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 Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, and Janice Panichello.
Present from the Historic Landn1ark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, and Amy Rowland. Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Janice Panichello, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance 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.
Ms. Mickelsen 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 sites.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen 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, Ms. Mickelsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Wheelwright excused Mr. Zunguze, the Planning Director, for not attending the
meeting because he had conflicting meetings. Mr. Wheelwright said that he had nothing to report at this time.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes of the October 20, 2004 meeting. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen abstained. Mr. Simonsen and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 027-04. at 58 No. Virginia Street. by Mike and Sharon Bertelsen. soliciting comments from the Historic Landmark Commission to list the "John C. and Mary Landenberger House" on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented her memorandum regarding the nomination of the "John C. and Mary Landenberger House", at 58 North Virginia Street to the National Register of Historic Places. She said that the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requires comments from the local government of the municipality in which the property is located. Ms. Giraud noted that the nomination is then reviewed by the Board of State History prior to being forwarded to the National Park Service and the keeper of the Register, who is responsible for actually listing the property on the National Register. Ms. Giraud stated that the Planning Division proposed a favorable recommendation.
Ms. Giraud introduced Ms. Korral Broschinsky, a consultant from Document Resource, who wrote the nomination.
Ms. Broschinsky gave a narrative description of the property along with her slide presentation:
The John c. and Mary Landenberger House is located in the Federal heights subdivision just north of the University of Utah. The two-and-one-half story, Colonial Revival-style, brick residence was built in 1914-1915. The style is fairly ornate and includes elements of the Neoclassical and Georgian Revival styles. This is the first example of this style house in Federal Heights, and possibly in the city.
The Landenberger House is on the east side of Virginia Street so it is not within the Avenues Historic District. The house sits above the sidewalk on a slightly sloped parcel with a number of mature trees and shrubs. The central passage-type house is constructed of pressed brick and sits on a concrete foundation. Since its original construction, the only modifications made to the exterior of the house have been on the rear elevation.
The house is built of red brick, laid in a running bond with flush mortar joints. The wood details are painted white. The primary elevation faces west with the ridgeline of the main gable running north-south. The facade is symmetrical with a one-and-one-half story side wing (sunroom) to the north. The focal point of the facade is the elliptical entrance sheltered by a similarly shaped wood porch. The porch deck and steps are concrete. The porch roof is supported by two classical Doric columns and two matching pilasters. Original wood lattices partially enclose the porch on the north and south. The elliptical porch roof features a classical cornice. The main entrance is flanked by multi-light wood sash and paneled sidelights. The elliptical transom is also divided. The door is mahogany with an inset panel. Above the main entrance is an oval window with a divided-light wood sash. The window is hinged to open inward. The window is surrounded by segmental soldier bricks accented by four cement keystones. In the center of the roof is a small eyebrow
The majority of the windows on the house appear to be the original wood-sash windows. The two large windows on the main floor are tripartite, each with a large fixed-frame window flanked by narrow divided six-light windows. Six-light casement windows, grouped in two sets of five, are located on the second floor. All windows have concrete sills, painted white. The main floor windows have wooden flower boxes on the exterior supported on large wooden brackets, also painted white. The main floor windows are surrounded by a panel of corbelled soldier and rowlock bricks. Soldier bricks also accentuate the top of the second floor windows. Additional brickwork on the facade includes a course of soldier brick above the concrete foundation and brick quoins at each corner. The facade also includes a classical-style wood cornice composed of a plain frieze with dentils above. The side wing to the north also features narrow multi-light casement windows, the dentilated cornice, and brick quoins.
The two-and-one-half car garage was built in 1914 and is in the southeast corner of the lot. The brick garage has a ridgeline that parallels the house and is similar in style with matching brick and dentilated cornice returns.
On the interior, the house has approximately 5, 825 square feet of space divided between four floors (two full floors, finished attic, and partial basement). The main floor has 1, 743 square feet of space. There is a wide central hall with an open stair. The hardwood parquet-type floor in the hall is not original, but much of the flooring and woodwork in the house, particularly quarter-sawn oak and sweet gum trim, are original. The open stair features a square-post balustrade, which curves at the bottom to form a newel post. The original mantel was replaced in the 1950s; the newer mantel is similar to the original, but may have had tile instead of the current marble inset. The wallpaper and moldings probably date from the 1950s interior remodeling.
The second floor has 1, 688 square feet and features a bedroom in each corner and bathrooms at the west and east ends. The finished attic has 1, 144 square feet of space and fits snugly under the gables. The space was originally built as a ballroom and currently is a recreation room.
The major modification to the exterior of the house was the screened sleeping porch which had aluminum sliding windows with aluminum siding which was done in 1971. The window to the right of the back porch was enlarged about the same time. The flagstone terrace and outdoor fireplace in the back are part of the original construction.
John Carroll Landenberger was born in Philadelphia, PA, on July 12, 1875. He graduated from the University of Wyoming and received a medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania. In 1901, he came to Salt Lake City to serve an internship at St. Mark's Hospital. He later became a surgeon at the St. Mark's Hospital and also maintained offices in the Deseret News Building. Dr. Landenberger married Mary Miles, from Virginia, in Salt Lake City on July 13, 1904. The couple had three children. Dr. Landenberger was the chief surgeon for the Oregon Short Line and Union Pacific Railroads, a position he held for 37 years. The surgeon also served as chief of staff for the LDS Hospital.
The Landenberger’s were members of the Episcopal Church in Salt Lake City. John C. Landenberger was a prominent member of the Alta Club, a prominent and exclusive social club organized in 1883. The Virginia Street house was only a short walk from the end of the South Temple streetcar line, which ran to the front door of the Alta Club. Dr. Landenberger retired in 1940. Mary M. Landenberger was known as a "prominent Salt Lake clubwoman", according to her obituary. Mary Miles Landenberger died in August of 1943. Dr. Landenberger married Phebe Houtz Brown in 1947. In 1944, John C. Landenberger deeded the house to his daughter, Eleanor. The city directories indicated he moved from Virginia Street to 2122 E. Hubbard Avenue around this time. Dr. Landenberger died in March of 1962.
Eleanor L. Moffat sold the house to John P. and Betty B. Beal in March of 1948. The Beal’s did not live in the house, but sold it on contract to Dr. Camilla M. Anderson. She and her husband, Leonard Friendly, occupied the house between 1948 and 1952. The house was officially deeded to Camilla Anderson in 1950. Dr. Anderson was a psychiatrist.
According to the city directories, between 1953 and 1960, the Virginia Street residence was occupied by a series of families. Edward M. Tittman, a general manager of the American Smelting and Refining Co., lived there with his wife, Mary R., for four years. In 1957, Oscar M. and Ida Wicken were the occupants. By 1958, Tom S. Stein an insurance agent, and his wife, Pauline B. Stein, owned the occupied the house. Peter W. and Marjorie Billings obtained title in 1960. Peter was a lawyer for the firm of Fabian and Clendinin. The Billings sold the property to E. Douglas and Jean R. Sorensen in April 1963. The Sorensen family remained in the home for more than forty years. Edward Douglas Sorensen was a pharmacist and owned the Douglas Pharmacy at 850 East 300 South. Jean Richardson Sorensen sold the house to the current owners, Mike and Sharon Bertelsen in June of 2004.
Ms. Broschinsky stated that the Landenberger house is in good condition and is currently undergoing rehabilitation as a Utah State Historic Preservation tax credit project. She noted that the Landenberger House retains its historic integrity and is a contributing resource in Salt Lake City's Federal Heights neighborhood.
Ms. Sharon Bertelsen, the applicant was present. Ms. Bertelsen stated that she and her husband and children appreciate the historic value of the property, as they moved to Salt Lake City from Virginia, where there are many historic properties. She said that they are very excited about this house. Ms. Bertelsen said that they do not plan to do any remodeling because the house is great in its current condition because it has been well taken care of. She added that it just needs some "tender loving care" at this point.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz clarified that the owners were not planning on constructing an addition on the house. Ms. Bertelsen said that they were not. She pointed out that the house is very large with high ceilings. Ms. Bertelsen said that they did not plan to make any changes to the layout of the house.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if Ms. Broschinsky would talk a little about community development in the area. Ms. Broschinsky said that Federal Heights has a strong possibility to be a National Register district nominee because of its "sense of place". She added that people are impressed with the name "Federal Heights" with its distinctive boundaries and very lovely homes. Ms. Broschinsky noted that a realty company developed the subdivision with land acquired in 1907 and a subdivision plat was filed on October 18, 1909. She said that the Landenberger House was constructed in the first phase of development lasting from about 1910 to the start of World War I. Ms. Broschinsky added that a building permit was issued for a "three-story brick residence with ten rooms to be built at a cost of $10,000". She mentioned that at the time, this price was almost ten times the cost of an average home in Salt Lake City. Ms. Broschinsky stated that the building permit did not list an architect or builder; but the original plans and drawings, which have remained in the house, named the firm of Palliser and Mills as architects. Ms. Broschinsky said that the area was once a dry bench land where butcher yards were located. However, she said that many saw the potential of development and the developer put a lot of money into the infrastructure with streets, sidewalks, and street lights, which were installed before the houses were constructed. Ms. Broschinsky said that the Salt Lake Tribune promoted the area as the "elite" subdivision in Salt Lake City and wrote an article about Federal Heights almost every week. She pointed out that there are three other homes currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen said that she would entertain a motion at any time.
Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved for Case No. 028-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of State History to nominate the "John C. and Mary Landenberger House" located at 58 North Virginia Street to the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Simonsen and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Mickelsen announced that the next case was in two parts.
Part One: Case No. 028-04 at 239 East 100 South. by the Cathedral Church of Saint Marks. represented by Dwight Nicholson. architect. requesting approval to demolish an existing non-contributing addition (Spalding Hall) and replace it with a new two-story addition on the northeast section of the Cathedral. The request also includes developing a plaza and building to house the food pantry on the southeast portion of the property. The property is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Cheri Coffey noted that the first part of the case was relating to the addition to St. Mark's Cathedral and is under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission. She circulated photographs of the building.
Ms. Coffey 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.
The following is an overview of the project:
The applicant would like to demolish the existing non-contributing addition (Spalding Hall} on the east side of the Cathedral and replace it with a compatible Parish Hall addition on the northeast section of the Cathedral. The applicant is also requesting approval to create a garden patio area directly east of the Cathedral and construct a small accessory structure at the southeast corner of the property to house a food bank.
This project also includes a request to the Planning Commission for a Planned Development to allow the construction of an Episcopal Diocesan Center northwest of the Cathedral, as well as for the location of the food bank in the front yard. The Diocesan Center project is being proposed by the Episcopal Diocese of Utah, a separate entity from the St. Mark's Parish. The Episcopal Diocese of Utah has also contracted with a different Architectural firm, Buese and Peters to represent them.
St. Mark's Cathedral was constructed in 1871 and is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Richard Upjohn designed the Cathedral. The Cathedral is the oldest non-Mormon Cathedral in Utah and the oldest religious structure in continuous use in Salt Lake City.
Spalding Hall, used as the Cathedral's Parish Hall, was originally constructed as a Tudor architectural style building in 1938 after a major fire to the Cathedral in 1935. Major remodeling of the structure was completed in 1959 which included building a second story addition for classrooms, constructing a new front addition on the first story to accommodate the Deans' office and Curator's office and placing a new loggia to connect the front of the Cathedral to the Parish Hall. The remodeling of the structure in 1959 eliminated any historic character of the original addition and this building is considered a non-contributing addition to the Cathedral. A one-story addition connects the north end of Spalding Hall and the Cathedral. The Cathedral underwent restoration in the 1980s.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Spalding Hall addition and construct a new addition that will connect to the Cathedral near the transept of the church. The new Parish Hall addition will be a two-level "U" shaped structure, approximately 42 feet high at the roofline at its highest point on the northern wing and would have a 12:12 roof pitch. The southern wing of the addition will be approximately 39 feet high to minimize shading of the garden court between the two wings. The roofline ridge of the new building's north/south wing matches the Cathedral's roofline ridge. The addition will connect to the Cathedral at the same point as the existing addition.
The addition will be setback approximately 122 feet from the front property line and approximately 103 feet from the front of the Cathedral. The Cathedral is setback approximately 20 feet from the front property line.
The exterior materials for the addition will consist of a reddish/orange brick masonry veneer, which will be compatible with the color of the Cathedral sandstone, and asphalt shingles on the roof. The windows will be refinished steel with sandstone heads and sills. The windows will look like divided light double-hung windows because the Muntins will be on the exterior. The stained glass window on the south side of Spalding Hall will be installed in the new parish hall addition. The chimney will be faced with sandstone.
The applicant is proposing to retain the existing loggia and expand the garden patio area that would be south of the new addition, directly east of the Cathedral. They are also proposing to erect a new six-foot high sandstone wall on the eastern edge of the garden patio area. The wall will step down southward to a minimum of four feet high as it nears the front yard setback.
The northern elevation of the Cathedral (rear) was damaged in the fire of 1935. Due to its proximity to structures on the adjacent property at that time, and the lack of funds the Parish had during the Great Depression, the damage was repaired with brick and stucco rather than sandstone. The project includes refurbishing these areas by replacing the brick and stucco near the window areas with sandstone and tucks pointing, where required.
The proposed food bank building will contain approximately 1,875 square feet and be built into the existing slope on the southeast corner of the property. The building will be approximately 11 feet 8 inches high and be constructed of concrete block and faced with sandstone to match the proposed wall on the east edge of the garden patio area. The non-accessible roof garden will be planted with native vegetation. The front elevation (south} will consist of a pre-finished steel window wall storefront.
Ms. Coffey referred to the requirements in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Site Requirements. All proposed work must comply with the height, yard and bulk requirements of the D-1 zoning district. The Development Review Team reviewed this project on October 26, 2004. The only zoning issue relating to the project proposed by the St. Mark's Cathedral Parish is the placement of the food bank, considered an accessory structure, in the front yard. Accessory structures are only allowed in the rear yard in the D-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission has the authority to waive this requirement through the Planned Development process. The Historic Landmark Commission can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the location of the food bank if so desired. If the Historic Landmark Commission decides to make a recommendation, it should be related to preservation issues such as compatibility to the Landmark Site, and so on.
Salt Lake City Zoning Requirements for the H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staff has evaluated this proposal in terms of Section 21A.34.020 G, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure: which states: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission or the Planning Director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city.
Ms. Coffey noted that Standards 4, 6, 8 and 9 pertain to this project:
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
Staff's discussion: As noted before, major alterations were made to the Spalding Hall addition in 1959, which eliminated the characteristics of the original 1938 building. Therefore, Spalding Hall is considered a non-contributing structure because the alterations are less than 50 years old.
Staff's finding of fact: Removing the existing Spalding Hall addition would not be destroying an addition that has acquired significance in its own right.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;
Staff's discussion: The proposed work on the north side of the building will be undertaken to restore the rear of the Cathedral to its original appearance prior to the 1935 fire. The repair of the north elevation was not in keeping with the original structure (in terms of materials) in 1935 due to the lack of visibility of the north elevation (hidden by a building to the north) and lack of funds of the Parish to conduct restoration work. The proposed materials will include using sandstone where brick and stucco are now in place. The sandstone will closely match the sandstone originally used.
Staff's finding of fact: Deteriorated architectural features were replaced in 1935. The rear of the building is mainly stone and it is evident that the brick and stucco replaced the historic sandstone. The materials proposed for use to replace the brick and stucco will match the original materials used on the Cathedral as closely as possible in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities.
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
Staff's discussion: The proposed addition will be located on the northeast section of the Cathedral, set back from the front of the Landmark Site. Removal of the existing addition, that currently is setback from the street the same distance as the Cathedral, will help increase visibility of the historic Cathedral building and make it the prominent focal point on the property. The proposed connection with the Cathedral will be at the eastern transept; the same place as the existing Spalding Hall addition connection.
Although architecturally compatible with the cathedral, the materials of the addition will be differentiated from those of the Cathedral so as to not create a false sense of history. The massing, height, scale and roof pitch of the addition is compatible with the Cathedral.
Cloister/Garden Patio Area: The retention and expansion of the existing site features, as well as the retention of the loggia and rock retaining wall will provide a connection between the Cathedral and this semi-private gathering area.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed addition will not intrude in the physical structure of the Cathedral to any greater extent than the existing Spalding Hall addition and will not destroy significant historical or architectural features of the Cathedral. The materials as well as the massing, height, scale and roof pitch are compatible with the Cathedral. The expansion of the garden area to the east will be in keeping with the design of the existing cloister.
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: The proposed addition will be attached to the Cathedral in the same area as the existing Spalding Hall addition. No existing openings in the Cathedral will be removed by the connection of the proposed addition. The proposed addition will be connected to the Cathedral in a way that if removed, it would not impact the integrity of the historic structure.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed addition will be differentiated from the old and will be placed in a way that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure will be unimpaired. The design of the proposed addition is differentiated from the Cathedral yet compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features.
Requirements of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
Ms. Coffey said that although the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City are more specific to residential-type structures and garages in historic district, staff believes that there were some guidelines that fit it to the food bank.
Accessory structures. Although these guidelines in general relate to residential areas and specifically garages as accessory uses, the general design philosophies relating to these standards can be used to guide development of accessory structures relating to non-residential structures. In this case, these standards can be used to analyze the appropriateness of the design of the proposed accessory structure, the food bank.
Accessory structures are subordinate to the principle structure, therefore, greater flexibility in the treatment of accessory structures may be considered.
Standard 9.2. Accessory structures should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the principal structure. While the roofline does not have to match the principle structure, it is best if it does not vary significantly.
Staff's Discussion: The proposed accessory structure will be built into the slope of the property to be as unobtrusive as possible. In addition, the size of the structure with a 32-foot wide front elevation and a height of approximately 11 feet 8 inches will not compete visually with the Cathedral. The north and west elevations of the structure will be faced with sandstone to match the wall of the cloister. The roofline will not match the Cathedral but instead be flat with a native landscaping treatment.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed accessory structure will be visible from the street but will be designed to be subordinate to the Cathedral. The design of the food bank will be a small unobtrusive building and will not compete visually with the Cathedral.
Ms. Coffey offered staff's recommendation as follows: "Based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, Staff recommends the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposed modifications to the Cathedral of St. Marks as proposed."
Ms. Mickelsen recommended finishing the review on the addition before going on to the Planned Development. Others agreed.
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Ms. Mickelsen asked how Spalding Hall is treated on the nomination survey. Ms. Coffey said that there is no specific information about the historic character of Spalding Hall on the National Register nomination. Ms. Mickelsen said that it seemed to her that Spalding Hall would acquire historic value without being 50 years old because of the significance of the building. Ms. Giraud stated that Salt Lake City's ordinance is closely tied to the National Register, and a building would have to be of an exceptional significance when it is less than 50 years old. Ms. Coffey said that staff considers Spalding Hall an addition more than a stand-alone type of structure so the request is regarded as a demolition of an addition.
Ms. Coffey said that the nomination mentions the Cathedral and Parish Hall together. She read excerpts from the nomination and then stated that the National Register nomination relates more to the church and there is no mention of Spalding Hall.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Comn1ission.
Mr. Dwight Nicholson, representing the applicant, was present. He said that he was the architect for the addition on the project. Mr. Nicholson stated what he wanted to do was pull the building back to the north so that the east elevation of the Cathedral could be visible. He mentioned that currently it is blocked by Spalding Hall. Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the new addition would be in the green space on the north side of the site. He noted that the addition would be connected to the old building in the same original openings. Mr. Nicholson said that by pulling the new addition back, more individual identity would be given to Parish Hall and the Cathedral. He mentioned that the Parishioners have many public forums and meetings and they want to continue that practice in Parish Hall. Mr. Nicholson remarked that the front door going into the Cathedral would not have to be used for these meetings.
Mr. Nicholson said that the office space in Spalding Hall would be replaced in the new addition, as well as adding a larger Parish Hall so the space could handle more people for church dinners and the like. He mentioned that there would also be meeting rooms and a choir practice room. For convenience, Mr. Nicholson said that an elevator would be installed so all three floors would have handicapped access.
Mr. Nicholson said that the proposal would create a more secure usable garden and patio space off the Parish Hall.
Mr. Nicholson indicated that the food bank is part of the "mission" of the "Cathedral family". He pointed out that the food bank is currently in the old blind center building further east on 100 South. Mr. Nicholson said that the applicant wants to move it back to the Cathedral property. He noted that the floor of the proposed food bank would be right at the sidewalk elevation. He also said that due to the slope of the property, two-thirds of the northern end of the building would be underground. Mr. Nicholson stated that the top of the food bank building would be planted with native grass or something similar that would be drought tolerant. He said that the applicant first thought of putting a patio area on top with a garden, which would mean putting railings around the top, but decided that safety would be at risk. Mr. Nicholson added that it would be constructed so no one would be able to get on top.
Mr. Nicholson stated that people in the neighborhood mostly use the food bank. He added that those people would be able to come and go without going through the Cathedral. Mr. Nicholson said that the volunteers would be able to monitor the food bank at this location much better.
Mr. Nicholson indicated that the old boiler chimney on the back of the Cathedral building (north side) would be removed. He said that it was used when the building was burning soft coal for fuel and no longer needed. Mr. Nicholson said that would clean up that area and make it look nicer.
Ms. Mickelsen 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 saying that in the drawing, the food bank shows a railing on top. Mr. Nicholson said that the newer drawings show that the railings have been removed. He said the roof slope had also changed so the roof would not be easily accessible. Mr. Parvaz asked about the connection of the new roof of the Parish Hall to the old building. He said that, according to the drawings, it looked like the new addition would be connected through one of the old stone openings on the second level of the Cathedral thinking that it was a window. Mr. Nicholson said that the opening is a door that goes into the old Cathedral building. Mr. Parvaz inquired if allowing the rear wing of the new addition to be higher than the Cathedral would set precedence. Other Commissioners noted that the Historic Landmark Commission had approved additions higher than the principal structure before. Mr. Nicholson pointed to the drawings that showed the connection of the roof of the proposed building to the Cathedral building and said that it would be connected in the same manner as the existing. Mr. Parvaz wanted assurance that the connection would be as what is shown on the drawings that nothing further would be altered.
• Mr. Christensen remarked that the same roof pitch was selected on the new addition so it would match the roof pitch on the Cathedral. However, he said that it appears that the roofline on the addition is about two feet higher. Mr. Nicholson said that it would be very close to the same height. Mr. Nicholson also pointed out that the new addition would be in the back of the property. He said that the connecting section is much lower and only 15 feet wide. Mr. Nicholson indicated that the narrow corridor connecting to the Cathedral goes into the library in the old building. He said that it would be low so more sunlight would get into the courtyard. Mr. Christensen also asked about the proposed window in the addition. He said that, according to the drawings, the windows appear to have a simple grid with steel sashes. Mr. Nicholson said that most likely all the windows would be fixed because there would be air conditioning throughout the building. However, he added, that there would be several sets of French doors. Mr. Nicholson said that the windows would be either a pre-finished aluminum or a pre-finished steel window system. He said that if money will allow, sandstone headers and sills would be added, as well
as sandstone caps on the outside chimneys with as much brick detailing as possible. He said that the fundraising is ongoing. Mr. Nicholson said that they hope to use a reddish-orange brick and pointed out that there are several different colors of brick on the Cathedral building. Mr. Christensen said that the Commission members would assume what was approved would be carried out.
• Mr. Parvaz had a follow up question regarding the roofline. He said that he was concerned about the height of the addition and that the rooflines might be higher than shown on the drawings. Mr. Nicholson explained on the front wing that he was able to "pull it back in and lower the roof a little over Parish Hall". He said that originally, he drew the roof at a much lower angle and received many complaints from the Parish saying that it would not relate to the Cathedral. Mr. Nicholson said that he was in the process of constructing a three-dimensional model of the project. Mr. Parvaz said that the height of the back wing was not as crucial at the front wing, but to have the roofline of the front wing higher than the Cathedral would be questionable. Mr. Nicholson said that these were just schematic drawings at this point. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the Commission has approved additions that are higher than the main building. Some other members agreed. Mr. Nicholson said that he would try to "tighten up that structure". He said that this was only a conceptual plan.
• Ms. Mickelsen wondered how closely the sketch would match the plan. She said that is was confusing. Mr. Nicholson said that the rendering was done last spring and there had been a few changes. Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the six-foot sandstone wall that would be constructed on the east side of the property. He said that the property to the east belongs to the neighbor. Mr. Nicholson added that the neighbor was giving the applicant an easement across the property for a driveway. He said that the neighbor did not want a building on it. The discussion continued regarding the issues at hand.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there had been coordination with the Episcopal Church of Utah and the Diocesan Center project. Mr. Nicholson said that there has, but could not address the other part of the project when Ms. Mickelsen asked if there would still be a Labyrinth, as shown on the site plan for the planned development.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked Mr. Nicholson if he would explain a little more about the restoration work. Mr. Nicholson said that in about 1982-84, cleaning and repairs were made on all of the stonework on the east, south, and west sides of the Cathedral. He added that there was some stone replacement where necessary. Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the north side could not be done at the same time because the Freed Motor Building was too close to the north side of the Cathedral. He said that they planned to do the same to the north side now that the Freed Motor Building was no longer there. Mr. Nicholson indicated that there were three Tiffany windows on that elevation. He noted that the walls and exterior features surrounding the windows were damaged during the 1935 fire. Mr. Nicholson added that this area will be restored to the historic appearance. Mr. Nicholson mentioned again about removing the old chimney on the north while they are in the process of cleaning up that elevation.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if there should be two separate motions even though the projects were related. Ms. Giraud said that she believed it would be more beneficial if two separate motions were rendered and Ms. Coffey agreed.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the members of the Commission if they would like to make a motion on the alterations or prefer to wait until the other half of the project was reviewed.
Mr. Parvaz said although the two projects are related, they were being reviewed separately.
Ms. Coffey also said that the two projects will be on two separate parcels and reminded the Commission that staff wanted comments from the Historic Landmark Commission regarding historic preservation issues to take to the Planning Commission on the planned development project. She added that the only parcel that is a Landmark Site is where the Cathedral is located, where the new addition and food bank building would be constructed.
Mr. Ashdown announced that the Episcopal Diocese was one of his clients and wondered if he should recuse himself. After some discussion, Mr. Ashdown said that he would be more comfortable with leaving the meeting.
At 5:07P.M., Mr. Ashdown recused himself and left the meeting.
A discussion took place regarding the lack of details on the drawings and whether or not the Commission should approve the project conceptually or table the project until more details could be provided. Ms. Giraud said that if the Commission feels that the plans are not developed enough, the project could go to the Architectural Committee and return back to the full Commission for final approval.
Mr. Christensen mentioned the lack of details on the proposed building, especially the windows. There was a question about the applicant's schedule. Mr. Christensen said that he did not want to negatively impact a tight schedule.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the meeting should be reopened to the public to ask the applicant some additional questions. Ms. Mickelsen reopened this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Christensen said that the Commission normally would see more details on the windows, the soffit and fascia and other features. He asked the applicant about the schedule of the project.
Mr. Nicholson stated that because the two projects were related and because there are zoning issues regarding the planned development, the entire layout of the projects could be changed depending what the decision of the Planning Commission would be. He said that in these first stages, the applicant just wanted to get "the ball rolling" to find out what they would be allowed to do. Mr. Nicholson said that more detailed drawings would be provided, but at this time the applicant did not want to invest the money in drawings until it was certain what could be done. He said that he hoped the Planning Commission would review the project in December, and then the applicant would have the winter months to develop the site plans and be ready to come back next spring. Mr. Nicholson added that if everything goes well, the applicant would like to start construction in late spring or early summer of 2005.
Since there were no further questions of the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen reclosed the meeting to public comment and returned to the executive session portion of the meeting.
Ms. Mickelsen said that it seemed to her that it would be appropriate for the Commission to conceptually approve the project, as has been done with other major alterations to a campus, and have the case come back to the Commission for final approval when the details are solidified, especially in a case like this where the two projects might have an effect on each other.
First motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 028-04 that based on the discussion at this meeting and the findings of fact in the staff report, the Historic Landmark Commission approve the demolition of Spalding Hall, as it is a non-contributing structure associated with the St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral at 239 East 100 South. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission render a conceptual approval based on the information and drawings presented at this meeting for the addition relative to form and massing and location on the property and that final approval of the structure would be rendered at a future meeting of the full Commission when the details would more fully be presented. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion.
There was a short discussion which included the food bank structure. Final amended motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 028-04 that based on the discussion at this meeting and the findings of fact in the staff report, the Historic Landmark Commission approve the demolition of Spalding Hall, as it is a non-contributing structure associated with the St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral at 239 East 100 South. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission render a conceptual approval based on the information and drawings presented at this meeting for the addition and the food bank structure, relative to form, massing, and location on the property, and that final approval of the proposal could be rendered at a future meeting of the full Commission when the details would more fully be presented. Ms. Rowland's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown was in a state of recusancy. Mr. Simonsen and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Part Two: Case No. 028-04- The Historic Landmark Commission will also review and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission relating to the compatibility with the Cathedral of the proposed Episcopal Church Diocesan Center to be located at approximately 47 South 200 East in the Downtown D-1 zoning district. The Diocesan Center requires planned development and conditional use approval from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Cheri Coffey presented her memorandum that outlined the major issues of the case. A copy of which was filed with the minutes.
The following is an overview of the project:
The Episcopal Diocese of Utah, a separate entity from the Cathedral Church of Saint Mark, is the applicant for the Planned Development request. Currently the Diocese leases commercial space east of the Cathedral on Saint Mark property but is requesting that a new Diocesan Facility be approved to be constructed on their property at the above referenced address. The proposed development is classified as a Planned Development in the D-1 zoning district with the Planning Commission having sole responsibility for approval authority.
Although the Diocesan property is not within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, the project is adjacent to the Cathedral of Saint Mark, a Landmark Site, and efforts to minimize impacts to the Landmark Site and ensure compatibility with the Cathedral are very important. Therefore, the Planning Staff is requesting the Historic Landmark Commission review the request and make a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission relating to historic preservation issues.
One of the purposes of the Planned Development section of the Zoning Ordinance is for the "Preservation of buildings which are architecturally or historically significant or contribute to the character of the City." Furthermore, one of the criteria for approval is that "the proposed development preserves historical, architectural and environmental features of the property." The Planning Commission has the authority to modify or waive specific ordinance requirements if they make a finding that, if in doing so, it meets one of the purposes of the Planned Development and will not violate the general purposes of the zoning ordinance or adopted plans of the City.
As proposed, the architects representing the Episcopal Diocese of Utah has designed a site plan that varies from the D-1 zoning district in the following ways: 1} a minimum 100-foot high building on the block corners (in this instance, at 100 South 200 East}; 2} a maximum setback of five feet from the front property line; 3} a minimum parking setback of 75 feet from the front property line; and 4} a minimum 40 percent of glass along the streetscape of the building along 200 East.
The applicant's rationale for choosing to vary from the specific ordinance requirements is to preserve the view corridor to the Cathedral and give the community an open plaza to enjoy the Cathedral and new campus. The proposed Diocesan Center is to be part of a campus setting "that is meant to be complementary, yet secondary to, and reinforcing of, the prime element in the block, the historic St. Mark's Cathedral, which was never meant to define the corner of the block when it was constructed." The applicants contend that in order for the campus buildings to complement the historic Cathedral, it would be inappropriate to overwhelm the Cathedral with a large dense mass on the corner. (A proposal to eliminate the existing Spalding Hall addition and construct a new less prominent Parish Hall, set back from the Cathedral, is another part of this effort to set focus on the Cathedral}. The applicant is also looking to develop the southwest corner of their property for a public plaza to be used for community events and activities as well as gatherings before and after Diocesan events.
In addition to the issues relating to the Diocesan Center, the representatives of the Cathedral of St. Mark's are requesting the Planning Commission to waive the requirement that an accessory structure must be located in the rear yard, and to allow the placement of the Food Bank along the property line on 200 East, east of the Cathedral.
Staff has held two subcommittee meetings and a site visit. The first subcommittee meeting was with Planning Commissioners and the second meeting included Planning Commissioners and Historic Landmark Commissioners. The main issue of the project for the Planning Commissioners has been the lack of some type of substantial focus at the corner of 100 South 200 East. Staff is of the opinion that the Planning Commissioners are not adamant about a tall building having to be placed on the corner, but instead adding something prominent on that corner or having a portion of the proposed Diocesan Center being built further southward on the property than is shown on the plans.
Staff is respectfully requesting that the Historic Landmark Commission review this issue and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether or not, for historic preservation reasons (i.e. to ensure compatible development adjacent to the Cathedral and to ensure negative impacts are mitigated} any of the requirements of the D-1 zoning district identified above should be modified to help ensure compatible development and continued preservation of the Cathedral of St. Mark's.
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Parvaz commented that a parking structure could be built on the corner of 200 East and 100 South. Ms. Coffey said that was correct, but the parking structure would have to have retail space on the first floor and be set back 75 feet from the corner. Mr. Parvaz mentioned the loss of the Promise Valley Playhouse to a parking structure.
Ms. Heid noted that this review is to determine whether this project would impact the environment of the Landmark Site.
Ms. Giraud stated that to clarify the matter, the Commission could make comments on the siting, as well as the design features, even though the design of the proposed building and garden would be determined by the Planning Commission.
There was a short discussion regarding the lack of detailing on the site plans that were provided. Ms. Giraud agreed that they were not highly detailed.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant or representatives to come forward to address the Commission.
Present were Mr. Tom Buese and Mr. Kenton Peters, of Buese and Peters Architects, representing the applicant, for the Episcopal Diocesan Center project. A briefing board was used to further describe the project. Mr. Peters stated that the reason for holding the proposed building back from the corner would be to open and maintain the view corridor of the historic Cathedral. Mr. Peters also said that developing a public landscaped plaza out toward the corner was an attempt to meet the intent of the ordinance. He spoke of the proposed trellis along the west property line almost creating a virtual building wall that would give "some three-dimensional presence to the corner, but would be mostly a transparent element that would not infringe the view of the Cathedral". Mr. Peters said that the proposed plaza would be terraced so it would be raised above the sidewalk level, as it approaches the corner, which would also tend to reinforce the corner.
Mr. Peters said that the Episcopal Diocesan Center and the Parish Hall have a definite planned conceptual relationship to each uniting them together around the Cathedral and creating an enclosed landscaped courtyard between the two buildings thereby emphasizing the campus feel to the site.
Mr. Peters commented that he was aware the architectural details are a bit "sketchy" at this point because the building cannot be designed with the necessary details until the applicant knows what would be allowed from a site layout standpoint.
Mr. Peters said that the proposed Diocesan Center would contain a resource center library and a public book store and coffee shop, the Bishop's office, the Bishop's staff's offices, and a hospitality component, which would consist of hotel-like roon1s that would be available to Episcopal Dioceses and visitors coming to the center for events.
Mr. Peters said that he believed the proposed building would be respectful of the Cathedral in its massing, form, and materials, as noted on the drawings. He noted that the zoning ordinance calls for a minimum of 40 percent glass on the street facade so there would definitely be larger areas of glass towards the street and towards the plaza. Beyond that, Mr. Peters added, that the details of the building are not yet fully worked out.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking if the proposed Diocesan Center would be a one-story building. Mr. Peters said that it would be a one-story structure for the resource center part of the project, but the other two wings of the building would be two stories. Mr. Buese added that the resource center would include a library and computer stations for visitors. He also said that the low section of the building would allow more sunlight into the interior courtyard. Ms. Mickelsen said that she liked the way the corner issue was addressed on the site plan because it would feel more substantial than just walking off the sidewalk into a garden.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons expressed his concern that the proposed element on the west side appears to be a two-stories high solid wall on the corner. Mr. Peters said that it would not be that high because of the grade difference on the property. He said that the grade difference from the southwest corner of the site is two feet lower than the Cathedral core level. Ms. Heid noted that the grade difference would make the wall appear very high. Mr. Fitzsimmons questioned the goal of not blocking the view corridor of the Cathedral. Mr. Buese said that there is a 20-foot grade change from the south to the north side of the property although it does not show on the site plan. He noted that the elevation of the main floor of the proposed building would be in the middle, the same as the Cathedral. Mr. Buese described how the site would be ADA (Americans Disability Act) accessible. Mr. Fitzsimmons again said that he believed that there would be an argument whether or not it would block the view corridor because it would still be very tall. Mr. Fitzsimons said that one of the members of the task force on the subcommittee, while visiting the site, asked where the exact location of the proposed south wall of the building would be on the site. He said that some members were suggesting that the proposed building could be further towards the corner creating an "L" shape structure which would still preserve the view of the Cathedral. Mr. Fitzsimmons believed that "they are still happily married to the idea of something on the corner". Mr. Peters said that idea would lose the relationship between the Episcopal Diocesan Center and the Parish Hall. He added that if the Diocesan Center moved south toward the corner, then the formal courtyard would be skewed. Mr. Peters referenced Symphony Hall and the Conference Center regarding the buildings set back from the corner and a courtyard on the corner. Mr. Buese said that Buese and Peters were not the architects of the original master plan. He said that the Labyrinth would be the connecting element tying all the features together and if the building has to be brought down to the corner, then the concept would get diluted. Mr. Peters said that there would be a sidewalk coming in from 200 East. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he liked the site plan as it has been presented.
• Mr. Parvaz stated that he agreed on the way the architects tried to justify the openness of this plaza and with most of the issues, as well as the reference Mr. Peters made to Symphony Hall and the Conference Center. He said that the only concern he has is with the parking lot next to the plaza. Mr. Parvaz said that 100 South is the main viewpoint of the Cathedral and its surroundings and asked if the parking lot could be moved elsewhere. Mr. Buese said that they are proposing to take the existing parking lot off the corner but at the same time there needs to be an area where people could come and go quickly, because the parking would not be long term and there would only be 14 to 16 stalls. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that neither Symphony Hall or the Conference Center has parking next to the plaza. Mr. Peters said that the proposed short-term parking area would be lower than the plaza. Ms. Mickelsen said that parking is one of those issues where guidelines and needs clash. Mr. Peters said that the Commission has brought up a good point and the challenge was to combine the needs with environmental design.
• Ms. Heid inquired if there had been any thought of putting the parking underground under the plaza. Mr. Peters said that was the architect's first choice, but the applicant was not amenable to that idea. Mr. Peters said that mitigation is tied to that parking area. He said that the parking area would be paved in a manner that would be compatible to the plaza so it would minimize its appearance as a parking lot.
• Mr. Christensen stated that the Cathedral is a very "handsome" building and he applauded this kind of thinking that would minimize the visual impact of the Cathedral building. He also said that he could see the value of using modern building materials on the Episcopal Diocesan Center so the building would read as something from the Twenty-First Century; however he would like to see something organic used instead of a standing seam metal roofing n1aterial. Ms. Giraud said that the members could send a comment to the Planning Commission that the standing seam metal roof was not a compatible type of roofing material in relation to a Landmark Site and historic preservation.
• Ms. Rowland said that she would be comfortable with using modern building materials on a modern building. She also expressed her desire to have the courtyard on the corner because the detachment seemed more respectful of the Cathedral. Mr. Peters commented that if the Planning Commission requires the concept of the proposed building be extended to the corner, it would weaken the courtyard and change the relationship to the Cathedral. He said that it is patterned after the traditional abbey courtyard.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Mark Oligschlaeger, representing the owner of the adjacent property to the north, asked how high the roof of the Cathedral was. Mr. Peters said that it was 36 feet 10 inches to the peak of the highest roof. Mr. Buese said that Parish Hall would be 42 feet, so it would be slightly higher than the cathedral. Ms. Heid said that there would be a grade difference so the proposed building would appear taller.
• Mr. Thomas Carter, from the University of Utah, School of Architecture stated that his class was attending the meeting observing the Historic Landmark Commission proceedings. He asked if there is any evidence of what was on this block historically before it was scraped for the parking lot. He added that the Sanborn maps probably would show what the context of the corner was. Ms. Mickelsen said that she asked that question at the subcommittee and was told that there was a building on the corner. A member of the Episcopal Diocese talked about the building on the corner before the parking lot, which housed a boys' club in the 1950s and traffic court in the 1960s. The member also said that Freed Motor, which was an automobile dealership, was north of the demolished building.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were other comments regarding the proposed materials or the design of the proposed Diocesan Center. She said that she was uncomfortable with the slight dissonance between the slope of the roofline of the proposed Episcopal Diocesan Center and the very pronounced "Victorian" slope of the Cathedral.
Mr. Parvaz asked which members of the Historic Landmark Commission attended the subcommittee meetings regarding the project. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Simonsen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Fitzsimmons volunteered to serve on the task force subcommittee.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he thought the architects handled their discussion very well. He said that the concerns the Historic Landmark Commission had were also raised in the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the architects had made a "very nice gesture" addressing the corner issues. He said that he could not tell in those meetings how the Planning Commission might respond to that issue. Mr. Fitzsimmons also said that there was a question about the area of the proposed Labyrinth. He did not feel any conclusive consensus with that group.
Ms. Mickelsen said that her statement regarding the Labyrinth was that it was a lovely concept, but could not imagine trying to use it as a meditative technique while people would be streaming through from the parking lot to the church. She stated that the main point was that the applicant would need to get approval from the Planning Commission on the many issues that were discussed. The discussion turned to the wording of the motion.
Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved on the Planned Development Petition No. 410-705 for the Episcopal Church Diocesan Center at approximately 47 South 200 East, that the Historic Landmark Commission recommends to the Planning Commission that any requirements of the D-1 zoning district be modified to ensure compatible development adjacent to the St. Mark's Cathedral and continue historic preservation of the Landmark Site as follows: 1) that the general concept of building away ·from the corner is favorably looked upon; 2) that the proposed food bank building would be in an acceptable location because it would be at the east edge of the site and the building would be so small that it would not impact the Cathedral; 3) that the roofing material for the proposed Episcopal Diocesan Center building be an organic material; and 4) that the building materials for the new building at least be compatible with the historic Cathedral. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown was in a state of recusancy. Mr. Simonsen and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Introduction of new employee.
Mr. Wheelwright introduced Ms. Janice Panichello, a new employee in the Planning Division, who is in the same position as Nelson Knight had in relation to the Historic Landmark Commission. He said that Ms. Panichello is from Oregon and that he is glad to have her on the team. Ms. Mickelsen welcomed Ms. Panichello in behalf of the entire Commission.
Rezoning the old VA Hospital on 14th Avenue and "F" Street.
Mr. Wheelwright said that the Planning Division is processing a petition to rezone the old VA Hospital property on Fourteenth Avenue to multi-family to provide residential condominiums in the buildings, which would provide a long-term reuse. He added that the Planning Commission at their November 17, 2004 meeting will hear the petition. Mr. Wheelwright mentioned that are two buildings involved: the original building and the annex building to the west. He said that this has been discussed for over ten years and staff is anxious to have that process completed.
Legislative Action.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there was any word when the Legislative Action would be heard before the City Council. Mr. Wheelwright said that the latest date he heard was November 16, 2004 but that the Commission would be notified.
Tennis bubble in Liberty Park.
Ms. Mickelsen said that Mr. Parvaz would like to talk about the decision of the tennis bubble in Liberty Park at some future Historic Landmark Commission meeting. She inquired if the subject could that be part of a meeting, or should it be discussed with the Planning Director. Mr. Wheelwright said that at this point to make an appointment with Mr. Zunguze, the Planning Director to discuss that issue.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Heid moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 6:00 P.M.