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, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.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 appeals 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 OF THE PLANNING STAFF
Ms. Giraud introduced Ms. Janice Lew, a new member of the Planning Staff, who will be working with historic preservation, as well as in other areas in the office.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the November 7, 2001 meeting were postponed.
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.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 023-01, at 400 West south Temple, by the Boyer Company, represented by Young Electric Sign Company (VESCO), requesting approval of a revised signage proposal for the east side of the Union Pacific Depot. The Union Pacific Depot 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, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that the Boyer Company, represented by Young Electric Sign Company (VESCO), returned to the Commission for review of a revised signage proposal for the east (front) facade of the Union Pacific Depot. He said that the Commission previously approved a sign for the west side of the Depot and a signage package for the House of Blues, a prospective tenant at the north end of the building. Mr. Knight noted that the Union Pacific Depot is individually listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. He said that the Depot is being renovated as part of the Boyer Company's Gateway development. Mr. Knight indicated that the property is zoned G-MU, Gateway Mixed Use. The gateway districts are intended "to provide controlled and compatible settings for residential, commercial, and industrial developments, and implement the objectives of the adopted Gateway Development Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the mixed-use character of the area and encourage the development of urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses, and high density residential".
Mr. Knight relayed the following background information: The Historic Landmark Commission last reviewed this case at the meeting on September 19, 2001 and three signs were proposed: 1) removal of the existing Union Pacific lettering to the left and right of the shield on the east side of the building, replacement with new metal letters spelling out "The Gateway" below the shield; 2) construction of a new sign in the location of the former sign on the west facade spelling out "The Gateway" in metal letters; and 3) a new metal-framed archway over the walkway at the west end of the Depot, with metal letters spelling out "The Gateway" mounted atop the archway.
Mr. Knight continued in the following manner: The Historic Landmark Commission approved the sign on the west side of the building, and approved the archway with the condition that the arch had to be moved one foot away from the Depot's exterior walls. The Commission did not approve the proposal to remove the "Union Pacific" letters on the east side of the building. After the meeting, the Boyer Company filed for permits on the approved signs. The City Zoning Administrator would not allow construction of the archway sign because signs of this type are not permitted in the G-MU Zone. Since the sign was moved one foot away from the walls of the Depot, and thus outside of the boundaries of the landmark site, the applicants could not seek special approval for the sign from the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Knight said that the sequence of events has left the Gateway development without a signage presence on 400 West and the Boyer Company still believes a sign on this side is necessary to attract and direct visitors from the Delta Center and the nearby TRAX station. He stated that the Boyer Company submitted a revised signage proposal for the east side of the building that includes two signs:
1. Canopy Sign: A V-shaped metal cabinet sign mounted under the front canopy at the main entrance to the Depot. The sign would have two faces mounted at a 70-degree angle to each other, slanting toward the building. Each face would be 14 feet long by 2 feet high. "The Gateway" letters would be fabricated with metal channels painted "medium bronze" (this color was used on the sign on the west side of the Depot) and illuminated with one row of clear incandescent bulbs inside the letters. A blue neon abstract arrow would point visitors into the Depot entrance. Two additional bands of gold neon would go around the cabinet edges.
2. Wall Sign: 30-inch high metal letters spelling out 'The Gateway" mounted on the frieze of the building's cornice, below the existing Union pacific letters and shield. The letters would be mounted approximately six inches away from the building face to clear the architectural detail on the cornice. The sign would be illuminated with rows of incandescent lamps inside the letters similar to the sign on the west facade of the Depot and elsewhere in the development.
Mr. Knight stated that the applicants met with the Architectural Subcommittee on November 14, 2001, and discussed various signage options for the building. He indicated that the members of the subcommittee were divided over the necessity of a sign on that portion of the building, however, the members agreed that the two proposed signs were concepts that merited further design development.
• Mr. Knight referred to the following requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance found in Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G)(11), Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.34.020.46, Signs.
Staffs discussion: The zoning ordinance allows one storefront flat sign per storefront and one general building orientation sign per building face on a building in the G-MU zone. The sizes are limited to 1.5 square feet per linear foot of store frontage and building face, respectively. On the east side of the Union Pacific Depot, 584.85 square feet of general building sign would be allowed, and 9 square feet of storefront flat sign would be allowed. The size of the proposed wall sign (55 square feet) falls within the 69 square foot maximum allowed for a storefront sign. The Union Pacific letters and shield would be considered the general building sign.
The canopy sign is treated as a marquee sign in terms of the ordinance. There is no limit on the size of the marquee sign, but it must be ten feet above the sidewalk, and cannot exceed two feet in height. The combined height of the marquee sign and the marquee itself cannot exceed five feet. The proposed sign meets these requirements.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed signs comply with the requirements of Part IV, Chapter 21A.34.020.46, Signs.
Mr. Knight stated that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district. The Historic Landmark Commission should use these criteria in determining whether the proposed signs are consistent with the historic character of the Union Pacific Depot, as required by the zoning ordinance. The criteria are listed below with an analysis and finding:
1. 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 [Commission] considers the entire principal facade 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: In the staff report for the September 19, 2001 meeting, staff noted, "Additional signage on this side would be acceptable in order to identify the Gateway project, but it should be constructed in such a way so that the existing signs remain." The applicants have complied with this requirement by keeping the Union Pacific letters and shield.
The proposed signs are similar in size, location, color, and materials to signs that were historically mounted on the building. Early in the building's history, photographs show that there was a "Union Station" sign on the cornice. The subcommittee cited this historic sign as justification for the Gateway wall sign proposed. Although historic photographs of the Depot do not show directional signage such as the canopy sign, they were commonly seen in train stations of that era, on both the interior and exterior of the building. The
canopy sign would have less of a visual impact on the building than the wall sign because of its size and location, but it is less desirable to the Boyer Company for the same reasons.
The illumination, design, and lettering style for the signs is based upon the standard font that the Boyer Company is using for all of its Gateway signage. The lettering is not based upon any historic precedent, but is compatible with the character of the building. The individual bulbs proposed as the method of illumination were not endorsed by the Architectural Subcommittee; the members recommended indirect spotlighting of the sign with lights hidden in the cornice. However, the applicants have noted that historic photographs do show that individual bulbs were used on an early version of the Union Pacific shield on this building. Furthermore, the Commission approved this type of illumination on the sign located on the west side of the Depot. Mr. Knight said that he did some research and discovered that type of lighting was used historically on commercial buildings.
Staff's finding of fact: the proposed signs complement the building in terms of size, location, materials, style, color, and illumination.
2. In commercial areas of historic districts (such as South Temple), the Committee [Commission] encourages the use of low-key, sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character, etc. The Committee [Commission] encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Back-lit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The proposed signs are based upon historic antecedents that were once on the building, and are sophisticated and low-key to the extent that would be expected on a historic train station. No back-lit plastic or animated signs are proposed.
3. The Historic Landmark Committee [Commission] considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved the Committee [Commission]. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.
Staffs discussion: The Commission should discuss how this proposal fits with the overall signage plan previously submitted to guide future signs on the building when the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the House of Blues signs. Staff expects that additional signs will be proposed when the south end of the building is leased. The plan submitted at that time proposed removing the Union Pacific letters on the east side of the building.
Staffs finding of fact; These signs are in keeping with the comprehensive sign plan for the building. Signage for a tenant in the south end would not be a part of the Commission's decision at this time and will be addressed later.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report, staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposed signs with the conditions that the Union Pacific letters and shield remain on the east side and are kept operable and in good repair."
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission may want to review whether or not the illumination and size of the lettering are appropriate. The Architectural Subcommittee brought up those two issues.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff. (Mr. Littig arrived at 4:10P.M.)
Mr. Christensen inquired if the proposed 30-inch letters on the cornice band, were going to be mounted in a way that would be reversible. Mr. Knight said that the sign companies are encouraged to minimize the number of attachment point on the wall to avoid damaging any historic fabric. He suggested asking the applicant.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Jeff Boyer, from Boyer Company, the applicant, and Mr. Jeff Kranz representing Young Electric Sign Company (VESCO), were present. Mr. Kranz used a briefing board to further describe the project. Mr. Kranz stated that they were trying to find a compromising solution. He said that the main entrance to the Gateway complex off 400 West would be through the Depot. Mr. Kranz said that directional lighting from an external source coming off the canopy would create shadows and make the letters unreadable. He made other suggestions for lighting but said that they would require more attachments to the cornice. Mr. Kranz pointed out that each 30-inch letter would have very few attachment pins to make it hover out over that cornice line because the letters would not be resting on the building. He added that they preferred to use the globes. Mr. Kranz noted that no transformers or other terminals would be needed if globes were used. He talked about the row of incandescent globes that are proposed along the bottom of the canopy sign.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by saying that the entrance needs to be identified. He pointed out that there was nothing in the building at this time. He talked a little about the proposed night club that is planned for the north end of the building. Mr. Boyer said that the sign on the east side of the Depot would identify the location of Gateway for people coming from the Delta Center and getting off TRAX. He said that Boyer Company purchased the Depot with the condition that a public easement through the building has to be maintained. Mr. Boyer said that the state plans to have art displays in the Grand Hall from time to time throughout the year as well as other exhibits.
• Mr. Littig said that he was in the subcommittee meeting when this proposal was reviewed. He said that Architectural Subcommittee suggested that the proposed signage should on be on the flat fascia area. Mr. Littig said there were other ways to light the sign without using the proposed light globes. He added that the subcommittee did not want any more internal lighting. Mr. Kranz said that was the intent at the conclusion of the meeting. He said that the proposal was studied by a lighting specialist for other ways to light the sign. Mr. Littig pointed out that the original letters were not dimensional, but were very flat, perhaps only one-half inch thick.
• Mr. Wilson said he concurred with Mr. Littig. He said that it was made very clear in the subcommittee meeting that the signage should be placed with the flat area of the cornice. Mr. Wilson said that he has ridden the TRAX and admitted that there needed to be some directional signage for the Gateway, but preferred the signage be placed lower so it would be more readable for TRAX customers. Mr. Boyer said that the hope was to have the archway sign approved, but when that did not happen, other possibilities had to be explored. He said that any help the Commission could give was important and appreciated.
There was some discussion regarding a system where lighting would be directed down on a logo on the sidewalk. Mr. Littig said that system was used in Europe. Mr. Knight said that the Temple Square Hotel uses that type of lighting.
(Mr. Simonsen arrived at 4:30 P.M.)
Mr. Kranz described the "V" shaped hanging metal directional canopy sign. There was some discussion about the House of Blues signage proposal.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicants 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
Mr. Littig suggested tabling the case until the Historic Landmark Commission could review a rendering showing the signage on the flat surface of the cornice, which was not included in the packet.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the wall sign. [Please see below.]
Mr. Parvaz suggested that each sign have a separate vote by the Commission. Ms. Giraud suggested tying the motion to the signage policy and the ordinance.
Discussion regarding "The Gateway" directional canopy (marquee) sign:
Mr. Ashdown said that he is unclear about what will happen when House of Blues comes in with the second sign. He said in his opinion, it is going to look "ridiculous" to have two hanging signs on the east elevation.
There was some further discussion regarding the issues surrounding this signage request.
Motion for "The Gateway" directional canopy (marquee) sign:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 023-01, to approve the V-shaped metal cabinet sign, spelling out "The Gateway", mounted under the front canopy at the main entrance of the Union Pacific Building, as presented, based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation, and based on the Historic Landmark Commission's signage policy. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Discussion regarding 'The Gateway" wall sign on the east elevation:
Mr. Christensen inquired which scenario would be best for the letters to be fastened to the fascia or having the sign hovering out a few inches over the cornice.
Mr. Ashdown said that he believed the subcommittee was right, that the lettering should match the original lettering.
Mr. Wilson said that the dignity of the building should be maintained. He said that the signage should be within the bands of the building because it would not dignify the building by having signage hovering out over the cornice. Mr. Littig also believed the sign should be flat on the cornice.
Mr. Simonsen said that obviously the original lettering that was put on the building for the Union Pacific Depot did not work for the Depot because they replaced it with much larger letters. He said that signage is an important part of identifying the building and what is being proposed is very tasteful. He added that the signage should be consistent with the other marketing and branding design that Gateway is using. However, Mr. Simonsen said that he was not in attendance at the subcommittee meeting so he did not know the entire conversation.
Mr. Ashdown said adding a sign to the Union Pacific Depot that would read "The Gateway" would compromise the issue. He said that the ownership may change and then the sign would have to be changed. Mr. Ashdown likened the signage to Trolley Square where the ownership has changed several times, but the sign still reads "Trolley Square". Ms. Mickelsen said that as long as the Union Pacific letters remain on the building, that signage would still have the same effect. Mr. Simonsen said that the original proposal was to remove the Union Pacific letters on the building and replace it with "The Gateway".
Mr. Littig said that the sign should be in character with the original metal signage, using the same scale and form, which was only about one-half inch thick. He wondered if that old signage on the building was the original material or had it been replaced like the roof of the building. Mr. Littig said that signage has to be a compromise issue. He said that the new sign should be lit, but not with the light globe system. Mr. Littig said that another issue was the size of the proposed letters. He added that the proposal shows them three inches larger than was suggested in the subcommittee. Mr. Littig said that he did not have any problems with the style of lettering, but would prefer that they not be in the "bold" style because the letters become "fatter". He also said that there are many ways in which to light the sign. Mr. Littig said that the shadowing occurs when the light comes from a single source.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the issues are whether or not the signage should be flat on the surface of the cornice or hovering out over the cornice. Mr. Protasevich said the subcommittee suggested that the signage not hover out over the cornice.
Mr. Simonsen said that the original Union Pacific sign probably was not more appropriate to the building when it was constructed than the sign that is being proposed for "The Gateway". Mr. Wilson said that the signage probably was the same on all Union Pacific Depots at the time.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the question why the original lettering should be replicated, how the signage should be lighted, and the size of the lettering to fit within the width of the cornice.
It was a unanimous decision by the Commission to reopen the meeting to ask the applicant some additional questions regarding the globe lighting.
Mr. Kranz stated the following: "There are two different types of globes. Some of the globes are very small, like what is on Trolley Square and the Capitol Theatre. There are some very small globes that we probably could use if we narrow down the size of the letters We haven't used them in the Gateway yet. We have used larger globes, which shows a full row. We might be able to reduce the size, get it a little more into the band and still be able to use a different globe that is smaller "
There was some discussion regarding the size of the globes that could be used.
Mr. Christensen inquired if the signs would be lit during the day or just as night with the other lights. Mr. Knight said that he noticed on the field trip that the lights on the other signage were on.
As there were no more questions for the applicant, the meeting was once again reclosed to the public.
The discussion continued. Mr. Parvaz suggested making a motion and voting.
Motion for "The Gateway" wall sign on the east elevation:
Mr. Littig moved to approve the wall sign on the East elevation spelling out "The Gateway" for Case No. 023-01, with the following conditions: 1) that the letters be of the same size, character, and the thickness as the letters of the original Union Pacific signage; 2) the signage to be mounted in the flat area of the cornice; and 3) the letters are not to be illuminated with incandescent light globes. Mr. Young seconded the motion.
The following discussion took place once more: 1) dimensions of the original sign on the Depot as shown in the photographs; 2) use the same size and type of lettering as the original sign; 3) use another lighting system rather than the globes. The globes do not relate to the architecture of the historic building; 4) globe lighting is being used on the sign on the west elevation of the building and on every other sign in the Gateway complex; 5) the sign not being lit; 6) reduce the size of lettering to 20 inches from 30 inches; 7) the thickness of the letters is a concern; and 8) a directional sign needed as people de-board TRAX on South Temple going to Gateway.
Mr. Parvaz said that if the Commission votes in support of the motion, the applicant would have to come back with another proposal.
Repeated motion for "The Gateway" wall sign on the east elevation:
Mr. Littig moved to approve the wall sign on the East elevation spelling out "The Gateway" for Case No. 023w01, with the following conditions: 1) that the letters be of the same size, character, and the thickness as the letters of the original Union Pacific signage; 2) the signage to be mounted in the flat area of the cornice; and 3) the letters are not to be illuminated with incandescent light globes. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were opposed. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 001-01, at 631-633 No. West Capitol Street, by Jim Oliver, requesting approval of the revisions to the previously approved plans for a new duplex in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Wilson recused himself from this portion of the meeting.
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. Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Jim Oliver, the applicant, is requesting approval of revisions to previously approved plans regarding the height and grading of the property at 631-633 No. West Capitol Street. He noted that the property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District, and is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to "maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes, and bulk characteristics," as it states in Section 21A.34.020.24.080(A) of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: The Historic Landmark Commission approved this proposal on September 18, 1996, but the one-year approval period expired before construction commenced. There were issues at the time about parking in front of the building. Mr. Oliver resubmitted the same plans in November 2000, and the Commission reviewed this case at its January 3, 2001 and February 7, 2001 meetings. Issues in this second round of review included: 1) the trellises and entrances on the front (east) elevation; 2) the driveway plan; 3) design of the contemporary windows; 4) replacement of the Palladian window on the front elevation; 5) landscaping plan; 6) additional screening for privacy; 7) the addition of usable front porches on the east elevation; 8) options for parking in the rear; and 9) the massing of the structure, especially from the northern-west view, due to the topography of the land. After meeting twice with the Architectural Subcommittee and several revisions to the proposed plans, Mr. Oliver received final Historic Landmark Commission approval for the duplex on February 7, 2001, and obtained a building permit on July 30, 2001.
Mr. Oliver also was required to obtain a variance for the bridge walkway structure leading from the sidewalk to the front entrance, because the bridges encroached into the required ten-foot front yard setback. The Board of Adjustment granted the variance on January 22, 2001. After obtaining the building permit, Mr. Oliver decided to forego the bridges and instead fill in the yard between the sidewalk and the new building. Any grade change over the allowed two feet requires another variance. The City Zoning Administrator can administratively approve this type of variance if the surrounding property owners sign off on the proposed work. Mr. Oliver obtained signatures from the surrounding property owners in August 2001, but did not file the variance request with the City until November. The Zoning Administrator is holding the request pending the Historic Landmark Commission's decision on this case, including the review of the proposed grade change and associated retaining wall.
After construction commenced, Mr. Oliver made changes to the previously approved plans, which had the effect of raising the building approximately 3% feet higher than was shown on the original plans. Mr. Oliver attributes this to inaccuracies on the original drawings, including the fact that the elevation drawings were not scaled correctly, and discrepancies between the contour lines shown on the site plan and the actual topography of the lot.
The City began receiving complaints from surrounding property owners after the walls of the duplex were framed and the height of the building was apparent. Mr. David White, from the City's Building Services Division, and Mr. Knight met on site with Mr. Oliver on November 20, 2001. After the meeting, the City requested revised drawings that would show the "as-built" condition of the building and accurate contour lines. The City also requested that a surveyor establish the correct heights of the foundation, finish floors, and roof peaks of the building in order to determine if the building met the height limit. In response, Mr. Oliver submitted corrected drawings, which are attached to this staff report. Staff felt that the changes should be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee to determine if the project should return to the full Historic Landmark Commission for further review.
Mr. Oliver met with the Architectural Subcommittee on November 28, 2001. Two adjacent residents also attended the meeting. The neighbors stated that they thought the building was too tall, was out of place on the streetscape, and blocked their views to the west. They stated that when Mr. Oliver approached them about the proposed grade change variance, they understood that the new building would not be higher than the existing house to the south. The neighbor to the north was concerned that Mr. Oliver's crews were encroaching on his property and had graded the site so that rainwater went into his basement.
A number of options for mitigating the neighbor's concerns were discussed at the meeting. The Subcommittee suggested lowering the pitch of the roof from the present 12:12 pitch to an 8:12 or lower to reduce the overall height of the building. Members also suggested changing the front of the roof from a gable to a hipped roof to reduce visual impact of the front of the building. The subcommittee agreed that the full Commission should review the height issue, as well as the other changes proposed.
The Permits and Licensing Division has reviewed the drawings and is satisfied that the building meets the maximum building height in this zone, which is thirty feet or 2-1/2 stories, whichever is less. This height is measured from the average grade to the midpoint of the roof gable. Mr. Oliver proposes to raise the grade of the site two feet in order to reduce the height of the building in relation to the ground. The zoning ordinance allows this without any special approvals as long as the grade changes do not exceed two feet. A table in the staff report shows the east (front) elevation to be 16.0 feet; the north elevation to be 23.625 feet; the west (rear) elevation to be 27.875 feet; and the south elevation to be 29.08 feet.
Mr. Knight discussed the following proposal: Instead of constructing a bridge structure to the front door, Mr. Oliver proposes to raise the grade of the site at the front of the house. There graded site would be landscaped and each unit would have a small front yard area. The grade change would require a rock retaining wall approximately ten feet in height on the south side of the property. Similar large retaining walls have been approved on new construction in Capitol Hill, such as at the new house and twin home at approximately 450
North Main Street. The owner of the house to the south, which would be the neighboring property most directly affected, is in support of the proposal. The Board of Adjustment must approve a variance for any grade changes over two feet.
Staffs 'finding of fact: The proposed grade change and rock retaining wall would not have a negative effect on the surrounding properties and the Historic Landmark Commission has approved similar grade changes and walls in the past.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following finding regarding the height of this building on January 3, 2001: "The proposed design meets this standard [Scale and Form]. Although the proposed house is taller than its immediate neighbors, the height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape, and scale of the house is in keeping with the Capitol Hill District, and overall the house is compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape."
The Commission should evaluate the revised drawings in terms of this finding, and determine if the finding should be revised in light of the changes to the building. Mr. Oliver explored the options suggested by the Architectural Subcommittee and rejected them because each of the proposed solutions would result in a loss of living space. He points out that there are many buildings of similar height along West Capitol Street and in the Capitol Hill District. He also notes that the building meets the height requirements for this zone.
Mr. Knight offered the following recommendation: "It is unfortunate that Mr. Oliver and his neighbors have not been able to come to an agreement on the height of the building that will satisfy all involved. The height issues in this case have a definite effect on the livability and the happiness of the surrounding neighborhood. It may also have an effect on the value of the adjacent properties. However, the eclectic nature of the surrounding streetscape, as well as the vagaries of the zoning ordinance with regard to building height, make it difficult to justify a change in the Historic Landmark Commission's previous finding. Staff recommends that the Commission further explore the possibility of a compromise on the height of the building, and determine if the scale and form of the building is no longer visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape. The Commission should also address the proposed grade change and retaining wall in the front yard of the property. Staff recommends approval of the grade change and wall, pending the Board of Adjustment's approval of a variance."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Christensen clarified that a certain height was approved with floor to ceiling heights on inside, and during construction, a willful change was made so that the heights of the interior floors became greater.
Mr. Simonsen also said that there was a discrepancy between the building section and the elevations. Mr. Protasevich inquired if the approval was based on deception. Mr. Simonsen said that it was based on a deception in the elevations, but he did not believe the Historic Landmark Commission approved a specific height.
Mr. Littig said that he met all the criteria when the plans were approved. He added that the Commissioners worked on the rhythm, form, the windows, and the window heights.
Mr. Protasevich said that if Mr. Oliver is not in violation, why is that an issue? Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission is reviewing it once more to decide whether or not the character of the street has changed because the building is now four feet higher.
Mr. Knight said that the Commission should look at the compatibility of the historic character of the neighborhood and if it has a negative impact on the streetscape.
Ms. Mickelsen asked what if the Commission finds that the applicant has violated those issues. Mr. Knight said then the applicant would have to bring the project into compliance and hoped the Commission would give him some direction.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Jim Oliver, the applicant, was present. He said the building that was approved, the way it was drawn with the ground lines, and the building on site essentially has not changed. Mr. Oliver circulated additional drawings showing the existing grade level. He said that the height was lower on the original plans due to the errors and inaccuracies in the topography of the land.
Mr. Oliver explained further about the elevation and grade level changes. He said that he took photographs of the surveyor stakes on his property and others in the neighborhood.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Protasevich led the discussion by commenting that the height of the house is within the zoning requirements and not the code requirements.
• Mr. Ashton inquired when the applicant realized that the elevations would have to be modified to accommodate the parking issue. Mr. Oliver said that the elevations were modified in relationship to the ground and not to accommodate the parking. Ms. Mickelsen said that Mr. Oliver did not answer the question. Mr. Oliver said, "Pretty early on, when I poured the foundation." Ms. Mickelsen asked, "When you knew the building was going to be higher why did you not come back and talk with staff?" Mr. Oliver said that the building itself is not higher; it is higher with its relationship to the street.
A lengthy discussion took place. Some of the Commissioners expressed concern that the applicant knew the house would be higher and discrepancies in the exact height in relationship to the street. There were questions regarding the topography and the reason for the change in ground level and other related matters to the revised plan.
• 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. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Kathryn Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Community Council, stated that she has had many telephone calls regarding this house. She expressed her concern about the narrow street and where guests would park. Ms. Gardner said that it seemed as if each new building, constructed on the street, "is a little taller than the last one". She said that at some point rules have to be observed. Ms. Gardner said that the historic homes are much smaller and a neighbor to the subject property would lose the sunlight. She said that all these things should be considered.
• Mr. Kenton Peters who resides at 683 No. West Capitol Street, stated that the backfilling up to house conceals part of the basement. He said that he disagreed with the height of the building being based on the grade level. Mr. Peters said that he did not think it is in compliance with the zoning regulations. He stated that by changing the natural grade to the extent that was required to make the house in compliance in height, significantly affects the mass that the neighbors signed off on. He said that it is the responsibility of the owner to provide accurate drawings. Mr. Peters said that the building is not the structure that was approved. He pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission is "to provide a review process that protects the interest of the historic district and the neighborhood and that has been circumvented, by accident,
but it has been circumvented none-the-less". Mr. Peters said that he appreciated Mr. Oliver finding a way for the parking in the rear. He said, "It is too much house for the site". He concluded that he hoped the Historic Landmark Commission could find a creative way to help Mr. Oliver reduce the overall mass to make it fit into the neighborhood.
Mr. Lewis Downey, who resides at 634 No. West Capitol Street, stated that he lives directly across the street from this new construction. He expressed his concern that the building is too high. He said that it looked like a cathedral. Mr. Downey talked about the owner making adjustments when he knew the plans were not correct. He said that the owner is asking for "forgiveness" and inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission wanted to set a precedent for "forgiveness". Mr. Downey said there is precedence in the neighborhood for creative and low profiled pitched roofs. He would like to see Mr. Oliver lower the pitch on the roof.
(Mr. Simonsen was excused at 6:20 P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.)
Ms. Joan DeGorgio, who resides at 618 No. West Capitol Street, stated that she lives south of the new construction. She pointed out her garage, shown on the photographs, was approved by this Commission. She said that she had to change the massing of the garage and had to make several trips to the Commission before it complied with the ordinance and policies of the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. DeGorgio said that she had to comply, as with several others in the neighborhood, and so should Mr. Oliver. She said, "When the street is described as 'eclectic' I get my buttons pushed. You can take that as letting things get approved that is not right. I have lived here for 20 years." Ms. DeGorgio said that the building is too large for the site. Ms. DeGorgio added that it should be the height that was originally planned.
Ms. Sandra Anderson, who resides at 640 No. West Capitol Street, stated that she also lives across the street from this house. She said that it is not too late to lower the roofline four feet. Ms. Anderson said, "I resent that fact that he is here practically laughing at you asking for forgiveness rather than asking for permission." She said that the stone retaining wall should be constructed right away because the mud is going into people's basements.
+ Mark Milligan, who resides at 580 No. West Capitol Street, stated that the building is four feet too tall. Mr. Milligan talked about the fill that was brought in on the subject property and how that changed the height of the building in relationship to the street. He said that the fill was not in the original plans. He questioned the surveyor's rod and the level of the ground where it was placed. In conclusion, Mr. Milligan again stated that the building was too high.
Clark Chessley, who resides at 103 West Clinton Avenue, stated that he lives in the small historic home adjacent to the north. He pointed to the photographs to show that the fill landed in his backyard and his basement has been flooded three times. Mr. Chessley said that he felt overwhelmed by the construction and the size of the building. He said that a contractor should have been more knowledgeable and that the problem could have been solved in the beginning. Mr. Chessley noted that Mr. Oliver knew the problems he would face when he purchased the property. He said that he wanted to be a good neighbor when he signed the form, but believed that he was misled by the applicant as to the size and height of the building.
Mr. Knight referred to a letter staff received from Kent Rigby, who resides at 623 No. West Capitol Street, where he stated that Mr. Oliver had changed the height of the structure from what was approved by the Historic Landmark Commission during construction, in his judgment, to create a better situation for managing the font yard hillside and rear yard garage and parking area. He said that it is unfortunate that some neighbors have taken exception to this. Mr. Rigby stated, "It is my opinion, as the designer, the building facade and street front present would be severely be compromised and lose the historical references if the loft was eliminated and the roof pitch changed. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Oliver asked to respond to some of the comments. Mr. Oliver stated the following: "There were some references made about bringing fill onto the property. The soil that is there was on the property when I started construction. The soil was taken out when the basement was dug. I did not bring in any fill nor did I add any fill on the property. The soil from the basement was put on the back of the property, then brought to the front of the property. I did not add any fill to change the topography of the land. It is not in its final grade either because it is in construction. The rod at my house is at the level of the finished grade which is at the level of the sidewalk."
Upon hearing no further 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
Mr. Knight said that David White from the City's Permit Office, who Mr. Knight said could explain a little more about the original plans that were proposed, was in attendance if the Commission had any questions for him.
Mr. Christensen inquired if the second set of drawings in the packets were the drawings that were approved by the Commission and Mr. Knight said they were, along with the revised drawings.
Mr. Parvaz said that Ms. Giraud mentioned the issue of the height and grade that the commission should consider. Ms. Giraud said that the City does not zone for views. She said if plans meet the height requirement in the ordinance, the building meets zoning regardless of what the building does to someone else's view. Ms. Giraud said the Mr. Oliver could also raise the grade up to two feet in order to meet the height requirements in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Littig said that height is not the only issue; it is the massing. Mr. Protasevich said that even though he made a mistake in the topography, he is not violating the zoning requirements. Mr. Littig said that the building was raised. Mr. Littig was concerned that it would not be compatible to the neighborhood.
Mr. Ashdown said that the Historic Landmark Commission is not responsible for making it compatible; it is responsible for deciding whether or not he violated what the Historic Landmark Commission originally approved, and whether or not the Commission is going to allow him to continue with that. He questioned how it was approved for the site in the first place.
Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission's decision has to be based on the Capitol Hill Historic District overlay zone, within the confines of the historic district. She said that there are many things throughout the city that meets the zoning requirements but might not be compatible with a district.
The Commissioners discussed what they had learned from the revised plans, photos, and the onsite visit. They considered what the neighbors had to say about the project.
There was further discussion regarding the scale and massing of the project, as well as other issues relating to this matter.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 001-01 to accept staff's findings of fact and also the recommendation that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the front yard grade change and the placement of the retaining wall, pending Board of Adjustment approval of a variance. Also move that the Historic Landmark Commission require the overall height of the building to be lowered by 3-% feet which can be accomplished by reducing the height of the walls or the roof structure. This building, in its present form, does not meet the massing and form requirements, based on the Capitol Hill Historic District guidelines of design.
A short discussion took place regarding the wording of the motion and Mr. Christensen agreed to amend the motion.
Mr. Knight explained that with the scheduling of the Historic Landmark Commission and the Architectural Subcommittee meetings, there may be a problem for the applicant because of the notification issue and suggested continuing the case to the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 001-01 to accept staff's findings of fact and also the recommendation that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the front yard grade change and the placement of the retaining wall, pending Board of Adjustment approval of a variance. Also move that the Historic Landmark Commission require the overall height of the building to be lowered by 3-% feet in relationship to the street, which can be accomplished by reducing the height of the walls or the roof structure. This building, in its present form, does not meet the massing and form requirements, based on the Capitol Hill Historic District guidelines of design. Further; the case is to return to the full Commission for final approval. The case will be continued at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Protasevich abstained. Mr. Wilson was in a state of recusal. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen, were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilson returned to the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 028-01, in Liberty Park. by the Salt Lake City Parks Division, requesting approval for removal of existing trees, planting new trees, realignment of sidewalks. and installation of new landscaping along the north-south corridor through the middle of the park. at approximately 600 East. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
The Historic Landmark Commission lost a quorum, and according to Title 21A.06.050(1) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, it states the following, "No business shall be conducted at a meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission without a quorum."
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved to continue Case No. 028-01 at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Mickelsen so moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.