June 5, 2002

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 Pete Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, Nelson Knight, and Sean Randall.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Mark Wilson. Wayne Gordon, Alex Protasevich, and Robert Young were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Sean Randall, Intern.

Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Mickelsen moved to approve the minutes from the May 15, 2002 meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.

(Mr. Littig arrived at the meeting at 4:05P.M.)

PREVIOUS BUSINESS

Case No. 013-02, continuation of a request by the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency {RDA), represented by the IBI Group, for review of draft design guidelines for the proposed commercial development located at 500 North and 300 West. in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The proposed guidelines will be reviewed by the RDA Board in June, and then be used to market the property to potential developers of the site.

Mr. Knight presented his memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) submitted a draft of the Design Guidelines for 300 West and 500 North 'The Capitol Hill Neighborhood Center" at the May 15, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Knight pointed out that the Commission voted to continue this case in order to allow time for additional comment on the draft guidelines. Mr. Knight reported that Commissioners Mickelsen and Young submitted comments to Staff, which were passed on to the applicant. He indicated that the IBI Group is planning to submit a 'final draft of the design guidelines at the June 5, 2002 meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Knight added that Staff believes that the issues raised in the May 15, 2002 staff report and meeting have been addressed and recommends approval of the design guidelines.

Mr. Knight stated that the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board, which is the City Council, plans to review the design guidelines on June 11, 2002. Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the Commission was supposed to approve the revised design guidelines "sight unseen". Mr. Knight suggested that the meeting could be continued until the next meeting. It was mentioned that the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting would be June 19, and the RDA Board would meet on June 11, 2002.

Mr. Simonsen said that he did not believe that would change the RDA approval. However, he said that he did not know the nature of the changes that were submitted. Mr. Simonsen said that the draft of the design guidelines came to this Commission first so recommendations and suggestions could be forwarded to the RDA Board.

Ms. Giraud said that the final review of the development would come before the Historic Landmark Commission, once a developer is found and site plans are submitted.

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

The applicant, Mr. Danny Walz of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, was present. He passed out the latest draft of the design guidelines, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Walz said that all the comments from the Commission and Staff were incorporated into the document. He mentioned again that the draft would be reviewed at the RDA Board meeting. Mr. Walz said that there would not be a problem with continuing this case to the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting on June 19, 2002. When asked by Mr. Knight, Mr. Walz said that the design guidelines would be attached to the reuse plan at the next meeting.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. There was a short discussion regarding the demolition of the homes on Arctic Court. Mr. Simonsen suggested talking further about that issue at the next meeting when the reuse plan would be reviewed. Mr. Simonsen excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

There was no additional discussion.

Motion:

Mr. Littig moved that Case No. 013-02 be tabled until the next meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission on June 19, 2002. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 009-02, at 132 So. State Street. by Zions Securities, represented by Kim Hyatt of MHTN Architects, requesting final approval to construct a parking structure behind the historic lobby of the Orpheum Theater. also known as the Promised Valley Playhouse. The property is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.

Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that Mr. Kim Hyatt of MHTN Architects, representing Zions Security Corporation, was requesting final approval for the design of a parking structure behind the historic facade and the first approximately 35 feet (lobby) of the Orpheum Theatre, also known as the Promised Valley Playhouse. Ms. Lew added that the front of the historic theater would remain intact and be renovated for offices and retail use. She said that the Orpheum Theater was listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources in

1976 and is located in a Central Business (D-1) zoning district.

Ms. Lew gave the following overview of the project: The Historic Landmark Commission first reviewed conceptual drawings for the parking structure at its November 15, 2000 meeting, where the Commission directed Staff to process the application as a demolition request. On September 5, 2001, the HLC authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the theater and hotel (westernmost portion) at the rear of the property after reviewing the written report prepared by the designated Economic Review Panel. The Economic Review Panel found that an unreasonable economic hardship would exist for the applicant if required to rehabilitate the building and turn it back into a performance space.

This request for approval of new construction was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission on March 20, 2002. Comments from the Commission focused on the following: 1) landscape treatment along Orpheum Avenue; 2) improving the overall environment on Plum Alley; 3) treatment of the addition on the State Street facade; 4) materials; 5) arched windows on the north facade; 6) a continuation of the cornice on the south facade to match the historic cornice design, and 7) documentation requirements. The applicant received conceptual approval, subject to the conditions that the project be reviewed once more by the Arc 1itectural Subcommittee, and subsequent to Planning Commission review for a conditional use, the application would return to the full Commission for final approval. The applicant received conditional use approval from the Planning Commission to construct a commercial parking structure without retail space on the ground level of the Orpheum Avenue street frontage on May 2, 2002.

The applicant and the architect met with the Architectural Subcommittee on May 22, 2002. Mr. Hyatt described the changes that were made after the Planning Commission meeting, such as the tan colored brick on the primary facades, with a contrasting color on the elevator/stair towers. The plans also show CMU (Concrete Masonry Unit) on the west and south walls. However, the exposed area of the west wall would be painted. The banding, lintels, and the sills would be pre-cast concrete. Pre-cast concrete would be used in the fascia of the addition as well. Clear and spandrel glass would be used in the storefronts. The lower level of the north elevation is detailed with pre-cast concrete panels and metal grills.

Other suggestions made at the meeting included: 1) using a thinner profile on the storefront system and including a formed recessed kick plate instead of a flat panel with applied molding; 2) turning the corner with original brick on the transition between old and new construction on the north side; and 3) the applicant may not construct the fourth story of the parking structure, but does not want to lose that option.

There has been additional revisions since the subcommittee review, such as: 1) the height of the parapet on the addition has been dropped slightly; 2) a landscaped area is shown along the north facade; 3) the plans show aluminum clad double-hung windows on the front facade above the storefront windows; and 4) a ten-foot high steel galvanized fence and gate is proposed to secure the rear access to the open area on the south side of the parking structure.

Ms. Lew referred to the following standards that are outlined in Section 21A.34.020(H){1 through 4) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving new Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure, which states: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staffs finding of fact: The established context in regards to mass and scale on this block is dominated by the existing multi-level parking structure that runs almost the entire length of Regent Street. New buildings and additions are typically larger than many of the earlier structures and the scale and form of the proposed parking structure falls within the range of building forms found in the area.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staffs discussion: Although the extension of the building to the south on the principle elevation does not appear to be setback from the front of the original structure, the design is visually subordinate and distinguishable from the historic elements. The solid-to-void ratio is similar to that of the historic portion of the building, but clearly a product of its own time in terms of texture and material. CMU and brick veneer are proposed for the wall material, with pre-cast concrete for the architectural details. Staff is concerned about the galvanized metal fencing material proposed to enclose the dead space created behind the extension, which now abuts the building to the south and the specific style of the fence is not shown in the plans. The applicant has indicated that the adjacent property owner to the south would prefer a wrought iron fence to secure the area. Staff believes this may be a more appropriate material and would help soften the visual impact of the new fence as seen from Plum Alley.

Staff's finding of fact: Overall the proposed project meets these standards. The proposed project is compatible with the historic context, yet distinguishable as new construction. The pattern of openings is a continuation of the fenestration of the original building and is in keeping with window patterns seen on historic commercial buildings. The proposed use of brick is similar to what is seen historically on commercial structures, and alternative materials were often used on secondary facades. Although there may be a more appropriate fencing material, staff does not consider the proposed use of galvanized steel to be substantially in conflict with the ordinance. Greater detail is needed on the design of the fence to determine compatibility.

3. Relationship to Street.

a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;

c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and

d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staff's finding of fact: The current development and lack of side yard requirements provides a "wall of continuity" on the streetscape of the State Street frontage of this block. However, there is no particular rhythm of spacing of structures on the block because there is no standard lot size. The directional expression of the main facade has not changed and is consistent with the area. The proposed plan also includes features that would enhance the streetscape. Staff finds that the proposed development meets these standards.

Staff's finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.

Ms. Lew offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds that the proposed project meets the standards specified in the ordinance and recommends approval of the design with the condition that the applicant provide archival quality photographs, and plans or elevations drawings, necessary to record the structure being demolished. If the Commission finds that further refinement is necessary, staff recommends the Commission address any outstanding issues in conditions of approval."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the archival quality photographs would be of the interior or the exterior of the building. Ms. Giraud said that they should include both, then asked if any of the Commissioners would like to volunteer in assisting Zions Securities Corporation with the recordation of the building. She added that the standards for the documentation of a landmark site should be more thorough and of higher quality.

Mr. Parvaz referred to his memorandum to Staff where he suggested the kind of documentation that should occur. He said that the recordation should include plans, sections, and wall sections, especially through the windows, in addition to what is required in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Giraud said that it was the applicant's responsibility to provide the documentation.

Mr. Christensen asked if the City had archives where the documentation would be stored. Ms. Giraud said that the documents would be placed in a file in the Planning Office and suggested that a duplicate copy be submitted to the Utah State Historical Society Library, which is a depository for historical information. She added that the City is not a research institution for historic buildings and does not have archival procedures in place. Ms. Giraud recommended that care should be taken to store the documentation in a place of high quality so they would not deteriorate. There was some discussion relating to the storage of the documentation.

Mr. Simonsen suggested viewing the documents before duplicates were produced as to the quality of the information.

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

Mr. Kim Hyatt of MHTN Architects, representing Zions Securities Corporation, was present. He reoriented the Commissioners regarding the project. Mr. Hyatt circulated photographs of the historic structure pointing out the retail shops at the street level. He talked about the addition to the south of the building that would fill in a portion of the vacant space. Mr. Hyatt said that the extension would be differentiated by materials and by a setback of approximately three feet. Mr. Hyatt displayed a color and sample board. He said that a smooth faced brick, ranging in colors from buff to yellow to match the original brick would be used. He noted that a contrasting color would be used for street elevations on the upper portions of the building. Mr. Hyatt stated that gray sandstone was selected for the cornice and other elements, (or possibility a metal material could be used for the cornice). Mr. Hyatt also said that gray pre-cast concrete would be used for the base for the new construction, the columns, and the lintels and sills for the windows. He pointed out where sheet metal would be used on the belt course. Mr. Hyatt said that the steel storefront system would be extended out to the plane of the wall where it was originally. He added that a variety of patterns were used in the historic storefronts and the applicant will select one of the patterns. He indicated that a thermal glazing system would be used for the clear glass windows. Mr. Hyatt pointed out on the site plan where the ten-inch high, galvanized steel fence would be located and said that it should read "painted galvanized steel fence". He added that razor wire or chain link would not be used; it would be composed of rolled steel sections, commonly called wrought iron.

Mr. Hyatt talked about the concerns about the "overall ambience" that the Commission expressed at the last review. He pointed out where the face would be painted on the Plum Alley elevation (west), turning the corner where the fence and gate would be erected.

Mr. Hyatt inquired further into the section of the staff report where archival quality photographs were to be provided. He noted that the applicant would need direction with respect to the level of the required documentation because he did not recall any section of the ordinance where this was mentioned. Mr. Hyatt said that drawings are very expensive to produce and he did not believe they were warranted by this project. He used the State Capitol Building as an example of where they might be warranted. Mr. Hyatt proposed documentation that included photographs with a short narrative.

Mr. Knight read the following from Section 21A.34.020(0) of the zoning ordinance, Recordation Requirement for Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. Upon approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall require the applicant to provide archival quality photographs, plans or elevation drawings, as available, necessary to record the structure(s) being demolished. A discussion took place regarding matters relating to this issue.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic

Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring about the original setbacks of the columns. Mr. Hyatt said that the setbacks were approximately four inches. Mr. Parvaz also asked about the shadowing effect. Mr. Hyatt said that there would be some shadowing. He continued by saying that in the 1970's the original cast iron columns were encased in masonry and concrete. Mr. Parvaz talked about the process and the recordation of the building. Ms. Giraud said that a permit would not be issued until the documentation was completed and provided to Staff. Mr. Parvaz again talked about the importance of documentation for this important landmark site. Mr. Hyatt spoke of the documentation to which he had access. Ms. Giraud mentioned that Mr. Wally Cooper of Cooper Roberts Simonsen also might have some documentation.

• Mr. Christensen inquired if the cast iron columns could be exposed. Mr. Hyatt said that it would be close to impossible to reverse how they had been treated with concrete. Mr. Christensen said that he noticed in one of the historic photographs of the building that the upper portion of the storefront windows on the main floor were arched and inquired if that could be extended further. Mr. Hyatt said that the storefronts changed rapidly with different tenants. He added that all the windows did not have that same pattern.

• Mr. Simonsen addressed the tall light fixtures that are planned for the top deck of the parking structure. Mr. Hyatt said that they would be pole-mounted lights that would provide the required illumination. Mr. Littig said that the light poles would be very visible from State Street. Mr. Simonsen suggested using more poles that would be about ten to twelve feet lower. Mr. Hyatt said that would be possible. Mr. Simonsen said there has been discussion about a residential project across State Street and by lowering the height of the poles they would be less likely to produce glare.

• Mr. Ashdown asked about the "time crunch" for this project. Mr. Hyatt said that in order to get the construction underway, they have an October 2002 deadline to have a demolition approval, as well as a financial reality.

Ms. Giraud inquired of the members of the Commission if they would like to have the documentation reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, reviewed by a special subcommittee formed specifically to review historic recordation, or reviewed by Staff. Mr. Simonsen said that should be something the Commission could consider in a motion.

Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for Mr. Hyatt, Mr. Simonsen excused the applicant. He opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Community Council, expressed her sorrow and disappointment that this building will be dedicated as a parking ramp. She added that there are many things for which the theater could be used. Ms. Gardner stated that although the structure is not in the Capitol Hill Historic District, she said the Orpheum Theatre [later called the Promised Valley Playhouse] "is a part of our heritage". She said that she had "wished for a miracle" for the building.

Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Christensen once again talked about the quality of the documentation. He said that he agreed when Mr. Hyatt specified 4" x 5" black and white copy negatives. He believed that the Commission should be that specific in the requested documentation. Mr. Christensen mentioned that the larger photographs could be requested if the photographs needed to be enlarged. He added that fiber-based paper is the archival way to produce a print where the image is in the fiber of the paper and not just resting on a resin coated surface and believed that process would be appropriate. Mr. Christensen asked the other Commissioners if a minimum number of photographs should be required, such as 25 photographs of the exterior and 25 photographs for the exterior.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if the Historical Society of Utah has standards to which the Commission could refer. Ms. Giraud said that she had already contacted that office and talked to the compliance person who obtains all the photographs for large projects such as highway projects. She said that person could not tell her what was used for documentation or what could be requested. Mr. Ashdown queried why that organization was not already taking photographs of the building. Ms. Giraud said that the Historical Society would not be involved with the City's process. Ms. Giraud said that she would search for other sources of information.

Ms. Giraud again brought forth the idea of creating a subcommittee from members on the Commission who would be interested to review the documentation that would be presented by the applicants. She added that such documentation would vary from project to project.

Mr. Simonsen said that he recommended forming a standing special subcommittee to look at documentation for recordation. He added that the subcommittee would not have to meet as frequently as the Architectural Subcommittee; just when needed. Mr. Simonsen asked by show of hands those interested in working on the subcommittee. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Parvaz volunteered to serve on such a subcommittee. Mr. Littig suggested having the subcommittee do a "walk through" with the applicant.

Mr. Parvaz asked who would have the authority for making the decision for the documentation. Ms. Giraud suggested giving that decision-making authority to the subcommittee. She said if the applicant had an issue with that decision, it could be referred to the full Commission for a review. Mr. Simonsen said that language should be included in the motion.

Motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 009-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept Staff's findings of fact as contained in the staff report that this project meets the design criteria, as was specified at the prior Commission and the Architectural Subcommittee meetings, and approve the design of the parking structure. Also, that the lighting for the top deck of the parking structure be reviewed in order to determine a reduction in the height of the fixtures. Further that a subcommittee made up of members of the Historic Landmark Commission meet with the applicant and discuss appropriate archival quality documentation in drawings and photographs, and if that subcommittee of admission finds that the documentation is adequate then the project can go forward. If there is concern on the side of either party, the matter could be referred to the full Commission for final review. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown was opposed. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Mr. Simonsen recommended that the subcommittee meet as soon as possible.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 015-02. a briefing by Stephen Goldsmith. Salt Lake City Planning Director. concerning a proposal to place the 2002 Winter Olympic Hoberman Arch and stage in Pioneer Park. bounded by 300 and 400 West, and 300 and 400 South Streets. The property is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.

Mr. Simonsen announced that Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director, was present and would brief the Historic Landmark Commission on a project for Pioneer Park.

Mr. Goldsmith made the following statement:

"It is nice to be with all of you. I am here on behalf of the Administration to make a request for a proposal for Pioneer Park to create a performing space. Let me give you a little background information that is separate than what you have been reading in the newspapers, seeing on the TV news, and hearing on the streets. When SLOC (Salt Lake Organizing Committee) came forward and made the offer to the City to provide $4.5 to $6 Million to create some kind of a legacy cultural arts center, the Mayor felt obligated and delighted in fact to say 'this sounds very interesting, now how can we make this happen and where?'

"I was invited to several meetings to assess possible sites to see what capacity the City had to acquire vacant lands, to assess where SLOC felt such a location would be meaningful to them in the central core, and upon returning from a delightful vacation in Europe a few days ago, I found that this site of Pioneer Park had been isolated as the site that the City could offer up to SLOC to see if it could accept this idea of a cultural and performing arts venue.

"Needless to say, there are hundreds of questions that have been asked and another hundred that are yet to be asked, and my process right now with the Planning Division is to assess whether or not Pioneer Park could accept this use without displacing a number of things which are really sacrosanct in the place.

"Such things as the Farmer's Market, which has over the past several years since its starting about 10-12 years ago, blossomed into one of the most thriving social spaces in Salt Lake City. It is arguable that it is 'the' most thriving social space in Salt Lake City in the summer months and anything we did to displace that use would be completely ill advised.

"Because of the fast track that SLOG is on the unwinding of the Olympic Organizing Committee, we are saddled with a project to try to see if we could deliver a meaningful solution to their offer in roughly eight to twelve weeks time. To me, this is not unlike finding somebody three weeks before the Olympics and saying you are going to be our decathlon entry and we are going to teach you the rules of the decathlon. We are going to train you, make sure that your body is such shape that not only are you going to be in Olympics, but you are going to win the gold medal. Well, that's sounds pretty far fetched, but nonetheless the Mayor has said that we are going to do everything possible to see if we can accept this gift in a meaningful way that builds communities and not divides community.

"Now, I can't be here tonight and present you a plan as many people have expected would be the case. You would be handed a plan for you to evaluate and say yea or nay. Needless to say, the Historic Landmark Commission is the group that will have the say on this thing. This is a landmark site. It's going to come before you in whatever form and you will have the thumbs up or thumbs down. We are yet to decide who the petitioner will be. Is the petitioner going to be the City? Is the petitioner going to be SLOG? we don't have a proposal for you to evaluate yet. If in fact if you decline, it would go to the Land Use Appeals Board and then after that if they decline, I guess SLOG and the City could go to Third District Court. But that is not going to happen because what we are going to try to do here is build a community. In order for us to do that, there has got to be some kind of meaningful process that engages those people who are so committed to the health and vitality, not only of the cultural community, but of this neighborhood."

Mr. Goldsmith recommended that a subcommittee be created of three or four members of the Historic Landmark Commission who would have the time to earnestly meet with the designers and a whole range of people to help assess the capacity of the park to accept this kind of use through meaningful dialogue. He added, "Then perhaps we can come up with a meaningful way to accept this gift; not displace the existing uses or users from the park; not disrupt the historic legacy from the park; and in fact take this opportunity to re-animate and boost the cultural opportunities in west downtown. It is a big challenge." Mr. Goldsmith said that there were many people who are going to be impacted by this both positively and adversely and these concerns need to be addressed. He stated, "How we do our outreach in a short amount of time is a very difficult planning process, but it is one in which we have been asked to step up to and we'll meet the challenge, and we'll do everything we can to do it."

Mr. Goldsmith reported that SLOG has hired Jan Streifel of Landmark Design who is very familiar with the intra-structure of Pioneer Park and the neighborhood. He said that Landmark Design has created a scale model of the project, and has assessed the condition and caliper of every tree.

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

• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring if Mr. Goldsmith had only been asked to look at this site. Mr. Goldsmith said that he was asked only to look at this site because in the last four weeks, since this gift was brought to the City's attention, the City has looked at a number of sites for possible use. He stated that the City does not have the financial resources to acquire property. Mr. Goldsmith said that the City owns the subject site and it was determined by the Administration that Pioneer Park was the site to explore. He indicated that no donors of land have come forward, and the City Council has not offered money from the general fund.

• Mr. Ashdown said he would like to understand why other sites were refused, when there is vacant land in other areas, such as the vacant land at 300 West and 500 North. Block 47 by the Rio Grande Depot was also suggested but Mr. Goldsmith said that the property was under private ownership. Mr. Ashdown also suggested the Library Block. Mr. Goldsmith said that one of the things he would trust the subcommittee to do is report back to the full Commission a complete inventory of these sites. He said that there had been many speculations created by this proposal, but did not believe it was appropriate to discuss them at this time. Mr. Goldsmith stated that Pioneer Park was the only site that could be presented for assessment, because of the time frame.

• Mr. Christensen expressed his concern if the Historic Landmark Commission becomes involved in the design process, it looks as if "we have given our tacit acceptance of putting something in this block, which we have not." Mr. Goldsmith said he understood his concern. He indicated that he hoped the subcommittee would create minimum guidelines before the Commission could approve this. Mr. Goldsmith talked about such things as the disruption of the urban forest, displacement of users, sound issues, long-term maintenance, and long-term programming issues. Mr. Christensen inquired if the subcommittee would be able to recommend other sites. Mr. Goldsmith said that recommending other sites is one thing and actually making them tangible is another. He said, "I don't think that any of us has had a problem with recommending sites. We have come up with some very good sites, adjacent to transit, but the City simply does not have the capacity to acquire them."

• Ms. Rowland asked why SLOC was able to set the condition of time. She inquired where the money would go if the City could not meet SLOC's time frame.

• Ms. Heid suggested putting the money into a trust fund. Mr. Goldsmith recommended that the representative from SLOC address those issues.

• Mr. Simonsen said that he suspected there might be other communities that would be vying for some of the cultural elements that have been involved in the Olympic games. He stated, "Let me just make a comment that the history of Salt Lake City has as much to do with the present as it does with the past. I suspect given the nostalgia for the Olympic games over the last century, and as we have been through this Olympian feat in our own community, this will be as much a part of our history fifty or one hundred years from now. So I think it would be tremendously shortsighted for us not to consider the impact of the Olympic games on our community and look at this as a way to represent the present history of our community."

• Mr. Christensen inquired if SLOG could have approached the State of Utah with the same gift and place it at the State Fairpark. Mr. Goldsmith said that the Fairpark was an option but was considered to be too far away. He added that one of the parameters that SLOG presented to the City was that the venue be close to the central core of downtown. Mr. Christensen inquired if the entire amount of money was specified to be spent on the proposal or could a portion be spent on intra-structure improvements. Mr. Goldsmith said that he would leave those kinds of questions for the representative from SLOG to answer.

Mr. Goldsmith said, "Unfortunately, there has been preliminary schematic models circulating, which I'm afraid has done more to undermine our ability to honestly engage in a process, than help us" He indicated that there was a discussion that zoning changes might be necessary. Mr. Goldsmith added that zoning changes take time to process. He again talked about the short time frame for the project. He stated that amphitheaters are not permitted in an open space zone. Mr. Goldsmith indicated that those people, involved in this process, have to be sensitive to unite the community. He added that there also has to be a meaningful assessment of the long-term financial impact on the City.

Mr. Simonsen said that he would like to assess the Historic Landmark Commission of those who would be interested in participating in this process. He stated that he was pleased that the City is looking at uses for Pioneer Park. Mr. Simonsen said that there is much frustration because of no current master plan in place that would give direction regarding the appropriate uses of the park. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission would have the final approval. Mr. Simonsen was concerned about the public process. He said that he believed the public should have an opportunity to express their views.

Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for Mr. Goldsmith, Mr. Simonsen thanked him for his briefing and pointed out that there was a representative from SLOG attending the meeting and asked him to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Ray Grant introduced himself as the Managing Director of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and said that he also serves as the Artistic Director of the Olympics Arts Festival. Mr. Grant said when the SLOG board met for the last time on April 4, 2002, it was determined that SLOG would appropriate from $4.5 Million to $6 Million to create and commemorate the contribution that Salt Lake residents and more broadly, all residents of Utah, made in the successful celebration of the Olympic Winter Games, the Para Olympic Winter Games, as well as the integrated Olympic Arts Festival. Mr. Grant said that the thought behind this proposal was to help re-animate downtown Salt Lake City by creating an affordable gathering space which would be an Olympic legacy. He said that SLOG established a vision two weeks ago of a legacy amphitheater and cultural center that could celebrate the achievement of athletes along side the accomplishment of artists. Mr. Grant pointed out that the people at SLOC believed they have their own talent in terms of project managers, creative individuals, as well as venue development. He said, "We have built some significant venues during the Olympics." Mr. Grant explained the reason for the speed of the proposal is that the talent needed to be tapped before it left the community.

Mr. Grant proposed that a gathering place be created in the downtown area to accommodate approximately 7,500 people sitting on blankets on the lawn enjoying cultural events. He added that SLOC believes that the Hoberman Arch became an architectural icon of the games and ought to remain in the community in a substantive way. Mr. Grant also mentioned that a replica of the caldron, with certain guidelines that it could be lit on ceremonial occasions, could also be placed in the venue as an Olympic legacy. Mr. Grant said that SLOC approached the City for suggestions for a site. He said, "SLOC does not covet Pioneer Park." He pointed out that the City chose the location of Pioneer Park, after exploring other sites.

Mr. Grant stated that the formation of a committee was a good idea, but cautioned that the subcommittee not to step beyond its bounds as a Historic Landmark Commission. He said that there were many City entities, which were readily and actively engaging in the process. Mr. Grant mentioned that SLOC had already presented the proposal to the City Council.

Mr. Grant responded to the funding questions by saying that the funding for the project has been committed. He explained that the legal contract that SLOC and the host city entered into was that any surplus proceeds from the Olympic games would be divided by formula between the International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committee based in Colorado Springs, and the Utah Athletic Foundation. He said that those three entities came together and agreed to use the surplus for this legacy amphitheater and Olympic cultural center. Mr. Grant said that if the amphitheater and cultural center is not constructed, then those funds simply revert back to the other entities.

Mr. Grant further discussed SLOC's proposal. He said that SLOC was very sensitive to the needs of all the constituencies and to the history of Pioneer Park. He said that the State archeologist would be on site in case anything is uncovered of historic significance.

Mr. Grant concluded by saying that in August of 1847 when the fort was being constructed, community activities were held in the fort's log cabin. He added that in 1906, the men and women in Utah, like progressives throughout the United States, embraced the ideals of the "City Beautiful" movement. Mr. Grant said that they believed the construction of parks and boulevards combined with good urban planning would improve the quality of life for city dwellers. He stated, 'This project could also improve the quality of life of city dwellers."

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

Mr. Littig led the discussion by saying, “Maybe I am the only person who have been insulted by the idea that the talent would leave. There is a lot of talent that lives here and would not be moving." Mr. Grant honored the residential talent in Utah by saying that seventy-five percent of the cultural programs presented as part of the Olympics Arts Festival featured the arts organizations that reside and work locally. He also said that SLOG was in discussion about expanding the Farmer's Market to include arts and crafts. Mr. Grant stated that the Olympic movement started as a music competition and sports were added centuries later. Mr. Grant further discussed the importance of honoring the athletes who participated in the games as part of the cultural legacy.

• Mr. Wilson asked about the size of an amp 1itheater that would accommodate 7,500 people. Mr. Grant said that the cultural center would take approximately three acres of the ten-acre site. He added that the stage area is 75 feet wide and 49 feet deep, and the arch itself is about 30 feet high.

• Ms. Mickelsen asked why SLOG selected the number of 7,500 people. Mr. Grant stated that number would not compete with the other performing arts centers in Salt Lake City. He added that by constructing a center of that would accommodate 7,500 people, the center would be self sufficient through the ticket sales.

• Mr. Ashdown asked if SLOG was committed to an outdoor venue or would an indoor venue be acceptable. Mr. Grant said that SLOG envisioned an outdoor venue, but would entertain another proposal. He said that the idea was to make family entertainment affordable. Mr. Grant said that he could not imagine the Hoberman Arch or the replica of the caldron indoors. Mr. Ashdown expressed his concern about exposing photographs and other elements to the outdoor environment. Mr. Grant said that there had been discussions about an indoor art galley and a space to relocate the Salt Lake City Arts Council.

Mr. Grant concluded by talking once more about the Olympic legacy that should remain in Salt Lake City and thanked the members for this opportunity to address the Commission.

Mr. Simonsen invited Mr. Goldsmith back to the table for any final comments. Mr. Goldsmith said that he appreciated the time to come and present this idea of the subcommittee. He again talked about the importance of working through the process in a meaningful way. He concluded by saying that the Mayor had no interest in dividing the community over this issue.

Mr. Simonsen announced that the Historic Landmark Commission would not be accepting any public comment at this time. He added that this presentation was only a briefing and the Commission would not be taking any action on the proposal at this meeting. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed it was premature to take any public comment at this time but commended those in the audience with enough interest to be briefed on the proposed project by attending this meeting. He said that he understood there would be times in the future for public comment when a formal proposal is presented to the Commission.

Mr. Simonsen stated that understanding the parameters and the time frame, he asked for volunteers to serve on the subcommittee, who would be committed to representing the community's interest and the guidelines of the Historic Landmark Commission's interest in the landmark site. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, and Ms. Mickelsen volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. Mr. Simonsen expressed his appreciation for their commitment to the project. He suggested that time would be allowed in a future Commission meeting for the subcommittee to give a report at an interim point through the process. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission would like to be notified for any public input such as an open house allowing the members of the Commission to participate.

Case No. 016-02, at 353 E. Fifth Avenue, by John Lazo, requesting to remove the existing aluminum siding and apply stucco over original wood siding, and to construct a bedroom addition on the rear of the building. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.

This item was cancelled by the applicant.

Case No. 017-02. at 306 North 300 West, by Richard Boyington. requesting the new construction of a small commercial structure, "SBUDDIES", a donut and sandwich shop with a drive-through window. to replace the existing non-contributing building on the site. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the applicant is seeking to demolish the existing structure to build "SBUDDIES", a donut and sandwich restaurant. Ms. Lew indicated that the restaurant would provide a dining area and include a drive-through window. She said that the new building would be placed at the southwest corner of the lot, with the drive-through window on the north side of the building accessed from 300 West. Ms. Lew noted that the property is located in a Community Business (CB) zoning district, the purpose of which is to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Ms. Lew presented the following proposal: The building was determined to be noncontributing to the historic district, and not of the historic time period. According to the building permit file on the property, the existing structure appears to have been built in 1956. As required by the zoning ordinance, a request for demolition of a noncontributing building does not have to be heard before the full Commission. The request may be administratively approved provided the Commission members and the property owners within 85 feet of the subject property are notified, and given a period of two weeks to respond if opposed to the demolition. Notices were mailed to property owners within 85 feet on May 24, 2002. No public input regarding the demolition request has been received at this time.

The plans call for a one-story 1,740 square foot building with a total height of approximately 14 feet-6 inches from finished grade. The building has frontage on both 300 West and 300 North. The materials proposed for the exterior of the project include brick for the main portion of the building that has street frontage, with stucco accents at the top of the wall. The interior lot walls will be faced with stucco. The plans show storefront type windows on the primary facades. The proposed site plan will be revised based on discussions with the City's Design Review Team (DRT). Additional landscaping will be required along the northern property line to meet landscape buffer requirements of the ordinance.

Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1-4), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

b. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

d. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

e. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: Buildings in the neighborhood house a variety of uses, including a motel, school, office space and historic residential. The surrounding buildings with the exception of the residential structure to the north, are flat roofed and range in height from one to three stories. The tallest in the immediate vicinity is West High School, which is three stories tall. The roof form would be flat, and the proportions of the principal facades in terms of width to height of the proposed building are similar to the existing structure on the site. Therefore, the scale and form will not be out of keeping with the surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed design meets the intent of the "scale and form" standards. The scale and form of the proposed structure falls within the range of building forms found in the area.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

b. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

d. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

e. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The fenestration pattern of nearby buildings is not consistent because the type of development along the street varies drastically. Although the proposed storefront windows are similar to that seen historically and there is a clear hierarchy of elevations as expressed in the new buildings window pattern, the inconsistent rhythm of solids to voids on the western facade is not an historical storefront characteristic. The large plate glass is also more contemporary in design. Staff recommends the upper portion of the display windows be separated by a frame, such as a clerestory or transom, from the main display window.

Many historic commercial buildings located on corner lots have corner entries, that create an important visual feature along the streetscape. The proposed plan shows a recessed entry on the south elevation. Staff suggests relocating the entrance to the southwest corner of the building to create a better street presence. Transoms might be considered for the doors as well.

As stated above, the exterior of this project includes brick for the main portion of the building with stucco accents at the top of the wall on the primary facades. Stucco is also proposed for the secondary wall material. While the Fire Station to the east has a stucco finish, brick is the dominant material for buildings in this area. Additionally, the proposed use of brick is similar to what is seen historically on commercial structures, but the combination of stucco and brick is not. Because of the high visibility of each side of the structure, staff suggests a continuation of the brickwork along the base of the blank walls to add interest to the design. The brickwork might also be extended to the area of the wall between the display windows as well as integrated into the corners of the secondary walls (east and north).

A materials board has not been submitted for the project at this time. Staff's finding of fact: The plan does not fully address these standards.

Staff’s finding of fact: The plan does not fully address these standards

3. Relationship to Street.

b. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

d. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;

e. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and

e. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staffs discussion: Consistent setbacks and landscape massing are not characteristics of the neighborhood's streetscape. The buildings differ in scale due to the various types of uses permitted in the area. Because the proposed building sits on a corner lot and is oriented toward 300 North, the 300 West facade does not have a door opening as typically seen on a primary facade. The directional expression of the southern principal elevation would be consistent with properties located along 300 North and landscape improvements would be made.

Staffs finding of fact: Little continuity exists on the block frontages near the subject property in terms of siting and the rhythm of spacing of the structures on the street. Staff finds that the application meets the intent of the "relationship to street" standards.

4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s). Staff's discussion: The proposed restaurant will be located on two adjoining lots. Staffs 'finding of fact: The applicant will need to consolidate the two parcels of land into one lot because of the current lot configuration.

Ms. Lew offered the following Staff recommendation: "Since this is the first presentation of this project, staff recommends the Commission review the proposed design and make any suggestions they feel are appropriate. If the Commission finds that additional modifications are necessary, staff recommends that the review be conducted at the subcommittee level."

Mr. Littig said that he was concerned that the front of the building would be oriented towards 300 North rather than 300 West, which is obviously the commercial street. Ms. Lew said that is why Staff recommended re-orienting the entrance to the corner to give more of a presence that may be seen in a historic commercial structure. Mr. Littig said that he agreed with that recommendation.

Mr. Simonsen said that he was unclear about that issue because based on the site plan on sheet no. 9, it appears that the entrance is on the corner. Ms. Lew said that Staff's recommendation would be putting the entrance diagonally at the corner. Mr. Simonsen asked about precedence for a building in an historic district with a drive-through window. Mr. Ashdown indicated that the existing structure has a drive-through window. Mr. Simonsen said that the building was constructed before the area was designated as an historic district. This issue led to a discussion of the drive-through windows for restaurants on 400 South in the Central City Historic District.

Mr. Parvaz pointed out that the site plans that accompanied the staff report appear to be different. Ms. Lew suggested asking the applicant any questions regarding the site plans.

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

Mr. Jason Hunsaker of Nationwide Builders, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that the applicant was in the process of changing the site plans due to the recommendations included in the staff report. He said that the southwest corner would be addressed. Mr. Hunsaker said there was not enough space for the layout of the interior of the proposed building, for the parking and the drive-through window to face the building towards 300 West. He said that he welcomed any suggestions or comments from the Commission. There was some discussion about the site plans.

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

• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by suggesting a brick band treatment on the north and east elevations to tie into the other elevations. Mr. Hunsaker noted that the applicant was in the process of making that change. Mr. Christensen said that as a resident of Capitol Hill he was very happy about something nice being constructed on the site.

• Mr. Wilson said that the plans show the north and east elevations as secondary, but they are still important elevations. He also pointed out that there were many inconsistencies and errors on the drawings that needed to be addressed.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that the north elevation is especially visible. She indicated that the north and east elevations should be friendlier because those elevations would be seen as patrons approach the entrance to the building. Ms. Mickelsen added that an entrance off the parking lot could be considered.

• Mr. Littig indicated that he thought the cornice was a little thin.

• Ms. Rowland said that it might be preferable to use a more contemporary style for the new building. She also talked about the pedestrian environment and not to remove the existing trees.

• Ms. Giraud suggested using a kick plate, transom, display windows, and other detailing to help reinforce an historic commercial look.

• Mr. Simonsen stated that there are many examples of commercial business that do not have a diagonal entrance, but the building being oriented towards 300 West would be appropriate because of other businesses along that street.

• Ms. Heid also pointed out that a door could be added from the parking lot. Mr. Christensen noted the door on the east elevation. Mr. Simonsen indicated that the patrons would be seen walking along the street to get to the entrance.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session.

(Mr. Ashdown excused himself at 5:55 P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.) Executive Session There was a short discussion regarding the issues relating to this matter. Comments were made that the project should be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee.

First Motion:

Ms. Giraud suggested amending the motion for the case to continue at the June 19, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. There was some discussion about whether or not the revised site plans would be ready by then.

Ms. Rowland said that she would not want to see more fast food drive-through restaurants move into the historic district. She said that drive-through windows would be encouraging more traffic rather than make the historic district more pedestrian friendly. Ms. Rowland questioned the zoning for a drive-through. Ms. Giraud said that drive-through windows are allowed in the zoning district. She added that this issue causes much debate in the Planning Office. Ms. Giraud said that she believed the Historic Landmark Commission would have difficulty supporting a decision to deny the drive-through window in the subject location, given the context of 300 West. Ms. Lew reminded the Commission that the other side of 300 West is not in an historic district.

Ms. Giraud introduced the idea of the Historic Landmark Commission initiating a petition for the Planning Division to study drive-through windows in historic districts. The discussion continued regarding this issue.

Mr. Christensen accepted the amendment of continuing the case. Amended motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for conceptual approval for Case No. 017-02 which is a proposal for "SBUDDIES" donut and sandwich shop at 306 North 300 West, that the Historic Landmark Commission refer the case to the Architectural Subcommittee for the review of the following major elements: 1) landscaping details; 2) orientation of the building, 300 West rather than 300 North; 3) details of the drive-through component of the restaurant; 4) the elevations of the building, including the elevations that are quite plain on the north and east and they should be more friendly and inviting; 5) pedestrian access from the parking lot; and 6) to continue the case at the June 19, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting for final approval, if necessary. Mr. Parvaz's second to the motion still stood. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Greater Avenues Community Council:

Mr. Knight said that the Greater Avenues Community Council will be holding the annual Street Fair on September 14, 2002 from 9:00A.M. to 7:00P.M. and would like volunteers from the Commission to help in the booth that Staff will set up to distribute information regarding historic districts. Mr. Littig volunteered.

Mr. Littig reported that the Avenues Community Council plans to review a proposal by the new owners of the Stromquist's home on "C" Street and First Avenue to use the home as a reception center. He added that it only has one bathroom in that beautifully restored home and no parking. He said, "It is very sad when historic homes can only be saved by reception centers and bed and breakfasts."

Ms. Giraud also said that Dr. Laura Sanger is also on the council’s agenda regarding adding a water feature to the James Austen Memorial and steps, located in Memory Grove Park.

Land Use Appeals Board:

Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the Land Use Appeals Board is scheduled to hear the appeal by Charles England regarding the Commission's denial of the legalization matter of the aluminum interlocking shingle roofing system installed without a permit at 12 West 500 North on Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 5:30P.M. She invited the members of the Commission to be in attendance to lend support for the rendered decision.

Other matters:

Please note that a lengthy discussion was held at the end of the meeting regarding why the chair chose not to take any public comment at the conclusion of the briefing on the Pioneer Park portion of the meeting. Mr. Simonsen restated his reason for not accepting public comment. There were opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission regarding public comment, the role of the subcommittee, and other issues relating to this matter. [An audio recording is available for those desiring to hear the complete discussion or a transcription would be provided upon request.]

Adjournment of the meeting:

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. No second was required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.