SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, and Oktai Parvaz. William Damery, Rob McFarland, Lynn Morgan, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the June 17, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Owen. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 019-98. at 451 No. Main Street. by John Anderson. requesting final approval to construct a single family house.
Ms. Deal made the following disclosure: "I ran into the applicant last week outside the office and he asked for a referral for his model. I referred him to someone in our office who did it on his/her own time; it was not a Babcock project by any means. I just wanted that on the record."
Mr. Knight 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 of this meeting.
Mr. John Anderson, the applicant, was present. He displayed a model of the proposed structure to enable the Commission members to see the three-dimensional likeness of the project. He talked about the curved driveway configuration versus the straight driveway approach. Mr. Anderson stated that the Zoning Office informed him that the curved driveway would meet the 16-percent grade requirement, but the height of the house would have to be increased to make the straight approach work. Both configurations were displayed on the model.
Mr. Anderson mentioned that some of the Commission members had expressed their concern about the applicant's garage being placed so closely to the garages of the proposed duplex, which will be constructed to the south of his property, that the projects would give the appearance of a condominium complex. He said that he explored the idea of installing one garage door rather than two, which would make less of an interruption in the rhythm of the streetscape. Mr. Anderson noted that he also included that suggestion into the scheme shown on the model.
Mr. Anderson showed a sample board of cultured stone, which he said he preferred to use rather than real stone because of the expense. He said that the cost of real stone would be one and one-half times more than cultured stone. Mr. Anderson also circulated a catalog that had many examples of cultured stone. When Ms. Miller inquired about the cost, he said that the builder estimated that cultured stone would cost approximately $20,000, and real stone would increase that cost by $10,000.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by wanting to clarify where the applicant's property line was on the drawings. She suggested that more landscaping be placed between the property line and the retaining wall. Ms. Blaes wanted the minutes to reflect that the property line displayed on the model was more accurate than on the site drawings.
• Ms. Miller inquired if the applicant could compromise between the straight driveway approach and the curved configuration because she believed the angle would make entering into the garage very difficult. Mr. Anderson said that he certainly was open to suggestions.
• Ms. Blaes pointed out that there was a reason to further explore the different driveway configurations and how they may affect one's perception of the massing of house. She said that if the applicant could meet the zoning requirement and if the Commission could make a determination how the massing would be perceived with one solution over the other, everyone concerned could probably reach a compromise, without having to choose from one of the exact examples that have been discussed.
The discussion continued regarding this matter. It was a consensus among the Commission members that the height of the proposed house should not be raised to accommodate the driveway solution.
• Mr. Owen said that the straight driveway approach might create a storm drainage problem, which may be another consideration to select a curved driveway. Ms. Deal suggested installing a trench drain in the driveway. Mr. Owen recommended that the lentils over the lower windows on the south elevation be made of the stone material to match the north elevation. Mr. Anderson concurred with that recommendation. Mr. Owen inquired about the shingled sections shown on the rear elevation. Mr. Anderson explained that the fireplace and the deck, which would be constructed at the rear of the proposed house, would be covered with shingles.
• Mr. Littig inquired about a window on the south elevation at the basement level, which was a different shape that the rest of the windows in the house. Mr. Anderson said that a room would be built underneath the garage and explained how that window would be detailed. He said that he did not believe that a window well would be necessary. Ms. Deal asked the applicant if he would consider replacing that one large window with two smaller ones, so that they would match the size and rhythm of the other windows throughout the proposed structure. Mr. Anderson said that he would.
• Mr. Parvas asked about the fascia and soffits. Mr. Anderson said that the shingles would be recessed where they would meet the soffits.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes discussed the Staffs findings that were included in the staff report. She recommended that the Commission clarify the Staffs findings. It was a consensus of the members that the Commission agreed with the Staffs findings. A discussion took place regarding the driveway approach and the fact that the topography would dictate the configuration of the driveway. The applicant was encouraged to include as much landscaping as possible. It was also suggested that the garage would be accessed easier with one garage door rather than the two doors, which was originally planned. Ms. Deal pointed out that ordinarily, the Commission would not support a single garage door, but under the circumstances with this particular property, one door would be preferred.
Mr. Owen said usually the cost difference between cultured stone and real stone was the labor of the stone masons. He said the important issue was not to have a repeated pattern of the stone material. Mr. Owen said that when he sees a repeated pattern in stone work, it reminds him of a printed "drapery" where one would look for the repeat pattern, rather than seeing the entire surface. He inquired about the module with which the stone masons would be working. The cultured stone catalog was again circulated as the members briefly leafed through it to find good examples of the cultural stone.
The discussion continued.
Ms. Deal moved to approve the application for Case No. 019-98 with the following stipulations: 1) the curved driveway is supported and that the topography, zoning, and the engineering requirements would dictate the actual shape of the driveway. The maximum amount of landscaping, as possible, is to be used between the retaining wall and the property line; 2) that the single garage was allowed for reasons of driveway configuration, access, and breaking-up the module that will be visible from the street; 3) that the applicant change the large picture windows on the south elevation to a double set of the regular modular windows with the stone lintels above; and 4) that cultured stone is allowed but the applicant is to specify on the drawings that the module must be mixed on site and be approved by the applicant's architect before the stones are laid. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Historic Landmark Commission's awards ceremony.
Mr. Knight said that notification letters were sent to the nine selected award recipients and invitations would be in the mail in the next few days. The discussion continued regarding publicity for the awards ceremony. The function will be held Monday, July 13th at 5:30P.M. in Room 126 of the City and County Building.
NACP Conference in Denver from July 31 to August 2. 1998.
Ms. Blaes discussed the money issue of the members attending the conference. A copy of the registration form was filed with the minutes. The Commission members talked about the registration fees and the cost of attending the conference. It was a consensus that the names of three members of the Commission would be drawn and those members would have their expenses paid.
Ms. Blaes talked about the value of the Commission members attending this conference, held by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, and the learning experience of networking with other preservation commissions. She said that her goal, as chair, in trying to get as many of the Commission members to attend as possible, was that the creative interactive learning experience would build the strength of the commission.
Architectural Subcommittee meetings.
It was decided by the members of the Architectural Subcommittee that the meetings would be changed to 4:00P.M. instead of 8:00A.M. and would continue to be held on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Gordon so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:00P.M.