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 and Nelson
Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Chairperson, Wayne Gordon, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the November 15, 2000 meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 022-99. at 400 W. South Temple. by Gateway Associates. represented by Stephen Smith and Christine Street of Gillies. Stransky, Brems. and Smith Architects. requesting final approval to renovate and construct additions to the Union Pacific Depot. which is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Giraud 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. She stated that Gateway Associates, represented by Stephen Smith and Christine Street of Gillies, Stransky, Brems and Smith Architects (GSBS), is requesting final approval to renovate and construct two additions to the Union Pacific Depot. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the depot building is not in a locally designated historic district but is listed as an individual site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. She said that the building was constructed from 1908 to 1909 and is zoned Gateway Mixed Use, the purpose of which is 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 the urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses and high-density residential."
Ms. Giraud reported that the proposal consists of renovation work on the depot and the construction of two additions on the rear (west) elevation. She stated the following:
"The additions would consist of one-story 'arms' that would mimic the mansard roofline of the depot. They would be 12-feet 6-inches in height with sloped copper roofing. The additions would flank an open area directly west of the depot, and then open up to a large plaza that would form the center of the Gateway project. The applicants are proposing to remove the 'Union Pacific signage on the west elevation because the attachment of letters on the roof has led to spalling and subsequent damage to the wall surface. The applicants are proposing to remove a chimney on the west elevation.
"Renovation measures to the exterior of the depot itself include the following: 1) repairing the roof; 2) repairing or replacing windows, where necessary; and 3) removing the bricks that cover the historic windows on the south elevation, and either grinding the existing brick surfaces to a more stable surface or applying a sealant (the brick was sandblasted a number of years ago). The double-leaved front doors on 400 West are of the historic period but are not original. Ms. Street has indicated that using an automatic door opener to open both leaves will conform to A.D.A. requirements and enable the applicants to re-use these elements for the entrances. Aluminum sash windows, on the east elevation, will be replaced with wood windows to match the historic windows. The canopy on the east elevation will be repaired. The existing docks on the west elevation will be removed, and the grade of the additions will be raised 6' to meet the grade on 400 West."
Ms. Giraud said that the applicants first presented their proposal to the Historic Landmark Commission on December 1, 1999. She said that the proposal was similar to this proposal, in that renovation work to the depot would occur and similar rear additions would be constructed. She spoke of the observations and concerns the members of the Commission had at that time, such as: 1) the height of the additions would create shadows during the summer that would block the sun from shining through the glass. The roofline of the additions should be lowered so that the windows would be exposed to light throughout the year, as the windows are exceptional and a significant feature on the building; 2) consider detaching the additions from the depot; 3) the profiles of the fenestration of the additions are too shallow, and will not provide sufficient reveals, and the facades of the additions needed more texture; 4) the depot could get lost between Buildings 81 and 82, which were proposed to come forward to 400 West. These plans have changed. However, review of these buildings does not fall under the purview of the Commission; and 5) exterior, open stairwells are proposed for the rear of the building to provide access to the tenant space in the depot and for seismic stabilization.
Ms. Giraud stated that the applicants had responded to these concerns by lowering the height of the mansard roofs on the additions, attaching the roofs to the walls of the depot to prevent the deep valleys seen in the December 1999 plans, and deepening the reveals of the storefront openings to obtain a deeper profile. She added that the proposed materials for the storefronts are cast aluminum for the columns, and aluminum windows with snap-on grids to create more depth.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.20(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. She said that staff finds that the following standards apply to this request:
G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Staff's discussion: With the exception of the depot's recent status as a vacant building, the structure has always served an important public function. The central waiting room accommodated rail passengers and those who were greeting them or seeing them on a train, while the north and south wings served as private offices for the use of the railroad company. Gateway Associates has donated an easement on the central waiting room to the City, so that its role as a public space can continue. The applicant is considering using the existing wings for office and retail purposes. The proposed alterations will affect the rear of the depot, a secondary elevation, and are subordinate to the overall design of the historic building.
Staff's finding of fact: The use of much of the depot as a public space will remain intact; it will no longer be a train depot, but this is due to the fact that passenger trains are almost obsolete. The fact that the building can remain open to the public and that the applicant is providing an easement for pedestrian use over
the primary interior space results in minimal changes for its reuse. The staff finds that the applicant would meet this standard.
2. The historic character of a properly shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a properly shall be avoided.
Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The defining architectural characteristics of this building, such as the mansard roof, the fenestration, the materials, and the form and massing, will be maintained. The loading docks at the rear of the structure and a chimney on the west elevation are the only features that are proposed for removal. The docks and the chimney have a minimal role as a character-defining feature and are of questionable historic value. Much of the building will be renovated and features that have been missing, or have been thoughtlessly removed in the past, would be replaced. Staff finds that it balances the removal of the docks and the chimney. The staff finds that the applicant would meet this standard.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.
Staffs discussion: Historically, trellises were located on the rear of the building, presumably as an aesthetic feature and to protect passengers from harsh sunlight from the west. In designing the proposed additions, the architect has attempted to provide new space that will be compatible with the massing, materials and form of the historic building yet clearly read as new and separate construction.
Staffs finding of fact: The staff finds that the applicant would meet this standard. The additions are the only alterations that are proposed for the depot and have been designed to be recognized as new construction.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Staffs discussion: Although the depot was sandblasted, staff believes that grinding the bricks would only create the potential for further damage to the wall surface, and believes that using a sealant would be the preferable treatment.
Staffs finding of fact: Ms. Street has indicated to staff that the applicant would be willing to use sealant, and conversations with the staff at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicate that using the grinding method could prevent the applicant from successfully obtaining the federal tax credit. If the applicant will use the sealant, this standard would be met. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be precluded from the grinding method and allowed to use the sealant.
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological materials, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: Through the use of ribbed material and a modified mansard profile, the proposed additions reflect the architectural elements of the depot but clearly read as new construction. No historical or architectural materials, except for the loading docks and a chimney, will be destroyed. The new additions will not dominate the depot and because of the transparency created by the predominant use of glass, they will be subordinate in size, scale and character. The staff finds that the applicant would meet this standard.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the properly and its environment.
Staffs discussion: The proposed additions on the west elevation are compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features of the historic depot. They allow the depot to be perceived as it originally appeared. The windows on the first floor of the west elevation at the south end need to be covered, but Ms. Street has indicated that this can be done in such a way that the windows will still be evident on the inside of the depot, and thus could be restored at a later date.
Staffs finding of fact: If these features can be retained, then staff finds that the applicant would meet this standard.
Ms. Giraud noted that Standards No.4, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12 were not pertinent to this case.
Ms. Giraud offered the staff’s recommendation, as follows: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this project, with the provisions that sealant be used rather than grinding the walls, and that the windows on the first floor of the west elevation not be removed. Ms. Street indicated to me that might be space for a restaurant and they might be covered, but they would be done in such a way that they could be left intact so they would only be obscured from the outside."
Mr. Christensen inquired if the applicants understood which sealants were approved and which sealants would be damaging. Ms. Giraud said that since the applicants were applying for tax credits, she knew that the SHPO would direct them. Mr. Christensen also inquired if the applicants planned to repair the original windows. Ms. Giraud said that she had not seen all the detail on the plans. She talked about the plans that accompanied the staff report.
Mr. Stephen Smith and Ms. Christine Street of Gillies, Stransky, Brems, and Smith Architects, representing Gateway Associates, the applicant, were present. Mr. Smith used a display board to further describe the project. He presented an illustration of the plans, floor by floor. Mr. Smith showed the elevations of the building, pointing out how the building would be incorporated into the Gateway project. He pointed out the main public space and the second floor gallery. Mr. Smith indicated that the stain glass windows would be refurbished. He explained that there would be tenant space on each end within the massive and complicated Mansard roof section. Mr. Smith talked about the mechanical wells of the roof section.
Mr. Smith said that a review committee would assess all options for any potential signage. Mr. Smith stated that the exterior brick had been sandblasted at one time and he understood how fragile the brick would be to restore. He said that the brick would have to be stabilized. Mr. Smith agreed that a good sealant would be an option. He also said that the original windows would be restored and be replaced only when necessary.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring if any of the damaged brick on the exterior would be replaced with new brick. Ms. Street said that new brick is being manufactured for replacement, where necessary, but they were searching for salvaged brick that would match, as well. Mr. Parvaz asked further about the widows and Mr. Smith said that the Historic Landmark Commission did not want those stained glass windows or the original windows covered by the proposed additions in the rear.
• Mr. Gordon said that he surmised that there was no way to use the attic space.
Mr. Smith said that they had looked into that possibility. There was some discussion clarifying the outside stairway and some other elements of interest.
• Mr. Wilson asked if Mr. Smith would further describe the outside stairways. Mr. Smith said that the existing stairs do not meet the building code so two new exiting stairways have to be constructed. He said that the proposal is to use a lightweight frame construction, coming out immediately below the Mansard roof, and then down. Mr. Smith said that the proposed stairways would not be significant from a seismic point of view, but would work very well from an exit point of view. Mr. Wilson said that the proposed stairways would look too "modern" in comparison with the architecture of the additions. He said that he believed the stairs could be more ornate and less angular to be more compatible with the additions to the rear of the building.
• Mr. Knight inquired if the wrought iron that was on top of the roof would be replaced. Ms. Street said that they had been looking through the entire building for those sections of wrought iron and they have not been found. She said that they have the original wrought iron that went on the front towers. Mr. Smith said that the wrought iron came off when the roof was replaced on the building in 1988-89.
• Mr. Christensen inquired how the new additions would be attached to the historic building and if that could be reversed. Mr. Smith said that the additions could be removed because would have a separate wall. There was a short discussion regarding that proposal. Mr. Christensen spoke of the "Union Pacific" shield that was causing damage to the roof structure. He said that the removal of that shield on the west elevation would leave a huge blank wall. Ms. Street pointed out on the renderings where the cracking and spalling were occurring. She said that the shield, itself, does not attach to the brick, its attachments goes through the steel that attaches into the big trusses in the roof.
• Mr. Littig talked further about the shield. Mr. Smith said that the shield on the South Temple side is the most prominent landmark and prefers to remove the shield on the west elevation due to the problems it is causing. He said that since the train tracks had been removed and that it would open up into the Gateway development, the "Union Pacific Depot" signage was no longer significant.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked about the six-foot slope from the street level to the rear and where the additions would be constructed. Mr. Smith explained how one would enter the building at the street level (east elevation) and exit the building at the rear by the steps leading down to the plaza. He added that the slope would be handled by the plaza levels.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Randall Dixon, an interested citizen, encouraged the Commission to require the restoration of the balustrade on the roof. He said that the argument was made that the building had been re-roofed and the design of the balustrade would not be appropriate. However, he said that the towers were re-roofed and those balustrades were saved. Mr. Dixon said that he believed that restoring that feature would not be a major financial obligation. He referred to some original photographs of the Union Pacific Depot and said that much detailing was lost at the time the roof was redone. Mr. Dixon urged the Commission to restore the shield on the west elevation, as well. He stated that a large public subsidy is building the Gateway project and believes that the public has every right to expect that these features be restored. Mr. Dixon added that if it is not done now, it will never be done. He said that this was the opportunity to restore a "very important building in a very important place in the city" and encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to consider that proposal.
Upon hearing no further 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
Mr. Christensen said that he is excited to see this building being restored because of its importance in the city. He also said that the architects have conformed the proposed additions to benefit the historic structures. Mr. Christensen said that he agreed with Mr. Dixon. He did not want to lose the shield on the west elevation and would like the balustrade recreated. Ms. Giraud suggested that the Commission get technical assurance from the architect that those recommendations can be accomplished, before making a motion. She said that staff has not required missing elements to be restored in the past. Mr. Christensen said that the shield was not clear in the historic photograph but the balustrade is very visible. Some other members agreed.
• Mr. Littig talked about the removal of the flagpoles on the top of the towers.
Mr. Young reported that the project was not a restoration of the building, but an extension of the adaptive reuse, which does not mean that the applicants plan to restore the building back to a certain period of time. Mr. Christensen said that he believed that the proposal was an exterior restoration
There was some discussion regarding the main points of this project.
It was agreed upon by the Commission to re-open the public portion of the meeting to make further inquiries of the applicant's representatives. The meeting was re-opened.
Mr. Gordon inquired if the applicants had investigated returning the balustrade to the top of the main roof. Mr. Smith said that they had not and added that the applicants had looked throughout the building and could not find any part of the original balustrade. Mr. Smith said that he believed restoring the balustrade on the copper roof was not appropriate. He indicated that he once served on this Commission. Mr. Smith again described what the proposal was requiring and said that the Commission was being too "fussy" about whether or not the sign on the west elevation or the balustrade on the roof was there. Mr. Smith said that the important thing was to "strike a balance that accomplishes a collective goal" which is the reuse for this historic building.
Mr. Smith reiterated that the important sign on the building is the one that is on the east facade because it faces the city and served as the font entrance of the train station.
Mr. Christensen asked if the roof structure would support a balustrade. Mr. Smith said that has not been analyzed.
Ms. Coffey said that she did not believe that the Historic Landmark Commission could require elements to be restored on a building when they were not part of the application. She continued by saying that it was the Commission's purview to make certain that the proposal on the application meets the standards in the ordinance.
Ms. Mickelsen said that in Standard No. 2 [in Section 21A.34.20(G) of the Salt Lake City Ordinance] reads, as follows: 'The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided." She said that she wondered if the balustrade and the shield could be considered a "historic character of a property". Ms. Mickelsen said that the balustrade had only been removed about 20 years ago but the shield on the west elevation has been "characterizing" the building for probably over 60 years.
Mr. Young said that he would like to see a streetscape west of the building to see how visual the shield would be in relation to the other buildings being constructed in the Gateway project. Mr. Smith said that one would probably be able to see it from North Temple. He again advised the removal of that sign.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the balustrade and the shield would have to be seismically approved. Further, she said that she believed that the Commission would have a difficult time in convincing the Boyer Company to spend the money to restore the shield on the west elevation because the developers want the marketplace to read "Gateway" and not "Union Pacific Depot".
There was some discussion about the heights of the proposed buildings being constructed in Gateway, as well as other related matters.
Since there were no further questions for the representatives, Mr. Gordon re-closed this portion of the meeting, and returned to the executive session of the meeting.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if Mr. Christensen had access to other historic photographs of the depot building that might reveal the era of when the shields were installed. Mr. Christensen said that he believed he could do some research and find other historic photographs. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission continue the discussion on the Union Pacific Depot building until the next meeting allowing the opportunity of finding the historic photographs.
It was suggested by staff that the Commission render a decision on the portion of the application where work could begin.
Motion:
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich moved for Case No.022-99 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the design as presented at this meeting, with the exception of the signage, since the Commission does not have enough information to make a decision and hopefully more information can be supplied as to the date and application of the signage. Further based on the assumption, without this information, that the signage is an historic-identifying feature of the building. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 028-00, at 132 South State, by Zions Securities Corporation, represented by Kent Money, Kent Gibson, and Robert Money, to discuss plans to demolish the rear portion of the Orpheum Theater, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse", and construct a multi-story parking structure behind the original lobby. The Historic Landmark Commission will determine whether to process this case as a "major alteration" or a "demolition" of a Landmark Site. Public comment may be taken on this issue.
Ms. Giraud referred to the previous staff reports and said that this case was last heard at the November 15, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. She said that Mr. Robert Money, Architect, and Mr. Kent Gibson, Vice President, for Zions Securities Corporation, discussed plans to demolish the rear portion of the Orpheum Theater and replace it with a 400-car (approximately) parking garage, and renovate the front portion of the building for offices and retail use. Ms. Giraud noted that the Commission members stated that they needed more time to discuss the application. She added that there was little precedent for this kind of application, and despite the availability of inquiring about similar situations in other parts of the country via E-mail, the fact remains that the Historic Landmark Commission must decide the case under the existing City ordinance.
Ms. Giraud stated that the applicants have waited for a decision as to how to proceed with the application, and it is important that a decision about the application is reached at this meeting.
Ms. Giraud pointed out that the following were attached to the memorandum addressed to the members of the Historic Landmark Commission, a copy of each was filed with the minutes: 1) Standards for Major Alteration, Demolition of a Landmark Site and Economic Hardship; 2) the November 15, 2000 and the October 18, 2000 staff reports, which included the staff’s findings of fact and recommendations; and 3) the letter from Mr. Robert Crandall stating support for the parking garage.
As a matter of clarification, Mr. Littig inquired if the Commission would discuss design issues at this meeting. Ms. Giraud said that those issues were discussed at the last meeting, but if the Commission would like to study any further ideas or suggestions, the applicants would be happy to discuss those. Ms. Giraud stated that it would not matter if the Commission decides that this project should be considered a demolition or a major alteration, the Commission would review the design of the proposed parking garage in the future.
There was some discussion regarding the guidelines of what constitutes a demolition of a building, whether it would be 50, 60, or 75 percent of a building or just one wall.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if portions of the building could be considered separately. Ms. Giraud said that historically, the building functioned as one theater and is listed on the register as one property.
Mr. Young said that one could consider Abravanel Hall as two separate structures because there is a symphony hall that is structurally separate from the outer walls of the building.
The discussion turned to the idea that if the Commission approves this application as a demolition, what would prevent the applicant from demolishing the entire building, including the facade. Ms. Giraud said that the applicants have assured the City that they want to keep the facade, restore it, demolish the back of the building, and construct a parking garage behind the facade.
A lengthy discussion took place. The main points of the discussion focused on the following:
1. The decision to call the application a major alteration was not appropriate and would lead to problems in the future, especially relating to contributing structures in historic districts, such as someone tearing down three of four walls on a residential house and calling it a major alteration. If the Historic Landmark Commission makes the decision to regard the application as a major alteration, then the criteria in Section 21A.34.020(G) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, a Landmark Site or Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of Contributing Structure, would have to be considered. The ordinance states: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission or the Planning Director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the general standards that pertain to the application, and that the decision is in the best interest of the city.
2. The argument could be made to define the application as a demolition since 75 percent of the structure would be demolished, the historic use would be abandoned, and much of the historic fabric would be lost. If the Historic Landmark Commission determines that the application should be regarded as a demolition, the criteria in Section 21A.34.020(J), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Landmark Site, would have to be considered. [The ordinance states: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a landmark site, the Historic Landmark Commission shall only approve the application upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1) that the demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to Subsection Q of this section; or 2) that the demolition is required to rectify a condition of economic hardship, as defined and determine pursuant to the provisions of Subsection K of this section.
Ms. Coffey said that calling the application a major alteration and then denying it could lead the applicant to apply for a full demolition.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Gordon stated that if there were no further questions for staff, he would invite the applicants to speak, then open the public portion of the meeting for the audience.
Mr. Young called for a point of order. He stated that the Historic Landmark Commission was in the executive session of the last meeting, at the time the case was concluded, so this portion of the meeting should be a continuation of the executive session, and not opened for public comment. Ms. Coffey indicated that the Chair and the Commission determine how this dilemma is to be addressed. A short discussion followed.
It was determined that the meeting should be re-opened to the applicants for further information. Mr. Gordon re-opened this portion of the meeting for comment.
The applicants, Mr. Kent Money, President, Mr. Kent Gibson, Vice President, and Mr. Robert Money, Architect, were present, representing Zions Securities Corporation. Mr. Kent Money inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission members were willing to view some additional drawings on the proposal. After it was decided in the affirmative, Mr. Kent Money used a display board to further describe the project.
Mr. Kent Money said that he realized the difficulty the Commissioners were having with this case. He said that the L.D.S. Church pondered for several years over the existing use of the building and the $21 Million it would cost to restore the theater. Mr. Kent Money pointed out the letters from the Salt Lake County government officials that were attached to a previous staff report. He continued by saying that the cost of restoration did not include the purchase of the property, which was appraised at $1.7 Million, and the operating cost as a theater.
Mr. Kent Money noted that Zions Securities Corporation is owned by Deseret Management Corporation, which takes care of the non-ecclesiastical assets of the church. He said that a proposal was developed to retain the face of the theater to be used for offices and retail, demolish the back, and construct a parking garage. Mr. Kent Money said that his company has been contacted on a continual basis by businesses
on downtown Main Street to build additional parking for their businesses and offices. Mr. Kent Money talked about the parking garage on Regent Street, which has about
1,000 parking stalls. He added that many of the businesses are located in historic buildings on Main Street. Mr. Kent Money stated that the parking structure would alleviate some of the distress of limited parking.
Mr. Kent Money said that he was willing to maintain the historical nature of the front facade on State Street, because of its great merits. He said that the design of the parking structure would be discreet and mindful of the historic facade and said that he believed they could come up with a solution for this property that would be beneficial to all. Mr. Kent Money commented that Orpheum Avenue had "a lot to be desired" so their intent was to widen the sidewalk and add trees and landscaping.
Mr. Kent Money stated that the applicants met with Mayor Ross Anderson, Ms. Alison Gregersen, the Community and Economic Director, and the Planning Director, Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, and received positive comments. It was determined that the application should be reviewed at a meeting. Mr. Kent Money said that the Chair of the Peoples Freeway Community Council wrote a letter stating the council's support and was attached to a staff report.
Mr. Kent Money said that the applicants met with Ms. Lisbeth Henning of the Utah Heritage Foundation, as well as with the Downtown Alliance. He said that Ms. Henning indicated that she would rather have the building restored, but compromised on the retention and the restoration of the front facade. He added that the Downtown Alliance also supported the proposal.
Mr. Kent Money stated the following: "Now we come to you. I know that this is a difficult situation for you to define exactly what you want to do here but it also creates some problems for me. I wish we could just work with you and do it. If we get into the semantics of the definition of a partial demolition my only appeal is to a land use body that would look at the decision you made and the procedures that you went through to see if they were correct or not If I go demolition, then it would be an economic hardship and there are $21 Million reasons why we would go that way. would like to see if we can come to some kind of a working relationship and work with you on this, but I can't, as we go forward with your appeal's process, to take the risk either. We are willing to do what we can to work with you and we certainly do not want to be 'hard-nosed' about it. That is not what I am saying, but I would hope that we would look at reality as it pertains to this proposal."
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Gordon led the discussion by saying that we all understand the need for parking downtown, and inquired if there was any other place downtown for a parking garage. He said that he was not convinced that this location was the only place. Mr. Kent Money said that he was certain that there were other locations, but Zions Securities Corporation was not interested in just building a parking garage anywhere. He said that this location was chosen because of the businesses on Main Street and that the corporation had already acquired the property. He added that to purchase property, construct a parking garage, and the maintain it, was not economically feasible and that most investors require a much higher return. Mr. Kent Money said that parking is one of those entities that are needed to operate a business.
• Mr. Wilson inquired about the estimated cost of the proposed structure. Mr. Kent Money said that the project would be about $7.5 Million, which would include restoring and seismically upgrading the facade portion. He added that it is not a "cheap thing" that is being proposed to save the front. Mr. Wilson suggested that since the corporation would be spending a great amount of money on the restoration of the building facade, to put that money into a parking structure at another location, then the theater would be spared. Mr. Kent Money said that he would not do that because the parking structure was not intended for the needs of Zions Securities Corporation, but for the needs of the businesses on Main Street. He added that there was no incentive for his corporation to do that. Mr. Kent Money commented that it is because of the "sphere of influence" for this location and if needed, it could provide parking for Zions Securities Corporation at some time in the future. The discussion continued regarding other locations that could accommodate a parking structure.
Mr. Kent Gibson stated that it would be "nice if somebody came up with about
$24 Million and did the project", but concluded that no one could be found to do it. He said that the applicants did not want to lose the entire building, so they were taking the next step with this proposal. He said that there was no functional use for the back portion of the building.
• Mr. Young said that the cost of land in the east downtown area is currently going for $1 Million an acre, so downtown would be more than that. He inquired if the applicants knew the percentage of the building that would be removed. Mr. Robert Money pointed to the drawing and said that about 75 percent of the building would be demolished.
• Mr. Parvaz referred to Cooper-Roberts proposal. Mr. Kent Money said that in that proposal, Mr. Cooper recommended demolishing the stage portion anyway. The discussion continued as Mr. Kent Money explained more of the Cooper Robert's proposal.
• Mr. Christensen said he believed that the money Zions Securities Corporation is willing to spend on the parking garage could be used to upgrade the building, repair any structural damage, and use the building as an operating theater once again. Mr. Kent Money said that seismic retrofitting the building would cost more. He added that the building had been condemned. Mr. Kent Money indicated that the L.D.S. Church built another theater for its use at the new Conference Center site. Mr. Christensen stated that it might not be the size that Mr. Cooper advocated, with a much larger proscenium and stage, but it could be a functional theater. There were some comments about the size of the various theaters in Salt Lake City and the fact that the equipment in theaters can be interchangeable. Mr. Gordon pointed out that traveling productions were getting grander and a larger stage would be needed to accommodate those live productions.
• Ms. Mickelsen noted that the theater was an adequate size for a recital hall or the performance of a small chamber group.
Mr. Gordon re-closed this portion of the meeting and the Commissioners continued in their executive session.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved that Case No.028-00 be processed as a demolition of a landmark site.
Mr. Gordon noted that he did not hear a second for the motion.
The discussion continued with several members of the Commission expressing his or her concerns regarding the possible demolition approval.
Mr. Parvaz said that he did not understand how the Commission could call it a demolition when a portion of the building would be retained. Mr. Gordon said that a demolition did not have to be 100 percent. Mr. Parvaz said he was considering the major alteration alternative. Ms. Giraud gave some hypothetical examples of partial demolitions. Mr. Young pointed out the differences in a partial demolition of a single landmark site and a building in an historic district.
Ms. Giraud explained the process once more for the applicants if the Commission considers the application as a demolition or a major alteration, which was pointed out earlier in these minutes. She added that Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney, had clarified to staff after the last meeting that the Commissioners had to base their decision on the existing Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Gordon announced that the motion died for the lack of a second.
New motion:
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 028-00 be defined and processed as a demolition of a historic landmark site because it would be at least 75 percent demolished, which would be a significant portion, and that the building is no longer used as a theater, which was the original use. Mr. Payne seconded the motion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Littig were opposed. Ms. Miller, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Please note that there was further discussion before the vote was actually taken. When asked, Ms. Giraud said that an economic hardship panel would be convened because, according to the ordinance, as was outlined earlier in the minutes, that the applicants would file an application for economic hardship.
Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission members, henceforth, would review the evidence provided by the applicants in economic hardship cases, before the evidence is submitted to the Economic Review Panel. She noted that after the members of the Economic Review Panel make their decision, a report is filed which would be brought back to the Historic Landmark Commission to review and make a decision whether or not to accept the Review Panel's decision.
There was some confusion. Some of the Commissioners misunderstood the ordinance and believed that the Historic Landmark Commission would have the opportunity of voting on the demolition application. Ms. Coffey explained the differences in the ordinance of a demolition of a landmark site and a demolition of a contributing structure in an historic district, as outlined earlier in these minutes. This revelation created a lengthy discussion.
There was also some confusion as to the procedure of this case. There were two people in the audience who wished to make public comment on Case No. 028-00, but were not given an opportunity earlier because of the continuation of the executive session. The agenda stated that public comment may be taken. Ms. Coffey said that the meeting could be re-opened to allow public comment at the discretion of the Chairperson. Mr. Gordon re-opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Kathryn Gardner, who is the Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that although the Orpheum Theater is not located in her community council area, but it would have been a good idea if the applicants had attended one of their meetings to explain the project, due to the closeness to the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Ms. Gardner talked about several issues relating to the downtown area, and the many historic buildings that have been torn down. She said that she believed the Orpheum Theater should not be demolished and should still function as a small theater.
• Mr. Ronnie Rosenberg, who works in the old Felt Electric building at 165 Regent Street, said that he was adamantly opposed to the concrete parking structure proposal. He said that he did not believe Zions Securities Corporation is interested in protecting the integrity of the Orpheum Theater building. He talked about other issues that did not relate to the case. He concluded by saying that the Commission should impress the importance of security and safety for the citizens around the future parking structure.
Ms. Giraud introduced the letter from Mr. Robert Crandall, the owner of the Crandall building, stating support for the proposed parking garage, a copy of which was attached to the staff reports.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon officially re-closed the hearing to the public and concluded the case.
OTHER BUSINESS
Demolition request for thirteen properties by Winthrop Court L.C. to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB Board).
Ms. Coffey referred to the letter signed by Mr. Wayne Gordon, Chairperson of the Historic Landmark Commission, to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB), a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Coffey said that the Winthrop Court issues caught the attention of the HAAB because of the problems the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer was having with the owner of the property keeping the buildings boarded. She explained the reason for the communication, which was outlined in the letter.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Wilson so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 8:30P.M.
•