SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Orlan Owen, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Rob McFarland. Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell. Oktai Parvaz, and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:15 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
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. Owen moved to approve the minutes from the June 16, 1999 meeting with a small correction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Littig. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
BUSINESS
Case No. 008-99. at 720 E. Ashton Avenue, by Kelly Lamoreaux and Shawn Eva. requesting a review of the findings of the Economic Review Panel regarding an economic hardship relative to a request for a conditional use permit to establish a bed and breakfast in the "George M. Cannon" house.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report, and the report of the Economic Review Panel, by outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He indicated that a copy of the letter from Kirk Huffaker, who served on the Economic Review Panel as the Historic Landmark Commission's representative, was included in the staff report. Mr. Knight said that the letter explained why Mr. Huffaker voted against economic hardship.
Mr. Knight stated that in Section 21A.34.020(K), Definition and Determination of Economic Hardship, is the relevant section of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. He said that Section 21A.34.020(K)(3)(c)(iii) requires that: "The Historic Landmark Commission decision shall be consistent with the conclusions reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, the Historic Landmark Commission finds by a vote of three-fourths majority of a quorum present that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact."
Mr. Knight pointed out that the staff did not make findings in economic hardship cases. He added that, instead, the Historic Landmark Commission must either accept or deny the findings of the Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Owen said that he had a point of clarification and that was in the May 26, 1999 minutes of the Economic Review Panel meeting. He said that Ms. Giraud reported that there are three ways in which a conditional use would be approved in an historic structure: 1) if the structure is too large to still be used for its original purpose, like the McCune Mansion; 2) if the building is in imminent danger of demolition; and 3) if the applicants meet the economic hardship requirements. Mr. Owen said that the "applicants don't meet economic hardship requirements, the property does, and the economic hardship requirements stays with the property whether or not it changes hands". He concluded by saying, "If this is approved, it is approved for the property and not approved for the applicant".
The applicants, Mr. Kelly Lamoreaux and Mr. Shawn Eva, were in attendance. Mr. Lamoreaux stated that the applicants also received a copy of the letter from Kirk Huffaker. He said that he did not understand why some of the reasons Mr. Huffaker voted the way he did pertained to the economic hardship process. Mr. Lamoreaux said that one of the reasons was an assumption that we had no understanding or we were not aware of the timing for the planning process. He stated that before anything occurred, he was in contact with staff to find out the procedures and what needed to be done, so they were aware of the process.
Mr. Lamoreaux mentioned that another reason was the commitment and responsibility to restore and maintain a landmark building was much higher. He pointed out that "this is my fourth older home, the biggest of the four, and I have worked on them and am aware of the process".
Mr. Lamoreaux indicated that another reason was the applicants did not have experience operating a business of this type. He added, "To my knowledge, I don't know of any courses, except for a business management class, you could take that teaches you how to operate this type of business". Mr. Lamoreaux said that his background included five years of small business management and Mr. Eva ran a restaurant for several years. He said he believed that there was quite a bit of knowledge behind what they were attempting to do with the property.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Owen led the discussion by inquiring about the letter of endorsement from the Central City Community Council. Staff pointed out that the letter of approval from the community council chair was included in the information that was delivered to the Commission members. Mr. Lamoreaux said that he and Mr. Eva appeared before the community council before they closed on the home. He added that there was support from the surrounding neighbors. He also mentioned that a few were in the audience. Mr. Lamoreaux said that he had heard comments like, "It will be good for the area." He added, "I believe it will be, too. It will be an improvement. The neighborhood is a fantastic historic neighborhood and it needs some upkeep. Hopefully it will get the ball rolling. This house once was a nucleus of that neighborhood and hopefully it can be again."
Mr. Owen said that the applicants had referred to the cost of renovation "being too great, as a single-family residence". He asked the applicants to amplify on those comments. Mr. Lamoreaux said that the subject property had been a rental-income property since the late 1930's. He said that the property had been passed through a number of hands. Mr. Lamoreaux said that to his knowledge, there had been very little done in the past fifty years. He added that the property owners had been gaining an income, which had not been put back into the property for maintenance. Mr. Lamoreaux commented that the home was large and it was on a large lot. He expressed his opinion that "in order to bring it up to what it once was, it needs to be able to generate its own income because it is so high of a cost to rehabilitate it".
Mr. Owen continued by inquiring about Mr. Huffaker's statements in the Economic Review Panel meeting regarding tax credits. He said that Mr. Lamoreaux made a comment about simple bank interest. Mr. Owen said that "this was not reflected in the minutes, and this is not a criticism of the minutes because the minutes are not a verbatim record of what happened, but I don't remember what your comment was". Mr. Lamoreaux said that that Mr. Huffaker had asked the applicants to get the interest rates on construction loans and find out what type of funding there was through the historic program, which he said he did. He also said that Mr. Huffaker asked him about the tax credits. Mr. Lamoreaux indicated that he received a form, but had not submitted it because the following statement is printed on the form: "The credits are not available for any property used for commercial purposes, including hotels or bed and breakfasts." He said that Mr. Huffaker clarified the fact that the portion which is owner/occupied would be eligible. He added that it would not be a great portion.
Mr. Owen said that the applicants raised the issue of traffic and noise, due to the location of the property, being a disadvantage as a single-family residence. He said, "Now, I want you to tell me how these problems become an advantage for your being able to run a hotel at this same location. "Mr. Lamoreaux responded by saying, "To me, I see it, just as they build these big hotels and motels downtown. It's busier downtown than it is in the surrounding area. They do it for convenience. Being next to the freeway would be a convenience for people that would be staying there who would need to get to places in a hurry, such as the ski resorts or downtown." Mr. Lamoreaux said that there needed to be more done to reduce the noise level, such as a sound barrier or insulated windows. Mr. Owen inquired if these conditions existed when the applicants purchased the property. Mr. Lamoreaux stated that they did. Mr. Owen questioned, "Since that issue still exists, why should we take these conditions in consideration in this hearing?"
Mr. Wright said, "I don't know that you are." He said he believed that the Commission was focusing on whether or not there was an economic issue. He said that if the Commission members wanted to place an economic value to that issue, it was their choice to do so. He was not aware that economic values were placed on this issue by the applicants.
Mr. Owen commented that the applicants said that "the noise level did not make it feasible as a residence, but it would be feasible as a hotel." He said that there would be an economic difference between those two. Mr. Wright said that he believed the applicants said that it was not economically reasonable to rehabilitate the structure as a duplex. He continued to say that it would be difficult to put an economic value on the noise impact Mr. Wright said, "There are a lot of neighborhoods that front freeways." He said that sound barrier walls were being constructed throughout the valley. Mr. Wright said, "I think it would be difficult to try to say that as a single-family residence it is economically deprived, but as a bed and breakfast it would be economically enhanced. If they had put those numbers in your analysis, you probably need to be aware of that, but I did not see that" Mr. Lamoreaux said that the subject matter was brought up at one of the Economic Review Panel meetings. Mr. Wright said he believed that it was more of a general statement rather than an economic statement Mr. Wright said, "I don't think you should consider that as an economic statement, either, unless they tried to place monetary consideration on it" Mr. Lamoreaux mentioned that Mr. Huffaker asked them to produce a cash flow projection and cost estimates on the property as a luxury duplex unit
There were some comments made regarding a rental house next door to the subject property. Ms. Deal said that she did not think the applicants should make a "blanket" statement about rental properties. She said that the property next door had no effect on the applicant's economic hardship.
• Ms. Deal talked about the cash flow projections on the property as a bed and breakfast She said that there was $30,000 a year listed from other events, and asked what that was. Mr. Lamoreaux said that the figure of $30,000 was projected as income from the bed and breakfast being used for receptions, conventions, and business meetings. He said that he had since learned from staff that those uses would not be allowed under the conditional use. Ms. Deal stated that she believed the case should be tabled until realistic figures were submitted.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Ms. Joan Palmer, a concerned citizen, stated that she owns property in the neighborhood. She said that she had been watching the property at 720 E. Ashton Avenue with great interest. She made the following statement: "I have lived in the neighborhood all my life, which is sixty plus years, and I am very familiar with the area. This home has never been a single-family residence in my lifetime. I am very interested in the proposal put forth by these two young men. I think it will have a great deal of value to the surrounding area. I own two homes in the area, the home where she grew up, and another home. I hope to buy a third home because of my interest in this particular area. This home has great potential. It's the largest home in the area. At the time, historically, the Brigham Young Farm House was next door to the east. That home is now at the This Is The Place Monument Park. The property is now the parking lot for the Forest Dale Ward, which is across the street on the north. My memory of the home is that at one time it was chopped up to as many as six apartments. That was when I was 15 years old. I remember very well visiting in those apartments. They have been increased and decreased from year to year and it was very nice when I heard that someone had purchased the home with the idea of doing something with it. I don't know if these young men have improved or the resident prior to them, but it is much improved over what it was, even as long as two or three years ago. I don't know all the 'ins' and 'outs' of the economic situation, but I was very pleased when I heard about what was happening to the house I am interested in seeing something beneficial happening to that particular area." Ms. Palmer admitted there was a great deal of noise from 1-80, but she said she attributed that to the 1-15 construction and the motorists having to exit at the 700 East off-ramps.
Ms. Aria Funk, a concerned citizen, stated that the City economic hardship ordinance, as it is written, gave her great concern about how it was being applied and administered. She said that she believed that it is a "flawed" ordinance that needed to be very carefully explored. Ms. Funk made the following statement: "The way the ordinance is written, you are entitled to reasonable economic use or return on the subject property. Any time you buy a single-family house, there is no return and there is no economic use of it. It is a 'sink hole' into which you put money for the entire life of the home. I think to assume you can buy a property and expect economic return if fallacious on which to make any judgment. Another point that I would like to make is that I am always concerned when a piece of property has been recently purchased and immediately economic hardship is applied for. The people in this case, as in others, knew the price of the property and knew what the current economic return was on the property. It seems to me that there should be a waiting period of maybe five years, after current owners purchase the property before they could apply for economic hardship. Otherwise, we are just flaunting the fact that they can buy the property with the intended different use and immediately apply for economic hardship. I think if we would ask the members of the Sugar House Community Council if they had a choice whether they wanted a residence or a bed and breakfast I suspect they would opt for the residence. They gave an approval to the bed and breakfast because of the condition of the home. They would rather see it improved than left the way it is. While this doesn't affect economic hardship, I think you need to look at what they were asked. They (the Community Council) were not asked a full question of should it be residential, should it remain the way it is, or should it be a bed and breakfast. The City cannot or should not ever guarantee an economic return to someone on a piece of property. That is not our place. It is not the purpose of this City to do that. If a property is worth preserving or saving, it should be done, but that could be done by someone who is charitably minded, I don't think that it is the right thing, but we have seen the offer that has come in on the smoke stacks on 5300 South. Someone wants to see property preserved. Many of us have purchased properties that were sink holes and have put it in for the value of restoring the property itself. I think that economic return is not the place of the City's to warrant. We don't do that on any other kind of property. If it has historic value, there are other measures in place, maybe a particular owner, does not consider them to be adequate. If they are not, then they should not purchase
the property. I suspect if we were to look at this neighborhood with a home restored as residential versus a bed and breakfast, it would have a greater economic value to the rest of the neighborhood. I think that is another thing that needs to be considered in economic value."
Ms. Funk continued with the following: "Another concern that I have and the way the law is administered, is that the particular people who are chosen for the committee make the determination of economic hardship. They set up the figures; they determine what return it should be. It seems to be that this ordinance should be written with a specified return that is expected, if this is the way the ordinance is going to continue to remain, because it could vary with every group that was set up. This group would have one valuation and another group would have another valuation of exactly the same the same property, because there are no standards in the ordinance by which economic hardship is determined. They are left to determine that in any way that they want to, it seems to be that it is of value to preserve. Whether we are using the right method to do that I seriously question. Part of my purpose of being here today is not to persuade you to vote one way or the other, but persuade you to look at the ordinance."
Ms. Funk concluded by saying that she was aware that the ordinance was under review, but did not think it was going in the right direction.
Mr. Lynn Pace, the Assistant City Attorney, stated that he also did not have any opinion on the outcome of this case. He said that he believed he should comment on some statements that had been made at this meeting. Mr. Pace made the following statement: "There are a couple of comments that were made that I think I should clarify in terms of the legal standard that we are bound by in this case. Ms. Funk, who just spoke, presented some persuasive arguments or challenges that exist in the ordinance. It is not within our purview to question the ordinance. It is what it is and that is what you have to live with. We cannot come into the court and say we don't like the rules. We are stuck with the ordinance the way that it is. I think one of the things that we need to bear in mind, is that the legal standard for economic hardship is based upon a standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court if you deprive a property owner of all reasonable economic use of the property, it is a 'taking' which means that we cannot zone it or preserve the historic structures on it if we take away all economic use. She makes a good point when we move into a home to live there, we are not looking at the economic value of it. You can measure the economic value by what you can rent that home for or what you could sell it for. You can put a measurement on that, even though that may not be the objective. The other thing that we need to bear in mind, is that the economic review standard is being reviewed, but as it is written today, it does not require the applicants to show that their intended use is profitable. It only requires them to show that the allowed uses are not profitable. That is what really is at issue here. So if the evidence that is before you shows whether or not a bed and breakfast is profitable is not the issue. It is whether or not the uses that are allowed in that zone are not profitable, based upon the evidence before the panel."
Mr. Pace ended by saying that he believed that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission were aware of the standard in the ordinance. He said that if the Commission believed that the decision, made by the Economic Review Panel, was arbitrary, or if there was an error in the findings or in the evidence, the Commission had the ability to send it back for further review.
• Mr. Kirk Huffaker, who served on the Economic Review Panel as the Historic Landmark Commission's representative, referred to his letter, regarding this case, explaining why he voted the way that he did. A copy of the letter accompanied the information received by the Commission, and a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He remarked about the following: "I wanted to clarify a couple of other things. I am not against restoring a landmark and I am not against a bed and breakfast use in a landmark building. What I am against is a process where all the facts were not considered. That is how I feel in this case and wrote the letter to that end. Some of the other comments in the letter directly reflect some of the tone and statements that came out in the meetings and in the discussions with the applicants. Really, that letter is just to provide you with some additional information to help you make the decision in this case after our Economic Review Panel voted."
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Deal said that she was disturbed about the pro forma for the bed and breakfast because it was "clearly erroneous." She continued by saying, "It assumes a tremendous amount of income that the applicant admits does not exist. I don't know if this falls into the category where the report of economic hardship was based on erroneous finding of fact." Ms. Deal said that Mr. Pace said something that "swung me around" to "does this even matter". She said that all the applicants need to show was that the allowed uses create an economic hardship. Ms. Deal said that she believed that there was an erroneous finding of the material facts. Mr. Owen added that there were no findings of fact. He said, "We cannot accept this." Ms. Deal said, "There were none and no economic hardship exists."
Ms. Deal moved to not accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel for the economic hardship review, based on the fact that there was erroneous finding of material fact. A single family home or a duplex is an expense, but not an economic hardship. It was seconded by Mr. Owen.
Mr. Wright suggested that Ms. Deal explain the "erroneous finding of material fact for the purpose of the record". Ms. Deal said, "It was based on the fact that a bed and breakfast is more profitable than a single-family residence and, according to the ordinance what a bed and breakfast has to make, is immaterial." Ms. Jeppsen said that if what Ms. Deal said was correct, then all of the past economic hardship reviews have been a "waste of time."
Ms. Deal said that the Commission had to decide if the allowed uses, which is single family and a duplex residence, create an economic hardship. She said, "That is a simple question not does a bed and breakfast create more money, but does the allowed uses create an economic hardship. What I see here, using the applicant's figures, is that they have a 3,200 square foot house with six bedrooms and four baths and their monthly payment is $2,500, and I just don't think that creates an economic hardship." Ms. Giraud said that the renovation costs were figured in, which was close to $200,000. Ms. Deal said, "They bought the house. It was in the same condition when they bought it." Mr. Owen said, "That isn't an economic hardship issue." Ms. Giraud said, "I certainly think it is".
Mr. Wright said, "It absolutely does. If that is your belief, then there is a problem, here. The purpose of even having this process available is to preserve historic buildings that is the whole purpose that they filed this application. So to say that we are not going to consider any of the economics of rehabbing or restoring is not part of the economic reviews, is not correct." Ms. Deal said that she was considering those rehab numbers
as part of the formula.
A lengthy discussion developed regarding the $37,000 a year loss that would incur if the property was rented out or renovated as a duplex, which was compared to the bed and breakfast option, and other matters relating to this case.
• Mr. Wright referred to Mr. Pace's statement and concurred that the applicants did not have to show that the bed and breakfast would be profitable; they have to show that the two existing allowable uses were not profitable. Mr. Young commented that by taking the $30,000 out of the income figures, the bed and breakfast would be less profitable. He reiterated the question about the how profitable were the other two allowed uses. The discussion continued.
It was a unanimous decision to open the meeting to the public to allow Mr. Pace to clarify some matters. Mr. Pace indicated that he had not reviewed any of the information regarding this case. He said, "The question is what are the allowed uses and what does the evidence show as to the reasonableness of the economic return for those allowed uses. If they show a break even, if they show a profit margin, or if they show a loss, that is the evidence of undermining the decision."
Mr. Young, again, closed this portion of the meeting to the public.
The discussion turned to the wording of the motion. Ms. Jeppsen said that she still did not understand why the motion was stated the way it was. She talked further about the rate of return of the allowed uses and the bed and breakfast option. Mr. Wright said that he also wanted to make sure that he understood Ms. Deal's motion in case the Historic Landmark Commission's decision is appealed by the applicants. He inquired if Ms. Deal was saying that the information was not accurate. Ms. Deal said that she understood the negative cash flow and said the following: "I also can't get past the premise that this is a residence, and every one of us has a huge negative cash flow at the end of the year when we look at what we put into our house and what we get out of it it's obviously not going to be a cash cow duplex nonetheless, the payments for what they are getting and the market value for what they are getting, I don't understand where the true hardship comes in." Mr. Wright said that most people he knows, who own duplexes, lose money on their investment.
Mr. Owen said, "The property is a single-family residence and is listed, as such, by the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office, and has been for the past thirty years. I checked with them last week and got that information." There was some discussion that the property had not been used as a single-family residence for many years.
Mr. Owen said, "The property was categorized when these people bought it. I think the point is that they are abusing this process by buying one thing with the intent of converting it to another." Mr. Wright suggested that would show in the numbers. He added that the applicants had a right to use the building as a duplex, according to the zoning. There was more communication about the value and the numbers provided by the applicants.
Ms. Rowland said that in operating a duplex, it was fairly standard that the tenants of a rental unit paid for their own utilities. She added that the owners, generally, paid water, sewer, and trash pickup. Ms. Rowland said that in the case where the owner lived in one of the duplex units, the water, sewer and trash pick-up would be divided. She said that she believed the figures the applicants provided for the maintenance of the duplex option was "pretty high " Ms. Rowland said, "Where it is a residence and one rental unit, the rental income property doesn't absorb all the taxes, all utilities, or all the maintenance costs. You have to pro-rate that per square footage of what you are renting and what you live in." She indicated that if real operating costs were used, she thought that a duplex would be a much more economically viable option.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked if it was just the utilities with which she had a problem. Ms. Rowland said that it was utilities, maintenance, taxes and the projections where the applicants were renting the upper unit and living in the bottom unit. She added that licenses and permits were not required for duplexes in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Jeppsen questioned whether these expenses really affected the bottom line in terms of the entire project. Ms. Jeppsen stated, "The only thing we can comment on is the actual economic figures. I think the original motion commented on the ordinance, not on this particular case. So if we need to comment, I think we need to comment regarding the figures, rather than on philosophy, or whether this is the correct thing to do. It needs to be more of a reflection, whether we think the ordinance is correct or not."
Ms. Deal withdrew her motion. The chair recognized that action.
Ms. Rowland moved to deny the economic hardship based on the problems with the projections, the duplex and the existing use, and whether those projections are really realistic. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.
The discussion continued. Mr. Littig commented on the conservatory and a hot tub on at the cost of $21,000. Ms. Deal said that there was a fireplace that cost $13,000.
Mr. Owen said, "The discussion I heard about economic hardship was that the owners are doing much of the work themselves. They have tried to middle guess a lot of these figures, and that they are not hard figures. I think we will bog ourselves down tremendously if we start trying to debate these specific figures. As a matter of discussion, too, I showed the figures on project cash flow projections, as a bed and breakfast option, to my friend, Karen Heckle, who is the manager of the Brigham Street Inn, and she just laughed. She said that they are just up in the night. She said that this is not realistic."
The motion was restated.
Ms. Rowland moved to deny the economic hardship based on the problems with the projections, the duplex and the existing use, and whether those projections are really realistic. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Jeppsen were opposed. Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Payne were not present
for the vote. The motion passed.
Discussion with the Cathedral of the Madeleine concerning site planning issues pertaining to a proposal of a new choir school annex on the Cathedral property, roughly bounded by South Temple, First Avenue, "B" and "C" Streets. which is in an Institutional Zoning District.
Ms. Giraud said that this was a topic that would be best to be addressed by the people concerned with the Cathedral and the choir school. She said that the people met with staff a few weeks. Ms. Giraud suggested to them that this topic should be presented to the Historic Landmark Commission as a discussion item because there are many issues surrounding the choir school annex. She added that the plans were not definite and that was the reason why the discussion was scheduled.
Monsignor Francis Mannion, Rector of the Cathedral of the Madeleine and Administrator of the Madeleine Choir School, introduced Mr. Thomas Beebe, Chair of the Madeleine Choir School board, Mr. Steve Crane, and Mr. Tom Thorum from the Valentiner Crane Brunjes Onyon Architectural Firm. Monsignor Mannion mentioned that the principal of the choir school was also present. Monsignor Mannion stated that they wanted to have the advice of the Commission members on the proposal for an annex to the choir school, which is currently located in the basement of the Cathedral of the Madeleine. He said that the choir school opened in 1995 and "has been a great success". Monsignor said that space problems have developed in the basement of the Cathedral school. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Crane said that there were a number of possible locations for the school building, including on the northwest corner of the block, the space currently occupied by the red brick house east of the cathedral (the former Catholic Community Services Building), or on another block near the school. Mr. Crane outlined the positive and negative aspects of each of the options, and asked for input from the Historic Landmark Commission members.
Further discussion followed regarding the various locations. Mr. Young summed up the recommendation of the Commission, which was that the school should avoid the demolition of any existing historic buildings on the block, and that they should further study the possibility of renovating and adding on to the Catholic Community Services building. They should also put further study into the First Avenue site and other possible locations.
OTHER BUSINESS
Recognition of members whose terms were expiring.
Mr. Young extended appreciation to Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, and Rob McFarland for their services on the Historic Landmark Commission. He praised Ms. Deal for serving as the Vice-Chairperson for the past few years. Mr. Young said that all their terms had expired and he wished them well in their future endeavors.
Advancement of staff’s position.
Mr. Wright announced that Mr. Nelson Knight was just advanced to an Associate Planning position. He said that Mr. Knight has done an outstanding job for the Planning Department and congratulated him for this advancement.
Central City Master Plan Update
Ms. Giraud said that the City is in the process of updating the master plan for the Central City community. She asked for volunteers from the Historic Landmark Commission to sit on the master plan advisory committee. Mr. Gordon, who lives in the Central City community, volunteered to sit on the committee.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Owen so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M.