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 Susan Deal, Dina Williams, and Elizabeth Egleston.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Robert Pett, Dave Svikhart, and Dina Williams. Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, and Joel Paterson, Principal Planner. Ms. Janice Jardine, representing the City Council office, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Pett. Mr. Pett announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the commission, the applicant will be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Pett said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal's process is listed on the back of the agenda.
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 cases 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
Ms. Williams wanted the records to show the following point of clarification: "Although I did not clearly indicate in my amended motion that the applicant for Case No. 006-96 was required to meet with the Architectural Subcommittee for further review, then return to the full commission for final approval, the minutes of the April 3, 1996 meeting reflected that clarification”.
• Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 1996, as noted. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASE
Case No. 021-95 at 263 No. Almond Street by Russ Watts of Watts Corporation, requesting approval for a 34-unit condominium project.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the staff was not making a recommendation at this time, and suggested that the commission continue to review the project for matters of design not that the issues of parking and traffic had be discussed by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Egleston declared that a portion of her staff report needed to be corrected. She pointed out that the staff report stated that the proposal for the “Heritage Orchard” was not a part of the Planning Commission’s application because the RMF-45 zone does not allow for natural open space or conservation districts as a permitted use. She said that was wrong because it does allow for natural open space for conservation districts. Ms. Egleston said that the reason why the proposal, which was presented by the neighborhood for a “Heritage Orchard,” was not considered by the subcommittee of the Planning Commission, was because it was not part of the original application that was pending before the Planning Commission and not because it was not allowed in that zone. Ms. Egleston presented five site design options for the configuration of the West Temple /300 North Intersection and option “D” was the Planning Staff’s recommendation and subsequently approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Joel Paterson, Principal Planner with the Planning Division, reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this application as a planned development, which would allow the developer a little more flexibility in a strict zoning ordinance. He described the following aspects of the project that was approved by the Planning Commission.
1) 15 of the 34 units would be allowed to use tandem parking.
2) modifications to the setback requirement, which would allow a 25-foot setback for the 300 North property frontages. The Zoning Administrator determined the frontages of the property;
3) The right of way issues at the fires 90 degree curve north of 200 North on West Temple established the interior side yard;
4) modification, under a planned development, to the underground parking area, by proposing a grade change of 8 to 10 feet for the ingress from 300 North and the egress onto Almond Street, instead of the allowed two feet.
5) different options of altering the traffic flow around the landscaped island at the corner of 300 North and West Temple Streets were reviewed.
6) the Planning Commission had final approval authority on a planned development, and
7) the Planning Commission's decision has been appealed to the City Council by the neighborhood association. Ms. Janice Jardine, liaison to the City Council who was also present, said that the earliest the appeal could be heard would be sometime in June of 1996. She further stated that the City Council would also have to approve this condominium project because of the multiple ownerships. There was some discussion regarding the appeal by the neighborhood association and the different aspects of the proposal that have been described.
Both Mr. Russ Watts and Mr. Kevin Watts of Watts Corporation, were present Mr. Russ Watts requested that the format be changed, for this meeting and allow the public to respond with their issues before the applicants addressed the commission. Mr. Pett explored that suggestion, and inquired if the commission would allow the change in format.
Ma. Deal moved to allow the public to respond to the issues of the project for Case No.021-95, before the applicants made their presentation. It was seconded by Mr. Svikhart. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett. as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Demery, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan and Me. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions. concerns, and comments were made by the public.
• Ms. Bonnie Mangold. who resides at 26 No. Almond Street. stated that she was the president of the newly formed Capital Hills Historic Neighborhood Association, who was the entity that filed the appeal to the City Council. She said that the Marmalade Hill area is both one of the oldest and most unique areas in the City, and needs the protection of the Historic Landmark Commission. A copy of all the documents that Ms. Mangold presented, was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Mangold expressed the following concerns which was pointed out by the community:
1) that the Historic Landmark Commission act within the fullest authority the Intent or the enabling legislation which created the commission, including the data in the Utah Code;
2) that the general policies of the Capitol Hill Master Plan be preserved. A copy of the position paper containing exerts from the goals and policies of the City’s master plan, as well as the planned development objectives. were circulated to the commission members and staff:
3) that an exception was taken to the Planning staff’s findings that no net cumulative adverse impacts on the neighborhood would be expected from this project. The neighborhood community felt that the net cumulative impacts could in fact be extremely damaging due to the parking situation in the neighborhood.
4) that the boundaries for the traffic study were too extensive and did not affect the Almond Street property;
5) that a parking study that was done by Dr. Carolyn Andree, which showed the amount or public and private parking spaces, and further explained the already existing parking problems surrounding the Almond Street project site;
6) that there is such a demand for parking spaces, that vacant lots are used for additional parking, and as those lots are filled with additional residences, the parking problem would only worsen
7) that there are not enough areas on the project for guest/visitor parking
8) that there would be potential traffic tie ups due to the second vehicle in an tandem garage backing out of a garage and allowing the first vehicle to back out;
9) that the rear section of the tandem parking garages eventually being used for storage and the second car having to park on the street adding to the limited parking spaces;
10) that the problems with the public using the parking spaces on the narrow streets when there is a major event in the downtown area. Copies of maps and photographs were circulated to the members while Ms. Mangold used a display board to further demonstrate the parking problems;
11) that there would be a potential dangerous situation occur at the entrance to the underground parking proposed for 300 North, which reflects on option “D” only a few feet from the intersection. Ms. Mangold referred to the staff report for the Planning Commission, where it stated, “the staff prefers Option D because it appears to have the fewest technical difficulties and does not change the Historic street pattern." Ms. Mangold stated that it was true that it had the fewest technical difficulties for the Watts Corporation and for the project itself but not for the City. She said that it would change the streetscape. An historic photograph was shown of the intersection of West Temple and 300 North which was taken in 1923. Ms. Mangold suggested that it looks much the same as it did in 1923. Also, she suggested that the plan did nothing to protect Quince Street;
12) that due to the steep grade on 300 North, it would make the traffic situation even more difficult in the winter time, especially when residents try to turn into that underground parking area, due to the poor visibility at the intersection of 300 North and Almond Street. She said that she recommended no entrance off 300 North;
13) that there would be a great potential for damage to the surrounding structures from soil movement and ground vibration. She pointed out where there had been a section of the road cave in on Almond Street, foundation damage to an Historic home on Almond Street due to soil movement, another home on Almond Street which had been damaged by an earthquake that happened in Afton, Wyoming, a home on 200 North that had been damaged by construction a block away, and a structure on West Temple which had been damaged by the construction of the Salt Lake Home. In the resulting court case, the owners were awarded damages when the building had to be completely destroyed. There is so much vibration transmitted by modern construction machinery, that the old homes cannot withstand that kind of pulsation;
14) that the Salt Lake County Geologist stated, "I agree that no indication of slope instability was observed in the trenches and that if the site remained in its natural condition, slope stability would not be an issue. But it is important to realize that if the site is developed, conditions are artificially changed on the site, particularly with respect to potential increase of subsurface water due to landscaping irrigation and the possibility of over steepening of slopes due to grading or retaining wall construction. In addition, the site conditions may have changed due to early development upslope of the site.” Ms. Mangold pointed out that the staff report stated in the findings, "No desirable natural landscaping or geologic features exist on this site. The steep topography and narrow dimension of the parcel make the site difficult to develop and the proposed project will leave little of this site undisturbed." She said that the neighborhood found this disturbing because there would be a major restructuring of the hillside, at the point where the valley floor met the foothills; and
15) that the purpose of setbacks is to protect the surrounding areas. Ms. Mangold stated that the City's zoning ordinance require minimum setbacks, but the Historic Landmark Commission could impose stricter setback requirements because she understood that the Historic overlay overrides the zoning issues.
Ms. Mangold further discussed the details of the community's resistance to the project. She said that the negative impact on the neighborhood could not be mitigated without drastically reducing the density of the project. Ms. Mangold concluded by saying that the impact of this project would not be in accord with the City's master plan guidelines, to preserve the Historic character and streetscape of the neighborhood; and that the loss of Historic character would be distressful.
• Mr. H.K. Sepehri-Nik, who owns the property at 301 No. Almond Street stated that when he inquired about the height of the highest building, the Watts Corporation gave him the wrong information when he was told 44 feet. He said that he thought that the buildings would be as high as 60 feet.
• Ma Rela Wardle, who resides at 265 No. Vine Street, stated that the Watts Corporation has guaranteed the property owners on the adjoining properties protection from soil damage or slippage of the hillside, however there has been no guarantee of protection from the other properties. Ms. Wardle described the
retaining wall in the rear of her property which has had a significant amount of damage as the result of soil movement. She also spoke of the limited parking on the surrounding streets. She said that she would rather see single family homes constructed on the subject property site.
• Mr. William H. Call who resides in an apartment unit at 185 No. West Temple, stated that he knew of other retaining walls which had slipped due to the instability of the soil conditions.
• Ms. Marie Dalgleish, who resides at 135 W Apricot Avenue, spoke of the seriousness of the parking situation due to the narrow streets of the Historic neighborhood, especially in the wintertime. She also discussed the parking problems when a major event occurs in the downtown area. Ms. Dalgleish expressed her concerns for the children who play in the neighborhood and the dangers of athletes using the sloping streets for training. She pointed out that the district has become one of the tourist attractions in the City, and she reminded the commission that she did not want to see an evacuation of homeowners, who have taken pride in the restoration of their homes, move to other areas due to the impact of this condominium project. She said, at that point, the neighborhood would disintegrate into what it was years ago and all the work of the homeowners would have been lost.
• Dr. Carolyn Andree, who resides 326 No. Quince Street, stated that she supported and reiterated the pertinent issues that had already been discussed. She said that the point she wanted to stress was the problem with the design of the tandem garages, due to the incredible problems that already exist on the narrow streets, particula1y the lack of parking.
• Mr. Joseph Pitti who resides at 325 No. Quince Street stated that he also supported and reiterated what had been expressed. He indicated that any vacant lot is usually used for homeowner parking and quest parking for the surrounding neighborhood. He said that this project would definitely have an impact on the community.
• Ms. Robin McLall, who resides at 122 West 300 North pointed out that the neighborhood’s concerns throughout this process have been consistent and spoke of the time and effort on documenting their concerns. She asked that the commission members read the entire appeal documentation that had been filed with the City Council and asked that no further action be taken on this project until the result of the appeal is known.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett invited the applicants to resume their presentation.
Mr. Russ Watts exhibited a model of the condominium project. He also used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project Mr. Kevin Watts circulated updated site plans to the commission members. Mr. Russ Watts pointed out that he was a little confused and understood that the direction the Historic Landmark Commission would be taking at this meeting would be towards the design elements and the materials that were proposed for this project. He confronted the issues at hand by saying that he was very cognizant of the items that were raised by the public, because there has been much communication between Watts Corporation and the neighbors. He indicated that he was prepared to proceed with the scale, form, composition, facades in relationship to the streetscape, and other applicable elements of the condominium project.
Mr. Russ Watts continued by saying that the height of the buildings would be 38 feet from grade to center of the distances between ridge and soffit. He mentioned that the zoning would allow a maximum of 45 feet. Mr. Russ Watts further described the property by stating the following points of interest
1) The elevation of the buildings facing Almond Street. would be one story high, plus the roof height which would be about 25 feet high, thus trying to eliminate the canyon effect on the street;
2) the elevation on the 300 North side, would follow the slope and be stepped down. Mr. Pett asked what the height was of the buildings on the southwest corner at 300 North and West Temple. Mr. Kevin Watts said that they were 38 feet and;
3) consideration was taken not to make the project look like a “compound" by creating openings in the structures.
There was some discussion regarding the height and the lateral separation. The conversation turned to the vertical stepping on the slopes and that to create the shadows and changes on the street, the buildings would also have to step horizontally.
Mr. Russ Watts continued by describing the composition of principal facades, proportions of openings, the rhythm of solids and the voids, and the relationship of the details and materials. Site plans showing the detailing of the project were passed out to the members and staff.
Mr. Kevin Watts stated that the buildings would be traditional in form, and that the recognizable pediments and materials would be appropriate for that style. He pointed out the two forms of column arrangements; one form would be round and the other form would be square. He continued by saying that the vertical windows which set in the roof were not skylights, then he described the variety of architectural forms and the materials that were depicted on the site drawings.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission;
• Mr. Pett led the discussion by inquiring is the architectural elements were the response to the commission's suggestions for solids and voids. Mr. Russ Watts was affirmative and addressed the composition of the facades. Mr. Pett expressed his concerns about those elements. There was further discussion from the commission members regarding this matter. Mr. Pett also asked to have the north elevation described because the drawing did not depict the same footprint as the model. Mr. Kevin Watts agreed and explained the differences of the two. Mr. Pett thought that the elevation of the proposed unit which would be located on the corner of Almond Street and 300 North would be a very overpowering structure in comparison with the streetscape. Mr. Russ Watts reminded the commission that the two units which would be on 300 North would be sunk down into the ground so the base would actually be below street level. However, he said that with the Planning Commission's decision, there could be more flexibility in the project. Mr. Pett further expressed is concerns of the 300 North units, as well as the corner transition of details, the mass of solid walls, the vertical undulation. The conversation continued as many other elements were discussed.
• Ms. Hatch expressed her concerns about the hardship of the homeowners in the neighborhood and their desire to insure the stability of their existing homes. Mr. Russ Watts said that he understood and indicated that Watts Corporation would be responsible for the conditions of the neighboring properties throughout the construction process. Ms. Hatch said because it is an Historic district, people have invested a lot of money into the preservation and restoration of their homes and the commission is expecting a commitment from Watts Corporation to take every precaution to prevent damage to the Historic fabric of the district.
• Mr. Cartwright commented that he liked the first drawings better than the modified ones, because they were simpler. Others agreed. Mr. Cartwright disclosed the fact that the variety of proposed pediments, especially in the roof, were inconsistent and created a design problem. Mr. Cartwright further talked about the scale and the traditional values of the neighborhood, such as the open spaces, front porches and open spaces, especially on Almond Street. He also too expressed his concerns about the massing and scale which created a “wall” effect. Mr. Cartwright described what he thought was an attempt to be insincere historic references which were clearly not what the community ought to have. He thought that the project should have a more creative site plan that would give something back to the neighborhood.
Mr. Cartwright continued by addressing the following issues:
1) the treatment on 300 North. There ought to be some kind of entity for the public on that elevation, other than garage doors and driveways;
2) scale issue of solids and voids that were traditionally valued in that Historic neighborhood: and
3)ingressing and egressing the underground parking structures. Mr. Cartwright also made some suggestions to diffuse the traffic onto West Temple.
• Mr. Russ Watts stated that Watts Corporation was committed to 34 units and so the density could not be reduced to create the open spaces of which Mr. Cartwright addressed. However, he pointed out that the buildings could have more floor space by increasing the height. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the issues that had been discussed. Mr. Cartwright pointed out that he was not opposed to this project as long as some of those issues could be addressed.
• Ms. Egleston inquired if lap siding was proposed for the exterior walls, although an EIFS system was indicated on the site drawings. (No answer was given.)
• Ms. Deal asked what was "wood mold brick.” Mr. Kevin Watts said that it was a cast soft rolled modular brick which has an antique look.
Mr. Pett asked if anyone in the audience wished to make additional comments regarding Case No. 021-95 and requested that they limit their responses and comments to the issues that were just addressed by the commission, and not issues that were in the purview of the Planning Commission, such as the traffic and parking situations that were most eloquently presented in prior testimonies. The following comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Bonnie Mangold cited two sections of the City's zoning ordinance for the H Historic Overlay District, Section 17-1.8, Standards for Certificate of
Appropriateness involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-Contributing Structure. “In considering an application for a Certificate or Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find that the project substantially complies with all or the following standards that pertain to the application and that are in the best interest of the City.", and Section 17-1.8(c)(4), Streetscape, Pedestrian Improvements. “Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in the appearance thereof shall be compatible to the Historic character of the Landmark Site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.” She said that she recognized that the commission was considering those issues in the ordinance and re-emphasized the point about being compatible to the Historic character of the neighborhood.
• Mr. Joseph Pitti said that he agreed with the comments make by the commission regarding the compatibility to the neighborhood. He said that he did not feel like the project was compatible to the neighborhood.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
The discussion turned to the subject of how other cities handled the same issues that have been discussed regarding this type of project and the extent or enforcement of the homeowner’s association to eliminate some of the parking issues of off-street and guest parking.
Ms. Jardine spoke of the success of the program where parking permits were required in neighborhoods in the City where parking was a problem for the residents. She added that the process had been re-evaluated which makes the processing easier. The discussion continued.
Ms. Deal moved to table Case No.021-95 based on the outcome of the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval, because the Planning Commission's ruling on a subsequent sire plan could seriously affect the design, the setbacks and other elements of the project. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright.
A discussion developed regarding the wording of the motion. Some members were concerned about the applicant’s ability or keeping the process moving. It was suggested by some members that the application could still be reviewed in the subcommittee while it was tabled. Mr. Pett said that there were several issues that were acknowledged in this meeting and thought that they should be addressed in the motion. Ms. Williams inquiring about how the City Council's appeal would effect the 60 day limit, if the project was tabled. Ms. Egleston stated that the commission could table the application, based in the appeal, but she was not certain of the legality of that issue. Ms. Jardine suggested that a legal opinion be acquired. Ms. Egleston pointed that the commission’s motion should be based on the issues of design and not on the issues relative to the appeal.
Ms. Deal withdrew her motion. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the issues surrounding this case.
Mr. Cartwright moved to table Case No.021-95, and asked that the applicant return to the Architectural subcommittee for further review to address the issues, such as the massing and scale, the architectural detail’s compatibility with the architectural design, and the consideration of the open space issue that has not been achieved. Also for the applicant to take a fresh look at the design issues and encourage the pursuit of a more contemporary architectural design, rather than traditional, because the applicant would have more latitude. The commission would rather see a solution emerge from the issues that have been raised rather than taking a solution and imposing it on an already designed site. Further, encourage the applicant to study prototypes for this type of project that have been constructed throughout the United States, which have dealt with the same problems that surround this project. The applicant will be required to return to the full commission for final approval. It was seconded by Ms. Deal, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASE
Case No. 007-96 at 334 No. Quince Street, by Gary Bliss, represented by Craig Wall, requesting to construct a new single family dwelling.
Ms. Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that Joel Paterson from the Planning Office handles subdivision issues in the Capitol Hill area and would be much better at explaining the subdivision process in Historic districts, since the Preservation Planners have not had any subdivision experience under the new zoning ordinance.
Ms. Egleston read two sections of the City's new zoning ordinance that deals with subdivisions in historic districts Section 17-1.1(b), "Encourage new development, redevelopment, and the subdivision of lots in Historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of Historic districts or individual landmarks;" and Section 17-1.8(d), Subdivision of Lots. “The Planning Director shall review subdivision and plats proposed for a property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a Landmark Site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s)."
There was much discussion regarding these issues and some members expressed their views that subdividing this piece of property would not be compatible with the historic district. Ms. Miller suggested that Mr. Paterson be asked to explain the subdivision process.
Mr. Joel Paterson rejoined the meeting and stated the following: "This property met all the square footage and layout requirements for a subdivision process. During the course of an administrative proceeding, abutting property owners are notified by mail and the site is also posted to notify the public of the date and time of the scheduled public hearing. A telephone number is printed on the sign for anyone who wished to call for more information. This kind of meeting is a little less formal than a Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Director either appoints himself or a Planning Program Supervisor as a hearing officer. During this public forum, anyone can participate to state their views on the matter. If there is no opposition, the hearing officer could administratively approve the subdivision, as long as it met all criteria. If there is controversy, the hearing officer may act on the petition or move to schedule the subdivision request with the Planning Commission. An appeal of the hearing officer’s decision is heard by the Planning Commission."
Mr. Paterson continued by saying that the new zoning ordinance has a regulation for flag lots. He said that on a typical subdivision the minimum frontage requirement would be 50 feet however, the criteria for a flag lot requires that there be a 20-foot wide “pole” for driveway access to the rear portion or the "f1ag” of the property. When asked, Mr. Paterson pointed out that the flag pole (driveway) would have to be under the ownership of the rear lot, however the owners of both lots could enter into an agreement to allow joint use of the driveway. He said that the City would not necessarily enforce the owner of the front parcel to put in another driveway to gain access to the property.
Mr. Paterson explained, in detail what the square footage requirements were. He stated that there is an adjoining alleyway of unknown ownership. Mr. Paterson said that he had suggested to the applicant that he pursues with finding the ownership for a possible acquisition of a legal right-of-way. Inconclusion, Mr. Paterson assured the members of the commission that their involvement would be discussed with the Planning Director. He said that it was not the intention of the planning staff that the commission had not been involved with the subdivision procedure for the subject property site, however, under the State’s enabling legislation, subdivision approval authority is granted to the Planning Commission, as well as the Mayor.
Mr. Craig Wall, representing the applicant, was present He stated that the applicant informed him that the lot had been basically approved to be subdivided because the size and square footage met all requirements. Mr. Wall stated that the applicant desired to gain access to the adjoining alleyway which would be easier ingress and egress to the property. He also spoke of the existing retaining wall that varied in height which ran along that sloping driveway. There was some discussion regarding the Issue of both retaining walls that were on the site plan.
Mr. Wall described the materials, that were proposed to be used on the house, by saying that the applicant desired to give the completed home a more traditional adobe look, by using paper, plaster, lathe, brown coat, and a hand-trawled stucco finish. He indicated that by saving money, using an acrylic stucco, there could be more money invested in the detailing. Mr. Wall said that a sprayed on stucco system would not be used. Mr. Wall said that the windows would be Pella brand single-hung wood windows; two on the rear would be a casement type. He circulated additional copies of the site drawings to the members.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
Ms. Deal led the discussion by stating that she though that the plans had a very traditional stucco-look and the narrow window openings were in proportion with the proposed structure.
• Mr. Pett asked about the height of the finished floor to the pitch of the roof on the west elevation. Mr. Wall said that the height would be approximately 79.5 feet.
• Mr. Cartwright expressed his concerns about the north elevation and that the cantilevered section seemed to be out of context with the very traditional lines on the rest of that elevation. Mr. Wall said for that reason he would like to have the subcommittee review this project. There was some discussion regarding the approval process for new construction.
• Mr. Hatch pointed out that she thought that the east, as well as the north, elevations needed to have more consideration.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns and comments were made by the public.
• Dr. Carolyn Andree, who resides at 326 No. Quince Street stated that if there would be a 20-foot setback on the north, what would the setback be on the south side. She indicated that she owned the adjoining property on the south. Mr. Wall said that there would be a standard setback of four feet.
• Mr. Joseph Pitti, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, indicated that he thought that was an important piece of property in the neighborhood. He pointed out that he had put a lot of money into the restoration of his home and other neighbors had, as well. He expressed his concerns that if the property was subdivided and have two new homes on that site, it would destroy the integrity of the street, because most of the lots behind the houses. Mr. Pitti also spoke of the desecration of many mature trees that were on the lot. He said there were over a dozen 80-year old trees on that property and now they are gone and irreplaceable. He said that some way, they could have been integrated with the plans of the project.
• M&. Regina Peery, who resides at 330 No. Quince Street stated that she did not object to a single family home being proposed for the property, but was opposed to the lot being subdivided. She also spoke of her disappointment when the trees were cut down.
• Ms. Michelle Waltz, who resides at 329 No. Almond Street, used a briefing board to describe where her property was in relation to the subject property site. Mr. Wall said that when she purchased the property, the lots were laid out with a wagon wheel. She drew a line of the alignment of her property in relationship to the alleyway on Apricot Avenue. She said that she had to negotiate with the neighbor to give her permission to construct a carport off that alley. Ms. Waltz said that she was informed that the apartment building, adjacent to the alley, has had access to the alleyway long enough to establish a grandfather right-of--way status. She added that the alley had been paved with tar and gravel.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission. Mr. Pett closed the healing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
The discussion continued. Ms. Deal said that she would like to see a conceptional approval be rendered by the commission for the proposed structure, but not for the site plan or the subdivision request indicated that she did not want to delay the site plan review of the proposed single family home. Ms. Williams suggested that consideration could be given in the approval of the proposed single family home on the current site, as it was, because the actual subdivision process had not been completed.
Mr. Williams moved for a conceptional approval for Case No. 007-96 for the construction of a single family dwelling on the site and that the applicant attend the Architectural Subcommittee meeting for further review of materials and return to the full commission for final approval. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
There was further discussion regarding the subdivision process. Since this was the first meeting where subdividing a property in an historic district was an issue, the commission, as a whole, decided that it would be beneficial if a separate motion was made to include the commission in the subdivision process.
Ms. Deal moved that the Historic Landmark Commission be included in the subdivision review and have direct input in any lot in an historic district and that this motion be forwarded to the City’s Planning Director, based on Sections 17-1.1(b) and 17-1.8(d) of the City’s new zoning ordinance. It was seconded by Ms. Williams. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Svikhart, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgen and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M•