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 Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, William T. Wright, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, Mark Wilson and Robert Young. Sarah Miller and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Wayne Gordon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Gordon asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the March 1, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 008-00, at 402 East Sixth Avenue, located in the Avenues Historic District, by Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc., represented by Lynn Morgan of Morgan/Russell Architects, requesting to remodel the existing Smith's Food and Drug Store.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He said that the applicants proposed a complete renovation of the existing building, as well as an addition on the north elevation. Mr. Knight indicated that the property would require new landscaping and new parking lot lighting. He said that existing signage, including the free-standing sign on the corner, would be removed and new signage installed. Mr. Knight said that the other tenants would be relocated to the lower level where four other tenants spaces would be added. He stated that the applicants also proposed a glass elevator to access the different floors. Mr. Knight circulated copies of a new landscaping plan, which was submitted just prior to this meeting, a copy was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4), H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's zoning ordinance, which were included in the staff report.
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council, and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The existing building would be out-of-scale with the surrounding buildings, which are primarily single-family residences of typical size and scale for the Avenues. One of the intents of the design of this renovation is to minimize the building's impact on the surrounding buildings. The height of the building will not change in the renovation.
The addition to the building would increase the width of the facade along "E" Street and "F" Street sides, but the addition would fill in a notch in the existing building, so the net increase of width would be minimal. The flat roof shape would remain the same. The proposed roof material is not included on the drawings; the Planning Staff encourages the applicant to use a light-colored roofing material in order to reduce energy costs and heat retention, which can have an environmental impact on the Staffs finding: There would be no additional adverse impact to the surrounding buildings with respect to this building's height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape, and scale.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staffs discussion: The proposed openings consist of large, plate glass windows and entrances typically found on commercial architecture. The architect has increased the size and number of windows on the Sixth Avenue facade from that of the existing building and previous designs reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee. There will also be storefront entrances onto a walkway along the Fifth Avenue elevation. While the main entry for these spaces would be from the parking area to the north, these entries could be used for outdoor dining, depending on the tenants for the space. The applicants proposed to keep the drive-through window that is on the west side of the lower level.
Outdoor dining areas would also be constructed at the main entrance to the grocery store. Deliveries for the Smith's store would be made at a loading dock on the east side of the second story, for which two sliding overhead doors are proposed. Deliveries for the lower-story businesses would be made through the front doors of the businesses at off-peak hours.
The visible bays of the concrete frame create a regular rhythm along the length of the existing facades; the applicants propose to retain this detail. The existing dark-stained cedar installed in spaces between the bays would be removed. Stuccoed Exterior Insulated and Finish System (EIFS) panels will fill the spaces on the renovated building. Members of the Avenues Community Council suggested that the applicant use brick for these infill panels. If brick were to be used, it would have to hang on the outside of the concrete frame and the articulation would be lost. A wainscot is proposed to run along the base of the upper story of the building, forming a sort of "belt course" for the two-story facades. The Architectural Subcommittee reviewed several cornice designs; the design proposed here was the choice of both the applicants and the subcommittee members.
The building has an entrance porch, of sorts, on the north side of the building, and is detailed with decorative metal tubing in a scrollwork pattern. Similar metal scrollwork is located at the entrances to the lower level parking.
The proposed primary material is an Exterior Insulated and Finish System {EIFS) in three shades of beige. The storefront and metalwork would be dark green. The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City state that "the applicants should keep color schemes simple and advise that coordinating the entire building in one color scheme is usually more successful than working with a variety of palettes".
Staffs finding: The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding streetscape with respect to proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, rhythm of entrance porches, rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and relationship of materials.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staffs discussion: Because this is a remodel of an existing building that is out-of-character from the surrounding buildings to begin with, findings regarding this standard are based on a matter of degrees. The walls of continuity and rhythm of spacing and structures on streets would not substantially change from the current building. The addition of a cornice and of a "wainscot/belt course" would tie the building together visually and would be an improvement on the existing building.
The existing large expanse of parking along Sixth Avenue will be reduced by the construction of the addition of the building. The loss of this parking will be made up with the addition of 29 underground stalls. The total amount of parking stalls (180) exactly meets the amount of parking required by the City for a building of this size. The parking will be screened from the surrounding properties by a short concrete wall that will also block the headlights of cars from shining into the windows of the adjacent properties. Members of the Architectural Subcommittee asked for additional details of this wall at their meeting. The Architectural Subcommittee also suggested that the design of the wall be coordinated with the metal railings proposed for the building. Pedestrian access across the parking lot from Sixth Avenue is unclear. It is staff's experience that pedestrians usually cut through the parking lot from Sixth Avenue.
The existing landscaping would be improved as part of this project. The applicants would install "Avenues-style" street lighting in the park strip. The applicants would retain the existing mature trees along the park strip. There is a simple shelter proposed for the bus stop on Sixth Avenue, but no details are included with this application. The new landscaping plan could be approved at this meeting if the Commission believes that it is sufficient. Signage would be a separate application.
Staff's finding: The proposed work to the existing building will be visually compatible with the surrounding structures in terms of walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing, and structures on the street, directional expression of principal elevation and pedestrian improvements.
4. Subdivision of Lots.
Staff's discussion and finding: There are no subdivision issues in this case. This standard is not applicable.
Mr. Knight concluded by offering the staff recommendation, as follows: "The Sixth Avenue Smith's store is an integral part of the Avenues community. This project would make the existing building more compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. Based upon the ·findings of fact in this staff report, staff recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application and refer the applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement of details regarding the signage and the landscaping plan, if necessary.”
Mr. Gordon inquired if the signage for the individual tenants would be administratively approved. Mr. Knight said that they could be approved administratively. He added that he has not had any submittals for signage from the tenants. Mr. Knight pointed out that the applicants would not be allowed to replace the pole sign with another pole sign. Mr. Gordon said that he assumed that the liquor store would not have outside dining. Mr. Knight said that he did not know of any such requests that had been submitted.
Mr. Lynn Morgan, architect, representing the applicant was present. Mr. Morgan used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He pointed to the details of the project on the enlarged plans, as they were discussed. Mr. Morgan described how the renovation project would make changes to the interior and the exterior. He talked about the proposed two-level parking structure on the "E" Street side that would be more serviceable to the grocery store. Mr. Morgan said that the glass-enclosed elevator would be large enough to handle customers with shopping carts. He said that there would be an open stairwell in the interior of the building, as well.
Mr. Morgan, pointed out that the community council suggested using brick on the infill panels but brick is not characteristic of a concrete frame and a wood-infilled structure. He said that he believed that the Dryvit (synthetic stucco) would give the applicant the opportunity to do more detailing. He explained that the Dryvit is a five-inch thick foam section with a 45-degree miter at the edges, approximately six inches out from the face of the concrete frame. Mr. Morgan said that existing finish on the fascia was concrete asbestos board would have to be abated, if removed. He said that the proposed formed fascia with a rolled edge would be a visual improvement. The existing asbestos would be covered, but not removed. Mr. Morgan displayed a color and sample board of materials. He said that the building would be in shades of tan with a dark green and a touch of red trim.
• Mr. Morgan said that all the mechanical equipment on the roof in the new section would be recessed and not visible from street level. He also said that the applicant was working with a mechanical engineer to investigate how many of the mechanical boxes on the existing roof can be eliminated.
Mr. Morgan continued by talking about the structural soundness of the building and some of the peculiarities of the roof construction typical of buildings that were constructed in the early 1960's.
Mr. Morgan introduced Mr. Charles Olsen of Great Basin Engineering, who is the landscape architect. He referred to the new landscaping plan that was circulated to the Commission members and staff at this meeting.
Mr. Olsen stated that the site would need to be re-landscaped. He said that the applicants would maintain the mature trees in the park strip and would supplement where necessary. Mr. Olsen said that the snow from the snow removal would be stored on the northwest corner of the parking lot during the winter months. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the landscaping project, showing the pedestrian accesses and all the plantings that were proposed.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by asking if the applicants proposed to plant a second row of trees on the inside of the sidewalk that would be more of a protection to pedestrians and the neighborhood from a commercial environment. Mr. Olsen said that the site would have additional trees and would consider Mr. Littig's suggestion. Mr. Young recommended that the applicants also consider drought-tolerance plantings.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired further into the snow removal on the parking lot and how the snow would be managed. Mr. Olsen said that the only location available for the snow storage would be the northwest corner. Mr. Morgan said that area would be designed for the purpose of stacking snow. He said that the locale would have a ten-inch deep cobblestone base. Mr. Parvaz also inquired about the pony wall around the perimeter of the parking lot. Mr. Morgan pointed out where the pony wall would be. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the exterior lighting would be on after the store is closed. Mr. Morgan said that the lights would remain on and further explained the plans for the exterior lighting. Mr. Parvaz also asked about the loading docks. Mr. Morgan said that the loading and unloading dock would be on the upper lot. He talked about the semi equipped with a lift and "no parking" signs would be posted between the hours of 8:00 to 10:00 A.M. on week days. He said that the compactors would be enclosed behind garage doors. Mr. Morgan said that other deliveries would be through the main doors. Mr. Morgan said that another element the community council wanted to remain was the outside coffee kiosk. He added that it would be incorporated but at this point, there was no vendor.
• Ms. Mitchell asked for clarification on the south elevation drawing. Mr. Morgan said that windows were shown on those drawings, as requested by the community council. He indicated that the tenants might not want windows in that elevation. Mr. Morgan said that they were considering detailing recesses in the stucco pattern and provide awnings, but not use a natural window, or fill the windows in with black glass or glass block. He said that issue was open to discussion. Mr. Morgan said that he would like to accommodate the desire of the neighborhood by putting more activity on the Fifth Avenue side (south elevation), but to do that would require an entirely new building. Mr. Morgan talked further about the changes for the interior of the store.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she did not agree that no windows were better than black glass or blocked up windows on the south side. Mr. Morgan talked further about cutting in a stuccoed profile in the form of a window, so there would be a visual element but no actual window. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested not cutting in a profile on the south facade and leave a smooth stucco surface. She said that by putting up awnings and cutting into the profile, would be like having "fake" windows. Mr. Morgan said that he had no problem with that suggestion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that outside dining with a coffee kiosk would be amenable for that south elevation. Mr. Morgan said that there would have to be further consideration designing the wall section of the south facade.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Wright pointed out that if windows were installed in the south facade, there were ways tenants could block the windows without any structural change. He talked about how some tenants have handled the window issue in the Sugar House Commons center.
A short discussion took place regarding the window issue, landscaping and design issues, and how the south elevation could have a better direct relationship with pedestrians.
Motion:
Mr.Young moved that Case No. 008-00 be conceptually approved, based on the
, findings of fact by staff with the refinement of details for the signage and the landscaping plans being referred to the Architectural Subcommittee and administratively approved. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Ms. Mitchell abstained. Ms. Miller and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 003-00, at 216 West Reed Avenue, located in the Capitol Hill Historic District. by Raul Pineda, requesting to construct a new single-family house.
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 of this meeting. Mr. Knight reported that the lot was an irregular triangle formed by the intersection of Reed Avenue and Wall Street and the shape of the lot made it difficult to build a house that suits the setback requirements for this zone, and the size of the lot does not meet the minimum requirements for a single-family house in the SR-1 zone.
Mr. Knight said that the applicant had been granted a variance but let it expire before approval was sought. He pointed out that the applicant re-applied to the Board of Adjustment, which tabled the application, and required significant changes to the design of the building. Mr. Knight reported that since then, the applicant modified his previous plans by reducing the size and scale of the proposed structure. He stated that the planned structure was proposed to be brick with wood siding on the roof dormers, painted wood trim, and asphalt shingles.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H}(1 through 4}, H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's zoning ordinance, which were included in the staff report.
H Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council, and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The site is shown on the panoramic photos supplied by the applicant and attached to this staff report. Additional photos of the surrounding buildings on Wall Street and Reed Avenue were also attached to the staff report. Warm Springs Park sits across Wall Street from this lot. Nearby buildings are generally 1 story and 11/2 story structures, with hipped or gabled roofs. The proposed building would have a hipped roof, but would be taller than the surrounding buildings. Most of the lots in this area are relatively narrow, but deep. Thus, the buildings on them are also narrow, with most of their mass spread toward the back of the lot. The proposed building would be similar in massing to, although slightly larger than, the surrounding buildings. The house as currently proposed, would be 2,338 square feet (1,214 main floor, 1,114 second floor).
Staff's finding: The proposed design meets this standard. Although the proposed house is larger than its immediate neighbors, the height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape, and scale of the house would be in keeping with the Capitol Hill District, and overall the house is compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than. paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staffs discussion: This proposed building is difficult to evaluate, in relation to these standards, because of the difficult lot shape, and the fact that the building faces two streets. Mr. Pineda has addressed the difficult site by essentially giving the building two front facades, each marked with a one-story porch. The south facade would be oriented toward Reed Avenue; the porch on that facade would line up with the porch of its neighbor to the west. The east porch would open into kitchen and would basically be a service entrance, but the size and location of the porch would make it a prominent part of the building. The applicant has responded accordingly, adding details similar to the south, front porch. The window sizes and placement would be regular and classically proportioned, similar to the late nineteenth and early twentieth- century houses that the style of this house evokes. Similarly, the brick and wood materials would be typical for the types of structures located in the Capitol Hill District. As the design of the building proceeds from conceptual to construction drawings, further details should follow the same late nineteenth and early twentieth-century precedents.
Staffs finding: The building meets this standard in terms of proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and relationship of materials.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staffs discussion: The front and rear setbacks of the proposed structure would be less than is normally required by the base zoning, but would be in line with adjacent buildings and would generally be compatible with those along the nearby streetscape. Most of the "yard" for the house would actually be in the public right-of-way. The rhythm and spacing of the structure would generally be in line with the surrounding buildings. The proposed five-foot setback on the west side of the lot would be similar to historic buildings in the district. Staff believes, however, that with a new building, such a close setback might be jarring to the neighbors. The applicant may wish to explore reducing the size of the east porch and shifting the building to the east. Further information regarding the size, trunk caliper, type, and design of the proposed landscaping is needed, but these issues could be resolved at the subcommittee or at the staff level. Generally, the design and amount of landscaping is in keeping with the surrounding buildings. The driveway would be similar in size to the driveway of the building west of this one, and its orientation toward Wall Street would also be similar to the building to the west.
Staffs finding: The building meets this standard in terms of walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, directional expression of principal elevation, and streetscape-pedestrian improvements.
4. Subdivision of Lots.
Staffs discussion and finding: There are no subdivision issues in this case. This standard is not applicable.
Mr. Knight offered the following recommendation: "As per usual procedure in new construction cases, the Historic Landmark Commission may wish to assess the proposed design, obtain public input regarding the application, and then refer the case to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement of details. The proposal could then return to the full Historic Landmark Commission for final review."
Mr. Wright stated that in the SR-1 zone, the required side yard is four feet and if the submitted drawings of the proposed site plan is accurate, the neighbor's house is built almost on the property line and that is why the houses would end up to be so close together.
The applicant, Mr. Raul Pineda, was present. Mr. Pineda stated that the plans could be modified to further increase the space between the proposed structure and the neighboring house to seven feet. He talked about the possibility of using the space for an entrance into the proposed basement area. He also said that he would plan to add a second-story balcony on the Wall Street/Reed Avenue intersection (east elevation of the house) and change one of the window openings to a sliding door. Mr. Pineda said that concrete and brick would be used for the driveway material. He said that he would use Marvin wood-clad windows and the brick color would be very light. Mr. Pineda also stated that he would like to raise the height of the bedroom ceilings to 9 feet and add loft closet spaces.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by suggesting to use French doors rather than a sliding door on the proposed second-story balcony because that style would be more characteristic of the neighborhood.
• Mr. Gordon commented that he was supportive of the large porch columns that the applicant planned to use.
• Mr. Wilson asked for clarification regarding the closet space in the loft. Mr. Pineda said that the bedrooms are so small that there would not be room for closets. He said that if the height of the ceilings were increased by one foot, that one-foot space together with the space in the vaulted ceilings would create space for closets above what would be the canopied bed. Mr. Pineda said that a ladder would be used to climb up to the closet in the master bedroom and the other bedrooms would have a small spiral staircase. Mr. Wright said that there might a significant building code issue in relation to that suggestion. This was discussed further. Mr. Wilson recommended finding the floor space to build closets. Mr. Wilson commented that the window or the bump out at the stair landing was drawn as if it would be brick. Mr. Pineda said that would actually be wood siding to match the dormers.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired about the brick on the facades. Mr. Pineda said that brick veneer would be used. She also asked about the windows. Mr. Pineda said that there would be no header for the windows, only sills made from pre-cast concrete.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Mr. Randall Dixon, who resides at 726 No. Wall Street, stated that he attended the Board of Adjustment meeting where this case was reviewed. He said that it appeared that the applicant has made a "diligent" effort to change the plans "drastically" to meet the standards for an historic district. Mr. Dixon recommended that the refinement of the details be carefully reviewed so this proposal would be a good addition to the neighborhood built on a difficult vacant lot.
Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, said that she also attended that Board of Adjustment meeting. She said she agreed that the modified plans were more in keeping with the historic district standards. Ms. Mangold said that her remaining concern was that the height would still have an impact on the neighboring homes. She said that increasing the setback to seven feet on the west elevation would be essential to justify the height of the proposed house that close to the neighboring house. Ms. Mangold encouraged that the increased setback does occur, even though it would mean moving the proposed structure closer to the Reed Avenue/Wall Street intersection. She also extended her appreciation that the applicant addressed many of the issues that concerned the neighborhood.
Ms. Katherine Gardner, chair for the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that the subject lot was "interesting" and she would like to have an "interesting" house built on it. She said that neighbors were still concerned about the height of the proposed structure because the highest homes in the neighborhood were only 1 1/2 stories. Ms. Gardner said that she would like to see the proposed house look like it "belonged" in the already developed historic district so it would not look like a "misfit". She again expressed her concerns about the height and said, "that it looked to her like it might stand out like the Smith's store on Sixth Avenue". Ms. Gardner said that Mr. Pineda had not brought the modified plans to the community council and invited him to do so. Mr. Littig said that he had the same concerns but he discovered some houses on 300 West that were elevated so they would be about the same height as this proposed structure. He also said that the mature trees would help to soften the height problem. Mr. Littig stated that a single-story house would not be large enough to live in on the small lot.
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. Wright pointed out that the edge of the porch on the Wall Street side would be very close to the property line. He said that the City did not prefer to have encroachment on the City right-of-way but, in this case, it may be acceptable because it would be nine feet from the sidewalk and the curb and gutter would not likely be widened in that area. Mr. Wright said that by moving the proposed structure two feet, some of the dimensions of the porch or in the interior space would have to be adjusted on that elevation. There was further discussion regarding this porch. Mr. Young suggested that it still would be wide enough to hold furniture. Mr. Littig said that it could be placed a little further to the south to accommodate the two feet.
Mr. Wright suggested that the Commission focus more on the design of the project, because the height and other zoning issues would be reviewed by other City agencies. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she believed most of the issues could be worked out in the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Wright also made the suggestion that the pitch of the roof could also be changed to help resolve the height issue. The discussion continued regarding these issues.
• Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to conceptually approve Case No. 003-00 based on the staff's findings of facts. Further, that the details are to be worked out in the Architectural Subcommittee after the applicant has been through the Board of Adjustment review. The Commission understands that there would have to be some changes made in the proposed plans. The final approval should be made administratively.
Suggestions were made to amend the motion, such as limiting the color choice of the exterior brick veneer. Mr. Wright said that the Commission's concept would be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment.
Repeated motion:
Mr. Littig moved to conceptually approve Case No. 003-00 based on the staff's findings of facts. Further, that the details are to be refined in the Architectural Subcommittee after the applicant has been through the Board of Adjustment review. The Commission understands that there would have to be some changes made in the proposed plans. The final approval can be made administratively. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 009-00, at 341 South Elizabeth Street, located in the University Historic District, by Kimberly Lau, represented by Bernardo Flores-Shagun of Flores-Shagun and Associates Architects, requesting to construct a new twin home.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and staff comments relating to the standards in the zoning ordinance, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that staff did not make findings or a recommendation since this was the first time the Historic Landmark Commission had seen the project.
Ms. Giraud said that the applicant was proposing a flat-roofed, Exterior Insulated and Finish System (EIFS) building that is contemporary in style. She said that the street elevation would consist of garage doors on the street level and balconies above. Ms. Giraud added that the lot was 165 feet deep and abutted on the north by a private alley; however, in order to accommodate the property for a twin home development, the architect found it necessary to place the garages at the front of the building, even though that was an unusual proposal. She said that the architect believed that the side yard would not accommodate access to the garages.
Ms. Giraud stated that there were some zoning issues that the architect would have to work out. She added that the primary one was that the garage must be set 18 feet back from the sidewalk so that cars parked in the driveway would not block the sidewalk. She said that the size of the driveway shown on the plans for Unit A would have to be reduced because it would be considered front-yard parking; part of area on the south would have to be landscaped. Ms. Giraud said that the project would have to have twenty-two feet, per unit, of street frontage. She pointed out that there was enough room, with some modification, to allow that.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4), H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's zoning ordinance, which were included in the staff report.
H Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council, and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staffs comments: Several two-story buildings exist on this street; the apartment building at no. 350 is four stories. The proposed building is about 41 feet wide, approximately ten feet wider than the small, historic homes on the street It would be similar in width to the larger historic homes found on the streetscape. The principal facade would be broken into planes whose proportions would not be unusual on this street or the district. The relationship between the horizontal and vertical lines of the proposed design would have classical proportions, and could be seen on several structures on this street. Flat roofs could be found on both contributing and non-contributing buildings on the surrounding structures. The scale of the house would be in keeping with the buildings on the block.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staffs comments: The proposed openings on the principal facades would consist of garage doors, a single entrance door for each unit, and tall, narrow windows and doors on the second story. Garage doors on the first story, this close to the street, would be an unusual feature for the streetscape, as would the overhang created by the balconies. However, staff finds that the overhangs alleviate the dominance of the garage doors. The use of a sole window on the street elevation differs markedly from the fenestration pattern found on nearby contributing buildings. There is a stucco building across the street (no. 366) and stucco was used historically (if sparingly) in this district.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staffs comments: The proposed building would be in keeping with the existing street "wall" of buildings. The buildings on this block are close together and the overall appearance of the streetscape is one of the high density consisting of low-scale buildings. The proposed house will face the same direction as the others on this side of Elizabeth Street. In the existing plan, the architect shows a wider driveway than can be allowed by code, but this could be reduced.
4. Subdivision of Lots.
Staffs comments: The property owner will have to subdivide the lot into two parcels. This requires a minor residential subdivision process consisting of an administrative hearing by the subdivision staff of the Planning Division. Once the property is divided, each unit would have to have twenty-two feet of street frontage. The subdivision staff believes that the architect could accommodate that much footage.
Mr. Gordon discussed the possibility of the applicant seeking a variance, but decided that was a zoning issue and not under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission.
The applicant, Ms. Kimberly Lau, and her representative, Mr. Bernardo Flores-Shagun, were present. Mr. Flores-Shagun stated there would be space to accommodate that needed footage. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Gordon led the discussion by inquiring if the applicant had been to a community council meeting. Mr. Flores-Shagun said that the applicant had not. He explained the complications surrounding the acquisition of the property. Mr. Gordon said the contemporary style was not what one would expect to see in an historic district. A short discussion took place regarding styles of houses. Mr. Flores-Shagun said that the applicant did not want to replicate a "gingerbread" style. Mr. Gordon said that two single garage doors were encouraged rather than large double doors.
There was some discussion regarding the driveway issue using the extra width of the driveway to park another vehicle. Some Commission members offered suggestions how the driveway on the south could be reduced and the space filled in with more landscaping material.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Ren Willis, who resides at 334 South Elizabeth Street, stated that he was also concerned about the wide driveway and expressed further concern about maintaining the sidewalk. He said that parking was only allowed on Elizabeth Street on the east side of the street. Mr. Willey said that he wanted to make certain that no cars would be parking on the sidewalk. Mr. Wright explained that the driveway had to be long enough to park a vehicle; that was standard everywhere in the city. Mr. Willy said that he was glad that something would be constructed on the vacant lot.
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. Parvaz inquired if a community council review of the project was a requirement.
Ms. Giraud said that it was not a requirement for new construction. She said that notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, so most people who would be most affected were notified that something would be constructed on the vacant lot. She said that when she first had talked to Mr. Flores-Shagun, he asked to attend an Architectural Subcommittee first, but she said that she told him that with new construction, as a matter of policy, the plans first were reviewed by the full Commission: She said that people would get very confused with the Architectural Subcommittee and the Historic Landmark Commission making different suggestions. She said that this was a preliminary review and the applicant was not expecting approval at this meeting, and that was the reason why staff did not make findings for this meeting.
There was some discussion regarding the wording of a motion. Mr. Payne suggested to adopt staff's comments as findings for the Historic Landmark Commission.
Motion:
Mr. Payne moved that Case No. 009-00 be approved and that the Historic Landmark Commission considers the comments made by staff in the staff report as findings for the standards required for approval of the proposed twin homes. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. There was a short discussion. Mr. Payne amended his motion.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Payne moved that Case No. 009-00 be conceptually approved and that the Historic Landmark Commission consider the comments made by staff in the staff report as findings for the standards required for approval of the proposed twin homes. Further, that the final approval can be made administratively after the details are refined in the Architectural Subcommittee and after the applicant has been through the Board of Adjustment review with the corrections of the setback and the width of the driveway, as discussed in this meeting. The second still stood by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Continuation of Case No. 006-00, a request by Hamilton Partners, Inc., represented by Mark DeBry of MHTN Architects, to renovate the Karrick block at 336 South Main Street.
Mr. Knight circulated a memorandum regarding this case for those members who may not have received the faxed copy. He stated that Case No. 006-00 was previously reviewed at the March 1, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Knight said that there were questions raised at the meeting regarding the proposed first-story storefront for the Karrick (Leyson-Pearsall) Building.
Mr. Knight pointed out that the Commissioners wanted to know the following: "Whether the remaining historic storefront (much of which was covered by a stone veneer in a later remodeling) would be salvaged, or if the applicants propose to remove the existing storefront and completely replace it with new materials, and, if the existing storefront would be completely replaced, is it possible to restore the storefront to its original (pre- 1905) appearance?" Mr. Knight said that Mr. DeBry left the meeting for another engagement, and was not available to answer these questions.
Mr. Knight read the following motion that was made at that March 1st meeting: "Mr. Littig moved to accept all the changes for Case No. 006-00, with a note that the pinnacle elements on the Karrick Building can be made with lead-coated metal. Further, this case can be continued at the next meeting to clarify the proposal regarding the first floor historic face on the front elevation of the Karrick Building."
Mr. Knight related that staff spoke to Mr. DeBry after the meeting and he said that the applicant's intention was to remove the non-historic stone veneer and salvage as much of the remaining 1905 storefront as possible. He added that since the 1905 storefront had acquired significance in its own right, staff believed that this was the preferred course of action.
Mr. Mark DeBry, representing the applicant, was present. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. DeBry addressed the Commissioners' questions by describing how the pre-cast stone veneer would be removed and that the applicant believed that the 1905 Leyson-Pearsall storefront would be found underneath. Mr. DeBry talked about the brass mullions and mitered glass in the windows.
Mr. DeBry reported that there had been some damage by vandals in the last week and would have to do something to secure the building.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Mitchell led the discussion by stating that she understood, at the previous meeting, that the applicant had planned to restore the first floor facade to the earlier version because the design was more compatible with the two floors above. She said that she recognized that the 1905 was "legitimately" historic.
• Mr. Wilson said that the question rose when there was a note on the drawings that said, "Replace the original storefront with new to match." He said that the thinking was if the applicant was going to replace the storefront to the 1905 version that was "asymmetrical" on a very "symmetrical" building, why not replace it with a "symmetrical", earlier than 1905, storefront. Mr. Wilson said that the 1905 storefront has historic significance and perhaps that would take precedence over it being "asymmetrical" and different from original. Mr. DeBry stated that the interior would be maintained and restored to the 1905 character. He added that he did not believe it would not be consistent to put an older facade on a 1905 interior; they should
both be the same vintage.
• Mr. Young inquired if the applicant was seeking tax credits. Mr. DeBry said that the applicant was not. Mr. Young said that the 1905-period facade would be allowed without any question. He said that it would be considered a later edition of an historic period. Mr. Young pointed out some elements that were significant to that period of time.
There was a short discussion how the building could be secured so no further vandalism occurred.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion took place regarding issues relating to this case.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 006-00 to approve the direction indicated by the architect for the restoration of the 1905 storefront It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Rowland so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:00P.M.