►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - August 02, 2018
Description
Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - August 02, 2018
https://www.slc.gov/
https://www.slc.gov/boards/boards-commissions/historic-landmark-commission/
https://www.slc.gov/boards/historic-landmark-commission-agendas-minutes/
B
So
it's
a
way
for
us
to
help
preserve
kind
of
the
more
historic
types
of
signs
that
may
be
outside
of
historic
districts.
There's
a
lot
of
men
sugarhouse,
for
example,
a
lot
of
them
in
one,
the
State
Street
or
Main
Street
corridor.
So
it's
just
an
FYI.
The
City
Council
is
going
to
start
talking
about
that
in
a
couple
of
weeks,
so
just
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
to
help
with
some
of
our
preservation
goals
that
are
also
outside
of
historic
districts.
Oh
okay,
well,.
B
Not
not
right
now,
if
it
I
mean
one
of
the
benefits
is
that
right
now
the
Lamar
submission
has
kind
of
in
same
with
the
planters
had
really
limited
authority
on
reusing
existing
signs
when
they're
historic
and
stuff.
So
this
actually
opens
that
gateway
so
and
I.
Trying
to
think
of
something
off
talk,
my
head
and
I
can't
really
probably
exchange
place.
Downtown
might
be
one
more
there's
some,
but
there
may
be
some
that
would
come
before
the
Landmarks
Commission
for
review
and
we're
doing
that
as
a
well
as
a
special
exception.
So,
okay,
good.
A
Very
good
we
have
I,
have
two
cards
actually
that
one's
for
one
of
the
projects.
If
anyone
wants
to
speak
to
any
of
the
projects,
are
the
applications
tonight.
Please
fill
out
one
of
these
cards
and
just
bring
it
up
to
me,
but
we
do
have
Cindy
Cromer,
who
wishes
to
speak
to
a
non
project
specific
matter.
C
When
something
turns
out
well,
I
feel
compelled
to
tell
you
so
the
project
that
you
looked
at
known
as
935
on
ninth
East,
just
west
of
haxon
place
and
a
budding
and
part
of
the
South
Temple
historic
district
is
now
finished
and
leasing,
and
this
was
one
that
the
staff
was
stellar.
Amy
Thompson
wrote
a
negative
staff
recommendation
about
a
very
aggressive
up
zone,
and
then
you
worked
very
hard
on
the
articulation
of
the
part
of
the
building,
especially
that
was
in
the
historic
district
and
the
building
has
turned
out
fabulously.
C
Well,
even
the
part
that
we
didn't
fuss
over
with
the
recreation
facility
in
the
back
has
turned
out
really
well.
The
articulation
of
the
porches
and
balconies
is
fabulous.
These
folks
even
matched
the
color
of
the
dryer
vents
to
the
color
of
the
exterior
building
materials
I
was
thrilled.
So
thank
you
for
all
of
your
hard
work
on
that.
The
only
way
it
could
have
been
much
better
as
if
the
entire
facade
had
been
in
the
historic
district,
then
you
could
have
monkeyed
around
with
the
setback
for
the
whole
front
of
the
building.
A
You
Cindy
I've,
also
I,
have
not
been
by
it,
but
I've
heard
other
people
give
similar
reports
on
it.
We'll
need
to
do
a
in
fact.
The
Commission
I
think
in
the
near
future
we're
going
to
have
sort
of
a
traveling
I,
don't
know
if
we
can
have
a
traveling
meeting,
probably
not
technically,
but
we'll
figure
that
out,
but
I
think
revisiting
projects
past
projects
to
learn
how
they
turned
out.
We
see
them
in
drawing
form.
We
see
them
in
some
photo
renderings
and
things
like
that.
A
E
F
You,
chair,
hello
and
good
evening,
you
will
recall
this
proposal
was
before
you
the
meeting
in
early
June
early
June,
and
that
was
for
the
construction
of
three
attached
own
homes
and
the
demolition
of
the
non-contributing
structure
on
the
site.
At
that
meeting,
the
Commission
decided
to
approve
the
demolition
of
the
non-contributing
structure,
so
that
is
no
longer
part
of
this
evenings
review.
F
Rmf
75
residential
zone,
there
is
an
adjacent
single-story,
single-family,
contributing
residence,
I
believe
the
the
owner
of
that
residence
is
here
this
evening
and
may
wish
to
speak.
The
rest
of
the
context
is
Jeremy
apartment
buildings,
I
know
as
just
as
a
reminder
as
well.
There
was
a
previous
approval
for
demolition
of
the
existing
building
and
they
put
the
development
of
a
single-family
house
on
this
site
which
the
Commission
approved
in
June
of
2015.
F
Brief
summary
on
the
new
construction
once
more
for
those
who
weren't
here
previously
three
attach
units
three
stories:
high
four
stories
to
the
rear,
with
a
roof
terrace
staggered
plan
facing
Vine
Street
generally
reflecting
the
curve
in
the
street
Street
alignment
frontage.
Long
Vine
Street
is
a
two-story
porch
definition.
F
F
F
F
Commission
discussion
at
the
meeting
in
june
focused
on
the
relationship
of
the
building
to
the
street
and
concern
about
the
settlement
patterns
and
the
immediate
neighborhood
discussion
points
focused
on
the
scope
for
the
development
to
actually
activate
the
street
to
a
greater
extent,
some
discussion
of
volume
and
height
of
the
the
building
and
glazed
frontage
volume
of
glass,
the
frontage
and
the
lack
of
a
street
elevation
along
Vine
Street.
The
applicant
has
provided
some
additional
information
addressing
those
various
points
and
some
revisions
to
this
proposal.
In
that
context,.
F
G
F
Has
been
revised
to
include
some
more
detailed
perspectives
of
the
Vine
Street
frontage
and
the
the
use
of
the
redesign
of
the
porch
way
is
relate
to
make
them
usable
for
the
residents
and
to
activate
the
street
frontage
itself.
In
response
to
previous
Commission
concerns,
and
this
has
also
been
revised
to.
F
F
These
have
since
been
revised
slightly
in
response
to
some
commentary
from
the
immediate
neighbor.
There
are
some
revised
perspectives
actually
in
your
Dropbox.
I
have
some
extra
copies
here.
If
anybody
needs
one
which
actually
improve
the
accuracy
of
things,
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
and
again
the
the
new
Street
facade
elevation
above
in
this
particular
view.
F
And
setting
out
the
the
site
plan
itself
and
perspective
looking
down
the
street
that
perspective
Dawn's
bottom-left
has
also
been
revised.
You
will
have
that
in
your
your
packet
elsewhere,
zooming
into
the
details,
as
they
have
been
revised
since
our
initial
discussions
on
their
proposal
and
then
those
perspectives
in
greater
detail.
Addressing
those
points.
F
There
has
been
some
additional
material
which
you
will
have
received
since
that
initial
discussion.
Improving
the
perspective
views
following
those
being
questioned,
reconfirmed
concern
relating
to
boundary
wall
on
the
south
side
of
the
site,
and
also
the
Greek
confirmation
of
the
concern
about
impact
on
foundations.
F
F
F
H
F
F
Focusing
further
in
the
immediate
context,
is
the
single-family
house
next
door
and
then
the
two
adjacent
three-story
multifamily
buildings
either
side
of
that
again,
it's
probably
fair
to
say
that
in
the
the
overall
context,
and
certainly
in
the
more
immediate
context,
the
proposal
is
relatively
compatible
with
the
general
scale
and
character.
It's.
F
F
The
the
fact
that
the
staggering
of
the
units
actually
reflects
the
street,
it's
curving,
Street
alignment
also
I,
think
helps
because
we
never
see
it
in
this
particular
form.
You're
kind
of
appreciating
it
from
various
angles
as
the
street
slopes,
both
directions
so
I
mean
maybe
that
hopefully
summarizes
a
number
of
the
points,
and
it
is
an
RMF
75
zone
which
means
they've
got
a
75
foot
ceiling.
Theoretically,
leaving
aside
the
sort
of
the
context
in
terms
of
historic
character
and
setting.
H
A
F
F
One
and
these
as
I
was
saying
when
we
countered,
through
these
these
have
been
revised
to
be
slightly
subtly
more
accurate
I.
Think
it's
pretty
fair
to
say
and
I
think
the
applicant
would
hope
to
address
that
point
as
well,
because
in
in
this
one
you
see
slightly
more
of
the
adjacent
house
than
I.
Think
you
probably
see
in
reality,
I
think
that
the
revised
perspective.
A
F
A
F
A
I
I
So
the
Commission
asked
me
to
address
several
points.
I
want
to
go
over
these
now,
the
design,
the
design
guidelines
section,
twelve
point:
six
describe
that
a
new
building
should
appear
similar
in
scale
to
the
established
scale
of
the
current
street
block,
and
so
that's
why
we
we
did
this
study,
which
shows
we
get.
I
I
I
I
Let's
see
it
is
preferable
to
be
able
to
perceive
the
evolution
of
the
street
and
neighborhood
discerning
the
apparent
age
of
each
building
by
its
architectural
expression
and
method
of
construction,
meaning
that
we
shouldn't
do
a
fake
old
building
and
we
should
do
a
real
building
that
reflects
today's
architecture
and
construction
methods,
which
I
think
we've
done.
The
contours
of
the
landscape
and
curved
Street
influenced
the
massing
of
the
building.
I
So,
as
you
can
see
in
the
perspective
as
the
building
as
the
street
curves,
so
do
the
the
buildings
and
the
massing
of
each
house
is
a
lot
less
prominent
because
they're
stepping
back
so
each
house
is
not
as
as
prominent
as
it
could
be
in
terms
of
scale.
So
we
broke
that
scale
down
as
it
recedes
along
the
street
and
we
also
broke
the
scale
of
the
three-story
townhome
down
to
a
two-story
porch.
I
So
effectively
the
perceived
height
as
you
are
on
the
sidewalk
is
a
lot
shorter
than
the
actual
height
the
entrance
is
oriented
towards
the
street,
which
follows
the
design
guidelines
and
functions
as
a
social
interface.
I.
Think
it's
important
to
point
out
that
the
project
doesn't
have
any
backyard,
so
we
are
turning
these
houses
towards
the
front
of
the
street
and
I
know
that's
what
that
was.
One
of
your
main
concerns.
I
I
also
made
some
changes
to
the
front
porch,
and
so
now
it
actually
has
a
rail
and
it
is
connected
to
the
stairs,
and
it
really
is
an
extension
to
the
house.
So
that
was
from
the
last
meeting
that
we
had
and
I
think
it
effectively
connects
the
buildings
to
the
street
and
it
addresses
the
the
street
I
wanted
to
remind
the
Commission
that
we
are
not
asking
for
any
additional
height
we're
not
asking
for
additional
setbacks,
and
we
are
not
asking
for
any
additional
density.
I
I
The
building
or
the
project
is
very
considerate
and
very
sensitive
to
the
neighborhood
and
the
existing
home
on
the
Left.
We
we
left,
we
put
a
driveway
in
between,
therefore
creating
a
12
foot
space
between
our
building
and
the
property
line,
which
means
there's
a
16
foot
space
between
the
two
buildings
now,
as
opposed
to
the
even
the
previous
building,
was
only
8
feet
away
from
the
from
the
original
building
and
in
some
spots,
even
closer
to
that.
I
Take
this
opportunity:
there
are
several
questions,
one
related
to
the
excavation
during
construction,
so
we
want
to
reassure
the
neighbors
that
the
the
building
is
basically
as
three
standard
homes
next
to
each
other,
and
so
we're
not
contemplating
any
piers
or
any
kind
of
you
know,
different
footings.
The
footing
and
foundation
would
be
residential
in
nature,
and
we
just
extend
just
to
be
out
of
the
frost
line,
so
nothing,
nothing
exotic
and
nothing
that
should
cause
any
more
vibrations.
I
We
wanted
to
note
that
there
was
a
fault
excavation
done
on
the
on
the
project
and
that's
a
ten-foot
trench
that
was
required
to
do
because
we're
in
the
fault
zone
that
test
passed.
So
we
dug
a
10-foot,
10-foot,
deep
trench
and
I'm.
You
know
nothing
happens
so
well,
it's
nothing
that
I
know.
So
we
don't
tell
we
don't
plan
on
doing
anything
more
intrusive
than
that.
I
The
the
driveway
I
knew
there
was
a
concern
about
cars,
possibly
sliding
from
one
property.
To
the
other,
I
mean
it's
no
different
than
any
other
property
in
the
area,
but
the
neighboring
site
is
actually
two
feet
higher
than
our
driveway
and
the
proposed
driveway
is
actually
following
the
existing
grade.
So
for
a
car
to
go
on
to
the
neighboring
property,
it
would
have
to
go
up
at
to
football,
so
we
we
feel
that's
pretty
it's
a
pretty
reasonable
way
to
to
solve
that
problem.
I
A
Questions
for
the
applicant,
maybe
just
one
clarification
Pru,
you
talked
about
of
the
property
line
issue
and
the
two-foot
elevation
difference
is
there?
Is
there
an
existing
retaining
wall
between
the
properties?
Is
there?
Will
there
be
it?
There
is
an
existing
retaining
wall
down
the
property
line
roughly
or
yes,.
I
A
A
G
J
D
A
clarification
with
the
boundary
wall
that
goes
between
the
two
properties.
At
the
point
our
our
home
starts.
It
is
flush
with
the
I
mean
the
grounds
level
to
the
house
next
door.
So
there's
a
retaining
wall
in
the
front
of
our
house,
but
where
our
house
actually
starts
it's
flush,
so
there
would
have
to
be
some
sort
of
barrier
put
there
I
see
a
lot
of
cars
slide
in
the
snow
and
I'd
hate
for
some
car
to
hit
our
home,
especially
being
you.
A
I
A
I
A
A
A
K
I
think
well,
I'll
speak
for
a
minute.
I
really
really
like
the
the
contemporary
metaphor
of
porch
in
this
design.
I
think
porches
are
very
important
to
our
streetscape
in
any
neighborhood,
especially
in
historic
districts
and,
furthermore,
the
the
rhythm,
the
massing
the
staggered
setback.
I
think
this
will
be
a
wonderful
addition
to
the
streetscape.
G
Right
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
listed
in
this
staff
report.
Testimony
received
and
the
revised
proposal
presented
I
recommend
that
the
Historic
Landmarks
Commission
approved
the
application
PLN
HLC
2018
double
zero
to
one
nine
new
construction
of
three
attached,
single-family
dwellings,
with
the
following
condition
that
approvals
of
that
approval
of
details
is
delegated
to
staff.
We
have.
A
A
E
A
F
F
In
summary
and
I'll
come
back
to
this
slightly
greater
detail,
this
is
a
single-story
historic
cottage.
The
proposal
is
for
a
two-story
rear
addition
that
replaces
a
collaboration
of
later
lean-to
additions,
retaining
the
original
rear,
historic
rear
edition
and
is
set
slightly
to
one
side
of
the
rear
of
the
property.
There
is
also
proposed
on
to
put
a
new
accessory
structure
in
one
corner
of
the
site.
F
That
just
covers
once
Justin
mentioned
the
only
other
additional
point.
There
is
that
their
proposal
also
includes
the
replacement
of
the
existing
windows
in
the
cottage.
Those
have
previously
been
replaced
and
I
think.
The
proposal
at
the
moment
is
to
replace
the
current
vinyl
framework
frames
with
a
more
durable
fiberglass
alternative,
which
has
better
profiles
as
well
a
word
or
two
on
the
building
and
its
immediate
context
and
third
Avenue.
F
F
The
proposal
is
for
a
two-story
or
irritation,
which
is
unusual,
and
it
is
on
a
smaller
footprint
and
I
will
come
back
to
that
greater
detail
shortly.
The
proposal
in
design
terms
echoes
aspects
of
the
existing
cottage,
its
I
gabled,
an
orientation
and
uses
the
same
roof
pitch
and
other
points
to
note
in
this
particular
case,
is
the
site
Falls
to
the
rear
from
north
to
south.
F
The
addition
is
partly
constrained.
I
think
they,
the
applicant,
has
been
focusing
on
keeping
floor
to
floor
Heights
to
a
minimum
but
they're
trying
to
retain
a
historic
roof
root,
cellar
to
the
rear
of
the
existing
property
and
consequently
have
not
been
able
to
dig
the
rear
addition
into
the
the
site
any
more
than
what
is
currently
proposed
in
retaining
access
to
that
root.
Cellar,
the
heissen
site
themselves
have
we'll
come
back
to
again
in
a
moment
quite
unusual
ice.
F
The
the
historic
cottage
is
set
considerably
further
back
in
the
street
from
a
number
of
the
other
buildings,
and
certainly
the
two
adjacent
buildings
which
are
also
much
taller,
and
the
primary
external
materials
proposed
here
for
the
rear
edition
include
an
external
cedar
rain
screen
to
the
fabric
of
the
structure,
location
on
3rd
Avenue.
As
you
will
see
here
to
the
immediate
West,
there
is
a
relatively
recent.
Certainly
in
this
case,
non-contributing
multifamily
building
of
two
to
three
stories
and
to
the
immediate
east
is
a
fairly
tall
one.
F
Our
story,
contributing
contributing
house
is
some
photographs
of
those
in
a
moment
or
two,
as
you
can
see,
to
an
extent
as
well.
The
the
footprint
of
the
cottage
is
set
well
back
from
a
front
setback
established
by
the
building's
either
side
and
the
buildings
on
that.
The
rest
of
that
Street
frontage.
F
Looking
across
the
street
and
the
third
Avenue
at
the
cottage
itself,
and
its
immediate
setting
zooming
in
on
the
cottage
and
then
on
the
east
side
and
the
west
side
of
that,
you
can
see
stepping
slightly
further
out
the
historic
addition
to
the
rear,
that's
being
retained.
You
would
be
aware
to
an
extent,
although
its
steps
in
slightly
of
the
two-story
addition
above
that
the
view
from
the
parking
lot
to
the
rear
of
the
multi-family
building
adjacent
to
the
west
side.
F
Moving
on
to
the
application
plans
showing
the
footprint
of
the
new
addition
to
the
rear,
as
you
can
see,
it,
steps
in
from
the
west
side
steps
in
very
marginally
from
the
east
side.
So
it
actually
compared
with
the
demolition
sections
of
the
existing
additions
to
the
rear
it
its
markedly
more
compact.
But
it
is
much
taller
and
then
the
the
location
of
the
additional
accessory
building
on
the
bottom
corner
of
the
site.
F
F
F
F
F
I
F
As
I
say,
they
I
think
the
Forman
design
is
relatively
sympathetic
and
in
this
particular
case,
this
staff
conclusion
was
that
this
was
much
more
acceptable
than
one
might
automatically
assume
that
it
would
be
other
key
issues
identified
here.
As
mentioned
in
passing
already,
the
design
of
the
new
addition
seems
to
have
been
well
thought
through
in
relation
to
the
character
of
the
existing
house,
but
also
in
the
individuality
of
the
proposal.
F
It's
compatibility,
echo
is
really
in
the
context
with
the
house
and
I.
Think
the
setting
as
well
new
accessory
structure
does
not
raise
any
particular
issues.
I,
don't
think
in
any
respect
that
uses
matching
design
and
materials
to
the
performance,
rear
addition
and
the
replacement
of
the
windows
does
not
raise
any
concern
because
we're
not
losing
any
existing
historic
character
and
in
the
cottage
in
this
would
be
a
marginal
upgrade
to
what's.
Currently
there.
F
A
staffer
recommends
that
the
Commission
approves
the
application
for
certificate
of
appropriateness,
the
new
addition,
construction
of
the
accessory
building
and
replacement
of
the
windows
and
approve
the
special
exception
requests
associated
with
these
proposals,
with
the
condition
that
approval
of
each
house
is
delegated
to
staff
and
I
would
conclude
my
summary
presentation
at
that
point
and
open
it
up
for
any
thoughts.
Questions.
A
C
G
Well
here
now,
I've
got
a
question:
I,
don't
know
that
it's
strictly
historical
but
you've
got
large
expanses
of
glazing,
especially
to
the
south
and
no
shading
I
know
you're
using
some
really
excellent
windows
on
the
project,
but
it
can
be
getting
a
lot
of
direct
Sun
there
and
on
the
west
side.
What
what
are
your
thoughts
on
controlling
insulation
in.
C
The
window
is
I
mean
if
the,
if
the
that
may
be
a
we've,
certainly
discussed
putting
shading
in
front
of
the
windows.
So
turning
turning
the
Cedars
cedar
louvers
sideways
in
order
to
cover
the
window
if
they
want
to
there's
also
the
potential
of
using
external
shading
systems,
which
we've
used,
we've
used
in
other
projects,
I
just
didn't.
That's
not
necessarily
something
I
thought
was
necessary
to
bring
to
this
table,
but
I'm
happy
to
extrapolate
on
well.
C
G
And
I
know
the
existing
cottage
doesn't
have
anything
like
that
and
it's
not
traditional,
usually
sating
was
provided
by
roof
overhangs,
but
in
a
contemporary
interpretation
when
you're
taking
taking
a
design
cue
from
the
form
of
the
historical
building,
yet
you're
doing
it
in
a
modern
sense.
I
was
curious
to
hear
how
you
might
be
considering
doing
that
so
yeah.
A
Other
questions,
if
not
oh
well,
Oh
Paul,
I'll,
weigh
in
on
mine.
It's
it
may
all
be
related.
I.
Think
I.
Think
Carl
has
correctly
identified
that
the
the
issue
is
the
height
I,
find
the
the
form
and
the
massing
and
things
with
the
exception
of
the
height,
quite
quite
interesting
and
and
intriguing
with
with
respect
to
this
historic
house.
A
But
the
height
is
really
challenging
to
me,
and
there
was
the
comment
made
about
the
root
cellar
and
the
height
of
the
root
cellar
door
and
such
and
this
section
that
you
have
on
your
sheet
a
302
and
the
plans
seem
to
show
that
the
addition
is
to
is
immediately
to
the
east
of
the
stairs
to
the
root
cellar.
Can
you
help
us
walk
through
how
the
root
cellar,
stairs
and
access
generate
the
need
for
the
height,
because
I
think
that's
the
single.
A
C
G
C
A
The
in
plan,
it
seemed
like
some
of
the
stairs
and
I'll
just
describe
it.
This
way,
some
of
the
actual
risers
going
upstairs
to
the
new
addition,
the
second
floor
of
the
new
addition.
If
those
were
brought
into
the
into
the
addition
height
and
that's
not
making
any
sense
and
I
recognize
it,
MIT's
no.
A
A
C
C
A
E
A
K
L
E
K
K
K
G
K
G
D
I,
don't
have
any
concerns
about
it
either.
I
think
it's
actually
quite
modest,
given
how
well
narrow
it
is
compared
to
the
main
house
and
in
terms
of
the
architectural
detail,
I'm
really
excited
about
it.
I
can't
wait
to
have
this
be
in
my
little
neighborhood
I
think
it's
terrific,
the
only
other
thing
I
was
gonna
say.
Is
it
just
on
a
more
philosophical
note,
I
think
these
tiny
little
houses,
and
but
you
know
in
this
case
one
with
a
significant
part
of
the
score
footage
in
the
back.
A
G
G
Don't
think
you're
really
gaining
anything
with
that
and
you're
losing
a
bit
of
the
the
nice
volume
inside
the
house
that's
being
created,
you
know,
that's
gonna,
be
a
great
great
space
to
live
and
I
think
it's
gonna
be
light
filled
and
and
in
open
and
I
really
tied
the
backyard
into
the
living
of
the
house.
I.
A
Just
I
just
feel
like
this
is
a
pretty
unique.
It
is
a
unique
little
structure,
one
of
the
older
one
of
the
older
buildings
in
the
avenues,
probably
remarkably
small,
remarkably
short
kind
of
oddly
set
on
its
site
and
I
just
kind
of
feel
like
we
should
be
doing
what
we
can
to
retain
those
characters
and
I
think
we
retained.
A
Well,
it's
one
way:
I
I,
I,
fully
agree
with
via
the
comments
they've
been
made,
Paul's
in
particular,
you
know,
I
think
the
design
of
this
addition
I
think
the
the
form
the
window
layout,
the
materials
I
think
it's
a
very
unique
and
wonderful
design.
It'll
be
fun
to
see
this
one
realized
I
just
wish
that
we
weren't
going
to
ever
see
any
of
it
from
the
street.
A
A
G
G
G
I
think
motion
from
someone
I'll
do
it,
based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
listed
in
this
staff
report.
The
staff
recommends
that
the
Commission
approved
the
application
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
the
new
addition.
The
construction
of
the
accessory
building
replacement
of
the
windows
and
approve
the
special
exception
requests
associated
with
these
proposals,
with
the
following
condition
that
approval
of
details
is
delegated
to
staff.
H
E
A
G
E
A
F
A
F
F
F
So,
as
you
have
a
better
understanding
of
it,
but
there's
also
the
proposal
to
extend
the
existing
rebuild
and
extend
the
existing
later
garage
structure
at
the
south
east
corner
of
this
site
and
bring
that
forward
part
way
along
the
South
facade
of
this
cottage,
so
that
part
of
the
exterior
appearance
of
that
would
be
lost.
The
proposal
is
to
retain
that
internally.
F
The
rear
and
west
for
science
of
the
cottage
would
be
removed
in
this
case,
the
proposal
is
to
excavate
the
basement,
rebuild
the
foundations,
which
apparently
markedly
needed
in
this
context,
with
those
new
additions
to
the
West
in
the
southwest
and
before
you
this
evening.
There
are
two
options
presented
in
terms
of
the
process
for
achieving
this.
F
Quoting
from
the
application,
at
the
moment,
it
says
located
in
the
heart
of
Salt
Lake
City,
this
historic
cottage
house
located
in
the
avenues
has
been
neglected
for
several
years.
The
main
goal
of
the
project
is
to
restore
the
building
to
its
original
charm
and
update
the
deteriorated
property,
retaining
as
much
of
the
historical
integrity
as
possible.
Now
we
have
prepared
two
proposals
to
accomplish
these
goals.
F
F
So
we
have
in
summary
and
I'll,
go
into
this
in
slightly
greater
detail
in
terms
of
the
full
package
of
drawings,
but
we've
got
two
options
as
currently
proposed.
You
can
see
in
this
diagram
bottom
right,
the
rear
walls
of
the
cottage
being
removed,
the
existing
three
walls
being
braced
and
the
excavation
and
construction
of
a
well
an
extended
basement
area.
It
has
a
partial
basement
area
at
the
moment
and
the
rebuilding
of
the
Foundation's
in
the
context
of
that
option,
two
would
actually
cut
the
walls
away
from
their
footing.
F
Moisture
on
the
base
of
the
walls,
especially
on
along
the
north
side,
it
would
be
it
would
deconstruct
the
three
walls
and
move
those
aside:
tick
off
the
roof,
obviously,
prior
to
that
excavating,
the
basement
and
constructing
the
Foundation's
on
an
open
site
and
then
reconstruct
the
walls
with
primarily
I
believe
a
new
roof
and
then
the
the
new
additions,
the
photographs
of
the
existing
commercial
and
the
original
cottage
previously
was
six
sixth
Avenue.
This
is
the
G
Street
View.
F
This
is
the
North
facade
viewed
internally,
this
would
be
kept
with
either
option
these
proposals.
A
couple
of
additional
internal
views,
showing
you
part
of
the
original
wall
structure,
dividing
the
cottage
into
two.
It's
thought
that
this
cottage
was
the
subject
of
an
early
early
edition
and
what
you're
looking
at
there
I
think
is
part.
The
heart
part
part
original
and
part
later,
but
it's
still
very
early.
Excuse
me.
K
F
And
this
is
looking
at
the
south
west
corner
the
wall
on
your
right
would
be
removed.
The
wall
on
your
left
would
actually
be
retained
and
that
window
would
remain,
but
internally,
these
proposals
a
couple
of
details
of
the
roof
structure,
which
seems
to
be
interesting.
Those
of
you
who
had
a
chance
to
see
the
interior
well,
perhaps
remember
this.
F
F
F
F
Basement
as
proposed
in
this
current
series
of
proposals,
roofs,
roof
plan
and
I
detail
of
the
excavation
around
the
cottage
to
actually
improve
the
drainage
and
the
relative
grading
around
the
existing
walls
and
the
the
current
facades
as
proposed.
This
applies
to
both
options,
which
would
end
up
really
achieving
this
overall
relationship.
So
you
will
see
the
context
of
this.
You
can
see
the
degree
to
which
the
cottage
is
becomes
linked
with
the
adjacent
commercial.
F
F
As
identified
by
staff
at
this
point
for
this
work
session,
these
work
session
purposes
I.
There
are
several
key
considerations
and
those
are
outlined
in
your
staff
report.
Greater
detail
but
effectively
the
questions
I
have
identified
here.
Terms
of
a
review
of
what's
proposed,
one
would
be
would
either
of
the
proposed
options,
retain
sufficient
of
the
integrity
of
the
historic
building
and,
to
an
extent,
these
questions
somewhat
overlap.
F
Is
the
phased
approach
presented
here
either
or
option
the
most
appropriate
methodology
for
safeguarding
and
rehabilitating
the
building?
Three?
Would
the
proposed
additions
retain
a
sufficient
of
the
historic
building
fabric,
which
is
slightly
different
from
the
integrity
with
the
proposed
additions,
overwhelm
the
historic
building?
There's
another
question
which
immediately
springs
to
mind
and
finally
and
kind
of
as
a
an
encapsulation
of
the
the
other
questions.
F
Is
this
an
appropriate
balance
and
the
stewardship
with
this
building?
There
may
well
be
other
questions
that
this
raises.
So
that's
that's
not
an
exhaustive
list,
but
I
presented
that
in
terms
of
launching
discussion
on
this
and
to
garner
your
thoughts
and
expertise
in
terms
of
this
approach
and
acceptability,
revisions,
alternatives,
thoughts
on
the
balance
really
between
retention,
new
addition
and
the
future
survival
of
the
cottage
are
parts
of
it
and
I
would
conclude
my
presentation
at
that
point
very
happy
to
answer.
Any
questions
which
immediately
arise.
F
D
F
A
D
F
F
And
that's
I
mean
that
is
relatively
early,
but
it's
much
later
than
the
cottage.
It's
also
I,
don't
know
it
fit
figures
in
these
particular
photographs,
but
the
South
facade
wall
or
the
south
wall
of
that
is
actually
leaning
outward.
So
it's
coming
apart
at
the
corner,
so
the
idea
really
was,
as
part
of
this
approach,
to
actually
take
those
existing
materials
retain
and
kind
of
rebuild
that
in
its
current
footprint,
but
extend
it
forward
and
raise
the
height
of
it
slightly.
F
Having
said
that,
I
mean
they're
part
of
the
historic
fabric.
Are
there
any
any
historic
district?
This
the
the
frontage
of
the
garage
is
at
the
at
the
moment,
and
you've
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it.
On-Site
as
well
rather
looks
like
it's
been
fabricated,
from
a
series
of
salvaged
sections
of
something
else,
probably
several
something
else's
now
what
it
was
prior
to
that,
or
maybe
that
was
the
original
form
of
it.
E
D
B
Carl's
right
I
think
it
generally,
they
wouldn't
necessarily
be
contributing,
but
we
know
that
there
are
some
accessory
buildings
that
are
very
significant
and
whether
they're
on
a
landmark
site
or
I
mean
the
some
of
the
obvious
examples
are
some
of
the
large
mansions
on
South
temple
that
have
some
pretty
significant
best
restructures.
Generally,
though,
in
a
situation
like
this
I,
wouldn't
imagine
that
most
accessory
buildings
would
be
contributing.
A
D
F
I
mean
I
suppose
going
back
to
first
principles.
If
one's
talking
about
Ana
storing
building,
then
you
start
with
a
fabric
of
it
really
and
the
structure
of
the
building
and
you're
you're
talking
about
what
actually
holds
up
what
you're
seeing
externally
so
and
that
has
to
be
part
of
the
definition
of
historic
integrity,
I
think
so
by
implication,
yes,
I
think
it
all
kind
of
addresses
that
now
we
don't
generally
address
something
in
terms
of
the
interior
of
the
building
as
such,
in
terms
of
our
role
here,.
E
F
A
Know
I'm
just
flipping
through
the
design
standards
that
you've
listed
in
that
in
the
staff
report
and
number
six
talks
about
deteriorated
architectural
features
which
we
usually
see
from
the
street,
rather
considering
the
rotted
2x4
inside,
but
nevertheless
deteriorate.
Architectural
features
shall
be
repaired
rather
than
replaced
where
feasible,
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
takes
us
down
that
path
of
retain
the
maximum
amount
of
historic
fabric
rather
than
yeah
a
quick
replacement
decision.
A
B
Chair
before
you
move
on
can
I
just
have
a
comment
about
that:
the
interior
stuff
and
there's
an
exterior.
Oh.
That
I
think
it's
important
to
rely
on
what
our
ordinance
says
in
this
absolutely
and
it
talks
about
when
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
required-
and
it
clearly
says
X
something
that
involves
the
exterior
appearance
of
the
structure
of
the
site.
So
something
on
the
inside.
L
B
B
A
Certainly
I
think
my
only
my
only
point
would
be
such
heavy
changes
to
the
inside
that
you
know
how
thin
of
skin,
how
thin
of
historic
skin
have
we
maintained.
I
think
is
the
issue
a
little
bit
and
whether
we've
maintained
it
or
not.
So
could
you
all
introduce
yourselves
please
and
since
you
see
our
names,
we
need
to
know
yours
a
little
bit
and
that
would
help
I'm.
F
E
Bought
it
two
and
a
half
years
ago,
the
commercial
building
is
part
of
the
cottage
we
been.
That
is
also
historic,
that
that
was
built
in
1914,
I,
believe,
okay,
and
we
we
successfully
remodeled
and
upgraded
the
commercial
building
and
have
had
nothing
but
positive
input
from
the
community.
It's
a
it's.
A
working
building,
everybody
loves
it
and
we
were
trying
to
upgrade
the
the
cottage
as
best
we
can
when
I
bought
it.
E
It
was
a
crack
house,
so
it's
been
through
some
I,
don't
know
if
any
of
you
have
been
in
there,
but
it's
it's
barely
standing.
We
want
to
keep
it
and
preserve
it,
and
we've
worked
two
and
a
half
years
to
get
to
this
point.
I
think
we've
had
a
lot
of
different
concepts
and
we're
down
to
the
final
few.
L
I'm
max
angle,
I'm
with
domicile
the
general
contractor
to
be
used
on
the
project,
we're
currently
working
on
the
historical
project
kitty-corner
on
sixth
and
gee
that
was
approved
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago.
So
we're
looking
at
helping
Pam
out
with
this
one
right
here
and
looking
forward
to
working
in
collaboration
in
conjunction
with
you
guys
to
help
preserve
the
historic
nature
of
this
great
little
cottage.
E
M
Rodrigo
with
Smith,
Haight,
architects
and
I
will
start
the
presentation,
pretty
quick,
we'll
make
it
quick.
So
we
just
brought
a
couple
things.
We
brought
a
couple
of
pictures
that
just
two,
so
the
ones
that
were
not
able
to
go
to
the
site
visit
can
be
aware
of
the
situation
of
the
building.
So
this
is
the
bill
that
Pamela
was
mentioning
it's
all
in
the
same
property.
M
This
building
and
the
cottage
house
so
they're
very
close
to
each
other,
as
we
could
see,
I
think
there
is
a
better
picture
to
show
it
later,
but
this
is
the
conditions
this
picture
was
taken
a
couple
days
ago.
One
of
the
biggest
issues
that
we're
fighting
right
now
is
because
this
part
here
is
pushing
the
wall
so
right
now,
there's
no
foundation
or
anything
into
the
cottage
house.
So
the
only
thing
holding
this
wall
here
is
the
siding
right
now
and
gravity.
M
Apparently,
so
we're
really
lucky,
that's
still
standing
up,
but
that's
a
big
issue.
So
the
first
thing
that
we
would
do
we
kind
of
separate
it
into
phases
and
the
first
phase
that
we
would
do
in
this
project
is
making
this
all
the
same
level.
So
there's
no
ground
pushing
the
building,
and
then
we
can
reinforce
the
structure
and
everything
else.
But
first
step
would
be
level
this
all
up
with
this
here,
because
there's
a
slight
slope
here
that
it's
pushing
the
building
the
gravity
yeah
the
dirt.
M
This
is
the
garage
view
that
we
were
talking
about.
This
is
the
existing
building
the
basement,
access
to
the
building,
as
we
can
see
people
that
work
throughout
time
in
the
building.
So
this
is
our
addition
will
go
until
here,
so
we're
still
maintaining
the
front
of
the
building
as
much
as
possible
as
we
can
we're
reusing
the
siding
as
much
as
we
can
we're
preserving
the
roof
in
both
the
options.
We're
trying
that
we're
gonna
decel,
disable
the
roof
and
then
put
it
back
together.
We're
gonna
label
them.
M
The
max
will
explain
that
process
a
little
better
for
us.
Here's!
What
I
was
talking
about?
How
it's
there's
no
structure
attached
to
the
walls?
The
walls
are
floating
right
now
and
the
ground
is
pushing
because
there's
like
a
couple
of
trees
and
roots
there
that
are
pushing
the
building.
This
is
what
we're
trying
to
get
rid,
because
right
now,
this
is
the
only
piece
of
retention
wall
built
in
there.
So
it
just
ends
here
and
then
here
goes
all
the
way
to
the
ground.
M
This
is
the
space
between
the
two
buildings,
so
there's
like
two
and
a
half
between
the
salon
and
cottage
house,
so
it's
a
very
small
space
between
the
two
buildings
and
that's
why,
in
our
proposals,
we're
kind
of
making
all
one
building,
so
the
cottage
house
is
part
of
the
other
building
but
at
the
same
time
it
comes
forward.
So
it
brings
the
attention
more
to
the
cottage
house.
It
brings
the
value
in
the
to
the
historical
building,
so
this
is
our
plans.
This
is
the
existing
garage
which
I
don't
know.
M
If
we
can
call
our
garage,
because
you
cannot
even
fit
a
car
in
there,
they
used
to
be
a
garage
back
in
the
day,
I
assume,
but
nowadays
it's
more
of
a
workspace
shed
ish,
and
then
this
is
the
tiny
addition
also
that
we're
proposing
to
them-
and
this
is
the
space
between
the.
So
this
is
like
two
foot
and
a
half.
M
L
So
we're
looking
at
two
different
options
for
restoring
the
structure,
we're
right
now
up
against
the
the
big
issue
we
have
is
we
have
the
the
structure?
The
main
floor
structure
is
rotted
out
around
the
perimeter
of
the
house
on
the
west
side,
the
north
side,
completely
rotted
out
on
the
northeast
side,
about
half
of
the
structure
is
rotted.
The
house
is
built,
as
would
have
been
typical
back
then,
at
the
time
as
a
balloon
frame
house,
so
the
exterior
walls
were
built
attached
to
what
our
foundation
was.
L
There
looks
like
on
the
north
side,
on
the
west
side
and
on
the
northeast
side.
It
was
built
wood
to
ground
no
foundation.
There
is
a
small
foundation
on
the
south
end,
so
the
wall
plates
were
directed
we're
set
on
the
ground
on
the
north
side
set
on
the
foundation
on
the
south
side,
the
the
floor.
Joists
then
we'll
run
through
into
the
walls
and
set
on
the
soul
plates
and
that's
how
the
floor
is
created
with
now
typical
construction
of
new
construction.
We
would
do
four
new
codes.
L
We
have
to
bring
the
foundation
up
six
inches
above
the
existing
grades.
Will
have
to
alter
the
grade
by
lowering
the
grade
on
the
north
side
and
on
the
northeast
side
to
allow
the
foundation
to
come
up
above
the
grades.
So
don't
long,
it
will
rot
out
and
then
we'll
put
a
new
floor
on
top
of
the
foundation,
and
then
we
would
take
the
new
walls
or
the
old
walls
and
we
would
cut
the
walls
where
they're
rotten
off
or
at
the
new
floor
level,
put
new
plates
on
those
walls
and
reinforce
the
existing
lumber.
L
That's
in
there
that's
the
lumber,
that's
in
question
because
of
the
integrity,
the
integrity
of
the
house,
the
lumber
that
was
looks
like
it
was
possibly
milled
on
site
or
somewhere
close
to
site
because
it
has
the
bark
on
it.
So
we
would
reinforce
that
and
then
we
would
rebuild
the
structure
using
the
existing
walls.
We
would
like
to
looking
at
the
two
options:
the
bracing
option
and
then.
A
Quick
question
sure
going
back
to
the
foundation
the
three
establish
a
new
foundation
under
whichever
scheme
this
comes.
You
still
anticipate
the
siding
and
I
know
that
recognize
that
some
of
its
buried
by
dirt
today,
but
basically
the
siding,
would
extend
down
to
the
existing
existing
level
that
it
is
today.
It.
L
L
L
It
really
would
be
really
close
to
that
elevation
line.
So
the
challenge
we
have
with
the
what
the
project
is
we
and
with
both
of
these
methods
were
proposed
and
we'd
like
to
maintain
the
original
roof.
The
roof
right
now
currently
has
three
layers
of
asphalt
shingles
on
it.
So
in
order
to
be
re-roofed,
it
has
to
be
completely
stripped
down,
which
would
mean
we
take
it
down
to
the
current
gap
sheathing,
which
is
the
1
by
8
sheathing,
that's
on
top
of
the
2.
L
There's
nothing
to
lift
off
of
on
the
floor
so
effectively
in
order
to
make
a
bracing
option.
Work
we'd
have
to
lift
it
from
the
roof,
which
would
mean
we
then
have
to
run
our
structural
beams
through
at
the
plate
line
the
roof
plate
line,
and
we
would
have
to
suspend
the
walls
off
of
the
roof
and
lift
up
the
walls
and
take
out
the
floor,
which
would
be
really
really
difficult
to
do.
That's
why
we?
L
L
Then
we
labeled
the
roof
members,
the
joists,
the
ridge
beams,
the
hip
rafters,
dismantle
them,
keep
them
on
site
and
then
clip
the
three
walls
that
are
left
on
the
two
corners
braced
them
stack
them
off
to
the
south
side
of
the
lot,
then
go
ahead
and
dig
in
our
new
foundation,
build
our
new
floor
and
then
come
back
and
lay
the
walls
back
down
on
the
new
floor
and
rehabilitate
and
restore
the
walls
and
re
stand
them
up
and
then
see.
Hopefully,
at
that
time
we
can
save
about
90
percent
of
the
siding.
L
That's
on
the
current
walls.
We
would
get
a
new
siding
milled
up
that
would
match
the
existing
siding
and
that
would
have
to
be
done
from
the
plate
line
down.
We'd
have
to
do
new
siding,
so
that's
that's
the
extent
of
what
we're
proposing
to
do
and
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
chore
but
I
think
in
the
end,
we'll
you
know,
have
a
building.
L
M
So
what
we're
proposing
and
both
options
just
talking
about
the
design
a
little
is
preserving
either
way
preserving
the
building
as
much
as
we
can
and
preserving
exactly
how
it
looks
right
now
and
then
just
adding
this
popping
the
garage
a
little
up
to
the
front
and
then
making
the
storefront
that
kinds
of
talk
with
the
next-door
building.
So
we
can
see
that
this
building
kind
of
braces
the
historical
building,
but
this
historical
building
is
more
towards
the
front.
M
So
this
is
all
recessed,
so
it
doesn't
compete
with
the
historical
building,
but
the
historical
building
has
it
it's
it's
an
up
front
and
a
front
plan.
So
it's
like
here.
We
can
see
like
how
this
is
there's
like
a
big
difference
here
and
there's
like
a
little
courtyard
in
the
side
by
the
historical
building,
so
yeah
so
we're
creating
this
and
then
we're
assessing.
This
is
where
the
historical
building
wall
is
and
then
we're
assessing
the
garage
right
now.
It's
like
here
so
we're
just
adding
a
couple
feet
to
the
garage
issue.
L
M
This
brick
that
we're
seeing
here,
it's
actually
a
reused
brick
from
the
garage
structure
from
the
accessory
building
and
it
has
the
Avenues
look.
So
we're
not
creating
something
completely
different
from
what's
there,
but
we're
kind
of
bringing
what
we
have.
The
newer
addition
remodel
into
the
cottage
house,
but
at
the
same
time
preserving
the
cottage
house
exactly
how
it
looks
like
restoring
the
windows,
restoring
everything
about
it.
So
it's
all
closest
to
the
original
as
possible
and
keeping
the
character
of
the
building.
E
We
feel
like
the
end
product
is
well
if
we
excavate
on
the
north
side
and
keep
the
the
height
of
that
accessory
structure,
the
the
garage
bump
out
below
the
existing
cottage
roof
height,
that
from
the
north
side
from
the
east
side,
you
know,
as
you're
traveling
around
that
corner,
whether
you're
driving
or
walking,
that
that
original
cottage
is
what
takes
precedence
and
what
stands
out.
It's
also
a
lighter
color,
so
it
naturally
pops
on.
A
H
It
just
seems
to
me
that
that's
something
that
we
need
in
order,
as
this
is
more
information
about
how
other
cities-
maybe
you
know
how
historic
buildings
are
handled,
I,
don't
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
know.
Are
these
good
proposals?
Is
one
preferable
to
another
I
mean
I,
see
the
need
for
a
new
foundation.
A
Think
you
know
that
I
have
never
been
involved
in
one
of
the
projects.
I
know
that
in
Park,
City
they've
done
a
few
projects
where
they've
actually
taken.
You
know,
cut
down
the
corners
basically
of
a
building
and
re-established
them.
I
can't
speak
to
the
end
result.
I'd
I
know
that
it's
happened,
but
I
don't
know
what
kind
of
result
they've
had
over
time,
but
I
think
it's
a
I.
Think
it's
a
valid
question
it
it
has.
A
It
has
some
challenges:
I
mean
when,
when
you
I'm
just
kind
of
philosophically,
if
you
drive
down
the
street
and
there's
no
building
there
during
that
foundation
port,
you
know
time
of
the
project
you
know
kind
of.
Is
it
a
historic
building
when
the
pieces
go
back
that
the
elevation
pieces
go
back
on
and
it's
kind
of
a
you
know?
It's
it's
a
it's
a
real
question,
I
think.
H
H
G
F
Can
I
know
I
was
just
gonna
say:
I
was
rear,
efference
Ingush
in
your
memo
and
in
fact,
because
we
were
looking
at
the
contributing
status
of
the
building.
Previously
there
was
a
lot
of
National
Park,
Service
methodology
and
reasoning
attached
to
that.
Some
of
that
I
repeated
here
and
some
of
it
is
indirectly
referenced
in
terms
of
those
live
links
to
previous
report.
So
there
is
a
fair
bit
that
they
say
about.
You
know,
sort
of
how
you
retain
contributing
status.
What
is
integrity,
various
things
of
that
nature,
so
so.
G
This
is
a
good
question:
I'm
not
I'm,
not
trying
to
deny
that
it's
relevant,
but
let's
look
at
this
another
way.
What
if
we
weren't
having
this
work
session,
what
if
the
applicant
had
come
before
us
saying
this?
Is
the
design
we're
proposing
and
the
method
of
accomplishing
that
wasn't
even
addressed?
We
haven't
asked
other
applicants
we're
restoring
buildings,
how
they're
going
to
do
it?
G
G
K
G
L
I
would
agree
with
you
then,
and
typically
we've
done
that
as
well
before,
where,
if
there's
enough
structural
integrity
in
an
exterior
wall,
we
can
go
ahead
and
we
can
shore
up
sections
of
the
wall
and
we
can
pour
new
foundation
pieces
at
a
time
and
maintain
the
structural
integrity,
but
this
one's
a
little
bit
different
because
there
is
no
foundation
period.
So
there's
nothing
to
support.
There's
nothing
to
support
the
walls
off
of
I
have
seen
when
I
was
in
Williamsburg
Virginia
at
historic
Williamsburg
that
they
did
take
down
some.
L
They
were
dismantling
and
restoring
some
of
the
exterior
like
some
of
the
cabins,
whose
original
log
cabins
the
the
logs
had
deteriorated
to
the
point,
they're
no
longer
usable,
so
they
had
to
replace
them,
so
they
dismantled
them
and
then
they
had
rebuilt
them.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
in
the
report
that
Carl's
referencing
from
the
National
Park
Service
I,
assume
that
is
a
as
a
National
Park
Service
site.
So
also
you
know
what
what
gave
but
the
where
I
got.
L
A
L
L
And
then
that
becomes
problematic
as
well,
because
now
we
have,
as
we
hang
the
walls
off
of
the
roof.
The
amount
of
bracing
that
we
have
to
do.
The
exterior
walls
means
we're
sending
all
kinds
of
fasteners
through
the
walls
through
the
exterior
siding,
so
we're
gonna
be
damaging
the
siding
and
the
structural
members
by
penetrating
them
and
embracing
them
off.
A
A
A
Well,
then,
just
replace
and
I
think
that's
I
think
it's
just
a
given
I
think
once
you
start
taking
it
apart,
you're
gonna,
you
more
pieces
will
be
lost
in
that
I
appreciate
that
you're
gonna
be
shooting
a
lot
of
holes
through
the
existing
stuff
and
maybe
you'll
come
up
with
great
ways
of
of
reinforcing
the
window
openings
and
doing
a
lot
there.
But
I
recognize
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
holes
that
will
go
through
this
building
in
and
keeping
it
well.
L
The
the
other,
the
other
thing
to
that
becomes
that
makes
option
number
one
a
little
more
difficult
is
that
normally
you'd
have
four
sides
to
be
able
to
shore
off
of
and
on
this
circumstance
only
have
three,
because
the
adjacent
structure
to
the
West
is
right
on
the
property
line.
There's
no
real
place
to
be
able
to
shore
back
from
we'd
have
to
shore
off
that
building,
which
could
become
problematic,
yeah
I.
G
L
M
M
That's
what
makes
option
one
also
a
little
bit
harder,
because
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
room
in
the
site
to
brace
and
then
lift
and
do
those
things,
because
such
a
small
property
there,
and
then
we
already
have
this
building,
which
is
there
that
we
don't
want
to
touch
at
it
because
it's
already
a
restored
building.
So
we
don't
want
to
mess
with
that
building.
M
So
it
just
leaves
us
with
not
too
much
room
to
work
around
and
that's
why
we
think
that
the
second
option
it's
a
better
option,
in
our
point
of
view
as
the
architect
of
construction
and
the
owner.
That's
why
we
feel
like
the
second
option,
is
a
little
better
and
the
final
result
is
basically
the
same
as
just
a
matter
of
which
one's
gonna
cost
cost
wise,
actually
I.
Think
it's
pretty.
M
A
However,
whatever
you
want
to
describe
the
the
existing
building,
I
think
because
of
the
existing
building,
we,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
we
see
the
full
South
elevation
and
the
corner
returns
and
that's
still
outside
it's
a
nasty
space
and
it's
a
nasty
addition
in
there
between
there.
But
you
see
the
full
South
elevation
is
that
correct
and
in
the
proposed
and
in
the
and
in
the
proposal
that
garage
rebuild
moves
quite
a
ways
on
that
on
that
South
elevation
and
that's
I
find
that
a
little
bit
concerning
restart.
M
A
I
think
that's
the
yeah
sort
of
the
challenge
I
have
is
that
at
some
point,
we've
sort
of
just
engulfed
the
building
in
the
new
construction
I
appreciate
on
the
other
side
on
both
sides,
you've
got
a
recess
from
the
the
new
addition
is
recessed
from
the
face
of
the
building,
but
at
some
point
just
gets
to
be
like
the
old
amis
and
jewelry
you
know
used
to
be,
which
was
just
the
stone
glued
back
on
the
building
and
I.
Think
that's
the
that's
an
issue
that
we
need
to
avoid.
A
I
mean
if
we
go
through
all
if
we
go
through
all
this
gymnastics
and-
and
the
end
result
is
that
people
say
it
doesn't
feel
like
a
historic
building
and
they
walk
into
it
and
I
know
that
we're
not
interiors
and
but
they
they
say,
I'm
not
experiencing
a
historic
building
anymore.
We've
kind
of
gone
through
a
lot
of
work
for
not
the
end
result
that
you're
necessarily
after
I
think
or
that
we're.
M
Also
because
I
think
it's
also
we're
making
the
building
a
little
bigger
and
sizes
a
lot,
but
at
the
same
time
we're
still
keeping
this
the
historical
building
as
much
as
we
can
as
like
the
main
piece
off
the
property
and
that's
why
I
understand
where
you
come
from,
but
at
the
same
time
it's
there's
not
much
to
be
seen
on
that
side,
we're
preserving
like
the
front
facade
and
then
the
jeast
6th
Avenue.
So
it's
like
I,
don't
know,
I
think.
L
That
the
the
primary
since
then
I've
been
working
a
lot
kitty-corner
right
across
street
on
the
project
cross
street
I,
think
I,
see,
think
you
see
the
most
the
predominant
facades
of
the
house
or
obviously
on
6th
Avenue
and
G
Street
and
I.
Think
that
you
know
there's
an
accessory
building.
It's
it's!
It's
a
small
accessory
building!
I!
Think
that
though
the
intent
is
to
pull
it
forward
as
much
as
we
can
without
making
the
building
feel
like
it's
now
subservient
to
the
rest
of
the
building
and
I.
L
Think
that
that
you
know
we
could
play
with
that.
If
that
became
an
issue
but
I
think
it
go
back,
you
know
a
foot
or
two
more,
but
I
think
that
the
key
thing
is
in
the
materials
that
are
used
on
the
cottage,
the
coloring
that's
used
on
the
cottage
so
that
you
don't
lose
that
building
I
think
we've
seen
those
buildings
along
State
Street.
When
you
go
down
there,
you
see
you
know.
L
M
Then
also
the
materials
that
we're
using
in
this
new
addition
that
we're
putting
forward
it's
a
lot
of
glass.
So
it's
like
it
gives
you
kind
of
the
light
ish.
It's
not
like
we're
building
a
big
brick
wall
there
against
the
building,
but
it's
something
that
complements
the
building
and
goes
well
with
the
next-door
building
on
the
same
property.
So
it
talks
with
the
purple
building
right
now,.
D
If
well,
I
think
my
feeling
on
the
massing
of
the
new
construction
and
its
relation
to
the
historic
building
is
that
I
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
fine.
It's
pulled
back
enough!
That
I
think
you're
still
gonna
read
this
as
a
historic
little
house
and
if
the
where
the
garage
is
comes
forward,
four
feet
or
six
feet
or
whatever
its
proposed
to
be
I,
don't
think.
That's
gonna
I
think
it's
closer
to
town
dunas.
A
D
D
Think
I
want
to
go
back
just
in
endorsed
what
Ken
said:
I'm
really
nervous
about
the
historic
landmark,
Commission,
picking
a
construction
method.
I
think
that's
a
recipe
for
all
sorts
of
problems.
I
think
it's
far
beyond
our
realm
of
expertise.
I,
don't
think
it's
supported
by
the
ordinance
I've
been
Kenton
is
exactly
right
that
our
job
is
to
judge
the
exterior
and.
G
A
G
K
I'm
totally
with
you,
there
I
mean
our
we're
here,
we're
the
Historic
Landmarks
Commission,
we're
not
the
historic
material
construction
Commission,
it's
not
our
job
to
dictate
how
a
job
gets
done.
It's
our
job
to
dictate
what
the
end
product
looks
like
and
that's
what
we
rule
on.
So
you
know
we
should
be
instead
of
talking
about
how
this
happens.
We
should
be
talking
about.
You
know
what
happens
to
the
historic
windows,
what
about
the
door,
one
of
the
roof
materials?
A
But
I
think
but
I
agree
David
the
details.
We
can't.
We
can't
spend
all
our
time
talking
about
the
back
corner
and
not
for
and
not
talk
about
the
windows,
a
kind
of
thing
at
the
same
time,
I
think
it's
the
we
are
talking
about
the
degree
of
preservation
of
the
historic
material
and-
and
there
may
be-
and
there
are
different
means
and
I
think
maybe
we
we
leave
it.
A
We
obviously
live
it
to
the
applicant
to
go
away
to
look
at
these
dry
and
look
at
the
buildings
and
say:
okay,
we
think
we're
gonna
be
able
to
do
maintain
this
portion
of
it
in
that
portion.
These
elements
are
going
to
be
new.
This
talk
to
the
building
department
because
I
think,
while
you
may
be
able
to
put
two
by
fours
back
up
in
that
roof
structure,
I
think
they're
gonna
be
decorative.
You
know,
I
think,
there's
gonna
I
think
you're
gonna
have
a
whole
new
roof
structure.
A
H
K
E
A
A
L
A
M
A
E
A
M
A
G
E
D
G
D
D
D
B
B
B
K
E
A
I
don't
know
if
there
are
other
questions
that
you
have
for
us,
that
we
haven't
confused
you
out
on
tonight
and
that
we
can
offer
some
some
ideas.
I
know
that
we've,
given
you
nothing
very
definitive
but
I,
think
we've
identified
a
lot
of
issues
that
will
give
you
thought
I
think
pause
for
thought
on
on
how
much
to
retain
and
how
much
to
and
how
to
approach
it.
I
don't
know.
Are
there
other
things
that
we
can
do
for
you
I'm.
M
A
M
A
Two
years
well,
we're
not
tabling
anything,
because
this
is
only
a
work
session.
Okay,
so
your
next
step
is
to
finalize
an
application
working
with
Carl
I.
Think
one
question
you
need
to
answer
in
finalizing
that
application
or
the
zoning
issue
is
the
zoning
issue.
The
reuse
and
the
zoning
issue.
I
think
that's
critical,
because
your
well.
M
A
I
think
the
tax
credits
that
David
brought
up,
which
have
certain
ramifications
and
certain
applications
and
they're
not
onerous
or
expensive,
is
a
is
a
potential.
Forty
percent
benefit
to
you
and
so
I
think
that's
a
I
would
suggest
that's
a
pretty
important
thing
to
consider.
Definitely
you
don't
have
to
and.
G
You
think,
in
terms
of
the
process,
perhaps
working
with
Carl
looking
at
some
precedents,
in
other
historical
examples
that
might
support
one
or
the
other
reviewer
approaches
to
redoing
this.
If
you
can
do
some
research
or
if
Carl
and
staff
can
do
some
research
to
say,
National
Park
Service
in
such
situations
has
done
this,
and
this
and
this
then
we
are
we,
you
have
a
munitions
that
can
say
this
is
not
a
tear
down
rebuild
it's
it's
remodel
or
you
know
I'm
renovation.
A
G
A
G
A
A
Mean
I
wish
that
it
was
no
I
I
mean
you
came
with
two
proposals.
You
knew
it
was
a
challenge
to
how
to
address
this,
and
you
found
that
it's
a
challenge
for
all
of
us
to
know
how
to
exactly
how
to
address
it,
and
so
we,
you
know,
there's
just
kind
of
not
an
obvious
yes
or
no
on
a
lot
of
these
things.
As.
A
K
L
E
Want
to
add
that
I
definitely
want
to
commend
all
of
you
for
even
being
willing
to
restore
the
building.
I
know
it's
difficult
and
you
with
which
ever
plan
you
are
going
to
take
it's
going
to
be
difficult,
but
either
way
it's
it's
nice
that
you're
willing
to
restore
it
to
what
it
was
and
make
it
work
for
you
right
now.
Absolutely.
A
B
So
you
can
start
thinking
about
that
we're
very
early
in
the
process.
We
haven't
actually
started
writing
any
kind
of
ordinance,
yet
we're
doing
our
research
on
it.
We
have
some
shifting
priorities
in
our
division
from
from
the
mayor's
office
and
city
council,
so
that
obviously
impacts
our
workload
and
our
ability
and
timing
of
these
types
of
things.
But
we
wanted
to
introduce
this,
so
you
guys
can
start
like
I,
said
thinking
and
giving
us
some
direction.
B
We
will
be
clearly
back
to
the
Landmarks
Commission
for
this,
but
we
I
want
one
of
the
big
goals
of
this.
Is
that
how
can
we
absent
local,
historic
designation?
How
can
we
also
help
preserve
some
of
our
more
historic
buildings
that
may
not
be
locally
designated
or
in
a
local,
historic
district,
but
allow
them
to
be
reuse,
and
so
we're
going
to
go
over
that
and
I'm
going
to
turn
the
time
over
to
David,
okay,.
J
I
think
Nick
gave
a
very
good,
comprehensive
introduction
on
that.
So
as
said
we're
in
the
very
formative
stages,
preliminary
stages
of
this
and
since
I
haven't
been
to
this
body
and
quite
some
time,
I'm
David
Gallner
I'm,
one
of
the
planning
staff
members,
so
adaptive
reuse,
zoning
ordinance
again
very
simply
process
of
taking
an
existing
building
and
reusing
it
for
a
purpose
other
than
for
what
it's
a
it
was
originally
designed.
We
have
a
number
of
good
examples
in
Salt,
Lake
City
already
where
this
has
been
done.
J
This
is
the
old
primary
Children's
Hospital
on
400
East,
Capitol,
Park
Boulevard.
It's
now
a
residential
use,
the
porcupine
restaurant.
It
was
a
fire
station.
This
is
on
13th
east.
It
was
a
landmark
site
in
the
commercial
zone
and
so
in
a
lot
of
ways
that
zoning
promoted
a
change
of
use
to
a
commercial
use,
and
this
is
an
adaptation
of
that
fire
station.
More
recently,
we
have
Fisher
brewing
on
800
South.
J
J
Buildings,
not
in
the
sense
of
landmark,
but
that
have
historically
been
there.
This
is
the
Salt
Lake
Acting
Company,
building
where
Saturday's
foyer
takes
place.
This
is
on
500
North,
200
West,
again,
an
old
Ward
house,
that's
been
converted
to
a
playhouse
theatre,
use
and
so
staffs.
Looking
at
the
development
of
a
citywide
ordinance
for
that
kind
of
adaptive,
reuse
of
buildings
and
as
Nick
had
mentioned,
it
would
promote
City
goals
through
the
reuse
of
buildings
rather
than
demolition.
J
J
A
lot
of
tie
ins
to
historic
preservation
as
well
and
again
can
involve
properties
that
are
not
of
great
historical
or
architectural
significance,
but
help
form
that
urban
fabric
of
the
city
in
the
neighborhood,
so
advantages
enables
growth
in
established
locations
where
the
infrastructure
already
exists,
increases
that
demand
and
need
for
new
materials
and
may
draw
a
less
opposition
than
new
construction,
because
the
form
is
already
part
of
that
neighborhood
urban
fabric
people
are
used
to
the
form.
So
in
a
lot
of
ways,
just
the
function
of
the
building
is
changing.
J
Looking
at
existing
city
policy
documents,
plan,
salt
lake
growing
salt
lake
city,
our
housing
plan,
sustainable
salt
lake
and
the
community
preservation
plan
all
have
different
sections
that
hint
towards,
or
talk
about,
adaptive
reuse,
whether
it's
in
the
context
of
infill
neighborhoods
stability
and
character.
Preserving
those
items
growing
responsibly,
increasing
housing
options,
reducing
parking,
providing,
affordable
housing
and
again
aiming
for
a
lot
of
different
housing
types
and
diversity
in
the
housing
market
or
different
uses
to
kind
of
help
bolster
that
urban
fabric.
J
So
we
decided
to
look
into
just
within
our
own
city.
We
have
a
number
of
building
some
that
have
been
reused,
some
that
are
opportunities
waiting
to
happen
that
could
possibly
benefit
benefit
from
some
kind
of
adaptive,
reuse,
ordinance.
This
is
the
old
st.
Mark's
Hospital,
it's
zoned
Business
Park,
so
it
proved
when
it
was
reused.
It
was
precluded
residential
or
commercial
uses
from
taking
place
in
that
building.
So
it's
used
as
office
space.
But
again
this
could
have
could
have
been
under
an
adaptive.
Reuse
scenario
been
reused
for
some
kind
of
housing
use.
J
It's
another
building.
This
is
a
warehouse.
It
was
a
telegraph
building
at
847,
South,
800
East.
This
is
kind
of
an
oblique
view.
It's
hard
to
get
a
street
view
of
this
building.
The
trees
are
so
lush
in
front
and
I've
got
a
further
photo
from
the
back,
and
this
is
owned
by
Myka
Myka
Peters.
He
is
actually
working
on
a
plan
development
application
for
some
kind
of
reuse
of
this
building.
It
is
zoned,
RMF
45,
so
it's
in
a
residential
multi-family
zone.
J
It
is
an
existing
building
that
could
possibly
be
repurposed
for
multifamily
development,
but
given
the
site
itself
it
would
have
to
possibly
we
would
have
to
look
at
some
zoning
relief
or
under
an
adaptive,
reuse
scenario.
You
could
look
at
some
zoning
relief
for
and
where
the
entrance
is
placed.
Maybe
landscape
requirements,
maybe
some
non
non-conforming
aspects
of
the
building
in
terms
of
where
it
sits
on
the
lot
etc.
J
This
one
it's
located
on
700
South,
404
West,
it's
a
rather
large
building,
it's
in
the
CG
or
general
commercial
zoning
district.
One
of
the
things
that
it
lacks
is
sufficient
on-site
parking.
So,
as
a
result,
it's
hard
to
reuse
the
building
for
a
lot
of
different
purposes,
and
it's
it's
mostly
vacant
again.
That's
where
maybe
under
an
adaptive,
reuse,
ordinance
scenario,
there
could
be
some
relief
to
those
parking
standards.
J
It's
also
a
another
one.
This
is
an
award
house.
This
is
at
11:02,
West,
400
north,
so
it's
zoned
r1
7000,
but
it's
a
landmark
site.
So
it
would
be
big
enough
for
adaptive,
reuse
of
a
landmark
site
under
our
current
ordinance
provisions,
but
there
the
uses
are
very
limited
and
there's
a
lot
of
standards.
It
has
to
meet
so
this
possibly
again
if
we
were
to
be
able
to
allow
density
or
some
other
things
to
be
considered.
This
building
might
have
a
lot
more
viable
uses
in
a
reuse
scenario
and
the
Fisher
mansion.
J
This
one
is
zoned
institutional
and
again
conversion
of
it
really
wouldn't
allow
it
for
to
be
used
for
commercial
or
residential
or
mixed-use
purposes.
Because
of
the
institutional
zoning,
but
it
would
be
a
tremendous
opportunity
of
a
building
that
maybe
could
be
used
reused
under
an
adaptive
reor
scenario.
J
So
we
were,
we've
conducted
some
staff
research,
quite
a
bit
of
it.
As
Nick
said,
we've
been
going
through
this
looking
at
what
do
other
jurisdictions
do
and
a
lot
of
cities
have
adaptive,
reuse,
ordinances
or
policies.
They
are
looking
into
this
as
a
growing
trend
and
different
programs
and
methodologies,
with
similar
end
goals
again
to
preserving
that
urban
fabric
and
finding
new
uses
for
old
buildings.
Los
Angeles
has
a
very
comprehensive
program.
J
They
target
specific
areas
of
the
city,
a
lot
of
conversion
of
old
commercial
buildings
to
living
space,
very
successful
historic
preservation,
tool,
weaves
density
requirements
and
many
non-conforming
aspects
of
the
building
are
allowed
to
be
allowed
to
stay.
Santa
Ana
California
has
a
similar
program.
They
do
include
a
building
age
requirement
that
the
building
has
to
be
I,
believe
built
before
1974
to
be
eligible
for
adaptive,
reuse,
again,
existing
non-conforming
aspects
and
remain.
There
are
parking
concessions.
An
alternative
building
standards
are
allowed
between
fire
and
Building
Code
if
they
provide
a
reasonable
measure
of
life.
J
J
What
would
we
include
in
a
salt
lake
city
ordinance?
Well,
we
would
be
considering
and
looking-
and
this
is
what
we're
looking
for
input
on
the
criteria
for
eligibility.
What
would
be
whether
it's
a
building
age,
if
it
certain
historical
aspects
of
it,
again
kind
of
wide
open
question,
and
we
have
been
looking
at
the
support
and
barriers
in
the
current
process.
J
We
know
that
building
codes
and
fire
codes
and
things
like
that,
as
well
as
those
zoning
ordinance
regulations
can
be
a
significant
barrier
to
reuse
and
again
it
processes
approval
mechanisms,
some
cities,
use
kind
of
an
administrative
approach.
Others
have
a
public
input
type
of
process,
whether
it's
going
through
a
special
exception
through
a
public
hearing
body
and
again,
looking
at
that
range
of
incentives
to
include
whether
it's
parking
reductions,
allowing
additional
density
being
able
to
waive
landscape
requirements,
or
things
like
that
again.
J
K
Only
and
right
away,
I
I
think
that
this
is
a
could
be
a
fabulous
tool
to
incentivize
preservation
and
seems,
like
you,
exploring
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
do
that.
Increased
density,
West
parking
parking,
yada,
yada
yada,
particularly
my
ears
perked
up,
we
talked
about
Santa
Anna
and
their
building
code;
flexibility
that
that
could
be
could
really
incentivize
development
and
preservation
as
well.
Yeah
thanks,
okay,.
E
So,
like
ninety
seven
percent
of
America
I
went
to
grad
school
in
Boston,
so
like
this
kind
of
stuff
feels
like
really
logical.
If
we're
going
to
continue
to
grow
at
a
rapid
pace,
Salt
Lake
City
has
a
woeful
public,
transit
infrastructure
and
I
live
on
the
west
side,
so
I
don't
have
to
deal
with
the
avenues.
Congestion
when
it
comes
to
parking.
My
car
and
I
would
really
hate
to
see.
My
west
side
become
like
that.
H
J
A
Did
they
in
your
research
of
other
cities?
Do
any
of
them
have
sort
of
a
scale,
a
sliding
scale?
Essentially,
you
know
you
have
a
15
year
old
building
that
maybe
is
no
longer
suitable
for
its
current
its
original
use
and
would
benefit
from
this
versus
a
100
year
old
building
that
does
or
doesn't
have
architectural
significance.
You
could
kind
of
have
other
categories
there
any
has
there
been
anything
like
that
that
the
more
points
you
get
for
having
a
really
superb
building
in
some
ways,
you
get
more
incentives.
Somehow.
Is
there
anything
like
that?
A
B
I
think
there
are
I
think
actually
la
does
something
very
similar
to
that,
whereas
if
the
the
value
of
the
building,
meaning
from
a
historic
perspective,
allows
more
flexibility
in
what
you
can
and
can't
modify
as
far
as
a
zoning
standard,
whereas
if
it's
you
know
a
marginal
building,
maybe
it's
only
25
years
old
and
it
was
an
old
big-box
store.
That's
now
vacant.
They
they
don't
allow
as
many
right.
A
G
Agree
with
what
Dave
said,
though,
about
some
flexibility
in
codes
and
then
I'd
add
in
I.
Don't
know
how
you'd
approach
the
ad
a
because
that's
not
a
code,
that's
a
legal
thing,
but
that
can
be
an
impediment
to
financially
feasible
redevelopment
as
well.
So
somehow
that
might
need
to
be
addressed
when.
I
D
B
D
For
codes,
the
the
issue
of
parking
with
these
and
the
current
change
of
use
ordinance
in
the
parking
ordinance
is
first
of
all,
it's
absolutely
incomprehensible
it.
You
know
ordinary
human
can
read
it
I.
Think
Ken
Brown
is
the
only
purse
who
knows
what
it
means
on
the
earth
and
it's
all
it's
just
too
damn
rigorous.
D
You
know
people
aren't
going
to
make
that
adjustment
if
it
doesn't,
if
the,
if
the
parking
is
not
going
to
work
for
that
proposed
use
so,
and
that's
a
huge
one
also,
you
know
like
one
of
our
overlay
districts,
the
South
State
Street
corridor.
Has
these
glazing
requirements
that
pop
up
with
existing
buildings?
That
really
don't
make
sense
to
change
the
glazing,
and
it
looks
like
you've
got
that
on
your
list
of
things.
D
To
maybe
add
some
flexibility
with
and
then
the
last
thing
I
was
going
to
say
that
I
think
you're
totally
right
that
no
matter
what
you
do
on
the
kind
of
zoning
and
planning
front,
if
there
isn't
some
additional
flexibility
on
the
building
code
side
is
really
going
to
be
hard
to
have
an
impact
that
filters
through
so
I.
You
know
what
Dave
and
others
have
said
if
there's
some
degree
of
accommodation.
B
Just
a
comment
on
the
Building
Code,
but
I
think
we
recognize
the
the
barriers
that
exist
there
and
within
the
code
there
are
some
exceptions
for
historic
buildings,
and
things
like
that.
So
hopefully
we'll
be
able
to
go
down
that
Avenue.
If
we
can't,
then
the
really
difficult
part
about
that
is
that
we'd
have
to
get
the
state
legislature
to
allow
us
to
make
modifications
to
Building,
Code
I
will
say:
I,
don't
think
that
we're
opposed
I
mean
we
are
going
to
try
to
do
that.
B
E
Think
it's
a
great
idea
what
you
guys
have
going
on,
but
also,
if
you
want
to
appropriate
to
start,
you
can
start
with
push
a
mansion.
That's
a
very
special
with
your
special
one
to
me
and
I:
don't
see
it
having
any
issues
with
parking!
There's
plenty
of
space
out
there
and
I
could
really
use
some
work
and
I
think
they
just
opened
the
bike
route
near
it.
So.
C
A
I
think
they're
actually
kind
of
a
lot
of
points
that
could
be
scored
on
properties
that
you
know
someone
getting
you
sort
of
facetiously
saying
you
have
to
bring
it
to
a
board.
Well,
a
lot
of
Salt
Lake
has
already
been
surveyed
for
historic
resources.
They've
been
the
peach
building
has
already
been
assigned
a
category.
We
agree
sometimes,
and
we
disagree
sometimes,
but
you
know,
there's
there's
already
some
metrics
out
there
that
that
could
be
applied
to
to
those
rankings
rather
than
metrics
I.
A
Guess
bit
tough
anyways,
some
good
ideas
and
and
need
it
all
around.
And
you
don't
see
this,
be
you
don't
see
this
local
historic
districts
being
precluded
from
participating
in
this
I
presume,
absolutely,
not
no,
and
what
about
I?
Think
of
I,
think
of
poor
houses
on
about
sixth,
east
and
1960s
in
about
second
south
there's
a
bunch
of
apartment.
You
know
big
houses
that
have
been
converted
to
apartments
and
there
may
not
be
a
change
of
use.
A
Is
there
any
way
that
this
can
why,
in
some
fashion,
but
they're
deteriorating
rapidly,
cuz
they're
just
slums?
What
can
you
say-
and
you
know
I-
think
how
can
those
kind
of
properties
benefit
from
some
of
this?
If
they,
if
it
wasn't
a
change
of
use,
I
mean
as
adaptive
reuse
have
to
be
it
I
mean
by
definition
it
is,
but
does
it
have
to
be
a
change
of
use,
I
mean?
Is
there
some?
That's,
maybe
another
yeah.
I
B
Residential
single-family
in
nature
being
converted
to
other
things,
so
that
there's
a
balance
there
so
I
said
yeah
we'd,
look
at
other
historic
districts.
There
are
some
historic
districts
that
have
no
existing
commercial
buildings
in
them,
no
other
uses
other
than
residential
I.
Don't
think
that
we
would
we'd
try
to
find
a
way
so
that
those
that
it
doesn't
necessarily
apply
there.
So
that's
we're
just
one
of
the
nuances
left
figure
out
the
adaptive.
B
I
think
I
think
that's
I,
think
that's
right,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
with
right
now,
our
adaptive
reuse,
ordinance.
That
applies
to
landmark
sites.
For
example,
it
says
you
can
change
from
a
residential
use
to
a
non-residential
use,
but
what,
if
you're
one
type
of
residential
use-
and
it
might
be
a
different
type
of
residential
use
in
there
kind
of
a
thing,
and
it
has
a
minimum
building
square
footage
of
7,000
square
feet,
which
it
works
great
for
a
lot
of
our
old.
B
You
know
wort
houses
and
think
churches,
and
things
like
that
doesn't
necessarily
work
so
great.
For
you
know
one
of
the
issues
that
then
I
know
Charles
has
heard
about
is.
If
somebody
wants
to
is
in
a
single-family
home
and
that
single-family
dwelling
that's
also
a
landmark
site
that
has
a
great
accessory
building
in
the
back
that
they
wanted
to
convert
to
a
second
unit
right
now.
They
couldn't
do
that
under
our
existing,
and
so
we
I
think
we'd
be
looking
at
some
of
those
types
of
things.