SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Bruce Miya, Dina Williams, Robert Young, Lisa Miller, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Heidi Swinton, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. William Damery and Rob McFarland were excused. Mr. Cooper declared recusancy and removed himself from the Historic Landmark Commission for this meeting.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, and Lisa Miller, Planner. William T. Wright, Planning Director, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Bruce Miya. Mr. Miya announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.
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
Ms. Williams moved to approve the minutes of May 7, 1997, after a small correction is made. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, and Mr. McFarland were not present. Mr. Cooper was in the state of recusancy. The motion passed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of May 21, 1997. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, and Mr. McFarland were not present. Mr. Cooper was in the state of recusancy. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASES
Case No. 014-92 at 337 South 1100 East, by Doug and Esther Hunter, the applicants, represented by Allen Roberts. of Cooper-Roberts Architects, requesting a renewal of the approval to enlarge the second floor and alter the roof configuration. and construct a new front porch.
Ms. Lisa Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She pointed out that the Staff report did not include a recommendation, and as policy, major alterations to the facade of historic buildings were generally not approved. Photographs of the property and site drawings were circulated. Ms. Lisa Miller said that she thought it would be helpful if the Commission addressed each standard in Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure.
Ms. Lisa Miller referred to Section 21A34.020 (G) from (1) through (12) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, referencing (12) Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council. She discussed some of those design standards, then pointed out that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City had not yet been adopted by the City Council.
Mr. Doug Hunter and Ms. Esther Hunter, the applicants, as well as Mr. Allen Roberts of Cooper-Roberts Architects, representing the applicants, were present. Mr. Roberts used a display board to further describe the project, which included current photographs of the streetscape. He said that this project was approved by, what was then called the Historical Landmark Committee, five years before, but the owners did not have the funds, at that time, to complete the project. Mr. Roberts said that the subject house had been built in several sections, starting in the 1890's. He said that the original house was a small, recessed cross-winged, brick, Victorian. He pointed to the sections on the drawings which had been added to the original house through the years. Mr. Roberts added that each room was actually an addition. He explained that the owners had not been living in the house for the past two years, because of its condition and, as the existing house did not meet their family's current needs.
Mr. Roberts spoke of the poor condition of the house, such as the ceilings that were collapsing, a number of City codes that were being violated, the water damage in the back, and that there was no seismic resisting capacity. He said that the applicants had a choice of seeking permission to demolish the house and build a new one, or altering the existing structure to meet the applicant's functional needs, while meeting the aesthetic needs of the historic district.
Mr. Roberts gave a brief description of the proposal, which was included in the original Staff report of June of 1992, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He added that the applicants now had the funding to go ahead with this project.
Ms. Hunter remarked that she loved the house. She said that she and her husband had spent a lot of time and energy to try to do something to preserve it. Ms. Hunter described the location of the existing house as being between two apartment houses and the fact that the west side of 1100 East was not in an historic district.
Ms. Hunter spoke of Ms. Helen Wells, who lived in the house for about 67 years. She was well-known for the arboretum at the University of Utah and for several rose garden clubs. She said that one of the reasons why they chose not to put an addition in the rear of the home was because Ms. Wells had established a garden in the back which contained many unusual trees and plants. Ms. Hunter believed that the garden was part of the historic value of the site and was important to preserve Helen Wells' legacy to Salt Lake City.
In summary, Mr. Roberts said that the applicants were trying to make the house livable and large enough to accommodate their needs. He said that he was aware the house would have no particular style, that it would be an eclectic blending of architectural features. He said that he believed the house would still be a contributory structure and be compatible to other structures in the neighborhood. He added that the house could not be seen from the street.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Hatch "led the discussion by inquiring about the intended round columns, as well as the scale and form for the addition. Mr. Roberts said that the roof pitch was proposed because there needed to be additional head room in the attic. Mr. Roberts said that the proposed round columns would be as typical as any other shape and the fact that there were more round columns, on other structures in the neighborhood, than square columns. He said that the applicants were not trying to replicate any particular style; the house, itself, would become its own reference point. Mr. Roberts also talked about the Palladian windows and said that the arch of the windows would fi1t nicely in the pyramid of the roof. He said that there were other Tudor styles in the area that had the same window design.
• Mr. Miya said that the drawings in the packet were not the same as the drawings that Mr. Roberts had displayed. He pointed out the differences. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the drawings that were in the packet were the original ones which were submitted in 1992. There was much discussion regarding this matter.
• Mr. Cartwright noted that the Historical Landmark Committee approved this project in 1992 and at that time the Committee was al1so concerned about mixing the classical columns with the Tudor style. Mr. Cartwright said that the status of the existing house is eclectic, and the Committee, at that time, hoped it would dissolve into a stand-alone, contributory, house, and thought there was still that possibility. He added that it was a question of consistency. Ms. Deal remarked that she did not feel bound by a previous Committee's approval.
• Ms. Williams asked about the existing pitch of the roof. Mr. Roberts said that it was either a 9 or 10/12 pitch. Mr. Roberts said that he thought that the width and height were in proportion, and the materials, the scale, the detailing, and the roof pitch would be compatible with the neighborhood, as well as would meet the design guidelines.
Ms. Hunter spoke of the existing door element which was located on the south elevation. Mr. Roberts said that the attached garage was below the house and that element housed the walkway to the garage. Ms. Hunter said that she believed it was the first attached garage in Salt Lake City. She said that element was being removed and replaced with a new design.
Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Mr. Miya closed the hearing 'to the public and the Commission went into executive session:
Executive Session
Mr. Miya made a point that the same proposal, was now being reviewed under a new Zoning Ordinance and that would make a difference in the Commission's review. A lengthy discussion took place.
Mr. Cartwright said that he believed there was a way to resolve the diverse architecture styles into a single, pure, statement. He also said that the proposal had not been modified from the original.
Ms. Hatch said that Mr. Roberts had reasonable logic for pulling the architectural elements together. She said that in the existing house, design decisions were made by professionals and the current proposal was Mr. Roberts' interpretation of what he thought should be done to accommodate the owner's needs. When Mr. Miya asked Ms. Hatch if she thought this proposal met the criteria for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, by which the Commission had to abide, Ms. Hatch talked about some prior projects, the Commission had reviewed, comparing major modifications to an original house with the current proposed project.
The discussion turned to the historic garden in the rear of the house. Ms. Williams asked if the Commission believed that was an important element which should be maintained. She added that if it was, what other approach could be taken to meet the contemporary needs of the property owner. There was much discussion and several members expressed his or her opinions on the subject. Ms. Lisa Miller said that she thought this conversation could take place in the Architectural Subcommittee. Some members of the Commission commented that the problem areas appeared to be the addition of the porch, the columns, the Palladian windows, and the change in the roof pitch. Some members thought that the proposal would be an interesting eclectic approach. Mr. Cartwright said that he was willing to give the applicants the benefit of the doubt that the project could be handled with a certain amount of thoughtfulness in the details, but noted again that the Commission had to abide with the new Zoning Ordinance. He also said that he did not feel obligated to approve the project, based on the prior approval.
Ms. Lisa Miller said that there was a fine line between historical conjecture and creating an eclectic approach and referred to the Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alternation of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, found in the Staff report. She referred to the Secretary of the Interior's Standard No. 3, "Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features on architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken." Ms. Deal said that she did not think these standards say that one had to turn this project into a Tudor extravaganza, and she believed there was a way to modify the plans using the standards. Ms. Hatch expressed her concern that if all Tudor detailing was applied to this project, instead of what was being presented, then a false context would be created for the original house. Ms. Williams questioned if the project was reviewed in the Architectural Subcommittee, if the issues of non-compliance could be resolved. Ms. Hatch said that the design issues would be discussed, but perhaps it would be a good idea to put the issues in the form of a motion.
There was much discussion regarding the Zoning Ordinance and how each member of the Commission interpreted the applied sections, being consistent with decisions regarding additions and alterations to a contributing structure, and other related issues of this project.
Since there were so many individual concerns, it was decided that Mr. Miya should reopen the meeting to the public. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Wallace Cooper, architect, commented that the Commission was dealing with a Certificate of Appropriateness for this building under Section 21A.34.020 (G) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which is included in the Staff report. He read the following portion of the ordinance: "shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application" He thought that this project substantially complied with most of the listed standards. He again reminded the Commission that the Design Guidelines had not been adopted by the City Council and should not be a factor in this project. Mr. Cooper further suggested that the Commission go down the list of standards and analyze if the proposed project would substantially comply with each standard.
Mr. Alan Smith, who resides 31 No. "L" Street #107, stated that he agreed and that the Commission should decide if the project met substantially with each of those standards in the Zoning Ordinance and to determine on which standards that the majority of the members agreed.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Miya reclosed the meeting to the public and the Commission continued to discuss the matters relating to this case.
There were many comments made and several Commission members expressed his or her opinions of the standards in the Staffs findings. There was not a consensus of opinion about which of the Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, found in the Zoning Ordinance, have been met. It was suggested that the Commission either agree or disagree with the Staffs findings in the Staff report and make a motion based on the findings. After discussing the wording of the motion, the Commission decided to vote on each of the -twelve standards.
Mr. Wright stated that in reading the standards, the words, "substantially complies" should be included, while going through this exercise.
The vote on each standard took place. The common consent was that the majority of the members voted "yes" on Numbers 1, 2, and 4. They voted "no" on Numbers 2, 5, and 9. Numbers 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 were not applicable.
A discussion took place regarding the wording of the motion. Ms. Sarah Miller commented that Mr. Paterson had said that the Commission could base its decision on mitigating circumstances. Mr. Cerruti wanted to be shown where that could be found in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Paterson said that the Commission could make that interpretation if the Commission found that there were extenuating circumstances that mitigate the standards on which it could base its decision. Mr. Cerruti questioned the applicability of extenuating circumstances and asked if the same discussion would arise if the existing house was located on South Temple. The discussion continued, regarding the historical garden in the rear of the house, and if it would be a factor and interpreted as an extenuating circumstance pertaining to one of the twelve standards that had been discussed.
At the request of the applicant, but not in complete agreement with the Commission members, Mr. Miya once again reopened the meeting to the public.
Ms. Hunter said that she was having trouble understanding how she was supposed to respond to the Commission's suggestions. Ms. Hunter addressed the hardships related to this project. She pleaded with the Commission by saying that she was trying to work with the existing house and if she and her husband abandoned this project, the house would become rental property and continue to deteriorate.
The meeting was once again reclosed to the public.
Ms. Hatch moved to approve Case No. 014-92 based on the findings of fact that the project substantially complied with the general standards of the ordinance. The basis for the argument was the eclectic nature of the house. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young were opposed. Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, broke the tie vote by voting against the motion. Mr. Damery and Mr. McFarland were not present. Mr. Cooper was in the state of recusancy. The motion was defeated.
The discussion continued. Ms. Williams suggested that the Commission be a little more creative in interpreting the language of the Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or contributing Structure. She said that the historic character of the property was eclectic and its contributing status was based on that fact and perhaps any future development should continue on that same path which would be in keeping with the historic character. Ms. Williams wanted the minutes to reflect that there was a consensus of opinion to her rationale. The discussion continued.
Ms. Williams moved to approve Case No. 014-92 based on the Commission's findings of fact that the project substantially complied with all the general standards that were identified and that the applicant go to the Architectural Subcommittee for refinement of the design details and then return to the full Commission for final approval.
The discussion continued. The motion died for the Jack of a second.
Ms. Williams moved to table the application for Case No. 014-92 and require the applicant to go the Architectural Subcommittee meeting and return to the full Commission for final decision of the design. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, and Ms. Miner were opposed. Mr. Miya, as Acting1 Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, and Mr. McFarland were not present. Mr. Cooper was in the state of recusancy. The motion passed.
Case No. 005-97. at 205 E. First Avenue (Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School). by Wallace Cooper of Cooper-Roberts Architects. continuing the discussion for the review of the demolition of an addition. or alteration. and the design for a new classroom addition to the main building.
Ms. Lisa Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She indicated that this discussion was a continuation from the May 7, 1997 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Lisa Miller stated that there was much discussion whether or not this project should be classified as an alteration to a building or a demolition. She continued with the outline of the Staff report by pointing out previous cases where an application was reviewed as an alteration rather than a demolition, as well as the legal opinion from the City Attorney's office of the definition of "demolition". Ms. Lisa Miller informed the Commission that Mr. Lynn Pace of the City Attorney's office concurred that this project should be processed as an alteration, although the Commission could make an addendum to the City's Zoning Ordinance quantifying its definition of "demolition", rather than a change to the ordinance. Mr. Paterson clarified that Mr. Pace noted that there was a wide latitude in the definition of "demolition" which allowed the Commission the ability to look at an individual case and determine itself whether or not that particular application could be considered an alteration or a demolition. He also noted the sections of the City's Zoning Ordinance under which this case could be processed as either an alteration or a demolition.
Mr. Wallace Cooper of Cooper-Roberts Architects, representing the applicant, was present, as well as the applicant, Mr. Alan Sparrow. Mr. Cooper stated that the submitted application was for an addition/alteration. He observed that the Commission was "wrestling" with the Certificates of Appropriateness of an Alteration or a Demolition of a Landmark Site. He stated that, prior to this body becoming a Commission, it functioned as the Historical Landmark Committee, under a different demolition ordinance, which was consistently applied to buildings that were being entirely removed, and not a partial demolition. Mr. Cooper said that when the current ordinance was rewritten, it was the Committee's, and later the Commission's intent, that the Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Landmark Site and a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Contributing Structure would be applied to the entire removal of a landmark site or contributing structure. He said that he sat on the Commission with many of the existing members, taking part in those discussions, and there was never a discussion that the demolition ordinance would be applied to a partial demolition. He referred to previously reviewed projects, and pointed out where partial demolitions were traditionally and typically handled as alterations to a site.
Mr. Cooper concluded by saying with that knowledge and consultation with the Staff, it was believed that this application fell under the definition of alteration and not under demolition. Mr. Cooper petitioned the Commission to review this project as an addition/alteration and require that the project meet the criteria for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structures. He indicated that the entire site of the Rowland Hall/St. Mark's School was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A discussion followed regarding these issues.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal led the discussion with the need for clarification of the terminology of "landmark site" or "building," Mr. Cooper pointed out that the words, "landmark site" and "building" were not used consistently throughout the new Zoning Ordinance.
With that explanation, Ms. Deal suggested that the words "partial demolition" be eliminated in the Staff report, and be replaced with the statement, "a new addition and alteration to the main building." if it was the Commission's decision to
review the project as an alteration to a landmark site. Ms. Deal inquired further if the proposal called for the removal of one addition in its entirety. Mr. Cooper clarified that the proposal called for the removal of part of the addition that was constructed
in 1906 and an addition that was placed on this addition later on.
• Mr. Cerruti asked about the size of the proposal. Mr. Cooper said that with the completion of the proposed alteration project, there would be approximately 12,000 square feet added to the main building, which would be less than half of the total volume of the building. Mr. Cooper reminded the Commission that the Avenues Community Council gave an unanimous approval to this approach for the project and not the design. He said at this Historic Landmark Commission meeting, the applicant was asking for a decision by the Commission whether this project should be reviewed as a demolition or an addition/alteration project. There was some additional conversation regarding the completion dates of prior additions to the building.
• Mr. Morgan said that one of the good things about the current proposal, was that it would be working with the least interesting section of the building and would not have an effect on a historic character-defining feature, such as one of the other historic buildings on the campus. Mr. Cooper said that the project would not affect the front of the main building; that the alteration would take place on, what had been referred traditionally, as the back of the building.
Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Mr. Miya closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session:
Executive Session
The discussion continued regarding many of the related issues of this project.
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 005-97 be processed as an alteration to an historic structure, in that less than 50 percent of the volume of an individual building would be removed. Further, that the removed portion is, in and of itself, not a significant historical element, but only contributes to the historical structure designation, as it was older than 50 years old, at the time the site was designated. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the issues surrounding the volume of the project in relationship to the main building, as well as the possibility of the Commission establishing a precedent with this project. Mr. Cerruti pointed out that many of the business establishments on Main Street in downtown Salt Lake City had falsified facades on buildings, which had created a "Main Street in Disneyland." It was pointed out that Main Street, itself, was not an historic district, and only those buildings listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural' Resources, were reviewed by this Commission.
Mr. Cerruti continued by stating that he appreciated the effort of Mr. Pace, but to him, the City Attorney's office provided no assistance in the definition of "demolition". Mr. Cerruti said that the City Attorney's office did not render a legal opinion. Ms. Lisa Miller again pointed out that Mr. Pace's observation was that the Commission could make the determination if a project should, or should not, be considered a demolition on a case by-case basis. The discussion continued regarding the interpretation of the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance and the consistency of the Commission's decisions. Several members voiced his or her opinions on the matter. A copy of the definition of "demolition" was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Deal read a portion of the definition of "demolition" from of the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) guide: "a selective demolition, leaves any part of the building intact any part that has to be cut or separated"
The motion was not amended and re-read as it was originally stated.
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 005-97 be processed as an alteration to an historic structure, in that less than 50 percent of the volume of an individual building would be removed. Further, that the removed portion is, in and of itself, not a significant historical element, but only contributes to the historical structure designation, as it was older than 50 years old, at the time the site was designated. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. The second still stood by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti was opposed. Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. McFarland were not present. Mr. Cooper was in the state of recusancy. The motion passed.
NEW CASE
Case 006-97. at 700 North and 200 West. by Wallace Cooper. of Cooper-Roberts Architects. requesting approval to include the Twenty-Fourth LOS Ward Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Lisa Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the integrity of the building was intact, and that the building had not been significantly altered through the years. Various photographs of the building were circulated.
The applicant, Mr. Wallace Cooper of Cooper-Roberts Architects, was present. He said that he concurred with the Staff report.
Since there were no questions, concerns, or comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Mr. Miya closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A short discussion took place. Mr. Morgan said that the proposal would give the applicant an opportunity to pursue a conditional use for the building. He said that he thought that office space would be a good use for the structure. Mr. Young asked if there was a subsequent application to include this building on the list of National Register for Historic Places. Ms. Lisa Miller said that it is included in the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Historic District nomination.
Mr. Morgan made a motion for Case 006-97, recommending that the Twenty Fourth LOS Ward Building be included on the list of Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present. Mr. Cooper was in the state of recusancy. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
• Choose a member to represent the Historic Landmark Commission on an Economic Review Panel for Case No. 018-96, a request by Art Brothers to demolish the house at 39 No. "Q" Street. which is in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Lisa Miller gave a brief presentation of this case and the need for the Historic Landmark Commission to make a recommendation of someone to represent the Commission to serve on the Economic Review Panel, according to definition, determination, and procedure of economic hardships, which is found in Title 21A.34 (K) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
After a short discussion, the name of Dina Williams was placed in nomination by Ms. Deal. Mr. Wright suggested that although the Commission was allowed to choose a current member to serve on the Economic Review Panel, due to the fact that, if the case would come before this Commission, that person would have to declare a conflict of interest. Ms. Williams' name was withdrawn. Several other people were discussed to serve on the panel. Mr. Wright further recommended that the person chosen by this Commission should reside in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Williams recommended that Mr. Rob White be nominated to represent the Historic Landmark Commission to serve on the three-member Economic Review Panel for Case No. 018-96. Further, that Mr. Doug Stephens be nominated as an alternative. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present. Mr. Cooper was in the state of recusancy. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 P.M.