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 Billie Ann Devine, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, William T. Wright, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Susan Deal, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, and Sarah Miller were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:05P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She 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. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from the October 21, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes from the November 4, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Payne. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 025-98. a request by Jeff Jonas from American Housing Development Company, to reopen his request to relocate eight homes. 517, 521, 524, 527, 528, 532, 533, and 538 East Vernier Place, to the vicinity of 505-535 North Pugsley Street. Ms. Rowland recused herself from this case, due to a conflict of interest.
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. She stated that Mr. Jones had requested to increase the number of residential units from the original proposal. Mr. Giraud spoke of the recent fire at 521 E. Vernier Place, which is currently being reviewed by the City building official to determine if it is an imminent hazard to public safety.
Ms. Giraud said that the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation has an option to purchase the property on Pugsley Street onto which the houses on Vernier Place would be moved. She stated that it would require the demolition of four or five post World War II-era duplexes that are currently located on that site. Ms. Giraud said that the property is on Pugsley Street and extends back to 400 West, so there would be two houses that would front on 400 West. She said that although the buildings would not have the same inner-court configuration that exists on Vernier Place, they would be compatible with the streetscape, the architectural backdrop and integrity that can be found in the West Capitol neighborhood. Ms. Giraud explained that the applicant would have to go through a minor subdivision process, which does not require a lengthy procedure.
Mr. Littig said that the Commission should review the plan for the replacement of the houses on Vernier Place as part of the application. Ms. Giraud said that staff had been provided a previous site plan of the project. She suggested that the applicant be asked about an infill site plan. Mr. Littig added that a site plan would be required if the request was for the demolition of the houses.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about documentation of the current sites, as they now exist in their present urban setting, such as photographs, architectural plans, elevations, and sections. Ms. Giraud said that the zoning ordinance does not require that but it could be a condition in the motion if the case is approved. Mr. Parvaz talked further about the loss of the buildings on Vernier Place.
Mr. Jeff Jonas, the applicant, was present. He said that it was not clearly stated in the "background" section of the staff report that the reason he requested the demolition of the four buildings was to make room for a new residential complex which is being developed. Ms. Blaes added that one of the conditions of approval was that the demolition permits would not be issued until plans for the reuse of the property had been logged in with the permit office.
Mr. Jonas discussed the recent fire at 521 E. Vernier Place. He said that several days ago he met with officials from the Police, Fire, Roger Evans, Director of Building Services, and numerous other City officials. The outcome of that meeting was that Mr. Jonas would supply information to Roger Evans with regard to the physical feasibility of boarding the house. He said that he did not understand that he had to file an application to have the Historic Landmark Commission consider the demolition of that building. He added that he was hopeful that it could be accomplished at this meeting. Mr. Jonas said that he believed the remains of the charred building could not be safely boarded, so it was open and in terrible condition.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by members of the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Gordon led the discussion by inquiring about the recent fire and the requirement for a separate application to demolish the remains of the house. Mr. Wright said that the demolition process differs from a relocation process. He said that he believed that Mr. Jonas was going to send an evidence report to Mr. Evans. Mr. Jonas said that he understood that the Police and Fire Departments had made their inspections and was working on the report. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Evans had the authority, according to the zoning ordinance, to order the building to be demolished. He pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission also had that authority if evidence was submitted to the Commission and the determination was made that the building was in a hazardous condition. Mr. Wright reminded the Commission that the demolition of the house on Vernier Place was not on the agenda at the time of the mailing, just the relocation of the eight buildings. He said that Mr. Evans had not made the determination that the building could not be boarded and secured adequately. Mr. Wright said that for the purposes of this meeting the charred house is part of the relocation package.
• Mr. Littig asked if the applicant had a replacement site plan for the properties on Vernier Place, if the houses were to be relocated. Mr. Jonas said that he did not have a specific site plan for that location but it would be consistent with the rest of the development. He said that he had met with the Planning staff regarding the different variations of the project. Mr. Jonas added that the development would not be constructed in phases.
Ms. Blaes 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. Claudia O'Grady from the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation, stated that the corporation was involved with the relocation of the structures. She updated the Commission on the progression of the plans. Ms. O'Grady said that the corporation has an option for seven lots on the Pugsley Street location. She said that the corporation has a purchase and sale agreement that will be executed on December 31, 1998, if all the details can be worked out. Ms. O'Grady said that the duplexes on Pugsley Street were owned by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and were scheduled for demolition, about sixty days after the purchase and sale agreement is signed, then the corporation could commence the site preparations for the relocation of the physical structures.
Ms. O'Grady said that the corporation was still hopeful that most of the financing for the relocation project could be obtained through the Utah Housing Finance Agency's tax credit program as a "credit to own" program so the homes would become homeownership opportunities for first time, low-income, buyers.
Mr. Owen inquired why the four duplexes were scheduled for demolition. Ms. O'Grady said that she did not know the answer. Ms. Blaes said that she understood that the Redevelopment Agency bought the properties with the intention to demolish the buildings and to replace them with single-family houses for ownership, rather than for rental units. Mr. Wright said that was correct. He added that there has been a twenty-year history of difficulty on that street with those rental units and the Redevelopment Agency wanted to provide equal housing opportunities that would be more compatible and help the blighted condition of the neighborhood.
Mr. Littig asked about the plot plan for the properties on Pugsley Street. Ms. O'Grady explained that the site plans that were included in the staff report are not exactly how they now exist. She spoke of the subdivision process and the positioning of the plot plans that may have to be reconfigured. Ms. O'Grady said that the Multi-Ethnic Development Corporation was trying to purchase the house on an adjoining property to include it in the tax credit application, to rehabilitate it and convert it into owner-occupied housing, as well.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A discussion developed regarding the issue that Pugsley Street is not located within an historic district. Ms. Giraud said that if the buildings were moved outside of an historic district, then the buildings would not stay under the purview of this Commission. When the idea of a protected covenant was introduced, Ms. Giraud inquired if the buildings could be under some protection as a condition with the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Wright said that might be a possibility.
The discussion turned to the subject of the contributory status of the homes on Vernier Place and the fact that they are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Wright said that if the Capitol Hill Historic District is ever expanded, the homes might be considered contributing buildings in the context of that nomination. Ms. Blaes said that once the buildings were removed from their context, that designation would be brought into question. Mr. Young said if a situation ever came up that if those homes were a part of a district to be nominated to the National Register, they would have to stand on their own right at the time of nomination and would go through the same review process as if they never had been on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Wright inquired if the Commission wanted a design review when the buildings are set on their new foundations and rehabilitated. Mr. Littig spoke of his concern that the Commission might be setting an uncomfortable precedent for relocating contributory buildings to locations outside historic districts, so the general character of the buildings might be lost. He said that he would not want people to be rewarded with the same kind of process. A lengthy discussion took place regarding these issues.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that all entities involving the relocation of the houses would be taking a risk and it would be shameful if, during the rehabilitation, exterior materials would be used that would be detrimental to their value of a contributing historic buildings. Ms. Mitchell said that if that would happen, it would abate the risk of those houses being demolished. Mr. Wright said that the staff would speak with the Redevelopment Agency regarding a condition of administrative design review on the buildings, so the staff would have some authority in the design review process. Ms. Blaes suggested making a recommendation by this Commission that the Redevelopment Agency work closely with the end user. She also said that the houses still have to remain affordable components and she would not like to see any recommendation "blown out of the realm of affordability.".
Mr. Parvaz again referred to the type of documentation that the Commission would prefer for documenting the houses on Vernier Place, who would do the documentation, and who would bear the cost of the documentation. Mr. Gordon inquired if the zoning ordinance required such documentation. Ms. Blaes said that the way the ordinance is written, the Historic Landmark Commission could make that as a condition of approval. Some members said they would support documentation if there was a way to estimate the costs involved. Mr. Parvaz made suggestions that the documentation should include architectural and elevation drawings of building sections and elevations, the fabric and texture, the urban setting, and any valuable elements in the interiors.
After a lengthy discussion regarding the details and levels of documentation, it was a consensus among the members of the Commission that the meeting should be reopened to discuss the documentation issue with the applicant. Ms. Blaes reopened the meeting to public comment and Mr. Jonas was asked about documentation. Mr. Jonas said that the interiors of the houses bear no resemblance to what they were originally. He said that some documentation could be done. Ms. Blaes reclosed this portion of the meeting to further public comment.
Mr. Owen said that the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission was with the historic fabric of the neighborhoods and the streetscapes, and that the Commission has no business dictating what develops in the interior of the buildings.
At the conclusion of this discussion, it was suggested the documentation should include black and white photographs, so they would not fade, of all elevations of each building, a site plan of the court, copies of available aerial photographs, and copies of available Sanborn maps. Ms. Giraud indicated that the staff would be willing to provide some of the information.
Ms. Blaes reminded the Commission that the staffs finding of fact needed to be discussed and a conclusion reached by the members. She referred to Section
21A.34.020(1) which lists the standards for the consideration of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Relocation of a Landmark Commission Site or a Contributing Structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following standards:
1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure.
Staffs finding: While the outcome of an economic hardship application is unknown and thus demolition is not assured at this writing, the applicant's intention to clear this site for future development threatens the existence and rehabilitation of these dwellings on their existing site. Staff finds that moving the buildings will abate their possible demolition.
2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district.
Staffs finding: The applicant does not meet this standard. Removing the eight buildings would adversely affect the integrity of the district, especially if six other buildings on the block are demolished as part of this project.
3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the structure.
Staffs finding: The application meets this standard. Although the historical significance and physical integrity of the eight houses on Vernier Place are derived to a great extent from their location together on an inner-court street, the buildings would be in a neighborhood similar to that of their existing location and would be in close enough proximity to each other to convey a sense of association, feeling, and setting.
4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure.
Staffs finding: The applicant meets this standard.
5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored.
Staffs finding: The Commission can make this a condition of approval of the
application.
6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the City. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount determined by the Planning Director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the Historic Landmark Commission and restore the grade and landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs.
Staffs finding: The Commission can make this a condition of approval of the application.
Ms. Blaes observed that it was the consensus among the Commission members to support the staff’s findings of fact and pointed out that there were two criteria that staff indicated could be a condition of an approval regarding the professional building mover and the financial guarantee. Mr. Wright said that the City would not allow the buildings to be moved across city streets by anyone else other than a professional building mover. He further said that a financial guarantee and a site plan will be required by the City before any permit was issued.
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 025-98, in agreement with the recommendation put forth by the staff, be approved with the condition that documentation be done to include black and white photographs of each elevation of each building, a site plan, to scale, of the overall court, copies of available aerial photographs and copies of available Sanborn maps to show the historic context of the buildings at their former sites. It was seconded by Mr. Owen. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Rowland was in a state of recusation. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 031-98. at 610 North 300 West. a request by Richard Calder from Calder Brothers Company. to legalize signage at the Gas-N-Go station/convenience store.
Mr. Knight 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. There was some discussion regarding the allowable signage if a permit would have been issued.
Mr. Young inquired how many signs would have been allowed if this building were not in the historic overlay district. Mr. Knight said that he had not gotten that information from the zoning office, but that it was his impression that the signage would be allowed by zoning enforcement. He noted that zoning enforcement had chosen to pursue the matter of the signs with the Historic Landmark Commission before they pursued it, with regards to the general sign ordinance.
After consulting the sign ordinance, Mr. Wright said that a business is allowed one flat sign on the primary facade, with one additional square foot of signage per linear foot of store frontage. He further noted that he thought all of these signs would be approved under the general signage standards. Mr. Young said that he believed that the signs would not have made it through a permitting process to begin with, and that he was concerned that the Historic Landmark Commission would appear to be "the bad guy" when in fact there are other issues in terms of the sign ordinance that the City already has.
Mr. Littig inquired if there was a landscape plan and a bond posted when the house on the adjoining property was permitted to be demolished. Ms. Giraud said that a specific reuse plan was submitted because the owner had planned to put in more gas pumps and landscaping. She said that if the owner does not follow-through with the reuse plan, the City could request that the lot be landscaped. Ms. Giraud said that the enforcement people were now involved.
Mr. Richard Calder, the applicant, was present. He stated that he had made a decision to eliminate some of the signage, such as the chicken sign, the cigarettes by the carton price sign, the beer signs, and all other price signs. He said that he could put the cigarette prices inside the building. Mr. Calder stated that his business had gone down fifty percent due to the altered configuration of the traffic flow in the area.
Mr. Calder discussed the adjoining property by saying that his brother was involved with the demolition of the house and he could not address that issue. He added that he believed his brother was wrong to have purchased that property because it was not feasible to install additional gas pumps.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Gordon led the discussion by inquiring if Mr. Calder believed that the reduction in his business was caused by the 600 North ramp being closed, and if so with it being reopened, he would be able to recapture some of that business. Mr. Calder said it was not only the change in traffic flow, but independent stations are having a difficult time competing with major gasoline companies. Mr. Calder said that he had spent $120,000 remodeling the station.
• Mr. Owen inquired about the boarded section of the building. Mr. Calder said that section contained a window that had been broken several times during recent robberies. He said that an alarm system had been installed. Mr. Calder said that he did not plan to have a window reinstalled, but the space would be filled-in with some kind of attractive material.
Ms. Blaes 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:
• Mr. Scott Christensen, who resides at 594 North Center Street, stated that he came to speak against Mr. Calder's request to leave any of the signage in place. He said that this neighborhood is a gateway entrance into the Capitol Hill area and the signage makes the neighborhood look like a low-class, crime-ridden area. Mr. Christensen said that many homeowners in the area have spent a great deal of money restoring their historic homes, and would like enforcement action taken to eliminate the signs on the Gas-N-Go convenience store building and to clear the adjoining lot of rubble and debris.
Mr. Christensen said that a few years ago when the request came before this Commission to demolish the house next door to the building, many concerned neighbors and residents spoke in favor of saving that house at the public hearing. He believed that the house could have been purchased by a caring homeowner and restored. Mr. Christensen said that although the Historic Landmark Commission denied the request for demolition, the owner went through the required waiting period and then demolished the house. He said that the Calder brothers do not live in the neighborhood and if they had cared about the character of the neighborhood, they would have allowed that structure to remain, since they had not yet received a permit to install the extra gas pumps. In conclusion, Mr. Christensen said he wanted to go on record by opposing the legalization of the signage.
Mr. Calder said that when he became manager of the Gas-N-Go station, he did not know it was located in an historic district and all of the "ramifications" that carries with it. He said that when he went to the Permits Counter, he asked how it was zoned and he said that he received the regulations for signage. Mr. Calder said that he did not know his signage did not comply with the law.
• Mr. Randy Dixon, who resides at 726 North Wall Street, indicated that he serves as a vice chair on the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Community Council. He said at the community council's November meeting, this case was discussed, and there was a consensus among the members that the signage on this property should be made to comply with all of the City rules and regulations, both with the signage ordinance and the Historic Landmark Commission's Signage Policy. Mr. Dixon said that the neighborhood, in which the station is located, is currently part of the project by the Redevelopment Agency to upgrade the area by purchasing properties and renewing some of the buildings in the neighborhood. He said that a lot of effort in time and money is being spent in revitalizing the neighborhood. Mr. Dixon said that the current signage on the Gas-N-Go station does not comply with the character of the neighborhood or the City's regulations, and he would like the applicant to be required to comply to the ordinance.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
As there was no discussion, Mr. Littig made a motion.
Mr. Littig moved for Case No. 031-98 that the building at 610 North 300 West
would only be allowed the previously permitted signs, which would consist of the CONOCO sign, the Gas-N-Go sign on the awning, and the gas price sign, and all other signs shall be removed. Further, the infill material for the boarded section of the building, and a plan in compliance be submitted for the adjoining property. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland.
The following discussion took place: Ms. Devine suggested that motion include the framework around the signs. Ms. Giraud suggested that the wording should be changed regarding the permitted signage or approved prior to the Gas-N-Go business. Mr. Gordon questioned whether or not the adjoining property should be included in this signage legalization case. Mr. Owen said that he believed that it should be pointed out to the property owner that window signage would be allowed that would not require a permit. Mr. Littig amended his motion.
Mr. Littig moved for Case No. 031-98 that the building at 610 North 300 West
would only be allowed the previously permitted signs, which would consist of the CONOCO sign, the Gas-N-Go sign on the awning, and the gas price sign, and all other signs and framework shall be removed. The second still stood by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
A short discussion followed and another motion was made.
Mr. Littig moved that that the same property at 610 North 300 West address the infill where the window once was and to have a permanent and aesthetic resolution to the hole in the front of the building, which could be approved by staff. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Young was opposed. Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Knight said that after the inspectors enforced on the signage issue and the adjoining property, there was still construction demolition debris the site. Mr. Richard Calder's brother met with staff and submitted a site plan to landscape the entire property.
Mr. Wright suggested that the staff follow up with the enforcement people and at the next meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission, the staff can give the members an update on that enforcement.
Mr. Calder said that other businesses appear to have all the signage they want, but this Commission dictates what kind of signage he could have. He said that he wished he had not spent a dime for the renovation of the station. Mr. Calder further said that he believed he had offered to make a fair compromise.
Ms. Blaes said that if the applicant had any questions about the decision, he could check with staff.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of Petition No. 410-329 by H. Roger Boyer. representing Gateway Associates. requesting a planned development for the Gateway project. located between North Temple and 200 South. and 400 and 500 West Streets. a portion of which includes additions to the Union Pacific Depot. which is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Blaes stated that this discussion was for the Historic Landmark Commission members to receive information on the Gateway project, that there would be no decisions made at this meeting, and as this was not a public hearing, no public comments would be heard.
Mr. Wright said that the Planning Commission had been reviewing this petition, which will be a very large development in the Gateway area of Salt Lake City. He said that the Planning Commission had scheduled a public hearing on Thursday, November 19, 1998 and invited the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to attend. Mr. Wright said that because the overall plan will involve the Union Pacific Depot building, the staff believed that it was important that the general proposal was shared with the Historic Landmark Commission. He said that there was also a proposal for a rear addition to the depot. Mr. Wright said that written comments could also be submitted for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Paterson introduced Mr. Doug Thimm, architect with MHTN, the local architect for the project, Mr. Roger Boyer from the Boyer Company, representing the petitioner, as well as Stephen Caine with Boyer Company.
Mr. Paterson said that the site on which the Union Pacific Depot building is located is very small. The setbacks are only about five feet in all directions. The entire site is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. He gave a brief description of the size of the area designated to the project.
Mr. Thimm used a briefing board to describe the project. He presented an overview of the project that will be presented to the Planning Commission, then focused more on the Union Pacific Depot building. He said that the idea of the project was that it would be an extension to downtown Salt Lake City, but not in competition because there will not be a large retail chain located in the project. A copy of the staff report that will be presented to the Planning Commission was filed with the minutes of this meeting, which describes in detail the proposed Gateway project. A copy of the Historic sites survey for the Union Pacific Depot was also filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Roger Boyer spoke of the retail, entertainment, hotel, and residential units of the Gateway project.
There was much discussion regarding issues with the Union Pacific Depot development and the following issues were introduced by members of the Historic Landmark Commission to be forwarded to the Planning Commission:
1. Negotiations for the State's transfer of ownership - protected covenants with Union Pacific;
2. Question about the designation. The City's ordinance does not specifically state that interior elements fall under the jurisdiction of the Historic Landmark Commission. The interior elements of the Union Pacific Depot are listed in the building's designation to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Need a ruling whether or not the elements, such as the stained glass windows and the murals in the main gallery, fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission;
3. An addition to the rear of the building, reminiscent of the arcade-type attachment, as shown on the copy of the photograph which was circulated seemed to be supported. It should be a fairly transparent structure and only one-story in scale;
4. Retain the public easement through the Union Pacific Depot; and
5. Extend an appreciation for the restoration of the Union Pacific Depot building. Ms. Blaes thanked everyone involved for the presentation.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:20P.M.