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 Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Kevin LoPiccolo, Elizabeth Giraud, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Lee White was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor/Zoning Administrator, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with 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.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
NEW MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen introduced Ms. Paula Carl as a new member of the Historic Landmark
Commission. She was welcomed by the other members and staff.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze stated he wanted to thank Mr. Simonsen, Chairperson, and Ms. Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, along with staff for their contribution when the discussion was continued with City Council regarding the Legislative Action on the Historic Landmark Commission on Thursday, February 17, 2005. He said that he believed the general feeling was that things went very well. Mr. Zunguze reported that staff would be proceeding with budget requests in the Planning Division's budget submittal to the City Council for requests for funding for a preservation plan and to begin the historic surveys. He said that he would be working with the Administration on this matter.
Mr. Zunguze announced that he would be assuming the position of Director of Salt Lake City's Community Development Department. He added that he would still be the Acting Planning Director until someone is hired for that position. Mr. Zunguze said that any support that could be provided to him would be appreciated. He noted that as head of the Department, he would continue to support the Historic Landmark Commission and the preservation program that the Planning Staff will continue to carry out.
Mr. Simonsen stated, 'We trust that the new Planning Director will be mindful of preservation issues and we commend you on your new duties. We will miss seeing you as frequently as we have but we will continue to interact with you in your new position.”
The entire Commission extended their congratulations to Mr. Zunguze for his advancement and wished him well.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2005 meeting, after a small correction. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted “Aye”. Ms. Carl and Mr. Fitzsimmons abstained. Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 002-05. by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, represented by Dell R. Cook, Landscape Architect, and Bill Gould of Pasker. Gould. Ames. and Weaver Architects. requesting approval for a new concession building and associated site work immediately west of 600 East in Liberty Park. Liberty Park is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recon1mendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
The following is an overview of the project:
This is a proposal by the Salt Lake City Engineering Division requesting approval to construct a new concession building in Liberty Park. The entire park is listed as Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Liberty Park sits on land that was originally on the outskirts of Salt Lake City. The land was subdivided in the “Big Field” Survey of 1847, which distributed farming plots to the first settlers of the Salt Lake Valley. Isaac Chase was the first owner of this plot of land; he built his house, which now houses the Utah State Folk Arts Program, and a gristmill, which also still stands. Brigham Young obtained the property from Isaac Chase in 1860. His estate sold the land to Salt Lake City for development of a city park in 1881. The park opened on June 17, 1882, which was the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Landmark Design and the City Parks Division completed a major scoping plan for the park in 1998. There was extensive public input during this process, the general tone of which was that there should not be major changes made to Liberty Park, but that the physical infrastructure was in need of major maintenance. The Historic Landmark Commission echoed this stance when the scoping plan was presented to the Commission on April 15, 1998. Over the past seven years, most of the goals of the scoping plan have been achieved.
The original plan contemplated renovating the concession building (Item “A7”} under “Proposed Improvements,” but upon further consideration, the Public Services Department has determined that a new concession building would better serve the needs of park users. The City would like to encourage more year-around use of the venues in the southern half of the park, such as the upcoming gazebo in the pond and expanded services of the Tracy Aviary, and an improved concession building is needed to accommodate larger crowds. The larger space of the proposed concession building (3,400 sq. ft., versus the 1,440 sq. ft. of the existing concession building}, coupled with sufficient kitchen space and a space for indoor, year-around dining, could further the goals of expanded use of the park.
The plan describes its approach to the architecture of new buildings in the park as follows:
The plan also proposes that all new buildings be designed to respectfully acknowledge and relate to their older neighbors without copying their architecture verbatim. That is, the new buildings should be compatible but contemporary products of their own time.
Compatibility can be achieved by repeating in contemporized ways the heights, proportions, forms, materials, details, and colors found in the historic structures. For example, all of the existing buildings are one or two stories above ground. The new buildings designed for the Park should also be limited to these heights. The historic buildings mostly employ masonry (stone, brick and adobe) in their exterior walls, although wood siding is prevalent in a few smaller structures. The new design calls for rock-faced block (a modern visual equivalent for stone) and brick. The older buildings had either gable or hip roofs, with the exception of the Chase Mill's rare clerestory monitor. To enhance compatibility, the new buildings also should feature hip roofs. Compatibility of window orientation, massing and details have also been considered in the design of new buildings. (Page 4 of the Liberty Park Landscape Scoping Project).
Non-Contributing Status of the Existing Concession Building.
The Engineering Division supplied archived plans of the existing concession building. While the Engineering Division staff does not have complete certainty that these plans correspond to the existing structure, the shape and size of the building lead the staffs of both Engineering and Planning to the conclusion that the archived plans represent the subject property. The plans indicate the concession building was constructed in 1938. After Planning Division staff checked the plans against the existing appearance of the building in situ, the Planning Division Director, Mr. Louis Zunguze, made the determination that the building is noncontributing, due to the lack of original physical integrity. (See attached letter, Exhibit 1}.
As per the requirements of Chapter 21A.10.020(F} of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Notice for Application for Demolition of a Non-Contributing Structure, the Planning Division Staff notified the members of the Historic Landmark Commission and surrounding property owners of the proposed demolition of the existing concession building on February 14, 2005. If no comments are received by March 1, 2005, the Public Services Department can demolish the structures, provided the Historic Landmark Commission has approved plans for a new structure or landscaping, and that all building code requirements have been met and demolition permits secured.
The proposed new concession building has a steeply-pitched cross-gable roof, sheathed with asphalt shingles. The east and west elevations are punctuated with three gables that shelter various functions of the building: walk-up windows for food, interior service areas, and sit-down dining space. The proposed materials are 8” split-faced CMU (concrete masonry unit) for the walls, cobblestones for the supporting piers, and aluminum window frame systems. Although noted in the drawings, flags are not proposed to be flown from the gables. Similar to the recent tennis building, public restrooms can be accessed separately from the exterior of the proposed building, and will be located on the south end of the proposed building.
Because the proposed concession building will be in a prominent, visible area of the park, within the vicinity of the park's most significant and historic structures, and because the proposed concession building will be a permanent structure with year-around use, the Planning Division Staff determined that the proposed construction merited full Historic Landmark Commission review.
In considering the proposed work of constructing a new concession building and associated site work, the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on the following section of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure:
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing 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 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. 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 proposed building is similar in height to nearby buildings found along 600 East, such as the Chase Mill (32'), the Chase House (28'), and the greenhouse (17'). The height of the proposed building is 28,’7’ less than the 35' required by the zoning ordinance in this zoning district (OS- Open Space). The square footage of the proposed concession building is 3,400 sq. ft., comparable to the square footage of the footprint of the Chase House (2,550 sq. ft.) and the Chase Mill (2,000 sq. ft.), and smaller than the greenhouse (8,300 sq. ft.). The width of the proposed building is broken by the strong vertical elements of the cross gables, and the width is not unduly wide in proportion to the height of the building. The proportion of the principal facades and the shape of the roof are consistent with buildings in the park, particularly the nearby Chase Mill and House, and do not overpower or detract from the natural features of the park. The long vista of 600 East is ample enough to absorb the appearance of the proposed concession building.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding 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 and the proportions of solids and voids are typical of concession design, and relate to the ·function of the use of the structure. The materials for the new building are in keeping with materials used for other new buildings in the park, such as the three public restrooms constructed in 2000, and also evoke historic elements of park structures, such as the arbors near 700 East. The proposed projections for restrooms, dining and walk-up service, are in proportion to the building and will have a negligible effect on the streetscape of 600 East.
Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.
Staff's discussion: The proposed building replaces a structure that dates to the late 1930's, and will be one of several structures found along 600 East within the confines of the park. The buildings, including the greenhouse, the Chase House and the Chase Mill, represent various historical phases of the park's development and have been adaptively reused for purposes other than their original use. The alignment of the buildings on 600 East provide a formal, if spread out, “spine” of structures used for a variety of functions and venues within the park. They provide a visual, historical and functional “wall of continuity for park users. The new building will continue this “relationship” within the park and along 600 East. Although the new building will be approximately 2,000 square feet larger than the existing concession building, the length of 600 East is four blocks, and the nearby structures are far enough away that the existing visual relationship between the concession building, the Chase Mill and the greenhouse will be maintained. The directional expression of the proposed new building will be altered, as its east wall will no longer be parallel to the 600 East pedestrian way. It will be rotated slightly to the southeast, in order to orient it to the dock, proposed new gazebo and lake. Pedestrian improvements, such as new paving materials from the dock to the merry-go-round as indicated on the site plan, are not part of this review. They have been put on hold due to budget constraints.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed new structure is consistent with the standards in terms of walls of continuity and rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. It differs from the footprint of the existing building and from other structures on 600 East in orientation, but the scale of the park is large enough to absorb this change, and the building is small enough not to disrupt the alignment of structures along this axis of the park. Proposed streetscape-pedestrian improvements have been delayed because of budget shortfalls. The applicant meets the standards of this section of the zoning code.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The Planning Director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a Landmark Site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: This standard is not applicable to the proposal, as no subdivision of lots is required.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: “Based upon the preceding findings of fact, staff recommends approval of the project as proposed. Staff further recommends that the Commission delegate to staff approval of any minor revisions that may be necessary as part of the completion of construction drawings for this project.”
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the guidelines classified the pedestrian walk way in the same vane as the street when the relationship to street was discussed in the staff report. Ms. Giraud said that she classified the relationship in the same manner as when 600 East was originally the main thoroughfare for the park. She noted that since about 1980, the pedestrian access has been in existence. Mr. Simonsen said that the pedestrian access is clearly a right-of-way with strong lines of site. He said that it was necessary to clarify that the definition of the pedestrian way in the staff report was the same as the street. Ms. Giraud pointed out that she did not relate the pedestrian walk way to 700 or 500 East Streets.
Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Dell R. Cook, Landscape Architect, representing the City Engineer Division, was present. He introduced Mr. Gaylord Smith, one of the project managers, and Mr. Oat Phan, both with the City Engineer Division, and Mr. Bill Gould of Pasker, Gould, Ames, and Weaver Architects, the consultant working on the team with this project. Mr. Cook also introduced Mr. Ron Love, who is with the City's Public Services Department, is involved with the environmental issues and contracts with the concessionaire.
Mr. Cook used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He said that it was the desire of the City to give the concessions in the park a longer scheduled use and broaden the ability of the concessionaire to do business. He made the point that it was important not to disrupt the concessionaire any more than necessary; a temporary trailer would be used during the construction. Mr. Cook indicated that he knew that all the site issues had not been addressed as yet, and the concerns would be handled at a later time.
Mr. Cook said that it was also the City's desire that the proposed building would become a focal point, stand out, and become the “heart” of the park in the amusement area. He pointed out that the building is oriented on the site as proposed so there would be a clear surveillance by the concessionaire of the boat docks, the boats, and the planned gazebo (construction should begin this year). Mr. Cook pointed out the functional requirement and the fact that the building would create an interest. He indicated that he did not believe that the pedestrian walk way should be conceived any more as the old street known as 600 East, but as a major thoroughfare, arcade, or promenade through the park.
Mr. Cook stated that the children's garden does not meet any of the safety requirements. He indicated that a site plan would be reviewed in the future that would tie together all the amusements rides, the boat dock, and what is intended to be done with the children's garden, which has not been funded yet. He added that he was trying to get the proposed building going so if the funding came, the time frame would be met.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Fitzsimmons led the discussion regarding the proposed site of the project by pointing out that the applicant wanted to maintain the visual corridor on the pedestrian walk way but the corner of the building, at the proposed location, would interrupt that visual corridor. Mr. Fitzsimmons talked about not placing the building on a diagonal. There was some discussion as the site plan was viewed. Mr. Cook stated that the proposed site had limited space due to an existing nonfunctional bridge close by, which has no value except historical, that would be in the way if the building was turned. He mentioned that there is an old elm tree that encroaching the bridge that should be taken out. Mr. Cook believed that being able to see the concession building in that view corridor would be a positive thing. He alluded to the dissidence within the bigger context of the park. Mr. Cook said that the concession building would stand out and have a dominant function in the park. Mr. Fitzsimmons also inquired if the concession facility would be expanded to have outdoor dining. Mr. Cook said that the area would be expanded which would include a plaza, outside dining, and a potential for an ice skating rink. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the site was large enough for that kind of activity. Mr. Cook said that by renovating the children's garden, the area would be large enough.
• Ms. Carl said that many people use the park all year long and the concession stand would only be the focal point during the summer months. She noted that a lot of people walk up and down that promenade. Mr. Cook said that he hoped to make the concession building become a year-around operation and the high point of the park. He said that he also hoped that every child in the city would want to have his or her birthday party at Liberty Park because of the function of the concession facility. Ms. Carl inquired if the proposed building would be rotated back on access with all the other buildings, what hardship would entail. Mr. Cook said that the major hardship that he perceived would be the limited visibility to monitor the amusement rides, the lake and the boat dock.
• Mr. Simonsen pointed out that there was some discussion on the field trip about the orientation of the proposed concession building that was disconcerting. He added that not having the benefit of understanding what the long-term plans were, the Commissioners are trying to comprehend why this specific orientation is proposed which is quite a deviation from tradition along the pedestrian walk way. Mr. Simonsen asked if there was a formal geometry that is driving the orientation of the proposed concession building. Mr. Cook once again explained that a dominant location would be formed by making the proposed building stand out, thus, creating an area directed towards the lake uses such as the boat dock, the boats, and the gazebo, as well as the amusement rides which are on that same access. He continued by saying that the concessionaire would have better visibility to monitor those kinds of activities. Mr. Simonsen asked if there was any flexibility in that specific alignment. Mr. Cook noted that there could be some flexibility but it would conflict with the idea of the concession building being a dominant feature in the park by rotating it. He added that he did not believe the visual alignment of the proposed building would interfere with any other building in the park.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the theory that was behind making the proposed concession building be the dominant feature in the park. Mr. Cook said that it would be the heart of the park because it would be where one could buy food; the only place in the park where anything could be purchased. Mr. Cook made a point of saying that there are many facilities in the park that stand on their own with their individuality, such as the tennis courts, the swimming pool, the youth and family center, the aviary, and others and would not be encumbered by the project at all. He added that in his opinion, the building should be a dominant feature for people coming to the park for refreshments or using the other facilities associated with the concession building like the children's garden. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was a matter of “family philosophy because it would be the last place her children would have gone in the park”. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would be helpful if Mr. Cook could provide a site plan showing a larger view of the proposed location.
• Mr. Ashdown referred to the zoning ordinance where it states that the new building shall be visually compatible with the other structures, and in his opinion the proposed building would be based on a 30-degree access with the gazebo, and the rides. Mr. Ashdown said that he looks at those elements as being on the horizontal access. He added that the building should be perpendicular to the pedestrian walk way. Mr. Cook said that the idea was to create an entirely different line of visibility and once the paving, site furnishings, and the landscaping is in, on that new access, they would relate to the concession building and be totally understandable. Mr. Ashdown said that he understood the architectural motivation for the diagonal approach, but the Commission is bound by the ordinance.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons focused on the back area behind the building and inquired if that area would be utilized for dining and for the food concession. He added that on a busy day, people will be lined up and down the walk way and all around the building. Mr. Gould said that the concessions will be sold out of the north end of the proposed building. Mr. Cook said that the dining area would be enclosed during the winter months and in the summer time, the doors would be opened. Mr. Cook said that the area is very shaded and will have tables and there would be some sheltered space, as well. He believed that most of the people would be congregating in the shaded area, after they pick their food up from the concession windows. Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if an alternative floor plan had been developed. Mr. Cook said that after much study of the site, the plan that is before the Commission is the plan that was developed. He believed that the orientation and the floor plan would make a very functional building. Mr. Cook said that the building could be shifted back and some of the columns would have to be changed, but then it would not have the dominance that is desired.
• Ms. Heid asked where the ticket sales would be occurring in the proposed building. After Mr. Gould pointed that area out on the site plan, which would be concession windows, the Ms. Heid expressed concern that during the busy times, there would be much congestion around the building therefore creating a potential of obstructing the walk way. Mr. Gould said that there will be pavement between the amenities and he said that he could foresee that there would be room for people to congregate.
The discussion continued regarding the proposed building and how it could be utilized the year around. Mr. Gould said that he was happy that there has been so much discussion about the access of the proposed building. He explained once more how the concessionaire would have a better visibility of the boat dock, the lake, the gazebo, and the amusement rides and why that would be necessary to monitor those sites.
Mr. Zunguze pointed out that the Commission had to abide by the zoning ordinance and asked Mr. Cook if he was locked in the orientation of the proposed building. Mr. Cook said that he could not say he was locked in and said that he had been working with the concessionaire who apparently has more knowledge of what occurs on the site because of the length of time the concessionaire has been there.
Mr. Simonsen said that since there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the orientation of the building, he suggested moving onto the design and materials of the proposed building.
• Mr. Christensen directed his question to the building materials and asked Mr. Gould to describe the look of the building and the proposed colors of the materials, such as the colors of the aluminum around the windows, asphalt shingles, and the CMU.
Mr. Gould displayed samples of the proposed materials for the new building. He described the planned building by saying that there would be a lot of glass including a glass door. He said that split concrete block with contrasting color, exposed, slightly concaved, mortar joints would be the primary building material, with natural stonework on the pillars, concrete caps, and an asphalt shingle roof. Mr. Gould said that the building would look similar in style and color to the new restroom facility.
• Mr. Ashdown suggested putting in additional windows on the east elevation or rearranging the windows and the door to give the concessionaire more visibility. There was some discussion about that issue.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session.
A lengthy discussion pursued. Some members of the Commission expressed their concerns about the orientation of the proposed building.
Ms. Carl did not believe the concession facility should be the focal point of the park. She also said the orientation of the building would interrupt the rhythm of the traditional 600 East promenade and there was not enough justification to allow that disruption in the historic nature of the park. Ms. Carl said that she liked the building and she could not see where there would be a hardship to rotate the building a little so it would be “square with the world”. She said that the building, as proposed, would interrupt the landscape mass.
Mr. Ashdown once again referred to the standards in the zoning ordinance by which the Commission has to follow for compatibility, directional expression, principal elevation, and the orientation to the street, public ways, and places. He said that he had difficulty seeing any public way or place in the park that would relate to the orientation of the proposed building.
Mr. Simonsen said that this was difficult to review because the guidelines are written generally addressing a streetscape that may have multiple buildings set at a fairly close proximity and this application has intermittently spaced buildings, some of which have no relationship to the line of the proposed concession building.
Mr. Parvaz believed that the orientation of the building would disregard the wall of continuity of the old aviary gate, the Chase Home to the pedestrian walk way, even though those structures are farther away. He noted that the line of continuity would change with the orientation of the proposed building. Mr. Parvaz said that he did not think there was justification for that change. He also said that the main access of the park is the pedestrian walk way. Mr. Parvaz stated that there are two issues of review on the application, which are that the pedestrian walk way and the wall of continuity has been disregarded.
Mr. Christensen said that he believed the architect and all those involved should be commended for designing the proposed structure to read as a modern building but would have elements that speak to the older part of the park. He said that the existing building follows the same plane as the pedestrian walk way, which may possibly set precedence. Mr. Christensen also believed that the Commission would have to justify the orientation of the proposed building more strongly than what the staff report reveals. He added that the park definitely has a north/south access.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he believed one of the defining characteristics of the park is the north/south access. He did not believe that trying to recreate where the center of the park would be is not part of the ordinance. Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that he did not think the center of the park should be the cornmerciaI enterprise. He said that he believed the application failed to meet some of the criteria in the ordinance. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that one could argue that the pedestrian walk way is no longer a street, but it represents the heritage of the place and the “spine” that binds everything together. He suggested designing a building that could be stepped back, not sit on an angle, and still be able to monitor the activities of the amenities.
Mr. Simonsen recommended that the Commission make specific findings if they differ from staff's, what defines the wall of continuity, and any other pertinent issues regarding this application.
First motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 002-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission denies the application as proposed based on Section 21A.34.020(H)(3)(a and c) walls of continuity and directional expression. Further, the proposed structure would be close enough to the aviary gate, the Chase Home, and the greenhouse.
After a short discussion, the motion died due to the lack of a second.
Second motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 002-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission approves the architecture and materials of the proposed building, but does not approve the orientation of the building as submitted based on Section 21A.34.020(H)(3)(a and c) walls of continuity and directional expression of principal elevation.
After further discussion, Mr. Ashdown withdrew his motion.
Final motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved to table and continue Case No. 001-05 to the next meeting giving the applicant an opportunity to address the following concerns of the Historic Landmark Commission regarding Title 21A.34.020(H):
(3)(a) Walls of Continuity: According to the discussion, the setback of the proposed structure shall be consistent with the other structures, public ways, and places to ensure visual compatibility.
(3)(c) Directional Expression and Principal Elevation: According to the discussion, 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. The proposed structure oriented diagonally to the main access is not acceptable.
Ms. Carl seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
It was noted that the next meeting would be held March 16, 2005.
OTHER BUSINESS
Land Use Appeals Board.
Mr. LoPiccolo announced that the decision made by the Historic Landmark Commission for Case No. 001-05 that was reviewed at the February 2, 2005 meeting was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board. He said that he would keep the Commission updated on the date and the time that case would be heard.
Mr. Christensen mentioned that the question was asked at that meeting if the applicant could continue to build his project if an appeal was submitted. Mr. LoPiccolo stated that the property owner, who is the applicant, was asked to delay any type of construction until after the appeal's process was completed.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about the basis of the appeal. Mr. LoPiccolo said that the appellant has several issues such as the compatibility and a substandard lot. He noted that the appellant believed that the Commission had made an error in making its determination based on staff's recommendation and per the design standards in the zoning ordinance. He said that all the concerns would be addressed in the staff report that will be presented to the Land Use Appeals Board.
Recognition of a member whose term had expired.
In behalf of the entire Commission, Mr. Simonsen extended appreciation to Amy Rowland for her service on the Historic Landmark Commission. He praised Ms. Rowland because she served beyond the expiration of her term and wished her well in her future endeavors.
Mr. Zunguze presented a plaque to Ms. Rowland and thanked her for her service and contribution to the Commission.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:15P.M.