►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission - July 16, 2020
Description
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission - July 16, 2020
A
The
World
Health
Organization,
the
President
of
the
United
States,
the
governor
of
Utah
Salt
Lake,
County,
Health,
Department,
Salt,
Lake,
County
mayor
and
the
mayor
of
Salt
Lake
City
have
all
recognized
a
global
pandemic
exists
related
to
the
new
strain
of
the
corona
virus.
Sars
of
to
do
to
the
state
of
emergency
caused
by
the
global
pandemic.
I
find
that
conducting
a
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
under
the
current
state
of
public
health
emergency
constitutes
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
may
be
present
at
the
location.
A
Moreover,
the
city
and
county
building,
which
is
the
anchor
location
for
Salt
Lake
City
historic,
landmark
Commission
meetings,
is
presently
closed
for
regular
occupation
due
to
damages
sustained
during
the
March
20
2008
and
now
I
should
move
into
the
opening
statement.
Welcome
to
the
historic
landmark
Commission,
the
historic
landmark
Commission
is
made
up
of
citizens
of
the
city
who
were
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
confirmed
by
the
City
Council.
The
Commission
primarily
does
three
things.
We
make
recommendations
to
the
City
Council
on
policies
and
ordinances
related
to
preservation
of
Salt
Lake
City.
A
This
includes
the
designation
of
local
historic
districts
and
landmark
sites
as
a
certified.
Local
government
provide
input
to
the
Utah
State
Historic
Preservation
Office
shippo
regarding
National
Register
nominations
within
the
city.
We
are
also
charged
with
reviewing
and
making
decisions
on
land
use
applications
for
properties
that
are
local
within
the
historic
preservation
overlay
district.
A
This
includes
design
review
of
building
alterations,
demolitions,
economic
hardship,
requests,
construction
of
new
buildings,
special
exceptions
and
historic
building
relocation.
It
is
up
to
the
applicant
to
present
their
project
and
provide
evidence
that
shows
how
their
project
complies
with
the
specific
standards
of
review.
The
planning
staff
is
here
to
let
us
know
why
we
are
reviewing
an
application.
What
standards
we
need
to
use
in
making
a
decision
and
point
out
the
key
issues.
A
The
role
of
the
public
is
to
help
us
identify
the
issues
and
impacts
of
the
proposed
project
and
provide
input
on
how
they
think
the
project
complies
or
does
not
comply
with
the
standards
of
review
for
which
the
Historic
Landmark
Commission
has
authority
over
an
item's
where
the
City
Council
is
the
decision-maker.
Opinions
may
be
considered.
Our
goal
is
to
have
a
welcoming
and
safe
environment
for
everyone
to
reach
that
goal.
A
We
ask
that
those
in
virtual
attendants
adhere
to
a
few
ground
rules,
silence
or
turn
off
your
cellphone's,
and
since
we're
virtual,
please
try
to
limit
background
noise
or
turn
off
mute.
Your
microphones,
when
you
are
not
speaking
respect
the
person's
speaking.
If
you
wish
to
speak,
I
believe
you
can
raise
your
hand
and
the
the
meeting
host
will
be
able
to
call
your
name
and
allow
you
two
minutes
to
speak.
Your
time
cannot
be
combined
with
someone
else's
time.
A
A
A
A
D
D
A
Good,
let's
approve,
let's
move
on
report
of
the
chair
I'm.
The
chair
only
report
I
have
is
perhaps
everyone
noticed
that
Commissioner
Esther's
is
stepping
down.
We
appreciate
her
service
and
wish
her
best
of
luck
as
she
moves
on
to
her
next
step.
I
believe
it's
a
City
Commission
on
on
result,
matters
which
is
on
stage
in
great
place
for
her.
A
D
D
A
Well,
that's
interesting
news,
so
we're
present
I
guess:
we've
all
got
to
be
on
our
best
behavior.
Now
we're
being
reviewed
and
let
us
move
on
to
the
first
and
only
item
on
the
agenda,
not
the
real,
straightforward
one.
So
we'll
have
an
interesting
discussion.
I
expect
a
historic
carriage
house,
zoning
text,
amendment
and
I
believe
Chelsea
Lindquist
is
our
staff
person
on
this.
So
please
let
this
show
go
on
Kelsey.
H
A
G
Okay.
This
is
a
request
for
a
zoning
text.
Amendment
petition
from
Kirk
Huffaker,
the
applicant
representative,
on
behalf
of
Steven
pace,
to
permit
the
restoration
or
reconstruction
of
a
historic
carriage
house
for
the
purposes
of
creating
a
dwelling
unit,
even
sees
the
property
owner
of
the
beer
estate
located
at
2
2
to
4
hours
and
181.
North
Beach
is
requesting
the
proposed
amendment
in
an
effort
to
provide
an
incentive
to
reconstruct
or
restore
a
historic
carriage
house
on
his
property.
G
G
This
is
an
aerial
of
the
subject:
carriage
house,
with
the
harness
shop
on
Front
front,
facing
forth
avenues,
so
the
applicant,
through
working
with
staff,
several
barriers
within
the
salt
lake
city,
zoning
ordinance
to
reconstruct
this
carriage
house
and
those
barriers
include
the
following.
The
dwelling
unit
located
within
a
restored
or
reconstructed
carriage
house
would
be
considered
to
be
a
single-family
detached
dwelling.
G
Adding
another
single-family
dwelling
to
this
property
at
the
proposed
location
would
not
be
allowed
because
all
principal
structures
must
be
located
along
a
street
frontage.
The
home,
essentially,
the
reconstructed
carriage
house
would
be
located
in
back
of
the
existing
principal
structure
on
the
property.
The
zoning
districts
where
the
property
is
located.
Judges
arm
of
35
requires
a
minimum
of
five
thousand
square
feet
per
single-family
dwelling,
so
a
total
of
ten
thousand
square
feet
would
be
required
for
two
single-family
dwellings.
G
G
Additionally,
staff
and
the
applicant
research
the
potential
of
an
Adu
converting
this
carriage
house
into
an
Adu,
and
there
were
several
issues
raised
with
that
proposal
as
well.
The
ATU
would
permit
an
additional
unit
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
However,
there's
a
conflict
with
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
due
to
the
owner
does
not
live
on
the
property
and
the
size
limitations
of
ATS
would
not
accommodate
the
traditional
size
of
the
historic
carriage
house.
G
So
at
this
time,
staff
will
go
through
the
outline
of
the
proposed
language.
That's
within
the
staff
report
and
as
mentioned
I've
created
slides
with
listed
questions
and
guidance
which
I
will
go
to
after
the
public
hearing
portion.
So
a
typical
ordinance
format
includes
the
following:
sections
includes
a
purpose
statement,
which
is:
what
are
the
regulations
trying
to
achieve
definition
of
terms
applicable
to
those
regulations
applicability?
What
conditions
must
be
met
for
the
regulations
to
apply
process?
G
G
The
purpose
of
the
proposed
language,
the
historic
carriage
house,
tree
construction
text
amendment
would
be
to
permit
the
reconstruction
or
restoration
of
a
carriage
house
for
the
purposes
of
creating
a
dwelling
unit.
Staff
included
the
following
as
potential
for
the
purpose
statement,
and
it
goes
as
follows.
G
In
regards
to
the
definitions,
the
applicant
did
provide
the
definition
that
you
can
see
in
the
staff
report
for
carriage
house
for
the
property
to
be
considered
eligible.
It
must
be
listed
as
a
Salt
Lake,
City
landmark
as
well
as
a
National
Register
of
Historic
Places
site.
The
property
must
be
located
in
one
of
the
following
zoning
districts.
They
include
the
RMF
35,
the
ro,
the
SR
1a
and
I,
which
is
the
institutional
zoning
district.
G
There
must
be
substantial
evidence
that
a
carriage
house
exists
or
existed
on
the
subject
property.
The
burden
of
proof
would
be
on
the
applicant
and
would
be
provided
through
two
of
the
following
methods:
historic
photographs,
Sanborn,
fire
insurance,
Maps
planning,
zoning
or
building
permit
records,
identifiable,
surviving
structural
elements.
G
G
The
reconstruction
or
restored
carriage
house
would
only
be
allowed
to
be
used
for
single-family
residence
off
street
parking
would
be
required
for
the
dwelling
unit,
the
restored
or
reconstructed
carriage
house
would
be
limited
to
the
historic
footprint
of
that
structure.
If
it
is
determined
that
there
are
negative
impacts
to
abutting
properties,
buffers
would
be
required.
G
The
site
has
a
clean
record
in
regards
to
enforcement
and
building
code
violations.
The
two
residences
could
not
be
subdivided
in
the
future.
The
property
owner
is
not
required
to
permanently
reside
on
a
property
and
base
owning
restrictions
such
as
lot
coverage,
setbacks,
height
and
density
could
be
modified.
G
So
the
purpose
of
this
hearing
is
so
that
the
landmark
Commission
can
review
the
proposed
regulations
and
make
recommendations
for
the
Planning
Commission's
consideration,
and
at
this
time,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
back
over
to
the
Commission
and
I
would
be
happy
to
go
through
those
questions
and
requested
guidance.
After
the
public
hearing.
Okay,.
A
I
Both
Stephen
and
I
want
to
make
Kelsey
for
her
work
and
patience
during
the
last
several
months
to
bring
this
application
to
the
this
point
in
the
process,
we're
fortunate
to
have
her
expertise
and
professionalism
in
the
Planning
Division
Kelsey's
purpose.
The
statement
says
he
made
under
under
talking
about
the
purpose
of
this.
It
is
correct
it's
a
little
bit
about
all
of
those,
but
truly
the
purpose
of
this
and
where
we
start
for
this
application
is
to
reconstruct
the
historic
carriage
house
as
it
was
in
circa
1900.
I
Unfortunately,
as
Kelsie's
explained
and
as
you've
read
in
the
packet,
reconstruction
of
the
carriage
house
has
not
been
possible
and
the
remainder
of
the
carriage
house
has
deteriorated.
There
are
three
primary
issues
at
play
here
as
many
properties
in
the
avenues,
the
property
at
222.
Fourth,
Avenue
is
a
non-conforming
size,
lot
being
below
5,000
square
feet.
Secondly,
the
applicant:
well,
not
while
the
owner
of
the
property
does
not
live
on
the
property.
I
He
lived
adjacent,
it
does
not
desire
to
go
through
a
lot
line,
adjustment
or
combine
lot
and,
lastly,
existing
zoning
regulations
and
ordinances
do
not
allow
for
reconstruction
and
for
or
used
as
a
residence,
and
these
are
details
Wow
on
pages
2,
&
3
of
the
staff
report
and
include
the
recently
implemented
Adu
ordinance
as
an
example
of
how
this
text
amendment
could
be
applied.
In
this
specific
case,
the
applicant
has
provided
detailed
information
in
the
application
as
to
what
he
desires
to
make
application
for
in
the
future.
I
The
proposed
use
is
residential.
We
believe
that
residential
use
makes
sense,
because
you
need
to
have
economic
return.
To
make
rehabilitation
financially
feasible.
Use
cannot
be
as
a
non
income
producing
accessory
structure.
We
believe
a
toolshed
won't
justify
rehab
or
reconstruction
and
you'll
lose
more
historic
buildings
like
like
these
carriage
houses.
I
We
believe
that
this
idea,
in
the
text
amendment
provoked,
promotes
the
city's
adopted
direction
in
several
areas:
residential
use
and
rehabilitation
of
historic
structures,
as
proposed
with
this
text,
amendment
go
hand-in-hand
and
are
supported
by
several
associated
city
policies
and
plans.
These
are
detailed
on
pages
165
to
167
of
the
staff
report.
I
Lastly,
we
acknowledge
that
what
is
presented
to
you
today
is
a
limited
scope
proposal.
In
an
early
2019
meeting
with
Planning
Director
Nick
Norris,
the
applicant
was
guided
to
prepare
a
text,
amendment
proposal
with
a
narrow
focus.
We
believe
we've
satisfied
that
request
per
that
guidance.
Historic
carriage
houses
are
already
rare
across
the
city.
The
documentation
required
by
this
proposal
adds
a
layer
of
required
documentation
for
historic
sites
to
be
eligible
under
this
text
amendment.
So
it's
not
just
any
old
carriage
house.
I
We
strongly
desire
to
keep
that
limited
scope
to
get
this
past
the
over.
There
has
been
working
on
this
issue
for
over
10
years,
and
this
is
the
first
meaningful
and
positive
movement
toward
resolving
this
unique
issue
and
gets
us
closer
to
the
realization
of
restoring
the
Bureau
state.
To
that
end.
This
evening,
we're
seeking
a
circle
and
marks
Commission
approval
and
a
positive
recommendation
to
move
this
application
forward,
the
Planning
Commission
and
that
wraps
up
my
comment.
A
J
Okay,
I
had
a
difficulty
joining
the
conference,
so
I
came
in
about
20
minutes
late
or
the
point
at
ten
to
seven
so
but
I,
don't
think
I
missed
very
much.
Let
me
just
say
a
few
remarks
on
this
thing
is
a
long
time,
property
owner
and
supporter
of
preservation
and
in
all
I
guess
in
all
forms
and
the
avenues
222.
Fourth
Avenue
consists
as
blueglas
Kelsey
was
speaking.
I
I
have
no
video
in
front
of
me.
So
if
that
makes
the
difference,
the
video
is
not
working.
J
J
That
building
on
the
lot
was
built,
apparently
in
1867
it
has
a
footprint
of
about
five
hundred
square
feet.
It's
on
an
8,000
square,
foot
blog,
which
is
I'm
sure
works
pretty
big
for
the
avenue.
So
it's
about
7%,
of
that
the
222
lot
has
been
built
on
the
carriage
house
portion
is
about
5,000
plus
square
feet.
As
far
as
I
can
tell.
That
is
the.
J
J
Unfortunately,
it
has
in
effect
become
a
dead
asset.
There
was
a
zoning
change
after
I
purchased
it
that
apparently
killed
it.
As
far
as
I
can
tell.
There
is
no
reasonable
economic
use
for
that
property
other
than
as
some
sort
of
infill
housing.
Neither
the
city
nor
the
architects
I've
consulted
or
anybody
else
has
been
able
to
propose
an
alternative,
except
to
donate
it
to
the
city
where
they
could
perhaps
build
a
vegetable
patch
and
maybe
a
fence
to
keep
strangers
out
of
my
backyard.
J
The
point,
then,
is
that
as
a
land
use
strategy,
if
this
makes
any
sense
to
the
to
any
of
you
folks
I'd
love
to
hear
what
it
does
I
guess.
It
makes
no
sense
to
me
I'm
more
victim
of
it.
The
second
thing
is
I
discussed
this
with
the
adjoining
property
owners
as
you'll
see
in
the
back
of
the
application.
J
Those
folks
are
a
hundred
percent
in
support
of
my
proposal,
and
I've
walked
the
ground
with
most
of
them,
so
they
know
exactly
what
I
wanted
to
build,
as
I've
talked
to
the
neighbors
neighborhood
on
this
then
in-person
reviews
with
these
folks.
Everybody
that's
questioned
me
closely
on.
It
has
asked
the
same
question
and
that
is
well.
J
J
J
Now
we've
proposed
the
third
point:
we've
proposed
a
meticulous
rebuild
over
which
recording
building
at
222
fourth
Avenue
as
I'm
sure
you're
aware
there
are
not
many
of
those
left
and,
as
the
city
is
well
aware,
its
failure
to
do
any
restoration
or
stabilization
of
the
Albert
Fisher
estate
with
its
own
for
about
15
years
are
bad.
The
Jordan
River,
coupled
with
the
recent
earthquake,
apparently
means
that
it
may
have
been
neglected
beyond
the
point
of
repair.
J
J
Wooden
components
of
the
Fisher
Building
are
rotting
and
it's
brick
and
stone,
which
has
been
overlaid
with
a
whole
lot
of
surplus.
Concrete,
is
stinking
not
too
slowly
under
the
Jordan
River
mud
now,
I
oppose
I
think
applying
the
proposed
zoning
change
to
carriage
houses
that
are
not
on
the
National
Register
Salt
Lake
City's
records,
it's
historic
properties
or
messy
and
unreliable
to
allow
anybody
to
conveniently
identify
what
carry
houses
there
are
and
I've
done
some.
J
Some
further
investigation
of
that
I
think
a
National
Register
listing
requiring
that
for
a
carriage
house
to
rebuilt
will
require
an
independent
review
of
what's
real
on
the
various
sites.
I
think
National,
Register
listening
for
a
new
property
can
be
pursued
either
by
the
owner
or
by
the
the
city
independently.
The
city
wants
to
do
it.
I
think
this
can
facilitate
quality
control
and
mistake
avoidance
in
the
decision.
J
In
fact,
it
felt
so
nice
the
city
actually
passed
that
ordinance
twice
and
never
revoked
it.
I
am
hoping
that
the
third
time
will
be
the
charm
and
we
can
get
a
process
started
that
will
allow
this
building
to
to
be
restored.
So
that's
all
I
have
a
way
of
presentation
would
be
glad
to
take
questions
or
give
up
the
floor
or
whoever
should
go
next.
Thank.
A
You
mr.
pace
actually
I
will
open
some
questions
will
allow
commissioners
to
ask
questions
of
you
and
mr.
Huffaker
and
planning
stain
first
question.
I'd
I'd
want
to
start
with
is
we're
talking
about.
Changing
in
ordinance
applies
to
the
city
to
the
historical
areas
of
the
city.
You
weren't
comments
have
pretty
much
been
focused
on
your
property
and
we
so
because
that's
what,
where
your
interests
lie,
colleges
the
proposal
you've
put
before
us
I
wasn't
good
for
the
city
as
a
whole.
J
Well,
the
city
as
a
whole
I
guess,
consists
of
a
bunch
of
buildings.
There
are
very
few
National
Register
historic
properties
with
carriage
houses
that
are
listed
in
the
city.
If
there
are
more
than
we've
been
able
to
identify
them.
I
think
those
people
should
feel
welcome
to
either
applies
by
themselves
for
National
Register
listing
to
verify
the
what's
real
on
the
property
and
and
if
they
are
troubled
by
doing
that
or
don't
want
to
do
it,
the
city
can
apply
on
their
behalf
independently
for
National
Register.
J
A
J
Definitely
are
perhaps
soon
to
be
defunct.
Fisher
House,
the
city
owns.
Definitely
is
the
current
mansion
and
carriage
house
is
on
the
Keith
Brown
carriage
house
and
Manor
on
my
property
is
on
it.
I
believed
the
McIntyre
house
by
yes,
Hospital
on
7th
Avenue
and
MB
Street
is
probably
on
it.
Although
the
documentation
for
from
the
county
says
that
the
carriage
house
was
constructed
in
1950,
so
if
they
wanted
to
the
owners
of
that
property
did
want
to
rebuild
it,
they
would
have
to
apply,
and
you
know,
clarify
when
it
was
built.
J
J
A
F
So
it
as
I
read
the
proposal
anyway
that
I
wanted
to
phrase.
You
I
think
the
same
question.
You
were
just
asking
in
a
different
way,
because
I
read
the
proposal,
it
is
not
citywide,
it's
limited,
it
would
be
applicable
to
only
four
zones.
It's
RMF.
Thirty-Five
are
I
and
one
other
I
forget
what
it
is
and
I
was.
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
rationale
is
for
picking
those
zones.
J
Are
the
only
zones
that
meet
the
documentation,
requirements
for
encourage
houses
being
there,
and
it's
listed
in
that
are
listed
in
the
National
Register
I'm
sure
there
were
a
great
many
carriage
houses
for
and
probably
the
more
affluent
parts
of
town
historically
I
think
most
of
them
don't
survive.
You
know
the
Devereux
house,
for
example,
had
all
kinds
of
outbuildings
around
at
a
carriage
house,
a
couple
of
stables
of
green
house.
J
Many
sheds,
the
Brigham
Young
complex,
whatever
that
exactly
includes
undoubtedly
has
some
private
transportation,
but
I,
don't
think
the
records
that
the
city
maintains
are
such
that
it's
adequate
that
they're
just
not
adequate
to
tell
what
was
there
originally
I?
Don't
know
how
to
go
out
and
investigate
those
houses
other
than
knocking
on
every
door
that
looks
like
it
might
have
been
on
a
big
enough
rot
once
to
have
had
a
carriage
house
associated
religion
and
ask
or
maybe
goes
or
maybe
survey
or
maybe
go
dig
to
tell
I,
don't
think.
J
A
J
You've
got
to
be
able
to
prove
the
existence
of
the
carriage
house,
for
example,
take
the
Devereaux
house,
all
of
the
outbuildings
on
the
devil
house
have
disappeared,
I
believe
under
the
code
SL
headquarters
and
a
couple
of
other
buildings
I.
Don't
think
that
you
could.
You
can
find
anything,
maybe
there's
some
stuff
there.
That
will
allow
somebody
to
propose
it,
but
you
know,
and
if
they
could
convince
the
National
Register
Department
of
the
Interior,
that
those
buildings
were
real
and
you
could
define
what
they
look
like.
J
We
could
define
what
they
look
like
in
some
kind
of
terms,
then
sure
let
me
register
I
am
NOT,
saying
that
this
should
be
the
end-all
of
preservation
for
these
kinds
of
buildings
or,
oh,
maybe
even
up
for
other
kinds
of
accessory
structures.
I'm
saying
I've
been
in
trouble
trying
to
restore
this
property
for
great
many
years,
and
this
is
and
I'm
not
going
younger,
and
this
would
be
a
place
to
start
and
you
could
add
to
it
as
time
goes
on
it's
a
needle.
If
the
text
amendments
were
warranted.
J
Could
respond
to
that
place?
Yes,
two
years
ago
when
I
was
started,
thinking
about
a
text
amendment
I
sat
down
with
mr.
Norris,
the
Director
of
Planning,
who
told
me
no,
no,
no
we'd
love
to
help
you
out,
but
your
property
is
not
listed
on
the
National
Register,
because
it's
not
on
our
zoning
maps.
I
said
Oh
contraire,
here's
the
National
Register
documentation
here
are
the
code
numbers
it
is
on
the
National
Register.
Mr.
Norris
ended
up
later
that
day.
Saying.
Excuse
me
all
the
help
you
know
you're
correct.
J
A
year
ago,
I
had
a
meeting
with
Miss
acht,
a
telephone
meeting
with
Miss
Oktay
and
mr.
Patterson,
who
launched
in
to
the
same
discussion
that
I
had
earlier
would
resolved
with
mr.
Moore
with
mr.
Norris
that
well
it's
not
on
the
zoning
map,
so
it
can't
possibly
be
a
real
carriage
house.
I
had
an
attorney
sitting
with
me,
then
I
didn't
want
to
pay
the
attorney
several
hundred
bucks
an
hour
to
settle
something
that
I
thought
we'd
already
settled.
J
Last
month,
I
went
back
to
the
zoning
maps.
Now
this
is
two
years
later
and
this
the
222
fourth
Avenue,
is
still
not
listed
as
a
historic
site.
Now,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
us,
the
director
zoning
and
the
assistant
director
of
Zoning
and
I'm
not
sure
what
mr.
Parsons
position
would
if
they
were
been
aware
that
the
records
are
no
good
for
my
property
for
years
now
and
have
not
taken
action
to
change
the
zoning
maps,
then
it's
pretty
hard
to
have
much
confidence
in
doing
any
kind
of
research.
A
A
F
Really
confused
by
the
request,
I
was
hoping,
maybe
one
of
you,
the
applicant
or
the
representative
could
clarify
throughout
the
discussion
you
you've
referred
to
the
traffic
you're,
proposing
as
a
restoration
and
to
me
that
indicates
that
you're
renovating
a
structure
that
exists
when
I
compared
the
drawings
that
you're
proposing
to
the
I
don't
know
being
calling
the
structure
anymore,
but
to
the
think
that
was
a
structure
on
at
the
back
of
2
to
2.
You
are
totally
different.
F
J
J
F
A
F
J
That
what
that
photograph
involves
is
they
they
cut
the
front
wooden
part
of
the
carriage
house
off
in
world
world,
approximately
World
War
one,
because
draft
animals
were
no
longer
popular
in
the
and
then
they
took
the
bricks
that
they
had
taken
from
partially
the
front
of
the
structure
and
they
built
a
shed
roof
with
on
the
east
side
of
it
using
the
original
bricks.
It's
very
clear.
If
you
look
at
it
a
bunch
site
I'd
be
glad
to
show
it
to.
J
If
anybody
wants
to
see
it
and
then
on
the
the
west
side
of
the
carriage
house,
they
took
the
other
set
of
bricks
that
they'd
saw
they'd
salvaged
from
the
front
and
build
an
interior
wall
to
replace
a
apparently
deteriorated
wooden
wall
on
the
inside,
and
then
they
left
a
and
then
they
took
the
rest
of
the
bricks
that
were
there
and
built
a
western
wall
on
a
shed
roof
area
to
store.
Well,
it
would
have
been
garages
at
that
point
to
where
we
carriages
were
stored.
J
Now,
if
you're,
looking
at
the
nineteen
five
picture,
I
think
you
can
see
just
barely
in
it.
You
can
see
a
wagon
parked
in
front
of
the
the
west
side
bay
of
the
carriage
house.
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
the
north
side
looked
like
in
terms
of
window
spacing
and
doors
and
so
on,
although
there
were
that
was
clearly
where
they
were
on
the
south
side.
All
of
the
original
openings
are
still
there.
On
the
east
side,
though,
apparently
were
no
openings
and
on
the
west
side
it
was.
A
K
K
It
is
a
little
bit
of
really
all
three
of
those
definitions,
because
it
is
not
purely
any
one
of
them
only
so
I
think
in
terms
of
preservation.
This
is
a
little
bit
of
a
hybrid.
You
know.
The
goal
is,
of
course,
to
get
back
to
that
that
circa
1900
look
of
the
cladding
building
utilizing
as
much
of
the
existing
material
on
the
existing
footprint
that
exists
as
possible.
F
H
A
A
G
J
K
A
J
A
G
J
J
Yes,
that's
something
I
built
in
remodeled,
the
1899
workshops
shed
approximately
1899
workshop
shed
in
2004
and
built
that
it
appears
as
a
designed
exemplar
in
the
cities
guidelines
for
how
to
build
how
to
build
structures
that
are
compatible
with
Maine,
with
big
houses,
how
to
build
accessory
structures
or
battle
those
big
houses.
Okay,.
A
Got
it
now,
I'm
thinking
and
other
commissioners
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
I
think
we
might
be.
This
is
relevant
to
this
mr.
paces
property
in
the
buildings
on
it.
We
are
digressing
a
little
bit
from
what's
to
be
the
focus
of
this
discussion,
and
that
gives
the
text
of
the
ordinance
it's
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
how
mr.
pace
mr.
huff
Victor
would
like
to
apply
it
to
this
property.
A
C
More
broadly
great,
please
proceed
okay,
so
a
couple
questions
first
I
wanted
to
ask
about
and
I
guess
this
sort
of
does
pertain
to
this
particular
property,
but
regarding,
if
it's
and
I
guess
this
might
come
into,
you
know
as
far
as
specifically,
if
that's
going
to
be
considered
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
the
footprint
is
Maalik
or
if
the
building
is
demolished
and
reconstructed,
would
it
not
make
more
sense
for
the
footprint
or
were
I
guess?
Maybe
I
should
wear
this
differently?
J
Requirements
I
believe
I
have
size
restrictions
on
them
that
relate
to
the
small
harness
shop
houses.
We've
called
it
on
222,
fourth
Avenue.
So
if
you
were
going
to
strictly
go
by
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
construction
requirements,
you
would
have
approximately
a
instead
of
a
1,600
square
feet
or
thereabout
footprint.
J
C
C
You
know,
as
far
as
the
ATU
requirements
and
and
then
again
we're
getting
into
you
know
this
also
discussed
in
staff
report
the
concern
about
setbacks
and
height,
and
you
know
how
that
impacts,
neighboring
properties
and
understanding
that,
in
this
very
case
the
applicant
has
has
spoken
to
neighbors,
but
that's
not
to
say
that
neighbors
are
not
under
house
and
new
new
owners
are
gonna,
be
in
the
neighborhood.
So
just
going
back
to
that,
you
know.
J
If
I
could
respond
to
that,
the
city
this
was
built,
I
believed
that
all
four
structures
were
built
or
and
in
one
case
remodeled
by
cladding
in
1898
and
1899.
There
was
no
reference
to
zoning.
The
idea
of,
maybe
you
would
have
meant
absolutely
nothing
to
putting
and
if
and
he
was
looking
at
it
and
they
are
all
named
at
the
National
Register,
because
mr.
J
So
if
a
an
Adu
that
is
sized
based
on
the
very
small
size
of
the
Perry,
the
harness
shop
houses,
we've
called
it.
If
that's,
what
you
recommend
is
I
say
that
helped
that
is,
has
building
a
a
600
square
foot
building
in
back
of
an
800
square
foot.
Building
on
an
8,000
square
foot
watch
doesn't
make
much
sense
to
me.
It's
early.
You
know
not
as
very
promising
use
of
my
capital,
so.
G
G
Additionally,
there
was
an
issue
which
was
discussed
in
the
staff
report
about
owner
occupancy,
which
was
challenging
to
get
around
for
sale
because
the
owner
does
not
live
on
site.
He
lives.
You
know
it's
touching
the
property,
but
not
on
site
and
then
also
the
size
limitations
which
I
know
that
landmarks
does
have
some
flexibility
and
addressing
some
of
those
size
limitations,
but
that
was
in
this
sense
of
it
could
a
great
incentive
to
restore
some
of
these
historic
features
mark
sites
as
a
dwelling
unit
outside
of
the
ordinance
with
those
restrictions,
and
so.
C
That
does
actually
and
I'm
glad
that
you
put
up
the
owner
occupancy,
because
that
was
actually
my
second
questioned
and
and
I
kept
thinking
a
little
bit.
You
know
kind
of
back
in
time
to
win
the
city
in
general,
wrote
those
you
know,
run
the
ad
requirements
and
I'm
wondering
how
what
the
reason
is
to
get
around
the
owner
occupancy
portion
of
that
as
well.
C
I
guess,
I
can
kind
of
understand
the
footprint
aspect
of
it
you
know,
but
to
me
it
seems
like
you
know,
even
if
we
were
to
improve
the
footprint
portion
of
this
request,
that
it
still
seems
to
me
that
we
should
we
should
be
looking
at
the
setback
requirements
as
well
as
the
height
requirements
and
those
kinds
of
things
to
you
know
to
avoid
impeding
on
neighboring
properties.
So
that's
my
opinion,
but
I
would
also
like
to
know
about
kind
of
the
thoughts
around
the
owner
occupancy
aspect
of
it.
D
C
C
D
I
think
this
proposal
is
looking
at
a
different
expanding
the
toolkit
that
the
city
has
to
potentially
preserve
start
buildings
and
so
that
at
least
an
under
this
proposal.
That
would
that
would
take
precedent
over
the
desire
that
the
City
Council
put
into
the
ATU
ordinance
for
owner
off
fencing
and
before
I
move
on.
Commissioner
Laura
would
let
other
hand
race,
oh
I'm,
going
to
unmute
her
and
let
her
speak.
A
A
A
G
Those
alterations,
however,
find
that
concern
was
a
little
bit
eased,
because
the
additional
requirement
is
for
it
to
be
a
local
landmark
site
which
does
fall
under
your
authority
to
review,
alterations
and
I.
Think
it
is
a
little
troubling
to
have
the
requirement
also
be
a
National
Register
site,
which
is
why
I
brought
it
up
in
the
staff
report
got.
G
A
H
K
This
is
correct:
I'll,
let
Steven
answer
most
of
it,
but
the
access
to
this
property
is
off
of
4th
Avenue
and
it's
not
off
of
B
Street,
and
so
the
plan
is
that
you
could
access
both
of
the
buildings
on
this
property
from
a
from
a
driveway
access
that
comes
off
of
4th
Avenue
to
the
back
of
the
and
there's
plenty
of
room
to
do
that.
Okay,.
H
A
D
E
Not
having
these
comments
in
writing.
First
of
all,
my
name
is
Cindy
Cromer
and
the
nearest
property
I
own
is
on
fourth
Avenue
on
the
west
side
of
the
fourth
avenue
stairs
I
am
very
familiar
with
the
harness
shop.
It's
one
of
my
favorite
buildings
in
the
avenues
and
I'm
also
a
big
fan
of
accessory
structures.
As
some
of
you
know,
this
ordinance
amendment
is
highly
specific
to
this.
E
One
parcel
and
I
was
disappointed
when
I
heard
that
the
proposal
was
for
a
single-family
residence
because
I
think
of
a
stable
as
lending
itself
to
multiple
units
on.
There
are
a
number
of
programmatic
issues
here
that
should
have
been
dealt
with
long
long
ago,
such
as
a
density
bonus
for
historic
preservation.
E
If
this
were
my
property
and
again,
I
would
love
to
own
the
harness
shop.
I'm
I
would
create
a
plan,
development
and
then
condominium
eyes
the
different
properties
and
define
their
land
associated
with
each
condominium
parcel
and
be
done
with
this.
But
that
is
not
what
the
property
owner
wants
to
do
and
in
the
context
of
other
things
that
are
occurring
in
this
city,
it's
really
extraordinary.
I
mean
the
City
Council
has
approved
a
a
very
aggressive
rmu
zone
on
South
temple
in
an
arc
corridor.
E
A
D
F
G
F
G
Staff
looked
at
everything
our
map,
30
option,
I
looked
at
once,
and
you
suggested,
as
the
plan
development
that
property's
not
large
enough
to
carry
the
planned
development
process.
It
doesn't
meet
the
minimum
size
requirements
and
she
combined
the
properties.
He
would
need
15,000
square
feet
where
the
density
as
opposed
to
10,
because
he
got
three
single-family
dwellings,
so
it
gets
a
little
bit
more
complicated
each
route.
You
look
into
you,
but
the
RMF
30
was
an
option.
However,
the
timeline
is
a
little
bit
questionable
for
the
ARMA
30.
G
F
A
J
Well,
in
terms
of
the
local
landmark
designation
believed
you
know,
for
your
information
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
this
is
the
case
anymore,
but
in
the
1970s,
when
the
National
Register
started,
signing
up
properties
for,
or
was
in
the
midst
of,
designating
national
landmarks.
The
city
ordinance
I
believe
from
1976
required
that
everything
that
was
listed
on
the
National
Register
as
a
landmark
would
also
be
listed
as
a
Salt,
Lake
City,
rec,
Salt,
Lake,
City,
landmark
separately,
so
I
think
they
just
automatically
spilled
onto
those
and
my
property.
K
If
I
could
contribute
as
well,
yes,
I
think
I,
miss
Cromer's,
astute
observation
about
this
being
an
onerous
issue,
I
think
is
represented
pretty
well
in
the
application
and
staffs
questions.
I
mean
this
is
very
complex
to
resolve
a
difficult
issue
that
does
have
some
application
citywide.
But
you
know
these
buildings
are
rare
and
we're
asking
the
Historic
Landmarks
Commission
to
take
the
leadership
role
in
in
getting
this
ordinance
through
and
being
able
to
apply
it
apply
it.
Thank
you
all.
A
G
F
F
It
is
completely
collapsed.
The
roof
is
on
the
ground
and
I
don't
want
to
jump
the
conversation,
but
one
of
my
I
mean
real
concerns
about
what's
being
proposed.
Is
that
if
this
were
a
renovation,
I
would
feel
a
lot
better
about
it
to
me
what's
being
kind
of
put
forward
as
a
restoration.
In
this
specific
case,
isn't
I
mean
that's
going
to
be
a
completely
new
construction
and
I
feel
like
that's
kind
of
at
odds
with
what
it
in
by
sort
of
creating
a
replica
of
a
cladding
design.
F
F
F
A
G
B
About
the
other
carriage
houses
to
which
this
ordinance
would
applaud,
like
the
one
over
at
Fisher
mansion
or
something
like
that,
I
in
for
Ana
macro
view,
I
find
those
guiding
purposes
to
be
in
accordance
with
the
balancing
of
historic
preservation
and
the
pressures
on
our
city.
I,
actually,
like
those
purposes,
I'm,
not
sure
that
this
particular
application
meets.
It,
like
you,
said
I'm
willing
to
have
that
discussion,
but
there
are
some
carriage
houses,
like
I
mean
as
a
Westside,
dweller
I
love
that
Fisher
mansion
carriage
house
I
want
that
to
be
preserved.
Oh.
F
Who
doesn't
I
can
tell
you
one
thing:
that's
never
gonna
happen.
The
city
is
never
gonna.
Have
my
college
rent-free
at
the
Fisher
mansion
governor
Herbert,
we're
gonna
renovate
his
carriage
house
and
have
some
tenant
there
overnight
and
neither
is
Annette
coming
he's
brown
mansion,
the
only
property
that
this
done
flies
to
practically
I.
Think.
I
K
A
D
Just
I
wanted
to
add
a
little
contact,
because
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
standards
does
include
standards
for
reconstruction,
particularly
when
the
reconstruction
of
a
structure
is
helpful
to
understanding
the
historic
use
of
a
property
and
you're
talking
about
the
site
such
as
this,
which
is
the
bear
property
where
these
Outlands
history
of
that
site
and
over
time
to
be
repurposed
and
reused,
and
have
things
build
up
around
them?
Reconstruction
could
be
a
legitimate
preservation
purpose
for
those
types
of
situations.
I
think
that's.
C
A
G
Okay
and
regard
to
the
definitions,
the
applicant
only
provided
the
definition
for
carriage
house,
which
Kirk
explained
where
he
had
received.
That
definition
should
historic
footprint
also
be
defined
as
part
of
this
proposal,
since
the
historic
footprint
is
kind
of
that
framework
of
what
this
carriage
house
can
can
reside
within
and
are
there
other
definitions
or
terms
that
could
potentially
be
helpful?
I'm
hearing
you
know
maybe
referring
to
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
standards
for
restoration,
reconstruction.
C
B
This
whole
issue
is
reminding
me:
did
the
other
commissioners
remember
like
I,
don't
know
a
few
months
ago
we
had
in
the
avenues.
It
was
one
of
the
field
trip
last
field
trips.
We
were
all
able
to
go
on
that
garage
that
was
behind
the
structure
is
a
detached
garage
and
we
had
I
think
approximately
75%
of
the
avenues
show
up
to
comment
on
how
the
back
lean-to
wasn't
actually
part
of
the
historic
footprint
so
as
they
were
going
to
reconstruct
we
had
to.
C
Victoria
I've
actually
like
to
add
to
that,
because
I
think
that
was
the
what
the
nature
of
my
questions
were
regarding
ATU
requirements
that
are
already
in
place,
I
understand
Nick's
comment
about
us
wanting
to
you
know
and
increase
the
tools
in
our
toolbox
or,
however,
he
put
it,
but
you
know
I
feel
like
we
might
end
up
just
spending
a
lot
of
time
debating
things
that
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
had
been
previously
put
into
I
know
specifically
with
the
ATU
requirements.
Specifically,
that
was
a
very
long
process.
A
Yeah
Jessica
was
long
and
involved
because
it
involved
the
whole
city.
Pretty
much
you
know,
was
a
pretty
drastic
change,
especially
for
areas
where
people
were
hesitant
to
increase
density
and
and
maybe
change
the
so
I
say.
Maybe
someone
altered
the
identity
of
the
the
social
structure
there
for
better
for
worse,
we
are
really
looking
at
pretty
much
one
site
where
this
will
apply
and
because
we
aren't
able
to
we
aren't
able
to
address
this
in
the
conventional
historic
landmarks
form
and
the
applicant
is
caught
between
zoning
constraints
and
landmarks
constraints.
A
F
F
A
F
Would
move
that
the
historic
landmark
Commission
forward,
the
following
recommendation
to
the
Planning
Commission
one
is
that
the
Commission
generally
is
very
supportive
of
the
applicants,
goals
of
increasing
density
on
his
property
and
making
his
property
more
economically,
sensible,
I?
Think
the
history
that's
number
one
number
two.
The
Commission
also
suggests
that
there
are
significant
shortcomings,
with
both
procedural
and
substantive,
with
the
current
zoning
ordinance
that
are
preventing
reasonable
development
on
properties
like
this.
F
However,
three
this
seems
like
an
end-around
of
the
existing
city,
ordinance
regarding
accessory
dwelling
units
and
also
RMF
35,
and
for
this
in
this,
because
the
application
of
this
ordinance
is
so
limited.
It
feels
like
spot
zoning
and
that
can
have
unforeseen
consequences
with
respect
to
future
neighbors
and
a
variety
of
circumstances
that
we
don't
see
here.
So,
in
summary,
the
the
Commission
forwards
a
negative
recommendation
with
respect
to
this
particular
proposal,
but
urges
the
Planning
Commission
to
consider
other
changes
to
perhaps
the
ad,
u
ordinance
or
the
RMF
35
ordinance.
F
A
H
Well,
kitten
I
have
a
comment
please,
and
in
and
I
very
much
understand.
You
know,
Paul's
comment
and
in
and
I
share
a
lot
of
his
uncertainty
about
this
I
did
go
visit
the
site
and
I
looked
at
at
night
and
I
tried
to
reconcile
what's
there
with
with
the
drawings.
You
know
that
we're
in
the
packet
I
mean
there's
you
know,
and
and
and
I
always
go
back
to.
You
know
what
is
historic
preservation.
You
know
it's
protecting
local
history
through
identification
of
unique
places
and
tell
our
story.
H
Well,
you
know,
protecting
local
history
is,
is
one
thing,
but
historic
preservation
is
a
process
of
protecting,
there's,
there's,
there's
so
little
left
of
what
was
once
there
I
in
in
just
like
Paul
is
III
admire,
trying
to
do
something
with
this
with
this
particular
project,
I've
got
the
Google
image
up
above
this.
This
plot
here
and
you
know
very,
very
characteristic,
with
Salt
Lake
City,
you
have
big
big
square
blocks
and
this
this
structure
is
right
in
the
middle
of
that
block.
H
Does
that
make
sense,
I
just
think
on
the
historic
side,
there's
there's
you
know,
and
and
and
I
I
understand
what
what
the
applicant
had
indicated
that
there's
a
lot
of
materials
there.
The
bricks
are
still
there.
You
know
that
that
all
that
could
be
used
in
the
reconstruction
I
understand
what
he's
saying,
but
it
feels
like
like
it's.
You
know
it's
new
construction
using
justing
materials
and
I.
H
A
H
H
You
know
in
any
one
of
these
in
you
know,
RMF
or
oh
you
know
I
and
institutional
districts.
No,
so
that's
that's
all
and
stopping
right
there.
You
know.
Do
I,
think
that
that
makes
sense.
I
think
that
probably
makes
sense
for
this
particular
site.
I.
Think
there's,
there's
there's
a
lot
more
discussion.
A
A
Maybe
this
is
one
for
plan
times
again
so
excited
we
love
this
proposal.
We
want
to
allow
him
to
build
something
there,
whether
or
not
its
restoration
or
new
construction.
It
doesn't
matter
right
now
we're
okay
with
it
within
violating
current
city
ordinance,
because
we
think
it
it
has
some
historic
relevance.
D
Or
so
so
you
you
only
can,
in
those
instances
of
the
ordinance
gives
you
the
authority
to
do
it,
and
so
in
in
this
case
it.
The
ordinance,
just
laments
commission
the
authority
to
increase
the
density
that
would
be
allowed
on
the
property
and
that's
ultimately,
the
core
of
the
issue,
so
that
that
would
have
to
change
for
you
to
do
that.
But
if
the
ordinance
does
do
that
and
it
does
give
you
authority,
then
you
have
that
ability
to
do
it.
A
D
A
B
A
G
I,
just
chime
in
and
ask
for
some
clarification
before
yes,
okay,
so
you're
in
favor,
of
removing
the
landmark
Commission's
review
of
this
and
having
an
alternate
solution
like
map
amendment
or
addressing
the
ATU
ordinance
at
something
a
little
bit
on
a
broader
scale.
Then
just
threw
this
for
post-reconstruction
of
a
historic
church
house
tax.
Permit
that
correct!
That's.
A
C
If
I
could
add,
also
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
I
am
in
support
of
changing
some
of
the
eighty
requirements
as
it
is
I.
Think
one
of
the
the
biggest
hurdles
is
the
owner
occupancy.
You
know
that's
a
huge
hurdle,
so
that
I
definitely
think
that
there
needs
to
be
some
modifications
to
the
ADA
ordinances.