October 18, 2000

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 Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Cheri Coffey.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Mark Wilson. Sarah Miller, Robert Payne, and Robert Young were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Wayne Gordon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Gordon 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.

INTRODUCTION OF STAFF MEMBER

Mr. Knight introduced Ms. Cheri Coffey, a member of the Planning Division staff, who was asked to be the Planning Programs Supervisor. He said that one of her assignments is to oversee preservation planning. Mr. Knight indicated that Ms. Coffey replaced Joel Paterson who has taken another position in the Planning Division. Mr. Knight pointed out that Ms. Coffey had his job, at one time, so she is joining the preservation staff with much experience with the Historic Landmark Commission and preservation issues. He stated that the preservation planners were glad to have her back. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff welcomed her.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The approval of the minutes of the August 16, 2000, September 6, 2000, and September 20, 2000 meetings were postponed.

PREVIOUS BUSINESS

Case No. 025-00, at 459 North Main Street, by Leo Adams, requesting to construct an attached garage and addition to a single-family home in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

This case was postponed because the necessary information had not been received.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 026-00, at 582 North Center Street, by Joseph Grigsby, represented by his contractor, Kevin O'Shea, requesting to construct a detached 720-square-foot garage at the rear of the lot.

Mr. Rowland recused herself from this case.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that Joseph Grigsby, represented by his contractor, Kevin O'Shea, is requesting approval to construct a one-story, two-car garage on the rear of the lot located at 582 N. Center Street. Mr. Knight pointed out that the garage would be accessed off of Alida Place, which runs parallel to and just east of Center Street. He said that the property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District, and is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District.

Mr. Knight stated that this one story, Victorian-era cottage was probably built around 1886. He said that there is an existing garage, approximately 200 square feet in size, on this site. Mr. Knight indicated that staff recently approved a proposal to relocate the existing accessory building to the neighbor's yard, next door at 586 N. Center Street. He added that to staff’s knowledge, the garage has not been moved yet.

Mr. Knight said that based on the criteria established recently by the subcommittee on administrative approvals, staff decided to refer this case to the full Commission because the proposed garage is larger than 600 square feet. Mr. Knight reported that the proposed building would be 26'-0" x 27'-6", with two parking bays and additional room for storage. He pointed out that the drawings do not specify the materials to be used or the proposed height of the building, but based on conversations with the applicant, the proposed primary wall material would be wood clapboard siding, wood or vinyl single hung windows, and a metal paneled security door. Mr. Knight stated that the gable roof appears to be about a 4:12 pitch and the applicant would like to use asphalt shingles for the roof. Instead of the two one car garage doors shown on the drawings, he said that the applicant would like to install one double-width metal paneled garage door. Mr. Knight said that the applicant is concerned about clearance and his ability to pull a car into the garage from Alida Place if two doors are required.

Mr. Knight continued by saying that the proposed building would be set back (west) 16 feet from the rear property line, in order to provide enough turning room off of Alida Place. He said that staff reviewed the proposal with the Permits staff, which indicated that the proposal would meet the setback requirements for accessory buildings in the SR-1 zone. Mr. Knight noted that the Permits staff pointed out that further information, such as the height of the building, framing, and footing specifications would have to be added to the drawings in order for the applicant to obtain a building permit. Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H), H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, which were included in the staff report:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.

1. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

Staff's discussion: The surrounding structures are a mix of single- and two story buildings in a range of historic and contemporary styles, ranging from the contemporary apartments to the west to a number of single-story and two story Victorian-era cottages to the north, south and east.

Staff conducted an informal survey of nearby garages and outbuildings by walking through the neighborhood and using aerial photographs. There are a wide variety of outbuildings on the surrounding blocks, ranging from many small sheds to several examples of large multi-car garages. A number of the larger garages (greater than approximately 600 square feet) have been constructed on this block, including examples in the back yards of 120-122 W. Girard Ave., 138 W. Girard Ave., and 594 N. Center Street.

The proportions of the building are similar to those exhibited on typical garages in the Capitol Hill district. The 4/12 gable roof shape is commonly seen on many contemporary outbuildings, although a steeper roof pitch might be more compatible with the steeper roofs found on many nearby structures.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

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

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

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

Staff's discussion: The proposed building is located on the interior of the block, and is set back from the street. Alida Place is a private right of way, and thus is technically not considered a street. Even though there are two houses with frontage on Alida, the streetscape character is more like an alley, with several garages using Alida for access. Thus, staff finds that the construction of this garage would be compatible with the surrounding buildings on Alida Place with respect to walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing, directional expression, and streetscape improvements.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

3. Relationship to Street.

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

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

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

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

Staffs finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: No subdivision is proposed.

Mr. Knight stated that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address accessory buildings in Section 9. He said that one guideline addresses preserving existing historic accessory buildings where feasible, and another requires garages to be detached structures in most cases. He added that the third deals with the details of constructing a new garage: 9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits. In the case of a two-car garage two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.

Staffs findings of fact: Staff finds that the proposal complies with this guideline. Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the design with the provision that the garage shall be sided with wood siding, that a wood paneled overhead garage door {single or double width) be used, and that the applicant be allowed to use vinyl or aluminum soffit and fascia and vinyl windows. Staff recommends that the commission delegate final review of the plans to the preservation planners."

Mr. Littig expressed his concerns about the applicant being allowed to use a double garage door instead of two single garage doors. Mr. Knight said that the applicant believed that it would be easier to make the sharp turn off Alida Place into the garage by using a double door instead of maneuvering into a single garage door.

There was some discussion regarding the two-foot grade change and the height of the proposed garage.

Mr. Kevin O'Shea, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that he concurred with the staff report. He said that the height of the building would be 12 feet 4.5 inches to the top of the shingles from ground level. He said that the garage would sit at the street level.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by suggesting that there needed to be a more complete site plan for the proposed project showing the change of grade. She also recommended that the garage have two single doors rather than a double door. Mr. O'Shea said that would be acceptable.

• Mr. Littig inquired about the size of the lap siding that was proposed for the garage. Mr. O'Shea noted that the existing house had a brick exterior but the addition on the back was sided with a two-inch wide lap siding. He said that the same lap siding could be used for the house, even though it would have to be specially milled.

• Mr. Knight asked about the plans for the extra space in the proposed garage. Mr. O'Shea said that he believed it would be used for extra storage space because the applicant's house is quite small.

• Mr. Christensen inquired about the window that the applicant proposed to use. Mr. O'Shea said that the windows would be horizontal sliders and did not intend to put windows in the south elevation. Mr. Christensen suggested using single hung, one-over-one windows. Mr. O'Shea said that should be acceptable to the applicant.

Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

There was a short discussion regarding the proposed exterior materials, double-hung windows, the grade of the property, and whether two single garage doors would be more appropriate than one large door.

Motion:

Mr. Simonsen moved to approve Case No. 026-00, based on staff's findings of fact and referred the project to the Architectural Subcommittee to refine the details to make certain that the project complies with the staff report and the approval. It was seconded by Mr. Christensen.

After a brief discussion, the motion was amended.

Amended motion:

Mr. Simonsen moved to approve Case No. 026-00, based on staff's findings of fact and refer the project to the Architectural Subcommittee to review the refinement of details, such as, the grade change; the height and the visual impact from Center Street, and a sample of the exterior siding material. He further moved to require two single garage doors instead of one garage door. The final approval is to be given administratively contingent upon the project's compliance with the staff report and Commission's approval. The second still stood by Mr. Christensen. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Rowland was in recuse. Mr. Gordon, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 027-00, at 420 East South Temple, by the Boyer Company, represented by Randall Boudrero of MHTN Architects, requesting to erect a monument sign for the IBM Building.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that The Boyer Company, represented by Randall Boudrero, of MHTN Architects, is requesting to construct a monument sign on the IBM Building property at 420 East South Temple. He said that the property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of South Temple and 400 East. Mr. Knight indicated that the property is zoned R-0, Residential Office, which allows one monument sign per street frontage, with a maximum sign area of 32 square feet and a maximum height of four feet. He noted that the monument sign must be set back at least five feet from the property line.

Mr. Knight stated that the applicants propose to remove the existing concrete planter box at the northwest corner of the lot, which has a "420" cast into the wall of the planter. He said that the planter would be replaced with a new concrete planter box approximately two feet higher than the existing box. Mr. Knight indicated that the address of the building, "420 East South Temple", in 10-inch high metal letters, and the names of the three primary tenants of the building in six-inch high metal letters below the address line, would be placed on the planter box walls. He said that the sign would be indirectly illuminated with in-ground lighting.

Mr. Knight said that the Historic Landmark Committee reviewed the original design for this building on June 5, 1979, with the building being constructed shortly thereafter. He said that in 1981, two tenants of the building, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., and IBM, proposed a monument sign that would have had the names of both companies on it. Mr. Knight reported that the Committee denied the request, based on the Historic Landmark Committee's policy of one sign per building. He indicated that a similar denial occurred in 1993, when Holy Cross Health Services proposed additional building mounted signage, for the same policy-based reason as the 1981 case.

Mr. Knight remarked that although the building has become popularly known as the "IBM Building," based upon its primary tenant, officially the building is known by its address, "420 E. South Temple". However, he said that IBM has remained a tenant of the building. Mr. Knight stated that recently MHTN Architects and Big-D Construction moved their offices into the building and both firms would like to have a signage presence along the street.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 5.0 the Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document, which was adopted February 1, 1984: (Please note that the "Committee" referred to in the policy text is the Historic Landmark Commission. The policy document was adopted before 1995, when Landmarks was granted the status of a full-fledged city commission.)

A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee considers the entire principal farcade as the "sign" (i.e. in context.) Signs should relate to the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and the streetscape.

Staffs discussion: This building is considered out-of-period and thus non contributing in the South Temple Historic District. The existing IBM sign on the building is well-integrated with the design of the building, even corresponding to the reveals cast into the concrete walls. The existing planter, with its cast-in numerals, is also well integrated with the architecture of the building. The new planter would be in the same location and would have the same style, color and illumination as the existing planter. The size of the planter would increase, as would the overall amount of signage area. Taken in this context, the signs would complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color, and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding buildings and streetscape.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed signs would complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color, and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding buildings and streetscape.

In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple,) the Committee encourages the use of /ow-key, sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character etc. The Committee encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Back-/it plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The metal letters proposed are in keeping with the intent of this portion of the signage policy. The signs would be indirectly illuminated with in-ground lighting.

The Historic Landmark Committee considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office and commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Committee. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.

Staffs discussion: The Historic Landmark Commission has, for many years, held to the limit of one building identification sign per building, especially within the South Temple Historic District. Exceptions have been granted in cases of multiple retail spaces in a single building, such as with the Boston Market/Einstein's Bagels building at 475-479 E. South Temple. In that case, the HLC approved a flat sign for each tenant and a monument sign with the logos of both tenants. Similar exceptions have been made for the retail stores in the Baker's Bakery building at 434 E. South Temple and the Eclectic/Henri's Dry Cleaning shopping center at 466 E. South Temple.

Other exceptions have been granted in cases where existing signage already identified one tenant of a multi-tenant building, such as on the Zion's Bank/Squire Natural Building at 455 E. South Temple. In these cases, the Historic Landmark Commission has allowed additional signage (usually monument signs) on the condition that some signage is removed when either tenant moves out of the building.

In most cases, the Commission has adhered to the policy of one sign per building with multiple tenants identified in a building directory. Recent cases in which this has held true are the Utah College of Massage Therapy at 312 E. South Temple, the LOS Business College at 411 E. South Temple, and Allstate Insurance at 807 E. South Temple. In all of these cases only one sign was allowed and additional signage was denied. However, multiple tenants were involved only with the Allstate Building.

Although the monument sign would identify the tenants in the building, it is technically one sign. If the applicants remove the existing IBM signage from the building, there would only be one sign on the property. The applicant is willing to remove the existing IBM sign on the building if requested by the Commission. However, the Commission may find, as the members of HLC found in 1993, that the IBM sign is a character-defining feature of the design of this building. In that case, it may be desirable to require the IBM sign to remain and to allow the additional monument sign as an exception similar to the exceptions made in previous cases.

Staffs finding of fact: Allowing a monument sign with signs for multiple tenants in addition to the existing signage would be in conflict with the adopted signage policy. Since the time that policy was adopted in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission, Architectural Subcommittee, and Planning Staff have made exceptions in similar cases to this one.

Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "While this proposal is not in keeping with the Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document with respect to one sign per building and identifying multiple tenants, there are other examples along South Temple in which exceptions to this policy have been made. In this instance, staff believes that it is more appropriate to evaluate the signage in terms of the other standards in the signage portion of the HLC Policy Document. Accordingly, staff finds that the proposed signage is acceptable and recommends approval of the application."

Mr. Knight talked about the need to update the Historic Landmark Commission's Policy Document, relating to signs. Some other members of the Historic Landmark Commission agreed that the policy needed to be updated.

Ms. Giraud suggested keeping the "IBM Building" sign.

There was some discussion about the size of the proposed signage and if the planter would be considered as part of the signage. There was also discussion regarding whether each company name would be considered as individual signage, or by grouping the company names together, would be considered one sign. Ms. Coffey said that she believed that the Permit's Office would consider the entire framework as one sign.

Mr. Randall Boudrero of MHTN Architects, representing the applicants, said that he concurred with the staff report. He said what the applicants were proposing was more permanent designation of the building as "420 East South Temple". Mr. Boudrero stated that many years ago when the building was constructed, IBM was the major tenant in the building, but currently, they are not. He said that the intent for the signage would be to make it more visible for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Mr. Boudrero said that the "420 East South Temple" cast into the planter wall has low visibility because it is in the shade most of the day due to the tree canopy. He said that the applicants meet, "the spirit of the ordinance" because the sign would be part of the building facade by extending the planter wall. Mr. Boudrero stated that the landscaping would be maintained except for the removal of one small tree on the north side of the sign that if left would obscure the new proposed signage.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by asking about the proposed height of the planter wall. Mr. Boudrero said the height would be approximately 50 inches. He added that the planter wall would be extended approximately 32 to 35 inches. Mr. Boudrero said the framework for each face of the sign would be about 28 square feet. He noted that base of the planter is screened by the plant material in front of it.

• Mr. Christensen inquired whether the applicants had a strong opinion about leaving the "IBM" signage on the pillar. Mr. Boudrero said that the applicants would propose to remove that signage because it overemphasizes the building's name and is too large. Mr. Christensen asked about the finish of the proposed lettering. Mr. Boudrero said that the lettering would have bronze finish similar to the existing "IBM" sign.

• Mr. Gordon talked about the names of the companies being placed on a directory inside the lobby. Mr. Boudrero said that would be a possibility.

A short discussion took place regarding the L-shape of the planter wall and the size. Mr. Boudrero said that the 50-inch height would be measured from the finished grade. He said that the entire planter height could be dropped.

Mr. Boudrero circulated colored photographs of the proposed signage site.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion developed regarding the loss of an architectural element, the "IBM" sign, which was part of the original design, and other related matters.

Some members of the Commission made the following recommendations: 1) that the Commission limit the size of the lettering; 2) that all the lettering be the same height; 3) that the signage only be on one face of the planter; 4) that the color of the lettering be consistent; 5) that other tenants be listed on a directory in the lobby; and 6) that the sign could be lowered about one foot and still be a "handsome" sign and readable.

Mr. Gordon inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission would review changes to the sign if there were to be a change in tenants. Ms. Giraud said that if it were a replacement with the same size and materials, it would be reviewed by staff. She said that if additional bands of lettering were requested, then it would be brought to the full Commission.

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich talked about some of the examples of signage on South Temple that was included in the staff report. She also said that she believed that the "IBM Building" was a significant architectural structure in Salt Lake City for its time. She expressed her concern about allowing a change to the features of it. She also stated that the signage policy should be different for retail/service uses as opposed to offices.

Ms. Giraud said that part of the established history of Salt Lake City was recognizing a building by its name, such as the "Keith Building". She noted that people might not remember who David Keith was anymore, but the building and its location is known. She said that, originally, the idea of the "IBM" sign was to make the building and its location known as the "IBM Building" and the address is 420 East South Temple. Some Commission members mentioned other buildings known by their names, such as the "Boston Building", the "Kearns Building", and the "McIntosh Building".

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she had a problem with listing all the tenants on the signage. She expressed her concerns about too much information on the proposed monument sign. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she did not believe that any of the tenants of the building were "walk-in" tenants; the clients would look for the destination of the building at 420 East South Temple. Some members suggested changing the name of the building, such as calling it the "420 East South Temple Building". Others thought the building should keep its "IBM Building" name for identity purposes. Mr. Parvaz said that requesting a building name change was not part of the application.

Mr. Simonsen said that it is difficult to see the address of the building cast into concrete, especially when the landscaping screens the planter. He said that the attempt to make the signage more readable is praiseworthy. However, he said that the Commission should not be in the business of listing tenants on the outside of the building. Mr. Simonsen suggested making the address signage more visible on both sides of the planter. Mr. Knight said that the address is also on the stairway on 400 East. Mr. Parvaz said that he thought the Commission should be a little flexible.

Mr. Gordon stated that since the building is a non-contributing building, the size of the sign would be dictated by zoning. He said that it would be important to have the signage in proportion to the building.

The discussion continued.

Motion:

Mr. Littig moved to approve Case No. 027-00 and adopt the planter signage as pictured, contingent upon the elimination of the names of "IBM", "Big D" and "MHTN" on the lower band of the planter sign, and the retention of the address, "420 East South Temple", that is cast into the planter wall, based on Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document, adopted in 1984, with respect to one sign per building. There was some further discussion of the wording of the motion.

Amended motion:

Mr. Littig moved to approve Case No.027-00 and adopt the planter signage as pictured, contingent upon the elimination of the names of "IBM", "Big D" and "MHTN" on the lower band of the planter sign, the elimination of the address on the steps on 400 East, and the retention of the street address signage of "420 East South Temple", that is cast into the planter wall, based on Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document, adopted in 1984, with respect to one sign per building. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Christensen, Ms. JakovcevUlrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Gordon, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 028-00, at 132 South State Street, by Robert Money of Zion Securities, requesting approval to demolish a portion of the Orpheum Theater, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse", and construct a multi-story parking structure behind the original lobby.

This case was postponed at the request of the applicant.

OTHER BUSINESS

Solicitation of comments for future National Register of Historic Places' nominations for areas bounded by 700 East to 1100 East Streets, South Temple to 400 and 500 South, and 700 East to Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and from 500 South to 900 South Streets.

Ms. Giraud stated that at the September 20, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting where she and Mr. Roger Roper, Preservation Coordinator for the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) presented recent discussions they had had regarding the upcoming National Register of Historic Places nominations for the East Central neighborhood. Ms. Giraud stated that she is working on a nomination for the area bounded by 700 East, 1100 East South Temple, and 400/500 South, which she calls "Bryant". She said that the City is almost ready to solicit consultant proposals to prepare a nomination for the neighborhood bounded by 700 East, the Mt. Olivet Cemetery, 400/500 South and 900 South, which she called "Bennion/Douglas", after the schools in the area.

Ms. Giraud presented the following memorandum to the Historic Landmark Commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes:

Bryant and Bennion/Douglas are urban neighborhoods that are inside the early platted area of Salt Lake City, as opposed to the suburbs that were developed about 1900, what had been referred to as the "Big Field", south 900 South. Their architecture is varied and consists of styles that can be found in many parts of the state. Their history includes many themes that pertain to the overall development of Salt Lake City. Because of the lack of a single theme that defines the history of these neighborhoods, SHPO and I have debated for years how we could get these (and other) neighborhoods on the National Register of Historic Places. This listing is important because it enables homeowners to obtain substantial state tax credits. In the interest of expedience and the amorphous character of the history of these neighborhoods, Roger suggested that these neighborhoods be amended to the existing Central City National Register nomination.

Some Bryant and Bennion/Douglas residents took issue with this, however. They did not feel an affinity with the Central City district and some were concerned that being part of the Central City National Register district would hamper an opportunity to become a local district in the future. Residents expressed a variety of opinion, such as: they should be amended to the University Historic District, they should be two separate districts, and they should be one East Central district. Roger and I have found issues with these opinions. First, historically, the residents in the Bryant and the Bennion/Douglas neighborhoods had little association with the University, or at least not to the extent of those who lived in the existing University district. Second, Roger and I found that as separate districts they had less compelling reasons to be listed than if they were part of an existing nomination, and the nomination with which the history was most closely aligned is the Central City district. And third, there is minimal difference between the history of the East Central neighborhoods and those directly west of 700 East. Thus, given the varied and eclectic nature of both the history and the built domain, but given its clear relationship and association with the development of Salt Lake City from its early settlement through the 1940's, the staff recommended that the Commission vote to amend the Bryant and Bennion/Douglas neighborhoods to the existing Central City district unless the consultant hired to complete the Bennion/Douglas nomination finds some compelling reason why it should be a separate district, and that an appropriate name be found for the entire area.

As a Certified Local Government, SHPO will rely on what the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission determines to be the most accurate and reasonable approach to list these neighborhoods. At the September 20, 2000 meeting, Mr. Oktai Parvaz requested that you have a memorandum or staff report (something in writing) on which to base your decision. This is that documentation.

Ms. Giraud said that the following was the motion that the Historic Landmark Commission passed at the last meeting:

Mr. Young moved to pass a resolution stating that given the discussion at this meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission is comfortable with proceeding with the nominations and believes that it is appropriate for staff to consider including the Bryant nomination with what is now known as the Central City Historic District for the National Register of Historic Places. He a/so made the same conclusion for the Bennion-Doug/as nomination, unless some impending evidence comes to light that is found by the consultant hired to complete the nomination. The staff and the Historic Landmark Commission can look at changing the name of the existing Central City National Register district that is representative of the entire area encompassed by Central City, Bryant, and Bennion/Douglas.

Ms. Giraud stated that if the Historic Landmark Commission wanted to vote on this matter again, she suggested that the Commission base its decision on the following: First, historically, the residents in the Bryant and the Bennion/Douglas neighborhoods have had little association with the University, or at least not to the extent of those who lived in the existing University district; Second, if the districts are separated, they would have less compelling reasons to be listed than if they were part of an existing nomination, and the nomination with which the history was most closely aligned is the Central City district; and third, there is minimal difference between the history of the East Central neighborhoods and those directly west of 700 East.

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if the staff had come up with a new name for the district. Ms. Giraud said that they had not. There was some discussion regarding renaming the district.

Ms. Giraud said that the Bennion/Douglas neighborhood applied for and received CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money to have a survey done of the area in preparation of a national register.

Ms. Giraud talked about some of the areas of Salt Lake City that would warrant a National Register district.

Ms. Giraud said that an approval had been made at the September 20, 2000 Historic

Landmark Commission meeting, so it was not necessary to have another motion.

Solicitation of comments on the National Register of Historic Places nomination for The Sweet Candy Company located at 224 South 200 West.

Ms. Giraud stated that because the Historic Landmark Commission represents Salt Lake City as a Certified Local Government, it is the role of the Historic Landmark Commission to provide the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with comments regarding nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Giraud referred to her memorandum regarding the National Register nomination for the "Sweet Candy Company" at 224 South 200 West, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Ms. Giraud said that the four-story Sweet Candy Company Building was constructed in 1911. She said that the building is being remodeled for use as office space. She said that as part of the rehabilitation project, approximately 50 percent of the mezzanine is being removed. However, she said that many of the original interior structural elements would remain visible. Ms. Giraud said that all of the candy-making equipment and ·fixtures were removed by the Sweet Candy Company in 1999 when the company relocated.

Ms. Giraud stated that staff recommended the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to SHPO for this nomination. When Ms. Mickelsen inquired who owned the building, Ms. Giraud said that the building was owned by Eric L. Olafson. There was some discussion regarding how the building was being restored.

Motion:

Mr. Parvaz moved to forward a favorable recommendation to Utah State Preservation Office to include the "Sweet Candy Company Building" located at 224 South 200 West on the National Register of Historic Places. Further, it was recommended that completed documents are to be provided to the Historic Landmark Commission for future National Register nominations. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Gordon, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Adjournment of the meeting.

As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Simonsen so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.