►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - 03/05/2020
Description
Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - 03/05/2020
B
A
D
D
It
just
seems
like
it's
hard
for
the
changes
to
be
made
because
it
is
a
contributing
building.
Okay,
so
in
your
review,
you
know
all
the
work
that
you've
done
so
far.
What
are
some
recommendations
that
they
could
do
because
I'm
seeing
a
lot
of
this
doesn't
work,
but
what
is
there
anything
else
that
may
work
for
them.
E
I'm,
not
an
architect
by
any
means
but
or
a
designer
you're
correct
the
landmark
sites.
Are
we
scrutinize
the
changes
more
heavily
because
they
raised
to
that
level
of
significance
for
the
city,
architectural
significance,
historical
significance,
and
since
this
is
a
contributing
structure
to
a
landmark
site,
I
think
it
should
be
heavily
scrutinized.
The
change
and
pop-up
additions
and
I've
informed
the
applicant.
This
I
don't
see
a
way
to
recommend
approval
based
on
the
standards
that
we
have
and
the
applicable
guidelines.
E
F
Yeah
I'd
like
to
lead
off
by
saying
that
it
would
be
very
helpful
in
the
drawing
set
to
show
the
existing
condition,
for
example,
the
existing
site
plan
and
then
show
the
proposed
site
plan.
That's
done
fairly
well
for
elevations
on
sheet
13,
but
in
plan
view
it
it's
very
hard
to
follow.
In
addition,
there
are
no
floor
plans
which
make
it
a
little
hard
to
understand
the
building,
but
I
think
the
elephant
in
the
room
here
is.
F
Is
that
this
addition,
if
it's
done,
if
this
work
is
carried
out,
the
building
will
lose
all
of
its
historic
integrity
and
I
mean
who
cares
if
it
goes
up,
it
gets
bigger.
If
you
get
a
building
code
lets,
you
go
two
feet
from
the
Guru
yard.
Fine,
but
this
building
will
not
be
historic
when
it's
done.
F
C
C
Attachment
D
standard
number
two,
the
provisions
of
how
an
addition
should
be
placed
with
respect
to
the
primary
structure,
it's
kind
of
like
we
said
skipped
over
that
and
I
think
there
could
be
ways
to
do
it,
but
I
agree
with
David
that
the
approach
you're
taking
is
problematic
in
itself
and
the
the
setback
issues.
Our
second
area
I
think
we
can.
We
can
work
with
setback
issues,
understanding
the
constraints,
but
just
the
form
the
volumes
here
are
concerning
so.
A
The
use
of
a
lot
changes
dramatically
and
to
address
David's
point.
There's
our
goal
is
to
lose
the
historic
value
of
the
existing
structure,
the
the
doors,
the
windows,
the
materials
that
are
being
used
to
try
to
keep
that
going.
The
open,
porches,
the
columns,
everything
the
dormer
is
recreated
exactly
the
same,
and
so
that
idea
of
retaining
history,
I
guess
it
comes
down
to
whether
it
precludes
the
concept
of
well.
A
F
Are
certainly
precedent
for
inline
special
exceptions,
but
you
know
in
this
case
here
we're
taking
an
existing
building
where
we're
changing
we're
modifying
the
roofline.
We're
modifying
the
footprint
to
some
extent
we're
applying
cement
is
just
siding
and
new
windows
I
mean
you
can
go
to
daybreak.
You
can
buy
one
of
these.
F
A
A
F
What
we're
telling
you
here
is
is
that
the
proposal
we're
seeing
will
not
have
any
historic
integrity.
The
Pez
presented
here.
This
building
is
no
longer
historic
and
if
that's
the
direction
that
you
and
your
clients
wish
to
pursue,
then
pursue
it,
have
it
delisted
or
whatever
the
process
is
I'm,
not
sure
is
there
of
what
the
terminology
is,
but
maybe
that's
the
direction
you
want
to
take.
If,
if
this
is
indeed
the
result
that
you
want
in
the
end,
the.
A
F
There
are
publications
that
have
addressed
it:
preservation,
Utah
when
they
were
called
Utah
Heritage
Foundation
produced
a
fabulous
pamphlet
or
book
that
that
specifically
addresses
this,
and
it's
got
little
diagrams
about
form
and
scale
and
dormers
and
all
sorts
of
stuff
I
know.
We
don't
need
to
reinvent
that
here
tonight,
right.
C
You
were
referring
to
a
second
story
is:
is
it
critical
to
have
a
second
story?
Could
there
be
something
where
it
expands
for
off
the
back
and
to
the
east?
Perhaps
you
gain
your
second
story
back
there,
something
to
break
up
the
masses
or
get
the
space
and
I
can
understand
your
your
description
of
why
you
need
more
space
makes
perfect
sense,
but
there
might
need
to
be
some
exploration
of
some
other
directions
that
you'd
go
and
David's
reference
to
the
the
state
documents
might
be
might
be
helpful,
I
think
again,
referring
attachment
D.
C
A
F
G
F
G
Couple
of
other
things
that
just
for
clarification
to
know
the
direction
to
go,
and
thank
you
for
that,
so
they're
to
the
back
of
the
property.
If
there
was
some
conversation
previously
with
one
of
the
planners
about
the
option
of
using
the
back
to
go
up
since
the
height
in
that
area
is
45
feet,
which
is
big
and
just
to
the
back
of
the
property.
A
couple
of
concerns.
G
So
we
are,
we
are
210
feet
from
our
building
to
the
back
of
the
Freese
building,
we're
an
additional,
probably
75
yards
or
another
50
yards
out
to
the
street.
So
the
sewer
system,
with
the
drop
comes
in
at
the
back
of
the
original
house,
so
to
add
the
sewer
system
back,
if
we
add
it
on
to
the
to
the
addition
to
this
house
and
the
backyard,
the
drop
is
already
what's
the
drop
of
the
sewer
well,.
C
Architects
really
or
narc
civil
engineering,
yet
just
same
as
if
you
were
building
on
a
lot,
that's
drops
below
a
street
level.
You
might
require
a
sewage
pump
vertical
pump
to
get
the
elevation
to
drop
it
back
to
your
existing
line.
You
know
those
are
not
as
scary
as
they
sound
they're
used
all
the
time
and
in
slow
plots
so
that
that's
a
technical
issue
that
can
be
dealt
with.
A
Ultimately,
setbacks
aren't
that
big
of
an
issue
if
the
front
part
of
the
project
maintains
or
somehow
retains
bungalow
in
its
current
form
the
idea
that
we
may
declassify
or
change
the
contributing,
staffs
and
status.
That
sure
is
that
a
possibility
is
because
I
I
think
that
this
building
was
included
to
the
building
in
front
of
Freese
mansion
and
unless
the
Freese
mansion
changes
that
I
don't
know.
What's
the
path.
G
The
other
question
so
that
the
place
to
do
in
addition
up
is:
is
there
any
movement
from
it
being
to
the
north
of
the
existing
so
to
take
in
so
about
half
way
to
the
the
first
initial
building,
there's
a
chimney,
and
so
that
takes
up
whatever
12
feet
of
the
of
the
trophy
yeah
but
twelve
feet?
Is
there
a
chance
to
go
up,
leaving
the
front
half
of
the
original
house
and
start
with
a
second-story
addition
there?
Instead
of
going
to
the
back
of
the
original
building,
I'm.
F
G
F
I
There
is
nothing
that
I
know
of
about
this
house
that
gives
it
a
historic
designation
in
itself.
It
is
not
that
significant,
it
is
not
significant,
it's
only
as
a
contributing
structure,
so
we're
not
tearing
the
house
down
we're,
not
messing
with
it,
so
that
it
doesn't
have
any
of
the
look.
In
fact,
we
made
every
effort
to
hold
as
much
of
it
as
we
can
and
yet
make
it
livable.
I
F
A
F
C
J
G
J
A
A
A
H
A
Possibly
that
the
idea
of
you
going
down
doing
a
bigger
basement
or
adding
a
second-story
addition
to
the
rear
of
the
building
seems
to
be
an
option.
The
materials
that
we're
using.
We
were
trying
to
salvage
as
much
of
the
wood
siding
that
exists
now
and
move
it
around
to
to
more
visible
sides
and
use
that
material
and
keep
it.
A
C
Were
fine
with
that
in
the
guidelines
there
it
addresses
specifically
materials
that
are
recommended
in
historical
applications.
For
this
kind
of
thing
you
know
you
don't
have
to
in,
we
would
encourage
reuse
of
materials
where
possible.
You
know
we
don't
want
to
move
into.
Hypotheticals
may
give
you
yeses
her
knows
until
we
have
more
more
information,
but
we're
certainly
open
to
that.
Isn't
recreating.
C
C
Again
was,
as
David
said,
we
can't,
we
can't
tell
you
definitive
things
based
upon
hypotheticals
right,
but
I.
Think,
basically
you
your
your
your
understanding
of
what
we're
saying,
I
think
is
pretty
accurate.
We
need
to
be
something
that's
secondary
to
the
existing
structure
respects
its
appearance,
its
volumes.
K
It
never
looks
historical,
so
and,
and,
and
the
other
part
to
this
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
certain
that
the
couple
knows
this
in
order
to
add
the
second
story:
you're
gonna
have
to
go
down
to
the
footing
and
foundations
to
strengthen
bad
so
that,
because
it
wasn't
ever
made
to
have
that
additional
live
load,
plus
the
dead
load
of
a
new
roof,
even
higher.
So
that's
that's
not
that's
not
just
building.
On
top.
K
That's
going
all
the
way
down
to
the
dirt,
strengthening
that
and
then
building
it
back
up,
which
you
know
for
an
800
square
foot
house
there's.
You
know
you
can
have
to
find
a
new
place
to
live.
Well,
while
this
would
have
gone
on,
you
know,
I'm
saying
so,
so
the
notion
then,
of
building
more
space,
and
certainly
you
know,
I-
understand
the
need
for
more
space
there.
There
might
be
a
better
way
to
build
more
space
and
maintain
that
bungalow.
Look.
K
You
know
to
an
old
building
and
a
new
building
that
that
you
know
or
juxtapose
from
each
other
and
there's
some
kind
of
dialogue
between
the
two
buildings
and
it's
very
definite
to
see
the
older
building
in
the
newer
building.
But
not
this
once
once
that
happens,
then
then
it's
not
either
the
world
is.