August 7, 1996

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 Burke Cartwright, Susan Deal, Bruce Miya, Bill Wright, and Elizabeth Egleston.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Lynn Morgan, Bruce Miya, and Heidi Swinton. Wallace Cooper, William Damery, and Dina Williams were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston, William T. Wright, Planning Director, and Brent B. Wilde, Deputy Planning Director. Janice Jardine, representing the City Council office, was also present.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Bruce Miya. Mr. Miya announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the Commission, the applicant will be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the Commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Miya said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal process was listed on the back of the agenda.

A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of July 17, 1996. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.

PREVIOUS CASES

Case No. 007-96, at 336 No. Quince Street. by Gary Bliss. represented by Craig Wall, requesting approva1 to construct a new single family dwelling.

Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that there was some discussion regarding whether or not a shed roof should be constructed over the bay window on the west facade, which would be the front of the house. She said that some commission members suggested a gabled roof. Ms. Egleston said that staff believed that a shed roof would be more appropriate for the design of the house.

Mr. Gary Bliss, the owner, as well as his representative, Mr. Craig Wall, were present. Mr. Wall said that they had complied with most of the suggestions made by Commission members regarding the design of the proposed structure. He said that the owner preferred to construct a shed roof over the bay window on the front facade. Mr. Wall also spoke of the painted trim, the lattice work on the front facade, and the two major roof sections that would be 8/12 pitch.

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

• Mr. Cartwright led the discussion by inquiring about the slope of the land. Mr. Wall said that it was very minimal and was contained in the rear of the property. Mr. Cartwright asked if the existing retaining wall on the front of the property would remain. Mr. Wall assured him that it would.

• Ms. Deal asked about the color combination of the synthetic stucco. Mr. Wall indicated that the color had not been addressed but it would probably be a traditional beige color.

As there were no further questions by the members, Mr. Bliss and Mr. Wall were excused. Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, raised the question of the plans for landscaping, particularly the back section of the property. Ms. Deal pointed out that the plans called for ground cover with an irrigation system. Mr. Bliss responded by saying that the specific details for the landscaping had yet to be determined. Ms. Mangold also inquired about the setbacks. Ms. Egleston responded that the front set back was the same as the house to the south of the property.

• Mr. Joe Pitti, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, expressed his appreciation to the owner because he had responded.to the neighbor's concerns which had been expressed at previous meetings.

Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Miya closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

There was a short discussion. Several members commented that it would be a very nice house and that many of the concerns on which the neighbors had commented at previous meetings had been addressed.

Ms. Hatch moved to approve Case No. 007-96, as presented, based on the findings of fact and the staff's recommendation included in the staff report. It was seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.

Case No. 021-95. at 263 No. Almond Street. by Russ Watts of Watts Corporation. requesting final approval for a 43-unit condominium project.

Ms. Egleston 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.

Mr. Russ Watts, the applicant, was present. Mr. Watts used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. He discussed the progress that had been made since the last meeting on June 19, 1996. Mr. Watts said that each of the Subcommittee meetings he had attended had been constructive and productive in the fact that adjustments had been made to the design of the proposed building. He referred to the colored renderings of the project that was included, in the drawings he submitted at the June 19, 1996 meeting. Mr. Watts presented the following overview of the project, as it was currently proposed:

A product that is a stone veneer over structural concrete would be used as a subbase in the areas of the underground parking structure and plaza.

A sample of the artificial terra cotta, which was proposed for the base of the building, was exhibited to show the color and the design relief joint. Mr. Watts said that the density, weight, and durability could be demonstrated from the sample.

The proposed synthetic stucco was a Dryvit System called "Venetian" that consisted of an eight-coat process, using two types of meshing.

A section of the proposed windows were displayed, which were also described in the previous proposal. The windows would be double-hung, wood windows that had a simulated true divided light. The color of the frame would be a dark two-toned grayish-black. The windows would be set in a brick molding which would create shadow lines around the windows.

A metal railing system would be used the same color as the brick window molding. The details of the horizontal and vertical lines were also shown in the previous submittal.

A copper colored metal, rather than a shiny green patina, as is seen in other old buildings, would be used for the roof and the roof sections over the windows. A sample was shown.

Mr. Watts referred to the current submittal and explained the elevations of the proposed project, in the following manner:

The west elevation on West Temple would be the "living" side of the project where all entries and exits would take place. Mr. Watts said that the plans included stepped out balcony areas where the inside hallways would be located. The bay windows and the atrium areas on the main level were also pointed out.

The height of the east elevation varies from 35 to 90 feet from Almond Street. The east elevation would become the "circulation" side of the project. No pedestrian or vehicular traffic would penetrate the east elevation. Heavy landscaping would be proposed for this area.

A unit on the north elevation had been eliminated. These units would have a stepped roof system so the height of that portion of the build would relate to the height of the houses across the street on 300 North.

Mr. Watts stated that there had been some major changes since the last review by the Historic Landmark Commission. He requested that the Commission render an approval of the project so it could move forward. Mr. Watts said that as in the past, he would continue to work on details that still may be of concern to the members.

As there were no questions for the applicant, Mr. Watts was excused. Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, stated that she was also representing the newly formed Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association. Ms. Mangold offered a written copy of her presentation to be included in the records. A copy of her statements was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She discussed the Certificate of Appropriateness, as well as the Statement of Intent, as defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Mangold asked that the Historic Landmark Commission reaffirm its responsibility to the Historic homes, that are contributing to the neighborhood, to the north of the subject property, rather than to the condominiums to the east which are not-contributing. She said that the developer had made a to ken change to the project by eliminating one unit off the north side. Ms. Mangold read the objections that the association and the neighborhood still had with the current proposal. She discussed the materials and said that the parking facilities were inadequate for the project. Ms. Mangold stated that there was a need to protect and preserve Historic districts, not only for the people of Salt Lake City, but for the people in the State of Utah. She reminded the Commission that the State granted authority to the Cities to establish commissions to carry out this intent.

Ms. Mangold also spoke of the Capitol Hill Master Plan. In conclusion, Ms. Mangold requested, in behalf of the neighborhood and the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, that the Historic Landmark Commission deny the request for the Certificate of Appropriateness for this project and make a strong recommendation to the City Council to initiate a zoning change for the subject property to have it down zoned at the next available opportunity.

• Ms. Oida Sepehri-Nik, who owns property at 260 No. Almond Street, stated that she was concerned about the property values decreasing due to this proposed project. She said that she had an opportunity to sell her property until the potential buyer heard about the proposed project. She stated that the potential buyer was no longer interested and she said that she has had the property on the market since. Ms. Sepehri-Nik said the whole atmosphere of the area had been affected and the reason why people wanted to live there had been destroyed.

• Mr. H.K. Sepehri-Nik, who owns the property at 301 No. Almond Street, stated that his building has six tenants and spoke of the limited parking in the area. Mr. Sepehri-Nik said if the Historic Landmark Commission approved the project, the parking situation would become much worse.

• Ms. Hermoine Jex, who resides at 272 No. Wall Street, stated that there were great promises made to the community when Zions Summit overcame the hill east of this proposed project and City Hall said that they would protect the rest of the properties. She said that the Capitol Hill Community Council believed the subject property had been zoned to allow too high of density. Ms. Jex discussed the narrow streets in the area. She spoke of the 14-foot wide street on West Temple and said that the community council had suggested closing the north portion of West Temple and landscape the triangular-shape island. She also spoke of changing the one-way route from north to south instead of south to north. Ms. Jex suggested that something be done about the hazardous intersections of Third North at Almond Street and at West Temple. Ms. Jex concluded by stating that if the proposed plan was adopted, it would be another gift to the developer at the expense of the neighborhood.

• Mr. Joe Pitti, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, stated that he supported Ms. Mangold's findings and comments. He said that the project would create a big wall and thought it would be nice to see spaces between the buildings. Mr. Pitti said that he would like to see that addressed by either Mr. Watts or some future developer.

• Ms. Robin McLall, who resides at 122 West 300 North, said that it had been one year since the existence of the proposed project. She said that the neighborhood continued to be concerned and committed to not allowing their neighborhood to be irreparably damaged by an inappropriate development. Ms. McLall asked that the Historic Landmark Commission support the neighborhood in preserving the integrity and livability of the Historic district by denying the application.

• Ms. Rela Wardle, who resides at 265 No. Vine Street, said that she supported Ms. Mangold's and Ms. McLall's comments and extended her appreciation to them for all the work they had done making sure that the neighborhood would get something appropriate on the subject property. Ms. Wardle, also requested a down-zoning of the property. She spoke of the traffic and parking situation. Ms. Wardle said because she was not a contingent property owner, she would have no legal pursuit of any damages that may occur on her property if the hill collapsed or slipped. Ms. Wardle spoke of other projects that had been previously proposed for the subject property. She said that she thought the developer and the neighborhood were caught in a bind. Ms. Wardle pleaded to the Historic Landmark Commission not to allow this massive project on the subject property.

• Ms. Marie Dalgleish, who resides at 135 W. Apricot Avenue, stated that she was very angry because she said that she had been watching a life-time fruition of an Historic neighborhood in Salt Lake City, and the people who have sacrificed themselves, their funds, their time, their safety, and their well-being to live in an area which was being bumped into little piece-meal bits that were being presented to the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Dalgleish continued by saying when the Commission had been concentrating on such minute matters as the certain slant of a roof, a certain depth of a window, and so forth, and the members were missing the whole picture. She said that the proposal would create a wall of buildings that would separate one of the City's great tourist attractions and the downtown area. Ms. Dalgleish stated the she had a great appreciation for the members of the Commission and the time each one volunteers. She also said that the reason why the members sit on the Commission was because of their abilities in the aesthetics of development, their global thinking, and their abilities in community planning. She said that she had seen the focus on one developer on one plot of land who wants to put up something so obstructive and so massive that is would be an absolute insult to years and years of work by those who have been heretofore.

• Mr. Mark Chambers, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, stated that he supported what Ms. Mangold said. He commented on the traffic and parking situation. Mr. Chambers said that because of the traffic created by schools and the Salt Lake Acting Company close by, it was very difficult to get around on the narrow streets, especially in the wintertime, and any more traffic in the area would destroy the neighborhood. Mr. Chambers said that he had watched homes in the neighborhood being rebuilt and redone so that people could live in an Historic district. He requested that the Historic Landmark Commission deny this proposal.

• Ms. Regina Peery, who resides at 330 No. Quince Street, remarked that she was from Miami Beach, Florida, and when she looked at the plans for the project, it reminded her of something that should belong in Miami Beach, not, in an Historic neighborhood. She said that she supported Mr. Chambers' comments regarding the traffic and parking. Ms. Peery said that she thought the project was too massive for the neighborhood.

• Ms. Chris Hoffenback, who resides at 333 No. Quince Street, stated that she moved in the area about one and one-half years ago because she thought it was the only, "truly wonderfully interesting and quaint," neighborhood in Salt Lake City. She said that the neighborhood was very ethnically diversified and that appealed to her. Ms. Hoffenback said that she loved the narrow streets and the accessibility to the downtown area. She said that she was in support of the comments made by other neighbors and she hoped the Historic Landmark Commission would deny this request.

• Mr. Mark Prescott, who resides at 321 No. Almond Street, stated that he had lived in the neighborhood for twenty years and had seen many changes in the Historic properties. He commented on the massive size of the project and that it would have an effect on the view. Mr. Prescott stated that he was against this project.

Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Miya closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion to ok place. Mr. Cartwright said that this had been a long process and a lot of the response the Commission had seen from the developer had come in the form of a reaction and not in the form of pro-activity. Mr. Cartwright said that in fairness to the developer, he thought Mr. Watts had tried to respond to what he presumed were the concerns of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Cartwright said that the developer had made very legitimate intents to try to respond to the suggestions made by the Commission.

Mr. Cartwright said that the previous submittal had more buildings and several units faced Almond Street. He said that he had heard much opposition from the neighbors because of the traffic impact that proposal would have on Almond Street. However, Mr. Cartwright said that the current proposal provided no traffic or pedestrians on Almond Street and he indicated that he thought that was very unfortunate. Mr. Cartwright suggested that the proposal should have more open spaces so people walking on Almond Street could be able to catch glimpses of the downtown area. He said that he thought this project did not properly engage the Historic neighborhood. Mr. Cartwright stated that the solution for a project on this subject property relied on its ability to address the houses to the north of the site. He said that he thought that early in the review of this project, the Commission had sometimes tried to justify the mass and height of the proposal because of the non-contributing existing structures to the east of the property. Mr. Cartwright said that those structures should be taken out of the picture and that they should not have been allowed to be built on that hill in the first place.

• Mr. Cartwright talked about the fact that the current proposal would create a massive wall which would be an architectural and aesthetic problem. He said that the back of the building, architecturally, did not relate to the front. He said that he recognized the effort that had been made by the developer to allow for some modest breaks in the design.

Mr. Cartwright stated that he thought this subject property was a very important site in the City and that it should be a privilege for someone to be able to develop it. He also said that he firmly believed that there was an answer for the site which would become an asset to the neighborhood and to the City. Mr. Cartwright said that he thought this parcel of land, which he called "no man's land," had a great potential for the right project.

Mr. Cartwright said that he thought that the current proposal lacked the massing that could give something back to the neighborhood. He said that the expectations for the site should not be a reconstituted version of housing that was seen all over the valley.

Mr. Cartwright proposed to have a selected group of planners, professional designers, and architects assemble in a charrette format to primarily deal with the architectural issues of a proposal for the site. He said that he was totally convinced that there was a project that would fit on the site that would be an asset to the neighborhood and would become a bridge element between the community and the downtown area and he said that he was not sure that it could not be done within the allowable density.

In conclusion, Mr. Cartwright addressed the material issues. He said that with the genuine resources that were available in this valley, he had a problem with the use of artificial products on a project of this importance. Mr. Cartwright referred to a memo that was submitted by Ms. Dina Williams, a commission, member who was not able to attend the meeting, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Cartwright discussed the contents of the memo such as the weight of terracotta material as opposed to the weight of the imitation terra cotta product. Mr. Cartwright said that he agreed with Ms. Williams' comments that the developer should be compelled to prove his case with regard to the weight restrictions. He said that the expectations for this special site were much higher and a great opportunity for a developer and he believed that the Commission should not have to accept "pretend" materials. Mr. Cartwright added that he would have to deny the current proposal as submitted.

Mr. Miya offered to reopen the hearing so that Mr. Watts could respond, but was declined because Mr. Watts said that he was not prepared to respond to those comments.

Mr. Morgan noted that there were essentially no changes on the current proposal from the one that was reviewed at the June 19, 1996 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. He said that he remembered conversations that took place in that meeting, which pointed to the inappropriateness of the general aesthetic approach to the proposed building, such as the mansard style and the copper on the roof and other such elements. Mr. Morgan said that he thought the building was a nice looking structure but it did not relate to the surrounding community. He further commented on prior discussions regarding the project in previous meetings. Mr. Morgan added that he supported the comments made by Mr. Cartwright. He said that the staff and the Commission were basically seeing the same problems being reiterated over and over again. Mr. Morgan pointed out the harsh way the big concrete plaza was being handled and recognized the traffic and problems with the limited on-site and off-site parking.

Ms. Swinton stated that she wanted to add her comments to what had already been said. She indicated that she thought that the Commission members would be shooting themselves in the face, not the foot, if this project was allowed. Ms. Swinton said the massiveness of the project would create such a barrier for the neighborhood and the Commission needed to be careful .in approving a project for the site so that the Historic community would maintain its integrity. She stated that she did not think that the current proposal was appropriate for the site.

Ms. Hatch stated that in preparation for the meeting, she reread the City's Zoning Ordinance regarding Historic Overlay Districts and she thought, as a citizen Commission, it had been put into a very to ugh situation with Mr. Watts' proposal. She said that she interpreted the ordinance as clearly saying that where there was a conflict between what the overlay district needed to accomplish and the zoning ordinance, that the overlay district would take precedence. She said that it did not spell out specifics of what that meant. Ms. Hatch pointed out that if the Commission was to be responsible for Historic preservation, and to the homeowners who had experienced economic hardship ·in order to maintain their houses, which were built in 1870's, 1880's, and 1890's, which probably never intended to be standing today, then the Commission owed it to them to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. She noted that craftsmen, who built the LOS Temple, would complete their work day and walk up the hill to their homes in the neighborhood of which we have been addressing1. She said that the Historic homes were beautiful examples of their individual crafts. Ms. Hatch stated that if the connection between the neighborhood and the downtown area was severed, then Historic preservation would be severed·. She said that she would deny the request based on the fact that the community was an overlay district and that the design of the project was incompatible for the site. Ms. Hatch also said that to assemble a charrette could be an option but by a denial•, further options could be opened to the developer.

Mr. Cartwright moved to deny the project for Case No. 021-95, as submitted. It was seconded by Mr. Morgan. ·

A short discussion followed. Mr. Cartwright amended the motion.

Mr. Cartwright moved to deny the project for Case No. 021-95, as submitted, based on the following: 1) the scale and massing of the project; and 2) the lack of architectural compatibility of the Historic district; and 3) the inability to comply to the Statement of Intent which is described in Chapter 17, Overlay Districts, in the Salt lake City Zoning Ordinance which states, "an overlay district is intended to provide supplemental regulations or standards pertaining to specific geographic features or land uses, wherever these are located, in addition to base or underlying zoning district regulations applicable within a designated area. Whenever there is a conflict between the regulations of a base zoning district and those of an overlay district, the overlay district regulations shall control."

The discussion continued. Mr. Cartwright pointed out that he wanted the motion to be substantive enough so that the next group of Historic Landmark Commission members would not have to struggle with the same complex problem. Mr. Cartwright mentioned that he hoped the language was clear enough that the City Council would not have to struggle with a lot of rhetoric, if the case was appealed. Ms. Jardine stated that she thought the language of the motion was clear.

Mr. Wright offered the suggestion that the criteria for new construction and other evidence found in the staff report was not sufficient and that it had not been properly addressed. Mr. Wright stated that the basic idea of a charrette may have value, whether it was Mr. Watts desiring to continue to explore the property site or someone else. He recognized that the parcel of land was very difficult with which to deal. Mr. Wright suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission offer to sponsor a charrette of some kind to try to bring together some of the views of the staff, the Commission, and the community. Ms. Cartwright indicated that he thought the Commission would be in support with that suggestion.

Ms. Deal said that the idea of a charrette was not generated to take over a project, but that the problems surrounding the site, were bigger than one person could handle and that it would take thoughts and ideas from a group of people to handle the situation and to try to come up with a solution.

The discussion continued and Mr. Cartwright again amended the motion. Mr. Cartwright moved to deny the project for Case No. 021-95, as submitted, based on the following criteria for new construction: 1) the findings and analysis outlined in the staff report regarding the scale and form of the proposal, the composition of principal facades, and the relationship to the street of the proposal; 2) the lack of architectural compatibility of the Historic district; and 3) the inability to comply to the Statement of Intent which is described in Chapter 17, Overlay Districts, in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance which states, "an overlay district is intended to provide supplemental regulations or standards pertaining to specific geographic features or land uses, wherever these are located, in addition to 'base' or underlying zoning district regulations applicable within a designated area. Whenever there is a conflict between the regulations of a base zoning district and those of an overlay district, the overlay district regulations shall control." The second stood by Mr. Morgan. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.

Mr. Miya explained the process of appeals to the applicant.

NEW CASE

Case No. 013-96. at approximately 245 South 500 East. by John Bennett of Chancellor Racquet Club. represented by Alex Protasov, requesting approval to construct a new structure for a health club.

Ms. Egleston 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.

Mr. Alex Protasov, representing the owner, was present. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Protasov gave a description of the proposed project by stating the following: 1) the building would be a contemporary design with two stories and be approximately 10,000 square feet; 2) there would be six racquet ball/squash courts on the first level as well as an exercise facility; 3) the second level would have two steam rooms and support rooms with showers and lockers; 4) the front setback alignment would be the same as the building south of the property; 5) the materials would be a split-faced concrete block, which would give the building a stone like look, in three color hues from dark to light; 6) the interior bouncing walls of the courts would be solid with no openings; 7) a free-standing colonnade would be created to break up the facade on the west elevation; 8) a sculptured element would be placed on the west facade above the entrance; and 9) asphalt shingles would be used on the roof, including the sloping extension over the main entrance.

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

• Ms. Deal led the discussion by stating that the north elevation would be very visible as one would travel south on 500 East and inquired about making that elevation more interesting. Mr. Protasov said the stripped effect of the split-faced block and the color variations should make that facade more attractive. He said that he thought that the fire station on the northern adjoining property would block part of the view. Ms. Deal asked about the signage. Mr. Protasov said that the name would be placed on a small sign above the entrance doorway.

• Ms. Egleston inquired if the floor plan could be switched so the south elevation would become the north elevation. Mr. Protasov said that the two elevations could not be switched because of the requirements of tournament play.

• Mr. Miya asked if the inside walls of the courts would be fully glazed which would be affected by the light. Mr. Protasov said that the walls would not be glazed. He explained that the only outside light that would come into the courts would be through translucent skylights. Mr. Miya referred to the stairway and asked about the egress from the second level. He said that he thought a door was missing on the east elevation at ground level. Mr. Protasov indicated that the stairway was added later and that the building would be extended five feet to the north to accommodate a doorway on the east elevation.

• Mr. Morgan commented that he liked the colonnade and the sculptured element over the main entrance. He inquired about aligning the proposed building with the fire station which would allow for more landscaping in front. Mr. Protasov stated that suggestion would not meet the requirements because there needed to be a seven foot green strip off the parking area in the rear. Mr. Morgan made several suggestions such as creating a curvature design on the facade of the north elevation and break the banding to give that facade some relief, and follow through with a semi-circle instead of a square design where the building steps out on the west elevation. Mr. Protasov stated that the fire code would prevent an unprotected opening on the north elevation because the wall would be closer than five feet to the property line. Mr. Morgan suggested that there was a possibility that requirement could be waived due to the fact that the fire station would border that north elevation. Mr. Morgan also inquired about the mechanical equipment which would be on the roof. Mr. Protasov said that the mechanical equipment would not be seen from the street, due to the height of the building, because it would be centered on the roof.

• Mr. Cartwright inquired if the windows on the west elevation were clear so one would be able to see inside or if they had reflective glass in them. Mr. Protasov said that they would be clear. Mr. Cartwright said that he was amenable to that idea. Mr. Cartwright also said that he liked the colonnade and it was not out of scale with the rest of the proposed building. He suggested that there could be more detail on the recessed wall on the west elevation. Mr. Protasov said that at some time in the future, the owner may consider putting tables under the colonnade to accommodate outside dining. Mr. Cartwright wanted to know if there was an opportunity to create more detail. Mr. Cartwright further said that he thought that the overall design was solid and would be a complement to the entire block. Mr. Cartwright thought the project was a good use for the proposed site.

There was a short discussion regarding the expansion of the current Chancellor Racquet Club location and the desire of the owner to expand into a new building in the same general neighborhood.

Mr. Protasov was excused. Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no request, Mr. Miya closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

A short discussed followed regarding the wording of the motion.

The discussion continued. Mr. Morgan interjected and suggested as a compromise to having the fire code requirement waived, a series of glass bricks could be installed on the north elevation. Ms. Deal amended the motion to include Mr. Morgan's suggestion.

Ms. Deal moved for conceptional approval for Case No. 013-96 based on the findings of fact included in the staff report, subject to the following conditions being reflected on revised drawings and presented to staff for final approval: 1) signage; 2) lighting details; 3) a complete landscaping plan; 4) materials described in detail; and 5) additional work being done on the north elevation and taking into consideration some of the suggestions made at this meeting, including the use of a series of glass bricks, and/or the pursuit to have the fire code requirement waived to allow openings on the north elevation. It was again seconded by Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Swinton unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as acting chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Design Guidelines

Ms. Egleston announced the public meeting1 that would be held Thursday, September 12, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. in the Third Floor Auditorium of the main branch of the Public Library. She said that Mr. Nore' Winter, the consultant, would be in attendance to answer any questions and to take comments from the public. Ms. Egleston stated that the draft of the guidelines would be available to the public to review prior to that meeting.

Architectural Subcommittee

It was discussed and decided by the commission that the Subcommittee meetings would be changed to Thursday mornings rather than Friday mornings. The secretary would find a location in the building and notify the Subcommittee members.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.