April 21, 2004

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 Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, Janice Lew, and Lex Traughber.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Lee White was excused.

Present ·from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.

Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with 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 Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Kirk Huffaker, Assistant Director of the Utah Heritage Foundation, stated that an application was filed with the Planning Office to determine the contributing or non contributing status of the Holy Cross Hospital Nursing School Building at 1002 E. South Temple, commonly known as the Moreau Medical Building. He pointed out that the owner, lasis health Care, is seeking an official determination of a non-contributing status for the building in order to proceed with demolition. Mr. Huffaker said that the Utah Heritage Foundation has reviewed this application and strongly believes that the building is a contributing element within the South Temple Historic District and may be eligible individually as a significant landmark site. He said that the Moreau Building is currently listed as non-contributing structure within the South Temple district and under the narrowly-written history in the nomination, is considered an intrusion in a residential district. Mr. Huffaker added that the historic preservation has evolved in theory and practice exponentially since this district was listed in 1980 and the current landmark ordinance does not provide a consideration for professional evolution to occur.

Mr. Huffaker continued reading his letter into the minutes, as follows: "The Moreau Medical Building has historical and cultural significance. In fact, we believe the construction of this building marked the beginning of the modern movement on south Temple. This is an extremely important time historically in Salt Lake City, as in the post war expansion of the city. Zoning laws allowed the commercial district to begin moving east from downtown. This part of South Temple's history has not been given the proper consideration since the nomination of this district was completed almost 25 years ago. The trend to build commercial buildings between downtown and the University may have started with this building and it stands to make that occasion.

"Moreau does not have a non-descript architectural character. This is the last of Walter Ware's designs after 60 years in the profession. Ware was one of the most significant architects to ever practice in the state of Utah and he has left an architectural legacy to show that. Moreau shows the progression of Ware's work over his career as he moved into the sleeker or streamlined modern design. However, by the use of traditional Utah materials, the building also represents the fact that the client was sensitive to the context they were building in and preferred an architect with the experience of Ware to execute a good design.

"Not only is this structure significant historically and architecturally, but it is an important part of the streetscape of South Temple Street. Moreau is a defining building on South Temple that provides a compatible streetwall on two facade s that are visible from the street.

"This is a tough project. The hospital's development plan needs to consider the whole block as well as its neighborhood context, for reasons just like the owner considered when they hired Ware and McClenahan in the late 1940s. Building a high-tech hospital on a block that is bounded by three historic districts is a challenge for any owner and architectural team. They need to consider what the reuse will be for Moreau early on in consultation with the neighborhood and larger comrnunity, and any plan to demolish the building should be considered unacceptable.

"This is a specific example of a broader issue that needs to be addressed by the Commission. The ordinance currently does not allow for the periodic re-evaluation of historic buildings as they become potentially eligible because of their age. This is an oversight within the ordinance that will continue to produce conflicts of this nature if not corrected.

"We encourage the Commission and Staff to pursue an ordinance amendment with thoughtful consideration but with expediency. We would like to suggest a few options that could be pursued to start this process." Mr. Huffaker said that he would forward these options in a letter to the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Staff.

Mr. Huffaker continued by saying, "This is an important issue to the Utah Heritage Foundation and should be for the city. As always, we are here to assist in finding solutions for the broader issues at hand, but also for protecting our landmark buildings like the Moreau Medical Building." A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes.

Mr. Parvaz clarified that Mr. Huffaker was only talking about one building and Mr. Huffaker said that was correct.

Mr. Simonsen said that he believed this was an important topic and one that the Historic Landmark Commission should address very soon.

Ms. Esther Hunter, chair of the University Neighborhood Organization, and chair of the subcommittee related to the hospital's expansion, stated that the subcommittee is a task force in place. She said that the lasis Health Care Corporation is headquartered in Tennessee, and it was the official's intent to create a state of the art hospital. Ms. Hunter said that intent included the demolition of the Moreau Medical Building, which is significant to the neighborhood, as well as the east wing of the old Holy Cross Hospital, which faces 1100 East Street. She said that some of the discussions related to replacing things with surface parking that would either face the historic neighborhood on 1100 East or the historic neighborhood of South Temple. Ms. Hunter indicated, as was mentioned, only one side is actually in the South Temple Historic District, two additional sides face the University Historic District. She stated that the subcommittee supports the hospital's intent to remain viable, however the subcommittee also realizes that this is a difficult thing to do within a residential neighborhood especially when the expansion has to be contained into one block. Ms. Hunter pointed out that it was a learning experience when the LOS Hospital was executing the plans for expansion in the Avenues.

Ms. Hunter said that the Moreau Building is a significant building because of all of those items, which were already stated. She said that she would like to add the neighborhood's support for the preservation of the Moreau Building.

Ms. Hunter stated, 'We also are concerned about the impact on the existing clinics and medical offices that are in our neighborhood, of which many of them stand vacant." She pointed out the high vacancy rate and the impact of constructing additional medical facilities in that same neighborhood especially since the medical clinics that are there now have conditional use permits which means that they have to be used for medical purposes.

Ms. Hunter also said that the neighborhood is concerned about design compatibility of any building the hospital might be replacing, especially with the incredible importance of the east wing of the hospital and the Moreau Building. She said that the subcommittee had reviewed some of the schemes on which the hospital has been working. However, Ms. Hunter pointed out that it has been difficult trying to get information on all the plans, including the possibility of glass buildings, which would not be compatible with neighborhood. She added that the subcommittee has expressed concern about the streetscape.

Ms. Hunter continued by saying that the subcommittee would like to work with the hospital officials. She indicated that any help the Historic Landmark Commission could render related to this issue would be appreciated.

Ms. Hunter concluded by saying that many people remember the historic rose garden which was also referred to as the nun's garden that was once half a block long on South Temple. She said that the subcommittee would like to see some of landscape brought back. Ms. Hunter said that the subcommittee is trying to work with the hospital to get some of these things implemented in a way that is possible. She thanked everyone for their time and support.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission appreciated the concern and efforts of the neighborhood to keep the members aware of these issues.

As there were no additional remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Doug Wheelwright introduced Mr. Orion Goff, the new Director of Salt Lake City's Building Services. He invited Mr. Goff to join the Commission at the table to talk a little about his background and what brought him to Salt Lake City.

Mr. Goff stated that he joined Salt Lake City Corporation on March 8, 2004 to fill the position of Director of Building Services and Business Licensing. He said that he was in Mesa, Arizona, about 13 years and his most recent position was as the building official. He mentioned his visit with Ms. Giraud and some other people and had the opportunity to discuss some issues that concerned this board. Mr. Goff stated that he was very sensitive to historic preservation. He said, 'When I ride my bicycle through the Avenues after coming down out of the hills, my head is going back and forth looking at the beautiful buildings. In Mesa we are lucky to have any building older than the 1930s. In the City of Mesa proper there are 500, 000 people but the downtown area is very small so there are very few buildings there that have such significance as what we have here." Mr. Goff said that he originally was from the Sugar House area of Salt Lake City.

Mr. Goff pointed out that in Arizona it is "home rule'' so each jurisdiction adopts its own codes, whereas here the State of Utah adopts all building codes, making decisions and forcing technical codes on the jurisdiction with an additional caveat that they can either be more or less restrictive.

Mr. Goff said that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Fitzsimmons welcomed him back to Utah. Mr. Goff thanked everyone and invited anyone to call him if there are any issues involved with the building codes. He said that the building official is given quite a few "gray" areas, which gives him room to negotiate. Mr. Goff said that he wanted to make certain that he was sensitive to the issues with which the Commission was dealing.

Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Goff for taking on this assignment, "especially those of us who are architects". He mentioned his longtime relationship with Mr. Goff's predecessor and said that he was looking forward to getting to know him. Mr. Goff said that he finally met Roger Evans the other day and that he has heard nothing but great things about him. Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Goff for taking time to attend this meeting.

REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR

Mr. Wheelwright excused Mr. Zunguze for not attending the meeting. He said that Mr. Zunguze was leaving Thursday to attend the American Planning Association (APA) Conference in Washington DC and was making preparations for his trip.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve the minutes of the March 17, 2004 meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Rowland abstained. Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 003-04. at 1257 East 100 South. by Harold R. Cannon and Teresa M. Jordan. represented by David Richardson of Capitol Hill Architecture and Construction. requesting to build a 400-sguare foot addition to an existing 300-square foot garage located in the University Historic District.

Mr. Simonsen recognized that the Commission had not met Mr. Traughber before and welcomed him to the meeting. [Mr. Traughber attended this meeting as part of the Planning Office reorganization, giving all the planners more opportunity to expand their knowledge in preservation policies.]

Mr. Traughber presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Mr. Traughber gave an overview of the project: This is a request to build a 400-square foot addition to an existing 300-square foot detached garage. Mr. David Richardson, of Capitol Hill Architecture and Construction submitted the request on behalf of the property owners, Harold R. Cannon and Teresa M. Jordan, Trustees. The primary structure on this property is a single-farnily family resident, zoned R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential District).

Records indicate that Albert S. Erickson, a Salt Lake City businessman, built the home on this property in 1909 as a speculative house. Bernard 0. Mecklenberg, who was a prominent local architect at that time, designed the home. The original owners were David and Alice G. Smith who lived at this location from 1910 to 1929.

The style of the house is a craftsman bungalow with significant architectural features including a broad gabled roof running parallel to the street, a centered gabled dormer with doorway and porch, a half timbered exterior on the dormer and gable ends, a brick exterior on the first story, a recessed full-length front porch with squared columns on rough stone posts, a rough stone foundation, and mission modern-style leaded windows. The building's historical significance is due to its architecture.

There is no record of any previous project reviews by the Historic Landmark Commission for this property.

Based on the policies adopted in 2000 by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals, this request has been referred to the full Commission because the finished garage (accessory building) will be in excess of 600 square feet total, and the footprint of the addition is in excess of 50 percent of the existing garage footprint.

Mr. Traughber referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

Staffs findings of fact: The proposed garage addition will not alter the historic purpose or use of the property, and further is a minimal change to the defining characteristic of the existing building, site, and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Staffs findings of fact: The garage addition will have little, if any, effect upon the historic character of the property. There will be no removal of historic materials nor will there be any alteration of features or spaces that characterize the property as historic.

3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.

Staffs findings of fact: The proposed garage addition was designed to be consistent with and complimentary to the existing garage and residence, yet at the same time remaining independent. The proposed alteration will not create a false sense of history or architecture.

4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserve.

Staffs discussion: This criterion is not applicable in this case.

5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

Staff's discussion: There is no plan presented to significantly alter any exposed portion of the existing garage. This is a request to add an addition to the existing garage.

Staff's findings of fact: No distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property will be disturbed.

6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or object.

Staff's discussion: This criterion is not applicable in this case because there is no proposal to repair or replace deteriorated architectural features.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

Staff's discussion: This criterion is not applicable in this case.

8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.

Staff's discussion: The design of the garage addition is compatible in terms of the size and scale of the existing garage structure. The primary material chosen for the garage addition is stucco. The existing garage is made of brick. The residence is a combination of brick, timber, rough stone, and stucco. Planning Staff recommends that the new addition be made of materials that are consistent with those existing. If the addition is to be primarily stucco, it should be consistent with the texture of and painted a similar color to the stucco on the house, in order to insure that the mix of materials does not detract from the historical and architectural integrity of the house and the property as a whole.

Staff's findings of fact: The proposed addition will not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and is compatible in terms of size, scale, materials, and character.

9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Staff's findings of fact: The proposed addition was designed in such a manner that if it were built and then subsequently removed for some reason, the essential form and integrity of the original garage could remain intact. The addition shall be differentiated from the original due to the proposed exterior material (stucco versus brick) and is compatible in terms of massing, size, scale, and architectural features.

10. Certain building materials are prohibited including a) vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and b) any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or material.

Staff's findings of fact: The chosen exterior materials as presented by the applicant are appropriate, however as mentioned previously, every effort should be made to coordinate the materials and colors of the addition with the materials and colors of the existing garage and residence.

11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined n Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46 of this title.

Staff's discussion: This criterion is not applicable in this case.

12.Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and

City Council.

Staff's discussion: Planning Staff is unaware of additional design standards not already discussed in this staff report.

The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address accessory buildings in Section 9:

9.1 Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. When treating a historic accessory building, respect its character defining features such as primary materials, roof materials, roof form, historic windows, historic doors, and architectural details. Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.

Staff's discussion: The stucco for the addition should be similar to the stucco on the primary residence as noted. The roof form, doors, and architectural details (molding) chosen respect the character defining features of the existing buildings on the property.

Staff's findings of fact: The building materials chosen, the roof form, doors and windows presented by the applicant respect the character defining features of the existing buildings on site.

9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roof/ine does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for soffits. In the case of a two-car garage two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.

Staff's findings of fact: The proposed garage addition will be virtually unnoticed from the street and in no way will compete visually with the house. The roofline does not match that of the house but is consistent with the existing garage. The double garage door in this instance is appropriate, as it generally will not be seen from the street. In addition, the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Staff have approved numerous double garage doors in an effort to make properties in the historic districts adaptable to contemporary use.

9.3 Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were cited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Staff's finding of fact: Consistent with this design criteria, as shown on the site plan, the existing garage and the proposed addition are located behind the residence at the rear of the lot.

The primary purpose for this review is for design and aesthetic reasons in order to insure that the proposed development reinforces the character of established historic districts. In terms of zoning the applicant shall be required to meet all zoning regulations for an accessory structure in an R-2 zone at the time of application for a building permit. Planning staff notes that it appears that the garage will meet zoning requirements given the proposed site plan.

Mr. Traughber offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application based upon the findings as noted in this staff report, demonstrating that the proposal substantially complies with the applicable standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, subject to the following conditions:

1. Additional detail regarding the garage door and entry doors shall be submitted to Planning Staff prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Planning Staff shall be delegated final approval authority for all doors.

2. Subsequent to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant shall meet all zoning requirements and obtain a building permit for the garage addition. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City department requirements, Planning Staff shall remand the proposal back to the Historic Landmark Commission for final review."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff.

Mr. Parvaz stated that the drawings showed the proposed use of an overhead garage door, and not single garage doors. He said that the issue needs to be considered. Mr. Traughber pointed out that was the reason why Staff made it a condition in the recommendation. Mr. Simonsen suggested that the question be directed to the applicant.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. David Richardson, architect with Capitol Hill Architecture and Construction, representing the owners of the property, was present. Mr. Richardson said that the staff report was exceptionally well written. He said that was the best $50.00 he had ever spent. Mr. Simonsen said, "We have the best Staff in the area."

Mr. Richardson said that the applicants were proposing an overhead sectional door which appears to look like a carriage house door. He said that he had used this style on several other garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Richardson did not know if the owner could afford that kind of garage door because they are several thousand dollars versus several hundred dollars.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by inquiring about the existing metal door. Mr. Richardson said that the metal door will be removed and replaced by a door that would match. Mr. Christensen asked if the double window opening on the east wall would connect the old garage to the new. Mr. Richardson said that he did not know the answer to that question.

• Mr. Simonsen asked if there was an alternative plan proposed for the garage door if there was a cost factor. Mr. Richardson said it would be something that would match the metal door on the existing garage. Mr. Richardson said that the man door would look similar to the drawing, made from recycled material or a pre-hung fiberglass door that looks like wood. Mr. Simonsen received a clarification from Staff that the fence would be subject to guideline approval and are usually approved administratively.

• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the applicant was seeking approval on the improvements on the site. Mr. Richardson said that the application was only for the garage addition.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.

The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

Mr. Albert Funk, who resides next door to the subject property, stated that he was pleased that the owners are making improvements to the property. Mr. Funk said that he supported the project because it would provide parking in the backyard and not on the street.

Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, 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 said that the stucco is shown on the drawings as a patterned stucco and inquired if that would be a successful application for an historic district. Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone wanted to clarify that.

Ms. Mickelsen said that the stucco should match the house.

Mr. Knight pointed out that the findings specified in the ordinance that every effort should be made to coordinate the materials and colors of the addition with the materials and colors of the existing garage or residence. He said that Staff recornmended that the project complies with the standards. Mr. Traughber said that there is stucco on the house between the wood trim.

Ms. Giraud said that garages traditionally in historic district do not have to exactly match the house. She said that garages usually have a more utilitarian look to them. Ms. Giraud stated that Staff was in a quandary about how carefully the proposed addition should match and what was decided was the fact that there is a variety of materials on the house and existing garage, so the change of materials would be a way of differentiating the older section of the garage from the new portion. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out the height difference as well.

Mr. Simonsen said that outbuildings, typically, are more utilitarian and less decorative or ornamented so in his opinion a very simple stucco texture would be more appropriate. He added that something not heavily textured would be more appropriate and consistent with the guidelines.

Mr. Simonsen said if there was no further discussion, he would entertain a motion at any time.

Motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved in Case No. 003-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the application as presented based on the Staff's findings of fact and the recommendation included in the staff report with the conditions as specified under the recommendations by Staff. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion.

After a short discussion, Mr. Ashdown restated his motion. Restated motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved in Case No. 003-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approves the application as presented based on the Staff's findings of fact and the recommendation included in the staff report with the conditions as specified under the recommendations by Staff. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Briefing and update on revisions to the conceptual plan for the Madeleine Choir School at 205 East First Avenue represented by Max Smith of MJSA Architects. The Madeleine Choir School Choir School is located in the Avenues Historic District and also listed individually as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.

Ms. Giraud said that there are two separate plans to look at for the Madeleine Choir School property. She said that the applicant expressed some concerns that the proposal of the new updated master plan would effect how the Commission reviewed the changes to Erbin Hall. Ms. Giraud indicated that some things might change on the master plan but she believed it was important that the Commission has an understanding what the applicant is proposing. She mentioned that there are some significant changes from the previously approved master plan when another architectural firm presented the plans. Mr. Parvaz clarified that this was not a case and no action would be taken on the master plan update. Ms. Giraud said that was correct; the review is for information only.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission took action of the previous master plan proposal. He inquired if there were substantive differences on the new plan, should the Commission take action on the overall plan before it acts on an individual project application. Ms. Giraud responded by saying that action on the master plan was not necessary at this time. Mr. Simonsen suggested making that determination after the master plan and the project is reviewed. Mr. Knight said that the drawings at this point do not show the level of details that the Commission would require and there were no elevation drawings supplied for the potential new buildings or additions other than the case that will be reviewed at this meeting.

Mr. Simonsen disclosed the fact that at one time his architectural firm was a competitor for the project and he did not know if that should be considered in terms of a conflict of interest. He added that he obviously was not working on the project and as Chair he is not allowed to vote unless there is a need to break a tie. Ms. Heid said that in her mind there would be no problem. The mernbers of the Commission seemed to believe that the disclosure did not constitute a conflict of interest.

Ms. Rowland disclosed the fact that her company was a tenant of the Madeleine Choir School and that her son was a student at the School. She declared a conflict of interest, excused herself, and left the room for the remainder of the meeting.

Mr. Knight presented his memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. The following is an overview of the project: The Madeleine Choir School presented an update on revisions to the long-range plan for their campus at 205 E. First Avenue. The campus formerly housed Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, which moved to their new site on Guardsman Way in November 2002. The campus includes five buildings, four of which are at least fifty years old and are considered contributing structures in the Avenues Historic District. The campus is also individually listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The zoning for this block is I-Institutional Zoning District.

The Historic Landmark Commission gave conceptual approval to the Madeleine Choir School's conceptual development plan as its June 18, 2003 meeting. Since that time, a new architect for the school, MJSA Architects, has been selected for the project, and the plan has been further defined. Several elements of the previously reviewed plan have been revised.

The applicants have modified their plan and now propose a long-range plan for campus development, as shown on the attached drawings. The plan is intended to be visionary in scope, and further detail will be provided as funding becomes available for individual projects to be implemented. Please note that the names of the buildings have changed since Staff's previous staff reports were prepared. Staff is using the new building names.

SHORT-TERM PROJECTS:

Jacquelyn M. Erbin Hall: Changes to this building will be considered as part of Case No. 004-04, at this meeting.

LONG-TERM PROJECTS:

Other projects proposed within the long-range plan are very conceptual in nature. The Madeleine Choir School does not anticipate constructing these projects for some time. The design of these buildings is not being reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission at this time. These projects would be individually designed and separately reviewed by the City and the Historic Landmark Commission as funds are raised. Changes from the previously approved plan include:

New Gymnasium: The school's previous plan proposed demolishing McCarthey Hall on the southwest corner of the site and constructing a new gymnasium and performance hall at the location. Further study has led the school to propose leaving McCarthey Hall in place and constructing a new gymnasium on the current open space east of Erbin Hall. The gymnasium would be constructed of painted brick, and would be similar in height to the main portion of Erbin Hall.

Additions to McCarthey Hall: Jane McCarthey Hall would be retained and renovated. Additions to the east and west sides of the building are included in the plan. No details of the additions have been supplied beyond the possible footprints of the addition. It is assumed that the massing of the addition would be similar to that of the current building.

Construction of underground parking: The school and its architects are exploring the possibility of creating underground parking beneath the main quad of the campus. The parking would accommodate approximately forty-six vehicles. Vehicular access would be off of First Avenue, between McCarthey Hall and Saint Gregory Hall. The existing quad would be rebuilt over the new structure, and the existing system of axes and formal walkways would be maintained. Ramps and stairs would provide access to the parking level from the quad. The ramps and stairs would be located at the east end of the quad near Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Hall, and at the west end of the quad adjacent to "A" Street. A circular driveway, providing space for drop-off and pick-up of students is also proposed at this location. A third entry/exit would be through the proposed elevator tower adjacent to Erbin Hall. The design of the elements is only a prelirninary concept at this point; details would be fully explored and fleshed out at a later date, with the expectation of input from neighbors, the community, the Historic Landmark Commission, Planning, and other relevant City Staff.

At this point, the school is not seeking approval for the changes to its conceptual plan; the architects are providing an update on the evolving design and wish to obtain input from the members of the Commission. It is not appropriate to fully evaluate the proposed buildings at this stage in the process, since basic design matters have yet to be resolved.

Staff recommends that the Commission identify any design issues with the Madeleine Choir School's revised conceptual development plan. Any sticking points or needed re·finements may be referred to the Architectural Committee. Staff noted that the Committee has been useful throughout the School's planning process. Individual projects will then be reviewed through a separate process as funds are raised and the designs are further developed.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Max Smith of MJSA Architects, representing the Madeleine Choir School, was present. He used a briefing board to further den1onstrate the proposed master plan. Mr. Smith said that several changes were being presented from the previously approved master plan. He said that demolition of a building and rebuilding that space was economically unwise. Mr. Smith stated that further study determined that the gymnasium could be accommodated by trimming the program back such as the size. Mr. Smith described the other revisions to the previously approved master plan such as the dream of parking underneath the quad, with very little sloping due to the topography of the site; the scale and massing of the new gymnasium and the impact it would have on "B" Street and the three historic houses by lowering the building into ground almost fifteen feet; the drop-off and pick-up area for students; the chapel; the farmhouse; the circulation tower stair/elevator; interior site plan; incorporating more glass in the new additions; changes to Erbin Hall; and additions to McCarthey Hall.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by commenting about how the new plan differed from the plan for the campus that the Historic Landmark Commission previously reviewed and noted that the Commission had emphasized the existing site features and axes formed by the layout of the existing buildings. He expressed his concern that the master plan proposal kept changing. Mr. Smith said that was why the decision on the next case was critically important. A short discussion followed.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicants and the Commission would not be taking any action on this item, Mr. Simonsen said that there would not be a public hearing. He thanked Mr. Smith for his presentation.

(Mr. Ashdown had previously announced that he had to leave early so he excused himself and left the meeting at 4:57P.M.)

Case No. 004-04. at 205 E. First Avenue. by the Madeleine Choir School. represented by Max Smith and Christiana Phillips of MJSA Architects. requesting to alter the east side of the Jacquelyn M. Erbin Hall to accommodate a stair/elevator structure. exterior play area. and kitchen storage area. The Madeleine Choir School Choir School is located in the Avenues Historic District and also listed individually as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: The Madeleine Choir School is requesting approval for alterations to Jacquelyn Erbin Hall, the main building on campus. The alterations are primarily to the east side of the building, and include construction of a stair-elevator tower (with a bell tower at the top), an exterior play area for the kindergarten and first grade classrooms, and a kitchen storage addition. The campus is located within the Avenues Historic District, and is also individually listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The zoning for this block is !-Institutional Zoning District.

Jacqueline M. Erbin Hall was constructed in several phases as the main building by Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, the longtime owners of the Madeleine Choir School campus. The main building consists of the original Watts-Haskins farmhouse, which was expanded by a series of later additions.

The first two levels of the Watt-Haskins house (hereafter referred to as "the farmhouse") are used for offices and classrooms, and the former dormitories on the third floor are used for storage. It was built in 1862 as a two-story building with a gable roof. About 1871, the farmhouse was enlarged and remodeled in a Georgian style with a truncated hip roof.

When the farmhouse became the home of Rowland Hall School for Girls in 1880, a mansard roof with dormers was added as a third story of the building. In 1899 a dormitory wing was added to the rear (north side) of the house, which imitated the mansard roof of the farmhouse. This dormitory wing was demolished in 1985 and a new classroom addition (hereafter referred to as "the 1985 addition" was constructed in its place along "A" Street and Second Avenue. The addition was reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission.

A large wing housing a library, gymnasium, and classrooms was constructed east of the house in 1907. (Hereafter, this staff report will refer to this addition as "the library"). It has a south front stylistically similar to the farmhouse, with a mansard roof and dormers. The north portion of the addition is a simpler, three story structure with a series of rectangular, double-hung windows.

A narrow chapel addition is set between the farmhouse and the library wings, forming a three sided courtyard that serves as the main entrance to the building. It was constructed in 1910.

The School has presented several possible renovation scenarios for this building since they purchased the campus from Rowland Hall. The Commission approved a conceptual plan on June 18, 2003 that proposed removal of the north portion of the library wing and construction of a new, expanded classroom.

Since that meeting, the School has engaged new architects, MJSA Architects, and has modified the proposal.

The applicants now propose retaining the majority of the historic fabric of the building. The farmhouse will be restored and converted into offices, meeting rooms, a workroom, and a faculty lounge/lunchroom. The farmhouse's third floor, which was once dormitory rooms, will remain un-renovated due to access and code issues. The chapel will also be restored and modified on the interior to reflect the Catholic liturgy. (Rowland Hall was associated with the Episcopal Church). The 1985 addition will be renovated, and its large multi-family purpose space converted into classroom space. The library will be converted into the "Song School", and the former gym on the first floor of the library will be converted into a new library.

The three-story north portion of the library addition that was previously proposed for removal will be retained and renovated into a "great Hall" common space, classrooms, and music rehearsal rooms. The interior atrium will be retained and opened to supply light into the basement level. The applicants propose exposing the east wall of the addition below ground level, and adding a play area to the east side of the building for use by the kindergarten and first grade classrooms. The third floor of the library, which has been unused for many years due to safety issues, will be renovated and re-opened as an art classroom. The building's main stairway will also be retained.

In order to provide an elevator and stairs that meet code, particularly to the third floor, the School and the architects propose construction of a elevator/stair tower addition on the east side of the building. The tower would be freestanding, with narrow, windowed connections at each floor level. The tower would rise a total of ·fifty-nine feet about the existing grade, and would be topped with a bell tower. The tower would rise approximately twelve feet higher than the peak of the existing chapel.

Maximum, height for a building in the !-Institutional zone is thirty-five feet. Elevator towers may project an additional fifteen feet above the maximum building height. In addition, steeples may exceed the height limit, with no limit placed on their maximum height.

The proposed addition would be constructed of painted brick to match the existing structure, with wood trim, wood windows, and an asphalt single roof. Further details, such as details regarding specific window types and profiles, have not been determined at this stage in the design process.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:

1. A properly shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

Staff's finding of fact: The building will remain in use as an elementary school. The application complies with this standard.

2. The historic character of a properly shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a properly shall be avoided.

Staff's discussion: The proposed renovation will retain almost all of the existing exterior features. Under a previous proposal, the north portion of the library wing would have been demolished and a new addition constructed in its place. In this proposal, the wing would be retained and renovated. Other important elements elsewhere on the building will remain. Existing architectural details, such as the roofline, cornices, and fenestration pattern will be retained. Existing window openings on the east side of the building would be enlarged into doorways into the new additions. However, Staff is of the opinion that these modifications will not significantly affect the character of the building, because the pattern and rhythm of the openings will be preserved, and most of the opening will remain.

In addition, although the Historic Landmark Commission's purview does not extend to interior elements, it is worth noting that important features on the interior of the building will be preserved. These include the farmhouse interior and room layout, library and chapel interior features, the main staircase, and central atrium.

Staff's finding of fact: The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. A minimal amount of historic elements, such as the window openings on the east side, will be altered in order to accommodate the proposed addition. The application complies with this standard.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed addition will be distinguishable from the historic portion of the building and does not seek to create a false sense of history or architecture. The application complies with this standard.

4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

Staff's finding of fact: Erbin Hall is composed of a series of additions built during the historic period. The character-defining features of each portion of the building will be preserved in this project. The application complies with this standard.

5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

Staff's finding of fact: As previously noted, the major character-defining features of the exterior and interior will be preserved. The application complies with this standard.

Staff's discussion: The School intends to save as many existing architectural features and building fabric as possible. The proposed design has not reached the level of detail at which specific elements that need to be repaired or replaced have been determined. Staff will monitor this process as part of the approval of permit drawings, and refer the application back to the Commission if any issues arise.

Staff's finding of fact: Insofar as can be determined at this time, the application complies with this standard.

Staff's finding of fact: No damaging surface treatments are proposed. The application complies with this standard.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed addition is discernible as a product of its own time, but would use similar materials, proportions, and details to ensure compatibility with the property. No significant cultural, historic, architectural, or archaeological material would be destroyed by the proposed work. The application complies with this standard.

Staff's discussion: The proposed addition is clearly differentiated from the historic portions of the building. If the addition were to be removed at some point in the future the building could be returned to its former appearance with few external modifications. The additions are also clearly subordinate in size and massing to the original portions

of the building. The height of the tower is dictated largely by the mechanical requirements of the elevator, but Staff is of the opinion that the addition height proposed to enable installation of a bell tower is compatible with the function of the School as a religious institution. Although approximately twelve foot taller than the existing chapel roof, the bell tower will use the same roof slope as the chapel and will be set back further from Second Avenue thus minimizing any impact of the additional height on the surrounding neighborhood. Overall, the addition would use similar proportions, windows, materials, and details to ensure compatibility with the historic structure.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

10.Certain building materials are prohibited including a) vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and b) any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or material.

Staff's finding of fact: No vinyl, aluminum cladding, or imitation siding materials are proposed. The application complies with this standard.

11.Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined n Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46 of this title.

Staff's finding of fact: No additional signage is proposed for the building at this time. Historic Landmark Commission and/or Planning Staff will review any future proposals for signage, and such signs must be consistent with the character of the building and meet standards in Chapter 21A.46. The application complies with this standard.

12.Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and

City Council.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City primarily address residential structures, and for this reason, Staff chose not to include discussion of specific guidelines within the text of this report. However, it is Staff's opinion that the proposed project meets the intent of the design guidelines, as well as any applicable specific standards.

Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Staff recommended approval of the project. Staff further recommended that discussion regarding design details be delegated to the Architectural Committee, and upon the Committee's recommendation, that final approval be delegated to Staff."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Max Smith and Ms. Christiana Phillips of MJSA Architects, representing the Madeleine Choir School, were present. Mr. Smith and Ms. Phillips used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project to alter the east side of Erbin Hall to accommodate a stair/elevator structure, exterior play area, and kitchen storage area. Mr. Smith stated that the Madeleine Choir School gave their firm the challenge of trying to work within the volume of existing space with the greatest degree possible. He said that, together, with their superb cooperation they have been brainstorming and taking the building apart and putting it back together again in their minds. Mr. Smith added that this space could not be lost. He alluded to the two-story multipurpose room which was built in the 1985 classroom addition. Mr. Smith said that the officials believed that saving historic buildings was important and that was a "big break through" from the previous scheme which called for demolition. He said that it was discovered that the top floor had immense exiting problems. Mr. Smith added that they quickly arrived at the conclusion that a circulation tower was needed. He talked about the proposed one-story addition which would become the service court for the entire build out facility, the interior of the building, including bringing back the atrium that was once in the building, and other elements of the project. Ms. Phillips pointed out the old library space when the campus belonged to Rowland Hall. Mr. Smith said that they are intending to excavate out down to the basement level on the east side of Erbin Hall. He indicated that a balcony is proposed with the lower level enclosed which would add a little more space. Mr. Smith and Ms. Phillips presented several renderings of the proposed project, including the interior space.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring if the bell tower would be connected to the gymnasium. Mr. Smith responded by saying that, as envisioned in the campus master plan, the tower would be connected to the gymnasium, but that the design of the connection was only conceptual at this point. Mr. Parvaz also talked about other elements of the project asking questions and making comments. Mr. Parvaz asked for additional detail on the new basement windows and doors which connect the kindergarten classroom and the outdoor play space. Mr. Parvaz also inquired about the detailing on the one-story addition that would house the service space. Mr. Smith said that they had added similar windows on the north wall of the space as the existing wall of the building on the Second Avenue frontage, and that they would not be arched.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the existing bell was a functioning bell in the tower. Mr. Smith said that it was what they had initially proposed. He added that they decided that a bell tower would compete visually with roofline of the chapel, and that the design of the tower had been changed to house a clock. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed clock tower would be over the allowable height by about four or five feet, so a conditional use would be required. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission might want to address the issue of a conditional use in the motion. Ms. Giraud said that the City's Zoning Administrator is currently reviewing the height issue. Mr. Parvaz asked if the tower could be constructed without requiring a conditional use for the additional height. Mr. Smith said that they could construct it within the allowable height, but that would not allow the eave of the tower to tie into the eave of the existing building. He added that they thought by tying that eave right there into the existing eave was a critical architectural thing. He continued by saying that with a lower height, they could accommodate the height and still exit out of that area but it seemed to them that the tower would be a more logical way of handling the circulation. Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if most of the tower was needed for the elevator. Mr. Smith indicated that the tower would be higher than what was technically needed. Mr. Simonsen said he believed if the height was lowered, it probably would cramp the different routes. He thought it was proportionately very comparable. A short discussion took place regarding the changes in the various elements on the proposed plans. Mr. Smith talked about cleaning out the area where the garbage enclosure was located. Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the applicants plan to start this project right away. Mr. Srnith said that the project would be started when a new master plan is approved. He added that the School is raising the money.

• Mr. Simonsen inquired about the existing parking lot. Mr. Smith said that it would get at least half the parking off the street, which would be helpful for Second Avenue.

• Mr. Christensen stated that he noticed the applicants plan to use brick which will be painted, along with wood windows, and other elements that will match the existing buildings on the campus. He said that it seemed clear that the future look of the campus would be buildings painted gray. Mr. Christensen stated that he realized that people's tastes change, and that the applicant might conceivably, in the future, want to strip the paint off the brick surfaces. He added that in today's cost saving construction climate when brick is proposed to be painted it usually is for the reason that the purchased bricks are mismatched which reduces the cost of the materials. Mr. Christensen said that it would be nice if the brick color could be a consistent color even if it will be painted. Mr. Smith said that there has been very little discussion regarding that issue. Mr. Christensen pointed out the fear of stripping part of the paint off a building and discovering that a total different color of brick was used in the original construction. Mr. Smith pointed out a classic example of that happening to an historic building. A short discussion took place regarding the point where the buildings on the campus were painted. Mr. Smith mentioned that the 1985 addition was built from a CMU (concrete masonry unit) product. He added that paint would be the element that would unify the buildings. Mr. Christensen said that painted brick can sometimes be problematic because spallling occurs. He continued by saying that having a uniform color of brick would give the owners more option in the future.

• Mr. Parvaz asked if this proposal included the site for the drop-off and pick-up location. Mr. Smith said that it did not, that the proposed location would be included in the master plan. He added that there is no other proposed site work other than the excavation on the east side of the building for the sunken courtyard. Mr. Parvaz talked about the changes in the master plan. Mr. Simonsen said that the massing of the buildings seem to be consistent. He said that the previous master plan included demolition of most of that east side of Erbin Hall. Ms. Giraud said that it also extended further out to the east. She mentioned that if they went back to the old master plan, they could still do that because this is actually the smaller footprint of what was reviewed previously, which Staff thought of as positive. Mr. Simonsen said if he understood this project correctly, there would be no substantive demolition of the existing wing on the Erbin Hall other than connections to the new stair tower. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Parvaz again expressed his concern regarding all the different proposals and changes being made to the master plan. He added that he hoped the current proposal would be successful. Mr. Smith said that it looked very positive. Mr. Smith stated that the subject property was an amazing piece of real estate "is being reborn and a very exciting thing". Mr. Parvaz agreed that the site is a very exceptional piece of property. He again talked about some of the changes. The discussion continued regarding the design elements, such as the windows and the arch patterns, and other facets of the proposal. Mr. Simonsen complimented the applicant on the beautiful renderings.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, 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 further about the exterior brick. He thought that the brick should be consistent in color. Mr. Simonsen said that it may or may not be appropriate to match the brick. He said there are other historic buildings that have had additions overtime which have different colors of brick. He pointed out at that the Tenth Ward has different brick colors, which tends to establish the different era of additions or elements. Mr. Simonsen cautioned the members to be careful about things outside the Commission's purview. Mr. Christensen said he was aware that the Commission does not specify paint color; however the Commission can specify wall material and in this case is brick. Mr. Simonsen clarified that Mr. Christensen was not attempting to dictate color but recommending consistency in selecting the brick color. Mr. Christensen said that was correct, so there would not be several colors of brick on one wall. The discussion continued regarding the materials.

Motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 004-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the plan as presented, based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, which were included in the staff report, and the additional information presented at this meeting. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission supports the applicant's efforts to pursue a conditional use permit to accommodate the increased height of the tower. Ms. Heid seconded the motion.

Mr. Simonsen said that that he was not clear what the Architectural Committee would be reviewing. He suggested giving the applicants enough information so they know what was expected at the Committee meeting.

After some discussion, Mr. Christensen amended his motion. Amended motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 004-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the plans as presented, based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, which were included in the staff report, and the additional information presented at this meeting. The Historic Landmark Commission 'further recommends that the discussion regarding the design details of the project be delegated to the Architectural Committee which would include the following: 1) the windows, ensuring that they would be sympathetic to the historic buildings; 2) details and design of the tower; 3) the roof and roofing materials; 4) the eaves; 5) the cornices; 6) the soffits and fascia; 7) the scale and massing of the roof; 8) the roof pitch; 9) the balcony; 10) the balustrade; 11) the specified materials; 12) the connecting doors; and 13) details on the new service building making sure that the details of the project protect the historical character of the campus. Upon the Committee's recommendation, the final approval is to be delegated to Staff. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission support the applicant's efforts to pursue a conditional use permit to accommodate the increased height of the tower. Ms. Heid's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Legislative Intent.

Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Knight was able to transmit the Legislative Intent document out of the Planning Office and into the executive Mayor's office, Mr. Rocky Fluhart. Mr. Simonsen said that he hoped it would not sit on Mr. Fluhart's desk very long. He thanked the Staff for the work that has been and the effort to move the document along.

Mr. Wheelwright said the Mr. Zunguze said that once it is out of Mr. Fluhart's office then Staff will make copies to be circulated to all the members of the Commission.

National Volunteer Recognition Week.

Ms. Giraud announced that this week was National Volunteer Recognition Week and on behalf of the Mayor, issued a certificate of appreciation to each member of the Commission in recognition of the service each one renders to the Historic Landmark Commission and to the city.

The Rules of Procedure.

A copy of the final Rules of Procedure was provided to each member of the Commission. Ms. Giraud said that all of the changes had been made and that a copy was included as an appendix to the Legislative Intent document.

(At 5:44 P.M., Ms. Heid excused herself and left the meeting.)

The Moreau Medical Building and the hospital expansion.

There was some additional discussion on the Moreau Medical Building. Mr. Knight said that this was a very complicated project because there is a portion of the block that is located in an historic district and a portion that is not. Ms. Mickelsen inquired if it could be reclassified. Ms. Giraud pointed out that she was working on a memorandum to be given to Mr. Zunguze. Ms. Giraud indicated that Staff received information from the hospital group, which included an interpretation of the contributing or non-contributing status of the building.

It was a consensus of the Commission members to add their support to preserve the Moreau Medical Building. It was mentioned that the letter from the Utah Heritage Foundation would be presented to Mr. Zunguze.

Ms. Giraud stated that all the early reconnaissance surveys needed to be updated, because many buildings are approaching the 50-year mark, which would make many of them eligible for a contributing status. She said that a request for funding to update the surveys was included in the Legislative Intent.

Ms. Giraud said that there has been a problem with the lack of City funding for historic preservation. She said that the CLG (Certified Local Government) money was used to assist other areas in the city to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places so the property owners could be eligible to receive tax credits.

Ms. Giraud talked more about the need for updated reconnaissance surveys and that led to further discussion of the various issues mentioned earlier in these minutes.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:05P.M.