SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A fieldtrip preceded the meeting and was attended by Pete Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, David Fitzsimmons, Warren Lloyd, Scott Christensen, Cheri Coffey, and Elizabeth Giraud.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson; Oktai Parvaz, David Fitzsimmons, Lee White and Warren Lloyd. Soren Simonsen was excused.
Present ·from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director
Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner and Louise Harris, Senior Secretary. Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor was excused.
As Vicki Mickelsen, Acting Chair was late getting to the meeting, past chair, Oktai Parvaz called the meeting to order at 5:05. He ask all members of the audience to turn off cell phones and pagers. All present were asked to be sure and sign the attendance log for our records. He noted that if there are any disagreements with the decision of this Commission, on the back of the agenda is the procedure to appeal.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with the open meetings 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 time they will be erased.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, he closed the meeting to public con1ments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Since Mr. Paterson was excused, there was no report.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes with the corrections stating that they needed to include the answers/respones to all questions listed in the minutes. Mr. Ashdown seconded. Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Carl, and Mr. Christensen voted “aye” and the motion passed, Ms. White abstained.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
At this point in the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen arrived and took over as acting chair. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 015-05 at 32 Exchange Place by Luis Ulrich. Architect. Phoenix Architectural Group. requesting approval to remodel the plaza of the Boiler Room located in the Commercial Club Building
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the finding of fact and staff’s recommendation. This is a proposal for remodeling of the plaza and the boiler room of the Commercial Club Building and is in the Exchange Place Historic District. The Commercial Club was constructed in 1908 and is Zoned D1, Central Business District, the purpose of which is to foster an environment consistent with the area's function as the business, retail and cultural center of the community and the region. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
• Mr. Ashdown asked what was the plan for the removal of the pipe rail?
• Ms. Giraud indicated that the installation of the new rail would be softer. And indicated the applicant could better explain if it would serve a deck purpose as there weren't any plans inside the Commercial Club that would necessitate a roof deck.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked what was the original use of the deck.
• Ms. Giraud indicate it was just the roof of the old Boiler Building and not currently used.
• Mr. Parvaz stated that one is the club and the other is the office building and was that function going to remain.
• Ms. Giraud asked if he was asking whether there were two separate functions for the boiler room.
• Mr. Parvaz stated no, the plaza and office building remaining as such?
• Ms. Coffey suggested these might be questions for the applicant.
Ms. Mickelsen asked that if there were no more questions for the staff she would welcome the applicants to come forward.
Luis Ulrich, Architect for the project and Patrick Allman representative of the owner came forward.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked whether the deck was proposed to remain.
• Mr. Ulrich, stated they were and that the deck would be accessible through the side door that is currently in place and at the rear of the plaza.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked about the modification of the existing rail.
• Mr. Ulrich, stated that basically it's the modification of the stairs to allow a new rail for handicapped access to the plaza. The client asked the project be designed to re-water-poof the deck because there is a parking space below and still dress up the plaza in such a way to make the property more valuable for retaining tenants in the office space.
Removal of the railing installed in 1992, was found to be very positive because there is currently major social problems in the neighborhood and it alleviates that situation. Once the Vortex Club left the building, the space is now used as office. The occupant load for the office has no requirement for a third exit from the Commercial Club Building. There is no need for them to exit on the roof level.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if all the pavers were being replaced.
• Mr. Ulrich, stated they were and would be replaced with sandstone. He stated the material is the same as that used at the stadium at the University of Utah which is from India. He then passed around pictures of the same type of pavers used at the top of State Street at the Travel Council Building. He stated the pavers are all two inches thick so there won't be a problem like the ones at Library Square which are disintegrating.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the applicant is going to do anything with the west wall.
• Mr. Ulrich stated no they are dealing with the surface, planning to include a new hedge as a plant material and using a brook with large sandstone blocks that replicate the base foundation of the Commercial Club Building. There will be big stone statuaries, very similar to the Oasis Cafe with water corning out of the top and flowing down on the sandstone. Fountains are a challenge in this climate as they need to be interesting in the summer but also sculptural. in the winter.
• Ms. Mickelsen wanted to clarify whether the steps that currently go from the plaza to the roof will be taken down.
• Mr. Ulrich, answered yes, as well as the railing on top of the roof deck to the Boiler Room.
• Ms. Mickelsen needed clarification regarding the front stair with the handicapped access.
• Mr. Ulrich indicated that in Portland, Oregon at the Pioneer Square (which is the Central Center for the transient mode), an amphitheater was installed in the early 1990's. They built in the middle a handicapped ramp that accesses the entire vertical distance of the handicapped ramp. This is a way, per building code, to create handicapped access which is not considered a ramp but is accessible. There still are risers but they just disappear into the rise of the slope.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons ask about the removal of the old pipe railing if it will it be same metal grading. All of the pipe railing that runs across the top will be removed.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there is a door in the Commercial Building for the
Boiler House.
• Mr. Ulrich indicated there was currently one at the very rear and it was ok if the occupant load remains less than 40-50 people but clubs have a higher count load and that would require a third exit. It will be up to the owner to contain that space.
• Ms. Mickelsen indicated that in order to make it clear to everyone, there will not be any railings on the roof.
• Mr. Lloyd wanted to know that if there were access to the roof wouldn't they be required by building code to have a railing.
• Mr. Ulrich said that the existing parapet is less than 42”. The door is at the rear of the roof towards 4th South and they would have to contain the amount of people. If the owner wants to put a railing at the edge later, a building permit would be required. The drainage system will set on bricks and it won't wash the sand away as it will all be contained.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any more questions for the applicants and if there were anyone else in the room to make commit. Since there were none, they closed the public portion of the hearing and move into the Executive Session. The chair would then recognize a motion at this time.
• Ms. Coffey made a suggestion to the Commission that if a building official did require a railing at any time that they specify what materials or design would be required so it is not readily visible from the street.
• Ms. Giraud added that if it is reviewed by staff or comes back to HLC, they need to make that clear which path they wanted to delegate.
• Ms. Mickelsen thought that was a good idea.
• Mr. Ashdown moved that in Case Number 015-05 that it be approve according to Staff Findings of Fact and that a conditional approval be put on the roof rail if it is required by code and that it be reviewed by staff. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. White and Mr. Lloyd all voted “Aye” and the motion passed.
Case No. 400-05-11 A petition initiated by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow additional types of signage in the Open Space Zoning District for parks that are 28 acres or larger in size. This amendment will affect Liberty Park which is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Giraud presented the proposed changes of the Zoning Ordinance Definitions
21A.62:
The allowed height of monument signs would be increased by' to 10'. This would allow the City to use refurbished Olympic signs for entrance signs and orientation maps in Liberty Park.
Park banner signs would be allowed for permanent venues, ie in Liberty Park Tracy Aviary, the concession stand and children's rides, the tennis center, the Utah Folk Arts Council (Chase House), the swimming pool and the Youth Cities program. The proposed changes would allow park banner signs for permanent venues to be no greater than 12 square feet in area, no higher than 18 feet, setback no greater than 10 feet and no more than three banners per permanent venue, grouped within an 18' radius.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if there were minutes from when things first were happening in Liberty Park were there were objections to the size of the monument signs.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that she recalled it was ok with the Landmark
Commission for 2 feet higher.
• Mr. Christensen indicated it was just to accommodate the reuse of the
Olympic signs.
• Mr. Ashdown stated that it was the larger billboard sign.
• Ms. Giraud thought it was the ones proposed for the corners and were left out.
• Ms. Mickelsen thought the monument signs would be at the entrances and all agreed.
• Dale Cook, Landscape Architect for the City with the Engineering Division, came forward. He said that all the signage would be color coded, (the banners and the logo with the direction code) so people would know how to get to which venue and which direction to go to find which venue they needed. He stated the street will never be open again to allow cars to circle the park, as it would create too n1any problems.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked what type of changes would be made in the signage plan for Liberty Park apart from the monument.
• Mr. Cook said the plan submitted would remain the same except they would not ever install those corner posters.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the size of the monument sign would be bigger or if there are other bigger ones.
• Mr. Cook indicated they were just going to use of the banners or post signs as explained. They believe that would give the concessionaires an opportunity to be recognized. Many people don't know the Chase House has been turned into a museum. They are talking about groups of three to make them very prominent where the venues are, where you should park and which side of the park to drive into in order to reach the venue.
• Ms. Giraud said that improved signage was part of the Liberty Park Master Plan. Nothing will be posted in the lake and all signs would be 18' from high measures grade.
Ms. Mickelsen closed the public session of the hearing and opened the executive session.
Mr. Christensen moved that in Petition 400-05-11, based on the information presented in a Memorandum dated June 27, 2005, and discussion with the applicant, that the Historic Landmarks Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding amendments to the Signage Ordinance for Parks greater in size of 28 acres or larger. Ms. Heid seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. White and Mr. Lloyd voted “aye”. There was no on opposed. The motions passed.
At this part of the meeting, Pete Ashdown recused himself as the next applicant is a client of his.
Case No 016-05 at 381 East 11th Avenue by Michael Kearns. requesting revocation of the designation of a landmark site from the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and staff's recommendation. She stated that Mr. Kearns is trying to sell this house, and wants the property to be as unencumbered by regulation as possible. She stated the house was designated as a Landmark Site in May, 1978. The process to revoke a site from the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources is a Zoning Map Amendment, requiring approval by the Salt Lake City Council. The Zoning Ordinance requires the Historic Landmark Commission to make a recommendation regarding the revocation and submit it to the Planning Commission for their deliberation and recommendation to the City Council.
The house is located on the northwest corner of Eleventh Avenue and “E” Street and is zoned Special Pattern Residential District SR-1. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
• Ms. Giraud indicated to the Commission that it was their responsibility to make a recommendation to the City Planning Commission and offer any insight that would help the City Planning Commission with making its decision.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked the Commission if there were other questions to
Ms. Giraud.
• Ms. Carl asked when someone buys property if there is a way to find out if it is listed as a Landmark Site.
• Ms. Giraud said that there are landmark sites within historic districts that are locally designated and most of these properties have a notice on their title that indicates they are listed. People will also call the Planning Division and ask about whether the property is listed.
• Ms. Carl wanted to know if there were any recorded objections to listing this property in 1978 which lets the owner know that it is listed.
• Ms. Giraud said that records were not found in the Planning Office or the City Recorders Office that indicated that there was an agreement or protest from the owner at that time.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there was any evidence at that time of this being a
Landmark Site.
• Ms. Coffey indicated that they do not have a mailing list or similar document from that time. She added that the ordinance that was in place at the time required that the property owners all be notified but the Planning Office hasn't found any record that indicates that they were.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that the ordinance designating the site is in the packet of information, as Exhibit 1, and was published in the newspaper on March 28, 1978 identifying the subject property.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the applicant to come forward and introduce themselves.
Mr. Michael Kearns, current owner, Linda Snow, daughter of Doctor Snow (owner at the time the structure was listed) and Cherie Romney, Real Estate Attorney came forward. Mr. Kearns read a brief statement of which he said many property owners agree, that any form of government that can arbitrarily affect our lives without our knowledge is a concern. He requested that this landmark designation be removed from his property because he stated the designation did not go through a just and fair process and due process was not served. He stated what has happened could be equal to a partial taking of personal property. He indicated that 13 permits were issued in the 1990's, six exterior, and no Certificates of Appropriateness were issued as required, although the ordinance states very plainly what is required. The house was built in 1913 and the “high-style or Prairie School” are terms that have been associated with the architectural style of the home, yet the terms do not come into play until the 1930's or 40's. The home has been altered severely. It has gone from 1,750 square feet to 7,000 square feet. He purchased the home not knowing it was a landmark and if they had known they would not have bought it. They were not notified by the City. They have spent about ten thousand dollars in title searches and no landmark status was ever shown. There just is no paper work. It has been talked of being a Frank Lloyd Wright Architect style house. There is only one house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in the State of Utah and that house is located in Bountiful. The Utah Historical Society site form refers to it as having a modern style.
• Ms. Snow talked about the home and how her father had owned it for years. She stated her father had always strongly told her to never allow it to become a landmark site. She stated that her father could not have received a letter or given his signature to allow this to happen. There has never been a paper trail.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the ordinance at the time required a signature.
• Ms. Giraud said the ordinance just requires notification. She state the process was for a zoning map amendment.
• Ms. Coffey said a copy of the ordinance from 1976 was included in the exhibits of the staff report for this case. The ordinance states that notification is required, including newspaper publication and a notice mailed to the property owner. The practice has been that the legislative body would not designate a Landmark Site if they get an objection by an individual property owner. She stated the ordinance has never required a signature.
• Mr. Kearns indicated there was no reference to the ordinance on the address in title searches. He called Ted Wilson, former mayor, as mentioned before and Vern Jorgenson, a city planner at the time and they didn't remember but they did recall the problem with the Veterans Hospital.
• Ms. Romney, Real Estate Attorney, stated that a designation, that is as far reaching as this Landmark designation, really ought to have more than just a newspaper notification. She stated someone should evaluate if that type of notice really constitutes a notice that a title insurance company would insure against. There should have been constant notice every time this property has changed hands since 1978, so new property owners would be aware of the designation. The designation has never shown up in the title report. She felt that too many restraints are on the property because of the Landmark status and it is making it a problem to sell the property. Two contracts have, fallen through and it is because the people do not want to buy a property with a Landmark designation. Future notices must be given to new owners that there are restraints on the property.
• Mr. Kearns indicated a correction in the staff report that on page 6 “Doctor Leonard Snow should be changed to Doctor Daines Lynden Snow”. He wanted this corrected for the record.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the Commission if they had questions for the applicant.
• Mr. Lloyd wanted to know the year of the sale of the house from the Snows and whether there have been any other owners between when the Snows owned it and when Mr. Kearns bought it.
• Mr. Kearns stated Mr. Snow passed away in 1993 and there had been two other owners prior to his purchasing the property. He stated neither of the two previous owners was aware of the Landmark Status.
• Ms. Snow asked whose responsibility it is to get the Landmark Status recorded at the Country Recorders office so the designation shows on the title.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that they did record the historic designation with all the properties within the local historic districts and there are about 5,000 of these properties.
• Ms. Coffey clarified the issue that the City does not have a requirement to put it on the title. In the mid 1990's it was found that a lot of people who lived in the local historic districts didn't realize it and so the staff went through the process of recording a notice on the titles of the properties. She stated it is unclear why the same type of notice was not recorded on the Landmark Sites, but it should be and the Planning Staff will work to accomplish that. She reiterated that there is no ordinance that requires a notice be placed on the title.
• Mr. Kearns was very adamant that there are no tax benefits to local designation and it was unfair or unjust to designate the property. He stated that these things shouldn't be forced upon them.
• Ms. Giraud said there are tax benefits not with the City but with the State. A structure must be on the National Register to be eligible for the tax credits. She noted there is a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office noting that the structure is eligible to be designated on the National Register.
• Ms. Romney indicated that the local historic register allows the government to control what is done but the National or State Registers only allow you to have tax credits. The benefit of being on a National or State Register in Utah is that you do get those tax credits if you want to be on the register. She said they don't control the materials. The Landmark Status is prohibitive and has much heavier restraints.
• Ms. Carl asked what the restraints are to having a structure designated as a local Landmark Site.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that the use is determined by the underlying zoning. She stated one benefit to having a structure designated as a local Landmark Site is that it may be eligible for a Conditional Use in an historic structure, but only if it is locally listed. She stated this opportunity has driven the designation of Landmark Sites for people wanting to do that. For an individually listed site that is designated by the City Council, a legislative action, the regulations on the property are the same as for structures in a local district. If this house were six blocks south, it would be in the Avenue Historic District.
• Ms. Coffey indicated that when the Central City and University Historic Districts were designated, there was a lot of public input and a lot of meetings. After the City Council held their public hearing the Planning Division was required to send notice identifying the Council action and giving the property owners the opportunity to respond as well as the ordinance to all of the affected property owners in those districts. She was not sure if that was the san1e thing they did in 1978 but the ordinance then required notice to be in the newspaper and to be mailed to the affected property owners.
• Mr. Parvaz said there are issues. One is that it is unfair that the applicant was not aware the property was designated. The question is whether the Commission can address this issue. The fact is the property is designated.
• Mr. Kearns said that if he had known this house was a Landmark Site he never would have bought the house. He would not open himself up to the liability of never being able to sell the house. He stated he has put a lot of money into the interior. The prospective buyer had put a lot of time and paperwork into researching the background of this home. She wanted to change the windows but she couldn't do what she wanted because of Landmark rules and the high expense of following the regulations.
• Mr. Lloyd talked about the respect he has for the applicant's contributions to the architectural journalism he has made to the State of Utah, and his family's contribution to this State but he noted he doesn't understand why the applicant doesn't understand that he has an architecturally significant structure in the Avenues. Any Architectural student would know what Prairie Style is and whether it was called Prairie Style in 1903, it clearly is a structure of that style.
• Ms. Mickelsen indicated that there wasn't much this body can do to determine if due process was followed or not as there is very little evidence one way or the other. She stated the case is not a listing but delisting case and they are deciding if it should be delisted on the basis of architectural merit or not. She wondered if the criterion is the same for delisting and listing.
• Ms. Heid suggested that if there aren't any other issues for the applicants to contribute that the Commission move to executive session.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any more questions. She indicated that no matter where or how, there is always a balance between private rights and public good, and however you define that, there wouldn't be a civilization if that weren't true. She stated the Commission tries to do its best to walk the line between private and public interests.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there was anyone in the room that wanted to address this Commission. Seeing none, she closed the public comment portion of the meeting and the Commission moved into Executive Session.
• Ms. Coffey stated that the Commission could address both the criteria for delisting and the due process/notification issues. Any input or recommendations would be transmitted to the Planning Commission. She stated that regarding the delisting of this property, the Commission should specifically make findings on those criteria of the ordinance regarding revocation of the designation.
• Ms. Carl said that she can't believe the City was so sloppy then.
• Ms. Giraud said she didn't think it was a matter of sloppiness. She stated the City just does not have any records.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons thought it was just an oversight and the complaint about the process was not for the Commission to decide. There has been an administrative falling down for the prior owners and it has been unfortunately passed on down to these people. He stated the Commission can recommend to staff that some concerted effort be made to address those issues. He stated the Commission can't second guess what happened so many years ago. There is an ordinance and it appears to be registered. They are asking for revocation not whether or not it should have been registered in the first place. That would be another presentation.
• Ms. White was a little perplexed about what was going on. She didn't think as a Real Estate agent that designation is that big of an issue to a buyer. She was not sure why there was such conflict with the buyers.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that a potential buyer met with her and they reviewed some renderings and ideas that the potential buyer had for the house. She said it is typical for potential buyers to meet with planners on a variety of issues such as zoning, subdivision or any other kinds of land use regulations that the Planning Division implements. Ms. Giraud wanted to make it clear to the prospective buyer that they would need to submit plans and that in looking at what they were requesting, the staff would not be able to administratively approve the project but it would be sent to the Commission for their review. She indicated that the prospective buyers met first with Nelson Knight, Wilson Martin and Barbara Murphy of the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) to investigate whether tax credits were feasible for this project. That is when the prospective buyer found out that the property was on the local register not on the national register. She stated the letter from SHPO is to help the Commission understand what the meeting with them and the prospective buyer was and how they informed the prospective buyer what would be in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for preservation. They noted that her proposed changes would not be in keeping with those standards.
• Mr. Christensen said that even though the title searches have not revealed this designation, one simple visit to the SHPO office was all it took for a prospective buyer to become aware that it is on the local register. He stated title companies get paid substantial amounts of money to do their search and expect prospective buyers to pay for their insurance. He felt it's not the City's fault but the title companies that didn't do enough background work themselves. It makes him nervous that two prospective buyers both recoil when they found that this property is on the City register. He felt that just because some 27 years ago the Mayor at the time referred to the home as a Frank Lloyd Wright house doesn't mean that it is. It is clear from the paperwork in the staff report that they don't claim that it is a Frank Lloyd Wright house. He felt that there is some evidence, no matter how small it is, that it went through a legal process for designation. He stated the Commission doesn't have any evidence whether notices ever went to the Snow residence.
• Ms. Mickelsen indicated that the Commission can't clearly address the issue of whether or not due process was followed. What they need to address are the points by which the ordinance requires them to make this decision. The Commission needs to focus on the criteria because they are the things by which the Commission is restrained.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons said that from looking at the early photographs there are some changes to this home. What is interesting is that the 1965 tax photo shows the building as it still is. He sees no reason to question the findings from 1978.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if there is any additional information that indicates that the site doesn't meet the criteria for selection as a Landmark Site.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that the criteria for determining if a property meets the Landmark Site standards is the list presented on page 4 and 5 of the staff report.
• Mr. Christensen indicated that the structure looks similar to what the HLC reviewed in 1978 and their interpretation of what was significant in 1978 remains much the same today. He stated historic structures are not necessarily pure examples of one original structure but the value of what significance was there when designated and whether what remains to be there is still significant and worth protecting.
Ms. Mickelsen moved for a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Giraud indicated that they should address the standards that they have with the findings in the staff report.
Commissioner David Fitzsimmons moved to accept recommendations of staff that the Commission transmit a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding revocation of the designation of the property as a landmark site finding that the Commission is in agreement with the summary of findings:
1) The property has not ceased to meet the criteria for designation as a Landmark Site. The qualities that caused it to be originally designated have not been lost or destroyed.
2) Additional information has not been presented indicated that the Landmark Site does not comply with the criteria for selection of a landmark site.
3) The house continues to be significant for its association with businessmen who owned the house during its period of significance.
4) The house continues to display physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
5) The house is over fifty years old.
6) Additional information has not been found indicating that the Landmark Site is not of exceptional importance to the city, state, region or nation.
The commission moved to recommend to the Planning Commission that a process be developed by which land owners are notified properly when such designations are made in the future. Ms. Mickelsen requested that the motion include that notification should also be retroactive. Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed to include that language in the motion. The motion was seconded by Noreen Hammond. Warren Lloyd, Noreen Hammond, Dave Fitzsimmons, Paula Carl, Scott Christensen and Oktai Parvaz voted “aye.” Lee White abstained. Mr. Ashdown was in a state of recusation. There was no one opposed. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS Adjournment of the meeting
As there was no other business Ms. Mickelsen call for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Christensen moved to adjourn, Mr. Parvaz seconded. The meeting adjourned at 6:40pm.