►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - June 06, 2019
Description
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission
B
Wanted
to
announce
that
Salt
Lake
City
Department
of
Public
Utilities
requested
yesterday
afternoon
to
postpone
the
public
hearing
for
the
pump
house
on
4,000.
The
4th
Avenue
well
scheduled
for
tonight,
and
the
reason
being
is
that
on
Tuesday
now
Tuesday
night,
the
Salt
Lake
City
Council
unanimously
voted
to
approve
the
funding
for
the
well
contingent
on
certain
additional
work
and
and.
B
So
they
did
decide
to
postpone
that
item
this
evening
until
that
is
resolved.
So
it
could
be.
This
fall
we're
not
sure,
but
that
item
will
not
be
on
the
agenda.
This
evening,
planning
tried
to
make
sure
that
we
changed
our
agenda
posted
the
site,
sent
out
notice
on
Constant
Contact,
that's
sort
of
a
listserv
that
goes
out.
So
if
any
folks
are
here
and
didn't
hear
about
that
item
being
postponed.
A
I'd
like
to
start
by
reading
a
statement
regarding
the
Historic
Landmarks
Commission
and
what
we
do
in
our
process,
and
it
says
the
Historic
Landmarks
Commission
is
made
up
of
citizens
of
the
city
who
are
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
confirmed
by
the
City
Council.
The
Commission
primarily
does
three
things:
one.
We
make
recommendations
to
the
City
Council
on
policies
and
ordinances
related
to
preservation
in
Salt,
Lake
City.
This
includes
the
designation
of
local
historic
districts
in
landmark
sites.
A
Two,
as
a
certified
local
government
provide
input
to
the
Utah
State
Historical
Historic
Preservation
Office
Schiphol,
regarding
National
Register
nominations
within
the
city
and
three
we
are
also
charged
with
reviewing
and
making
decisions
on
land
use,
applications
for
properties
that
are
located
within
the
historic
preservation
overlay
district.
This
includes
design
review
of
building
alterations,
demolitions,
economic
hardship,
requests,
construction
of
new
buildings,
special
exceptions
and
historic
building
relocation.
A
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?
The
role
of
you
is
the
public
is
to
help
us
identify
the
issues
and
impacts
of
a
proposed
project
and
provide
input
on
how
you
think
the
project
complies
with
or
does
not
comply
with.
A
The
standards
of
review
for
which
the
Historic
Landmarks
Commission
has
authority
over
on
items
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.
We
ask
that
those
in
attendance-
it's
here
too
a
few
ground
rules,
silence
or
turn
off
your
cell
phones,
respect
the
person
speaking
and
do
not
interrupt
cheer,
clap
boo
or
do
other
things
that
could
intimidate
or
deter
others
from
exercising
their
right
to
be
heard.
A
You
may
be
asked
to
leave
the
meeting
if
your
actions
discourage
others
from
engaging
the
Commission.
If
you
wish
to
the
speak,
you
will
be
called
up
then
come
to
the
microphone
and
state
your
name.
You
have
two
minutes
to
get
your
thoughts
out.
Your
time
cannot
be
combined
with
someone
else's
time.
Everyone
will
get
the
same
amount
of
time
to
speak
so
that
we
can
ensure
everyone
is
treated
equally.
A
D
A
F
A
C
A
E
Explanation
a
couple
of
years
ago,
the
city
sponsored
a
window
rehabilitation
workshop
presented
by
Bob
Yap,
who
quite
a
knowledgeable
and
experienced
building
preservation,
guru,
and
this
week,
they've
been
having
another
set
of
workshops.
We've
been
hosting
them
at
the
University
and
the
historic
Stewart
building.
E
If
you're
interested
in
seeing
a
renovated
100
year
old,
double
hung
window
that
moves
up
and
down.
Just
like
it's
supposed
to
you're
welcome
to
come
up.
Give
me
a
call
and
I'll
arrange
to
get
you
in
to
the
location
where
it
is.
It's
very.
It's
worth
the
experience
just
to
see
it
moving
up
and
down
gliding
the
way
it's
supposed
to
thanks.
A
D
H
G
This
request
is,
it
was
made
by
Natalie
Johnson,
representing
the
property
owner
to
approve
paint
already
applied
to
three
facades
of
the
masonry
building
located
at
171
West
300
North.
The
building
is
a
walk-up
apartment
with
brick
on
all
facades
and
flagstone,
highlighting
the
entrances
it
was
constructed
in
1950
and
is
an
example
of
a
post-war
modern
architecture
style.
The
building
is
considered
contributing
to
the
Capitol
Hill,
local,
historic
district
and
that's
the
front
facade
of
the
building.
G
Before
the
plain
the
paint
was
applied,
the
paint
was
applied
to
the
front
and
side
facades
of
the
building
and
to
the
flagstone
on
the
two
entrances.
The
rear
facade
was
left
unpainted,
so
I'll
go
back
this
one.
You
can
see
the
front
and
one
of
the
sides
this
one
is
the
corner
side
also
facing
the
street
in
the
rear
of
the
building.
G
The
city's
adopted
design
guidelines
for
historic
apartments
and
multifamily
buildings
and
design
guidelines
for
historic
residential
properties,
specifically
state
that
painting
may
serene
that
was
not
painted
traditionally
should
be
avoided.
Paint
obscures
the
character
of
the
building,
which
is
in
its
form
as
much
as
it
is
in
the
construction
material.
G
The
color
of
the
brick
and
contrast
with
the
light
mortar
in
the
stone
reflects
the
traditional
Main,
Street
construction
of
historic
apartment,
buildings
in
the
city
and
contributes
the
historic
character
of
the
neighborhood
pain,
also
causes
extensive
damages
to
the
macer
II
overtime,
because
it
traps
moisture
that
would
naturally
evaporate
from
the
material.
This
deterioration
puts
at
risk
the
integrity
of
the
building
and
to
the
masonry
itself.
So,
based
on
the
analysis
and
the
findings
outlined
in
my
staff
report,
I'm
recommending
that
the
Commission
denied
the
request
I
have.
J
G
J
G
B
J
A
C
F
E
G
H
B
A
K
K
A
chairperson
and
committee,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention
and
caring
for
the
built
environment
of
Salt
Lake
City
our
attention.
Our
intention
is
to
improve
properties
and
create
sustainable
living
environments
for
residents
in
the
Salt
Lake
community.
Throughout
our
ownership
of
the
arches.
Since
2015,
we
have
been
improving
the
buildings
and
neglected
mechanical
interior
needs
and
take
a
sense
of
responsibility.
In
doing
so.
To
further
this
improvement,
we
decided
to
apply
exterior
paint
that
would
revive
the
property's
appearance
without
any
intention
of
distracting
from
or
otherwise
degrading
the
architectural
context
of
the
property.
K
In
fact,
of
the
apartment
to
be
owned
in
downtown
Salt
Lake,
the
arches
happens
to
be
one
of
the
newer
ones.
We
are
currently
underway
on
a
substantial
into
your
exterior
preservation
of
the
Hillcrest
apartments,
a
century-old
hundred
11
unit
apartment
building
on
1st
Ave
and
at
the
Kensington
Apartments,
another
century-old
property
consisting
of
seven
sixty
four
units.
Excuse
me
at
one
on
180
North,
Main
Street.
We
are
adding
a
new
roof
and
installing
air
conditioning
for
residents
to
withstand
the
summer
months.
K
Clearly,
historical
rehabbed,
a
historic
rehabilitation
work
is
our
passion
and
we
take
seriously
the
commitment
to
preserving
its
character.
Ultimately,
it
is
within
our
name
in
an
effort
to
do
things
right.
We
frankly
made
a
mistake
in
interpretation
that
was
provided
by
your
staff,
knowing
that
the
property
was
not
a
landmark
Speight.
Specifically,
we
were
incorrect
in
our.
K
We
were
incorrect,
specifically
in
our
interpretation
of
the
arches
contributing
status
within
the
Capitol
Hill
historic
overlay,
upon
our
view
of
the
zoning
code
in
the
context
of
a
non
landmark,
but
still
contributing
site
it
being
older
than
50
years.
Apparently,
we
did
not
see
the
painting
as
a
description
per
chapter
xxi,
a
34
o
0,
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
required
of
the
zoning
code
that
warranted
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
further
in
the
same
chapter,
section
G
standards
for
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
altercation,
of
an
existing
landmark
site
of
contributing
structure,
etc,
etc.
K
Item
9
contemporary
design
for
alterations
and
additions
to
existing
properties
shall
not
be
discouraged
when
such
alterations
and
additions
do
not
destroy
significant
cultural,
historical,
architectural
or
archaeological
material,
and
such
design
is
compatible
with
the
size,
scale.
Color
and
material
and
character
of
the
property,
neighborhood
or
environment.
K
K
That
is
now
a
light
blue
color
and
this
reinforced
our
interpretation
of
painting
the
property
as
a
non-issue
working
with
historical
properties,
is
something
we
take
seriously
and
as
such,
we
have
spent
our
own
resources
to
find
an
appropriate
method
of
removal
and,
if
had
a
small
area
of
paint
removed
as
a
sample.
Unfortunately,
this
process
is
far
from
perfect,
leaving
a
significant
amount
of
white
paint
still
in
the
brick
and
as
such
have
we
have
not
had
any
contractor
willing
to
formally
bid
here's
some
example
for
you.
K
We
have
not
had
any
contractor
willing
to
formally
bid
the
project
as
the
finished
project
would
actually
not
resemble
the
original
brick
without
being
further
in
violation
of
the
code
I
using
chemicals
or
sandblasting,
which
again
is
in
the
zoning
code.
As
we
read
it,
the
process
is
so
prohibitively
expensive
upwards
of
$80,000
for
this
this
job
roughly.
K
This
cost
would
simply
be
prohibitive
and
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
move
forward
with
doing
so,
let
alone
really
any
considerable
maintenance,
considering
the
cost
of
what
it
would
cause
to
remove.
We
see
the
need
of
quality.
Housing
is
paramount
to
the
community's
continued
success
and
know
the
importance
of
providing
physical
environments
that
bestow
a
sense
of
place
to
us
all
by
rehabilitating
older
obsolescent
properties.
K
We
are
hoping
to
do
our
part
in
creating
better
places
that
are
more
affordable
alternative
for
people
to
live
in,
but
spending
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
remove
paint
at
worst.
Is
it
worst
and
inefficient
use
of
resources
and
at
best,
an
extremely
harsh
penalty,
especially
when
the
end
product
will
still
not
likely
be?
What
was
there
before?
We
realized
that
we
have
made
in
your
eyes
a
mistake,
one
that,
as
a
former
student
of
city
of
the
city
of
Metropolitan,
Planning
Department
at
the
you
just
a
few
blocks
away.
K
J
D
My
ARA
contacted
Shippo
and
and
got
some
suggestions
on
how
we
could
remove
the
paint.
There
was
one
specific
one:
the
PR
it's
like
Prosecco
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
say
it,
which
is
a
chemical
that's
supposed
to
remove
the
paint
without
damaging
the
brick.
So
we
applied
that
left
it
you
know,
use
steam
to
try
to
get
it
off
applied
more.
So
we
went
through
that
process
several
times.
D
The
painter
that
painted
it
for
us
said
that
he
had
back
rolled
it
into
every
I
mean
you
can
see
this
as
the
brick,
that's
very
textured
and
that
he
had
back
rolled
it
very
much
into
that
to
get
a
good
finish
on
it
and
that
he
didn't
feel
like
we'd
be
able
to
get
it
off
effectively.
But
we
used
the
process
that
was
suggested
by
and.
D
E
F
M
M
D
K
K
M
K
A
K
L
I
had
not
planned
it,
my
name
is
Cindy
Cromer
and
I
had
not
plan
to
speak
on
this
item,
because
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be
more
straightforward
than
it
is.
But
this
is
a
raked
face.
Brick
apparently
and
I
do
have
experience
with
Rick
face
brick,
and
that
is
complicating
the
situation
considerably.
L
I
would
not
be
comfortable
accepting
a
contractor
application
for
paint
removal
or
unless
it
was
one
of
the
recognized
experts.
Those
are
identifiable
I'm
not
going
to
speak
about
their
names
publicly,
but
they
are
well-known
in
this
community.
They
are
well
recognized
and
there's
more
than
one,
and
unless
they
did
the
work,
I
probably
would
say
not
good
enough.
L
So
this
made
a
vulnerable,
brick,
more
vulnerable
and
and
that's
highly
problematic,
and
it's
also
very
very
much
harder
to
remove
the
paint
from
a
rake
face
brick.
So
this
is
really
a
double
whammy
in
terms
of
trying
to
find
their
way
through.
This
I
think
it's
absolutely
essential
to
have
a
test
sample
by
a
highly
qualified
contractor
on
the
stonework.
It
really
has
removed
the
character
of
this
building
by
painting
the
stone
and
I
think
that's
essential
before
you
make
a
decision
is
to
get
a
test
strip
on
the
stone
thanks.
Thank.
D
My
name
is
Sarah
Schultz
and
I
live
on
the
same
block
as
this
property.
Ira
live
around
the
corner.
I
just
wanted
to
state
my
sadness
when
I
realized
that
the
building
was
being
painted
as
they
started.
It
has
changed
from
a
historic
looking
building
to
a
modern
looking
building.
I
am
not
wholly
against.
D
Significantly
changed
the
character
of
the
building
and,
while
I
acknowledged
that
my
neighbor
to
the
south,
who
lives
a
couple
doors
down
for
me,
did
paint
her
house
bright,
blue
I
do
not
know
if
that
building
has
historic
status
or
not
as
many
homes
and
buildings
on
our
block
have
mixed
statuses.
Some
are
new.
Some
are
old
and
I,
don't
know
what
the
best
remediation
for
this
is,
whether
it
should
be
approved
or
not,
but
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
it
was
very
sad
indeed
to
see
such
beautiful
brick
being
painted
over.
A
K
I
think
one
point
that
I
just
want
to
make
clear
as
well
is
that
we
we
certainly
want
to
work
with
with
the
Commission
to
find
something
some
whether
that
is
root.
You
know
understanding
going
back
to
see
what
we
may
or
may
not
have
done
to
using
a
best
contract
or
a
best
practice
or
an
otherwise
better
material
ie,
removing
what's
there
on
the
stone
on
the
facade
just
around
the
doorways,
for
example,
I
just
yeah
I.
K
E
This
brick
is
challenging
I
think
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
The
textured
primary
amongst
them
I
think
that
the
painting
of
the
stone
is
another
is
a
parallel
issue
that
we
ought
to
be
thinking
about
here,
but
I
I
do
appreciate
the
recommendation
of
that
was
stated
here
from
the
public
about
test
stripping
by
experienced
masonry
cleaning
contractors.
You
know
with
those
experience
to
see
what's
feasible,
either
on
both
materials.
I.
J
Just
want
I
like
that
idea.
A
lot
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
I
wish
we
had
the
option
of
a
fine,
because
I'm
concerned
that
ultimately
we're
going
to
end
up
doing
more
damage
than
good
by
having
it
stripped,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
set
a
precedent
that
people
can
just
paint
it
and
say
whoops,
it's
too
damaging
to
remove
it.
So
now,
you're
stuck
with
it
right.
D
J
I'm
not
sure
if
fine
is
an
option
but
I
think
that
might
be
a
that
might
be
a
deterrent
to
people
from
doing
this
in
the.
But
on
the
other
hand
it
sounds
like
they
did
it
without
realizing
so
I,
don't
know,
I
think
it's
complicated,
because
I
think
you
might
be
damaging
it
more.
If
you're
moving
yeah.
E
C
N
F
B
F
I've
heard
city
officials
say
many
many
times
that
the
historic
landmark
ordinance
does
not
prevent
or
owners
from
changing
the
color
of
their
building
and
I
think
it
would
be
totally
reasonable
to
interpret
that
statement
as
permitting
pain
of
a
brick
building.
So
I
also
am
really
appreciative
of
the
contrition
that
the
applicant
has
expressed.
I
mean
they're
not
coming
in
here
and
telling
us
that
we're
wrong
or
that
the
city
is
wrong.
F
F
D
F
Just
one
one
other
thing
that
I
forgot
to
mention
it
to
me.
The
the
strict
application
of
the
design
guideline
makes
a
lot
more
sense
to
me
when
the
building
itself
is
a
masonry
structure
where,
if
the
brick
fails,
the
building
will
collapse
and
we
have
a
lot
of
those
buildings.
I
live
in
one
of
them
and
I
did
the
very
expensive
paint
removal
process
in
my
house,
but
here
where
it
is
a
just
a
veneer
where
the
the
failing
of
the
of
the
exterior
will
not
affect
the
integrity.
E
Don't
know
you
know
we
can't
none
of
us
have
x-ray
vision.
I
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
it
was
a
URM,
though
in
there
and
I.
Think,
though,
the
issue
isn't,
if
the
building's
going
to
fall
down,
if
the
brick
fails,
the
brick
face
of
the
brick
fails,
I
think
it's
it's
the
lack
of
preservation
of
that
brick
face
and
that
and
the
deterioration
that
that
causes
I
think
we
had
the
comments
again
from
the
public
about
about
this
brick.
E
You
know
brick
like
this
I
should
say
not
necessarily
this
brick
surface
falling
under
freeze,
thought
conditions
and
so
I
think
I
mean
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
let's
get
I
think
the
recommendation
should
be.
Let's
get
good
professional
information
here
on
what
what
does
the
paint
done
to
the
brick
I?
Think?
That's
one
question:
it's
kind
of
nice
that
we
have
in
a
way
the
back
of
the
building
that
hasn't
been
painted.
It
can
be
tested,
the
painted
brick
can
be
tested,
the
painted
brick
can
be
test
strip
and
tested.
D
So
I
agree
with
what
everything
has
been
said:
I
think
I'm
leaning
more
toward
having
it
removed
because
I've
seen
it
done
and
I
know
it's
red
brick.
But
this
the
particular
property
that
comes
to
mind
is
also
red,
brick
and
it
was
done
by
one
person.
It
was
his
home
and
so
I
know
that
it
can
be
done.
A
C
I'm
kind
of
concerned
about
us
being
thought
of
setting
a
precedent
if
we
approve
this
painting,
I
think
the
precedent
that
needs
to
be
worked
on
is
the
city
enforcing
its
rules
and
regulations
before
it
gets
to
this
place
and
a
little
like
Paul
and
some
others,
maybe
I
think
I'll
never
be
happy.
Seeing
this
building
stripped
down
I
think
that's
almost
a
waste
of
time
and
money,
we'll
never
have
what
was
there.
C
This
is
an
enforcement
situation
that
should
have
been
stopped
before
it
got
to
this
Commission
in
my
opinion,
and
we're
not
setting
any
precedent
by
trying
to
helped
some
developers,
obviously
in
the
right
direction
in
life
and
their
business
pursuits
and
and
getting
something
out
of
this,
because
it
just
gets
to
be
a
bigger
problem
and
expense
and
for
everybody,
including
the
precedent
people
it
just
shouldn't
ever
get
here
now
that
it
is,
let's
make
the
best
again
of
it.
That's
why
I
look
at
miss.
A
B
And
to
speak
to
commissioner
Adams
about
the
city's
enforcement.
Certainly
I
probably
stated
this
at
other
meetings.
The
city
doesn't
go
around
necessarily
and
look
for
zoning
enforcement
cases.
Okay,
it's
we
are
informed
from
the
public
to
check
in
to
zoning
enforcement
or
building
enforcement
cases.
We
do
not
have
the
resources
to
go
block
by
block
street
by
street
to
an
enforce
on
folks.
I.
D
Just
add
to
that,
on
the
same
note,
we
look
at
the
cases
case
by
case,
so
we
can't
really
just
blanket
agree
on
every
case.
It's
just
this
is
what
we're
seeing
right
now
and
based
on
this
particular
case.
This
is
how,
especially
this
is,
how
I
feel
about
what's
being
presented.
Here
is
yes,
a
mistake
was
made,
but
given
what
we
have
to
we've,
given
what
we
have
to
review
this
on
I,
don't
see
I,
don't
think
it
should
move
forward
as,
as
is
it
needs
to
be
fixed.
A
A
M
Pile
onto
that
I
think
it
should
be
by
a
qualified
masonry
contractor
and
I
looked
on
preservation,
Utah's
website
they
have
a
directory
of
resources.
There
were
for
masonry
contractors
listed
on
there,
I
recognized
two
of
them,
so
I.
Imagine
that
maybe
one
or
more
those
people
could
write
a
report
so.
A
J
M
J
A
C
A
O
N
N
J
N
For
the
delay
there,
thank
you.
This
is
an
appeal
for
fifty
five
North
Virginia
straight
I
also
wanted
to
note
that
there
was
one
additional
public
comment
that
was
added
to
your
Dropbox
folder
I'm,
just
prior
to
the
meeting.
So
this
is
an
appeal
of
an
administrative
coa,
an
administrative
special
exception.
It's
a
special
exception
for
the
replacement
of
a
non-complying
accessory
structure
and
additional
height,
and
also
a
coa
for
the
replacement
garage
and
then
the
related
improvements.
N
N
Sorry,
just
getting
a
little
confused
there,
so
the
property
is
located
at
the
I
deleted.
A
slide
I
had
a
location
slide
in
there.
The
property
is
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
Virginia
and
1st
Avenue.
The
front
of
the
house
faces
Virginia
Street
and
then
the
garage
is
located
in
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property
and
then
the
appellant
property
is
located
to
the
west.
N
So,
on
this
slide
here
the
top
photo
shows
the
front
of
the
garage
facing
west
towards
the
rear
of
the
property,
and
then
the
bottom
photo
is
taken
from
the
sidewalk
on
First
Avenue,
and
you
can
see
the
garage
and
the
proximity
to
the
principal
structure
on
the
appellant
property.
So,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
request
is
for
the
replacement
of
the
existing
non-complying
accessory
structure
and
also
additional
height.
The
existing
garage
is
located
approximately
3
feet
from
the
neighboring
property.
It
appears
to
be
constructed
on
the
property
line.
N
N
The
existing
garage
is
approximately
19
and
a
half
feet
by
25
feet,
and
then
the
proposed
is
20
by
25,
both
of
which
are
slightly
over
the
maximum
480
feet.
That's
that's
permitted
and
then
the
existing
wall
height
is
between
7
and
8
feet,
and
then
the
proposed
is
10
feet
going
back
to
the
appellant
property.
The
left
photo
shows
the
rear
extension
of
the
garage
and
the
existing
retaining
wall,
and
then
the
right
photo
shows
the
principal
structure
on
the
left
and
the
existing
garage
and
the
retaining
wall
on
the
right.
N
There's
approximately
3
feet
between
the
two,
the
appellant
has
had
the
property
surveyed,
and
the
survey
showed
that
the
property
line
is
approximately
1
foot
to
the
east
of
the
current
wall.
You
can
see
that
with
the
stake
and
the
orange
flag
and
the
photo
on
the
left,
any
boundary
survey
issue
as
a
matter
between
the
two
property
owners.
Not
the
city
and
the
city
would
require
any
work
that
is
done
to
be
done
on
the
applicants
property.
N
This
is
the
applicants
2016
site
plan
that
shows
the
location
of
the
proposed
garage
on
the
property
and
then
elevations
that
show
a
maximum
height
for
the
garage
of
17
feet
and
then
a
wall
height
of
10
feet.
Then
you
can
see
in
the
lower
right
that
the
back
of
the
wall
is
sloped
and
proximately,
the
back
six
and
a
half
feet
of
the
structure
and
that's
sloped
downward
to
lessen
the
impact
to
the
neighboring
property
and
also
have
more
of
a
similar
appearance
to
the
existing
structure.
N
So
as
far
as
considerations
for
the
Commission
this
evening,
the
administrative
decision
is
appealed
to
the
Historic
Landmark
Commission.
The
appeal
is
de
novo,
we're
starting
from
the
beginning,
so
the
Commission
can
review
all
aspects
of
the
decision
and
make
conditions
that
are
applicable
to
the
proposal.
N
Another
thing
is
to
consider
whether
there's
compliance
with
a
special
exception
for
replacement
of
a
non-complying
accessory
structure
and
request
for
additional
height,
and
is
there
any
new
non-compliance?
I
don't
want
to
go
over,
go
through
every
single
one
of
these,
but
I
wanted
to
highlight
that
these
are
the
two
special
exception
standards.
The
first
four
accessory
building
height
and
then
the
second
for
replacement
of
a
non-complying
accessory
structure
and
as
far
as
key
issues
of
the
appeal
there's
a
question.
N
The
garage,
the
appellant
is
stating
that
the
garage
addition
should
not
be
included
and
that
there's
substantial
impairment
of
property
value
things
to
consider
here
that
the
garage
is
existing
and
that
the
extension
was
likely
added
later,
but
has
been
there
for
quite
some
time
in
his
access
from
the
interior.
The
garage
staffs
contention
is
that
it
is
part
of
the
footprint
of
the
garage
and
then
including
it
does
not
create
a
new
impact
on
the
property.
N
N
The
staffs
contention
is
that
the
required
notice
procedure
was
filed
as
part
of
the
application
and
that
the
generally
flat-roofed
portion
of
the
garage
is
part
of
the
structure
and
then
the
third
issue
for
the
appeal
is
process.
Clarification
and
the
appellant
contends
that
the
negative
impacts
were
not
considered,
and
then
it's
unclear
as
to
whether
the
2016
modifications
were
carried
forward
and
stating
that
the
2018
approval
is
the
same
as
the
2016
approval.
N
I
didn't
want
to
point
out
a
few
additional
considerations,
the
first
being
location
in
the
period
since
the
decision
was
issued
and
come
to.
This
hearing
have
had
some
discussions
with
the
appellant
and
the
applicant,
and
the
applicant
has
stated
that
he
was
willing
to
place
the
retaining
wall
on
the
east
side
of
the
property
line
and
then
have
a
1
foot
setback
from
that
property
line.
E
E
N
N
A
N
N
Didn't
have
too
many
details
on
there.
So
as
far
as
location,
we
talked
with
the
applicant,
and
so
the
location
would
be
that
the
retaining
wall
would
be
built
on
the
east
side.
So
on
his
side
of
the
property,
and
then
the
applicant
has
said,
they'd
use
a
1/8
inch,
concrete
block
for
the
wall
and
then
setback
the
garage,
a
foot
from
the
edge
of
that
concrete
block
wall.
So
that
would
be
the
location
as
far
as
height.
N
The
applicant
has
stated
that
he
was
willing
to
have
a
maximum
height
of
15
feet
so
to
the
peak
of
the
roof,
and
then
the
wall
height
right
now
is
proposed
at
10
feet
and
so
that
you'd
be
willing
to
decrease
the
wall
height
to
8
feet.
And
then,
as
we
just
stated,
have
the
retaining
wall
have
that
maximum
height
of
4
feet
along
the
rear
property
line
and.
E
N
A
N
Rear
of
the
garage,
so
that
proposed,
would
have
that
maximum
height
of
fifteen
feet,
and
then
it
would
taper,
as
you
can
see,
on
this
elevation
drawing
in
the
last
six-and-a-half
feet
of
it
and
so
that
the
roof
that's
there
right
now
is
generally
flat.
So
it
would
be
a
little
bit
taller
than
what's
there
right
now,
but
it
would
still
be
probably
two
or
three
feet
shorter
than
the
special
exception
that
was
approved.
F
P
F
P
O
P
A
So
is
what's
being
proposed
with
this
current
negotiated
Darden.
Maybe
that's
not
the
right
word,
but
that
discussion
changes
have
been
discussed.
How
does
the
overall
size
of
that
compare
to
existing
it's
the
footprint
the
same
and
then
shifted
or
is
the
footprint
reduced
same
and
shifted
height
is
the
same.
A
N
F
D
A
A
A
Q
Thank
you,
chairperson
and
members
of
the
Commission
I
want
to
give
everyone
a
little
bit
of
background,
because
this
is
something
I've
been
working
on
for
a
long
time.
I
started
talking
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
members
of
the
Preservation
Committee
in
2015
I
met
with
Carl
Leith
with
Anthony
reader
with
Kelsey
Lindquist.
They
came
out
as
you
could
see
in
in
one
of
the
pictures.
The
retaining
wall
is
actually
starting
to
lean
in
towards
miss
Shaw's
home.
Q
The
garage
and
and
the
retaining
wall
have
been
there
since
at
least
1950.
The
home
was
constructed
in
1926
and
the
garage
and
retaining
wall
are
there
in
in
1950
on
the
Sanborn
map
and
so
they're
old.
You
know,
we've
done
our
best
to
keep
them
up,
but
they're,
failing
and
so
I
went
to
the
city
to
explain
the
situation.
Q
The
city
wanted
plans,
and,
and
specifically
mr.
Leith,
wanted
us
to
do
everything
we
could
to
maintain
the
historical
integrity,
and
so
we
submitted
plan.
The
initial
plans
back
in
2016
were
what
requested
the
17
foot
roof.
Thereafter
the
city
indicated
it
wanted
a
15-foot
roof.
It
wanted
it
the
same
as
it
was
essentially
the
same
footprint,
so
we
actually
resubmitted
plans
and
it's
my
understanding.
I
may
be
mistaken,
but
the
certificate
or
the
approval
and
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
from
2016
I
thought
were
for
a
roof
of
15
feet.
Q
Q
So
I
had
a
number
of
plans
drawn
up.
Very
very
I
spent
a
lot
of
money
to
do
it
so
that
the
city
would
approve
it
and
again.
I
was
very
careful
submitted,
not
sure
if
it
would
be
hundreds
of
pages
of
plans,
but
all
kinds
of
of
plans,
and
as
I
indicated
it
was
approved
in
2016,
my
contractor
at
the
time
it
was
just
a
building
boom
and
he's
just
sort
of
abandoned
me.
Q
Q
Q
And
I
understand,
I,
believe
a
few
of
the
bases
or
positioned
that
miss
Shaw
took
in
or
a
pill
was
that
one
constructing
a
new
garage
would
impair
her
property
value
and
I
would
say
what
is
there
right
now
impairs
her
property
value.
A
new
garage
will
actually
increase
her
property
value
as
well
as
my
neighbors,
and
many
of
my
neighbors
are
very
anxious
for
me
to
have
that
this
project
done.
I
am
I've
got
a
seven-year-old
son
and
I
can
tell
you.
Q
My
wife
has
has
been
upset
that
we
haven't
had
a
backyard
for
him
to
play
in,
and
that's
valid.
I
also
think
that
the
way
it
is
now
it's
just
it
is
potentially
dangerous
and
all
I
want
to
do
is
get
this
project
done.
I've
worked
with
the
city
for
almost
five
years.
I've
done
absolutely
everything.
They've
asked
they've,
approved
my
project
twice
and
I'd
like
to
get
going
on
it
this
summer
and
try
to
get
it
done.
Any
questions.
O
K
N
O
D
O
C
O
I
apologize
for
that
delay
anyway,
thank
you
for
your
time,
and
energy
and
I
really
appreciate
the
work
that
the
city's
done
and
the
patience
that
mr.
Robinson
has
shown
so
I'm
here,
simply
because
I
believe
that
the
zoning
ordinance
exists
for
a
reason
and
I
really
think
that
if
you
replace
an
old
structure
with
a
new
structure,
the
new
structure
should
abide
by
code
and
that's
kind
of
the
gist
of
my
position.
O
I
I
think
what
you
feel
about
this
project
kind
of
depends
on
your
perspective,
and
my
perspective
is
that
the
process
was
really
flawed.
From
my
perspective
and
the
plans
were
very
unclear,
the
evidence
supporting
a
special
exemption
were
inaccurate
and
the
standards
were
not
met.
So
this
is
the
project.
This
is
the
same
picture
that
the
staff
showed
you
and
I
think.
What's
him.
This
is
a
view
from
first
Avenue
and
I.
Think
my
position
is
that
the
original
garage
has
a
roof
in
every
fresh
jingles
and
it
was
set
on
a
foundation.
O
The
shed
that
was
added
on
the
back
was
added
later
it's
different
work,
Burke's
midship,
it's
different
materials.
It's
a
corrugated
roof.
It's
not
insulated
and
it's
not
on
a
foundation
whether
you
call
these
two
buildings
who
are
that
are
attached,
a
garage
or
a
garage
and
a
shed
may
depend
on
how
you
feel
about
this
I
feel
like
a
garage.
O
O
So
I,
don't
argue
that
you
can
see
from
here
the
property
line
the
property
was
surveyed,
and
that's
not
a
point
of
discussion
here
tonight,
but
the
current
retaining
wall
and
the
current
back
of
the
shed
are
on
my
property,
as
as
survey
has
showed.
Although
we
need
to
kind
of
mediate
about
that,
I
think.
O
O
O
O
O
To
in
the
report,
I
believe
it's
a
fire
map
and
the
fireman
had
a
reason
to
locate
structures
accurately
I
believe
this
shows
that
the
garage
was
there.
The
shed
was
not
I
think
that,
based
on
the
shape
of
the
accessory
building
and
the
fact
that
it's
not
near
the
retaining
wall
or
the
property
line
indicates
that
this
is
my
issue
and
I.
O
Don't
necessarily
want
to
read
it
to
you,
but
I
do
believe
that
current
zoning
ordinance
asked
two
things
when
when
new
buildings
are
are
made,
one
of
them
is
that
they
be
more
than
no
less
than
one
foot
from
a
property
line,
but
the
other
is
that
an
accessory
structure
must
be
ten
feet
from
a
primary
residence.
This
is
perhaps
my
greatest
concern
and
what
I've
always
disliked
about
the
current
arrangement
so.
O
Aside
from
issues
of
standards,
I
do
believe
they're
issues
of
precedence
on
our
block.
There
has
been
a
renovation
of
a
home
recently
which
was
replacement
of
a
shed
with
a
garage
as
part
of
negotiations
with
the
city
that
property
owner
was
asked
to
place
his
garage
ten
feet
from
a
neighboring
residence
and
that's
what
I
would
like
to
have
happen
to
so
this.
O
O
I
think
there's
significant
concerns
regarding
fire
hazard
and
safety.
It
is
impossible
to
get
a
ladder
from
the
east
side
of
my
property.
Up
to
the
second
floor
of
my
home,
there
are
drainage
issues.
My
home
was
built
in
1910.
It
has
a
sandstone
foundation.
There
is
easily
water
coming
through
there
and
drainage
is
a
concern.
O
I
question
some
compatibility
issues.
The
reason
I
would
say
that
is
there
are
no
other
garages
on
the
block
that
are
quite
this
size
and
there
are
no
structures
on
the
block
or
in
neighboring
blocks.
That
are
quite
this
close
to
one
another
I'm
ferret
somewhat
concerned
about
the
issue
of
pollution
and
the
idea
of
car
exhaust
being
three
feet
from
my
windows,
one
of
which
we
have
a
disabled
daughter
who
lives
in
one
of
those
rooms
and
I,
don't
know
if
the
plans
are
compliant
with
other
standards.
I'll
just
be
honest
about
that.
O
O
The
aerial
photograph
that
was
provided
with
the
city's
notice
was
misleading
and
I
will
show
that
to
you
shortly
the
site
visit.
There
was
one
site
visit
done
in
2016,
and
that
was
on
mr.
Robinson's
property.
It
was
not
online,
it
feels
as
if
you
might
think.
If
you
stood
on
his
property,
you
might
say:
okay,
I
think
I
get
this.
He
needs
a
garage.
If
you
stood
on
my
property,
you
might
feel
differently
about
the
distance
issue.
O
I
had
complicated
and
confusing
and
conflicting
emails
from
staff,
so
I
couldn't
understand
really
what
what
was
the
old
plan?
The
new
plan,
the
negotiated
plan?
What
was
a
real
verbal
drawing
I
could
believe
in
what
was
kind
of
I
mean
a
real
architectural
drawing
versus
just
a
statement,
and
the
fact
that
we
haven't
had
complete
architectural
drawings
have
hindered
a
fully
informed
understanding
of
what
this
is,
for
instance.
What
is
that,
if
he's
doing
an
Yvonne
the
back?
How
far
does
it
extend
toward
my
home
if
the
back
roof
is
raised?
O
Is
that
two
feet
three
feet
or
four
feet?
That's
what
I
look
at
this
is
an
example
of
the
notice
that
we
did
receive
from
the
city
and,
if
you
look
carefully
at
it,
you
would
believe
that
the
garage
is
the
subject
that
is
being
discussed.
The
yellow
line
crosses
over
the
attach
shed
and
does
not
cover
the
retaining
wall.
O
In
summary,
I
really
am
NOT
asking
mr.
Robinson
to
not
build
I'm,
not
asking
him
to
move
it.
I
I,
really,
you
know,
think
there's
reasonable
space
here,
but
I
do
believe
that,
if
you're
applying
for
a
special
exemption
from
zoning,
you
kind
of
need
special
extenuating
circumstances,
a
special
reason
why
it's
not
possible
to
abide
by
zoning
and
I
can't
see
that
it-
and
maybe
you
do-
and
the
issue
of
precedent-
is
an
issue
for
me.
O
There's
a
current
precedent
in
the
neighborhood
of
this
being
workable
and
I
worry
about
the
future
precedent
we
set
for
other
people
who
want
to
build
this
closed
to
other
structures.
So
I'm
asking
you
to
consistently
enforce
this
I
suggest
that
there
are
models
in
the
neighborhood
that
are
workable,
I,
don't
believe
this
is
simply
about
replacing
a
garage,
but
it's
a
garage
and
a
shed
and
I'm
really
grateful
for
you.
Guys.
I
have
additional
photos
if
you're
interested
Thanks.
A
A
A
A
R
My
name
is
Sandra
Seacrest,
hatch,
I'm,
Jennifer's,
architect,
I've
been
working
with
her
for
15
years
or
so,
and
I
helped
her
in
understanding
the
process
and
putting
together
her
PowerPoint,
as
well
as
supplying
her
the
name
of
my
surveyor,
which,
since
we
all
were
involved
in
the
monster
home
I,
haven't
done
a
project
without
a
survey
since
then
I
think
loosely.
It
is
a
shed
I,
think
it's
more
of
a
Shack,
and
that
is
not
a
retaining
wall.
R
It's
stacks
of
Center
blocks
and
if
a
new
retaining
wall
is
put
even
if
it's
a
foot
back,
it
won't
encroach
on
her
property
in
its
installation.
So
there
has
to
be
some
negotiation
going
on
there.
I
have
done
many
many
projects
over
the
years,
and
it
has
always
been
that
if
you
tear
something
down
and
you
build
it
up,
you
have
to
do
it
according
to
zoning
and
building
requirements,
and
I
would
certainly
call
this
new
construction
as
opposed
to
a
replacement.
R
O
D
D
D
O
D
D
A
S
S
Hi
I'm
Genevieve,
Atwood
and
I'm,
the
owner
of
1216,
first
Avenue,
which
is
just
almost
directly
across
the
street,
slightly
diagonal
from
55
Virginia
and
I'm,
the
neighbor
to
1204,
first
Avenue
and
I'm
certainly
beholden
to
landmarks,
historical
preservation
for
enforcing
the
rules
at
my
property,
which
was
next
1204,
so
1204
isn't
an
exact
parallel.
It
had
a
garage
closer
to
the
1860s
Adobe
house
and
it
had
fallen
down
and
the
folks
at
1204
wanted
to
put
a
non-complying
replacement.
S
You
know
within
a
foot
of
the
property
line
and
landmarks
basically
said,
follow
the
rules
and
I
can't
remember
whether
they
said
8
foot
setback
or
whether
it
was
10
foot
setback,
but
it
makes
a
huge
difference
and
the
properties
look
terrific.
It
reinforces
the
historic
look
and
then
also
there
were
issues
with
the
wall.
So
I
would
like
to
cover
two
issues.
I
first
would
like
to
cover
the
wall.
S
S
Obviously,
if
you
will
consider
the
garage
to
be
what
everybody
thinks
is
the
garage,
it
looks
like
a
garage
acts
like
a
garage
has
a
vehicle
in
it
and
the
shed
to
be
a
shed.
It
happens
that
if
you
stand
on
the
retaining
wall,
you
can
look
into
the
shed
because
there's
a
hole
in
it,
and
you
can
see
that
the
garage
just
basically
is
a
cutout
for
the
shed.
It
can't
hold
a
car.
It's
it's
a
shed.
S
S
S
A
M
M
First
I
think
we
should
step
back
from
looking
at
footprints
a
neighbor
to
neighbor
and
instead
see
what
this
looks
like
to
the
rest
of
the
world
from
the
street
or
the
sidewalk
I
have
a
picture
pulled
from
Google
Earth.
That's
passing
around
now,
I
apologize,
it's
not
the
best
copy,
but
I
believe
you
can
see
that
with
the
retaining
wall
in
place,
which
I
understand
is
the
plan
to
replace
it.
The
lower
editions
not
visible
from
the
street
and
the
garage
looks
to
be
in
compliance
to
anyone
on
the
street
or
the
sidewalk.
M
The
plans
outlined
in
the
document,
though,
would
mean
that
the
building
would
no
longer
appear
compliant
and
would
significantly
change
the
streetscape
from
this.
It
would
give
the
appearance
of
a
new
non-compliant
building
and
appearances
are
what
this
Commission
deals
with.
My
second
issue
is
detailed
under
location
in
the
staff
report
quote.
Locating
the
garage
10
feet
from
the
appellant
property
would
require
decreasing
the
length
of
the
garage
or
moving
it
closer
to
the
applicants.
Residence
both
of
these
changes
would
decrease.
M
M
I
Hi
there
Michael
Lawler,
I'm
an
architect
and
also
a
resident
of
1st
Avenue
I
guess
the
question
I
had
looking
at
what
was
presented
was
I,
find
the
addition
very
troubling.
What
defines
an
addition
I
see.
Basically
a
lean-to
or
a
corn
crib
built
on
top
of
an
existing
retaining
wall.
I
see
a
roof
that
doesn't
have
any
structure.
That's
got
green
corrugated
plastic
sort
of
wrapped
over
it.
You
see
that
a
lot
in
Nebraska
and
Iowa,
where
I'm
from,
but
that
that's
my
main
question
and
and
as
I
look
at
the
site
plan.
I
It
looks
to
me
that,
there's
honestly,
it's
pretty
tight
for
a
two-car
garage
and
I.
Think
that's
what
you
know.
That's
what
he's
trying
to
build
and
I
can
see
why
someone
would
want
a
two-car
garage,
but
I,
don't
think
he's
even
got
the
backup
pattern
for
a
two-car
garage.
So
my
question
is:
maybe
you
know
we
need
to
relook
at
this
as,
as
maybe
a
one
car
garage
with
a
nice.
You
know
side
area
instead
of
forcing
that
back
six
foot,
eight
on
miss
Shaw
and
honestly
from
the
point
of
property
values.
I
You
know
avenues,
people
always
tell
you
that
charm
is,
is
really
what
sells
properties
and
I.
Think
honestly
having
that
garage
just
rammed
up
right
to
the
property
line,
it
just
kills
the
charm
of
his
lot
and
then
it
also
hurts
the
value
of
her
house
having
that
killing
her
natural
daylight.
So
thanks
for
listening,
thank
you.
A
Lisa
Yoder,
please,
oh
no
vco2
does
not
wish
to
speak.
Would
you
welcome
to
come
forward?
If
you
wish
okay
I'll
go
ahead
and
read
yours,
then
the
applicants
desire
to
expand
a
garage
footprint
to
that
of
an
existing
garage
plus
the
shed
structure
will
make
the
structure
too
close
to
neighboring
home.
The
applicant
has
room
to
enlarge
his
garage
on
his
own
property
without
encroaching
on
the
zoning
setback
in
creating
a
potential
safety
concerning
access
and
the
fire
break
between
homes.
L
L
This
petition
is
about
two
structures:
a
garage
with
an
attached
shed.
The
two
parts
do
not
appear
to
have
been
constructed
at
the
same
time
and
they
certainly
don't
have
the
same
level
of
workmanship.
For
decades.
My
advice
to
property
owners
has
been
to
work
with
non
complying
structures
like
garages
from
the
inside
out,
then
in
2012,
and
that's
the
handout
that's
coming
around.
This
commission,
to
my
delight,
gain
the
authority
to
reduce
setback
requirements.
L
L
It's
a
historic
structure,
I
view
the
request
as
an
abuse
of
your
authority
by
devaluing
the
adjacent
property,
especially
when
the
adjacent
structure
is
a
contributing
one
to
the
avenues.
Historic
district
I
thought
you
were
requiring
more
information
about
the
view
from
Street
scapes
in
applications,
but
I
don't
see
it
here.
It
is
seriously
lacking
in
terms
of
what
this
is
going
to
look
like
to
the
passerby
and
I
thought.
You
had
a
conversation
about
getting
more
information
on
that,
but
it's
certainly
not
evident
in
this
one
and
there's
nothing
from
the
fire
marshal.
L
The
fire
marshal
is
putting
the
kibosh
on
really
great
projects
in
this
town
and
I
cannot
imagine
that
he
will
put
his
stamp
of
approval
on
this
one.
There
is
no
question
in
my
mind,
having
lost
a
significant
part
of
the
value
of
my
residence
to
a
fire
from
a
garage
that
was
built
on
the
property
line,
non-complying
that
there's
a
big
fire
hazard
and
putting
it
up
against
the
property
line
is
a
problem
and
then
I
find
that
the
special
exception
fails
on
a
through
d
thanks.
I
disagree
with
staff.
L
Q
A
few
points
I
know
there
was
one
comment
of
following
the
rules:
I
have
very
specifically
followed
the
rules
I've
spent
as
I
indicated
several
years,
and
the
ordinance
that
addresses
accessory
structures
and-
and
my
garage
specifically
under
paragraph
four
says
that
location
of
accessory
buildings
in
rear
yard
shall
be
as
follows.
In
residential
districts,
no
accessory
building
shall
be
closer
than
one
foot
to
a
side
or
rear
lot
line,
except
when
sharing
a
common
wall.
Q
That's
what
my
proposal
is
a
foot
from
the
wall,
so
it
absolutely
does
comply
with
the
ordinance
with
respect
to
the
garage
versus
a
shed.
It's
one
structured.
They
were
built
at
different
times,
I
believe
from
what
I
understand
the
shed
has
been
there
since
the
two
sources
I've
talked
to
since
at
least
1970
or
1965.
Q
Q
With
respect
to
comments
about
the
a
10-foot
setback
issue,
there
was
a
home
across
the
street
down
on
First
Avenue
and
you
that
there
had
been
a
shed
there
at
some
point
that
had
fallen
down
when
the
current
homeowner.
Actually
the
person
who
bought
the
home
and
then
remodeled
it.
They
did
an
application
for
a
garage.
So
it
was
a
new
garage
that
was
not
existing.
A
very
different
situation
than
mine.
Q
Q
It's
not
real,
credible
to
me
to
say:
hey
I
bought
this
home
when
this
was
there.
It
didn't
bother
me
now
or
then
now
I
see
an
opportunity
to
gain
more
space.
That's
why
I'm
going
to
object.
All
I
want
to
do
is
is
follow
what
the
requirements
are.
That's
what
I've
done,
and
you
know
in
terms
of
not
being
transparent
or
notice.
I
had
people
from
the
city
come
out
to
my
home
many
many
times.
Q
I
would
say,
probably
15
to
20
times
to
discuss
plans
with
my
architects
with
my
contractors
to
make
sure
that
what
we
were
submitting
fully
complied
with
what
the
city
required,
and
we
did
that.
No,
we
did
have
to
amend
the
plans
and
again
I
did
that
over
and
over
and
over
until
I
satisfied
the
city
and,
and
they
issued
there
are
certificates
of
compliance.
Q
There
was
a
comment
about
moving
it
forward.
I
can't
move
the
garage
forward,
there's
a
statutory
set
back.
The
garage
is
pretty
close
to
my
house
and
it's
between
6
&
7
feet
from
the
house,
but
between
the
house
and
the
garage
there's
a
French
drain,
so
I
just
cannot
move
it
forward.
All
I'm
asking
is
that
the
city
or
that
the
Commission
uphold
the
city's
issuance
of
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
Q
I
want
to
make
my
neighborhood
in
my
yard,
and
my
garage
help
everybody
out
in
terms
of
property
value,
and
it
will
look
much
better.
The
plans
that
we've
submitted
are
essentially
the
same:
the
English
Tudor
style
of
my
home,
and
so
it's
not
going
to
look
like
you
know
a
modern
albatross.
It's
going
to
look
just
like
my
home.
Any
questions.
Yes,.
M
M
Q
M
Q
In
speaking
with
the
city,
initially,
first
of
all,
I
wouldn't
have
a
backyard,
but
in
speaking
with
the
city,
that's
not
something
that
they
would
have
approved.
So
we
early
on
talked
about
that,
but
I
was
told
that
that's
not
an
option,
but
if
you're
going
to
replace
it,
it
has
to
be
where
it
is
a
foot
off
the
property
line.
A
J
Oh,
my
thought
is
that
I
I'm
on
board
with
the
people
who
are
saying
that
if
you
rebuild
you
have
to
follow
the
rules
and
requirements
so
I
think
that
means
that
the
whole
garage
can't
be
one
foot
from
the
property
line.
I
think
the
garage
probably
has
to
be
rebuilt
on
its
original
footprint.
That's
my
thought.
J
M
You
bring
up
a
really
good
point
when
that
garage
was
built.
It
met.
What
would
today
be
current
zoning.
It
was
within
spitting
distance
of
ten
feet
from
the
neighbor's
house
to
provide
light
ventilation,
and
you
know
on
the
health,
safety
and
welfare,
the
neighbor
and,
unfortunately,
someone
scabbed
on
the
shed
later
and
even
more.
Unfortunately,.
M
The
argument
is
being
made
that
because
this
thing's
been
scabbed
on
there
so
long,
it's
in
compliance
and
I
take
issue
with
that.
I
think
that
this
rebuilding
this
garage
is
a
tremendous
opportunity
to
improve
the
quality
of
this
neighborhood
and
restoring
that
10
foot.
That's
required
by
the
building
code
and
alluded
to
in
the
zoning
code
would
improve
the
neighborhood
and
I
I
really
I'm
dumbstruck
that
we're
even
talking
about
this
here
at
this
Commission
David.
M
D
O
M
C
I,
we'll
just
a
little
bit
with
I,
certainly
understand
I've,
always
known
that
changes
offensive
to
somebody
we'd
all
like
everything's
to
stay
all
the
same,
but
I
feel
like
I've,
been
told
here
a
few
times
in
differing
ways
that
variances
and
special
exceptions
are
not
playing
by
the
rules.
That
I
always
thought
that
those
things
were
included
in
the
rules,
and
you
know,
there's
special
things
for
special
situations,
but
certainly
in
the
rules
and
by
granting
the
applicants
of
application
twice.
I
understand.
C
I
would
think
that
the
staff
we
rely
upon
twice
has
told
us
that,
for
whatever
reason,
this
application
meets
with
the
rules
that
we
aren't
breaking
rules
by
approving
what
staff
size
doesn't
break
the
rules
they're
just
using
special
rules,
if
I
misunderstand
special
exceptions
and
variances
to
be
not
playing
by
the
rules
and
I
need
a
little
education.
Well,.
A
C
A
I
did
when
he
was
building
things
and
the
artista
joke,
say:
I,
don't
understand,
I
cut
it
twice,
and
it's
still
too
short
and
I'm
wondering
if
that's
the
case
here,
you
know.
Yes,
we
can
consider
the
variances
the
exceptions,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
was
right.
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
this
on
its
merits
and
I
think
there
was
the
basis
of
the
de
novo.
What
was
the
Latin.
C
A
E
C
A
E
Observation
we've
at
times,
Tom
and
I
have
tried
to
to
shorthand
special
exception,
but
I
think
what
it
boils
down
to
is
that
it's
something
that's
required
for
realization
of
the
effort
of
the
project.
What
they're
proposing
yet
is
that
it
okay
summary
of
it
and
I,
don't
think
that's
been
proven
tonight.
They
want
to
replace
a
garage
understandable.
It
has
its
deficiencies,
the
wall,
certainly
all
those
are
deficiencies.
I,
don't
see
anything.
That's
compelling
that
says
why
the
special
exception
should
be
granted.
N
So
there
are,
there
are
six
different
standards
and
we
found
that
the
special
exception
complied
with
all
the
applicable
standards.
It's
on
page
104.
The
first
is
that
it
complies
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
second
is
that
there
is
no
substantial
impairment
of
property
value.
The
third
is
that
there's
no
undue
an
adverse
impact.
The
fourth
is
that
it's
compatible
with
surrounding
development.
The
fifth
is
that
there's
no
destruction
of
significant
features,
there's
no
material
pollution
of
the
environment
and
then
again,
it
complies
with
the
standards.
If.
B
I
can
add
on
to
that
mmm-hmm
when
staff
administrative
Lea
proves
these,
they
send
out
a
letter
to
abutting
neighbors
if
they
don't
receive
any
comment
and
they
find
that
it
makes
those
standards
and
they
do
a
site
visit
and
they've
received
information
from
the
applicant.
They
would
go
ahead
and
approve
that
now
we
don't
deny
at
the
staff
level,
the
applicant
I
will
I
think
I
know
exactly
what
you're
going
to
say.
The
applicant
has
claimed
that
she
had
emailed
the
staff
member
at
that
time
and
I
believe
a
phone
call
and.
M
I'll
cue
up
emotional,
please
do
based
on
the
information
presented
in
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
I
moved
the
historic
landmark.
Commission
deny
the
special
risk
exception
for
replacement
of
non-complying
accessory
structure
and
additional
height
and
request
for
certificate
of
appropriateness.
The
Commission
finds
that
the
project
does
not
comply
with
review
standards
for
special
exceptions
in
21,
a
50
206
Oh
in
20
150,
200
300.
The
Commission
also
finds
that
the
project
does
not
comply
with
the
applicable
review
standards
of
historic
properties.
M
21
a
3402,
oh
gee,
I'm,
going
to
be
specific
here
at
21,
a
52
Oh
60
general
standards
in
consideration
for
a
special
exception.
I
believe
that
this
does
not
comply
with
exceptions.
A
through
D
Oh
in
the
briefs
X
with
respect
to
standard
a
this
does
not
comply
with
the
tense
out
of
our
ten
foot.
Separation
rule,
whether
exception
B
I,
believe
this
will
further
impair
the
value
of
the
home
to
the
west,
as
C
I
think
there
is
adverse
impact,
particularly
the
neighbor,
to
the
west
and
condition
D.
A
F
F
H
A
M
D
B
M
P
P
Of
course
it
was
built
before
there
was
a
historic
district
in
place,
but
it
was
initial
in
my,
in
my
view,
it
was
initially
incompatible
with
the
neighborhood
character
at
that
at
the
time
that
it
was
construction
constructed
as
an
addition,
I
believe
that
standards,
a
in
terms
of
compliance
with
zoning,
that
there
would
have
been
and
in
place
at
that
time,
an
exception
allowing
somebody
to
build
right
up
to
the
property
line.
I
also
believe
that
again
standard
D
compatibility
with
surrounding
development
that
this
was
not
originally
compatible.
It's
as
it
stands
right
now.
P
It's
it's
in
my
mind.
It's
it's
incompatible
and
then
the
the
approved
the
proposed
replacement
of
it
with
something
that
is,
then
you
know
built
more
integrally
with
the
replacement
garage
is
just
not
it's
attempting
to
try
and
again
tack
something
on
to
something
that
the
original
garage
structure,
I've
not
heard
and
I
do
not,
and
I
do
not
feel
as
incompatible
with
the
with
the
overall
development.
So
I
guess,
I'm
gonna
propose
an
alternate
substitution.
P
H
P
H
F
A
D
A
H
Up
to
that's
up
to
the
makers
of
the
motion,
so
your
your
part,
Part
F,
paragraph
28,
K
of
your
rules,
states
substitute
motions
substitute
motion
may
be
made
prior
to
a
vote
on
the
original
motion.
A
second
is
required
on
the
substitute
motion
before
a
vote
on
the
substitution
of
motion
can
occur.
That's
it
there's
no
limitation
on
how
many
you
have
on
the
table.
We
do
not
follow
Roberts
rules
strictly
well,.
A
F
A
P
A
B
P
B
B
B
H
B
P
P
You
know
that
the
existing
addition
to
the
garage
was
is
not
is
not
in
you
know,
compliance
just
because
it's
been
there
for
a
long
time
doesn't
mean
that
it
was
approved
at
one
point
that
it
that
it
gained
approval
over
time
in
my
mind,
and
that's
why
I
guess
I'm
pushing
back
on
that
that
standard
a
does.
That
is,
that
is.
O
P
D
P
A
F
A
A
So
the
motion
to
deny
carries
okay,
the
you
get
the
got
to
read
the
appeal
of
historic,
landmark,
Commission
decision.
Anyone
aggrieved
by
the
historic
landmark
Commission's
decision
may
object
to
the
decision
by
filing
a
written
appeal
with
the
appeals
hearing
officer
within
10
calendar
days
following
the
date
on
which
a
record
of
decision
is
issued.
A
A
M
D
Here's
a
historic
photo
I
received
from
the
County
Archives,
and
this
building
was
designed
by
Utah
architect,
William
browning
as
the
headquarters
of
the
American
linen
supply
company,
which
is
also
known
as
as
Alice
Co,
which
you
may
be
familiar
with
that
business
and
the
business
was
owned
by
the
Steiner
family.
Hence
the
name.
D
So
here
are
a
few
more
photos
of
the
building
up
for
nomination.
Some
more
current
photos
and
the
building
has
been
nominated
by
CRS,
a
architects
under
criteria
C
or
that
the
property
embodies.
The
distinctive
characteristics
of
a
type
period
or
method
of
construction.
More
represents
the
work
of
a
master,
and
so
it's
an
important
work
of
modernism
by
william
Browning
and
then
it's
a
unique
example
of
writing
and
architecture.
D
T
A
T
T
We
have
described
the
the
property
in
the
packet
that
you
received
and
I
can
answer
any
questions
about
the
general
building,
description,
significance
and
context,
so
we
kind
of
kicked
it
around
which
criterion
to
use
if
it
should
be
ANC
were
Saints
significant
under
criterion.
C
bill
browning
was
really
a
master,
modernist
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
his
buildings
have
either
been
demoed
or
altered
over
the
years,
and
so
I
think
this
is
a
very
significant
record
of
the
work
of
a
great
modern
architect
and
then
sources.
T
We
have
both
primary
and
secondary
sources
in
in
the
application,
including
BIM
Oliver's
interview
of
the
architects
bill
is
still
alive
and
I've
been
meaning
to
connect
with
him
to
talk
about
the
building.
We
just
haven't
quite
met
up
yet
and
then
we
provided
photos,
maps
drawings
in
the
application.
Okay,.
A
T
Remember
is
in
the
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars,
I
think
I
mean
it
wasn't
a
lot.
Is
it's
not
a
very
them?
The
method
of
construction
isn't
very
elaborate.
It's
it's
a
CMU
wall
with
a
brick
veneer.
The
the
brick
is
in
an
interesting
vertical
bond,
running
bonded
pattern,
but-
and
it's
articulated
every
third
block
is
kind
of
had
a
different
articulation
from
this
facade,
but
is.
C
Know
this
this
application-
or
this
thing
I'm,
not
sure
I've,
never
heard
him.
I
mean
I
haven't
been
involved
as
when
he's.
But
it
reminds
me
the
first
one
that
we
took
up
tonight
about
painting
a
fifties:
apartment
quiet
and
it
almost
hurts
me
to
reward
American,
Steiner
or
mr.
browning,
with
a
sort
of
an
award
for
tearing
down
one
of
the
most
beautiful
buildings
on
South
temple.
M
Commission
existed,
really
thought
that
the
the
the
classical
colonnade
the
use
of
brick,
the
rhythm
of
the
windows
and
all
of
that
was
appropriate
for
a
historic
area.
Historic
Street
and
I.
Just
thought
was
an
interesting
little
tidbit
the
interesting
to
go
back
and
find
the
old
Planning
Commission
minutes
on
that.
One
I'd
also
note.
T
A
M
C
C
M
M
T
E
T
E
T
T
There
are
obviously
some
changes
that
have
to
be
made
to
turn
it
into
a
more
modern
office,
but
the
the
X,
the
appearance
of
the
exterior,
for
instance,
won't
really
be
noticeable,
especially
along
the
street
furniture.
There
will
be
a
new
accessible
ramp
on
the
North
facade,
which
is
hardly
visible
from
kind.
M
M
M
T
M
T
T
With
with
a
our
argument,
was
going
to
be
that
this
kind
of
represented
a
real
galvanizing
moment
both
for
preservationist
in
the
city
when
the
work
house
would
cost
Reformation
was
demolished,
but
also
kind
of
that
that
progressive
reach
of
downtown
through
South
temple
through
the
South
temple
district
with
commercial
buildings.
So
we
think
the
the
construction
of
this
building
was
significant
under
criterion.
A
in
my
opinion
for
the
development
of
Salt
Lake
City
in
general,
made.
A
S
I
hadn't
fought
Genevieve
that
would
and
I
live
on
the
avenues.
I
had
not
focused
what
building
this
is,
and
mr.
Adams,
you
are
absolutely
correct:
the
idea
that
they
would
be
rewarded
with
tax
credits,
so
my
mother
was
a
close
friend
of
the
Cosgrove's
sturdevant's
cosgrove,
so
I'd
have
to
do
the
genealogy,
but
I
got
to
go
into
that
building
as
a
child.
In
fact,
I
watched
the
coronation
of
Queen
Elizabeth
there.
S
It
was
which
of
course
is
that
same
feel
and
the
idea
that
we
would
reward
the
tearing
down
of
that
and
then
I
served
in
the
legislature,
74
76
78,
when
we
were
still
tearing
down
these
buildings-
and
you
know
someone
like
the
ho
gel's
would
just
say
you
know
the
night
before
something
would
go
into
effect.
They
just
took
out
the
building,
I
mean
no.
No,
no.
No,
it
just
shouldn't.
Do
this,
you
just
shouldn't
reward
misbehavior.