SALT LAKE CITY
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was cancelled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, and Mark Wilson were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Wayne Gordon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Gordon asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2000 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the September 6, 2000 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the September 20, 2000 meeting. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the October 18, 2000 meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion, after a small correction. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 025-00, at 459 North Main Street, by Leo Adams, requesting to construct an attached garage and addition to a single-family home in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report, on behalf of Nelson Knight, 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.
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Adams has requested an approval to build a two-story garage and family room/bedroom addition of approximately 1,111 gross square feet (788 square feet on the main level and 326 in the basement). She said that the house was constructed in 1937 by Gordon L. and Beatrice P. Willis, and is a typical depression-era "Cape Cod" cottage. Ms. Giraud said that the property is zoned SR-1, special pattern residential district, which allows for single family and two family homes.
Ms. Giraud reported that Mr. Adams originally presented this proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee in June 1999. She said that Mr. Adams currently owns the house, but does not live there. She added that he would like to move into the house, but must renovate the house to accommodate the needs of Mrs. Adams, who is disabled. Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Adams proposes an attached, one car garage, with extra width to accommodate wheelchair loading and unloading. She said that he also proposes an accessible family room and attached bathroom behind the garage. Ms. Giraud noted that Mr. Adams worked with the architects at ASSIST, the community design center, to plan the necessary changes to the interior to accommodate the needs of Ms. Adams.
Ms. Giraud said that the members of the Architectural Subcommittee felt that in this case an attached garage was acceptable because of the owners' special needs and the difficulty in meeting these needs through other design options. She said that the members encouraged Mr. Adams to lessen the impact of the garage by modifying the proposed roofline to create a visual break between the existing and new portions of the house. Ms. Giraud added that they also encouraged Mr. Adams to reduce the amount of driveway concrete by using turf block in the center section of the driveway.
Ms. Giraud stated that Staff issued an approval of the project on August 2, 1999, but Mr. Adams was unable to begin work on the project within the subsequent one-year lime limit, so this approval expired on August 2, 2000. She said that in the meantime, Mr. Adams has been working with the City's Zoning and Transportation staff to obtain their approvals for the project. Ms. Giraud noted that because of the steep slope of both the property and the adjacent street, the Transportation Division would not allow the straight driveway that Mr. Adams proposed, so Mr. Adams changed the access of the driveway to the north end of the property, and enlarged the driveway to allow for a turnaround in the front yard. She stated that Mr. Adams proposes to retain the existing parking pad on the north side of the house. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Adams presented these changes to staff in August of 2000. She stated the following: "Given the dramatic change to the driveway, and given that Commission policy has recently changed to require full commission review of projects such as these, Staff referred the application to the full Commission."
Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this case on September 20, 2000 and the Commission passed the following motion at the meeting: "Mr. Young moved to table Case No. 025-00 and referred the applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee for refinement of details as expressed in the staff's findings of fact, which includes the siting, looking at the parking and driveway widths on the east side of the building. Further that the site plans have some detail between the garage addition and the front of the house, and the drawings show some indication of separation between the two. Also, that the existing shed be included on the site plans, as an existing feature. The proposal is to return to the full Commission for approval."
Ms. Giraud stated the following: "Mr. Adams subsequently met with the Architectural Subcommittee three times, on September 27, October 10, and October 25, 2000 where considerable discussions took place on the location of the addition in relation to the original house, the configuration and location of the driveway, and the details of the proposed addition. The members of the Subcommittee and staff helped Mr. Adams correct the discrepancies and errors on the drawings that were making review of his concept difficult.
• "The Architectural Subcommittee reviewed a number of options on the placement of the garage in relation to the original house. Mr. Adams' proposal was for the front of the garage to project out twelve feet from the front of the existing house. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and members of the Architectural Subcommittee expressed reservations about allowing a garage that projected so far out front wall of the original house. The Subcommittee explored options that would have shifted the addition to the back of the building. Mr. Adams did not find any of these options desirable because they either entailed removing the existing shed behind the house or they increased the costs of the project. Mr. Adams also intends to use the existing window openings in the south wall for the door openings of the addition, and he would like the stairs to the addition's attic to line up with the existing stairs to the basement.
"The Subcommittee eventually settled on a seven-foot projection, because it was the projection on the project that was approved by the Architectural Subcommittee and staff in 1999. Mr. Adams submitted revised drawings with a seven-foot projection. When the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed these drawings at the next meeting, it became apparent that Mr. Adams would not be able to fit his lift-equipped van into the garage with the seven-foot projection. Members agreed to recommend a ten-foot projection in order to accommodate the van."
Ms. Giraud stated that staff spoke with Barry Walsh of the City Transportation Division after the September 20, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting and he provided some additional clarification of the driveway location. She said that Mr. Walsh commented that the existing grades in the front yard would allow a "straight shot" driveway directly from the garage to the street. Ms. Giraud noted that Mr. Adams has submitted one site plan proposal with a "straight shot" configuration. However, she said that he would prefer to construct a revised version of the curving driveway originally proposed. She said that he has reduced the total amount of concrete proposed for the front yard, but he would like to keep the parking pad on the north side of the house because it would provide for one additional off-street parking place. Ms. Giraud said that both proposals provide for access with a ramp from the front door. She said that staff still has reservations about the amount of concrete in the front yard. She added that the straight shot driveway would allow more of the yard to be landscaped, and the landscaping would be contiguous, instead of divided up as with the curving driveway. Ms. Giraud concluded that in either case, allowing Mr. Adams to keep his existing parking pad on the north side of the house is excessive. She said that staff believed the north driveway and drive approach should be removed and the yard landscaped if the new driveway is constructed.
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Adams changed the windows shown on the drawings to the size and styles recommended by staff in the Historic Landmark Commission staff report. She said that Mr. Adams proposed to use wood shingles as the primary materials on the addition, that this would provide a visual separation between the old and new portions of the building. Ms. Giraud said that staff believes that such a material change, especially using the unfinished shingles that Mr. Adams proposes, would be too jarring visually. She added the change in roofline would provide enough visual clues to distinguish the old and new portions of the building if siding to match the existing house is used on the addition.
• Ms. Giraud talked about that the numerous discrepancies and errors on the drawings have caused considerable frustration for the applicant, staff and the Historic Landmark Commissioners.
Ms. Giraud stated that in light of the dialogue that has taken place in the Architectural Subcommittee between staff, the applicant, and the members of the subcommittee, staff has revised its previous findings to the following:
Staff's findings of fact: Given the constraints of the topography of this lot, and the needs of the applicant, an attached garage is acceptable in this case. The ten-foot projection of the garage in front of the house is acceptable only because of the need to adapt the house to meet the special needs of the applicant. The proposed concrete driveway has been reduced to the minimum required by Salt Lake City ordinance, based on the constraints of the lot, and the needs of the applicant. This case should not be seen as a precedent setting case. The special needs of the applicant and the topography of the lot have necessitated deviating from typical preservation practices. The full commission should review future requests of this type on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "If the Historic Landmark Commission is satisfied that the issues identified in the previous Historic Landmark Commission meeting and the Architectural Subcommittee meetings have been met by the applicant's proposal, then staff recommends approval of the application with the following provisions: 1) that the garage shall project a maximum of ten feet from the front of the existing building; 2) that the "straight shot" driveway be approved; 3) that the existing north parking pad and drive approach should be removed and the yard area landscaped; 4) that the proposed garage door should be wood; and 5) that the light fixtures flanking the garage door should be a more historically compatible design than those shown on the submitted drawings.
Mr. Leo Adams, the applicant, was present. He stated that there was an error on Site Plan A-1, Revision No. 2, that accompanied the staff report. Mr. Adams said that the driveway depicted on that plan has too sharp of an angle coming out of the garage and he would be backing out onto the grassy area. Mr. Adams circulated copies of the revised site plan showing the proposed driveway configuration, a copy of which was attached to these minutes.
Mr. Adams said that one other item he needs to discuss is the note by Barry Walsh of Transportation that states, "Due to the grade and reduced road width, onsite parking should be encouraged to improve traffic safety". Mr. Adams said that the street is 22 feet, which is much narrower than ordinary residential streets. Mr. Adams talked about the need for off-street parking and that he wanted to use the existing driveway for that purpose. He said that there is a honeysuckle hedge that screens the existing driveway so it is not very visible from the street. Mr. Adams talked about some automobile accidents on that part of Main Street due to the poor visibility.
Mr. Adams described the advantages for both his wife and him to be able to drive the van with the wheelchair lift into the proposed garage and how his wife would be able to access the basement level of the proposed addition.
• Ms. Coffey stated that from a zoning standpoint, the parking is required to be behind the house, but this case could be a special exception because of the needs of Ms. Adams and the topography of the property.
Ms. Coffey also mention that Mr. Adams would be allowed to have, what is called a "mother-in-law" apartment in the basement, as long as a relative uses it. She noted that if the house is ever sold, it could not be considered a duplex unless there would be a zoning review because of the parking issues.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by questioning the ten-foot requirement for the width of the driveway. He talked about reconfiguring the driveway by making it a little rounded so it would be more appealing. Mr. Adams said that he "wasn't fussy" as long as he would not have to back onto the grass. The size of the proposed driveway was discussed. Mr. Little said that he believed the driveway would have to be at least 16 or 17 feet wide for two vehicles to be parked side by side. There also was some discussion regarding the previously proposed circular driveway. Mr. Littig asked about the length of the proposed driveway. Mr. Adams said that it would be 51 feet, which would not include the front sidewalk. Mr. Littig made some suggestions as he discussed the proposed garage and recommended using turf block for the new driveway.
• Mr. Christensen noted that the plans show that the garage door would be a 12- foot wide single garage door. Mr. Adams said that the garage door would be 13 feet wide. Mr. Christensen asked what kind of siding would be used on the exterior of the proposed garage and addition. Mr. Adams said that he proposes to use a wood siding.
• Mr. Parvaz stated that one of the concerns that the staff pointed out was to minimize the amount of concrete surface on the property. Ms. Giraud said that the pavement of the existing driveway was brick and that it has an "old world/European" look to it.
• Ms. Mickelsen talked about the zoning issues of having the second driveway on the property. Mr. Adams said that he discussed this matter with Mr. Walsh who said that the driveways could be allowed if they were at least 12 feet apart. Ms. Coffey said that the driveway approaches would have to be separated. She said that in the Capitol Hill Master Plan, there was much written about the steepness of the slope and the difficulty automobiles have on icy roads. Ms. Mickelsen inquired if there would be a problem accessing the driveway if it was only 12 feet wide. Mr. Adams said that it might create some problems for his wife but said that Mr. Walsh believed that would be sufficient. The discussion continued relative to this issue.
• Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any Historic Landmark Commission policies or guidelines that would prohibit the applicant from using the existing driveway. Ms. Giraud said that she did not know any that would prevent that use.
There was further discussion regarding the revised site plan that Mr. Gordon referred to as the "Barry Plan".
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, said that she would like to speak briefly about the "underlying issue". She stated the following: "As far as the viability of the Capitol Hill Historic District is concerned, it is very important to keep homeowners on their property, rather than renting their homes or dividing them into smaller apartments. The biggest issue for all of us is the parking many people do not have off-street parking and that becomes an overwhelming issue Adding driveways and garages in the front of homes in the area takes away some historic ambience, but it also helps to keep people living in their homes That is a major issue. In conclusion, Ms. Mangold encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to work with homeowners as much as possible to find solutions that would enable people to stay in their homes.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission had "poured over this one now for a couple of months and I think Mr. Adams has made reasonable attempts to try to work with the Architectural Subcommittee and the Historic Landmark Commission".
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 025-00 that the site plan on which Mr. Barry Walsh's note of 11/14/2000 appears, as the approved site plan, as well as other appropriate architectural drawing. This approval is based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact with the exception that the owner be allowed to maintain the use of the existing driveway on the north side of the property, provided that the applicant does not pave that driveway with concrete in the future. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion.
After some discussion, the motion was amended.
Amended motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 025-00 that the site plan on which Mr. Barry Walsh's note of 11/1412000 appears, as the approved site plan, as well as other appropriate architectural drawing. This approval is based on staff's recommendation and findings of fact with the exception that the owner be allowed to maintain the use of the existing driveway on the north side of the property, provided that the applicant does not pave that driveway with concrete in the future. Further, that a single, double width, garage door be allowed due to the constraints of the site. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 029-00, at 720 North Wall Street, by Sean Railton, requesting to apply vinyl siding to a non-contributing apartment building. This case was resolved so it was cancelled.
Case No. 030-00, at 369 South Main Street, by Ron Hosveth, requesting to install a sign for II All Types Check Cashing" on the building known as the New Grand Hotel.
This case was resolved so it was cancelled.
Case No. 028-00, at 132 South State, by Zions Securities Corporation, represented by Kent Gibson and Robert Money, to discuss plans to demolish the rear portion of the Orpheum Theater, also known as the "Promised Valley Playhouse", and construct a multi-story parking structure behind the original lobby. The Historic Landmark Commission will determine whether to process this case as a "major alteration" or a "demolition" of a Landmark Site. Public comment may be taken on this issue.
Ms. Giraud 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.
Ms. Giraud said that Zions Security Corporation is requesting an opportunity to discuss the possibility of demolishing a major portion of the Orpheum Theater, also known as "Promised Valley Playhouse", and replacing it with a multi-level parking structure. She said that the easternmost approximately 35 feet, including the three bays on the north elevation, would remain and be reused as retail on the first story and office space on the second and third stories.
Ms. Giraud said that this item was placed on the October 18, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission agenda, and was presented by staff as a "major alteration" after reviewing a partial demolition case on the Rowland Hall-St. Mark's campus in 1997 (Case 005- 97). A description of this case was included in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud reported that those representing Zions Securities Corporation wanted an opportunity to discuss the proposed plans, informally, with the members of the Historic Landmark Commission before a determination was made to consider the application as a "major alteration" or as a "demolition" of a significant site. Ms. Giraud said, 'This responsibility falls under the review of the Historic Landmark Commission and has significant implications for the applicant."
Ms. Giraud described the proposal in the following manner: "The attached plans portray a multi-level parking garage, between five and six stories, faced with brick. Stairwells would connect the remaining portion of the theater with the parking garage at the east end of the garage. Vehicle access would be on Orpheum Avenue at the west end of the garage. The proposed structure would abut the existing multi-level parking garage that extends almost the entire block of Regent Street between 100 and 200 South Streets."
Ms. Giraud stated that the reused section of the building would provide frontage on State Street for the parking garage, thus conforming to the clause in Section 21A.30.020 requiring parking garages in a D-1 zone to be located behind principal buildings.
Ms. Giraud reported that the Orpheum Theater was listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources in 1976. She noted that the purpose of a D-1 Central Business District zone is 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; encourage permitted residential uses within the downtown area, and to help implement adopted plans." Ms. Giraud added that the applicant must also apply for a conditional use because the parking garage would front a dedicated street, Orpheum Avenue, on the north side of the property [Section 21A.30.020(D)(3)(c)].
Ms. Giraud stated that the submitted plans would have to be altered to conform to the zoning code that requires, "levels of parking above the first level facing the front or corner side Jot line shall have floors-facades that are horizontal, not sloped", [Section 21A.30.020(D)(3)(b)(ii)].
Ms. Giraud gave the following history of the building: "The Orpheum theater was constructed in 1905 as the city's first high-quality vaudeville theater. Carl Neuhausen, the architect of the Kearns mansion and St. Ann's Orphanage, designed the theater in the Second Renaissance Revival style. Originally the portion considered for preservation (referred to as the "lobby" in this report) consisted of retail spaces on State Street with offices above, and a narrow corridor extended from State Street through the lobby to the auditorium. Due to the waning of vaudeville as a popular form of entertainment the theater was converted into a movie theater in 1918. It served as a movie theater for several decades, until the L.D.S. Church purchased it in 1972 and converted it as a community theater space. In 1976, the building 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. Giraud continued by saying the following: "In 1998, Zions Securities Corporation agreed to fund a study to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating the structure as theater space. The timing of the study segued well with the efforts of the Salt Lake County Fine Arts Division to determine the need for downtown theater space. The study found that the downtown area needed and could support a 3,000-seat theater, which would be used for large productions such as Broadway touring shows; and a 1,200-seat theater, which would be used for community productions. These new spaces would complement the existing Capitol Theater (1,800 seats) and the Rose Wagner Center (500 seats), now under construction. Cooper-Roberts Architects prepared the feasibility study for the Orpheum Theater and found that the rehabilitation costs would be approximately $21,000,000."
Ms. Giraud stated that the feasibility report, prepared by Mr. Wallace Cooper III of Cooper-Roberts Architects, was included in the staff report.
Ms. Giraud said that there were discussions that the L.D.S. Church would consider offering to sell the theater to Salt Lake County, but although County officials stated that they would commit to renovating the theater, this arrangement did not come to fruition. She said that correspondence to the L.D.S. Church from Salt Lake County Commissioner, Brent Overson, and Salt Lake County Community and Support Services Director, Julie Peck, addressing the possibility of Salt Lake County purchasing the theater accompanied the staff report. She noted that in an effort to provide additional downtown parking, Zions Securities Corporation has devised the alternate plan.
Ms. Giraud stated that staff has struggled with the issue of whether to process this request as a "major alteration" or as "demolition of a significant structure". Section 21A.34.020(8)(6) defines demolition as, Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site."
Ms. Giraud reported that processing this case as a demolition would require the applicant to apply for a demolition permit and would require the Historic Landmark Commission to review this case under the provisions of Section 21A.34.020(J), Standards of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a Landmark Site. She added that under this provision, the applicant can demolish a building only if the building official determines that the building is a threat to public health and safety or if the applicant can prove economic hardship. Ms. Giraud said that if the demolition is approved, the new design of the parking garage would be reviewed under Section 21A.34.020(H), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-Contributing Site. Ms. Giraud noted that these standards are essentially the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Ms. Giraud said that "partial demolition" is provided [Section 21A.34.020(8)(7)] in the zoning code, which states: "Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty-five percent (35%) of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty-five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historic mass and size."
Ms. Giraud added that the above definition would not be tied to the demolition or economic hardship provisions of the ordinance. She said that when the ordinance was written, it was intended that this definition be used to determine when a project could be administratively approved as opposed to requiring full Commission review. Ms. Giraud said that because the definition is not tied to the demolition provisions of the ordinance, its scope is limited.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff’s recommendation: "There is little precedent for reviewing a case such as this, and little in the ordinance that provides guidance for the Commission. There are, however, significant implications for the applicant and for setting a precedent for future review of cases such as this. Staff has no recommendation at this time, but will leave the decision of process up to the Historic Landmark Commission after hearing the rationale and options presented by the applicant. At this meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission is not expected to have a final decision regarding the fate of the Orpheum Theater but instead is only expected to provide direction to the applicants regarding the next step they should take."
Ms. Giraud stated that staff did not want the applicant to be forced into applying for a permit to demolish the entire building.
Ms. Giraud read an E-Mail letter she received from Mr. Mark Wilson, a member of the Historic Landmark Commission who could not attend this meeting, that states that he has some strong feelings about the case. She read the letter from Mr. Wilson who said: "The proposal to replace the majority of the historic theater with a modern parking structure is inappropriate in my mind as both a member of the Historic Landmark Commission and as a citizen of Salt Lake City. Saving the historic facade of the building, and yet discarding the heart and soul of the building, is disingenuous historic preservation. Adding hundreds of parking stalls to a city block that already has thousands of stalls, runs against the recent emphasis on mass transit and a pedestrian friendly downtown". A copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Parvaz said that in the staff report, references were made to three different buildings on the site and inquired if the Commission should look at one of more buildings with the application. Ms. Giraud said that it is one building but was constructed in three different phases: the lobby and offices, the auditorium, and the rear portion that was used as a hotel for traveling vaudeville performers.
Mr. Kent Gibson and Mr. Robert Money, architect, were present, representing the applicant, Zions Security Corporation. Mr. Gibson used a briefing board to further describe the project. Mr. Gibson said that Zions Securities Corporation constructed a parking garage underneath Gateway West Tower on the corner of South Temple and Main Street that was insufficient for that office building. He added that it was done intentionally because of the access to all Zions Securities Corporation's parking systems. Mr. Gibson stated that the "Old Navy" store and other retail establishments on the Main Street corridor have asked Zions Securities Corporation for additional parking. He talked about the need to provide additional parking for those establishments to maintain their existence. Mr. Gibson stated that the current application would create a parking structure that would benefit the "Main Street" community, as well as maintain important fabric of the downtown environment. He added that the plan would help the vitality of Main Street.
Mr. Gibson displayed several enlarged site plan drawings of the Orpheum Theater facade with the parking structure behind. He said that the street presence would be maintained with offices and retail on the street level. Mr. Gibson said that from the State Street elevation, the parking garage would not be visible behind the theater facade. Mr. Gibson noted that only conceptual elevation drawings were provided.
Mr. Gibson said that after a meeting with the Mayor and City Planning Director, they agreed that the need was there and gave Zions Securities Corporation their full support.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by asking how many parking spaces the proposed parking structure would be provided. Mr. Gibson said that there would be approximately 400 parking stalls and added that there was a request from one party on Main Street to use about 300 of the parking stalls. Mr. Young inquired if that was for public parking or corporate parking for employees. Mr. Gibson said that "the project would provide both". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked if the Walker Tower parking garage behind this building was full. Mr. Gibson said that it is completely full. He added that there were some projected vacancies in the Beneficial Life Building parking tower, but they had been filled.
• Mr. Young talked about the Walker Tower parking structure. He said that it is approximately ten stories tall and eight floors have been reserved so there are only two floors for public parking. Mr. Gibson said that Zions Securities Corporation has provided the most public parking available in the downtown area.
• Mr. Gordon inquired if the applicants had contacted the City's Transportation Department about any predicted traffic congestion that the project would create at the intersection of Orpheum Avenue and State Street. Mr. Gibson said that they did not have an official traffic analysis, but the process had been started.
• Mr. Simonsen questioned whether or not other parking opportunities on the block had been explored. Mr. Gibson said that all of the parking sites were not owned by the applicant, but would not accommodate the parking needs.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired further about the "Old Navy" building. Mr. Gibson explained that the building was used by Tracy-Collins and most recently by the U.S. Bank and is located on the corner of Main Street and First South. Ms. Mickelsen suggested that if she wanted to shop at the "Old Navy" store, the proposed parking structure would not necessarily be any help to her.
There was some discussion regarding the square footage of a building and the number of parking stalls that would be required.
• Mr. Gordon said, "Rather than spending a lot of time discussing the parking structure, at this point, it is our concern whether this request would be considered a demolition or a major alteration." Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission should be concerned about the proposed parking structure, but should focus in on that question.
• Mr. Simonsen pointed out that in the letter from Mr. Brent Overson, he stated that Salt Lake County had a strong desire to restore the building to provide a "sorely needed venue for theatre, music, and dance organizations", but would require a general obligation bond referendum to raise the money for restoration. Mr. Gibson referred to the letter from Ms. Julie Peck where she stated that there were no funds available in Salt Lake County to purchase the property, and that it was too late to include the referendum on this year's election ballot.
• Mr. Littig suggested using the lobby of the remaining portion of the building as a pedestrian entrance/exit to the proposed parking structure on State Street. He said that he believed it would seem "unfriendly" to have the only entrance/exit around the corner on Orpheum Avenue. Mr. Gibson said that the reason why Orpheum Avenue was chosen was to get the entrance/exit closer to Main Street. He said that a second entrance would be considered. Mr. Littig said that it seemed like it would be a "handsome" way to use that building.
There was some discussion regarding the exterior stairways shown on the plans. Mr. Gibson said that they were emergency exits and not meant to be used by pedestrians exiting the parking structure. Mr. Gibson said that elevators would be provided.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the city wanted to improve Main Street and yet the entire block had been sacrificed for parking. She suggested that retail shops be located on the first 11oor of the Orpheum Avenue elevation, which would make the project more interesting and pedestrian-friendly. Mr. Gibson talked about some of the failed retail locations in the downtown area. He said that suggestion would be considered but could not guarantee they would be occupied. Mr. Littig said that some of the streets to those failed locations had been blocked so access had been limited. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that if someone had said five years ago "Old Navy" would locate in downtown on Main Street downtown, "we all probably would have laughed". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that this "project would work if it is done well". She asked that the idea of retail establishments be considered. There was further discussion that those who would use the new Marriott Hotel, which is currently under construction, would benefit by any retail shops or restaurants if they were included in the project, because of the location.
• Mr. Littig talked about examples in other cities where there were no retail businesses close to hotels, and how inconvenient it is. He suggested that any windows on the street level have clear glass, instead of tinted, bronzed, or reflective glass, because it was much nicer for pedestrians to interact with people on the other side of the windows. Mr. Littig said that it also makes the environment more secure for pedestrians. He used Sear Brown on Regent
Street as a good example of that. Mr. Gibson said that he agreed, but the difficulty would be to retain the retailers.
• Mr. Parvaz suggested that the Commission focus on the decision that was before them. He said that the Commission had not taken any action and already "we
are talking about the parking structure and what to do with it." Some other
members agreed.
• Ms. Mickelson said that the applicant must believe that the building is viable by making the facade and the lobby part of the project. The discussion continued relating to this matter.
Mr. Gibson explained the urgency for completion. He said that the applicant had no plans to use the facility as parking for one of the Olympic venues, but wanted the project to be completed so State Street would not be torn up during the Olympics, as a courtesy to the city.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Giraud read a letter from Ms. Samantha Francis, Chairperson of the People's Freeway Community Council, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Girard stated that the community council unanimously voted for approval of this project with the condition that the facade of the structure is preserved.
• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, an interested citizen, stated that her comments have to do with her profession as a musician. She said that, currently, there is not a decent hall in Salt Lake City where a chamber music recital could be held. She encouraged the applicant to consider including a recital hall in the project. She concluded by saying that it would be a wonderful addition to downtown.
• Ms. Kathryn Gardner, Chairperson of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that the building site is not in the Capitol Hill community council area but close enough that it contributes to that community. She said that she did not want to see this beautiful historic building demolished. Mr. Gardner expressed her concerns that the parking structure would not look as "gorgeous" as depicted in the drawings. She said that "saving the facade sounds wonderful but asked whatever happened to the East High School facade?" She said that was some talk about a "European" influence in an earlier discussion and stated that this beautiful building should be maintained because of the "Utah" influence. Ms. Gardner said that she also hoped that a facility would be considered that could be used for arts and music in some way.
• Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was a lengthy discussion with several members of the Commission expressing her/his opinions about the proposal. The following issues were included:
1. The Historic Landmark Commission had to make a decision to either consider the application as a "demolition" or a "major alteration".
2. The criteria in the ordinance that would have to be met by the applicant in either case.
3. There are no guidelines upon which the Historic Landmark Commission could make a decision.
4. The only case that could be used as a precedent was the Rowland Hall-St.
Mark's project.
5. The process for the project could not be, purposefully, delayed until the Olympics were over or until the County could afford to do a total renovation by having a bond election. The delay might be part of the process, depending on the final decision of the Commission.
6. The possibility of considering the building as three separate structures, rather than just one project.
7. The applicant would have to go through a conditional use process because of the proposed parking garage fronting a public street, Orpheum Avenue.
8. The applicants could appeal any decision made by the Historic Landmark
Commission to the City's Land Use Appeals Board.
Mr. Parvaz said that since this was the first time the project had come before the Historic Landmark Commission, he needed more time to study this issue because the Commission members are required to review the criteria in the City's zoning ordinance. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich agreed and said that one of the purviews of the Historic Landmark Commission is to protect the city.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved to table Case No. 028-00 until the December 6, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Request to extend the application by Nathan Hosea at 539 East 900 South (Case No. 021-99).
Ms. Giraud said that staff had received a request by Mr. Nathan Hosea to extend his application to construct a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot at 539 East 900 South. She added that there was never a decision made on this application; it was referred to the Architectural Subcommittee. She said that Mr. Hosea has not gone forward with his application since that time. Ms. Giraud said that an applicant can extend an application for two years.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved to extend the application for Case No. 021-99 by Nathan Hosea to construct a single-family dwelling at 539 East 900 South. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Changing the Architectural Subcommittee schedule:
Ms. Giraud said that the next Architectural Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 23rd, which is the day before Thanksgiving. She inquired if the Subcommittee members would like to change the meeting schedule to Monday or Tuesday of the following week.
Those members of the Subcommittee stated that they prefer to schedule the meeting the following week.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.