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 Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, and Mark Wilson. Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Parvaz 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. Parvaz 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.
NEW MEMBER
Mr. Knight introduced Ms. Noreen Hammond Heid, as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Parvaz and the other members welcomed her into the Commission.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Wilson moved to approve the minutes from the September 19, 2001 meeting, as amended. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
• PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 011-01, in Pioneer Park, located on Block 48, between 300 and 400 South, and 300 and 400 West Streets. by the Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Committee, represented by Steven Baird, architect, requesting final approval for a new bell tower in the park. Pioneer Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that the Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Committee requested the Commission's approval to construct a new belfry {bell tower) within the park to commemorate the original fort that once stood in the vicinity of the park. He said that the park is an individual landmark site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, and is zoned OS Open Space District. Mr. Knight said that because this request is for new construction, the full Historic Landmark Commission must review the belfry proposal.
Mr. Knight gave a brief history on the case by saying that the Commission last reviewed this proposal at its June 6, 2001 meeting. He added that the Commission conceptually approved the belfry and deferred the case to the Architectural Subcommittee to work through historical resources to determine an appropriate monument.
Mr. Knight said that the members of the Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Commission and their architect, Mr. Steven Baird, met with the Architectural Subcommittee on June 13 and September 26, 2001. Mr. Knight remarked that Mr. Baird presented additional information on the history of the Nauvoo Bell and discussed appropriate revisions to the belfry design. He said that the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed four options for the tower design; all were symbolic representations of the fort's belfry, but were smaller in height and mass than the 24-foot tower that was originally proposed. Mr. Knight added that the bell itself would also be smaller than originally proposed, with a two-foot three inch diameter and weight of approximately 550 lbs. He reported that the applicants preferred design number one, which was included in the staff report. Mr. Knight stated that the proposal is for a 16-foot high and approximately 4-foot square tower that would have historical markers at the base of the belfry. He said that the material for the structure would be aluminum, and would have a gable roof.
Mr. Knight stated that the location for the bell is still being negotiated between the applicants and the City Parks and Engineering officials. He said that the formal layout of the park suggests that a location along one of the park's main axes would be the most historically appropriate location. Mr. Knight said that Bruce Brown from the City Engineer's office prepared some site plans for the bell tower. He said that the preferred location would be about 350 South 300 West.
Staffs findings of fact: At the June 6, 2001 meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted the finding that a revised, smaller bell tower design would symbolically represent the park's significance as an early L.D.S. pioneer site, and would be compatible with the park's historic landscape in terms of scale and form, composition of facades, and relationship to the street. In addition, staff finds that any of the four revised designs met the intent of this finding.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Commission approve the preferred design for the bell tower and delegate the final approval of any remaining issues, such as the bell's location to staff."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Christensen inquired about the text on the four markers on the base of the tower. Mr. Knight said that the text had not been decided and Mr. Christensen would be a good resource to review the text. Mr. Christensen said he would like to have that opportunity.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Steven Baird, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that he realized that complete architectural drawings needed to be provided when all the decisions have been made as to what the design and text would be. Mr. Baird said that there would be four panels on which text would be written. He said that he believed the working drawings would be completed before all the funds have been provided. Mr. Baird made an inquiry into how the funding related to the City. Mr. Knight said that the City Engineering Division administers the bidding and construction process and any funds would have to be funneled through that office.
Mr. Parvaz 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 asking about the shingle material. Mr. Baird said that had not been decided. He added that the decision would be made before the architectural drawings are submitted. Mr. Christensen inquired if the aluminum material would be anodized and Mr. Baird said that it would, but the materials might change. Mr. Christensen said that the triangular panel sections at the top would need to be filled in and not left an open framework because of the mechanical components behind the panel. Mr. Baird assured the Commission that the panels would be filled in on all four sides.
• Mr. Wilson inquired about the controller. Mr. Baird said that a digital bell controller would ring the bell. He talked about how the original bell was rung by hand by pulling a rope. Mr. Baird explained how the computerized digital bell would be activated. He said the controller would only be approximately 17 inches by 14 1/2 inches, and 5 3/4 inches in depth and would be incased in one of the side panels of the tower. Mr. Wilson inquired if the controller was tamper proof. Mr. Baird said the door on the controller would be secured.
• Mr. Ashdown talked further about the controller and asked if the box could be hinged in some way to hide it behind one of the panels on which the text would be written. Mr. Baird believed it would work better at the top of the bottom of the panel.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was some discussion whether or not the Commission needed to express a preference for one of the four submitted proposals. Mr. Parvaz said that the applicants had already made a preference for the drawing marked as number one and suggested that it be stated in the motion. The discussion continued.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 011-01 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposal and the site for the new bell tower to be constructed in Pioneer Park, based on staff's findings of fact and staff's recommendation. Further, that the text of the historical signs, the materials used for construction, and any other details to be relegated to staff for final approval. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
(Mr. Littig arrived at 4:30 P.M.)
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 024-01, presentation by Korral Broschinsky, of Preservation Document Resource, to solicit comments for listing the Capitol Hill Historic District Boundary Increase on the National Register of Historic Places. The Boundary Increase would be located west of the existing Capitol Hill Historic District between approximately 250 West. 400 West, 300 North, and 800 North Streets.
Mr. Knight presented his memorandum, which pointed out that the nomination and the letter from Mr. Wilson G. Martin, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and Program Manager, explained the process more proficiently and was included in the nomination, as well as the map of the area, of which copies were filed with the minutes. He stated that the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was requesting input from the Historic Landmark Commission for the National Register of Historic Places nominations within Salt Lake City's boundaries, which is the federal government's official list of historic properties worthy of preservation. Mr. Knight said that the input would be provided to the Board of State History, to vote on the nominations. Mr. Knight commented that the nominations are then sent to the National Park Service, which is the federal agency responsible for the National Register. He said that this nomination would include all boundaries of the Capitol Hill Historic District, registered locally. He added that the request would also include all properties on 400 West, which are not currently in the local boundary. Mr. Knight talked about the tax credits that the property owners would be eligible to receive as a National Register district, as well as loans from the Redevelopment Agency to help revitalize the neighborhood.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the local jurisdiction of the Boundary Increase area. Mr. Knight said there would be a portion of the new extension that was already in the local district. He added that the National Register district currently jogs between 200 and 300 West, and the new Boundary Increase would encompass the six or seven blocks between 300 and 400 West.
There was a short discussion regarding a few of the buildings in the area. A question was asked if the buildings behind the railroad yards were included, and the answer was that they would not be in the district; some were already listed individually on the National Register.
Mr. Knight introduced Ms. Korral Broschinsky, of Preservation Document Resource, a consultant who prepared the nomination. Ms. Broschinsky gave a narrative description of the Capitol Hill Historic District Boundary Increase as she offered a slide presentation that depicted many of the historic structures in the area. She encouraged comments from the Commission during the presentation.
The following is a summary of the narrative description: The Boundary Increase would extend the original Capitol Hill Historic District ten square blocks to the west. The increase area is part of the Capitol Hill residential neighborhood developed between the 1850s and the 1950s. There are a total of 357 structures, counting the primary buildings and outbuildings, of which 261, or 73 percent are contributing. The neighborhood consists of single-family dwellings, double houses/duplexes, multiple dwellings, hotel/motel businesses, commercial specialty stores, and residential courts. A map of the Boundary Increase was also filed with the minutes. The structures in the area were constructed using stone, concrete, brick, wood, stucco, adobe, veneer, concrete block, asphalt, wood, or corrugated metal.
There are four reasons for the proposed boundary increase: First, the eastern boundary of the original district cuts an irregular, somewhat arbitrary path through several blocks and, in at least one case, bisects a parcel. Second, the current National Register boundaries do not coincide with the boundaries of Salt Lake City's landmark designation for the Capitol Hill neighborhood. The city's boundaries extend farther west to include several properties on 300 West. Third, the original eastern boundary of the National Register district was drawn with the intent to include the neighborhood on the sloping west side of Capitol Hill and several properties on the base of the hill; however, historically the neighborhood extended several blocks west to the railroad tracks (approximately 500 West). The new boundary line will more accurately represent the extant historic neighborhood. Four, since the 1982 listing of the original district, the period of significance has been expanded. A number of properties, many of which are associated with commercial development along the 300 West corridor, have achieved significance in the past two decades.
The oldest documented dwelling in the increase area is the "William Hawk" log cabin, built between 1848 and 1852, and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. It is the only surviving log dwelling in the Increase area, and probably the oldest in Salt Lake City on its original site. The Hawk cabin, located behind a Victorian cottage at 458 North 300 West, has an adobe addition attached by the 1880s. It was later moved to the rear of the property and used as a milk house and garage.
Most original adobe homes were subsequently enlarged and covered with plaster or other veneers as soon as the owner had the necessary resources. A typical example is found at 365 West 800 North, an adobe hall-parlor occupied by the Hendricksen's, a family of Danish marble and stonecutters. A more unusual example is a one-and-one half story, double pile adobe house at 270 North Reed Avenue. This house was built in the early 1870s for George and Cynthia Stewart Washington Hill. George W. Hill was an Indian agent and interpreter, who published a phrase book for the Shoshone language in 1877. According to family tradition, Brigham Young frequently met Indian delegations in the Hills' home.
The coming of the railroad was the official end of the pioneer era in Utah. The 400 West corridor provided the best grade and location for the tracks and within a few years, a warehouse district had developed next to the city's central business district. When the automobiles came into existence, 300 West became one of the main routes out of town.
The residents of the Capitol Hill area found their neighborhood conveniently close to the varied activities of the city. They found work in the business district of the central city and in a variety of nearby manufacturing and retail establishments. Some of the early businesses in the area were the Utah Soap Manufacturing Works, the Salt Lake Glass Works, the Deseret Woolen Mills, the Morrison-Merrill Lumber Company, the Utah Brewery, tanneries, general/grocery stores, and meat markets. In 1912, one of the earliest large-scale commercial ventures taking advantage of the area's amenities was the Model Steam Laundry Company, which moved from a downtown location. The Graybar Electric Company building, constructed in 1948, was the largest structure in the neighborhood. The largest public investment in the neighborhood was the 1909 technical school, which was demolished in 1999, and the 1917 West High School building, which replaced the circa 1890s complex, located just south of the Increase area.
The presence of non-L.D.S. churches suggested that after the 1880s, the number of non-Mormon immigrants had increased in the Capitol Hill neighborhoods. Because of the proximity of the railroad yards and shops, many engineers and railroad men chose the Marmalade district and the neighborhoods immediately west to settle their families. Other workers in mining, and the new trades of telegraph, telephone, and electricity also found the area attractive.
The completion of the lnterstate-15 freeway in 1956 was both a blessing and a curse to the Capitol Hill Historic District (Boundary Increase) neighborhood. The presence of the freeway initially reduced the number of automobiles on 300 West for about two decades until freeway congestion necessitated the use of 300 West as an alternative commuter route. During the 1950s and 1960s, many of the family-owned businesses failed or moved to more favorable locations. In addition, the homes of many longtime residents were sold or converted to rental units.
In the past decade, the restoration renaissance taking place in downtown and the original Capitol Hill Historic District has begun to move slowly into the Boundary Increase area. Many of the long-vacant commercial buildings on 300 West have been rehabilitated and put to new uses. The City continues to encourage the rehabilitation of the contributing older homes and businesses in the neighborhood, which the Utah Heritage Foundation has noted is "ripe for revitalization".
Mr. Parvaz inquired about "shotgun" houses in the area. Ms. Broschinsky said that a "shotgun" house is usually a very small house, rectangular in shape with the ridge of the roof perpendicular to the street. It usually has a door in the front and a row of two of three rooms and no hallway. Ms. Mickelsen said that the house was called "shotgun" because a shotgun could be fired in the front door and the bullet would go straight out the back through the doorways.
Mr. Ashdown talked about the effect of the Boundary Increase on a particular non contributing apartment building that was built in the 1960s or 1970s in the area. Ms. Giraud said that it would not have any effect because the building was not a contributing part of the district.
Mr. Christensen said that there was another small structure behind George W. Hill's house where his overnight guests stayed. Also, he said that natives from Hawaii came to Salt Lake to help build the temple and lived in the vicinity of Fern Avenue and Reed Avenue at 700 North. Mr. Christensen said they became skilled in the masonry trade before they eventually moved to Skull Valley. He noted that the histories of the Native Americans, as well as the Hawaiians were being preserved in the neighborhood. Ms. Broschinsky said that she believed the house to which Mr. Christensen referred was already in the boundaries of the Capitol Hill Historic District.
The discussion continued regarding the issues at hand with the Boundary Increase.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any more questions. He complimented Ms. Broschinsky for her writing of the nomination and her presentation.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
No further discussion took place. Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 024-01 concerning the extension of the Capitol Hill Historic District, that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the Capitol Hill Historic District Boundary Increase on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 025-01, presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Documentation Resource, to solicit comments for listing the "Isaac and Dorothy Clark House" at 1430 E. Federal Way, on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Knight presented his memorandum, which pointed out that the nomination and the letter from Mr. Wilson G. Martin, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and Program Manager, explains the process more proficiently and was included in the nomination, as well as an aerial photograph of the area, of which copies were filed with the minutes.
He stated that the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was requesting input from the Historic Landmark Commission for the National Register of Historic Places nominations within Salt Lake City's boundaries, which is the federal government's official list of historic properties worthy of preservation. Mr. Knight said that the input is provided to the Board of State History, which votes on the nominations. Mr. Knight commented that the nominations are then sent to the National Park Service, which is the federal agency responsible for the National Register. Mr. Knight said that the owners of the would be eligible to receive tax credits by listing the house on the National Register.
Mr. Knight introduced Ms. Korral Broschinsky, of Preservation Document Resource, a consultant who prepared the nomination. Ms. Broschinsky had prepared slides of the house and gave a narrative description as she presented the slide program. She encouraged comments from the Commission during the presentation.
Mr. Broschinsky stated that the owners, Daniel Greenwood and Carol Salem, solicited her services to write the nomination for their home. She said that the owners were interested in the tax credits. Ms. Broschinsky said that the owners were hoping that the entire Federal Heights district would be listed but that is not forthcoming.
The following is a summary of the narrative description: The Isaac C. and Dorothy S. Clark house, built in 1916 by the early developer of the Federal Heights subdivision. The Clark house was one of several early homes featured in local newspapers to promote the subdivision. The owners of the house during the historic period represent a mix of prominent families who reflect the Federal Heights neighborhood as a whole. Federal Heights has been established for many years, but originally the area was little more than a desolate dry bench land used for slaughter yards. A few families moved to "Butcherville" and built houses near present day Virginia Street; however, the area had little to offer permanent settlers. During the 1860s, most of the butchers eventually left the area and adobe/brickyards replaced them. At least one brick-maker obtained permission to take clay from the Federal Heights area, which at the time was part of the Fort Douglas reserve.
The Clark house is a two-story, foursquare-type structure with bungalow/craftsman details, with a two-car garage. The house is constructed of pressed brick, sits on a concrete foundation, and has an asphalt-shingled pyramidal roof. The house is wider than the typical foursquare and has over 4,500 square feet of living space divided between the two main floors, a basement apartment, and the partially finished attic space. The house is located in the Federal Heights subdivision just north of the University of Utah. Despite the use as a fraternity house during the 1960s and 1970s, the exterior of the building is remarkably well preserved. In the 1980s, the house was renovated and returned to use as a single-family dwelling (with basement apartment). The home's interior was renovated in the 1980s, and has been recently restored to its bungalow/craftsman appearance. There is a porch across the front with square brick piers supporting a hipped roof. The facade is symmetrical with a wide front door and sidelights. The windows are original wood double-hung on concrete sills; most have multi-lights over a single pane. There is a dormer in the center of the roof and a small oriel-type window on the second floor. The east and west elevations are similar with a combination of different size windows and prominent brick chimneystacks.
The encroachment of the fraternities and sororities has been a source of annoyance to the more permanent residents of Federal Heights, and the Cark house is one of the success stories for those who preferred to keep the neighborhood's livability. For the past few years, the new owners have been working to return the interior of the home to a bungalow/craftsman appearance. The house is in excellent condition and is a contributing resource in the neighborhood.
Mr. Christensen inquired about the criteria for the National Register. Ms. Broschinsky said that the house is listed under Criterion A for the property's association with the early development of the Federal Heights subdivision. She said that currently there is only one other building listed on the National Register in the subdivision. Ms. Broschinsky said that the Clark house represents the early development of the subdivision.
Mr. Parvaz asked about the other contributing buildings and the possibility of Federal Heights being eligible to become a district. Ms. Broschinsky said that there were many contributing buildings that were still intact and could be listed as a district on the National Register of Historic Places. She said that a reconnaissance survey was done in 1988, but would need to be updated.
A short discussion took place regarding the history of the Clark house and other homes in the neighborhood.
Once again, Mr. Parvaz complimented Ms. Broschinsky on her research and thanked her for her presentation.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz 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 further discussion.
Motion:
Mr. Wilson moved for Case No. 025-01, that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the "Isaac C. and Dorothy S. Clark House" at 1430 Federal Way on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen , Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Briefing by Danny Walz, of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, on the status of the Commercial Node at 300 West and 500 North, located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Walz stated that the Redevelopment Agency {RDA) owns three acres of land on the northeast corner of 300 West and 500 North, which includes the west side of Arctic Court. He said that the RDA originally submitted an application for demolition to the Historic Landmark Commission of the buildings on that land almost two years ago and has worked over the past year on marketing the property unsuccessfully. Mr. Walz said that the Board of Directors decided to hire a consultant who would work with the RDA to form a reuse plan for the site, then that reuse plan would be brought back to this Commission in hopes of finalizing the request of demolition for some of the structures. Mr. Walz stated that as part of developing that reuse plan, the consultant will be doing a community based design process. He added that there will be of a number of open houses and community council meetings in the area to receive input and direction from the residents regarding how they would like to see that site developed and also which structures, if any, they would like to see preserved, rehabilitated, or demolished. He reported that a subcommittee would be formed in the next few weeks with which the consultant will work more directly.
Mr. Walz asked if the Historic Landmark Commission would like to designate one or more members to serve on that subcommittee so the Commission is kept informed about what the RDA is doing with the site. Mr. Walz said that the members of the subcommittee would probably be expected to attend at least three or four meetings with the consultant, as well as participate in the open houses. He said that Soren Simonsen had offered to serve in that capacity. Mr. Walz declared that the subcommittee would feature a broad base of representation that will include representatives from the RDA, the Historic Landmark Commission, RDA's advisory committee, the Planning Division, the Department of Community and Economic Development, community council representatives, as well as some at-large community members who have expressed interest in the site.
Mr. Walz said that the Board of Directors would select the final reuse plan that will come back to this Commission for review. He added that it is the goal of the RDA to have a reuse plan ready to review by February or March of 2002.
There was some conversation about a possible conflict of interest with Mr. Simonsen serving on the subcommittee because Cooper/Roberts/Simonsen Architects at one time was doing some work on the site. Mr. Walz said that the architectural firm was working with a private developer who was negotiating with the RDA, but that fell through. He added that since Mr. Simonsen had some background on the site, it would be beneficial for the subcommittee. Mr. Walz said that he believed there would not be a conflict of interest for Mr. Simonsen to serve on the subcommittee.
There was a lengthy discussion with several members of the Commission expressing his/her point of view on the site and the surrounding properties. Some members were concerned that the public might look at the historic buildings on the site and feel that they would not contribute anything to the development and wish to have them demolished, especially in their boarded condition. Mr. Christensen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission had strong support in keeping the structures, especially the building on the comer of 500 North and Arctic Court. Mr. Walz offered to pass that information on to the consultant.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if any other member of the Commission had an interest in serving on the subcommittee. Mr. Ashdown said that he would. Mr. Christensen said that he would serve as an alternate and perhaps Ms. Rowland would be interested in serving as an alternate, as well. Mr. Walz said that he would notify the members as to the date of the first meeting.
City and County Building closing times during the Olympics in February 2002. Mr. Knight discussed the following issue: The City and County Building will be considered a secure area during the Olympics from February 2 through February 26, 2002. The employees' hours will change from 7:00 A M. to 3:00P.M. Everyone without Olympic credentials will have to out of the building by 4:00P.M. The City Council and other boards will not be holding any night meetings during this period of time. The Historic Landmark Commission usually only has one meeting a month during January and February. Mr. Knight said that we would like some suggestions from the members of the Commission about meeting times. Some members suggested two meetings in January and/or March and not hold a meeting in February. There was some discussion regarding this issue. The Commission recommended that staff evaluate the caseload and make the decision, then let the Commissioners know when the meetings will be held.
Due Process and Takings Seminar.
Ms. Giraud talked about the notice she received regarding the "Due Process and
Takings" seminar that will be held on October 21, 2001 in the Centerville City Offices at 250 North Main Street, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. She said that Mr. Parvaz was the only Commissioner who signed up for the seminar. Ms. Giraud reminded the Commissioners that Salt Lake City Corporation would pay the $10.00 fee.
Land Use Appeals Board and the lawsuit filed.
Ms. Giraud said that the Land Use Appeals Board held a hearing on the monument sign for Fantastic Sam's at 208 South 1300 East, appealed by Marc Moscowitz, and upheld the Historic Landmark Commission's decision.
Ms. Giraud said that papers were filed in Third District court where the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Giraud, and Salt Lake City Corporation were named as the defendants in a law suit from David Coats' application for demolition of Bill and Nada's Cafe building for $5,000,000. She said that Lynn Pace, the Deputy City Attorney advised Ms. Giraud that Mr. Coats had not gone through the entire process provided by the City Ordinances. She said that the law suit talks about the general dissatisfaction of the process they had to go through.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Heid moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:45P.M.