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 Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, and Robert Young. Ms. Blaes, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Morgan were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 4:07P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young 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. Mr. Young explained the appeals process which is found on the back of the agenda. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission 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. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from the Apri115, 1998 meeting, after corrections are made. It was seconded by Mr. Owen. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Morgan were not present. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 013-98. at 175 No. 0 Street. by Alex Steckel. requesting to dismantle the existing structure. relocate it on the existing property. and construct a new addition.
This case was postponed at the owner’s request.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 014-98. at 400 South and 700 East on Block 39. Plat B. by Thorn Williamsen of Chasebrook Development. represented by Russ Naylor. Architect. to construct five new structures and reuse an existing structure.
Ms. Giraud 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 of this meeting.
The applicant, Mr. Thorn Williamsen, and Mr. Russ Naylor, his representative, were present. A briefing board was used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Williamsen stated that in 1994, his company acquired the first piece of property on Block 39, which is now Hollywood Videos, Zuka Juice, Bruegger's Bagels, and Voicestream, for the first phase of the project. He pointed out that the project received an award of merit from the Historic Landmark Commission last year.
Mr. Williamsen said that during that time, the City was going through a zoning rewrite process. He explained that representatives from the City, the Central City Community Council, property owners, concerned citizens, and he met throughout the zoning rewrite process identifying and targeting projects for Block 39. He added that the local community wanted to make certain that the northern half of the block remained residential. Mr. Williamsen also said that it was the local community's desire to change the zoning on a portion of the block to make the property more functional; therefore it was zoned C-S, which would allow a community shopping center.
Mr. Williamsen stated that he had hoped to bring the project before the Commission earlier in the Spring, but found that it was necessary to hold preliminary reviews with the Central City Community Council and the Planning Staff. He remarked that the project had received a ''whole-hearted support" from the Community Council, as long as the development did not encroach into the residential area.
Mr. Williamsen talked about possible tenants of the property who were national and regional retailers and who held a "big key" in financing the project. He indicated that the City had informed him that there was a possibility that light rail would run east and west on 400 South, which would also attract pedestrian customers.
Mr. Williamsen addressed the strip mall development by saying that each building would have a different look with more architectural details than a typical strip mall. He talked about the buildings that would be demolished to make room for the new construction, and that one building would be remodeled. Mr. Williamsen said that the second phase of the project would be developed with the same mode as the first phase. He pointed out that there had been many changes made to the original site plans and said that he believed that they would meet all zoning requirements. Mr. Williamsen expressed his willingness to be as responsive as he could with the desires of the Historic Landmark Commission so approval for the development could be expedited. He spoke about the proposed tenants wanting to be opened for the Christmas shopping rush.
Mr. Russ Naylor displayed a collage of photographs of the streetscapes along 400 South, as well as 700 East. He described the project, as follows:
The Squirrel Brothers and Taco Bell buildings would stay. The Movie Buffs and American Heart Association buildings would be demolished, and the Designer Textiles building would remain and be remodeled. The small office building and Q-Lube on the corner would stay because they are not part of the project. The designated Williams Beauty Salon, the rear duplex buildings on 700 East had already been demolished, and the medical clinic building will remain.
There would be restaurants with outside dining.
Pedestrian-friendly walkways would tie the residential areas on the north to the proposed light rail pedestrian stops on the south of the project.
The landscaping in the parking areas would exceed the typical five percent with trees and plantings.
The service areas and dumpsters would be serviced from 700 East in the back of Building No. 3.
The buildings would be constructed with earth-tone colored split-faced concrete blocks, with contrasting coping details on top of the walls.
The buildings would be detailed with canvas awnings.
The front of the Designer Textiles building would be remodeled, replacing the outdated windows with windows that would be more in keeping with urban shopping areas.
The new buildings would be stepped in and out with varying heights, but basically only have one story.
The buildings would have some flexibility to divide the spaces to accommodate various sizes of tenants.
More traditional pedestrian amenities like site lighting, benches, and planters would be incorporated into the project.
The site lighting was already established for the first phase of the development with relatively low poles with down lighting directed towards the sidewalks.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Littig talked about the material for the buildings and inquired if windows could fenestrate the back of the buildings, so they were more friendly to the residential properties. Mr. Naylor said that the materials would be continued around the back of the buildings. He said that the buildings would sit on the property line so he would have to talk to the building officials to find out if windows could be added. Mr. Young suggested that something could be detailed with paint to make the appearance of windows. Mr. Littig stated that the Historic Landmark Commission was an advocate for the historic residential neighborhood, and again expressed his concern about, what appeared to be 25-foot walls of the buildings, and the fact that they would be unfriendly to the residential portion of the block. Mr. Naylor said that the northern walls did not have to be higher than 15 or 16 feet and some return or fenestration could be added.
• Ms. Mitchell asked about the possibility of turning Building No. 5 ninety degrees so it would face 400 South which would not leave such a large gap in the streetscape. Mr. Naylor said that the leased space in the rear buildings had to have a reasonable amount of visibility to the street, and by turning the building, the only view window would be from the curb cut and that would not be acceptable to the tenants who would be in those rear buildings.
Mr. Williamsen introduced Mr. Fred Barth, president of Pentad Properties. Mr. Barth said that he had been associated with retailers in Salt Lake area for about 15 years. He said that the company had been looking for retailers who would be suitable to the development. Mr. Barth commented that the Commission members were probably well aware the land values on the site are very high. He said that in order to keep the project viable, the lease rates have to be high, as well, so the demands that the prospective tenants would make would be excessive.
Mr. Barth stated that when prospective tenants were shown the site plans, the view corridor for the rear buildings and their exposure to the street had been a topic discussed. He further addressed this issue by saying that his company was part of a network that dealt with national chains as prospective clients across the country.
• Mr. Young discussed the issue that the City was promoting the sector east of downtown as a higher residential density area which would be geared away from automobile traffic and toward more foot traffic. He expressed his desire to have the proposed development become a neighborhood shopping center and more accessible to pedestrians, rather than like a suburban strip mall, that depended on automobile traffic. Mr. Barth said that he believed that to create more of an inward shopping center would definitely help, but the development could not rely only on foot traffic; that adequate parking had to be supplied. Mr. Barth also said that the possibility of light rail would also have a huge pedestrian impact, which would be "gravy" to the site.
• Ms. Giraud talked about the retailers in the first phase of the project. She inquired how those retailers were doing, given that the view of those storefronts are partially blocked by the pads. Mr. Barth said that Mr. Williamsen could probably answer that question. He continued talking about the second phase of the project. He said that those sites in the back would have to be seen from the street with the least amount or no obstruction. As he pointed to the proposed buildings on the site plans, he talked about which buildings would have the best view corridor.
• Ms. Miller said that the discussion had been focused on the 400 South view corridor, and not on the view corridor on 700 East. She talked about the possibility of altering the site plans by putting more structures on 700 East. The importance of the view corridors on 700 East, as opposed to 400 South was discussed. Mr. Barth said that one of the greatest challenges was creating more exposure for the proposed shopping center from the intersection. Ms. Miller addressed the retailers in the first phase of the development and asked which businesses had the strongest draw. Mr. Barth said that Mr. Williamsen could probably answer that better than he, then said that he knew that Hollywood Videos had a very strong business in its current location. Ms. Miller inquired about the possibility of leasing to tenants who, by nature, had a strong draw, without the requirement of the visibility from the street. Mr. Barth said that in time, any retailer would be known, but the "trick was trying to convince people that would happen." He said that he could not emphasize enough about creating an open environment and the importance that a retailer could be seen from the street.
• Mr. Owen said that the perspective of the view of the buildings on the development would constantly change as one would travel on the street, and three dimensions of the buildings would be seen from certain angles. Mr. Barth said that was correct, there would be various stages of visibility. He discussed the process that the prospective tenants go through when they visit the site. He said that in addition to the site plans and aerial photography, they are provided, they drive by the site with a stop watch and count the seconds the building would be in view from the street. He said that they have sophisticated formulas to determine how much time someone would pay attention to the buildings on the site while also paying attention to the traffic. Mr. Barth said that a developer's dream would be to have site pads on the street, because they are the most profitable. However, he said that practicality would tell us otherwise; there has to be space in the rear. He emphasized again about the importance of the rear buildings being visible from the street.
• Ms. Jeppsen inquired if most of the prospective tenants were national retailers. Mr. Barth said there would be a mix of national and regional retailers. He said that it would be a function of economics, that there were only certain types of tenants who could afford to pay the rents that would be required for the project.
• Mr. Gordon asked if the developers had actually driven prospective retailers by the site with a stop watch. Mr. Barth indicated that would not happen until the buildings were under construction. He also pointed out that prospective tenants have walked through the site. Mr. Gordon said that he only lived a few blocks away and quite often walked past the property. He asked if the driveway cuts would be increased or reduced when the project was completed. Mr. Naylor said that the curb cuts would be reduced. He pointed out the ones that serviced existing buildings which would remain. Mr. Gordon said that by reducing the curb cuts, the project would be more pedestrian friendly. He inquired if Buildings No. 6 and 7 would have glass all around them. Mr. Naylor indicated that it was his expectation that Building No. 6 would have windows on all four sides, and on Building No.7, the glass would wrap around the sides. The discussion continued regarding the pedestrian friendly elements and the parking possibilities.
• Mr. Young inquired about access to the development if light rail was designated for
400 South. Mr. Naylor explained that there would be some restriction in the intersection and in the east bound and west bound traffic patterns. Mr. Paterson said the plans were still too preliminary. There was more discussion on the possible light rail issue. Mr. Young addressed the service areas for the proposed for the project. He pointed out the intended service areas and asked how the other buildings would be serviced. Mr. Naylor said that since no grocery stores would be on the site, the buildings would be serviced mostly by UPS and other smaller delivery trucks. The discussion continued regarding the possibility of restricted service access if light rail becomes a reality on 400 South. Mr. Young expressed his concerns about the truck service area being so close to the residential portion of the block. Accessing the other buildings was also discussed.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Gloria McCandless, who resides at 330 South 700 East, stated that her quality of life had been deteriorating with the changes of the properties around her house. She said that the strongest draw to the property was graffiti in the area. Ms. McCandless pleaded with the developer to stay as far away from her house as possible. She said that she was concerned about being run over by a truck as she stepped out her back door. Ms. McCandless said that she would be as cooperative as she could, but hoped that the developer would be compassionate with her and her property, since she had lived in her home for 50 years and claimed that she was too old to move.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting. ·
Executive Session
The discussion continued. The following concerns were expressed by the Commission members: 1} the visual affect the blank walls would have from the neighboring residential properties; 2) landscaping was a large issue. Trees should be planted in the park strips; 3) some members believed that additional study needs to be made for the site plans to try to have more storefronts on the street edge. Unlike the wide streets in the suburbs, the urban streetscape should be more defined and unified with more buildings and landscaping; 4) some members believed that the buildings proposed for the street edge would be adequate for this non-residential part of 400 South, and yet this part of 400 South is still in an historic district and needed to be maintained; and 5) look at the possibility of signage on the street edge advertising the retailers in the rear buildings.
Further questions arose regarding the site plans. It was a unanimous decision, after Ms. Mitchell moved and Mr. Owen seconded the motion that this portion of the meeting would be re-opened to allow the applicant to respond to some of the comments made by the Commission members.
Mr. Williamsen said that the major purpose for rezoning the property was to encourage the redevelopment of the front of the block, allow parking in the front as well, and allow structures in the back. He said that "it would be extremely difficult and probably improbable that this development will go through if we are not allowed to do a traditional strip mall development, similar to what the intent was when the property owners, the City, and the Community Council got together and said let us do what we can to make this project work." Mr. Williamsen said "that was the premise upon which he acquired the land."
• Mr. Young indicated that the Commission members were trying to reach a consensus on the development. He pointed out that Staff recommended this case go to the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Young said that when the Commission members have an exchange of ideas, more direction can be given in the Subcommittee meeting before a final decision can be rendered.
Mr. Young re-closed this portion of the meeting and the Historic Landmark Commission continued in the executive session portion of the meeting.
The discussion continued. Ms. Miller said if it was not viable for the developer to add more storefronts to the streetscape, perhaps a compromise could be with the landscaping to help define the street edge and make it stronger. Mr. Young said that if light rail is established on 400 South, landscaping would have a great impact on the streetscape. Ms. Miller said that the developer has shown much sensitivity to the design issues of the project. Mr. Young agreed and said that the developer has also shown sensitivity because some of the buildings are proposed to be located in the rear of the development.
The subject of the Hermes' strip mall across 400 South from this proposed development was introduced. It was pointed out that those storefronts are set back and all the parking is out in front. The only "attractive part" was the Chili's Restaurant because it sits close to the street which creates a "feeling" for customers that they could walk to the restaurant. Ms. Giraud stated that the intent of the Hermes' mall was to be a mirror image of the new Fred Meyer project that was constructed across the street from the mall.
The discussion continued regarding other strip malls in Salt Lake City. Mr. Gordon said that Foothill Shopping Center has a "street edge" environment. Mr. Young said that the idea of the parking lot divided in half by a smaller street, would create an urban street affect to the proposed project.
Mr. Littig moved to make the recommendation that Case No.014 98 go to the Architectural Subcommittee for the refinement of details, and the definition of the issues that have been mentioned, such as the blank walls, streetscape, and the plantings. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell.
A short discussion took place. Ms. Devine said that a strong recommendation to the developer, should be included in the motion, to be more sensitive and to increase the landscaping. Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Commission members will also look at the landscaping issue when they review the petition for a planned development. Sensitivity in the scale of the neighboring properties was also discussed.
Mr. Littig amended the motion.
Mr. Littig moved to make the recommendation that case No.014 98 go to the Architectural Subcommittee for the refinement of details, and the definition of the issues that have been mentioned, such as the blank walls, streetscape, and the landscaping. It was still seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland,
and Mr. Morgan were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 015-98, at 734 East 200 South. by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett. requesting the selection of a member to represent the Historic Landmark Commission to serve on the Economic Review Panel to determine if an economic hardship warrants a change from residential to non-residential use.
Ms. Giraud said that she did not prepare a staff report for this case. She spoke briefly about the applicant's request, which had come before this Commission, to have the "James Freeze House" at 734 East 200 South, be included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, which the Historic Landmark Commission approved. She said that the applicants were pursuing a conditional use on the building. Ms. Giraud explained that when a person applied for a conditional use, that person is saying that the building had outlived its original purpose so a request is petitioned so the property could be used on a commercial basis. She said that process has been a good preservation mechanism for Salt Lake City.
Ms. Giraud explained that there were three ways a person could obtain a conditional use permit: 1) the building is in immediate danger of demolition; 2) the building is too large and has outlived lived its original purpose; and 3) it is not economically feasible to continue using the building in its original use. She said that the applicants were pursuing that last option.
Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Division uses the economic hardship test which is found in Chapter 34 of the Salt Lake City Code. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission would not review a request for a conditional use, as it is a Planning Commission issue. However, she continued by saying that the Historic Landmark Commission would select the City's representative to serve on the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Giraud said, as a reminder to the Commission, that the applicant selects one person, the Historic Landmark Commission selects a person, and those two people select the third person to serve on the Economic Review Panel.
Ms. Giraud said the applicants have chosen Nathan Watson from Kier Corporation. She recommended that Robert White be selected by the Historic Landmark Commission to serve on the Economic Review Panel. She said that he has been involved with the Utah Heritage Foundation. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. White had also been involved with the fund raising and renovation of the Egyptian Theater in Ogden. She said that he has a business background and is a graduate of the University of Utah and the Harvard Business School, as well. She noted that Mr. White is also an advisor to the National Trust from Utah. She said that she also has a third person in mind, if needed.
A few comments were made by some of the Commission members to the fact that they had knowledge of Mr. White. ·
As there were no further questions, concerns, and comments by the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed.
Mr. Littig moved that for Case No. 015-98, Mr. Robert White will be asked to represent the City to serve on the Economic Review Panel. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, and Mr. Morgan were not present.
The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of signage for conditional uses
Ms. Giraud stated that signage had become very confusing to administer. She said that the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy in 1984. She referred to Section 5.0 of the signage policy, that was included in the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Giraud discussed past signage problems on South Temple. She talked about the Squire Building on the corner of South Temple and "E" Street, and that it was covered with signage at one time. The City was able to get the owners to remove all the signs except for one on each side of the building which faced a street. Ms. Giraud said that the City had received signage proposals for the Kearns Building or for the Judge Building. She said that the City wants those historic buildings to be known as the "Kearns Building" or the "Judge Building", rather than being known by the retailer. Ms. Giraud said that she recently read something about signs in historic districts from a Savanna Art and Design College Administrator who said that identifying historic buildings was a very "important key" for main street designs.
Ms. Giraud said that in the past, she had allowed retailers to use interior window signage on the ground floor. She added that there also had been some allowance for retailer signage on the exterior of a building, if the signage was kept within the base of the building, such as the Morris Travel sign on the Judge Building.
Ms. Giraud continued by saying that currently monument signs are opening up a whole new door. She said that monuments signs are a big improvement over pole signs, as was determined by the sign industry, and she indicated that she agreed with that determination. Ms. Giraud said that she was starting to get requests for monument signs that, in her mind, would interrupt the sweep of the streetscape.
Ms. Giraud said that not all issues will be discussed or decisions made at this meeting. She said that she wanted to go over this issue more methodically and find out what other historic districts do in cities across the country.
Ms. Giraud said that she believed that a good place to start was signage used for conditional uses. She remarked that she was getting many calls and said that she believed that, with the upcoming 2002 Olympics, she will be getting a lot more requests. She pointed out that the City does not want businesses to fail by not allowing signage to attract customers or tenants.
Ms. Giraud indicated that for bed and breakfasts, the City has allowed one sign on the building, and in some incidences, an identifying directional signage could be used, directing a customer to the parking lot. She said that she had seen monument signs for bed and breakfasts which look very compatible. She discussed the table of conditional use approvals, which focused on bed and breakfast establishments, which was included in the staff report. She said that she believed monument signs work best when they are close to the building. Ms. Giraud continued to discuss other examples of signage. She asked if the Historic Landmark Commission wanted to have a separate policy for signage on South Temple.
Mr. Littig suggested that there should be a time limit for buildings on South Temple to display signs marketing "space for lease". He said that many of these signs are large and have become permanent. Mr. Littig said that he believed that this is a signage issue that needs to be dealt with.
Mr. Young said that monumental signs are more for vehicular traffic. He said that he did not believe that a bed and breakfast was not the kind of establishment that would require a monument sign; however another type of retailer might need a monument sign to attract customers. Mr. Young said that keeping a monument sign close to the building or a sign on the building itself would work best.
Mr. Owen said that he agreed that a bed and breakfast would not be an impulse stop, that people would be looking for an address.
Discussion of traffic calming options for the Avenues area
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Craig Timothy from the City's Transportation Division, who had been hired to look specifically at traffic calming issues in the City, as a Traffic Calming Coordinator. She said that there have been several issues rise with the amount of traffic in the Avenues area. Mr. Timothy will present some traffic calming options being proposed for the Avenues area.
Mr. Timothy said that the City's concept of ''traffic calming" only began last February. He said that the three areas in the Avenues that he had been asked to address were "B" Street, "I" Street, and Second Avenue. He said that the purpose for traffic calming is trying to make neighborhoods more livable and more enjoyable for the residents. He said that the best way to accomplish this would be to decrease the hazards by reducing speeding vehicles.
Mr. Timothy said that when neighborhoods are involved in making the decision what they would like to see in their neighborhoods. He said that it would require a big commitment because the burden of the responsibility would fall on the residents of a neighborhood. He added that there would be a financial responsibility, as well. Mr. Timothy said that one of the considerations that has to be made while trying to reduce the traffic speed, would be the allowance of emergency vehicles. He said that there were ways that would allow changes that would not seriously affect the emergency response vehicles.
Mr. Timothy narrated a slide presentation regarding traffic calming measures. He circulated copies of "The Twelve Steps of Traffic Calming" to the members, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. This publication included traffic calming measures, such as speed humps, textured crosswalks, street lighting, police speed display boards, bike lanes, chicanes, tree lined streets, chokers curb extensions, traffic roundabouts or circles, medians and, neighborhood entrance was.
Mr. Timothy also discussed some of the suggestions which were given by the residents of those subject neighborhoods to aid in traffic calming, such as zebra-striped crosswalks. He said that type of crosswalk was specially designed for school zones and is discouraged for other uses because it would lose its effectiveness. He said that there are other types of crosswalk markings that could be used. Mr. Timothy did not have the figures for what the costs would be to the residents for traffic calming measures, as they are to be further studied. He said that the Mayor has offered support to this program.
The discussion continued. There were opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as: 1) every block should not have crosswalks with zebra-stripping but some crosswalks might be deserving of that treatment; 2) school zones should not end in the middle of a block, in which the school is located, but should be extended beyond that block; 3) more crossing guards are needed for school zones; 4) chokers curb extensions create maintenance problems; 5) the grids are smaller in the Avenues; 6) snow plows damage the road surfaces and perhaps the operators need more training; 7) materials for road surfacing need to be reviewed; 8) traffic going over the speed limit is a big problem and a traffic cop with a speed gun could be used on certain intersections; 9) drivers using marked City vehicles should be setting good examples and should not be exceeding the speed limits; 10) care should be given that when one neighborhood is involved with the traffic calming program, the surrounding neighborhoods are not "trashed" by traffic re-routing through them; 11) traffic calming measures should not become political devices; 12) where the width of the street is appropriate, more lanes of traffic should be designated, especially turn lanes; 13) there should be more cooperation between government entities to make traffic calming measures work; 14) semaphores sometimes encourage the acceleration of speeds, trying to get through the green light; 15) the use of four-way stops are encouraged; 16) streets running through residential neighborhoods should not become collector roads; and 17) more studies need to be made of regional traffic patterns.
Mr. Young said that he believed that in the next few months there will be some further activity from the Avenues Traffic Committee. He said that as part of the Avenues Historic District, any physical infrastructure changes that would affect the visual integrity of the Avenues area would have to come before this Commission.
Mumford House
Ms. Giraud announced that people from "This Old House" had contacted her about putting the "Mumford House" in their July magazine issue, in the real estate marketing section, because, apparently, the magazine has had much success with this, and they want as much information as they can get. She said that not have much information on this house exists and a volunteer was needed from the Historic Landmark Commission to research old records so more historical information on the house could be obtained.
• The use of cellular phones in Historic Landmark Commission meetings Mr. Gordon inquired if cellular phones could be turned off during the meetings, as part of the meeting requirement. Ms. Giraud said that she would endorse that. She said that she would check and see if there is some rule against requiring that. She agreed that the noise was very disruptive during a meeting.
Mr. Paterson said that he recently read an article where many commercial establishments were beginning to ban cellular phones. Ms. Giraud said that she believed that the ringing of cellular telephones showed disrespect to the participants at the meeting.
Adjournment of the meeting
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Owen moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Littig. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.