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 Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, and Alex Protasevich were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the February 27, 2002 meeting. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Simonsen Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Protasevich, and Ms. Rowland, were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
(Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:07 P.M.)
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 005-02, at approximately 321 South 500 East and Vernier Court, a request by Ken Holman of Overland Development Corporation, represented by Geoff Woods of MHTN Architects, for approval of a 190-unit apartment building complex. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.
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 Mr. Ken Holman of Overland Development, represented by Mr. Geoff Woods of MHTN Architects, is requesting final approval to construct a 190-unit apartment building at approximately 321 South 500 East and Vernier Court, which is located in the Central City Historic District. She pointed out that this is the first of three phases of multi-unit construction proposed by Mr. Holman on Block 38, Plat B.
Ms. Giraud stated that the zoning for Phase I is R-MU, residential/mixed use district. She said that the purpose of this zone is to implement the objectives of the adopted East Downtown Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the residential character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, and small scale office uses.
Ms. Giraud stated that the applicant would have to apply for conditional use approval from the Planning Commission because the height of the proposed structure exceeds the allowed height stated in the ordinance for the R-MU zone, which is 75 feet. She said that the zoning ordinance allows an applicant to exceed the height limitation up to 125 feet as a conditional use.
Ms. Giraud reported on the comments for the proposal that were made in the February 27, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. [Please refer to the minutes of that meeting for more details.]
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Holman and the MHTN architects met with the Architectural Subcommittee on March 6, 2002, which resulted in the following changes:
First floor 500 East elevation: 1) The "tunnel" has become an entry for residents and is glazed; 2) The space inside the portal is now a "great room" for residents; 3) The architects are considering an open rail rather than a brick wall for the stairway; and 4) The penthouse structure is stepped back from the facade of the 500 East elevation. (Please note that the penthouse structure steps back less than it did in the February 27, 2002 presentation).
Fenestration: 1) The architects flipped the pattern of the windows, so that there is not a transom at the top; and 2) The Architectural Subcommittee members asked that a wall section be presented (included in this report) and that the windows be set into the wall at least two inches.
Additional revisions: 1) The walls have greater articulation, with the bays of the balconies brought further out from the primary wall plane; and 2) Painted metal screens are proposed for the parking structure opening.
Other comments that were made at the meeting include: 1) Do not make the plaza skateboard friendly; and 2) Present a three-dimensional drawing illustrating the relationship of the massing around the block, in order to enable the Commission to ascertain the compliance of the proposed development with the ordinance and the design guidelines.
Ms. Giraud reported that the Historic Landmark Commission must base its decision on whether the application substantially complies on 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 the City Council, and is in the best interest of the city.
Ms. Giraud referred to the following standards that are outlined in Section
21A.34.020(H) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure:
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades;
c. Roof shape; and
d. Scale of a Structure.
Staffs discussion: The proposed project is in the midst of small-scale commercial development, most of which consists of non-contributing buildings, and historic apartment buildings. With the exception of Fred Meyer to the south, the commercial buildings are one- to two-story and small in scale. The apartment buildings are four stories in height and are typical of the structures described in the "Urban Apartment Buildings" National Register nomination (1989). The apartments in that document are described as: 1) being at least three stories in height; 2) having brick exterior walls; 3) having flat or parapet roofs; and 4) ranging in the number of units from six to one-hundred.
The proposed development, with the first phase having 190 units, is larger in scope than those found in the immediate proximity of Salt Lake City. The roof form, on the east and west elevations, is flat and then steps up to a curved form for the penthouse level.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed development is larger in height, width, scale and proportion of both the residential and non-residential structures in the vicinity of the site; however, it should be noted that once the historic buildings that have been the subject of demolition requests for this project are razed, there is little historic fabric remaining on this block. Similarly, many of the buildings on the block across the street (not in the district) are similar in scale to the non-contributing buildings on
Block 38. Therefore, staff finds that the application in terms of scale, mass and height cannot be evaluated within the context of the surrounding buildings.
With its curved profile, the roof form does not conform to the traditional shape of historic apartment buildings in the area. But unlike many recently-constructed multi family dwellings in Salt Lake City, the design is not an attempt to make an apartment building look like single-family dwellings by virtue of a moderately- or steeply-pitched roof line. The curved roof is unusual within the rubric of multi-family buildings in Salt Lake City, but its curve is minimal, and the front portion of the roofline (as seen from 500 East) is flat. Regarding the roof shape, staff finds the proposal to be in keeping with the surrounding properties, as many of the surrounding buildings have flat roofs, and to be consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Opening;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections; and
d. Relationship of Materials.
Staff's discussion: The fenestration of the proposed project consists of square panes of glass. The larger windows are divided into two asymmetrical horizontal and vertical panes. Balconies are proposed for each unit. E.I.F.S. and brick are proposed for the wall material, with a greater proportion of stucco to brick on the west elevation than on the east elevation; metal is proposed for the roof material.
Traditionally, windows on the historic urban apartment buildings are double or single-hung sash and are constructed of wood with wood casings. They are usually one-over-one light in pattern. The historic apartment buildings have balconies if they are of a type known as a walk-up, in which the apartment unit extends from the front to the back of the building, but were not included in the double-loaded corridor type, in which several units per floor opened off of central corridor. Wall materials were almost always brick.
Staff's finding of fact: As stated previously, the proposed pattern has been switched so that the horizontal pane now forms a transom, and although this is a departure from the traditional use of one-over-one pane patterns, it is more in keeping with another window pattern used historically: the fixed light with a transom above. The rhythm and proportion of the openings are similar to that found in multi-family architecture in the East Downtown neighborhood. The use of balconies is in keeping with a historically used feature. The architects have extended the bays of the balconies out from the wall plane in order to mimic the vertical bays of balconies seen on historic apartment buildings in Salt Lake. The proposed use of brick is similar to what is seen historically on multi-family buildings, but the combination of stucco and brick is not. Overall, the applicant meets this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation; and
d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements.
Staffs discussion: Because the parcel is deeper than it is wide, its street frontage is disproportionately small when compared to the number of units. The current development provides a negligible "wall of continuity" on the streetscape of the 500 East frontage of this block and the rhythm of spacing and structures on the streetscapes is inconsistent. The architect has sited this phase of the development to reinterpret Vernier Court (formerly known as "Covey Court").
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed project differs from the wall of continuity and the rhythms of spacing and structures on 500 East but in the context of this site these elements are difficult to assess. Historically, apartment buildings such as the Juel and even larger multi-family structures, such as the Hillcrest on First Avenue or the Kensington on 200 North have created a longer and higher street wall than the adjacent single-family dwellings. Thus a prototype for large-scale multi-family developments among small-scale commercial and residential dwellings developed during the historic periods in Salt Lake City's historic districts. The directional expression of the principal elevations would be consistent with the district and pedestrian improvements would be made. Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.
• 4. Subdivision of lots.
Staffs finding of fact: This petition has no subdivision issues.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds that the proposed development meets the standards specified in the ordinance, with the exception of the materials. Because brick is extensively used, however, staff does not consider the proposed use of stucco as it is presented to be substantially in conflict with the ordinance. Staff recommends approval of this project. If the Commission finds that further refinement is necessary, or if the Planning Commission proposes alterations that deviate substantially from these plans, staff recommends that the review be conducted at the Subcommittee level."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Parvaz addressed some height issues on the Zoning Envelopes site plan. Ms. Giraud referred to the Transit Oriented District Ordinance (TOO) that has not been adopted.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant and his architect to come forward to address the Commission.
Both Mr. Ken Holman, the applicant, and Mr. Geoff Woods, representative, were present. Mr. Holman used a briefing board to further explain the project. Mr. Holman said that Ms. Giraud pointed out most of the architectural changes that took place at the Architectural Subcommittee. He said that he wanted to "highlight" some of the following changes suggested by the members of the subcommittee to which he was partial on the 500 East elevation: 1) The grand entry into the lobby and the great room space; 2) The archway and the design of the bridge going between the two buildings. It would be a walkway on the third level; 3) The entrance would have a welcoming affect; 4) The two-story elevator going up to the courtyard would be enclosed in one of the large posts holding the archway; and 5) The entry would be more sensitive to any pedestrian ingress and egress.
Mr. Holman also talked about pulling the balconies out on the proposed structure, which would give it a very traditional repetitive balcony stacking that is seen in several apartment communities in the historic areas.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark
Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the parking garage door would still be accessed off the south elevation. Mr. Woods said that was correct. Mr. Holman referred to the site plan entitled Revised Parking Structure Openings and Park Structure Screen and stated that providing secured parking was a concern to . him. He said that one suggestion from the Historic Landmark Commission was to reduce the number of openings and design some screen walls, which would work much better. Mr. Woods said that the parking structure would be naturally ventilated and would not require a mechanical system. Mr. Parvaz asked about the infill material on the original openings to the parking garage. Mr. Woods said that it would be a concrete wall. He said that those openings exist on both sides of the building and the same concrete material would be used. Mr. Woods added to meet the new code requirements, when the openings are on parallel walls then only 20 percent of the walls need to be opened. Mr. Parvaz talked about Zoning Envelopes site plan again and the height of the building compared to the other proposed buildings on the site plan. Mr. Woods said the buildings in the blue zone would be the same height. A short discussion took place regarding the proposed TOD (Transit Oriented Development) zone and if it adopted, it would abut the subject property. Mr. Parvaz complimented the applicant on the helpful computer-generated drawings because they showed what would be happening on that block. Mr. Parvaz asked about the timetable for construction to begin. Mr. Holman said that if everything goes through, May 23, 2002 is the target date to close on the loan. He said that construction would begin about June 1, 2002.
• Mr. Littig suggested that the screens for the parking garage be set back so they would not be flush with the wall surface. Mr. Woods said that they would be set back. Mr. Holman said that the new plans also show that the windows would have a two-inch setback, as well. Mr. Littig inquired about the color of the materials. Mr. Holman said the color choices have not been made and when the choices have been made, he would submit a color board.
• Ms. Mickelsen said she liked the change of stacking the balconies because "they look like they belong there". Mr. Holman said that he liked that, as well.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the applicant had considered a Portland Cement stucco rather than an EIFS system. Mr. Woods said that they were considering an EIFS system, using the sand texture that has a consistent surface and not the "worm" looking texture. Mr. Holman said that Mr. Simonsen's suggestion might be less expensive and would be explored. Mr. Simonsen said that the Portland Cement stucco has a patina texture and becomes much richer looking through the aging process. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the level of the courtyard had changed from the original plans. Mr. Holman said the level of the courtyard surface would gradually slope. He added that the walkway from 500 East would extend to 600 East through the courtyard and pointed out that the site plan was not accurate. Mr. Holman said the courtyard would be more open.
• Mr. Ashdown inquired if Mr. Holman had presented the new plans to the Central City Community Council. Mr. Homan said that they had not, but they were scheduled to meet on April 3, 2002. He added that the community council has been updated throughout the process and saw the preliminary elevation plans. Mr. Woods said that the April 3rd date was the first available date to meet. Mr. Ashdown said he was curious about the input from the community council. Mr. Holman said that the community council has been more concerned about getting the old buildings demolished. When asked by Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Holman said that the building would be the same height as originally planned. There was some discussion regarding the height of the proposed buildings.
• Mr. Simonsen suggested articulating the transition between the brick and the stucco at the top of the fourth-story ridge so it would not be so abrupt. He added that it would help bring down the scale of the new buildings. Mr. Holman said that was a good point. Mr. Woods said that the details are still being developed. Mr. Simonsen also recommended some articulation at the top of the first story, which would be fairly consistent in the transition, especially with commercial on the ground level. Mr. Woods said that we are looking at some detail on that level, as well.
• Mr. Wilson talked about the articulation of the lintels on the first three floors. He said the asymmetrical nature of those elements seemed non-historic and did not respect the structural function of a lintel. Mr. Wilson pointed out that the roofline did not get "any less interesting". Mr. Holman said that he thought about that comment from the last meeting. He added that the architects made some renderings without the curvature and he said that none of them were appealing to him. Mr. Wilson said that he did not object to the curvature; it was all the applied decorative elements, such as the flagpole element and the covered terraces. Mr. Holman said that the uniqueness of the proposed apartment structure would "create its own landmark".
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Parvaz said there would be a big change on that block. Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 005-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the staff's recommendation and findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve this project. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion.
However, Mr. Simonsen suggested amending the motion because that there seemed to still be some details that needed to be resolved.
Amended motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 005-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the staff's recommendation and findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve this project subject to the applicant returning to the Architectural Subcommittee with a set of construction drawings to refine the details as discussed at this meeting. Mr. Simonsen's second still stood. . Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 008-02, at 598 No. West Capitol Street, by Frank and D'Arcy Pignanelli, represented by Wally Cooper of Cooper Roberts Simonsen Architects, to construct a rear addition to an existing residence. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Simonsen declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from this portion of the meeting. Mr. Simonsen departed from the room.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that D'Arcy Dixon Pignanelli and Frank Pignanelli, represented by Wally Cooper of Cooper Roberts Simonsen Architects, are requesting approval of a rear addition to the existing one and one-half story house at 598 North West Capitol Street. He indicated that the house is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District, which was designated as a city historic district in May 1984. Mr. Knight added that the base zoning of the property is SR-1, "special pattern residential district", which allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
• Mr. Knight gave a brief history of the property by saying that according to the historic site form completed in 1980, George Ray McClure constructed this house in about 1888. He said that Wally Cooper pointed out that physical evidence inside the building indicated that the house may have been constructed earlier than 1888 as a single roomed building, and then expanded sometime before 1895 to a hall-parlor type house. McClure was a machinist and he and his wife, Mary Thomson McClure, immigrated to Utah in the 1880's from Glasgow, Scotland. He said that they occupied the house until 1929 when it was sold to Zion Saving and Trust Company until 1940. Mr. Knight stated that the front facing dormer and shed roof porch are later additions and a previous owner built the detached garage in the back yard in 1985.
Mr. Knight presented the proposal in the following manner: The applicants propose a one and one half story addition, which would replace an existing frame porch to the rear. A total of 815 square feet of additional living space would be added. The addition would be sited behind and to the south side of the existing house. The proposed materials for the addition are Hardiplank clapboard and wood shingle siding, with an asphalt shingle roof in the same color and pattern as the existing roof. Wood windows and doors are proposed, with a mixture of casement, fixed sash and double hung windows on the addition. The peak of the new addition is three feet above the ridge of the original house, but the steep topography of the lot makes the roof peak not visible from the street. Two shingled dormers are proposed for the north and south sides of the addition's roof, along with two flat skylights.
Two additional dormers on the front facade are proposed. They would flank the existing dormer and be clad with wood shingles similar to the shingles on the existing dormer. Two wood casement windows are proposed for the dormers. The applicants also propose to replace the existing single hung window in the center dormer with four new windows in a Palladian configuration.
Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Cooper met with the Architectural Subcommittee on March 13, 2002 and the comments from the subcommittee members were generally favorable. He said that the subcommittee members felt that the additional height of the addition in relation to the original house was acceptable because it would not be visible from the street. Also, he said that the subcommittee members liked the proposed materials, windows, and doors, but suggested that the applicants consider adding a muntin bar to the casement windows in the new dormers to give them the appearance of being double-hung windows, similar to the double-hung windows on the existing house.
Mr. Knight said that the applicants have been working with the City's Zoning Office to ensure compliance with height, yard and bulk requirements for the SR-1 zone. He said that 30 feet or two-and-a-half stories, whichever is less, is the maximum building height in a SR-1 district. Mr. Knight added that this building measures 24 feet in height to the peak of the roof, and 19 feet 6 inches to the midpoint of the roof, the point at which height is measured by the city, so this building meets the height requirements for the zone.
Mr. Knight continued by saying that the setback requirements in a SR-1 zone are 4 feet and 10 feet in the side yards, and 25 percent of the lot depth (not less than 15 feet or more than 30 feet) in the rear yard. He said that a front setback of 25 feet is also required. Mr. Knight noted that a site plan was not included in the applicant's submittal, but the architects have told staff that the proposed addition will meet the City's setback requirements.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, 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. He said that Staff determined that the following standards are most pertinent to this application:
2. 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.
Staff's discussion: This house exhibits the simple classical details typical of Greek revival houses of this period, including the symmetrical facade, side gabled roof, massing, and classical cornice. Later additions to the exterior include the front porch and central dormer.
These details would remain; it will be the massing of the rear wing that would be significantly altered. This approach has been approved by HLC many times in the past, and staff believes that such additions can be successful if the original form of the primary portion of the house is retained and the details on the addition are compatible with the historic character of the house. Likewise, the proposed front dormers echo the symmetry and details of the existing building.
Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the property will be retained and preserved if the proposed addition is constructed. The applicant meets 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 property and its environment.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed addition is large in relation to the existing building, the mass of the addition is located behind and is subordinate to the original portion of the house. The wall material and details of the addition distinguish it from the historic portion of the building.
The proposed windows and doors are compatible in size, configuration and function with the doors and windows on the historic building. Staff agrees with the Architectural Subcommittee's suggestion that a muntin bar be added to the proposed dormer windows to give them the appearance of being double-hung windows, similar to the double-hung windows on the existing house.
The proposed materials on the addition differentiate the new work from the historic portion of the building. Fiber cement products such as Hardiplank have been approved for use on additions by the HLC in previous cases, with the condition that a smooth finish be used instead of the wood grain finish that is also available, because it comes closer to the appearance of historic wood siding.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed work meets this standard.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.
Staff's discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes an extensive discussion on additions to historic structures. A copy of the section is attached to this staff report. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project is in keeping with all of the standards in the design guidelines.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed additions meet the standards in the Design
Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the full commission approve this project, with the conditions that muntin bars be added to the proposed casement windows in the dormers and if the applicants elect to use cement fiber siding on the addition, that a smooth finish be used instead of a wood grain finish."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Ashdown asked if there were any views from a neighbor's house behind the subject property that would be affected by this addition. Ms. Knight said that the house is bounded on the east and north by a large vacant lot that is all one property. He added that the slope is very steep. Mr. Knight said that there is a house to the south that could be impacted because the addition is on the south of the existing residence. However, he said that the Pignanelli’ s would maintain a four-foot setback on the south side of the property.
Mr. Young inquired if the muntin bar on the casement windows would be a simulated divided light window or a snap in grid. Mr. Knight said that it would be a simulated divided light window. Mr. Young said that the muntin would just be a space bar. Mr. Knight said that was correct but all the windows on the house have been replaced.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the representative for the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Wally Cooper, architect, representing the applicants, was present. He made some corrections to the staff report by saying that the projection would be three feet above the ridgeline rather than four, and the south side yard, even with the addition, would still be about 12 to 15 feet. He said that is the only place where the addition projects outside of the existing footprint.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Wilson led the discussion and asked if the site plans depicted a realistic viewpoint from the front of the house. Mr. Cooper said that the site plans were accurate. He added that the subject property is a very steep site. Mr. Wilson asked if the garage was accessed from an alleyway. Mr. Cooper said that along the north side of the property, there is a very steep driveway that comes up and then goes back into the garage. He emphasized, "Very steep driveway."
• Ms. Rowland asked which dormers the muntin would be added. Mr. Cooper said in all the windows in the addition. Mr. Knight also said the Muntins would be added to the dormers on the front and on the north and south sides.
• Mr. Young asked about the skylights. Mr. Cooper said that low profiled Velux skylights would be used. Mr. Young asked if the applicants would reuse the ones on the rear. Mr. Cooper said they would be new.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the addition would impact the garage door. Mr. Cooper said that it would not.
• Mr. Littig pointed out the retaining wall in the photographs. Mr. Cooper said that there is a four-foot retaining wall across the back of the lot with a six-foot fence on top. Mr. Littig said that some surrounding yards to the subject property have very steep back yards. Mr. Knight noted that the Pignanelli’ s back yard is fairly flat. Mr. Cooper said that the back yard has a five-foot rise, then it rises on a steep slope.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the garage was in front of the retaining wall. Mr. Cooper said that the garage is in front of the retaining wall and about one-fourth of it is tucked back into the hill.
• Mr. Gordon said that according to the photographs it looks like the roof would be about as high as the existing swamp cooler. Mr. Cooper said he thought that was a good point.
Since the Commission had no more questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz 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. Aria Funk, who said that she and her husband owned the property to the north and east of the subject property. She expressed her concern about the increased height on the roof at the back. Ms. Funk said that it was their intention to develop the land with either twin or single-family homes and because the projection would be higher in the back, it would block the view more than if the projection was higher in the front. She asked the Commission to consider changing the roofline of the proposed addition so that it would not higher than the rest of the house. Mr. Parvaz inquired if the addition would comply with the zoning. Mr. Knight said that it would, as stated in the staff report.
In response to the public comment, Mr. Littig inquired if Mr. Cooper had a topographical map of the site. Mr. Cooper said that he did not but he said the height of the addition would still be lower than the garage behind the house because of the slope on the property, but it would be three feet higher than the existing house.
Mr. Parvaz asked if he had a site plan showing the existing garage. Mr. Cooper said that he did not have a section through the site. Mr. Cooper said that the garage is in the very back of the site to the east. He added that the property rises very steeply from the garage up to the next street. Mr. Cooper stated that if the Funks build a multiple unit structure, the view from lower units might be blocked by the higher ridge on the building, but it would still be lower than the existing garage.
Mr. Ashdown asked if this Commission is supposed to consider potential conflict in the future for the height of the building. Mr. Knight said that the City does not zone for views. He added that is difficult to say how the project would fit into the context of the streetscape "if we are only talking about potential buildings". Mr. Cooper said that there were buildings on the street that were much taller than this building would be.
Mr. Parvaz said that there is nothing on the site plans that would show that the addition would be lower than the existing garage. Mr. Knight said that could be verified. He added that the new addition would be well below the allowable maximum height limit of
30 feet.
Mr. Cooper said that he was not insensitive to the public comments and would be happy to meet with the Funks and go over the plans.
Upon hearing no additional requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was no more discussion. Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 008-02 to accept the recommendation from staff and the findings of fact that the project be approved with the condition that the muntin bars on the simulated divided light windows, if a cement fiber siding is used, it would be a smooth finish, rather than a wood grain finish. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 009-02, at 132 So. State Street. By Zions Securities Corporation represented by Kim Hyatt of MHTN Architects, to construct a parking structure behind the historic lobby of the Orpheum Theater, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse". The Orpheum Theater is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Ms. Lew 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 Mr. Kim Hyatt of MHTN Architects, representing Zions Security Corporation, is requesting conceptual approval for the design of a parking structure behind the historic facade and the first approximately 35 feet of the lobby of the Orpheum Theatre, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse." Ms. Lew said that the front of the historic theater will remain intact and be renovated for offices and retail use.
The following is a brief history of the theater: The Orpheum Theatre was constructed in 1905 as the city's first upscale vaudeville theater. Carl Neuhausen, the architect of the Kearns Mansion and St. Ann's Orphanage, designed the structure in the Second Renaissance Revival style. Three separate buildings were designed on the site. The portion of the building fronting State Street contained retail space on the street level with offices above. A narrow corridor that extended from State Street through the middle of the office/retail building served as an access to the theater behind. The theater was linked to a hotel by a shared common wall. Following the decline of vaudeville as a popular form of entertainment the theater was converted to accommodate the motion picture industry in 1918. It served as a movie theater for several decades, until the L.D.S. Church purchased it in 1972 and restored it to its original use. In 1976 the Orpheum Theater was designated to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. The L.D.S Church closed the theater in 1995 and it has been vacant since that time.
Ms. Lew stated that the Historic Landmark Commission last reviewed conceptual drawings for the parking structure at its November 15,2000 meeting where the Commission directed staff to process the application as a demolition request. Ms. Lew reported that on September 5, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the theater and hotel at the rear of the property after reviewing the written report prepared by the designated Economic Review Panel. She added that the Economic Review Panel found that an unreasonable economic hardship would exist for the applicant if required to rehabilitate the building and turn it back into a performance space.
Ms. Lew indicated that the project would also require review by the Planning Commission for conditional use approval. She said that the current plans might be altered as the result of that conditional use review process, so staff indicated that the purpose of this hearing was to obtain the Commission's conceptual approval, and after the project goes through the conditional use process, it would return to the full Commission for final design review.
Ms. Lew explained the proposal in the following manner: The plans show a multi-level brick base structure behind the original facade. The applicant is also proposing an addition, which would extend to the adjacent Zims Building to the south. The entrance to the parking structure would still be located on Orpheum Avenue, but moved closer to the front of the building, which is a change from the plans that were submitted in the Commissioner's packets. Except for the lower level on Plum Alley, the proposed structure would abut the parking garage to the west that extends almost the entire block on Regent Street between 100 and 200 South Streets.
The design of the structure has evolved based on comments received from the Planning Staff, as well as the two meetings with the Architectural Subcommittee. The applicant has had a difficult time trying to address the requirements in the zoning ordinance that requires horizontal floors and not sloped on the Orpheum Avenue facade. At the Architectural Subcommittee on March 13, 2002, the members suggested a number of design solutions and the applicant is now proposing a design that has flattened those areas of the parking ramping on the north side, so the floors will be flat. This solution was revealed after the staff report was written, and the drawings have not been submitted.
Ms. Lew stated that the property is located in a D-1 Central Business District. She noted that the downtown districts are intended to: Provide use, bulk, urban design and other controls and regulations appropriate to the commercial core of the city and adjacent areas in order to enhance employment opportunities; to encourage the efficient use of land; to enhance property values; to improve the design quality of downtown areas; to create a unique downtown center which fosters the arts, entertainment, financial, office, retail and governmental activities; to provide safety and security; encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area; and to help implement adopted plans.
Ms. Lew said that in considering an application for a parking lot or structure, Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance outlines standards that would mitigate negative impacts to the design objectives of the D-1 District. The project should comply with the following general standards:
Section 21A.30.020(3) Restrictions on Parking Lots and Structures.
a. Within block comer areas and on Main Street, parking lots and structures shall be located behind buildings, or at least seventy five from front and corner side lot lines.
b. Within the mid-block areas, parking lots and structures shall conform to the following:
i. Retail goods/service establishments, offices and/or restaurants shall
be provided on the first floor adjacent to the front or comer side lot line. The facades of such first floor shall be compatible and consistent with the associated retail or office portion of the building and other retail uses in the area.
ii. Level of parking above the first level facing the front or comer side lot line shal1 have floors/facades that are horizontal, not sloped.
c. Accessory parking structures built prior to the principal use, and commercial parking structures, shall be permitted as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission.
d. No special restrictions shall apply to belowground parking facilities.
Ms. Lew then addressed Section 21A.30.020(4) Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade within the D-1 Central Business District shall be at least forty percent glass surfaces, except that in the Main Street retail core where this requirement shall be sixty percent.
Ms. Lew also referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure, which states: 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 noncontributing 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;
b. Proportion of principal facades;
c. Roof shape; and
d. Scale of a structure.
Staffs finding of fact: The established context in regards to mass and scale on this block is dominated by the existing multi-level parking structure that runs almost the entire length of Regent Street. New buildings and additions are typically larger than many of the earlier structures and the scale and form of the proposed parking structure falls within the range of building forms found in the area.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of openings;
b. Rhythm of solids to voids in facades;
c. Rhythm of entrance porch and other projections; and
d. Relationship of materials.
Staff's discussion: Although the extension of the building to the south on the principal elevation does not appear to be set back from the front of the original structure, the design is visually subordinate and distinguishable from the historic elements. The solid-to-void ratio is similar to that of the historic portion of the building, but clearly a product of its own time in terms of texture and material. The plans show the lower levels on the west and north elevations as solid brick walls. To improve the parking structure's street presence, staff recommends the Commission encourage pedestrian-oriented design amenities at the street level such as merchandise display windows, landscaping, and compatible building materials. A materials board has not been submitted for the project at this time.
Staff's finding of fact: The conceptual plan does not fully address these standards.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation; and
d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Because the D-1 District does not require a minimum lot area, width or yard requirements, and some blocks are further divided by alleys, a typical "wall of continuity" is not characteristic of the area. Additionally, there is no particular rhythm of spacing and structures on the block because there is no standard lot size. The pattern of openings on the north facade is a continuation of the fenestration of the original building and is in keeping with window patterns seen on historic commercial buildings. The directional expression of the main facade has not changed and is consistent with the area and pedestrian improvements should be required.
4. Subdivision of Lots.
Staff's finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.
Ms. Lew offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds that the proposed project generally meets the requirements of the ordinance in several areas including scale and form, and composition of principal facades. Staff recommends conceptual approval of the design with the condition that following the conditional use process, the project returns to the Historic Landmark Commission for final design approval. Staff recommends the Historic Landmark Commission provide direction to the Planning Commission regarding the treatment of the north elevation and also provide direction to the applicant regarding any outstanding design issues that need to be resolved prior to final design approval."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff. Upon hearing no questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Kim Hyatt, representing the applicant, was present. He introduced Mr. Gary Chaston, Mr. Bruce Clayton, and Mr. Robert Money, with Zions Securities Corporation. Mr. Hyatt used a briefing board to further describe the project.
Mr. Hyatt stated that the two issues with which the applicants had been struggling were trying to relate to the fenestration of what would be left of the theater and revamping the decks on Orpheum Avenue so they would be horizontal rather than sloping. He said that the floor-to-floor heights were lowered so the overall height of the proposed parking structure would be five or six feet lower than the earlier drawings. Mr. Hyatt pointed out that a pedestrian across State Street, would not be able to see the parking garage behind the theater facade. He added that the addition would fill the space between the Zims Building and the subject building, and screen the parking garage from the south.
Mr. Hyatt explained that the stair tower on Plum Alley would be brick with a CMU (Concrete Masonry Unit) wall, which is necessary for a fire rating. He said that Plum Alley is a service alley with no main entrances to buildings.
Mr. Hyatt said that the vehicular entrance to the proposed parking structure was changed to allow more handicapped accessible parking stalls adjacent to the building and to help solve some other functional issues.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking about the setback area that could be used for plantings on the north facade shown on the earlier plans. Mr. Hyatt said that the ordinance requires a five-foot setback. He said that it was uncertain if the below grade parking area would have to be ventilated by ventilations wells or by a mechanical system. However, he said that there should be room for some additional landscaping. Mr. Hyatt pointed out the series of well-developed trees on the north side. He added that one might have to be moved for construction. There was some further discussion regarding the setbacks. Mr. Hyatt explained how the north facade of the proposed building would be stepped back four feet to as much as nine feet. Mr. Hyatt said that vehicles would enter at grade level and drop slightly. He added that the ramping would occur on the turns to an upper floor. Mr. Hyatt pointed out the 42-inch high guardrail wall on the upper most levels of the proposed parking garage. Mr. Parvaz asked about the window openings. Mr. Hyatt said that the window openings would be higher than they would be wide and provide a natural ventilating system. He said that he could not remember the exact dimensions but the sills would be 42 inches high. Mr. Parvaz asked about the material on top. Mr. Hyatt said that it would be architectural pre-cast concrete panels.
Mr. Parvaz focused on the stair tower on Plum Alley. He cautioned Mr. Hyatt that the ends of the concrete slabs should not be left unfinished. Mr. Hyatt said that he would be meeting with the structural engineer because some of these issues have not yet been resolved. Mr. Hyatt discussed the possibility of painting the CMU on the west end of the proposed structure, which would "improve the overall environment on Plum Alley". Mr. Simonsen suggested using a colored CMU rather than using paint that would create a maintenance challenge. Mr. Wilson said that the graffiti would have to be covered with paint anyway. Mr. Hyatt said that portion of the potential building would be fairly protected from the elements. Mr. Parvaz asked if it would be possible to have an opening to the parking from that side. Mr. Hyatt said that it would not because the building would be constructed right at the property line.
• Mr. Young inquired about the State Street facade on the proposed addition. Mr. Hyatt said that the addition would be stepped back to allow a differentiation between the old and new construction. Mr. Wilson said that the contrast between the old and new would be appropriate. Mr. Young talked about a similar parking structure in Denver where the vehicle's headlights and grills could be seen through the windows. Mr. Littig said that the 42-inch wall would hide most bumpers and headlights. Mr. Young made a query about the reuse potential for the bricks on the existing building. Mr. Hyatt said that he did not know what the current market was for used bricks.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the applicant had samples of the proposed materials. Mr. Hyatt said that he did not have any samples at this time, but the new brick color would contrast the existing yellow brick. He also said that the banding, lintels, and the sills would be highlighted by pre-cast concrete. Mr. Hyatt said that clear glass, as well as spandrel glass would be used in the storefronts. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the current drawings do not echo the arches of the original windows, which she liked. Mr. Hyatt said that his intention was not to "mimic history".
• Mr. Littig mentioned that the coursing had also changed. Mr. Hyatt said that he had not paid any attention to that element, but it could be revisited. Mr. Littig talked about the opportunity for an Italianate sort of design on the course. He also said that he liked the earlier drawings of the Orpheum Avenue side showing the arched windows.
• Mr. Ashdown inquired if the elevators would be steel and glass. Mr. Hyatt said that the elevators would mostly be enclosed, with just enough of a window to allow light. He said the same new brick would be used but the demarcation line between the existing and the new would be a different color at that point.
• Mr. Knight pointed out the abrupt end of the cornice on the southern end of the existing theater facade. Mr. Hyatt noted that the cornice had been clipped off, but assured the Commission that it would turn the corner and be finished off with material matching the cornice design.
• Mr. Gordon asked about salvage plans for the foyer. Mr. Chaston said that anything that was salvageable had already been taken out. When Mr. Littig inquired about the display cases that were in the foyer, Mr. Hyatt said that they were removed when the building was extensively remodeled in the 1970s.
• Mr. Wilson stated, "I would just plead one last time to save the theater and I know it's too late, but ten years from now, I hope we all don't regret this."
Ms. Giraud informed the applicants about the documentation requirements and said that she would work with them to accomplishment that documentation.
Mr. Hyatt asked that a conceptual approval be granted and then work with Staff to resolve some of the architectural features and the colors of the materials due to some timing issues. Ms. Giraud said that a conceptual approval would not be final, that procedurally the application would have to return to the full Commission for final approval.
Since the Commission had no questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Ashdown said, "I feel like someone who is going to dress the corpse, I don't want to see the corpse killed anyway" He said that he was struggling with the idea of abstaining or opposing the project because he was not a member of the Commission when the demolition application was reviewed. Mr. Ashdown said, "I feel like I would be contentious in voting no and I am not facilitating these people in moving along with something that is going to happen whether I vote no or not." Mr. Parvaz said that would have to be Mr. Ashdown's choice.
Ms. Giraud stated that the motion has to be based on findings of fact and if Mr. Ashdown planned to make a motion opposing the project, he would have to explain his rationale for objecting to the project. Mr. Ashdown expressed his frustration by saying that he finds the project "reprehensible" based on the demolition of the theater building. Ms. Giraud said that a conceptual approval would be contingent upon the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Giraud reminded the members that the applicant would have an appeal option to the Land Use Appeal's Board where the Historic Landmark Commission would have to justify its decision.
A discussion took place with some members of the Commission expressing his or her opinions on this matter and other related issues.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission grant conceptual approval to Case No.009-02, based on Staff's findings of fact and the new drawings presented at this meeting, subject to the conditions that the project be reviewed once more by the Architectural Subcommittee. Subsequent to the Planning Commission review for a conditional use, the application would return to the full Commission for final approval. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Rowland abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. No second was required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.