►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Committee Meeting - January 03, 2019
Description
Historic Landmarks Committee Meeting - January 03, 2019
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
Made
a
couple
slides
just
in
case,
you
didn't
remember
what
these
projects
were,
and
maybe
some
of
you
weren't
actually
here
for
them,
but
the
first
one
is
a
request
for
an
extension.
It's
at
563
East,
6ao
thand.
It
was
approved
by
the
Commission
on
December
7th
of
2018,
and
the
request
is
by
Kristen
Clifford
and
it
was
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
a
new
construction
of
a
mixed-use
building.
It
has
commercial
on
the
ground,
floor,
residential
unit
on
the
ground
floor
and
then
I
believe
two
or
three
residential
units
on
the
upper
floors.
D
It
also
involves
a
demolition
of
a
non-contributing
building
and
that's
the
one
that's
in
the
photo.
That's
currently
Vantage
vintage
and
then
they're
retaining
that
historic
duplex
to
the
rear.
So
this
project
had
a
lot
of
twists
and
turns
and
following
the
Commission's
approval,
they
had
to
get
approval
from
the
Planning
Commission
which
they
received
for
plan
development,
because
the
lot
to
the
rear
doesn't
have
frontage
on
a
public
street
and
then
they
submitted
for
a
plat
and
they
ran
into
some
issues
with
a
fire
department.
So
they're
currently
trying
to
resolve
those.
D
C
A
D
A
A
A
G
Fifty-Five
years
ago
there
was
a
show
on
television
called
that
was
the
week
that
was,
it
was
wickedly
analytical.
Today
we
don't
replay
events
very
often,
mostly
sporting
events
and
Trump's
tweets,
but
there's
merit
I.
Think
in
looking
at
your
last
Commission
meeting
the
one
in
November.
It
was
remarkable
for
showing
the
breadth
of
what
you
can
do
and
the
difference
you
can
make
taking
it
from
the
top
you
sent
garb
at
homes
off
to
work
with
the
neighbors
on
West
Capitol
and
to
their
credit
developers
did
returning
with
a
project
that
satisfied
almost
everyone.
G
Then
you
had
an
important
project
at
the
Union
Pacific
Depot
you're
hearing
documented
the
easements
for
public
access,
and
you
retain
some
authority
over
the
final
design.
The
attic
additions
on
First
Avenue
were
an
example
of
you're
doing
what
needed
to
be
done,
even
if
it
was
no
fun
at
all
and
you
wrapped
up
with
a
recommendation
to
the
National
Register
for
one
of
slack
when
burns
Jim's.
So
you
made
decisions
and
recommendations
followed
up
on
a
petition
that
you
dealt
with
previously,
and
you
put
yourself
in
a
position
to
revisit
a
very
important
project.
G
A
H
Oh
hello
and
good
evening
we're
gradually
getting
there
one
quarter
coming
in,
but
I'll
kick
this
off.
This
particular
proposal,
I
think
you
may
recall,
was
before
you
in
almost
exactly
a
year
ago:
January
4
2013
at
that
point
in
time.
That
was
a
work
session
with
preliminary
proposals
in
terms
of
said
of
the
settlement
pattern,
the
overall
approach
to
the
site.
H
H
H
As
I
mentioned,
the
Commission
reviewed
that
proposal
the
work
session,
the
first
or
the
fourth
of
January
18,
and
that
proposal,
because
of
its
its
private
road
and
the
arrangement
of
buildings
on
the
site
and
a
number
of
them
not
fronting
onto
a
public
street,
both
required
Planning
Commission
review
for
planned
development,
as
well
as
a
subdivision
approval,
Planning
Commission
actually
looked
at
that
proposal
and
across
the
course
of
two
meetings
in
May
and
June
2018.
They
approved
that
proposal.
H
However,
since
that
point
in
time
and
partly
responding
to
Commission
comments
partly
responding
to
neighborhood
concerns,
the
applicants
have
reviewed
the
overall
proposals
for
the
site
and
come
back
with
a
reduced
proposal
now
12
units
rather
than
14.
There
is
no
private
road
in
this
revised
approach
and
the
arrangement
of
the
buildings
is
rather
different.
As
you
will
have
noted
so
summarizing
the
current
proposal.
H
There
has
been
considerable
thought
given
to
building
design
in
relation
to
the
variation,
in
particular
in
relation
to
massing
and
a
roof
form
and
building
footprint,
to
variation
in
design
and
to
variation
in
materials.
Now
come
back
to
those
points
shortly
and
inside
greater
detail,
but
those
were
points
which
the
Commission
was
addressing
previously
at
the
work
session
and
January
18.
H
H
H
This
proposal
effectively
amounts
to
in
an
infill
development
proposal
on
West,
Capitol
and
two
that
both
ends
of
the
site,
the
north
or
south,
whereas
and
dharam
in
the
street.
There
is
a
continuous
street
frontage
of
approximately
240
feet,
which
will
establish
a
complete
Street
facade
for
part
of
this
site.
H
There
are
a
series
of
defined
patterns
and
variations
from
those
patterns
which
one
can
I
identify
with
in
this
immediate
context,
giving
it
rather
an
eclectic
character
and
one
which
directly
relates
to
the
setting
of
the
buildings
within
the
topography
and
the
immediate
context
and
the
maturity
of
the
site
pretty
quickly
running
through
some
photographs
of
the
site.
As
a
reminder,
this
is
West
Capitol
Street,
looking
in
two
directions,
both
directions,
access
points
to
the
site
itself
of
West
Capitol
Street.
H
The
proposals
before
you
this
evening,
I
will
run
through
the
majority
of
the
application
information.
This
staff
report
is
comprehensive
in
terms
of
its
inclusion
of
all
of
them.
Material
I
have
included
the
majority
of
it
here
and
omitted
a
few
of
the
drawings.
Just
for
riveting
this
site
plan,
you
can
see
the
context
of
the
site
wrapping
around
the
existing
dwellings
and
the
generally
u-shaped
nature
of
the
site,
the
four
dwellings
facing
down
on
the
street
in
a
staggered
pattern
and
the
two
two
dwellings.
H
Sorry,
the
four
buildings
and
aped
Wellings
and
then
the
two
buildings
and
four
dwelling
is
facing
west
Capitol
Street
again.
Staggered
slightly
has
a
positive
impact
on
the
scale,
potentially
figure
grand
plans
setting
in
slightly
more
into
context
with
existing
development
on
the
other
side
of
West
Capitol
Street,
and
to
the
immediate
No
of
the
site.
Tournament
extent
to
the
south
of
the
site,
as
well
as
those
buildings
of
its
surrounds.
H
And
we
have
here
photo
montage
of
the
street
frontages.
The
upper
one
is
Darwin
Street
which,
as
you
as
you
will
be
aware,
and
as
you
can
see
from
this
montage-
is
mostly
open
at
this
point
in
time
and
then
below
West
Capitol
Street,
where
the
montage
captures
the
buildings
along
both
sides
of
that
stream
effectively.
H
Series
of
aerial
perspectives
to
put
the
arrangement
of
the
buildings
here
into
slightly
more
effective
three-dimensional
form
not
referencing
in
this
context,
the
the
existing
buildings
within
this
setting
from
another
view
from
a
different
angle,
you
can
see
the
two
buildings
and
for
for
demolishing
West,
Capitol
Street
and
then
a
number
of
aerial
perspective.
Aswer
than
new
proposals
are
actually
set
within
the
context
of
the
existing
buildings
and
also
the
fairly
mature
landscaping
across
various
parts
of
the
site.
H
H
Darwin's
stream,
moving
now
on
to
a
selection
of
the
individual
building
and
site
plans
for
the
for
the
different
Lots.
This
is
lot
1,
&
2,
which
is
the
northern
end
of
the
site
facing
west
capital.
Street.
You
can.
You
can
see
the
staggered
building
form
of
the
two
units
here
and
then
the
applicants
have
provided
an
assessment
of
how
the
proposals
relate
to
the
SR
one,
a
zoning
maximums
in
terms
of
heights.
H
And
then
the
applicants,
the
applicants,
have
also
been
working
on
developing
the
design
and
materials
and
detailing
of
the
particular
buildings.
So
this
is
three
dimensional
rendering
and
slightly
greater
detail
of
the
proposal
for
Lots
one
and
two
moving
now
to
Lots
three
and
four,
which
is
one
of
the
doormen
street
buildings.
I,
haven't
gone
into
all
of
these
because
they
tend
to
mirror
each
other.
H
Although
the
building
design
is
different,
I'll
come
back
to
the
building
design
again
shortly,
but
again
you
can,
you
can
see,
in
terms
of
the
plan,
form
a
very
strongly
staggered
building
footprint
for
each
of
the
units.
There
is
a
setback,
variation
of
approaching
22
feet
really
between
one
but
one
unit
and
the
other
in
terms
of
this
jeweler
arrangement
for
each
of
these
buildings
along
doorman,
Street.
One
effect
of
that
is
the
report.
I
think
how
endeavors
to
point
out
is
that
you
don't
end
up
with
a
sort
of
an
unbroken
street
wall.
H
H
This
appears
to
be
incomplete
from
the
point
of
view
that
appears
to
include
just
one
of
the
buildings
rather
than
both
of
them.
I
know
that
the
applicant
is
has
been
working
on
this
and
has
been
in
a
discussion
with
the
with
the
neighbors
in
the
context
of
this
one.
So
there
may
be
additional
material
to
address
this
particular
configuration
in
the
applicants
presentation
shortly
and
again,
the
where
the
proposal
would
actually
sort
of
nudge
through
this
sort
of
the
SR
one,
a
maximum.
H
H
This
is
one
rendering
here
indicating
where
the
designs
are
going
in
relation
to
highlighting
the
main
entrance
way
for
this
particular
proposal,
which
will
inform
what
happens
on
some
of
the
others
as
well.
I
anticipate
the
applicant
will
have
additional
information
on
the
development
of
that
aspect
of
the
design
designs,
and
here
we
have
another
one.
The
rendering
below
has
been
developed
with
further
emphases
for
that
side
entrance
and
the
rendering
above.
H
H
Request
to
reduce
site
setbacks
for
a
number
of
the
units.
The
actual
request
is
detailed
in
your
application
materials,
but
reducing
effectively
a
number
of
the
10-foot
sized
yards
to
five
feet
to
exceed
the
building
height,
and
that
varies
by
building.
It
tends
to
range
from
between
one
foot
and
eight
feet
across
that
range
of
buildings
and
obviously
the
wall
height.
In
the
context
of
that
as
well
has
to
be
exceeded
between
range
between
2
feet
and
8
feet.
H
There
will
be
great
changes,
obviously,
across
this
site
and
terms
are
sort
of
making
this
or
on
site
work
and
for
this
construction.
So
there
will
be
various
great
changes
in
excess
of
four
feet
across
this
site.
A
couple
of
other
considerations
before
you,
as
I
mentioned
previously
garages
facing
the
street,
which
we
usually
try
and
avoid
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
the
opportunity
to
avoid
that
in
this
particular
case,
certainly
not
not
alone.
The
Darwin
street
sign
and
the
primary
entrance
is
not
facing
the
street,
which
again
as
a
constraint
to
the
site.
H
So
identified
for
you
in
this
staff
report,
our
perhaps
five
key
considerations,
I
tried
to
break
those
done
from
a
hierarchy.
Point
of
view.
The
first
one
deals
with
settlement
pattern,
where
I
think
one
can
certainly
identify
compatibility
in
a
range
of
design
criteria,
which
would
include
a
lot
form
configuration
of
buildings
and
the
Lots
themselves
and
the
orientation
of
both
lots
and
buildings,
and
also
with
this
particular
revised
proposal.
We
have
all
of
the
residences
directly
addressing
the
street,
which
is
not
previously
the
case
public
street.
There
is
no
internal
private
stream.
H
H
H
H
The
palette
of
materials
currently
proposed
seems
to
be
fairly
closely
based
on
an
analysis
of
the
context,
including
brickwork,
stucco
and
siding,
and
then,
finally,
in
terms
of
those
considerations,
one
would
identify
compatibility
in
terms
of
roof
forms.
The
proposal
before
you
now
has
a
range
of
reforms
again,
adding
to
the
eclectic
nature
what's
being
proposed
within
what
is
a
fairly
eclectic
setting.
H
So,
just
before,
coming
to
the
recommendation
before
you
this
evening,
I
wanted
to
draw
your
attention
to
the
fact
that
we've
had
several
public
comments
on
these
proposals.
I
think
you
should
have
received
copies
of
all
of
those
both
previously
and
since
they've
been
a
couple.
There's
been
one
additional
comment
recently
and
one
revised
comment
you
will
have
all
of
those.
To
summarize.
H
One
comment
is
generally
in
support
of
the
revised
proposals.
There
is
one
with
general
concerns
about
the
overall
approach
to
the
site,
and
then
there
are.
There
is
one
with
particular
concerns
regarding
lots,
one
and
two
and
another
with
particular
concerns
regarding
lots,
11
and
12.
You
will
have
that
information
before
you
I'm
aware
that
one
or
more
of
those
members
of
the
public
may
well
wish
to
address
those
points,
some
more
greater
detail
later
in
the
public
hearing
section
of
the
proceedings
so
before
you
this
evening
and
the
context
of
the
staff
analysis.
H
H
C
C
B
C
C
H
C
I
I
What
what
I've
been
struggling
with
is
that
that
configuration
doesn't
match
up
with
the
current
parcel
lines,
so
are
they?
Are
they
house
I'm?
Just
I,
don't
know
how
this
is
supposed
to
work,
really
because
I'm
wondering
if
they
are
exchanging
land
with
a
neighboring
parcel
as
part
of
this
whole
platting
I
believe.
H
H
C
I
H
A
H
I
have
no
further
detail
drawing
at
this
point
in
time.
That
point
has
been
flagged
in
detail
by
an
immediate
neighbor
who
I
think
will
be
addressing
that
I
believe
the
applicants
have
previously
been
a
discussion
about
that
particular
point
and
the
width
of
what's
indicated
on
that
lot
and
were
the
driveway
itself
actually
sits
in
relation
to
his
building
footprints
and
the
eave
depth
as
proposed.
Currently,
okay,
so
I
can't
confirm
whether
that's
been
resolved
as
I
speak
at
the
moment.
It's
very
good.
A
F
Happy
new
year,
happy
New
Year
to
you
and
welcome
I
can't
believe
we
were
here
a
year
ago.
Time
flies
I
should
be
able
to
add
context
to
your
questions,
they're
all
great
questions,
and
hopefully,
with
some
of
the
additional
information
that
that
I've
got
on
my
presentation
that
Carl
doesn't
I
can
answer
those
questions.
H
A
F
F
We've
we've
tried
to
take
his
tutelage
and
in
what
he's
shared
I
think
he's
been
a
good
liaison
with
the
neighbors
he's
heard.
Their
concerns
helped
put
them
into
a
narrative
or
a
context.
That's
easy
for
easier
for
us
to
understand
to
then
try
and
implement
into
our
drawings.
I
also
have
to
apologize.
Our
architect
is
in
in
Mexico,
so
he
had
a
trip
planned.
He
was
planning
to
be
here
back
in
December
and
then
without
that
hearing
he
had
a
trip
planned
for
tonight.
F
So
some
of
the
the
super
technical
questions
I'll
try
and
answer.
He
would
obviously
be
better,
but
we
have
we've,
read
the
staff
report
and
we're
in
agreement
with
the
staff
report.
We
appreciate
what
Carl
has
done.
We
would
request
your
approval
of
it
and
we
believe
we
can
finalize
some
of
the
finer
points.
The
detail
that
we
know
we
need
to
work
through
with
a
couple
of
the
neighbors
in
a
couple
of
the
sites
with
Carl,
especially
with
everything
that
he's
done
in
relation
to
this
project.
But
let
me
just
give
you
a
little.
F
So
here
was
the
existing
ground
area
plan.
This
was
the
14
unit
plant
that
was
approved,
preliminary
plat
and
PD
that
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
back
in
June,
and
that
this
is
the
ground.
The
ground
area
plan
that
you
last
saw
in
January
and
at
this
at
this
time
we
heard
comments
about.
Maybe
the
massing
was
a
little
too
big.
F
It
may
have
been
too
tight
that
we
needed
to
do
some
further
kind
of
refinement
to
fit
some
of
the
product,
and
so
this
is
actually
the
ground
area
plan
that
was
taken
to
the
Planning
Commission.
So
when
we
went
to
the
Planning
Commission,
we
showed
them
what
we
had
presented
to
you.
We
talked
about
your
comments
and
this
was
the
ground
area
kind
of
breaking
some
of
those
building
tweaking
some
of
those
units,
but
it
certainly
did
include
the
the
private
drive,
which
was
was
publicly
called
a
Raceway
in
a
Ring
Road.
F
We
then
this
was
approved
and-
and
we
really
frankly
spent
some
time
thinking
about
it.
We
met
with
some
neighbors
the
four
homes
that
are
inside
of
this
had
concern,
and,
and
frankly,
the
more
we
thought
about
it.
We
felt
like
it
was
a
valid
concern.
West
Capitol
is
a
one
way
street,
and
so
they
said
if
someone
comes
and
leaves
you're
doubling
the
trip
traffic
in
front
of
our
homes
as
they
came
into
the
project,
they
would
have
come
north
on
West
Capitol.
F
They
would
have
turned
and
then,
as
they
left,
they
would
have
gone
back
by
their
back
by
their
home.
So
in
hearing
that
and
hearing
how
it
may
affect
citizens
who
live
there
and
and
frankly
have
lived
there
longer
than
I
have
and
have
lived
in
some
older
homes.
We
wanted
to
take
that
to
heart.
So
that's
really.
What
was
the
impetus
for
us
to
start
rethinking
the
design
of
this
project
as
you
as
you've,
seen
or
heard?
This
is
the
current
design
to
try
and
answer
Paul's
questions
specifically
or
Commission,
or
sentence
questions.
F
The
design
that
you
saw
that
had
a
curve
right
here
was
the
easement.
So
when
we
were
working
under
this
previous
design,
the
easement
was
fully
identified.
Legal
description
was
put
in
and
that
was
identified
inside
of
the
plat
and
then
also
inside
of
the
PD
one
of
the
one
of
the
neighbors
actually
caught
that
we
don't
own
fee,
simple
property.
To
that
he's
correct.
F
We
do
not
own
seam
fee,
simple
property,
and
we've
actually
told
him
that
if
we
do
not
need
the
that
easement,
we
would
be
willing
to
vacate
that
easement,
and
so
this
actually
is
how
the
current
plat
sits.
So
this
is
currently
one
parcel,
and
then
this
is
it's.
It's
separate
and
own
standalone
parcel
right
now.
This
would
be
subdivided
into
two
Lots.
F
This
would
be
two
Lots
and
this
would
be
their
rear
yard,
and
then
this
would
be
the
rear
yard
for
all
eight
of
the
units
that
are
on
Darwin,
and
this
would
be
their
individual,
east/west
kind
of
property.
This
we
believe,
fits
more
in
context
with
what
Carl
mentioned
about
deeper,
more
bowling
alley
like
Lots
that
exist
inside
of
this
community,
so
I
that
I
hope
that
answers
at
least
one
of
your
questions
as
it
relates
to
the
private
drive
itself.
This
lot
is
actually
82
feet
and
I
know.
F
One
of
the
neighbors
has
expressed
concern
because
he
measured
it
at
70,
and
so,
as
he
was
looking
at
some
some
side,
yard
setbacks
and
the
14
foot
drive.
He
was
concerned
about
the
home,
our
our
alt,
a
survey,
it's
82
and
a
half
feet
wide
and
there's
a
14
foot
drive
easement
on
that
far
south
end
and
then
I'll
I'll
talk
in
a
moment
about
how
we're
proposing
actually
to
redesign
that
lot
to
further
address
some
of
his
concerns.
As
has
been
mentioned,
it's
it's
six
structures,
twelve
townhomes.
F
We
have
know
everything
fronts
onto
public
right
away,
so
there's
no
PD
request
the
Lots
range
from
just
over
4200
square
feet
to
about
eighty
six
hundred
square
feet.
We've
significantly
shrunk,
the
footprint
of
the
or
the
overall
score
footage,
not
only
the
footprint
but
the
overall
square
footage
of
the
unit's
themselves.
F
F
And
as
you
look
at
the
grade
and
the
offset
that's
also,
the
area
where
most
of
those
exceptions
are
being
requested
is
at
that
West
End
of
those
homes
because
they
stick
out
because
of
the
of
the
topography
and
those
are,
as
Carl
mentioned,
have
been
outlined.
A
couple
of
the
kind
of
proposed
redesign
elevations.
F
The
question
on
finished
grade
an
existing
grade,
so
the
existing
grade
is
the
existing.
What
what
is
as
close
to
the
existing
grade?
That
we
believe
is
the
natural
grade.
The
finished
grade
is
where
a
lot
of
the
fill
right
now
currently
is,
and
so
some
of
that
comes
out
with
the
product
itself
and
then
some
of
it
gets
reset
or
reestablished
adjacent
to
those
to
those
buildings.
F
So
we
want
to
be
mindful
of
the
existing
meaning
native
as
well
as
some
of
the
future,
which
is
more
closely
parallels,
the
imported
or
illegally
dumped
grade,
if
that
makes
sense,
but
I
think
the
the
bigger
the
bigger
goal
of
the
depiction
of
this
is
without
the
private
drive
and
and
I
apologize.
But
this
cross-section
is
slightly
askew,
so
one
is
straight
east-west
and
the
other
rain,
and
more
parallel
or
perpendicular
to
West
Capitol.
F
But
with
the
private
drive
that
would
have
would
have
sat
here,
we
ended
up
with
homes
that
in
many
instances,
were
30,
35
and
40
feet
away
from
the
rear
property
of
those
four
homes
kind
of
inside
of
it,
and
now
we're
a
much
greater
distance
in
separation
from
those
homes.
So
this
cross-section
this
light
gray
home,
is
I
believe
it's
Bruce,
Shapiro's
home
mr.
Shapiro's
home.
The
darker
one
is
mr.
F
As
we've
looked
at
the
design
elements,
Carl
did
mention
that,
because
of
the
site,
we
do
have
garage
doors
facing
those,
and
so
we
absolutely
wanted
to
address
that
by
making
certain
that
they
were
OPEC
in
nature,
something
that
still
was
at
a
nice
pedestrian
scale,
something
that
light
could
come
through.
We
know
on
the
non
garage
facades
that
that's
one
of
the
areas
in
Karl's
report
and
an
area
that
the
neighbors
have
mentioned.
That
needs
some
attention
and
we're
in
agreement
with
that.
We've
also
eliminated
after
discussing
with
the
neighbors.
F
Any
any
cultured
stone
really
in
looking
at
the
context
of
the
neighborhood.
That
was
pretty
easy
for
us
to
throw
out
as
well
as
vinyl
windows,
so
I
think
we've
we've
we've.
This
process
has
helped
us
refine
the
materiality
for
for
these
units
themselves,
a
couple
other
things
that
our
initial
concepts
or
showed
that
we've
since
addressed
and
I
think
these
are.
F
These
are
important
too
for
me
to
show
the
evolution
of
this,
as
we've
talked
with
the
neighbors
and
also,
as
we've
talked
with
Carl,
but
a
couple
of
the
comments
that
we
heard
void
to
solid
ratio
of
the
windows
scale
of
the
windows
size
of
the
windows
size
of
the
openness,
no
real
kind
of
entry
feature,
especially
on
a
couple
of
the
units
where
the
entry
is
on
the
side
of
the
unit,
and
so
we've
gone
to
lengths
and
then
window
treatments.
Some
of
the
trim
around
the
windows.
F
The
entry
one
of
the
neighbors
said
it
best
if
I
go
trick-or-treating
with
my
kids
or
grandkids,
how
am
I
going
to
know
which
door
to
go
to
so
we
thought
that
was
a
valid.
An
absolutely
valid
concern
and
I
can't
help
myself
but
put
design
evolution,
since
this
is
the
project
known
as
Evo
twin
homes,
but
I
think
this
is
also.
This
is
something
that
has
not
was
not
in
the
packet
and
something
that
some
of
the
neighbors
haven't
seen.
F
But
this
this
design
was
the
initial
design
it
was
included,
and
we
then,
and
some
of
these
other
ones
you've
seen.
We
then
went
to
a
change
in
colors
and
some
of
the
materiality
x'
to
better
fit
with
the
neighboring
homes.
We
then
started
to
address
the
window
window
treatment,
and
then
we
further
went
to
address
the
window
kind
of
window
treatment
as
we've
made
this
kind
of
evolution,
or
just
on
this
one
particular
structure
itself.
F
So
as
additional
elements
that
we
know,
we
need
to
refine
and
I
would
say,
this
is
part
of
the
list
that
we
would
look,
hopefully
with
your
approval,
would
look
to
refine
with
with
Carl
narrower
chimneys,
where
appropriate,
I
know,
there's
some
images
where
we've
got
big
wide,
more
flat,
more
modern
chimneys.
We
recognize
that
that
is
probably
inappropriate
in
this
setting
so
narrowing
those
further
refinement
of
the
window
treatment,
further
refinement
of
the
entryway,
a
sense
of
arrival,
legibility
of
it
and
a
separate
sidewalk
from
the
street.
F
That
was
something
that
particularly
on
West
Capitol,
we
saw
is
something
significant.
Most
of
those
homes
have
their
own
separate,
walk
you'll,
see
in
a
minute
a
couple
of
ways:
we're
thinking
about
being
able
to
accommodate
that
garage
facade
on
the
off
side
of
the
wall.
That
doesn't
have
the
actual
garage
door.
F
We
know
that
with
the
topography
and
some
of
the
exceptions
that
are
being
asked
for
good
call
nor
trees
can
help
soften
some
of
that
to
fit
into
a
better
scale
or
better
context,
along
with
lighting
making
certain
that
we've
got
wayfinding
and
tree
sconces
porch
lights,
things
that
denote
some
of
those
things
we
mentioned
above
so
a
couple
of
the
neighbors
in
in
subsequent
meetings
and
then
I
also
believe
they've
they've
sent
written
responses
or
requests.
So
mr.
F
Milligan,
who
owns
the
home
right
to
the
north
of
lot,
11
and
12,
would
really
like
to
see
the
north
half
of
this
a
lot
twelve
be
pushed
as
far
to
the
east
as
we
can.
His
home
is
actually
and
that's
another
thing
to
note:
I
see
Commissioner
Richardson.
Looking
at
that
site
plan
or
area
plan,
the
footprint
for
the
existing
homes
were
actually
set
back
there.
There
was
something
in
in
CAD
that
had
him
as
a
10-foot,
greater
setback
than
where
they
are.
F
So,
if
you
look
at
those,
they
actually
look
like
they're
much
further
away
from
the
street
than
they
are.
This
is
this
is
a
correct
depiction,
so
his
home
is
actually
the
closest
home.
The
corner
of
his
home
is
about
12
feet
from
property
or
property
line,
so
we
would,
in
addition
to
what's
been
looked
at
before,
we
would
ask
for
what
a
kind
of
a
maximum
setback
that
the
Commission
might
be
willing
to
consider,
and
we
would
look
to
move
lot
number
12
as
far
east
as
we
can.
F
It
actually
helps
in
a
couple
of
different
ways.
It
pushes
us
a
little
bit
further
off
the
street
to
add
more
variation.
It
also
pushes
us
back
further
to
where
a
little
bit
flatter
grate
is,
and
so
less
impact
to
the
existing
grade
is
needed
and
then
because
his
home
is
as
far
west
as
it
is,
it
opens
up
just
immediately,
what's
adjacent
to
his
home
and
then
to
help
with
that.
F
Additionally,
we
would
actually
look
to
have
lot
12,
B,
potentially
brought
closer
and
brought
B,
arguably
brought
as
close
as
his
home,
which
is
12
feet
from
the
public
right-of-way.
So
this
is.
This
is
a
very
simple,
very
crude
depiction
of
what
that
this
would
allow
us
to
do
so.
One
of
his
concerns,
or
one
of
the
concerns,
is
with
the
14
foot
easement
that
goes
up
to
the
apartments.
There
was
some
concerns
that
the
the
entry
door
was
on
that
side
and
I
think
that's
a
valid
concern.
This
would
allow
us
to
shift
lot.
F
12
further
east
bring
lot
11
a
little
bit
further
closer
west
and
then
in
the
back.
We
would
get
that
same
kind
of
duplicative
garage
as
you've
seen
on
the
homes
on
Darwin,
but
not
so
then
it
would
eliminate
all
garages,
at
least
in
this
structure,
from
being
on
West
Capitol,
and
it
will
allow
us
to
focus.
F
You
know
whether
it's
one
walkway
two
walkways
a
shared
walkway,
but
something
that
is
a
single
pedestrian
access
up
to
these
homes
and
we
think
it
would
help
accommodate
his
concern
of
having
the
unit
12
be
as
far
east
as
possible,
and,
what's
that
11
sorry
I
had
him
backwards.
I
thought
we
came
down
and
around
11
to
12
and
the
other
another
concern
that
mr.
Giorgio
to
the
north
of
this
site
expressed
was
related
to
lot.
One.
F
Her
home
is
actually
one
of
the
homes
set
furthest
back
from
the
public
right-of-way
and
so
for
her.
Even
to
have
us
push
lot,
one
as
close
as
far
west
as
possible
helps
with
the
adjacency
of
the
home
next
to
her
property.
And
so
this
is
an
area
that,
in
further
kind
of
review,
we
believe,
may
also
merit
bringing
as
close
as
11
or
12
feet
from
the
property
line
to
to
help
with
her
view.
F
She
asked
us
to
spend
some
time
thinking
about
better
architecture,
more
interesting
architecture,
something
that
she
would
be
looking
into,
and
so
here's
some
of
the
images
that
we've
gone
to
kind
of
further
further
refine
in
adjacent
to
her.
So
an
introduction
of
more
customary
kind
of
porch
window
treatment
up
in
the
in
the
gable
I'm,
not
certain
that
this
big
deck
is
actually
a
better
element
myself,
but
but
trying
to
again
play
with
play
with
materials
and
colors
still
I
know.
F
F
If
we
move
the
home
further
east
on
lot
11,
we
should
be
able
to
push
that
home
even
further
into
the
ground,
which
should
have
lessen
the
impact
down
to
more
like
five
or
six
feet,
and
then
the
locks
with
minimal
impact
or
less
than
the
forefoot
impact
range
from
the
six
inches
to
the
actual
four
feet,
and
so
with
that
I'll
answer
any
any
questions.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time,
we're
appreciate
of
it
and
we're
we're
hopeful.
We
can
take
this
to
the
next
step
of
further
refinement
with
staff
per
their
recommendation.
J
Girl
stir
go
for
it.
I'll
start
with
a
couple
of
questions.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
think
I
mean
one
of
the
canoe
one
of
the
challenges
that
I
was
having
with
the
staff
report.
I
mean
we
have.
We
have
elevations
like
this,
and
then
we
have
refined,
elevations
and
I
I'm
feeling
without
you
expressing
it
specifically,
but
you
have
in
some
of
your
evolution
efforts.
J
But
you
know
these
are
schematics,
obviously
early
schematics
and
we
have
some
some
additional
refinement
in
some
of
the
renderings
and
then
even
further
refinement,
I
think
in
some
of
your
views,
so
that
helps
a
couple
of
specific
questions.
I
think
I
think
that
great
elevation
is
going
to
be
a
topic
of
later
discussion.
I,
don't
know
if
we
need
to
go
back
over
except
right.
Maybe
the
question:
is
there
illegal
dumping
happening
on
the
site?
Yes,
okay,
but
you
have.
You
have
site
elevations
from
what
date
so.
F
More
importantly,
what
we,
what
we
tried
to
so
topographically,
we
did
our
first
topo
back
in
September
or
October
of
17m
team,
okay
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
what
we
tried
to
do
is
take
the
samplings,
the
borings
and
the
samplings
that
we
did
that
got
through
any
debris
or
anything
on
the
site
to
get
back
down
to
native.
And
so
we
tried
to
do
more
borings
and
more
samplings
to
define
where
actual
native
was
particularly
on
the
slope
of
Darwin.
J
J
J
This
the
I
mentioned
I.
Think
it's
before
the
issue
of
the
two-car
garage,
which
is
a
nice
modern,
responsive,
unfortunately,
how
many
cars
we
all
need
these
days,
any
Studies
on
any
of
them
with
single
car
garage
door
openings.
You
know
we
had
two
cars,
but
the
two
grudged
openings
I
know
it's
there's
a
width
issue.
The.
F
Yeah
I
mean
it's
a
great
the
depth.
We
did
explore
a
couple
of
the
upper
Lots,
the
Darwin
lots
to
have
more
of
a
tandem
or
a
single
that
opens
into
a
kind
of
a
two-car
garage
and
we
ran
into
either
width
or
depth
issues.
So
it
pushed
structures
even
further
west,
where
we
ran
into
an
even
greater
kind
of
height
special
exception
that
would
have
been
requested
or
needed.
I
had.
J
One
note
here,
I
think
I,
one
of
your
renderings,
the
for
lot,
one
I
believe
is
one
to
the
far
north
uh-huh.
Yes,
so
we
had
that
rendering
there
which,
in
comparison
to
you
know
these
typical
early
schematics,
actually
showed
the
second
entry
which
is
side
on
that
on
the
north
side.
Back
in
behind
the
garage.
Yes,.
C
J
So
that
answered
that
question,
a
number
of
your
other
comments
about
shifting
I
think
one
and
two
and
eleven
and
twelve
seemed
to
be
where
I
have
questions
and
sort
of
compatibility
issues.
I
think
with
with
the
neighborhood
and
you've
started
talking
about
those
in
their
shifting
forward
and
back
and
up
and
down
and
and
I'd
encourage
that
to
continue
vertically
I
think
is
an
issue
as
well
they're.
J
One
of
the
public
comments
was
about
the
height
of
that
sidewall,
recognizing
that
you're
using
that
sidewall
is
an
entry,
but
could
that
entry
be
depressed
in
that
whole
that
whole
units,
1
and
11
I
think
could,
though,
be
depressed
a
few
feet.
You
know
to
reduce
that
sidewall
I
think
there's
enough
height
between
the
two
units
to
make
that
work
statement
rather
than
question
I
Apollo
others
I'll
come
back
with
I'll
find
some
other
questions
here.
So.
I
F
So
it's
it's
a
combination
of
both
and
I'm,
not
trying
to
be
politically
correct.
We've
looked
at
what
the
as
best
we
can.
What
the
existing
grade
is
meaning
native
grade
versus
where
current
dumping
grade
is
so.
If
we
just
went
out
and
and
didn't
go
through
the
process
of
defining
where
native
was,
we
would
have
a
topo
plan
that
would
be
far
greater,
far
haider
and
so
we're
looking
at
where
a
native
we
can
fit
the
home
in.
F
Knowing
that
the
existing
grade,
then
particularly
on
Darwin,
would
fall
in
between
the
homes
to
make
kind
of
a
more
natural
finished
grade
between
those
homes
that
make
sense.
If
I,
if
I
went
out
and
shot
topo
today,
it
will
look.
It
will
look
exactly
like
the
finished
grade
right
now,
but
that's
not
where
I'm
gonna
build
them
is
I'm,
not
gonna,
build
the
homes
on
Dilla
material
material.
F
B
F
I
Understand
you
don't
want
to
build
on
it
because
it's
not
native,
it's
probably
worthless
yeah
as
a
base
for
building
on
but
I'm.
Just
it's
I
think
what
other
people
are
gonna
say
is
that
if
we're
taking
a
heights
off
of
what
you're
calling
native
then
we're
under
estimating
what
the
special
exception
that
you
need
is
in
in
some.
F
And
and
the
I
mean
the
opposite
argument
is
I
come
in
and
I
tried
to
do
this
with
the
neighbors,
and
we
tried
to
be
as
open
and
candid
with
the
neighbors
as
we
could
be
and
we're
trying
to
be
the
same
here.
I
could
have
come
in
and
said,
here's
my
existing
line
and
then
Frank
would
have
called
and
said.
F
Why
are
you
digging
a
giant
hole
to
get
rid
of
all
the
old
fill
and
now
your
your
unit
is
higher
than
you
thought
it
was
gonna
be
here
you
said
it
was
gonna,
be
here
I
understood
it
was
gonna,
be
right,
so
we've
we've
tried
to
be
as
open
and
honest
with
the
neighbors
and
we're
trying
to
approach
this.
The
same
way.
F
I
F
You
have
that
we
do
yeah
I
mean
in
the
staff
report.
You
have.
You
have
all
of
all
of
those
down
every
elevation,
every
topo
you
have
that,
and
that
was
a
tremendously
painful
process.
That
was
a
90-day
process
for
us
just
to
see
if,
if
this
concept
could
even
work,
so
we
we
embarked
on
that
process
and
then
went
back
to
the
neighbors
and
said
here's
the
reality
of
the
site.
Here's
where
the
buildings
are
gonna,
fit.
Here's,
how
high
they're
gonna
be
where's
the
site.
I
B
B
I
B
I,
look
at
it.
I
know
I'm
no
engineer
of
this
type
it
it's
looking
to
me
like
the
bottom
dashed
line
here
is
pretty
close
to
Alta,
at
least
where
the
section
cut
is,
and
that
the
in
that
the
the
solid
line
that
says
final
grade
is
close
to
final
grade.
That's
the
other,
drawing
I'm
thoroughly
confused
well,.
B
E
I
do
think
that
we
as
a
commission
should
strive
toward
consistency
and
concurrence
with
the
you
know
with
the
the
the
zoning
regulations
relative
to
you
know
what
was
the
original
native
grade
before
all
of
the
the
fill
was
there
and
that
you
know
and
and
then
also
have
an
understanding
of
the
fill
etc.
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
a
it's
a
you
know.
It's
a
sight
that
you've
discussed
already
has
a
fifty
to
sixty
foot
fall
across
it.
I
would
argue
that
you
know
it's.
E
It's
not
only
been
impacted
in
terms
of
what
native
grade
is
by
in
the
fill
the
more
recent
fill,
but
you
know
frankly,
Darwin
and
Beck
Street
are,
you
know,
are,
you
know,
have
impacted
the
so-called
native
grades,
the
home
that
is
immediately
to
the
north
of
the
for
townhomes
on
on
Darwin
Street
is
down
at
native
grade
in
a
whole,
you
know,
probably
at
least
ten
feet
below
you
know
front
door
is
is
or
you
know
main
floor
elevation
is
at
least
10
feet.
It
appeared
to
be
below
Darwin.
F
E
Elevation
so
I
I
would
you
know
again:
I
had
some
opinions
that
I'm
going
to
defer
to
to
the
executive
session,
but
I
think
a
suggestion
would
be
to
meet
with
Carl
and
staff,
get
a
better
understanding
exactly
what
the
code
says
and
then
craft
an
argument
that
is
that
that
you
think
is
is
providing
that
information
and
is
then
asking
for
special
exceptions.
That
are,
you
know
in
line
with
that,
but
we
can
talk
about
that.
An
executive
session.
A
A
G
Do
my
best
so
I
did
submit
a
letter,
so
I
don't
even
have
a
chance
to
read
that
so
I
appreciate
your
review
of
that
I
thought.
I'd,
maybe
just
touch
on
a
few
high
points.
I,
don't
know
if
you
could
hear
back
there
an
audible,
sigh
of
relief
on
my
part,
because
the
original
design
was
pretty
problematic
for
me
and
I,
don't
know
if
we
need
to
show
it
on
the
screen,
but
the
original
proposal
for
the
lot
one
I
mean.
G
That
is
nothing
that
I
see
in
my
neighborhood
and
on
the
last
page,
I
try
our
second
to
last
page
I
tried
to
look
at
the
historic
guidelines
and,
looking
at
again,
the
porch
building
math,
similar
to
those
seen
traditionally
solid
to
void
using
window
treatments
to
12.7
on
the
last
page
of
the
roof.
This
big
broad
ruth
with
these
big
eaves
with
the
big
chimney.
You
know
I
there
any
in
the
neighborhood
there
very
few.
It
was
interesting
that
Dustin
then
showed
what
is
typical.
G
Those
two
little
and
new
construction
I
might
add
it's
not
something:
that's
unattainable
and
then.
Finally,
his
efforts,
which
we
appreciate
to
move
towards
something
this
really
works
in
the
neighborhood,
so
I'm
hopeful,
I'm
still
nervous
to
be
perfectly
honest
and
I,
really
also
appreciate
moving
it
farther
to
the
the
West
when
the
original
drawing
I
saw.
G
It
was
like
right
so
mines
that
little
just
on
the
left
of
the
one
and
or
the
north
of
one
and
two
and
the
original
schematic
that
I
saw
I
was
like
it
was
like
right
next
to
my
house,
so
this
is
better
and
better.
Yet
if
it's
moved
farther
west,
that
really
does
make
a
difference
and
then
the
original
drawings
I
saw
you
know,
mines
this
little
one
story
and
then
it
would
be
on.
G
What
you
see
is
what
it
looks
like
from
the
street,
but
on
the
north,
it's
a
basically
a
big
blank
wall
that
would
be
kind
of
looming
over
my
home.
So
that's,
essentially
it,
and
so
you
know,
I
do
feel
like
it.
Maybe
I'll
just
follow
with
what
I
just
to
remind
us
kind
of
where
we
need
to
go
and
I
do
support
the
new
design
to
limit
the
eliminate
the
private
drive,
but
there'd
be
in
a
substantial
impairment
of
my
property
values
as
well.
The
buildings
have
been
pulled
away
from
most
neighbors.
G
G
If
you
notice
and
Dustin
mention
that
the
the
more
vintage
up
by
Darwin
Street
a
lot
more
variation,
and
it's
just
for
some
reason
and
again
cross
fingers
that
we're
gonna
get
to
you
know,
work
this
out,
but
a
lot
more
variation,
so
much
better
work
to
address
the
guidelines
than
this
one
is
going
to
be
really
the
one
you're
gonna
see
on
West
Capitol
Street.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
K
Thank
you
guys
time
so
I'm
at
580,
north
I'm
adjacent
to
lot
number
11
and
yeah.
One
of
my
comments
well,
first
of
all,
I'm
very
appreciated
appreciative
of
them
working
the
developer,
working
with
the
neighbors
to
come
up
with
a
plan
that
is
much
better
than
the
initial
whirring
road
or
whatever.
You
want
to
call
this
for
from
my
perspectives.
Much
better,
so
I
greatly
appreciate
that
and
I
hope
that
this
overall
design
does
go
through
compared
to
the
last
one.
Then,
in
details
for
lot
11
I
was
concerned
about
the
wall
hype.
K
Just
next
to
me.
There
yeah,
my
original
suggestion,
was
to
push
that
down
because
it's
quite
a
bit
higher
than
the
other
half
on
side
12,
but
I.
Think
that
sliding
it
back
would
also
work
as
well.
I
mean
all
I've.
Seen
so
far
is
what
was
put
up
tonight.
So
I
don't
know
any
details,
but
in
concept
that
seems
like
a
good
potential
solution
and
then
for
lot
12
and
it's
actually
11
and
12.
K
The
width
issue
that
I
brought
up
originally
I,
looked
at
site
plan
3
and
it
doesn't
show
the
right
of
way,
which
is
for
the
apartment
building
parking
and
when
I
talked
to
the
developer.
He
said
there
was
an
issue
with
the
site
plan,
so
what
I
did
was,
went
and
looked
at
the
County
Recorder's
description
of
the
lot
and
it
gives
82.5
feet.
But
that's
not
the
lot
width,
that's
the
street
frontage.
K
K
There
seemed
to
be
some
fairly
large
issues
that
still
need
to
be
resolved,
so
I'm
not
sure
totally
comfortable
at
this
point
with
that
being
completely
a
staff
issue
versus
before
the
commission,
but
again
I
am
very
happy
that
this
is
what's
up
now,
as
opposed
to
the
previous
design.
I
think
that
was
it.
I
will
say
that
as
far
as
the
grade
and
the
fill
there,
it
won't
help
for
drawings,
but
there
are
historic
error
photos
on
the
Utah
Geological
Survey
website,
going
back
to
that
20s
or
30s
that
show
this
area.
K
G
Think
I,
don't
have
very
much
to
say,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
we
found
a
major
appeal
on
this,
so
for
the
private
driveway
against
the
private
driveway
that
was
approved.
So
we're
really
happy
that
we're
working
on
a
different
design,
I,
don't
oppose
what's
being
presented.
I
will
support
whatever
mark
and
Joan
need
to
support
for
their
lot.
But
as
far
as
my
lot
I
live
at
588,
West,
Capitol,
I'm
very
happy
with
the
way
the
design
is
going.
I
am
not
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
natural
grade.
G
L
Good
evening,
I
know
that
I've
talked
to
you
before
about
issues
regarding
West,
Capitol,
Street
and
sometimes
I
may
feel
like
it's
something
out
of
the
Lord
of
the
Rings.
We
talked
about
ring
roads
and
towers
and
ancient
neighborhoods,
and
things
like
that.
West
Capitol,
spider
I'm
frankly,
in
LA
I
live
at
598,
Northwest,
Capitol,
Street
I've
lived
there
for
almost
30
years
and
it's
a
great
neighborhood.
It's
one
of
the
oldest
neighborhoods
in
the
city
and
in
fact
our
little
area
is
even
different
from
the
rest
of
Marmalade.
L
It's
just
a
unique
area,
and
so
when
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
Ring
Road,
Bruce
and
I
on
the
rest
of
neighbors,
we
filed
a
very
large,
comprehensive
objection
and
appeal,
and
we
will
fight
that
Ring
Road
with
every
fiber
of
our
being
because
it
destroys
the
neighborhood
and
we
are
so
grateful
and
so
appreciative
to
developers
that
they
have
spent
an
incredible
amount
of
time
and
efforts
coming
up
with
an
alternative.
They
really
have.
L
They
met
with
the
neighborhood
they've,
come
up
with
alternatives,
they've
even
read,
or
have
her
lengthy
objection
and
plug
different
things
into
their
consideration.
So
we're
grateful
for
that.
They
really
have
gone
in
my
opinion.
Even
beyond.
Normally
has
this
happened
so
what
you
see
before
you
something
to
the
neighborhood
and
we
have
a
great
mailing
list,
but
a
lot
of
the
neighbors
who
love
the
neighbors
conveyed
to
me
that
they're
appreciative
and
they
were
like
this
concept
to
move
forward.
L
Obviously,
there's
still
issues
to
work
out
with
placement
and
design
and
things
that
nature
but
I'm
here
to
say
that
the
neighborhood
is
grateful
to
developers
for
working
with
us.
We're
grateful
to
the
staff
of
grateful
Commission
and,
as
Bruce
said,
the
questions
you
asked
tonight,
we're
very
knowledgeable,
and
so
we
believe
the
motions
before
you
would
give
the
green
light
to
that
number.
Four.
L
We
would
I'm
an
attorney,
but
I'm,
not
a
Zoning,
attorney
or
planning
attorney,
actually
make
sure
that
we're
not
foreclosed
from
anything
on
on
item
number
four,
so
that
if
we
have
to
bring
something
back
to
you
that
we
can
but
other
than
that,
we
wish
again
to
express
our
appreciation
to
the
developers
we're
on
the
right
track
for
this.
We
feel
very
good
about
it
and
it's
going
to
be
you
know,
then
we
achieve
the
compatibility
of
the
neighborhood.
A
E
I
have
a
couple
of
things
and,
first
off
again,
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
mr.
pignon
le
and
others
have
said.
I
think
that
we've
seen
this
with
a
number
of
other
developers
that
had
come
in
front
of
us
that
they
went
when
they
work
with
the
neighborhood.
It
makes
our
lives
much
better
and
frankly
improves
the
outcomes
significantly,
and
you
know
not
having
been
here
last
January,
but
having
read
the
previous
report
and
seeing
where
were
where
the
developer
is.
E
As
of
the
submit
--all
significant
improvements,
however,
I
think
that
a
number
of
questions
and
concerns
that
I
have
with
regard
and
that
I
think
another
round
of
refinements
and
improvements
would
be
helpful.
I
mean
first
off,
we
I
think
I
believe
it
was
the
first
public
comment.
I
believe
Joan
was
pointing
to
her
house
relative
to
lots
one
and
two
and
the
developer
recognized.
E
E
Addressed
in
the
overall
addressed
more
definitively,
if
you
will,
in
the
overall
site
plan,
submit
--all.
I
also
I
think
to
the
comment
I
found
it
challenging
to
look
at
while
there
are
some
dimensions
on
this.
I
think
that
we
need
I
would
like
to
see
dimensions.
Setbacks
from
the
street
I'd
like
to
see
dimensions
of
the
width
of
the
of
the
Lots
parallel
to
perpendicular
to
the
to
the
development.
E
E
We've
asked
on
several
past
submittals
to
look
also
at
relative
elevation
of
the
existing
buildings
and
the
relative
setbacks
and
I
think
that
would
be
very
helpful
for
the
developer.
As
as
we
address
some
of
these
issues,
we
talked
about
a
little
bit
earlier.
Some
of
the
questions
relative
to
kind
of
a
special
exit.
To
what
extent
of
a
special
exception,
would
you
be
actually
requesting,
especially
a
long
Darwin
and
helping
us
to
understand
because
I
think
it's
the
ensign
departments
to
the
south?
If
I,
if
I
didn't
muta
like
the
name?
E
Is
it
fairly
tis
a
taller
building
set
down
a
little
bit
again
because
of
grades
I?
Think
more
information
with
regard
to
that
would
be
very,
very
helpful
for
me
to
be
able
to
provide
more
information.
You
know
more
feedback,
then.
Lastly,
back
to
the
grades
and
the
and
the
great
and
grading
I
think
there
is
the
existing
grading
and
it's
my
opinion
and
I
believe
that
it
would
be
consistent
frankly,
with
the
the
zoning
code.
Is
that
you
know
that
that
you
look
at
it,
you
know,
try
and
try
and
define
okay,
we're.
E
You
know
the
age
of
this
fill
it
cetera
like
that
I
think
coming
in
was
something
that
tries
to
show
where
that
native
grade
is
relative
to
the
street
relative
to
the
neighbors
would
be
helpful
and
that
and
then
coming
up
with
I
think
just
a
working
with
staff
to
come
up
with
a
something
that's
in
in
line
with
the
code
and
then
could
I'm
not
nest
site
to
drop
60
feet
50
feet
whatever
it
is:
I'm
not
a
seventy
feet.
I'm
not
opposed
to
approving
necessarily
a
special
exception
on
this
site.
E
Personally,
I'm
not
going
to
speak
for
any
of
my
fellow
commissioners,
but
personally,
but
I
think
that
I
think
that
David
Richardson
absolutely
nailed
it,
which
is
we
need
to
be
consistent.
We've.
You
know,
we've
heard
that
from
administration
in
terms
of
implementation
and
I,
so
I
think
it's
only
fair
to
other
applicants
and
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
abate,
a
basis
of
which
to
approve.
You
know
that
special
exception.
E
Your
you
know,
materials
and
moving
and
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
understand
better
what
the
materials
are.
I
would
say
that
some
of
what
I
saw
in
the
in
the
submitter
packet
felt
very
out
of
character
with
the
with
the
neighborhood
developments
with
traditional
and
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
needs
to
be
traditional
and
and
mimicked
and
we've.
E
We
have
as
a
board,
approved
some
relatively
modern
materials
and
and
treatments,
but
they
I
think
they
have
been
of
their
time
another
place,
but
they
have
been
of
in
context
with
with
a
neighborhood
and
some
of
what
I
saw,
with
cultured
stone
single
planes
that
change
materials,
sort
of
arbitrarily
some
treatments
that,
in
my
mind,
felt
out
of
just
just
I,
read
in
somebody's
comment
that
it
feels
more
of
an
80s
development
and
I.
Think
that's
probably
a
great
way
of
looking
at
what
I
saw
tonight
is
moving
in
the
right.
E
C
A
J
Think
that
comment
excuse
me
goes
back
to
Tom
and
Tom
really
summarized
everything.
I
was
going
to
say
so.
Thank
you
very
much,
but
the
context
I
think
that
that
comparative
context
to
the
adjacent
historic
structures,
I
think,
is
what's
really
important
to
understand
how
these
really
feel.
Next
to
these
historic
buildings
on
on
West
Capitol
I
have
less
less
issues
on
Darwin,
I,
think
it's
it.
It
looks
like
quite
interesting,
dynamic
and
I
keep
seeing
little
renderings
and
things
that's
kinda
like
oh,
that
looks
cool.
J
You
know
where
we
haven't
seen
that
yet
where's
that
where's,
that
information
where's
that
coming
from
so
I
think
it's
that
comprehensiveness,
that
that
we're
looking
forward
to
but
I
think
in
particular
on
I,
think
1,
2,
11
and
12
are
really
critical.
Their
context
is
really
critical
how
they
they're
their
front
elevations
how
they
relate
to
the
street.
Where
is
the
sidewalk
on
these
site
plans,
kind
of
questions
and
then
how
they
relate
to
these
neighbors
we've
got.
J
A
J
B
Dave
not
got
a
couple,
things
want
to
commend
the
applicant
on
a
much
much
better
proposal.
This
is:
was
this
a
full
year
on
the
calendar
and
light
years
ahead
at
the
same
time
and
and
sounds
like
you're
working
with
the
community,
which
is
very
good.
This
Tom
mentioned
it
helpful
to
us.
I
want
to
make
a
couple
observations
and
end
with
my
largest
concern.
One
is:
is
that
just
because
this
is
a
historic
neighborhood
doesn't
mean
you
need
to
give
us
a
historic
design
and
I.
Think
you
need
to
be
careful
of
the
Adagio.
B
So,
don't
don't
feel
you,
you
know
the
design
guidelines
I
think
are
rather
liberal
and
what
they
allow
you
to
do
in
terms
of
time
and
place
and
what's
most
important
really
in
there
is
not
maybe
the
contemporary
or
historic
look
of
something
but
the
form
in
the
scale
and
how
the
form
and
the
scale
of
the
new
buildings
relate
with
the
form
and
the
scale
of
the
neighborhood.
That's
probably
the
most
critical
thing
I
could
wax
on
about
a
bunch
of
things.
B
Issue
something
to
this
regard
that
the
existing
grade
when
you
purchase
this
property,
when
you
did
the
first
alta
survey,
is
existing
grade.
I've
knew
there
could
be
a
thousand
feet
of
fill.
You
could
drill
down
to
the
very
bottom
of
Lake
Bonneville
and
call
that
some
other
form
of
grade,
but
your
existing
grade
was
when
you
bought
it,
and
your
final
grade
is
the
final
grade.
B
When
your
project
is
complete
and
all
of
the
landscaping
is
done
and
I
think
we
need
to
see
a
true
site
plan,
a
true
engineering
site
plan
on
this,
where
we
see
the
Alta
topo,
the
Alta,
the
Alta
lot
lines
the
streets,
the
top
back
of
curb
all
of
that
stuff
and
then
overlay
on
top
of
that.
What
you're
going
to
do
in
exactly
where
the
neighbors
homes
are
and
so
on
and
I
think
that
will
make
it
much
easier
for
us
to
review
this
on
an
I
think.
B
It's
really
paramount
think
we
can
say
well
great,
have
nine
feet
of
excess
height
there,
without
really
knowing
what
we're.
What
we're,
approving
and
I
also
I'll
commend
you
for
providing
these
detailed
sheets.
I!
Think
these
were
very
helpful
just
that
we
have
confusion
over
what
is
existing
great.
So
no
and
that's
it!
Thank
you.
We
look
forward
to
I
look
forward
to
seeing
a
I
in
the
next
revision
of
this
I
think
it
would
be
really
good.
I
think.
A
When
I
had
to
David
and
a
lot
of
the
comments
that
have
been
then
promoted
here
are
things
I
had
said
as
well.
Taking
on
off
from
what
David
said,
we
can't
be
debating
what
the
grades
are.
We
need
to
have
it
perfectly
clear
when
it's
presented
to
us,
so
we
can
say
yeah
that
works
at
this
point.
There
seems
to
be
a
hesitation
to
be
able
to
push
it
forward
at
this
meeting
because
of
these
uncertainties.
A
A
second
item
is
again
following
up
with
David,
and
what
some
others
have
said
is
that
you
are
your
town
houses
that
are
the
contemporary
designs.
I'm
feeling
are
more
effective
and
more
appropriate
and
better
worked
out
the
ones
where
you're
trying
to
be
a
little
bit
more
traditional
historic
they're,
the
ones
that
we
don't
understand
well
enough
and
don't
seem
to
be
working
for
us.
A
J
One
more
thought:
yes,
and
it's
just
in
response.
It's
just
a
seconding
actually
of
a
comment
that
you
made
during
the
presentation,
the
applicant
about
I'm,
not
sure
about
these
decks
and
I.
Think
that
gets
us
into
the
weeds
just
a
little
bit
on
the
designs
of
these
buildings,
but
I
think
I.
Don't
think
we're
sure
about
the
decks
either.
I
think
be
careful
on
how
those
are
presented,
supported.
What
kind
of
railings
go
around
them
their
extents
and
how
that
how
that
fits
into
the
neighborhood
again.
A
C
F
F
We
love
the
modern,
more
refined,
we're
struggling
with
the
other,
but
we've
heard
comments
that
it
needs
to
tie
more
closely
or
the
concern
is
that
it
doesn't
tie
closely
to
the
historic.
So
we've
tried
to
look
at
windows
in
void.
Ratios
we've
tried
to
look
at
window
treatment,
but
candidly
we've
struggled
with
that
and
and
I,
don't
know
how
how
you
reconcile
what
you
guys
saw
versus
what
we
also
heard
from
several
neighborhood
meetings,
which
appear
to
be
opposing
so.
F
J
J
There
was
a
lot
of
progress,
I
think
and
you
and
you're
responding
to
some
of
those,
the
window
forms
and
the
scale
of
those
and
the
treatment.
It
is
a
challenge,
though,
and
it's
it's
hard
to
tease
out
the
the
the
truly
modern
aspects
that
are
just
the
nature
of
modern
construction
today
and
and
get
something
that
that
really
relates
and
and
it's
compatible.
J
There
are
some
great
examples,
though,
that
we've
seen
in
the
avenues,
in
particular
that
little
shotgun
house
and
some
others
that
completely
new
construction
and
and
staff
Carl
can
tell
you
to
send
you
some
of
those
and,
and
so
they
can
wrestle
with
those
forms.
I
think
it's
that
interpretation
of
of
the
historic
form
adapting
it
to
the
to
the
modern,
though,
and
rather
than
and
of
the
direction
that
it's
come.
Okay.
B
J
J
Absolutely
challenging
I
mean
you
know
the
the
biggest
element
on
any
of
these
buildings
is
a
garage
door,
and
how
does
that?
How
does
that
fit
and
and
to
integrate
onto
West
Capitol
a
twos
car
garage
door?
That's
kind
of
why
I've
been
asking
these
questions
about
that
from
the
from
a
year
ago.
It's
just
a
really
challenging
big
element
that
can't
be
it's
hard
to
subdivide
and
and
to
bring
it
down
to
a
human-scale.
A
I
A
A
E
E
But
the
idea
that
you
are
trying
to
tailor
your
developments
so
that
they
nestle
into
the
existing
context.
That,
in
my
mind,
is
an
appropriate
guideline
in
terms
of
when
you
start
to
look
at
I,
mean
scale,
inform
you
know,
rhythm,
and
all
of
that
are
you
know
the
elements
to
keep
in
mind,
but
they,
you
know
it's
it's.
E
As
and
again
as
one
of
the
public
comments
made,
which
is
you
know,
a
two-storey,
you
know
blank
wall,
you
know
push
right
up
against
my,
on
the
other
hand,
is
you
know,
we've
seen
plenty
of
proposals
where
there's
the
8
by
8
picture
window.
That's
looking
right
into
somebody
else's,
you
know
bedroom
window
on
it
with
a
10-foot.
E
E
C
E
Homes
and
and
the
street
and
the
community
they
live
in,
and
so
I
do
think
that
although
I
didn't
make
the
comment,
I
think
that
you
know
thinking
about
Darwin
and
what
are
the
opportunities
to
make
those
spaces
that
you
are
creating
be
more
than
just
simply
a
dead
driveway
or
you
know
more
than
just.
You
know
that
to
make
it
into
a
parking
court,
you
know,
but
the
emphasis
on
court,
the
same
down
with
eleven
twelve
and
one
and
two
is,
is
looking
at
that
again.
E
I
think
I
think
it's
trying
to
you're
on
the
right
track,
though
it's
it's
tailoring
these
designs
to
the
context
in
which
they're
you
know
settling
it.
You
know
setting
in
to
that
you're
very
deliberate
about
why
you're
doing
something
not
just
simply
because
you
know
the
rulebook
says
I
got
to
do
this.
Thank.
J
B
Executive
session,
the
West
End
of
the
Commission
here
has
a
procedural
question
to
ask,
and
that
is
in
its
current
form.
I
think
this
is
an
easy
project.
To
deny,
however,
is
who
would
the
applicant
be
comfortable
with
continuing
as
to
a
future
meeting
the
table?
The
proposal?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.