SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 326
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Pete Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, Nelson Knight, and Sean Randall.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen, Alex Protasevich, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Sean Randall, Intern.
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. He said that instructions for the appeal's 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 Commission 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 June 19, 2002 meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown abstained. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Protasevich, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
(Mr. Gordon arrived at 4:05P.M.)
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested party, thanked the Commissioners for creating the opportunity for citizens to address the Historic Landmark Commission for items not listed on the agenda. Ms. Cromer referred to a letter she would be submitting to the City Council in the next few days. She stated that the letter would address serious issues relating to zoning and the allowed land uses in the Open Space zoning district, which is what Pioneer Park is zoned. Ms. Cromer said she believed there were substantive problems with the appropriateness of this use in this zone and combined with the time frame SLOC has issued. She said that she had very serious concerns whether or not the City should be pursuing this [the Olympic Legacy] in Pioneer Park. She read the following exerts from her letter: "The purpose of my letter is to outline what I consider to be very serious issues related to land use in the park. I am confident in the ability of the Historic Landmark Commission to address the compatibility of the proposed activities with the historical status of the park. Once the Commission's review is completed, however, we will have just begun the review that will be necessary and we will be out of time based on the schedule established by SLOC." Ms. Cromer concluded by saying that she appreciated the work that the Historic Landmark Commission is doing and indicated that she had confidence that the Commissioners would do a thorough and complete job.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 020-02, a request by the Boyer Company, to remove approximately forty feet of the first story original wall on the west elevation of the Union Pacific Depot, located at 400 W. South Temple. The Union Pacific Depot is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Ms. Lew 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. She stated that the Boyer Company was requesting approval to alter a portion of the first story original wall on the west elevation of the Union Pacific Depot. Ms. Lew pointed out that the Depot is not in a locally designated historic district but is listed as an individual site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. She added that the property was built between 1908 and 1909 and is located in the Gateway Mixed Use (GMU} zoning district.
Ms. Lew displayed large photographs of the area where the modifications inside the Depot are proposed.
Ms. Lew gave the following background information: The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed and approved the renovation work on the Depot and the construction of two additions on the rear (west elevation) of the building at their December 6, 2000 meeting. The renovation work included repairing the roof, repairing or replacing windows where needed, the removal of the brick work covering the historic windows on the south elevation and applying a sealant to stabilize the brick that had been sandblasted a number of years ago. At that time, the applicant also received approval to construct two additions on the west facade. The additions consist of one-story pods that form a courtyard and repeat the mansard roof form of the Depot. The walls are sheathed in metal and glass, thus providing new space that is compatible with the massing, materials and form of the historic building yet clearly recognizable as new construction. The only features that were discussed for removal, at that meeting, were the loading docks at the rear of the structure and a chimney on the west elevation. Although the applicant indicated that the windows on the first floor of the west elevation at the south end would need to be covered, this was to be done is such a way that the widows would still be evident on the inside of the Depot. Thus, the windows would be retained and could be restored in the future. The Commission also discussed the method of attachment of the pods, making sure that the essential form and integrity of the historic structure would be maintained if the additions were removed at a later date.
Ms. Lew presented the following overview of the project: The applicants are working with Virgin Records, who is interested in occupying the south end of the Depot including the southwest pod overlooking the fountain. Initially, the applicant submitted a plan to remove approximately forty feet of the first story wall on the west elevation of the Union Pacific Depot. The tenant typically utilizes large integrated spaces for its megastores (over 25,000 square feet). Therefore, the tenant believes opening the bays would allow additional sight lines through to the back area (Depot) of the leased space. Additionally, the main entrance would shift to the pod facing the plaza.
Ms. Lew reported that the applicants have been working with the Architectural Subcommittee to develop an appropriate and feasible design solution. She added that the subcommittee referred the request to the full Commission for review and decision, since the subcommittee felt there was little precedent for reviewing an application such as this.
The following is a summary from those Architectural Subcommittee meetings:
June 12, 2002: A request to remove approximately forty feet of the first story wall on the west elevation (see attached plans) was presented to the subcommittee on June 12, 2002. Comments from the group focused on the following: 1) The importance of maintaining the original fabric; 2) Creating and celebrating the transitional space between the exterior of the historic building and the new space; and 3) Consider restoring the opening that had been filled in over the years and repeat the arch pattern in the bay to the north, respecting the pilasters and original openings. The interior window could be removed to establish a second archway.
June 26, 2002: The applicants presented plans showing the removal of the existing material within the northern bay while restoring the southern arched opening. The tenant improvements include the installation of sheet rock, which would then enclose what remains of the historic wall. The essential form and integrity of the wall would thus be maintained if the proposed alterations or pod were removed. The ceiling in the area of the proposed alterations would also be lowered to accommodate additional duct work. Comments from the group focused on the following: 1) The applicants offered to enter into a formal agreement with the City to guarantee the replacement of the existing northern bay should the potential tenant vacate the space. A suggestion was made to document the bay; 2) The applicants indicated the original building had suffered numerous changes over the years and there was a discussion as to how much of the existing material in the northern bay is original to the structure. Establishing an arch in the northern bay could be construed as undertaking conjectural work. (Ms. Lew circulated old photographs of the different configurations of the windows in the space.) Additionally, to repeat the arch pattern in the bay would require the removal of existing material as well; 3) The size of the northern bay opening was discussed and the subcommittee felt that is was important to maintain the repetition of the pilasters and re-establish the form with used brick; and 4) The ceiling height in the area of the proposed alteration be as high as possible.
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12, 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.
Staff believed the following standards apply to this request:
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 defining architectural characteristics of this building include the mansard roof, fenestration, materials, and the form and massing. Although the request is to remove the existing material of the northern bay in the proposed area of modification, changes to this area have already been made. Because the original appearance of the bay is unknown, it may have a minimal role as a character defining feature.
Staff's finding of fact: Staff finds that the request meets this standard. The in-fill brick will be removed from the below the arch within the southern bay thereby retaining the appearance of the original opening. Although the existing material will be removed within the northern bay, the applicant has agreed to replace the bay should the tenant leave.
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;
Staff's discussion: Because no historical evidence has been found as to the original fenestration of the northern bay, designing an arched opening in the northern bay may create a false sense of history.
Staff's finding of fact: Overall the request meets this standard. Although not visible, the proposal will maintain the original wall on the west elevation of the Depot and its window openings.
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 properly, neighborhood or environment;
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Staff finds that the request meets this standard. Some of the historic fabric of the wall may be lost as a result of the proposed alteration but could be replaced in-kind if properly documented.
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 discussion and finding of fact: The request is compatible with the architectural features of the historic Depot. The alterations have been designed to allow the Depot to be seen as it may have originally appeared if the alterations are removed in the future.
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, Signs; and
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Any request for new signage will be handled as a separate case.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this project, with the provisions that the applicants formalize an agreement with the City to guarantee the replacement of the existing northern bay should the potential tenant vacate the space, and any requests for new signage for this space will be handled as a separate application."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Young inquired about the signage. Ms. Lew said that the signage would be reviewed on a separate application abiding by the standards in the ordinance.
Mr. Wilson asked about a precedence that may have been set on formulizing an agreement that would guarantee the replacement of the existing material. Ms. Giraud said she was not aware of such an agreement, but it could be done.
Mr. Simonsen said that the recommendation being proposed is that the existing material would be restored to its current condition, such as the windows, the sills, bricks and other materials. He expressed concern about the brick that would be damaged during the removal process and inquired if a suitably matched replacement brick could be located. Ms. Lew said that is the intent of the applicant.
Mr. Ashdown pointed out that there were pallets of brick inside the building and wondered if those bricks could be used as replacements for any damaged brick. Ms. Lew suggested asking the applicant about the replacement brick.
Ms. Giraud noted that storing the existing materials on site would become an enforcement issue and difficult for the City to monitor. Mr. Simonsen said that the materials could be stored in the basement and available if someone wanted to reverse the alteration. There was some question whether or not the reconstruction could be reversed. There was a suggestion that a clause be attached to the title of the property to alert any owner in the future about the materials stored in the basement.
Ms. Giraud inquired if it would be the responsibility of the tenant to reverse the reconstruction or the owner of the building.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the restoration would be as it currently exists or would it be restored to some point in the past because there were some openings that were bricked in, including one in this northern bay. There was further discussion regarding the proposal.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Roger Boyer, representing the Boyer Company, was present. He concurred with the proposal included in the staff report. He addressed Mr. Simonsen's question by saying that he assumed the reconstruction could either be restored back to what is currently in place or replacing the arch that would be identical to the one on the south bay. Mr. Boyer suggested clarifying that issue in the declaration the company's attorney would draft for the City Attorney's review. He said that he would do what the City requested in this matter.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by saying that the Historic Landmark Commission needed to be specific in the provision of any action taken at this meeting so there would be no misunderstanding in the future regarding the possible reconstruction. Mr. Boyer said that he agreed.
• Mr. Gordon stated that the City could not force the Boyer Company to reverse any noncompliant changes they did not do, such as take the Depot back to the it was in the 1930s or even the 1950s. He added that this issue had come up before with other buildings.
• Mr. Littig said that documentation and measured drawings could be provided as to the current condition of the Depot. He talked about the many alterations that had occurred over the years to the interior of the building.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if there was an area designated to store the brick and other materials after the demolition. Mr. Boyer said that the materials would be stored in the basement in an area below the south wing of the building.
• Mr. Young inquired about the door and transom that had been removed. Mr. Boyer said he was not aware of that removal. Mr. Simonsen said that based on one of the previous photos, it looked as if that change was done fairly recently because at one point, both bays to the south of the building were blocked in.
• Ms. Lew suggested an annual review be implemented to regulate any changes being made similar to that for properties with easements, as other organizations do. She added that the materials in storage could be included.
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. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested party, said that she talked with Staff on several occasions about this proposal and followed its progress through the Architectural Subcommittee. She indicated that the issues that were troubling her were the additions to an historic structure making the exterior part of the structure an interior space. She said that she believed that kind of aggressive remodeling should not be allowed. Ms. Cromer stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should be very reluctant to allow these kinds of additions because it promotes modifications to the original historic fabric making the exterior wall the interior space not regulated by the City in the same manner. Ms. Cromer also said that the tenants would believe that it would be their space to remodel and make modifications to an historic building. Ms. Cromer concluded by saying, "I'm not enthusiastic about what is proposed and I take a rather extreme position about preserving space, as well as exterior parts, of historic structures." She said that she did not want this issue to be setting a precedent for other historic buildings.
• Mr. Simonsen cited a letter from Mr. Donald A. Duff where he stated he was concerned with historic preservation and that "the developer should not be allowed to alter any portion of the original structure, even if only a wall and two bays". A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes.
Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session. Executive Session Mr. Ashdown inquired about the additions and asked if they were approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Parvaz stated that the additions were approved but the Commission did not raise the issue of an exterior element becoming an interior element.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed a number of smaller contributing residences where there were extensive alterations to the exterior when an addition has been constructed. He added that an individually listed building might have more significance than a contributing structure in an historic district.
Ms. Giraud said that according to the Deputy City Attorney, Lynn Pace, just because something was added does not mean it would be considered the exterior of the building. She said that Mr. Pace believed that the Commission could review the encased west wall of the Depot and also still consider the pods [additions] under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission, and that the Commission could review the proposal within the context of the required ordinance. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Pace further commented that if an exterior wall did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Historic Landmark Commission someone could "build walls around the McCune Mansion and do whatever they wanted to do with the structure and say that it is now the interior." She reiterated what Mr. Pace said, that the Commission still had jurisdiction over the west wall of the Depot.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the attorney based his legal opinion on the exterior of the building at the time it was listed as a landmark site. Ms. Giraud said, "No, probably not." She talked about considering this issue when the zoning ordinance is revised sometime in the future. Mr. Parvaz mentioned that the code was not very clear.
The subject turned to Staff’s recommendation and Mr. Simonsen inquired if the recommendation was consistent with the comments from the Architectural Subcommittee.
Mr. Young said that the subcommittee's purpose for sending the application back to the Commission was that the members believed they could not speak for the Commission as a whole recommending a codicil to the title of the property. Mr. Young reminded the other Commissioners that the Secretary of Interior's Standards are set up for tax programs, which are more stringent. He added that the Secretary's standard is that seventy-five percent of the exterior walls must remain, but of that, fifty percent must be exterior walls. Mr. Young said that certain portions can be made interior by additions to buildings and that is perfectly acceptable under the Secretary of Interior's Standards. He added that minimal alterations can be returned to the original configuration if need be. Mr. Young concurred with Ms. Lew that an inspection period of one, two, or five years should be included in the Commission's decision so the City would be alerted to any tenant changes. Ms. Giraud said that the City would not review a residence when it changed hands. The discussion continued.
Since there were some additional questions for the applicant, it was the general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.
Mr. Gordon inquired how could the issue of the space changing tenants be tied into the lease for building ownership. He also said that was discussed at the last Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Boyer said that a declaration was discussed rather that the involvement of the lease. He added that an agreement would become like a lien on a property or like an assessment in a special improvement district, so that whenever anything is done with the property, such as improvements or new involvement would have to be approved. Mr. Boyer believed that would be a far better solution than trying to tie it in into the lease.
Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting to public comment, since there were no further questions for the applicant.
Ms. Heid inquired if there is another property that would be comparable with such an agreement that has been approved in the past or is this really outside the way these issues are usually handled. Ms. Giraud said that an agreement has been carried out in other cities by a preservation commission, but not aware of anything in this city.
Mr. Knight said that the City has required easements as a condition of certain approvals. He noted that the Boyer Company granted a public easement to the City for the lobby of the Depot so that the Historic Landmark Commission would review any alterations inside the lobby.
Motion:
Based on Staff's finding of fact, Mr. Young moved in Case No. 020-02 to accept the recommendation from Staff with the provision that the applicants formalize an agreement with the City to guarantee the replacement of the existing northern bay should the potential tenant vacate the space, with access to the building to inspect it on a periodic basis of no less than two years. Further, documentation of the current condition of the west wall should include photographs and a scale drawing. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Mr. Wilson were opposed. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Protasevich, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Open Space Ordinance.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the Pioneer Park subcommittee. Mr. Simonsen said that the committee was in the process of gathering information. He asked Ms. Mickelsen to update the Commission on the Pioneer Park/Olympic Legacy issue.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the committee met with SLOC, Ray Grant, Staff, and the landscape architect. She indicated that a model was displayed of Pioneer Park showing where SLOC anticipates putting the amphitheater and adequate seating. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that she believed it would be difficult to "blend" the need for an amphitheater with the needs of the park. However, she said she did not think it would be impossible. Ms. Mickelsen said that the results of the discussion and suggestions would be reviewed on Monday. Ms. Mickelsen said, in her opinion, Landmark Design should collect the written reports from all the community meetings that have been held so SLOC would be more familiar with the community's opinions and recommendations.
Mr. Simonsen said that it is the committee's understanding that Landmark Design has a working model in progress. He added that the subcommittee would see the results of how they have responded to both community concerns that have been raised in the past, and some of the objectives that were outlined by the members of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Simonsen said that there are plenty of ideas still floating around but nothing formally has been presented to the subcommittee.
Mr. Ashdown also inquired if anyone attended Council Person Nancy Saxton's meeting. Ms. Mickelsen said that she did as well as Ms. Giraud. Ms. Mickelsen said that the people were reacting to misinformation.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission would not be involved with the open space issue. He added that the zoning amendment to allow amphitheaters in open space districts would be a matter for the Planning Commission. He said that an amphitheater is in the current master plan for Liberty Park.
Discussion regarding archival quality recordation for demolition of historic landmark sites. Mr. Simonsen pointed out a letter from Mr. Parvaz regarding the archival quality recordation for demolition of historic landmarks, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He asked Mr. Parvaz to report to the Commission about the action taken.
Mr. Parvaz stated that a subcommittee meeting was to be held to study the issues of documentation but Staff was not able to put it together due to vacations. He said that he had been studying the Secretary of the Interior's method of documenting historical buildings for years. He added that there has been a lot of work done in this field and technical documentation is already available. Mr. Parvaz talked about the books that are available, as well. Mr. Parvaz suggested that the Commission adopt the Secretary of the Interior's recommendations for documenting historic buildings that are proposed to be demolished to be used as a guideline.
Mr. Simonsen extended his appreciation to Mr. Parvaz for all his work on the subject. He suggested addressing these issues at an upcoming Historic Landmark Commission meeting so the public could be notified. Ms. Giraud said that she thought that was a good starting point and would appreciate more time to work on the documentation issues. Mr. Simonsen asked what kind of time would be needed because one of the reasons for establishing the subcommittee was that the guidelines for the documentation be completed for the Promised Valley Playhouse which is probably not far off from demolition at this point.
Ms. Giraud said she was hoping the subcommittee could meet with the architect, Mr. Kim Hyatt, so he could present his ideas for documentation. She added that the Commission needed to have some standards in place. Ms. Giraud also suggested having a standing subcommittee that could meet on an "as needed" basis. She said that the documentation Staff has reviewed in the past has been in a range of expertise of what people had access to for this kind of presentation. Ms. Lew said that the documentation has been in a range of buildings as well.
Mr. Parvaz mentioned that Mr. Hyatt was concerned about the requirements of the Historic Landmark Commission and the cost of preparing the documentation. He suggested that Mr. Hyatt produce drawings, photographs, and a written text on the history of the building, which would be adequate. Mr. Parvaz further suggested that the subcommittee should have an opportunity to walk through the Promised Valley Playhouse building to look for things of value to document. Ms. Lew concurred with that suggestion. She said that she thought a site visit was very important.
Ms. Giraud recommended that the subcommittee handle the documentation for Promised Valley, then a documentation policy would be presented to the Commission as a whole, hopefully at the second meeting in August. She noted that Ms. Lew was the Staff person coordinating the subcommittee.
Mr. Simonsen said that in fairness to the owner of the Promised Valley Playhouse property, he did not want the documentation issue to hold up the demolition process. He suggested making an effort to meet. Mr. Ashdown suggested that another member of the Commission take Mr. Parvaz's place on the subcommittee until he returns. Mr. Littig said that a good standard had been developed that Mr. Hyatt could follow. He added that he did not believe the Commission's requirements were unreasonable. Mr. Simonsen suggested that the subcommittee meet with Mr. Hyatt and reach a consensus of the documentation that would be submitted to the Architectural Subcommittee before the Historic Landmark Commission review.
Architectural Subcommittee.
Ms. Lew inquired if the Commission wanted to move the Architectural Subcommittee meeting from July 31st to July 17'h, since the Historic Landmark Commission scheduled for July 17 has been cancelled. Mr. Knight said that there were several applicants for that meeting. Mr. Simonsen said that members who are not professional architects could also attend the subcommittee meetings. He added, "We welcome any members of the Commission."
It was a consensus of the members of the subcommittee to have the meeting on July 17, 2002 at 4:00P.M.
Recognition of members whose terms were expiring.
In behalf of the entire Commission, Mr. Simonsen extended an appreciation to Mr. Young and Mr. Wilson for their services on the Historic Landmark Commission and the Architectural Subcommittee. He praised Mr. Young for serving as a past chairman. Mr. Simonsen noted that their terms of service had expired and wished them well in their future endeavors.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Gordon moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:00P.M.