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 Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, Janice Lew, and Lex Traughber.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Lex Traughber, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with 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.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. Mr. Christensen pointed out that he did not visit both the sites.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen 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, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Wheelwright excused Mr. Zunguze for not attending the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2004 meeting, as amended. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland abstained. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 005-04. at 615 East 800 South. by Wasatch Community Garden. represented by Don Anderson. Executive Director. requesting to construct a greenhouse/restroom/ teaching shelter at this address. which is located in the Central City Historic District.
Mr. Knight 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.
Mr. Knight gave an overview of the project: Wasatch Community Garden, represented by Mr. Don Anderson, Executive Director, is requesting approval to construct a one-story structure at the northeast corner of the community garden property at 615 East 800 South. The community garden serves a wide range of neighborhood gardeners who tend a portion of the garden. Wasatch Community Garden also conducts an educational program, teaching gardening principles to approximately 800 at-risk and low-income children per year. The property is located in the Central City Historic District, and is zoned RMF-30.
City records indicate that the one-story home that once sat on this lot was demolished in 1988. Wasatch Community Garden obtained a conditional use for a garden and began using the property in the early 1990s. The "Grateful Tomato Garden" is now a highly successful fixture of this community.
The garden lacks any sort of restroom facilities for its gardeners and participants in its educational programs. Storage and greenhouse space is also needed. For zoning purposes, the City considers these functions as accessory uses to the principal community garden use. The building is thus considered an accessory structure for zoning purposes. For the purposes of the Historic Landmark Commission's review, Staff also considered this an accessory structure.
Based upon the criteria established by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals, Staff decided to refer this case to the full Commission because it would be larger than 600 square feet.
The proposed building is 25'-0" x 28'-0", with space for a greenhouse, storage room and toilet. The 5}'2:12 gabled, metal roof rises to approximately 15'-0" at the peak of the gable, with polycarbonate greenhouse panels on the south side of the roof. The primary wall material would be straw bales covered with stucco on the exterior and interior walls. The structure would be located 15 feet from the east lot line, and 4 feet from the north property line. They are also proposing two patios on the north and south sides of the building; the north patio would be covered with a wood trellis.
Mr. Knight referred to the following standards required by the City's Zoning Ordinance found in Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4) H Historic Preservation Overlay District and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City that were more pertinent for new construction:
(H) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City:
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facade s. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
The following Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council were also recommended by Staff:
Mass and Scale:
11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these: Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions; providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally; using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally; using a solid to-void that is similar to that seen traditionally; and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.
11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.
11.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block. The front shall include a one-story element, such as a porch. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than those of typical historic structures in the block. A single wall plane should not exceed the typical maximum facade width in the district.
Height:
11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.
11.8 The back side of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.
Width:
11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings. If a building would be wider overall than structures seen historically, the facade should be divided into subordinate planes that are similar in width to those of the context.
Building form standards:
11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.
11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and fourplexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.
Central City Historic District Architectural Standard:
Building Scale:
13.28 Design new buildings so that they appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally on the block. Historically, most houses appeared to have a height of one, one-and-one half or two stories. A new front facade should appear similar in height to those seen historically in the block. Taller portions should be set back farther on the lot. Story heights should appear similar to those seen historically. Also, consider using architectural details to give a sense of the traditional scale of the block.
Building form:
13.29 Design a new building to have a form similar to those seen historically. In most cases, the primary form of the house was a simple rectangle. In some styles, smaller, subordinate masses were then attached to this primary form.
Staff's discussion: The surrounding structures are a mix of single- and two-story buildings in a range of historic and contemporary styles, with small, early 20th Century single family dwellings to the east and north. (See attached photographs) The building is larger than most accessory structures in the surrounding neighborhood, but is similar or smaller in size and scale with nearby primary structures.
Staff's finding and fact: The application complies with this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facade s.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facade s. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
Solid-to-void ratio:
11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district. Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate in residential structures. Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows.
Proportion of building facade elements:
11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood. The overall proportion" is the ratio of the width to height of the building, especially the front facade . See the discussions of individual districts and of typical historic building styles for more details about facade proportions.
Rhythm and spacing:
11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area. This is an important design standard because these details strongly influence the compatibility of a building within its context. Large expanses of glass, either vertical or horizontal, are generally inappropriate on new buildings in the historic districts.
Materials:
11.15 Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block. This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district.
11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically. They also must have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate. Metal products are allowed for soffits and eaves only.
13.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. Appropriate primary building materials include brick, stucco and painted wood.
Architectural Character:
11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street. These include windows, doors, and porches.
11.18 If they are to be used, design ornamental elements, such as brackets and porches to be in scale with similar historic features. Thin, fake brackets and strap work applied to the surface of a building are inappropriate uses of these traditional details.
11.19 Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged. New designs for window moldings and door surrounds, for example, can provide visual interest while helping to convey the fact that the building is new. Contemporary details for porch railings and columns are other examples. New soffit details and dormer designs also could be used to create interest while expressing a new, compatible style.
11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. One should not replicate historic styles, because this blurs the distinction between old and new buildings, as well as making it more difficult to visually interpret the architectural evolution of the district. Interpretations of historic styles may be considered if they are subtly distinguishable as new.
Window:
11.21 Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged. A general rule is that the height of the window should be twice the dimension of the width in most residential contexts. See also the discussions of the character of the relevant historic district and architectural styles.
11.22 Frame windows and doors in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood. Double-hung windows with traditional depth and trim are preferred in most districts. (See also the rehabilitation section on windows as well as the discussions of specific historic districts and relevant architectural styles.)
11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape. Odd window shapes such as octagons, circles, diamonds, etc. are discouraged.
Staff's discussion: Polycarbonate greenhouse windows are proposed for the south roof slope of the building. It is staff's opinion that the polycarbonate material is appropriate in this case because of the greenhouse use. A bank of single-hung windows is proposed for the south wall. The size and shape of these windows is similar to that found on surrounding contributing structures. Details on the window frame material, as well as on the entry doors, were not supplied.
Stucco is mentioned in the design guidelines as an appropriate wall material, and is most often used in straw bale construction. The proposed metal roofing has not been approved by the commission as a replacement material for contributing structures, but has been approved on new construction, such as a new house constructed on West Capitol Street in the Capitol Hill Historic District. In addition, there is an existing storage shed on the site with similar metal roofing to that proposed.
Roof eaves would be exposed wood, and fascia would also be wood. The material and detailing of the proposed trellis is simple and in keeping with similar structures found in the district.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facade s and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
Setback:
13.23 Maintain the established alignment of building fronts in the block. In general, larger, taller masses should be set back farther from the front than smaller structures. In some cases, therefore, a setback that is greater than the median setback may be appropriate.
13.24 Maintain the rhythm established by uniform setbacks in the block. It is particularly important that the traditional spacing pattern be maintained as seen from the street. Follow the traditional building pattern in order to maintain the historic character of the street. Consider the visual impact of new construction and additions on neighbors along side yards. Consider varying the height and setback of the structure along the side yard.
Staff's discussion: The proposed building has been located at the north east comer of the lot in order to take advantage of sunlight for the rest of the garden. The building would have a similar setback from 800 South as the adjoining house to the east. In Staff's opinion, these two factors offset the fact that most surrounding structures are set closer to the street, forming a wall of continuity and uniform orientation that would ordinarily dictate a location closer to the street than what is proposed.
Staffs finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of 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).
Staff's discussion: As part of this project, two existing lots will be combined by recording a deed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The two lots have been both used by the community garden since it was created, and were probably both associated with the former house on this corner.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff’s recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application, based upon staffs findings that the project substantially complies with the applicable standards of the ordinance and adopted design guidelines, and subject to the following conditions: 1) that additional detail regarding the entry door and windows is supplied to Historic Landmark Commission Staff, with final approval for the doors being delegated to Historic Landmark Commission Staff; and 2) this approval is for design only; all other city requirements must be met prior to obtaining a building permit. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City requirements, Staff shall refer the proposal back to the Architectural Committee or full Commission for ·final review."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.
Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant and his representative to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Don Anderson, Executive Director of the Wasatch Community Garden, the applicant, and Mr. Wayne Bingham, the architect, were present. The applicants used a briefing board to further describe the project. Mr. Anderson pointed out the pastel artistic impression rendering of the proposed building.
Mr. Bingham stated that the Wasatch Community Garden is a community based organization that teaches children about organic gardening and provides gardening space for community gardeners. He said that the building's location is proposed with the intention of not interrupting any current programs because it will be set back away from the garden space. Mr. Bingham said, "The photographs we have included with our submission brought us to the conclusion that there is a broad range of styles, generally small in scale, and a broad range of materials which we think would be compatible with the neighborhood."
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the existing building would remain on the site. Mr. Bingham said that the small tool shed would remain in its current location. Mr. Parvaz asked about the material for the fascia on the west elevation. Mr. Bingham said that the fascia would be wood. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that on the building section plans, insulation was only shown for a portion of the roof. Mr. Bingham said, "That was an oversight; the entire roof section will be insulated with the exception of the glazed portion." Mr. Bingham indicated that the community garden anticipates holding workshops teaching how to construct this type of building in October 2004.
• Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that there would be no other windows other than on the south elevation in the proposed building. Mr. Bingham stated that the doors to the greenhouse would be clear. He indicated that if windows were added on the east and the west elevations, the heat gain and loss to the space inside would be detrimental to its function, so windows were excluded on the other elevations of the greenhouse. Mr. Bingham stated that the proposed building is designed to function as a passive solar greenhouse. He also said that a window was not planned for the restroom for privacy purposes and the function of the storage room would be to store the harvested produce for the Saturday Farmers' Market. Mr. Bingham said that a window could be added in the storage room but it does not appear that it would be a necessary function. Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the large trees where the proposed building would be constructed. Mr. Bingham said there are some very large trees that have reached their maturity and are a hazard because limbs have fallen. He indicated that all the trees except one in that location will be removed.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the trees would be replaced. Mr. Bingham said that the trees were Siberian Elm trees and would not be replaced because the garden needs sunlight; however some small trees might be appropriate on the north side of the proposed building. Mr. Bingham pointed out if trees were planted on the south side, they would interfere with the passive solar greenhouse effect. Ms. Heid asked if trees on the north side of the property would interfere with the composting function. Mr. Anderson said that trees create more shade and the compost area would be in the shaded area of the property. Additionally, Ms. Mickelsen inquired on the color of the proposed building. Mr. Bingham said the color would be a dark earth toned color similar to the color in the colored renderings.
• Ms. Heid said that she was not familiar with a straw bale construction that is stuccoed on the exterior. She asked about the durability of such a construction. Mr. Bingham stated that Salt Lake City has a building, located at about 1000 South between State and Main Streets which was constructed by students at the University of Utah. He added that half of the building is constructed out of straw bales and the other half has a standard wood frame. Mr. Bingham reported that straw bale buildings were created about a century ago in Kansas when building materials were scarce. He indicated that the farmers took bales of straw, stacked them up, and then plastered over them. Mr. Bingham pointed out that some of those buildings have lasted for 100 years and still occupied. He said that about ten years ago there was a renaissance period where people rediscovered that type of building. Mr. Bingham stated that he personally assisted in building about eight or nine of these buildings and designed about fifteen of them from China to Australia, and from Canada through the United States and to Mexico. He said that the construction is unique and the bales are confined by using bamboo ties through each side, then a two-inch coating of plaster is applied to the outside; the finish is durable. Ms. Heid asked about the maintenance requirement. Mr. Bingham responded by saying that the proposed finish material would be a lime plaster, and periodically, every 'five to ten years, a lime wash coating might be required. He added that this method has been used for "thousands of years".
• Mr. Wheelwright asked if there were any problems with settlement or does the settlement occur during the initial construction. Mr. Bingham pointed out the box ridge beam at the eight-foot height elevation that would be compressed into the bales of straw so there would be no subsequent settling. He also pointed out on the plans the concrete block column in each corner that would serve the purpose of earthquake resistance so that the compression would go down to the top of the concrete block and the compressed bales, then bales would be added to the top at the gable ends which would be sandwiched between two of the roof rafters. Mr. Bingham said that the roof sheathing material will be tightened down and compress the remaining bales. Mr. Anderson added that the bales would not be bearing the weight of the building; the weight would be on the pillar in each corner.
• Ms. Rowland clarified that there would be no heating or cooling system in the building. Mr. Bingham said that was correct. He stated that he designed and helped build the greenhouse for Logan High School which is a similar design. Mr. Bingham noted that teachers sent him e-mails saying that in the middle of winter after several days of fog it was 26 degrees below zero outside and 24 degrees above zero inside so it performed rather well with a passive structure. He pointed out the square holes in the east and west elevations in the upper gable which will be exhaust fans. Mr. Bingham also said that the windows shown below the solar panels would be operable double-hung, rather than single-hung, to help with ventilation.
Mr. Anderson stated that they made an informal presentation at the Central City Community Council, but is returning this evening for a formal approval and action, so the community is aware of the project.
Mr. Simonsen said that is project is different that other projects normally reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. JoAnne Bement, property owner of the adjacent property on the east side, stated that she has had the same renter in the building for fourteen years. She talked about the piles of wood, garbage, and trash that had been dumped on the other side of the fence 'from her property. Mr. Bement pointed out that the refuge has attracted rodents to the area. She noted that a letter was sent to the property owners in the neighborhood from the City asking residents not to have piles of wood and other such matter stacked in their yards because of the rats and other rodents. Ms. Bement also expressed her concern about the bales of straw, the number of people the garden would attract, the hours the garden would be opened and if the restroom would be locked. She said that she would not want to lose her renter of fourteen years. Ms. Bement stated that the property should be cleaned to eliminate the rat and mice population and the smell. She mentioned that she lived in the same house several years ago and knows how dark the back of the community garden property can be.
• Ms. Ruth Ann Waldoch, stated that she lives in the adjacent home to the east. She pointed out when the garden first was created, the people were very considerate and nice; a very congenial situation. The gardeners would invite her grandchildren over to help plant and weed. She mentioned that she became the "watchdog" for the garden when no one was on the property. Ms. Waldoch said that people were there at all times throughout the daylight hours. She added that now people are being charged $40.00 to plant a garden which eliminated many people who did not have the money. Mr. Waldoch circulated several photographs taken from her property of the debris that was accumulating by the fence. She also said that the area behind the proposed building would be "open season" to drug dealers and homeless people because the area would not be visible from the street by the Police, who patrol the area quite often. Ms. Waldoch also expressed her concern about the piles of debris. She talked about the letter she wrote regarding the controversy she has had with the people at the garden about the debris and the fact there was no security light at the back of the property. Ms. Waldoch said that she believed it was a fine thing the community was doing to provide a space for gardening, but the area needed to be secured. She said that she has witnessed kids and teenagers rummaging through the gardens. Mr. Waldoch mentioned the dog she used to have who would bark, so she would be aware of unwanted people on the property, but she no longer has the dog. She also asked if the compost piles could be placed elsewhere on the property except by her fence. Ms. Waldoch said in one instance she called the Fire Department because one of the compost piles started smoking. She continued talking about the problems she has encountered living next door to the subject property. Ms. Waldoch concluded by saying that she and other residents of the area are trying to be good neighbors but she did not think the owners of the garden property were trying to be good neighbors.
• Mr. Kenneth Bement, stated that he has resided in the house two doors east from the garden property for the past 77 years. He said that during that time, he has seen many changes in the neighborhood. Mr. Bement mentioned that the vacant house that used to be on the property attracted many unseemly characters so the neighbors were glad when the house was demolished. He said that he was in favor of the community garden, but also expressed concern about the debris that has been stacked by the east fence line. Mr. Bement said that it was an unsightly view from his windows. He suggested that slats be put in the chain link fence so the neighbors would not be able to see the rubbish. He also talked about the exchange of letters and conversations regarding the debris, but the owners had not kept their promises to dispose of the "junk". Mr. Bement was in favor of the construction of the greenhouse but expressed his concern about the security. He added that a security motion light of some sort should be installed. Mr. Bement said that people travel the streets all night long going to and coming from Smith's Store which is open 24 hours. He said that he has had to call the Police on several occasions. Mr. Bement ended by saying, "If they want us to be nice neighbors then they should be nice neighbors."
Upon hearing no additional comments 'from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting. Mr. Simonsen commented that some of the issues discussed were not part of the Commission's purview, as the Commission works under specific zoning ordinances and guidelines. However, he said that he appreciated hearing the comments made by the public.
Executive Session.
Mr. Simonsen again said that the issues raised were clearly beyond the language of the City's Zoning Ordinance review. He asked Staff if the project would have to go before any other boards or commissions.
Mr. Knight said that the Zoning Administrator determined that the primary use of the property is the community garden which was permitted and went through a Planning Commission process when it was initially established as a conditional use and the proposed greenhouse structure would be an accessory function of that primary use, like a garage or an outbuilding in a residential neighborhood. He said that there are issues with the way the property is being maintained and suggested that the applicants address those general concerns. Mr. Knight pointed out that there are provisions in the ordinance prohibiting "junk" to accumulate on any property in Salt Lake City. He added that it sounded like there are zoning enforcement issues that needed to be handled in concert with the permit process. Mr. Knight said that he could follow-up concerning the zoning enforcement issues. He noted that a sight-proof fence might prevent the natural surveillance of the property. Mr. Knight suggested that the security issues needed to be addressed.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if during the City permit process if the project would be reviewed by the Police Department because of the space that would be created behind the proposed building. Mr. Wheelwright said that the Permit's Office would require a site plan review before the permit would be issued. He added that the Police Department is not a part of the day-to-day permit review. However, Mr. Wheelwright said that because of the security issues that were raised, the review could involve CPTED, which stands for "Community Policing Through Environmental Design". He suggested having the applicants address the issues, such as the garden hours, whether or not the restrooms would be locked, and stacking debris too close to the fence line.
Again, Mr. Simonsen stated that some of the issues which were raised did not specifically apply to the Historic Landmark Commission's review, but he thought it might be worthwhile to allow the applicants to address those concerns, as well as useful to the Planning Staff.
It was the consensus of the Commission to re-open the public hearing, so the applicants could address the issues that were raised by the public. Mr. Simonsen re-opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and invited the applicant and his representative to return to the table.
Mr. Anderson said that he wanted to first address the issues that applied to the Historic Landmark Commission. He stated that the restroom would be locked at all times and will not be marked as a restroom. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the only people who will be permitted to use it will be the youth coming into the garden, which would be controlled by an adult, and the community gardeners who would know the combination of the lock. He felt like the motion sensor lighting would be the best way to go so that the lights would automatically turn on when someone approaches that back area. Mr. Anderson indicated that the community garden programs would not create any more traffic because it is geared toward the youth. He said that he would talk to the neighbors personally about their concerns.
Mr. Bingham said that the design of the restroom was changed where all the doors would be visible, rather than the former design that had alcoves and little niches for the doors. Mr. Bingham stated that motion sensor lighting would be installed.
Mr. Christensen talked about the photographs that were circulated by Ms. Waldoch and asked about the debris that was stacked against the fence. He mentioned that it looked like the neighbors have a reason to be concerned and asked if something could be done. Mr. Anderson said that the community garden was involved with the Americore Program and have been collecting usable salvage for projects being created. He said that the Americore people should be leaving at the end of the following week and the salvage close to the fence line should be cleaned up. Mr. Anderson said to his knowledge there was no problem until the salvage started stacking up this spring.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the proposed structure would have the capability to store some of the salvage indoors and out of sight. Mr. Anderson said that he did not believe it would because the space will be needed for other things. He added that he wants the salvage off the site as quickly as possible.
Mr. Christensen said that according to the site plan, there would be about a fifteen-foot space between the proposed building and the east fence. He asked if that area would remain open space, be landscaped, and maintained. Mr. Bingham said that there were no plans for the area except as open space and the ground would be covered with gravel.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if there were special times for people to work in the garden. Mr. Anderson said that although the garden area is fenced, the gate would not be locked so the gardeners could enter the community garden at any time, but it was usually during the daylight hours. He added that the youth program only would run during the daylight hours and was usually over by 5:00 P.M. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern about the public, not associated with the community garden, having access to the property and the possibility of products being taken without the knowledge of the gardeners. He asked if signage could be posted or some other way to inform the public who have no business being on the site to stay off the property. Mr. Parvaz believed that no one was against the idea of having a community garden, but pointed out that the neighbors have concerns which needed to be addressed.
Mr. Anderson stated that so far there have been very minor problems with theft of produce in the garden and if it does occur, it usually happens among the gardeners and not from people coming in from the outside. Mr. Anderson said that all the time that he has been associated with the garden, no vandalism has occurred. He added that the Police records show that this has been a very quiet area and "we would like to claim some responsibility for it but we won't."
Mr. Simonsen re-closed this portion of the meeting, since there were no additional questions for the applicants. Mr. Simonsen reconvened the executive session.
Mr. Wheelwright said that Staff will work with the Permit Office when the permit is reviewed and participate in those Design Review Team (DRT) meetings to advocate the issues of concern from the neighbors and the Historic Landmark Commission, and will also recommend Police review through the CPTED perspective, as part of the building permit process.
Mr. Simonsen said although DRT and CPTED reviews were not part of the Commission's purview of the project but said that it would be helpful to Staff if someone wanted to include the reviews in the motion. Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion regarding the findings of the Staff.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that on Page 5 of the staff report under the standards in the design guidelines, it states: "13.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically". Mr. Christensen stated that a stucco finish was an historical finish, but to his knowledge, hay bales were not used in any historical projects in Utah. He clarified that the Historic Landmark Commission's concern was only on the exterior, which would be the finish. Mr. Simonsen responded by saying that it would fall into a similar type of review as masonry versus wood frame and masonry veneer.
First motion:
Mr. Christensen moved that in Case No. 005-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this proposal for the construction of this building on this property based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendations and the things that were heard in the session today, that the Commission support the requirement of combining the two buildings lots into one, and that as a condition of approval require that security issues be reviewed including the minimum addition of some sort of lighting system near the structure.
The discussion continued. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not know of any specific ordinance that would require lighting and he did not know if the Historic Landmark Commission would want to tie that to a specific finding. Mr. Christensen amended his motion.
Final amended motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 005-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the construction of the proposed greenhouse/restroom/teaching shelter at 615 East 800 South, based on Staff's findings of fact, Staff's recommendations, and the discussion that took place at this meeting today. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission supports combining the two lots into one, and also recommends a review of safety and security issues including lighting on the site as part of the permit process. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 006-04. at 1136 E. First Avenue. by Kimble Shaw. architect. representing Kevin and Julie Peaslee. requesting to construct a detached garage at this address. which is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Mr. Traughber 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.
Mr. Traughber gave the following overview of the project: This is a request for permission to build a 707 square foot detached garage located at the above referenced address. Kimble Shaw of Kimble Shaw LLC/Architecture-Interiors has submitted said request on behalf of the property owners, Kevin and Julie Peaslee. The primary structure on this property is a single family residence, zoned SR-1 (Special Development Pattern Residential District).
Records indicate that the home on this property was built in 1907 for a John Darius, Jr., and his wife Maria Anderson Darius. Mr. Darius was a well-known Salt Lake City building contractor and mining speculator at the time.
The house is a two-story structure of pattern book design, representative of the type built throughout the Avenues in the first decade of the Twentieth Century. Significant architectural features include a hip roof and a front center dormer window, with a massive full-width front porch dominating the front facade.
There are two previous records of project reviews by the Historic Landmark Commission for this property. In 1997 and 1999, Certificates of Appropriateness were issued administratively by Planning Staff for front porch roof repair and the installation of wood and glass doors on the existing screen porch at the rear of the house, respectively.
Based on the policies adopted in 2000 by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals, this request has been referred to the full Commission because the finished garage (accessory building) will be in excess of 600 square feet. The proposed garage will be 707 square feet.
The proposed building is a 24'-8" x 28'-8" two car, detached garage. The 6/12 gabled, asphalt shingled roof rises to 17'-0" at the peak. The proposed primary wall material will be painted horizontal shiplap siding (redwood or cedar) with a 4" exposure. The garage door will be wood with tempered glass window panels. The side entrance door will also be painted and made of wood and tempered glass. The windows on the north and west facade s will be painted, double-hung, wood windows with insulated glass to match the style of the existing house.
The existing garage structure shown on the site plan on the west side of the property is slated for demolition. This structure is in very poor condition, perhaps beyond the point of salvage. In addition, the structure is very small and not particularly suited for contemporary use as a feasible shelter for the larger style vehicles so prevalent today.
Access to the garage is proposed to be off "T" Street. The sidewalk, apron, curb and gutter will be constructed to conform to Salt Lake City regulations.
Mr. Traughber referred to the following requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance found in Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4) H Historic Preservation Overlay District:
(H)Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City:
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facade s. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The surrounding structures are primarily two-story single family residential units. Several of the units in the vicinity enjoy two car garages similar in size and mass as the one proposed. The roof structure on the proposed garage is also compatible with surrounding structures and the streetscape.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage is compatible with the surrounding structures in the area and will blend in with the surrounding streetscape.
2. Composition of Principal Facade s.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facade s. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The proposed garage has been designed in such a manner as to be sensitive and complementary to the historic character of the buildings in the immediate vicinity. Further, the materials chosen for the garage, especially the window treatments (both size and quantity), are reflective of the materials with which the residence is composed.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage structure, given the proposed facade treatments, is visually compatible with the materials used in surrounding structures, and again blends in well with the surrounding streetscape.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staff's discussion: The relationship of the proposed garage to adjacent structures and open space is typical of the area and will be visually compatible once complete. The subject property is a corner lot with the residence facing First Avenue to the north, and the proposed garage facing east towards "T" Street. This configuration is perfectly reasonable for a lot of this nature, given the orientation and permanency of the residence.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage will be constructed and situated in such a manner that the continuity of the streetscape, the rhythm of structure spacing, and street orientation are all visually compatible.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of 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).
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: No subdivision is proposed, therefore this standard is not applicable.
Mr. Traughber also referred to the following Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council which also addresses accessory buildings in Section 9:
9.1. Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. When treating a historic accessory building, respect its character-defining features such as primary materials, roof materials, roof form, historic windows, historic doors, and architectural details. Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
Staff's discussion: As noted previously, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage on the property. Planning Staff supports this decision for two reasons. First, Planning Staff contends that for the amount of accessory space that would be gained, it would be cost prohibitive to renovate the existing garage. The garage is in a dilapidated state and would be expensive to restore. Second, the size of this structure is not conducive to contemporary use as a garage, being very small.
Staff's finding of fact: Staff finds that given its current dilapidated state, the prohibitive cost of repair, its small size, and its role as a secondary structure on the property, preserving the historic garage is not feasible.
9.2. Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for soffits. In the case of a two-car garage, two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage will be unobtrusive and will not compete visually with the house. As previously stated, the design and location of the proposed garage will be visually compatible with existing structures on the street, and will blend in with the existing streetscape. The roofline of the garage is similar to that of the residence, and the materials chosen are of those that are allowed and appropriate. The double garage door in this instance is appropriate given the detailed nature of the wood and glass design. The Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Staff have approved numerous double garage doors in an effort to make properties in the historic districts adaptable to contemporary use.
9.3. Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were cited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Staff's finding of fact: Consistent with this design criteria, as shown on the site plan, the proposed garage is located behind the residence at the rear of the lot.
Additional Staff's discussion: The primary purpose for this review is for design and aesthetic reasons in order to insure that proposed development reinforces the character of established historic districts. In terms of zoning, the applicant shall be required to meet all zoning regulations for an accessory structure in an SR-1 zone at the time of application for a building permit. Planning Staff notes that it appears that the garage will meet zoning requirements given the proposed site plan.
Mr. Traughber offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application based upon the findings as noted in this staff report, demonstrating that the proposal substantially complies with the applicable standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, subject to the following conditions: Subsequent to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant shall meet all zoning requirements and obtain a building permit for the garage addition. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City department requirements, Planning Staff shall remand the proposal back to the Historic Landmark Commission for final review."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff regarding the findings of fact.
Mr. Christensen inquired if Mr. Traughber discovered when the existing garage was built while doing the research on the property. He noted that the garage appears to be old and is in a "ram shackled" condition. Mr. Traughber said that there was no indication when the existing garage was built.
Ms. Rowland asked if there was an ordinance pertaining to the number of curb cuts a property is allowed, which could change the streetscape, as a pedestrian. She inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission has a precedent concerning the width of a driveway and curb cut. Mr. Traughber said that he could not answer those inquiries, but it could be reviewed. He said that he did not know if one curb cut would be required to be closed off, especially the one that is leading to the existing garage.
Mr. Knight said that he did not know what the standard is for curb cuts in the SR-1 Zone and that the Transportation Division would have to be consulted to answer those questions. He pointed out that there is a section in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regarding grass in the center of two drive strips to minimize the amount of paving.
Mr. Parvaz wanted to be certain that the proposed garage would be constructed within the required setbacks and not encroach on the adjacent property. Mr. Traughber said that the zoning setback requirement for an accessory building is 20 feet or flush with the primary structure of the property. A short discussion followed.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the garage door would be one single door. Mr. Traughber said that he believed the plans show one single door. Ms. Mickelsen asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant about using two single garage doors, rather than one double width door. Mr. Traughber said that he had not had that conversation. He pointed out that on Page 5 of the staff report under Section 9.2 of the design guidelines, it states: "In the case of a two-car garage, two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed." Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission has "struggled" with this issue before. She added that if the drive approach to a garage is difficult to maneuver or at an odd angle one double width garage door has been allowed. Ms. Mickelsen stated that the drive approach to this proposed garage would be straight from the street and would not appear to have difficulties. Mr. Traughber agreed.
Upon hearing no questions or comments about Staff's findings of fact, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Kimble Shaw, architect, representing the owners, Kevin and Julie Peaslee, was present. He stated that the information in the staff report was very thorough. Mr. Shaw said that the owners of the property chose a single garage door for ease and ability, especially with the larger vehicles. He indicated that he met with the zoning officials and the proposed garage would have an 18-foot setback and be in alignment with the edge of the existing residence, which was the requirement. Mr. Shaw said that the 22-foot curb cut would be in compliance.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by inquiring further about the design and configuration of the proposed garage door and asked if it would be a custom door and if he had a photograph or more information. Mr. Shaw said that the proposed garage door would have a "carriage house" design. Mr. Simonsen asked if the door would be a sectional roll-up door with raised panels and would it have a similar look as the renderings on the plans. Mr. Shaw said the look would be very similar. He added that the door would have raised panels and clear glass for the windows.
• Mr. Christensen stated that in his opinion the design of the proposed garage is very "handsome" and asked Mr. Shaw if the owners planned to have the garage built like the renderings on the plans. He added that he knew that horizontal lap siding is very expensive. Mr. Christensen said that there has been a time when the Historic Landmark Commission approved the submitted plans of a building, and then be disappointed with the final results because the plans would change. Mr. Shaw said that he gave the owners the option of using brick for the exterior material, but they chose the shiplap siding because the existing garage has horizontal shiplap siding.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session.
A discussion took place regarding the issues at hand where members of the Commission and Staff expressed their opinions.
Mr. Wheelwright said that the garage door is an important issue because the garage would be highly visible from the street.
Ms. Rowland again made reference to previous decisions rendered by the Historic Landmark Commission where a single door was approved for a double garage when accessibility was an issue. She said that two separate doors on a double garage present a smaller scale appearance.
Ms. Mickelsen talked about the large opening into the garage that would be seen from the street when the door is opened. She said that when she first looked at the plans the design of the garage door was a little misleading and she thought it might be a three-car garage.
Mr. Simonsen said that the proportions of the openings, the columns, and the gable front above the entry gives the existing house somewhat of a horizontal scale appearance, which is one thing that did not make him feel uncomfortable with the proportion of the garage opening. He added that at some point the garage door might be replaced, and that would require a review, either by Staff or the Commission.
Ms. Rowland expressed concerned about the width of the proposed driveway and asked Staff what the standard width was in the neighborhood. She added that the width of the driveway would require a large curb cut on a streetscape that has not been disturbed by a curb cut. Ms. Rowland also was concerned about two vehicles parking on the driveway. She inquired about narrowing the driveway which would narrow the curb cut. Ms. Rowland inquired if the City looks at what the standard driveway width is in a neighborhood and what is appropriate in an historic district. Ms. Heid also inquired about a tapered driveway.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the maximum width of a residential driveway is limited by ordinance to 30 feet, but the City tries to further limit the width of the driveway to the width of the garage door. He said that a driveway could be tapered if it would not compound the maneuverability through the door. Mr. Wheelwright said that unless the taper rate is very minor, there could be some difficulty.
Mr. Knight said that the taper would have to meet engineering standards and be reviewed by the Transportation Division. He stated that he has seen double width driveways narrowed by putting grass .in the middle, or a single car driveway width with concrete and turf block on either side to make it wider. Ms. Heid said that it would be visually more appealing than a large mass of concrete.
Mr. Simonsen stated that it would be nicer if the driveway could be narrowed by a foot or two. He pointed out that a number of double wide curb cuts shared by two individual driveways of adjacent properties, including his own property.
Mr. Christensen said that there is flexibility in the design guidelines regarding two garage doors versus one garage door. He referred to the text in the staff report concerning garage doors in historic districts. Mr. Simonsen stated that usually a single door is only allowed under special circumstances.
Mr. Knight pointed out that one double door also has been allowed in cases where the garage is not very prominent to the street. He indicated that a garage not visible from the street would have less impact than a garage easily visible from the street. Mr. Knight stated that Staff would consider all these issues before making a decision.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the owner would consider moving the garage and the driveway to the corner of the property. She added that the proposed garage and driveway would be friendlier to the neighbor and the cost may be less to place it at that location on the property.
Mr. Christensen requested a clarification from the applicant if that would be possible. He added that it would open up more green space on the property.
It was the consensus of the Commission to re-open the public hearing, so the applicant could address the issues that were raised by the Commission. Mr. Simonsen re-opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and invited the applicant to return to the table.
Ms. Rowland inquired if the owner had considered constructing the two-car garage at the back corner of the property so the existing driveway could be used.
Mr. Shaw said that he recalled a brief discussion. He added that the driveway is very long and "eats" up a lot of space. He said that there was no cement; the existing driveway is dirt with ruts from wear through the years. Mr. Shaw said that the owners want to re landscape the rear yard to make it more attractive.
Mr. Christensen asked if the full width of the driveway would be needed. Mr. Shaw said that the approach would only be 18 feet and the owners would need the wider driveway, however, the Transportation Division would govern the width of the driveway. He referred to a driveway on the next block between First and Second Avenue on "T" Street where the curb cut had been combined to serve as an approach to an alley and a driveway to a small garage.
Mr. Christensen inquired further about the design of the proposed garage door. He said that it seemed like from the discussion that the renderings of the proposed door were a representation of something similar to what the owner wanted. He agreed with Ms. Mickelsen that the design of the door could give an optical illusion that it was a three-car garage. Mr. Christensen asked if the owner would use a different design to give an impression of two bays. Mr. Shaw said that he would look at that possibility.
Ms. Heid pointed out that that there is some symmetry when one considers the front of the house which is in three sections, although the front of the two buildings would not be visible at the same time.
Mr. Christensen asked if the personal door and the windows would be wood. Mr. Shaw said that the personal door would be wood and the double-hung windows would be wood or wood clad with insulated glass. Mr. Traughber pointed out that the existing house has wood windows.
Mr. Simonsen re-closed this portion of the meeting, since there were no additional questions for the applicant. Mr. Simonsen reconvened the executive session.
Mr. Simonsen said that Staff's findings of fact could be modified given the massing of the proposed building and the prominence it will have on the street. He said he believed two doors would be more appropriate, as recommended in the design guidelines. Mr. Simonsen continued by saying that a single drive approach would be preferable but the owner would improve the streetscape on the primary elevation by removing the two dirt drive strips and the existing curb cut. He said that he considered that a "trade-off".
The discussion continued regarding these issues.
Motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved in Case No. 006-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the Staff's findings of fact and recommendation and approve the project with the following change: Given the language in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, and that it would be a very prominent building, close to the street, totally visible from the street, and the ease of access with a straight short driveway from the street which would not present any undo difficultly to the inhabitants, the proposed garage should have two single doors rather than one double door to be in accordance with the general design of the neighborhood. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS Legislative Intent.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired where the Legislative Intent was. Mr. Wheelwright said that the document was delivered to Mr. Rocky Fluhart's office, who is the Deputy Mayor.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:00P.M.