June 17, 1998

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 Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Nelson Knight, and Joel Paterson.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Lynn Morgan, Orlan Owen, and Oktai Parvaz. William Damery 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.

Ms. Blaes introduced a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Oktai

Parvaz. Mr. Parvaz was welcomed by the Commission members and Staff.

Ms. Blaes also announced that the years of service on the Historic Landmark Commission by Mr. Morgan and Mr. Damery would be coming to a close early in July and she expressed her appreciation for that service which had been rendered so generously.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the June 3, 1998 meeting, after some corrections are made. It was seconded by Mr. Littig. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.

OLD BUSINESS

Case No. 003-98. at 39 No. Q Street. by Art Brothers. represented by Paula Carl. Architect. requesting to change the color of the exterior brick. which was approved on March 4. 1998.

Ms. Giraud 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.

Ms. Paula Carl, architect, was in attendance representing the applicant. She stated that the applicant, Mr. Brothers, neglected to consult with his wife on the brick color which had been approved. Ms. Carl said that Mrs. Brothers preferred another color of brick. She displayed a sample board of brick colors that were in the yellow/tan tones.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission

• Mr. Morgan led the discussion and inquired about the uniformity of the color in the brick samples. He pointed out the different shades of color in the brick samples and expressed his concern about how the brick would look on a large wall section. Mr. Morgan recommended that one of the brick samples, on which the color was more uniform, be selected by the applicant. He further recommended that the mortar color not be a strong contrast. Ms. Carl said that she believed the applicant would do a test panel before the brick was selected. The discussion continued.

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

A short discussion followed.

Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 003-98 for the material substitution, as presented, with the colors which were shown on the displayed color board being the range of colors that would be used for the brick. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Morgan suggested that the motion be amended by recommending the mortar color. After a short discussion, Ms. Deal amended the motion.

Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 003-98 for the material substitution, as presented, with the colors shown on the displayed color board being the range of colors that would be used for the brick. Further that a natural mortar color be selected and approved by Staff. The second still stood by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.

Case No. 013-98. at 175 No. 0 Street. by Alex Steckel. requesting final approval to demolish the house.

Ms. Giraud 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.

The applicant, Mr. Alex Steckel, concurred with the staff report and said that he had nothing more to add.

Since there were no comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, 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 Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

No discussion followed.

Mr. Morgan moved to approve Case No. 013-98, based on the Staff's findings of fact, and accept the Staff's recommendation to require the applicant to post a landscaping bond and have approved plans by the Historic Landmark Commission for new construction prior to issuing a demolition permit. It was seconded by Ms. Miller. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.

Case No. 014-98. at 400 South and 700 East on Block 39. Plat B. by Thomas Williamsen. represented by Chris Webb of Chasebrook Company. and by Russ Naylor. Architect. requesting final approval to construct five new structures and re-use an existing structure.

Ms. Giraud 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.

The applicant, Mr. Thomas Williamsen, and his representatives, Mr. Chris Webb and Mr. Russ Naylor, were present. The applicant used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Webb presented an overview of the project. He said that the main issue that had to be resolved was the building orientation on the 400 South side. He referred to a meeting with the applicant, Mr. Williamsen, his representatives, Mr. Webb and Mr. Naylor, Mr. Paterson, Ms. Giraud, Mr. Knight, and Mr. William Wright, Planning Director. Mr. Webb said that the site orientation was discussed at that time. Mr. Webb said rather than rotating building No. 5 so it would face 400 South, another mass entry in the back would be created. He said that would allow the street frontage to continue into the center of the block for pedestrians. Mr. Webb said that the landscaping would be "beefed up" to hide the parking field on both the 700 East and 400 South exposures. He added that the parking field would also be divided by landscaped islands. Mr. Webb pointed out the entrance to the underground parking on the site plan.

Mr. Williamsen said that the challenges for developers, in projects such as these, are the economics. He said that buildings No. 2 and No. 3 needed to have exposure to 700 East and/or 400 south. Mr. Williamsen said that he explained to the tenants of those retail spaces in the rear that the City required building pads closer to the street, and the tenants are trying to work out a compromise with the plan. He added that the tenants would rather have a "perfect visual field". He also spoke of the possibility of light rail going in on 400 South and how that would create a more pedestrian-friendly environment.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission

• Mr. Morgan led the discussion by expressing his concern about the proposed buildings No. 4 and 5 which he said appeared to be on the property line. He said that there would be no penetration of any kind on the west elevation of those buildings. He spoke of the starkness of the walls and very little area to create a landscape buffer. Mr. Morgan said that as one would drive east on 400 South, those stark walls would be very visible. Mr. Williamsen said that he also has been struggling with that issue. He said that his goal was to "meet half way" and to have more massing in the streetscape. Mr. Williamsen spoke of the Hermes strip mall that is across 400 South from the project site and in the same zoning district, where the buildings are in the rear of the property with no obstacles restricting their exposure. He said that he was trying to accommodate the Staff by attempting to work out a compromise. Mr. Williamsen said that he would prefer not to have buildings on those pad sites. Ms. Blaes said that was one of the issues which was discussed in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. Ms. Giraud noted that a mural or climbing vines were suggested to help the starkness of those blank walls.

• Ms. Deal inquired if there would be a fence along the west property line behind buildings No.4 and 5. Mr. Williamsen said that the intent was to leave the area open so there would not be a fence or a sidewalk in the space between the Taco Bell parking and the buildings. Mr. Webb displayed some samples of ways to

reduce the blank wall massing, such as the design of the masonry, landscaping, and lighting for decoration. Ms. Deal inquired about the location of the proposed awnings. Mr. Webb pointed them out on the site drawings. Mr. Morgan said that he believed permanent standing-seam awnings would be more productive than canvas awnings that would fade and become shredded within five years. Ms. Deal agreed that the awnings should be permanent. Mr. Naylor said that he appreciated that input. When Ms. Deal asked about a 400 South elevation drawing of building No. 5, Mr. Webb said that the plans were not completed, as yet, and would be provided.

The discussion continued as Mr. Webb spoke of some of the architectural features of the buildings and displayed a sample color board of the split-face concrete and trim. He added that each building would be a different color, creating a "village" feel, rather than a "suburban" feel where all the buildings are the same neutral color. Mr. Webb added that the colors of the buildings would blend well into the entire scheme.

• Mr. Littig pointed out that the landscaping plan was still void of street trees and believed that the Commission should pay attention to that issue. Mr. Webb said that there would only be a thirteen-inch space between the sidewalk and the curb, and the applicant chose to put more trees at the lot lines. Mr. Littig said that street trees are very important to pedestrians. He said that the applicant should make an effort to add more trees, since 400 South was nearly void of street trees. Mr. Morgan suggested reworking the sidewalk by pulling it back to allow the space for trees. Mr. Naylor said that would be studied further because the curb and gutters will be replaced.

• Ms. Blaes inquired about the design and materials of the outside dining area. Mr. Naylor said that information would be provided.

Executive Session

Ms. Blaes referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) of the City's zoning ordinance, which are the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction. She inquired if the Commission supported the Staff's finding of fact, as was stated in the staff report. She said that in new construction, the Historic Landmark Commission members shall consider the following:

(a) Scale and form. The Staff finding states that the height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape and scale of the proposed structures are visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape. The Commission was in support.

(b) Composition of principal facades. The Staff finding states that the proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and relationship of materials is visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape. The Commission was in support.

(c) Relationship to street. The Staff finding states that the proposed development is visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape in terms of walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, directional expression of principal elevation and pedestrian improvements. The Commission was in support.

(d) Subdivision of lots. The Staff finding states that the subdivision of lots is not an issue in this application. The Commission was in support.

A short discussion took place regarding the awnings. Ms. Deal amended the motion.

Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 014-98, based on the Staff's finding of fact, with the following items to be refined and presented to the Architectural Subcommittee: (1) a full landscaping plan, which would show the species and caliper of the intended trees; (2) the landscaping plan should accommodate as many street trees as possible even if it would require moving the sidewalk; (3) details and the treatment of the outdoor dining areas; (4) a window section; (5) an entry detail; and (6) details of the intended awnings. The second still stood by Mr. Morgan. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.

Case No. 015-98. at 734 East 200 South, by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett. requesting a review of the findings of the Economic Review Panel. established for a conditional use petition to use the "James Freeze" house as a reception center.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting, along with the report and the minutes from the economic hardship review on June 2, 1998, and the data which the applicants had presented.

The applicants, Ms. Nancy Saxton and Mr. Jan Bartlett, were present. Ms. Saxton pointed out an address error in the Economic Review Panel report and the minutes from the June 2, 1998 economic hardship review. Ms. Saxton stated that the economic hardship review process had been very interesting, but confusing. She reported that the Economic Review Panel members analyzed each item that she had submitted.

Since there were no comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

Ms. Cindy Cromer, who resides at 816 East 100 South, stated that she wanted to address the City's ordinance pertaining to the economic hardship review process, both on the demolition of structures and on the requirements for a change of use application. She said that she has seen this process used too frequently. Ms. Cromer commented on the previous economic hardship review determination on the Mumford and Mozart properties. She said that she believed the way the panel members proceeded was on assumptions on certain kinds of gains and economic returns to the property owners. She added that those guarantees were never made to her, as a property owner, that she would make a certain amount of money on her investment. Ms. Cromer said that was the risk that she took when she bought the property. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the way the economic hardship review portion of the City's zoning ordinance was functioning and expressed her concerns about the ordinance meeting the long-range goals of neighborhood viability and historic preservation. Ms. Cromer indicated that she would be an advocate to revise this section of the ordinance. Ms. Blaes said, for clarification purposes, that since the adoption of the ordinance, the City has had two complete economic hardship reviews.

Upon hearing no further 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

A short discussion followed. Ms. Blaes reminded the Historic Landmark Commission members that it was the obligation of the Commission to either accept or deny the findings made by the Economic Review Panel in behalf of the applicants. She continued by saying that a denial could only be based on two issues: 1) if the decision of the panel was arbitrary; 2) or that the information upon which the Economic Review Panel made the findings was erroneous.

Mr. Owen suggested that there was some discrepancy in the information which was submitted by the applicants. He said that he believed there was a contradiction in the maintenance expenses, depreciation, etc. Mr. Owen pointed out that the applicant said that those expenses were not available for the past three years, and in another section of the data, the operating expenses were submitted. Ms. Blaes said that she had attended the economic hardship review and wanted to clarify this issue because it was discussed among the panel members. She said that the submitted maintenance and operating expenses were only since the applicants had acquired the property in September of 1997.

Mr. Littig inquired about the financial return on the building at the rear of the property. There was some discussion pertaining to this matter. Ms. Giraud said that the change of use and the economic hardship review only applied to the James Freeze House, located on the front portion of the property; therefore the applicants did not include information on that rental unit.

Ms. Blaes expressed appreciation to the panel members for their willingness to serve on the Economic Review Panel. She pointed out that the process for this review was much clearer, in terms of the ability for the Historic Landmark Commission members to make the determination on the panel's findings. She continued by saying that she believed this case could be a guideline for any future economic hardship review process. Ms. Deal agreed. The following motion was on the floor:

Ms. Deal moved for Case No.015-98 that the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the findings of the Economic Review Panel on behalf of the applicants, Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett. It was seconded by Mr. Morgan. Ms. Deal, MS. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 019-98. at 451 No. Main Street, by John Anderson. represented by Rod Stephens. Contractor. requesting approval to construct a single-family house.

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. Knight pointed out an error in the staff report and said that the size of the house would only be 5,600 square feet.

After a short discussion, regarding the proposed horizontal siding, Mr. Knight said the use of horizontal siding was incorrect in the staff report. He said that the applicant did not plan to use horizontal siding; that he planned to use the shingles on the upper story.

Ms. Blaes said that the streetscape drawing, included in the staff report, showed a different roof form than the other drawings in the staff report. Mr. Knight said that the correct roof design was computer-drawn elevations.

The applicant, Mr. John Anderson, and his contractor, Rod Stephens, were both present. Mr. Anderson stated that he attended the June 3, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, as well as the following Architectural Subcommittee meeting because his project and Mr. Holloway's project were closely related. He referred to some of the comments and suggestions that were made at those meetings. Mr. Anderson indicated that he had some elevation drawings redone, incorporating some of those suggestions. He circulated the revised drawings to the members of the Commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Mr. Anderson said that in the proposed changes windows were added on the north and south elevations, and an air vent was added on the front elevation above the garage doors to break up that space. There was some discussion regarding the additional windows, making certain that the bedrooms had the appropriate egress required by the building code. It was discovered that the floor plans had not been updated to match the revised north and south elevation drawings. Mr. Anderson also displayed a sample board depicting the proposed cultured stone and shaker siding materials.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission

• Ms. Deal led the discussion by saying that she had no problem with the gray-toned colors or the pattern of the cultured stone, but she suggested using real stone; rather than cultured stone. She said that there was no shortage of real stone in the area. Ms. Deal talked about the integrity of the materials and said that real stone would be just as maintenance-free, as cultured stone, and would be readily available. Mr. Anderson indicated that he was flexible with the proposed materials. Mr. Gordon pointed out that real stone was listed as one of the materials on the wall section drawing. Mr. Anderson said that he was trying to balance an "old" look with a "contemporary" feel for the proposed house. Ms. Deal inquired about the planned columns on the front and rear elevations. Mr. Stephens said that the columns would be cedar posts trimmed with real stone. She pointed out that the details of the columns were not depicted on the drawings, which would show the capital and the base treatment. Mr. Stephens said those details would be provided.

• Ms. Mitchell inquired about the railing and deck materials. Mr. Anderson said that the railing would be tubular steel with a powder finish. The height of the deck was discussed. Mr. Stephens said that a pony wall would be constructed and the railing would be installed on top of the wall to accommodate the height which would meet the building code requirement. Mr. Anderson likened the proposed balcony treatment to the balcony on a house across the street from his proposed structure at 450 No. Main Street. Mr. Stephens referred to the window, railing, and deck details which were included in the set of drawings.

• Ms. Miller said that she would like to have clarified the differences of the hand-drawn elevations and the computer-drawn elevations. Mr. Stephens said that the hand drawn version was done prior to the applicant actually deciding whether or not he would build on the vacant property. He further said that the hand-drawn version was the original attempt to show the streetscape, which also included Mr. Holloway's proposed duplex. Mr. Stephens gave some chronicle background of the set of drawings.

• Ms. Blaes inquired about the change of the roof shape. Mr. Anderson said that he had a concern about the pitch of the proposed roof and tried to achieve a different look for the porch entranceway. He said that he desired the hipped roof rather than the gable style. Ms. Miller said that she believed that the forms on the hand-drawn drawing seemed more compatible to the streetscape and neighborhood. There was some discussion regarding the roof shapes. Ms. Deal said that the gable roof form was a more traditional roof shape in the district and the hipped roof was more traditional form in any western suburb. Ms. Blaes asked if the applicant was "married" to the hipped roof form. Mr. Anderson said that he was trying to achieve a higher ceiling height in the interior. Ms. Deal said that a gable roof design would allow more height. Ms. Deal also inquired about the roof drawn behind the porch roof that appeared to be at a different pitch. Mr. Stephens said that it actually would be the same pitch of 7/12.

• Ms. Giraud referred to the landscaping plans, included in the staff report, and said that one plan showed the driveway on a curve and the other showed a straight entry from the street. Ms. Giraud referred to the orientation of the driveways and the garages which was an important aspect of a new construction project in the Avenues area. She asked if the driveways could be situated so the entrance to the garages would be on the north side of the property, then have some sort of fenestration facing the street on the garages. Mr. Stephens said that the set back on that elevation would be 25 feet. Ms. Deal said that she was not certain that the building footprint could be pulled out enough to make that change. Mr. Stephens said that the proposal was drawn right at the setbacks. This issue was further discussed.

• Mr. Littig expressed his concerns that with a curved driveway, especially in snowy weather, the driveway would be hard to access, and there would always be cars parked in front of the house. The discussion continued. Ms. Blaes asked the applicant to look at this issue very closely. Ms. Giraud said that the Staff would be more comfortable with the straight entry from the street. Mr. Morgan said that due to the grade change of the property, he said that he agreed that the straight entry would be more accessible. Mr. Stephens talked further about how the slope of the property would be handled in the landscaping. The discussion continued as the two landscaping plans were examined. Mr. Stephen said that he thought that the plan which showed the curved driveway would fit better into the topography of the land.

• Mr. Gordon asked if the windows were proposed as true divided light. Mr. Anderson said that his preference would be that both the casement and the double-hung windows would be plain, without the grids. Mr. Stephens said that the transom windows would not be made to open.

Ms. Blaes 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. John L. Anderson, who resides at 402 No. Center Street, stated that his only concern was where on the large vacant property the proposed house would be built. It was pointed out on the proposed streetscape where the house would be located. He was also concerned about the access to the property. Mr. Anderson said that after hearing the presentation, he had no problems with the future construction.

Upon hearing no further 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

A short discussion took place regarding the revised plans. There was some concern expressed for the tall portico and some members did not believe that it was compatible to the district. Some members said that the portico should be lower. Some members also discussed the roof design and lowering the pitch to a 5/12, which would also scale down the massing.

Mr. Morgan said that the materials would be similar to the proposed duplex, which will be constructed, but the form would be very different so they would not read like they appeared in the streetscape drawing. The discussion continued regarding the compatibility of the roof form. Ms. Blaes said that she believed that the revised roof shape was not compatible and should be altered and the applicants should start over with a new roof design. Other members agreed that the original gable roof design was more compatible.

Mr. Morgan suggested that the applicant use windows with true divided light, and not grids between the two panes of glass, rather than plain windows. Ms. Giraud suggested using the shingle siding on the front elevation in place of the proposed stone work. There was some discussion that the proposed single-family and the proposed duplex next door would look like one project, which was part of the historic development pattern.

Ms. Blaes asked for a consensus of opinion on the following findings of fact listed in the staff report:

Section 21A.34.020(H) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:

(a) Scale and Form: 1. Height and width, 2. Proportion of principal facades, 3. Roof shape, and 4. Scale of a structure. Staffs finding: The proposed house is compatible in height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape, and scale with the surrounding properties. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The Commission found that the revised plans for the roof shape and the scale of the proposed house, presented at this meeting, would not be compatible with the surrounding properties.

(b) Composition of Principal Facades: 1. Proportion of openings, 2. Rhythm of solids to voids in facades, 3. Rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and 4. Relationship of materials. Staffs finding: The proportion of openings on the east elevation is consistent with the streetscape and visually compatible with the surrounding properties. The rhythm of solids to voids on the house is consistent with the surrounding properties. The proposed entrance porch is consistent in size and location with the surrounding properties. The relationship of materials is not visually compatible with the surrounding structures, with the exception of the proposed house next door at 439-441 No. Main Street.

Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission found that the proportion of openings on the east elevation and the rhythm of solids and voids on the proposed house, as it would relate to the entry porch, would not be compatible with the surrounding houses or the district. The Commission also found that the relationship of materials would be visually compatible with the surrounding structures, as discussed earlier in this meeting, since there would not be the use of three separate materials.

(c) Relationship to Street: 1. Walls of continuity; 2. Rhythm of spacing and structures on street; 3. Directional expression of principal elevation; and 4. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements.

Staffs findings: The proposed house is compatible with the surrounding buildings in terms of walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, and directional expression of the principal elevation, insofar as this can be determined before the building at 439-441 No. Main Street is constructed. The proposed streetscape and pedestrian improvements are compatible with the surrounding buildings and the district.

Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission found that the proposed house would not be compatible with the surrounding buildings in terms of walls of continuity and rhythm of spacing due to the proposed tall portico over the front entry. The Commission supported the last portion of the Staffs finding.

(d) Subdivision of lots. Any subdivision of lots will be compatible with the character of the historic district.

Staffs findings: The applicant intends to keep this lot as one parcel.

Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission found that this standard was not applicable to the application.

A short discussion followed regarding the wording of the motion.

Ms. Deal moved that Case No. 019-98 be tabled, based on the revised findings of fact, until the applicant returns to the full Commission with some additional and revised information on the following items: (1) the roof line, as was discussed in this meeting regarding the gable versus the hip; (2) the porch lowered and not so monumental in scale; (3) details on all the front and back columns; (4) window details, preferably cut sheets which would show the actual windows, either a true divided light or revised elevation drawings that would show the windows the applicant desires to use; (5) consideration that real stone would be used, rather than cultured stone; (6) elevation drawings which show a stone rusticated base and no stone coming up into the shingle area; and (7) a site plan which shows how the applicant would resolve the contoured driveway from the street to the house. It was seconded by Mr. Owen. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Damery and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

National Commission Forum.

Ms. Blaes announced that the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is sponsoring a conference on July 31st through August 1st. Copies of the application form were passed to the members; a copy was filed with the minutes. When asked, each member of the Historic Landmark Commission expressed his or her desire to attend. Ms. Blaes spoke of the funds that might be available to help defray the costs. The discussion continued.

Preservation of the Odd Fellows Building.

Ms. Blaes inquired if Ms. Giraud had a copy of the letter the Mayor wrote to the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding the proposed expansion of the Frank E. Moss Court House and the preservation of the Odd Fellows Building. She also asked if the joint letter signed by both the Planning Commission chair and the Historic Landmark Commission chair to GSA was ready for signatures. Ms. Giraud noted that she was not able to obtain a copy of the Mayor's letter, at this time, and the requested letter was not yet ready for signatures.

Ms. Blaes said that the Mayor has made significant commitment to preserve the Odd Fellows Building and making sure that the expansion to the court house would be sensitive to the preservation issue. Ms. Giraud noted that United States Senator Robert Bennett also wrote a letter in behalf of preserving the Odd Fellows Building and asked that GSA create a new building that would be compatible to the court house and enliven the downtown area.

Vacancies on the Historic Landmark Commission.

Ms. Blaes announced that there were vacancies on the Commission that needed to be filled and asked if any of the members could suggest someone, please contact Ms. Giraud, who works closely with the Mayor's office regarding these appointments. A short discussion followed.

Historic Landmark Commission's awards ceremony.

Mr. Knight stated that the Staff tabulated the awards voting from the last Commission meeting. He distributed a memo with the results, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight further discussed the awards which will be held on Monday, July 13, 1998 at 5:30 P.M. in Room 126 of the City and County Building. Mr. Knight asked for some guidance from the Commission members to narrow the list to about seven to ten properties. A discussion followed regarding the nominees. The Commission members were unanimously in favor of awarding No. 1 through 8, plus No. 11 on the list of nominees. There was some discussion regarding press coverage at the ceremony.

Adjournment of the meeting.

• As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.

Ms. Deal so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.