►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission - 04/04/2019
Description
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission - 04/04/2019
https://slc.gov
C
B
C
D
A
I
have
a
couple
things.
The
first
thing
is:
you've
probably
received
an
email
from
Marlene
asking
you
if
you
would
like
to
attend
the
preservation
Utah
conference,
so
please
make
sure
to
reply
back
to
her
if
that
works,
for
you
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
up
on
their
website,
yet
their
actual
agenda
and
lineup,
but
I
assume
it's
going
to
be
shortly,
so
we'll
send
up,
send
out
another
email,
but
just
respond
yes
or
no,
so
that
we
know
so
that
the
city
can
sponsor
you
to
go
to
that.
A
We
have
two
CLG
grants
as
well
for
two
people.
So
that's
one
thing:
the
other
thing
is
actually
Amy.
Thompson
is
the
planner
working
on
a
text.
Amendment
that's
been
initiated
by
the
mayor.
If
you
recall
not
this
this
last
legislative
session,
but
the
session
before
there
was
a
bit
in
state
code
where
the
mayor
or
the
governing
body
became
a
historic
preservation,
appeals
authority,
so
an
applicant
had
the
option
of
either.
A
If
they
appealed
your
decision
as
a
body
they
went,
they
got
to
choose
either
to
go
to
the
appeals
hearing
officer
or
to
choose
the
mayor
to
be
the
appeals
hearing
officer
to
act
as
Appeals
hearing
officer
that
was
actually
taken
out
of
the
state
code.
So
we're
going
to
reverse
and
go
back
to
where
we
were
before
now.
The
applicant
still
gets
30
days
rather
than
10
days
to
file
an
appeal,
but
if
one
of
your
decisions
or
the
Planning
Commission
decisions,
it's
it's
the
same
structure
as
it
was
before
last
year.
A
A
E
F
So
my
apologies
for
the
tardy
arrival
of
some
documentation
in
your
Dropbox.
The
first
thing
I
submitted
was
too
intense
and
got
rejected
by
the
city's
Mis
department.
So
if
you
have
a
garden
in
City,
Creek
Canyon,
you
know
that
you're
dealing
with
an
historic
stream
bed,
because
you
can
only
put
plants
in
between
the
cobbles
and
the
cobbles
are
everywhere.
F
So
my
question
was
just
how
old
is
this
park
space?
That's
north
of
2nd
Avenue
in
South
of
Ottinger
Hall
at
the
entrance
to
City
Creek
Park.
First
I
looked
at
the
1898
Sanborn
map,
that's
the
first
one
that
covers
the
area.
City
Creek
is
above
ground
explaining
the
very
wide
public
right-of-way
there
by
1911,
which
is
the
next
Sanborn
map.
The
stream
is
underground,
and
the
area
where
it
had
been
doesn't
have
much
descriptive
information.
I
decided.
F
F
9:1
can
understand
that
when
you
look
at
the
historic
photographs
of
the
channel
for
the
stream,
which
had
extremely
steep
sides
and
I'm
sure
it
was
prone
to
flooding
periodically
in
1912
following
a
petition
by
the
residents,
the
city
installed
landscaping
on
two
medians
between
the
east
and
west
alignments
of
Canyon
Road
and
photos
from
1912
are
in
that
attachment.
You
received
both
the
north
and
the
south
island,
but
his
hind
aerial
photographs
were
taken
in
1936
and
1937.
F
The
trees
had
become
highly
visible
canopy
and
there
were
other
species
that
were
easy
to
identify
in
the
records
such
as
turf
I'm,
making
the
case
that
the
park
space
between
the
two
sides
of
Canyon
Road
is
historic.
It
has
the
same
shape
as
it
did
at
the
time
of
its
creation.
107
years
ago,
the
landscape
Islands
have
the
same
relationship
to
the
very
large
number
of
contributory
structures
which
surround
them.
The
trees
have
matured
and
survived
a
flood
and
a
tornado.
F
C
G
This
item
is
a
continuation
from
that
meeting
on
March
7th.
The
subject.
Property
is
170
west
600
north.
On
this
aerial.
You
can
see
the
approximate
law
boundary,
the
proposed
new
principal
structure
would
have
furniture
on
600,
North
and
vehicular
access
would
be,
would
come
from
Clinton
Avenue
to
the
north
down
a
private
alley,
so
the
garage
doors
of
the
accessory
structure
located
at
the
rear
of
the
lot
would
be
north
facing
and
the
cars
would
come
in
from
that
back
alley.
G
Their
quest
is
for
new
construction
approval
for
the
single-family
home
and
the
accessory
structure
with
a
garage
and
Adu.
There
were
two
special
exception
requests
window
walls
that
exceed
the
maximum
permitted
width
of
six
feet
on
the
principal
structure
and
the
proposed
accessory
structure
has
a
footprint
that
exceeds
50%
of
the
footprint
of
the
principal
structure.
G
So
the
item
was
tabled
at
the
last
meeting
and
the
Commission
recommended
applicants
create
a
more
defined
front,
porch
that
is
compatible
with
historic
front
porches.
Seen
on
the
block,
face,
amend
the
glazing
on
the
front
facade
to
be
more
compatible
with
window
patterns,
typically
seen
on
the
block
face
and
within
the
historic
districts
and
reevaluate
the
need
for
an
increased
footprint
for
the
accessory
structure
and
return
with
a
more
compelling
argument.
G
This
slide
shows
changes
that
have
been
made
to
address
the
comments
regarding
the
front,
porch
and
glazing
on
the
front
facade
for
the
porch.
The
massing
at
the
front
of
the
home
has
generally
remained
the
same,
but
the
structure
was
pushed
back
about
one
foot
to
make
room
for
a
more
defined
front.
Porch
the
metal
screen
element
with
the
support
column
has
been
added
above
the
entryway.
In
the
second
level,
roof
canopy
has
been
extended
to
project
further
from
the
front
facade.
G
Pushing
the
house
back
a
foot
allowed
the
designers
to
make
the
second
level
balcony
a
foot
deeper
than
it
was
last
time
and
they
also
for
the
windows.
They
changed
the
million
pattern
on
the
windows
that
surround
the
front
entryway
they
removed
the
millions
that
kind
of
create
that,
like
upper
transom
like
delineation,
and
it
also
looks
like
they
added
a
vertical
running
mo
lien
along
the
corner
of
the
home,
rather
than
having
the
clear
glass
wrap.
The
corner
like
in
the
last
version
of
the
proposal.
G
Not
to
exceed
maximum
of
650
square
feet
so,
as
anticipated,
the
designers
did
increase
the
footprint
of
the
principal
structure,
adding
46
square
feet
to
the
rear
of
the
home.
They
also
decrease
the
footprint
of
the
accessory
structure
from
644
square
feet
to
598
square
feet.
So
that's
now
58
percent
of
the
footprint
of
the
principal
structure.
The
code
also
indicates
that
both
the
principal
and
accessory
structures
shall
not
have
a
total
building
coverage
that
exceeds
40%
of
the
lot
area
and
the
coverage
for
both
buildings
is
proposed
right
now
at
32%.
G
G
The
floor
added
the
floor
area
added
to
the
back
of
the
principal
structure,
resulted
in
an
expansion
of
the
second-level
rear
deck,
as
well
as
revisions
to
the
number
and
style
of
windows
in
the
area
you
can
see
on
here
that
deck
is
longer.
There
are
now
access
stairs
to
that
deck
on
the
back
and
there
weren't
before,
and
you
can
see
on
the
elevations
the
changes
that
have
been
made
to
the
windows.
G
G
So
just
a
brief
staff
analysis
for
the
front,
porch
and
glazing
staff
finds
the
modifications
made
to
the
front.
Porch
and
entry
area
have
resulted
in
design
that
is
more
compliant
with
the
new
construction
standards
and
residential
design
guidelines.
The
metal
structure
with
the
support
post
creates
a
sense
of
human
scale
paired
with
the
extended
roof
canopy
in
second
plainer
box,
there's
more
of
a
sense
of
enclosure
for
the
porch
and
extended
slab
on
grade
provided
a
city.
G
A
sitting
area
which
was
specifically
requested
for
the
footprint
of
the
accessory
structure
staff
finds
the
most
significant
sight
constraint.
Is
that
narrow
lot
with
near
the
rear
of
the
principal
structure?
The
lot
narrows
to
about
24
feet
wide
in
that
area
and
when
you
take
out
the
side,
yard
setbacks,
there's
about
11
feet
of
buildable
width.
The
current
proposal
is
preferred
by
staff
over
possible
alternatives,
which
could
include
floor
further
floor
area
being
added
to
the
rear
of
the
home.
G
In
an
effort
to
increase
the
footprint
to
get
a
larger
ATU
footprint
accessory
structure
footprint
and
the
applicant
could
pursue
an
attached
garage
in
Adu.
That
would
result
in
an
awkward
building
Foreman
massing
at
the
back
of
the
lot.
It
would
also
likely
be
a
lot
more
visible
than
having
a
detached
structure
right
now
that
detached
structure
is
pretty
much
directly
behind
the
historic
structure
to
the
west
and
so
having
an
attached,
edu
and
garage
would
likely
be
a
lot
more
visible
in
the
applicant.
G
I
didn't
put
them
in
the
presentation,
but
they
did
provide
some
street
view
renderings
placing
the
structure
in
there.
The
ATU
is
not
it'd,
be
kind
of
hard
to
get
it
in
this
graphic.
But
the
proposed
detached
structure
accessory
structure
is
behind
that
historic
brick
home
on
the
left,
so
it'd
be
slightly
visible
from
the
street,
but
you
can
imagine
if
there
was
massing
added
on
to
the
back
of
this
home.
It
would
be
a
lot
more
visible
and
taller.
H
I
I
I
There's
been
looking
a
little
farther
up
the
street
and
something
here
that
caught
my
item
in
China.
There
were
some
comments
last
time,
in
fact,
with
our
second
story
balcony
and
you
can
see
one
on
the
house
next
door,
so
we're
sort
of
playing
off
that
a
little
bit
and,
as
Ashley
said,
we
stretched
the
house.
I
C
I
58%,
it's
kind
of
backwards,
the
we
size,
the
ad
you
it's
over,
the
80
use
over
top
of
the
two-car
garage
so
started
with
enough
space
and
the
two-car
garage
to
get
the
two
vehicles
in
and
get
around
them
put
the
ATU
on
top
of
that
and
then
sort
of
going
backwards
that
we
sort
of
set
the
ATU
size
and
then
the
house
would
have
had
to
grow
to
meet
that
or
shrink
the
ATU.
So
it's
not
usable.
Does
that
make
sense?
It's
you.
K
I
H
G
C
H
I
D
Gonna
piggyback
on
that
same
line
of
conversation
and
that
I
think
that
the
intent
here
is
is
good
and
that
this
is
a
unique
site
and
in
so
much
as
the
applicant
is
only
covering
32
percent
of
the
site,
whereas
they
could
cover
40
percent
of
it.
I
think
it
is
very
reasonable
for
them
to
ask
for
what
an
assessment.
Essentially
we
are
doing
is
transferring
square
footage
of
house
to
the
ATU
in
terms
of
log
coverage.
J
C
I
Probably
make
it
six,
oh
one,
throw
in
one
comment:
that's
that
just
for
what
it's
worth.
We
have
our
9
foot
setback
on
the
west
and
the
4
foot
setback
on
the
east.
We
tried
flipping
those
in
moving
the
house
west
and
having
the
9
foot
on
the
east
to
see.
If
that
would
do
anything
to
help
get
the
house
a
little
bigger
and
get
that
ratio
down,
but
it
really
didn't
so
for
what
it's
worth.
C
C
D
Well,
I've
already
made
my
executive
comments,
but
I
would
like
to
add
that,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
last
meeting,
I
think
that
the
window
wells
are
something
that
we
may
want
to
look
at
in
a
global
sense
that
it
seems
to
me
very
reasonable
to
ask
for
a
much
larger
window.
Well,
we
stand
width,
maybe
not
in
depth.
Yeah
and.
B
Yeah
we've
well
and
over
you
know
my
years
on,
the
Commission
we've
seen
some
very
creative
solutions
that
are
taking
very
small,
infill
lots
and
creating
homes
that
are
the
that
hat.
You
know
that
are
I,
think
more
in
keeping
with
modern
expectations,
but
they
are
pushing
living
space
down
below
grade
or
significantly
into
the
grade
and
utilizing
window
Wells
quite
a
bit
and.
L
Oh
I
have
one
question
for
everyone:
I
think
this
is
a
really
successful
proposal.
I
like
it
in
a
lot
of
respects
and
I,
think
it's
very
responsive
to
our
input.
The
one
thing
I
am
wondering
about
is
the
massing
of
the
the
post
on
the
front
porch.
That
strikes
me
as
not
really
consistent
with
the
massing
overall
or
the
massing
in
the
neighborhood
and
I
wondered
what
the
architects
felt
about
that.
C
A
I
I
B
Got
a
very
keen
eye
I
actually
think
that,
while
it
is
thin
because
it's
somewhat
of
a
if
you
will
a
very
modern,
almost
like
a
trellis
or
a
screen
type
of
element
that
it
is
supporting
I
actually
felt
like
it
didn't
it
felt
right
to
me.
I
guess
it's
just
my
gut
instinct
but
I
mean
absolutely
it's
a
great
question
and
that's
just
I'm
just
voicing
my
own
personal
opinion.
C
B
Want
to
echo
Shelley's
comments.
I
do
feel
like
the
response
to
the
concerns
that
I,
you
know,
participated
in
a
race.
Last
time
had
been
responded
to
and
and
I
do
think
that
the
comments
David
that
you
made
with
regard
to
the
ad
you,
and
also
that
the
applicant
made
with
with
regard
to
how
the
approach
is
and
on
a
fairly
small,
you
know
uniquely
shaped
lot
keeping
32%
open
so
that
there's
some
you
know
if
an
elbow
room,
I
guess
around
the
building
I
think
is
a
is
a
very
successful.
K
C
L
Epsons
1
for
the
placement
of
window
wells
in
the
side
yard
of
the
principal
structure
that
exceed
the
maximum
permitted
width
and
another
to
permit
the
proposed
accessory
structure
with
80
you
to
have
a
footprint
that
exceeds
50%
of
the
footprint
of
the
principal
structure,
but
the
following
direction,
and
that
is
that
approval
of
all
final
design.
Details,
including
specific
direction
expressed
by
the
Commission,
shall
be
delegated
to
planning
staff.
J
I
M
The
survey
was
prepared
by
make
sure
I'm
pronouncing
her
name
right,
mark
DITA,
Murphy
and
she's,
not
a
local
consultant
and
she
was
invited,
but
unfortunately,
wasn't
able
to
attend.
So
she
provided
a
statement
and
I
included
that
in
the
drop
box,
but
the
property
owner
is
here
and
I
invited
him.
If
you
have
any
specific
Jen's
aren't
covered
in
the
memo.
Just
a
couple
other
background
points.
This
building
is
already
located
on
our
local
register.
It's
a
landmark
site,
and
so
it
is
subject
to
the
standards
in
21
a
34.
M
K
K
E
Don't
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
what
the
general
guidelines
are
weird
happy
to
be
in
the
building.
We
were
forced
to
find
a
new
home
for
our
restaurant
and
wine
bar
when
they
our
landlord
descent
was.
It
was
trying
to
develop
property
that
we
were
in
for
years
in
between
Main
Street
and
West
temple
on
100
South.
We
had
the
wine
bar
in
the
Bennett
paint
building
and
our
cafe
melesa
was
in
the
Wallace
building
next
door.
E
E
In
that
time,
I
think
everyone
probably
knows
was
silly-
was
past
and
they're
not
going
to
develop
our
old
location
quite
as
quickly
his
son
and
partner.
Didn't
have
that
didn't
have
all
the
connections.
I
guess
so
that's
still
there,
but
we're
really
happy
in
our
new
home
and
we're
I'm
really
glad
to
have
been
able
to
save
the
the
old
building
so
yeah.
That's
it
good.
H
M
D
A
A
E
Wanted
a
distinction
between
that
the
original
structure
and
that
so
now
we
sourced
we
sourced
some
old
brick
for
that
to
kind
of
so
it
didn't
so
it
still
had
an
old
feel
to
it.
We
matched
the
little
eyebrows
a
bomb
on
the
windows
so
but
yeah.
He
was
really
helpful
in
in
kind
of
guiding
us
and
making
sure
there
was
a
distinction
between
the
old
and
the.