Ms. Coffey suggested that an alternative member could be selected. Mr. Christensen talked about the importance of preservation and asked if Mr. Simonsen knew about Mr. Springmeyer's experience in preservation issues. Mr. Christensen asked if he would understand all of the preservation policies and whether he would have the same goals as a representative of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed Mr. Springmeyer would be willing to look at creative ways to bring about historic preservation if it was economically justifiable.
Since the Commission had no further comments, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was a shot discussion about contacting the nominees before the Historic Landmark Commission voted. Ms. Coffey recommended making a motion that included a first choice, as well as an alternative choice and voting on the choices.
Motion:
Ms. Rowland moved to propose the name of Mr. Robert Springmeyer to represent the Historic Landmark Commission to serve on the Economic Review Panel on a volunteer basis, and Mr. Doug Stephens as an alternate member of the panel. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS (Continued) Architectural Subcommittee.
Mr. Knight informed the Commission that there would only be one case to present to the Architectural Subcommittee and inquired who among the members of the subcommittee would be able to attend the meeting on Wednesday, April 25, 2001. Mr. Littig and Mr. Wilson made it known they could attend.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Rowland so moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Littig seconded motion. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:30P.M.