►
Description
Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - September 02, 2021
https://www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/
https://www.slc.gov/boards/historic-landmark-commission-agendas-minutes/
A
That
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
presents
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
would
be
present.
Anybody
who's
interested
in
that's
the
end
of
that
statement.
But
anyone
who
would
like
interested
in
attending
the
meeting
can
access
the
meeting
through
youtube
or
salt
lake
city
tv
channel
17.
A
A
B
C
D
D
A
B
A
So
that
gives
us
four
votes
of
the
five
or
six
at
victoria.
If
you're
there,
six
of
us
so
the
minutes
are-
are
approved.
I
don't
have
any
report
to
make
to
the
commission
at
this
time.
Mike
biel
is
not
here,
yet
he
still
hasn't
been
able
to
get
in.
I
guess
so,
we'll
keep
moving.
Is
there
a
director's
report
to
wayne.
E
I
don't
have
too
much
to
report
other
than
carlton.
Goetz
will
be
going
in
front
of
city
council
next
tuesday
for
a
possible
appointment
to
the
historic,
landmark
commission,
and
I
anticipate
that
we'll
have
a
couple
other
individuals,
soon
being
being
suggested
by
the
mayor
and
interviewed
by
the
council.
So.
E
E
E
A
E
G
A
A
H
You
can
go
directly
to
the
applicant,
it's
basically
just
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
the
hlc
approved
this
request
was
for
new
construction
and
a
few
special
exceptions
back
in
october,
2020,
special
exceptions
and
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
new
construction
they're
valid
for
a
year
unless
a
building
permit
is
issued,
the
applicant
is
requesting
an
extension
due
to
some
complexities
with
the
project
most
projects,
now
a
shortage
of
labor
and
and
materials,
as
well
as
some
design
issues.
But
the
the
applicant
is
here
to
address
the
commission
if
needed,.
A
C
Yeah,
no
just
you
know
kind
of
like
wayne
said
everything
just
seems
to
be
taking
longer,
just
dealing
with
a
lot
of
challenges
and
maybe
just
a
quick
update
on
where
we
are
at
with
the
project.
We're
hoping
we're
in
our
last
kind
of
phase
of
final
comments
on
our
final
plat.
So
we
are
very
close
to
getting
that
approved
so
far.
We're
just
waiting
on
some
comments
back
from
the
public
city
attorney
office
but
seems
like
we
have
everything
resolved
in
all
the
other
departments.
C
A
I
I
B
I
A
D
A
C
A
B
K
A
H
H
The
applicant
has
asked
that
this
item
be
postponed
until
the
next
meeting
due
to
the
this
would
happen
right
before
this
meeting,
so
it
we're
unable
to
amend
the
agenda
at
that
point
of
time,
so
the
agenda
still
stands.
So
a
couple
of
things
that
the
commission
could
do
is
one
just
go
ahead
and
postpone
that
item
until
the
next
month.
A
I
C
C
A
One
of
these
days
we're
going
to
have
someone
that
makes
a
motion
that
votes
against
their
own
motion,
but
I
haven't
seen
that
happen
yet
so
glad
that
was
unanimously
approved
and
we'll
hope
to
see
them
next
month
and
hope.
Everything's.
Okay,
we're
going
to
jump
down
item
200
agenda
had
already
been
postponed.
We're
going
to
jump
to
number
three
major
alteration
on
a
rear
edition
at
235,
south
sixth,
east
and
sarah.
Are
you
here?
Sarah
we'll
turn
this
over
to
sarah
of
the
staff
to
present
this
case.
M
M
M
M
M
The
peak
of
the
gabled
roof
is
just
below
the
ridge
on
the
historic
structure,
a
a
crease
that
is
approximately
ten
inches
deep
and
2
feet
wide
delineates
the
addition
from
the
historic
structure.
Additionally,
the
eaves
on
the
addition
are
shallow
to
reflect
its
modern
construction
and
differentiate
it
from
the
historic
structure.
M
M
This
slide
shows
the
south
elevation
in
the
existing
conditions
below
the
existing
rear
porch
would
be
removed.
The
addition
would
project
further
to
the
rear
than
the
porch.
The
two-story
portion
of
the
addition
on
this
elevation
has
a
flat
roof
and
extends
approximately
10
and
a
half
feet
to
the
rear.
Beyond
this
is
a
flat
roofed
porch
that
wraps
around
the
rear
of
the
addition.
M
This
is
the
rear
elevation,
the
existing
porch
and
addition
would
be
removed.
The
north
portion
of
the
new
addition
would
extend
approximately
23
feet
from
the
rear
of
the
original
structure.
The
two-story
south
portion
of
the
addition
would
extend
approximately
10
feet.
Then
the
single
story
porch,
would
extend
further
and
wrap
around
the
rear.
M
One
item
to
note
is
that
the
diamond
shaped
glass
window
would
be
removed
from
the
existing
rear,
facade
and
relocated
to
a
similar
location
on
the
rear
edition
on
the
gabled
portion
of
the
rear
edition.
There's
a
set
of
three
windows
that
appear
as
a
modern
interpretation
of
a
similar
window
pattern
on
the
south
side
of
the
historic
structure
in
the
staff
report.
There
are
two
key
considerations
that
have
already
been
mentioned.
M
The
first
is
the
primary
consideration
of
this
proposal,
the
removal
of
the
existing
historic
edition
and
the
construction
of
the
new
larger
edition.
It
steps
position
that
the
proposed
edition
meets
the
adopted
standards
and
guidelines,
and
then
the
second
consideration
is
the
rehabilitation
of
the
existing
doorway.
The
dwelling
needs
significant
rehabilitation
and,
while
the
necessary
work
is
significant,
the
applicant
intends
to
rehab
the
dwelling
and
staff
anticipates
that
these
items
can
be
reviewed
with
a
minor
alteration
application.
M
D
B
Sarah,
this
is
kenton.
Maybe
the
applicant
was
going
to
address
this,
but
I
know
it
doesn't
really
matter
to
us
or
it's
not
in
our
purview.
But
what
are
they
going
to
do
with
all
that
space?
I
mean
it's
already
a
very
large
house
as
it
is
and
they're
adding
a
substantial
amount
of
square
footage
to
it.
J
M
Let
me
see
if
you
can
see
that
on
what
I
have
here
see.
I
think
you
can
see
how
the
roofline
it's
not
as
clear
as
probably
you'd
like,
but
I
think
you
can
see
how
the
roofline
continues
across
the
top
in
that
photograph
and
the
applicant
may
be
able
to
address
this
better
in
his
presentation
too,
and
then
there
are
photos
of
the
egg
they're,
not
sorry,
I'm
not
not
photographs,
but
there
are
existing
elevation
drawings
that
were
included
in
the
staff
report
in
the
applicants,
the
middle.
F
A
N
C
N
A
N
That's
good,
thank
you,
okay,
so
all
I
really
want
to.
I
think
sarah
covered
everything
that
we're
trying
to
do,
but
I
think
I
can
probably
answer
some
of
the
questions
from
the
commission.
One
of
the
reasons
for
the
added
square
footage
you
know.
Yes,
it
is
a
larger
property,
but
first
off
the
the.
This
is
also
one
of
the
larger
lots
in
the
area,
and
so
this
stays
well
within
the
the
the
footprint
requirements.
N
We
we
were
aware
of
the
scale
we
are
aware
of
the
size
of
it
and
what
we
tried
to
do
was
minimize
it,
at
least
at
least
so.
The
view
here
at
the
top
right
is
the
the
main
view
of
the
driveway.
Where
you
get
a
less
oblique,
you
get
a
better
angle
at
the
back
of
the
property.
So
that's
why
we
stepped
back
the
the
facade
there
so
that
you,
you
don't
get
the
bulk
of
the
the
rear
edition
from
the
south.
The
north
is
it's
less
of
a
an
angle.
N
But
when
you
visit
that
sleeping
porch,
the
the
shingle
facade
of
the
original
house
is
still
behind
that
sleeping
porch,
so
there's
no
real
integration
of
building
an
envelope,
except
with
the
with
the
roof,
and
so
I
wonder
if
that's
perhaps
answered
the
questions
you
had
initially
and
then
something
else
just
we
were
trying
to
replicate
the
front
of
the
house
to
the
back.
You
know
with
this
wrapping
porch.
N
Then,
as
sarah
mentioned,
the
the
one,
the
one
moment
of
interest
that
we
think
is
worth
preserving,
is
this
back
window,
which
you
see
from
the
interior
here
at
the
bottom
right,
and
so,
if,
if
we
can,
we
will
look
to
to
move
that
being
in
roughly
the
same
position
as
it
was
just
extended
out
further
on
the
new
edition.
There
was
a
comment
about
that
that
we
received
on
this
application,
and
so
we
I
mean
we
on
this
matter.
N
You
know
it's
it's
something
that
we
thought
would
be
a
nice
idea
to
preserve,
but
we'll
absolutely
take
the
recommendation
of
the
commission
on
how
you
would
rather
us
address
that,
and
I
think
that's
about
all.
I
think
I
need
to
add
on
top
of
what
sarah
said,
so
I
can
leave
this
up
for
you.
I
can
turn
it
back
over
to
you.
A
O
O
I
spent
two
pages
single
space
talking
about
this
extraordinary
lattice
window.
If
you
have
ever
cleaned
one,
you
know
how
extraordinary
it
is
if
you've
ever
painted
one,
you
know
how
extraordinary
it
is,
and
I
have
two
very
small
ones
and
I
was
able
to
commission
a
leaded
glass
window
for
far
less
money.
O
O
A
D
I
have
a
question
for
david
if
to
start
things
off,
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
about
the
logic
of
that
area
like
why.
Why
are
you
covering
up?
We
don't
have
a
second
floor
plan,
so
why
are
you
carving
out
that
volume
above
the
port
like
what's
the
purpose
of
that?
On
the
second
floor,
on
the
first
floor,
I
can
see
it's
where
the
living
room
extension
is.
N
N
N
So
the
intent
here
is
that
you
know
this.
This
will
become
a
single-family
residence
in
downtown,
but
the
for
for
the
current
residents
and
for
their
future
well
for
their
family
going
forward,
and
the
idea
is
to
give
this
house
it's
got
a
certain
scale
to
it
and
to
give
the
even
in
the
upstairs.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
master
bedroom
has
kind
of
a
lot
of
the
same
facilities
that
a
larger
house
somewhere
outside
the
city
might
have.
N
I
I
Bravo,
thank
god.
How
many
times
do
I
drive
by
this
house?
Thinking
it's
going
to
go
up
in
flames
that
cindy
cromer's
property
isn't
going
to
go
up
in
flames
it
I
didn't
know
that
anyone
had
bought
it.
It's
just
been
sitting
there.
For
years,
it's
been
frightening
to
look
at
I.
I
can't
wait
to
see
it
redone.
It
is
such
a
treasure.
P
J
Yes,
I
echo
what
fabs
is
stating
I'm
excited
to
see
the
structure
rehabilitated
and
restored.
However,
we
will
be
losing
a
large
portion
of
the
historic
rear
elevation
to
accommodate
that
living
space
in
the
rear.
I
understand
the
1911
edition
and
that
portion,
but
this
is
feel
it
feels
like
I
don't
know
the
exact
percentage,
but
maybe
around
40
of
the
rear
existing.
So
I
do
agree
with
cindy
when
she
stated
that
I
would
it's
great
that
the
window
will
stay
on
the
property.
J
However,
it's
preferable
that
it
would
be
on
the
original
rear
of
the
structure.
I'm
not
sure
if
sarah
could
answer
this,
but
I
didn't
see
any
of
the
guidelines
for
the
historic
district
in
the
staff
report.
Sarah,
maybe
I
missed
those,
but
is
there
anything
in
the
guidelines
in
reference
or
in
the
code
for
the
city's
code,
referencing,
loss
of
historic
material
or.
M
M
An
f
and
then
the
applicable
design
guidelines
were
in
g,
and
so
there
are
references
to
to
that
in
those
guidelines
as
far
as
additions,
and
then
also
just
regarding
the
loss
of
material,
and
you
know
generally,
I
think
that
the
idea
is
to
to
have
them
located
to
the
rear
and
have
them
less
visible
and
have
the
roof
step
down.
Have
a
delineation
from
the
original
structure
and
the
addition,
and
so
in
the
staff
report
basically
went
over
how
it
does
meet
those
aspects
of
the
guidelines.
M
Sure
that
is,
that
is
one
question.
Is
you
know
whether
that,
even
though
it's
an
edition
has
has
kind
of
gets
gained,
status
is
historic,
and
I
think
that
just
given
its
location
to
the
rear
and
the
it's,
how
it's
less
visible
from
other
other
areas
of
the
structure
and
then
also
you
can
look
at
how
it
isn't
as
well
integrated
with
the
with
the
original
structure.
There's
some
images
that
were
included
in
the
applicant
submittal.
B
Why
the
new
addition
and
fits
out
in
the
house
and
and
why
they're
doing
that
that
makes
sense.
So
I
appreciate
that
I
kind
of
echo
what
some
others
have
said.
I
glad
to
see
some
attention
being
paid
to
this
house
and
if
the
loss
of
the
1911
edition
is
what
it
takes
to
get
someone
to
make
this
house
viable
and
to
restore
it,
I
think
that's
a
small
price
to
pay
to
restore
such
a
significant
house.
F
F
This
really
truly
wonderful,
wood
frame,
house
and
wood
frame
houses
here
in
the
seismic
world
are
are
much
sought.
After-
and
this
is
a
particularly
beautiful
one-
so
to
reiterate-
I
I
I
think
it's
imperative
that
staff
work
with
the
applicant
to
make
sure
that
the
windows
are
restored,
restored,
not
replaced
and
that
likewise
columns
and
balustrades
and
the
important
architectural
features
of
this
architectural
masterpiece
are
also
restored.
F
Hopefully
you
hear
me
over
the
thunder
in
the
background,
but
I
I'm
concerned
that
the
addition
crenellates
back
and
then
a
little
bit
for
a
few
feet
and
then
back
out
to
the
the
original,
the
sidelines
of
the
existing
house.
I
think
this
addition
would
be
far
more
successful
if
it
was
just
four
to
six
inches
smaller
on
each
side
than
the
existing
structure.
F
That's
included
in
our
packet
just
shows
this
almost
as
an
extrusion
back,
and
I
think,
if
it
architecturally,
it
appears
as
though
there's
room
to
work
with,
and
it
might
even
save
the
applicant
a
little
bit
of
money
to
make
this
thing
a
foot
smaller
overall
in
the
south
dimension,
so
that
my
recommendation
is
just
a
wee
bit
smaller,
so
that
it
reads
as
an
addition
and
not
an
extrusion
onto
the
existing
house
and
that
the
the
very
very
important
windows
and
architectural
details
of
the
home
be
preserved.
Thank
you.
I
I
A
K
J
A
F
F
I
A
H
This
item
is
a
continuation,
but
the
public
hearing
was
closed,
but
we
have
received
a
couple
of
emails
that
came
in
during
this
meeting.
We
have.
We
can't
read
those
emails
because
the
the
public
hearing
was
closed,
but
we
did
forward
those
emails
to
the
the
commission
members
just
to
let
you
know.
A
J
Yes,
could
I
just
make
a
inquiry
before
we
begin
the
next
item,
I
just
if
the
rest
of
the
commission
or
staff
could
help
answer
this.
That
would
be
helpful,
but
I'm
just
wondering
in
general,
should
we
be
thinking
as
a
commission
towards
retaining
like
something
along
the
lines
of
national
registrar
eligibility
or
anything
along
those
lines
when
making
decisions
for
approval
historic
districts,
or
is
that
not
in
our
purview
to
be
thinking
towards
helping
historic
structures
retain
retain
as
much
form
and
materiality
as
possible
to
keep
eligibility.
E
J
Right
right,
thanks
michaela,
I
wasn't
thinking
about
that.
The
next
item,
just
in
general,
I
think
for
something
like
the
the
addition
on
the
last
item.
It
would
would
potentially
lose
its
eligibility,
so
I
just
didn't
know
if
that's
something
we
should
be
considering.
So
thank
you
for
answering
that
that's
helpful.
A
G
G
G
There
was
also
a
link
to
the
previous
landmark
commission
meeting
in
the
staff
memo
in
response
to
this
discussion.
At
the
january
15th
meeting,
the
applicant
has
made
some
revision
revisions
to
the
proposal,
the
most
notable
being
the
removal
of
the
request
for
additional
height
along
the
streetscape
along
first
avenue.
So
that's
the
north
elevation
they're
no
longer
pursuing
increased
height
on
that
elevation
and
that
will
just
remain
as
is,
and
just
repairs
or
repo
just
repairs
are
proposed.
G
The
overall
fence
height
is
not
changing
in
the
revised
proposal.
They're
still
seeking
the
increa
increased
defense
height
on
the
east
west
and
south
elevations
they're
requesting
to
increase
it
by
two
feet.
The
existing
fence
is
three
feet.
The
retaining
wall
varies
in
height
around
the
site,
they're,
not
proposing
any
changes
to
the
retaining
wall
height,
but
the
proposed
overall
combined
fence
and
retaining
wall
height.
G
G
I
do
want
to
note
that
staff
is
sympathetic
to
the
security
issues
on
the
site
and
the
complexities
surrounding
that.
But,
ultimately,
when
we
looked
at
those
standards
of
approval,
we
were
not
able
to
find
compliance
with
the
special
exception
standards
or
the
standards
for
minor
alteration
in
regard
to
the
special
exception
standards.
G
The
revisions
to
the
proposal
keep
the
existing
fence
of
the
north
elevation
adjacent
to
first
avenue,
as
is,
and
that
does
help
to
address
the
standards
related
to
compatibility
and
brings
the
proposal
more
in
line
with
the
character
of
front
yard
fences
in
the
avenues
where
fence
heights
in
front
yards
are
generally
lower
in
height.
However,
the
proposal
is
still
in
conflict
with
the
special
exception
standards
that
speak
to
destruction
of
historic
features,
of
significant
importance
and
compliance
with
the
purpose
of
the
h
preservation
overlay.
G
Other
revisions
of
the
proposal
do
not
change
planning
staff's
initial
analysis
related
to
the
proposed
alteration
for
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
staff
still
finds
that
the
proposal
does
not
comply
with
those
standards
for
a
landmark
site.
The
fence
is
an
original
character,
defining
feature
of
the
landmark
site
and
it
has
remained
unaltered
since
its
construction
in
the
1880s.
G
The
proposal
to
modify
the
existing
historic
fence
by
adding
additional
height
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
historic
integrity
of
one
of
the
original
character,
defining
features
of
the
site
and
the
setting
the
standards.
First,
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
speak
to
preserving
distinctive
distinctive
finishes
features
and
construction
techniques.
G
G
I
have
included
some
photos
of
the
property.
Some
of
these
pictures
on
the
next
slide
were
also
taken
from
inside
the
actual
cemetery
which
one
on
the
top
shows
the
east
elevation,
where
that
driveway
slopes
down
next
to
the
brigham
apartments,
the
photo
on
the
right
top
right
is
the
fence
in
between
the
dwelling
on
the
west
and
the
cemetery.
And
then
this
is
just
a
corner
and
a
panoramic
view
of
the
fence.
G
G
Staff
did
receive
one
additional
public
comment
ahead
of
tonight's
meeting
that
I
added
into
the
dropbox
and
again,
staff
reviewed
the
project
for
compliance
with
the
standards
of
approval
for
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
the
specific
special
exception
standards
for
fence
height
and
the
general
special
exception
standards,
and
could
not
find
compliance
with
those
standards.
And
we
are
recommending
denial
on
this
application.
A
A
B
F
I
B
I
I
I
really
want
to
protect
this,
and
I
agree
with
you.
I
I'm
surprised
that,
with
all
of
the
big
brains
they
have
that
they
haven't
been
able
to
figure
this
out
and
be
a
sensitive
to
the
historic
nature
that
we
try
and
preserve.
I
I
completely
agree-
and
I
want
this
to
be
preserved
and
I
don't
want
it
to
be
vandalized
and
it's
it's
just
a
cool
little
oddity.
We
have
right
there
in
the
middle
of
downtown
so
come
on
guys.
L
I
too
worry
we're
clearly
facing
kind
of
a
huge
crisis
right
now
with
homelessness
and
with
our
enforcement
structures
needing
to
be
bolstered
right
now,
and
it
does
feel
like
we're
making
historic
preservation
decisions
in
reaction
to
what
are
hopefully
short-term
issues
that
find
resolution
quickly.
So
I
do
hate
the
idea
of
sacrificing
that
long-term
historic
integrity
for
a
short-term
problem.
K
K
This
is
this
is
a
sacred
place
to
us,
and
this
is
a
sacred
place
I
think,
to
the
community
and
as
much
as
I
hate
to
see
a
fence
need
to
be
modified.
I
am
more
concerned
about
the
risk
that
is
being
done
right
now.
New
human
remains
that
are
buried
in
this
in
this
district.
This
is
a
cemetery.
This
is
a
sacred
place
and
I
am
a
little
dismayed
that
we
are
privileging
offense
over
protection
of
family
memory.
K
The
people
that
are
buried
here
are
loved
and
treasured
by
their
descendants
and
loved
and
treasured
on
by
this
entire
community,
and
what
we
are
trying
to
do
is
find
a
balance
trying
to
keep
the
graves
safe.
Try
to
keep
the
site
safe,
try
to
keep
this
a
place
of
sanctity
and
reverence,
while
acknowledging
that
we
have
ongoing
and
ever
increasing
security
issues
and
acknowledging
that
we
are
in
an
urban
core.
That
is
in
a
dramatic
shift.
K
I
I
live
near
here
and
I
walk
through
this
area
almost
every
day
and
I
see
a
shift
happening
in
our
community
and
I
I
care
as
much.
I
would
love
to
not
have
to
modify
this
vents,
but
I
have
been
working
with
our
team.
We
have
been
working
with
security
personnel
working
with
architects
working
with
construction
crews,
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
protect
this
and
a
modification
to
a
fence
seems
a
small
price
to
pay
to
save
a
place
long
term
and
keep
it
open.
F
L
Miss
that
I
I
hear
your
pain,
and
I
and
I
share
it-
I'm
deeply
tied
to
my
ancestors
and
completely
understand
what
you
feel
in
this
case.
The
ancestors
that
were
speaking
of
actually
belong
to
all
of
us.
We
owe
them
a
debt
of
gratitude
for
the
planning
that
they
put
into
the
city.
In
your
estimation,
is
this
alteration
to
the
fence
the
only
way
to
accomplish
the
safety
or
are
there
other
alternatives
that
can
be
investigated?
What
is
is
your
contention
that
this
is
the
missing
piece
to
securing
the
environment.
K
Yeah
we
are,
we
are
investigating
a
number
of
other
security
options
for
this
site:
increased
patrols
lighting.
You
know,
changes
to
plantings,
all
those
other
kind
of
less
invasive
and
we're
seeing
this
fence
modification
really
is
one
of
the
prawns
in
a
multi-bond
approach,
acknowledging
that
no
single
scene
is
going
to
solve
this
problem.
Moving
forward.
L
My
kids
will
never
see
that
sight
and
and
the
sight
of
the
man
who
sent
their
grandfather
down
to
find
timpanogos
cave
the
same
way
I've
been
able
to
if
we
alter
it,
and
that
feels
like
a
decision.
We
should
be
making
with
much
more
gravitas
and
with
a
much
longer
historical
perspective
than
what
we've
discussed
so
far,
at
least
in
my
estimation,
if
that
makes
sense,.
K
We
listen
to
your
comments
from
the
last
staff
meeting
about
not
changing
that
front,
so
the
gates
are
not
modified.
The
corner
posts
that
are
most
visible
are
not
modified.
The
the
modifications
really
are
in
the
in
the
bar
stock,
in
the
pickets
that
are
more
easily
cut
back
down.
If
it's
some
future
date,
we
really
do
have
the
kind
of
city
where
we
don't
have
to
think
about
crime
and
homelessness
in
an
urban
area.
D
D
I
these
public
comments,
weren't
read
online,
but
I
take
issue
with
some
of
the
some
of
the
conceits
that
people
are
making
on
this
topic.
I
think
it's
pretty
nuanced,
and
people
should
recognize
that
it's
not
that
we're.
This
is
a
purely
aesthetic
choice
and
we're
saying
that
protection
of
human
remains
isn't
important.
I
think
we
all
agree
on
that.
It's
it's
just.
Is
there
a
way
we
could
do
this.
D
That
would
would
benefit
everybody,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
an
inner
fence
that
is
more
security
based,
while
leaving
the
the
more
decorative
fence
on
the
exterior
or
like,
as
other
commissioners,
have
said,
if
it's
maybe
a
completely
different
method
of
security
than
making
a
taller
fence,
because
at
least
in
my
mind
the
fence
isn't
impenetrable.
If
someone
wants
to
get
through
it,
they
will,
but
I'm
pretty
torn.
D
I
F
F
In
fact,
there
were
three
murders
within
us
within
an
avenues
block
of
our
house
in
the
first
year
that
we
lived
here
on
a
street
and,
of
course
the
neighborhood
got
better,
and
in
recent
years
I
think
the
city
has
been
experiencing
a
large
degree
of
homelessness
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
and-
and
I
see
this
as
a
placebo-
that
that
raising
a
fence
or
putting
a
higher
fence
on,
I
think,
is
a
placebo
for
what
I
certainly
as
a
resident.
Here.
F
I
optimistically
think
that
this
is
a
transient
problem
and
I
say
that
a
little
bit
tongue-in-cheek,
that
transients
are
an
issue
in
the
park,
but
I
think
that
it
at
least
I
hope,
is
a
resident
of
this
neighborhood
that
the
the
security
concerns
that
the
brigham
young
park
has
experienced
will
pass
I'm
with
victoria.
I
think
that
this
is
a
transient
problem
in
our
city,
in
our
mayor
and
in
the
church
and.
B
Waiting
for
david
to
come
back
kind
of
thinking
of
what
bam's
had
to
say
and
the
concerns
about
once
you
change
that
fence
by
welding
other
things
on
how
likely
is
it
to
ever
be
restored
to
to
its
original
state
and
hopefully,
the
temporary
nature
of
the
problems
that
the
cemetery
is
facing.
What
would
people
think
about
removing
the
historic
fence
completely
storing
it
safely
and
erecting
a
five
foot
tall
fence
around
the
whole
thing?
I
I
know
that
the
church
was
very
good,
preserving
the
iron
in
the
front
of
zcmi
for
several
years
and
brought
that
back
after
restoring
it
it
just
it.
I
don't
see
the
problem
ever
getting
better.
It
is
going
it's
going
to
be
vandalized
and
more
vandalized
and
more
vandalized.
I
just
I
don't
I'm
not
optimistic
about
this,
and
I
want
to
help
them,
and
I
want
to
help
us
preserve
this
site
and
we're
just
kind
of
spinning
around.
I
I
think
a
lot
of
us
have
the
same
feelings
and
we're
not
coming
up
with
great
solutions,
and
I
know
that
that
the
church
can
come
up
with
a
better
solution.
They
they've
just
done
so
many
miracles
with
so
many
other
preservation
in
this
city.
We're
we're
almost
there.
We
want
to
help,
but
we
need
to
preserve
this,
and
the
history
of
this
is
phenomenal.
Q
If
I
may
yeah
I
just
this
whole
entire
site
is
a
very
sacred
historical
site.
It's
not
just
defense
and
we
believe
with
so
much
thought
and
effort,
we're
not
just
simply
brushing
something
under
the
rug
to
sweep
away
a
problem.
We
believe
that
the
problems
with
transients
is
going
to
continue
as
the
city
continues
to
grow.
I
believe
that
that's
a
very
long-term
issue
that
the
city
is
going
to
conceal,
continue
to
deal
with,
with
all
minor
alterations
to
defense,
we're
hoping
to
make
this
inviting
for
people
to
come
to.
Q
Q
Q
The
front
along
the
street
will
be
the
same,
and,
and
understandably
so,
we've
tried
to
be
compromising
with
you
with
this
next
set
of
plans
that
we've
given.
It
was
what
this
commission
asked
for
in
the
last
meeting.
If
we
could
create
a
setback
and
we've
done
that
in
a
way
that
can
not
be
so
dramatic
as
far
as
moving
back
on
the
sides
as
dark
and
straight
up
is
gradual.
Q
Like
this
is
a
really
good
option
for
the
challenges
we
have
ideally
like,
like
emily
said,
we
don't
want
to
change
it.
We
would
rather
not,
but
the
conditions
are
negating
it.
100
years
ago,
things
were
substantially
different
in
salt
lake
city
as
to
what
we're
dealing
with
on
a
very
regular
basis
here
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we're
just
trying
to
preserve
this,
so
generations
could
come
and
enjoy
this
place.
A
I've
had
nothing
to
do
with
this
one,
and
but
I
am
recusing
myself
from
any
comment
or
vote
or
anything
else.
I
didn't
think
I
needed
to
leave
the
meeting,
because
I
have
no
involvement
with
it.
I
wasn't
going
to
say
anything
so
hannah
I'm
happy
to
leave
if
you
think
I
should,
but
otherwise
I'll
just
continue
to
be
quiet.
F
B
F
L
C
G
G
E
Mean
I
think
the
intent
is
that
an
application
doesn't
get
denied
and
we
have
different
cooling
off
periods
within
the
code
that
we
just
don't
they
that
applicants
just
don't
keep
coming
back
with
the
same
request
over
and
over
and
over
that.
You
have
to
keep
hearing
the
same
requests
because
with
these
land
use
applications
you
know
we
have
to
follow
through
with
due
process
and
there's
a
process.
E
I
B
L
F
F
B
L
We
have
we
closed
executive
session
because
I
really,
I
feel
no
peace-
voting
in
either
direction
on
this
at
this
moment,
and
I
don't
feel
a
ton
of
peace
about
just
being
an
obstructionist
entity
either
and
just
saying
go
back
and
come
back
again.
I
I
really
would
like
to
have
a
legitimate
executive
executive
session
discussion
about
what
legitimately
we
can
and
and
should
do
at
this
moment.
L
F
But
you
know
beyond
that.
I
I
think
that
the
argument
has
been
made
that
that
the
creator
of
this
fence
was
a
very,
very
important,
a
contributor
to
the
history
of
our
city,
and
that,
in
that
regard,
this
fence,
although
it
may
seem
like
it's
tried
or
small,
is
an
important
historical
element
in
our
community,
and
so
perhaps
that
fence
remains
and
then
once
we
get
beyond
the
front
yard
setback
that
some
kind
of
other
device
is
installed
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
applicant.
F
And,
quite
frankly,
I
don't
think
a
higher
fence
is
going
to
improve
security.
I've
watched
the
carlton
hotel
on
south
temple
recently
they
boarded
it
up
and
transients
moved
in
they
fenced
it.
Transients
moved
back,
the
swat
team
came
in
and
did
a
practice
run
and
cleared
the
transients
out.
They
added
another
level
of
fencing
and
guess
what
the
transients
came
back.
F
So
the
I
think
the
lesson
learned
there
is
is
that
taller
fences
don't
necessarily
make
better
neighbors,
nor
do
they
improve
security,
and
so
it's
not
our
purview
to
say
sure,
put
it
up
a
20-foot
wall
and
secure
this
place.
Our
purview
is
historic
elements
in
the
historic
nature
of
our
neighborhoods
and,
and
you
know,
5
feet
10
feet
20
feet.
People
will
find
a
way
in.
J
I
also
am
unsure
if
the
addition
of
a
fence
would
help
the
cause
of
our
purview,
that,
when
looking
at
the
site
as
a
whole,
to
preserve
what
we've
been
talking
about
visibility
from
the
street
or
victoria,
I'm
so
grateful
for
what
you've
shared
about
your
family
and
your
statements
and
like
the
way
that
your
kids
will
be
able
to
view
the
site
it.
Just
that
also
to
me
just
doesn't
feel
like
the
best
solution.
J
However,
I'm
also,
I
am
also
conflicted
on
my
response
and
and
do
want,
want
to
have
an
answer.
I
just
I
don't
know
what
that
answer
is.
I
don't
think
that
the
applicant's
intentions
are
to
contribute
to
the
urban
design
element
of
hostile
architecture,
but
I
also
want
to
keep
that
in
mind
of
what
what
other
possible
solutions
could
look
like.
So
I
I'm
yeah,
I'm
also
feeling
conflicted.
I
E
Well,
the
burden
and
the
applicant
here.
The
burden
on
the
applicant
is
to
come
back
and
speak
to
those
standards
as
well
yeah
compliance
with
the
zone
that
it's
not
substantially
impairing
property
values
within
the
neighborhood.
You
know.
Is
there
an
adverse
impact
with
the
extra
height
to
the
character
of
the
area?
O
B
B
J
B
B
E
G
I
didn't
know
in
the
motion
sheet
the
specific
findings
that
the
commission
would
need
to
make
the
specific
standards.
The
commission
would
need
to
make
findings
on
for
an
alternate
motion,
so
you
don't
have
to
go
flip
back
through
to
the
different
attachments
of
the
staff
report.
I
did
include
those
specific
ones
in
the
motion
sheet
just
for
reference.
D
J
B
D
D
G
So
essentially,
if
you're
approving
the
special
exception,
I
don't
quite
understand
how
that's
not
also
approving
the
minor
alteration
they
do
have
separate
standards
they're
just
so
connected
that
I
don't
know
what
would
be
the
point
of,
let's
say,
approving
the
special
exception
because
effectively
it's
still
denied,
if
you,
if
you
deny
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
does
that
make
sense?
I
mean
the
commission
can
certainly.
F
You
know,
john,
I
I
I
think
from
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
perspective,
we
could
say:
thou
shalt
leave
the
historic
fence
the
way
it
is
and
from
special
acceptance
perspective.
We
say:
well,
if
you
want
to
come
and
propose
a
new
structure
that
leaves
the
existing,
then
it
you
know,
could
comply
with
21a
52060,
a
c
and
e.
D
Well,
okay,
I
that
might
explain
part
of
it
because,
like
I'm
looking
at
maybe
the
old
document,
because
it
says
so
this
is
where
some
of
my
findings
were
questioned.
I
was
questioning
some
of
the
findings
says
the
proposed
fence
and
wall
height
of
seven
feet
along
first
avenue
would
create
a
walled
in
effect,
but
under
this
meeting
it's
not
seven
feet
along
first
avenue.
G
Yeah,
so
in
the
staff
memo
in
the
discussion,
section
staff
addresses
those
standards
that
relate
to
compatibility,
so
the
the
specific
special
exception
standards
that
staff
believes
that
the
projects
does
not
meet
are
the
one
related
to
does
it
comply
with
the
purpose
of
the
zoning
district.
The
h
preservation
overlay,
the
destruction
of
significant
features,
and
let
me
look
at
what
the
last
one
was.
G
B
B
If,
if
the
existing
fence
was
left
as
is,
and
they
wanted
to
do
something
else
that
attained
that
five-foot
height
or
what
have
you,
then
we
could
look
at
a
special
exception
to
allow
their
new
proposed
element
to
exceed
the
height
and
it
would
leave
the
fence
the
existing
fence,
but
from
where
I'm
reading
it
as
much
as
I
am
sympathetic
to
their
security
needs.
So
we've
got
to
go
by
the
standards
and
I
think
the
way
you've
laid
them
out.
It's
clear
that
we
can't
approve
this.
L
L
C
C
B
J
C
B
E
Thank
you,
kenton
and
if
I
could
also
add
that
there
is
a
text
amendment
regarding
special
exceptions
and
removing
special
exceptions
from
the
zoning
ordinance.
However,
allowing
the
landmark
commission
the
ability
to
grant
extra
height
under
the
standards
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
so
hopefully
soon
when
council
adopts
that
you
won't
have
it
won't
be
this
confusing
you'll
just
have
your
certificate
of
appropriateness,
appropriateness,
standards
or
new
construction
standards
etc,
and
that's
what
we'll
be
looking
at
and
you'll
be
able
to
have
the
authority
to
allow
extra
height
or
setbacks,
changes,
etc.
B
A
R
R
Applicants
also
owns
the
property
to
the
east
of
the
gas
station
site,
which
is
868
east.
It
currently
has
an
existing
detached
single
family
home
on
it,
which
is
going
to
remain
as
part
of
this
project,
but
the
applicant
is
requesting
to
construct
six
single
family
attached
units
and
a
town
home
style
development.
R
R
And
this
is
a
vicinity
map
of
the
project
location.
I've
outlined
the
gas
station
property
in
yellow
fair.
As
you
can
see,
it
is
at
the
southeast
corner
of
the
intersection
of
amnesty
and
third
avenue,
so
staff
has
recommended
that
the
applicant
come
to
the
landmark
commission
to
gather
some
feedback
on
this
proposal,
especially
with
regard
to
the
pedestrian
engagement
along
third
avenue
and
at
the
corner
of
any
states
so
just
to
go
over
the
project.
R
As
you
can
see,
they
are
rear
loaded
with
double
car
garages
and
they
are
comprised
of
three
levels
and
each
of
the
units
has
a
privately
owned,
open
area
or
a
yard
space,
so
to
speak
on
the
roof
which
can
be
accessed
by
a
patch
here
on
the
roof
and,
let's
see
so.
As
you
know,
this
is
located
in
the
avenues.
R
R
So,
in
addition
to
the
front,
porch
and
front
suit
area
for
the
westernmost
unit,
we
have
also
added
a
small
walkout
area
with
a
outdoor
patio,
as
well
as
this
small
seating
area
as
well,
in
an
attempt
to
further
engage
the
the
corner
at
wayne,
state
and
third
avenue,
and
to
create
the
sense
that
there
is
still
some
pedestrian
engagement
along
any
street.
Although
there
is
no
door
or
other
type
of
entry
on
this
place
of
the
building.
R
Again,
these
are
just
elevation
valleys.
These
are
the
rear
of
the
homes
which
will
be
accessed
by
the
drywall
in
the
back
of
the
property.
This
is
the
westernmost
unit.
Again,
you
can
see
the
small
sitting
area
along
the
end
street
and
then
there's
the
sunken
outdoor
patio
here
and
then
this
is
the
easternmost
unit,
so
you
can
see
the
very
small
state
up
there
and
then
the
floor
patio
on
fleet
avenue.
R
Now
this
is
the
end
of
staff's
short
introduction.
I
know
that
the
applicant
is
here
and
they
can
walk
through
the
history
of
the
projects
and
the
overall
changes
that
they've
made
to
the
design.
Since
the
original,
submittal
and
again,
staff
just
encouraged
the
applicant
to
come
before
the
runway
mission
to
gather
some
feedback,
with
particular
attention
to
pedestrian
engagement
on
street
and.
R
R
A
C
Hey
everybody.
Hopefully
you
can
hear
me
good
evening
good
to
see
everyone
again.
My
name's
oren
and
my
partner,
marcus
robinson,
is
also
on
the
line
or
with
three
mark
investments
where
the
applicant,
as
well
as
the
property
owner.
We
also
have
our
lead
architect
on
the
call
today,
brian
with
blaylock
and
partners.
Unfortunately,
kevin
blaylock
was
unable
to
make
it,
but
he
says
hello
to
everybody.
Brian
will
walk
us
through
kind
of
our
proposal.
C
We're
really
excited
to
be
here
tonight,
kent
and
yes,
we
we
have
come
before
you
guys
before,
but
we
thought
we
made
some
really
good
progress
on
the
design
and,
as
caitlyn
mentioned,
we
recently
received
the
approval
from
city
council
for
the
rezone
of
the
property.
So
we've
worked
with
katelyn,
john
and
others
at
planning
to
really
refine
and
bring
the
design
to
where
it
is.
Today
we
are
proud
of
the
project.
P
P
P
P
So
I'm
going
to
share
our
3d
model
just
to
walk
through
kind
of
an
insight
into
our
process.
I'll
show
you
kind
of
how
we've
we've
got
to
the
point
we're
at
so
this
is
just
an
initial
diagram
showing
the
buildable
volume
on
the
site.
So
essentially,
with
the
rmu
35
zone,
we
have
a
35
foot
max
building
height.
P
So
you
know
within
the
zoning
zoning
restrictions
we
would
really
be
able
to.
If
we
stepped
up
with
the
topography,
this
shows
kind
of
the
max
building
envelope
so
early
on
and
in
our
discussions
internally
and
with
planning
commission
and
all
the
powers
that
be
we,
we
decided
to
carve
this
development
into
the
ground
and
we
we
liked
that
because
it
started
to
reduce
the
scale,
particularly.
P
P
P
P
So
this
started
initially
just
as
kind
of
a
staircase
and
a
stoop
at
the
entry
and
then
introducing
openings
and
really
these
are
trying
to
be
sensitive
in
scale
but
bringing
in
daylight
and
again
just
exercising
some
restraint
we
didn't
want
to.
We
wanted
to
kind
of
have
this
be
a
background
building
of
sort.
P
So
this
is
kind
of
a
bigger
step
and
a
lot
to
unpack,
but
basically
this
is
showing
the
material
palette
that
we're
exploring.
So
this
is
brick.
It's
the
primary
material
with
some
wood
accent
to
provide
some
warmth
architecturally,
and
then
there
is
some
smooth-based
stucco
plaster
that
we're
also
looking
at
as
well.
P
So
we
presented
this
particular
design
to
the
planning
commission
and,
as
caitlin
indicated,
there
was
a
few
concerns,
the
main
one.
Being
these
stair
bulkheads.
We
fought
pretty
hard
to
keep
these
in
the
project
just
for
their.
You
know
the
comfort
and
ease
of
accessing
the
rooftop,
the
ability
to
bring
daylight
in,
but
there
isn't
an
exception
that
allows
for
them.
P
So
ultimately
we
lower
these.
The
other
couple
of
concerns
were
to
activate
third
avenue.
With
with
more
of
a
front
porch,
then
the
third
main
concern
was
along
n
street
trying
to
make
this
feel
more
like
a
front
face
similar
to
what
we
have
on
third
ave
so
to
address
the
bulkheads
we
kind
of
push
those
down,
but
we
still
are
adamant
about
having
access
to
the
roof.
P
Then
going
down
to
a
street
view
so,
like
I
said
initially,
these
front
porches
were
conceived
as
kind
of
a
you
know,
a
stairway
with
a
stoop
or
a
porch
at
the
front
entry.
But
you
know
in
our
talks
with
planning
commission,
they
wondered
if
we
can
make
those
a
bit
grander
and
really
start
to
activate
the
sidewalk.
P
P
So
the
I
think,
the
second
biggest
move,
or
probably
the
largest
move
we
made
and
biggest
revision,
was
starting
to
try
to
wrap
the
aesthetic
along
third
ave
on
the
end
street
and
to
make
this
feel
more
like
a
front
facade,
so
we
have
kind
of
two
front
faces
so
we've
also,
as
katelyn
indicated,
we've
carved
in
a
a
terrace
area
as
well.
It's
kind
of
an
accurate
area
and
one
thing
to
correct
is
we
actually
are
anticipating
a
doorway
access
onto
this
area?
P
A
B
B
This
is
really
really
helpful
to
see
your
rationale
and-
and
I
I
don't
have
anything
to
say,
to
change
this-
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
great
project
there.
I
lived
across
the
street
for
a
couple
years
when
I
was
right
out
of
the
college
and
would
have
been
a
delight
to
look
out
on
something
like
this,
so
I
think
that
it's
well
done.
B
F
F
I
would
like
to
talk
about
the
roof
decks,
which
I
think
are
a
great
idea.
I'm
you
know,
corvu
got
it
right
100
years
ago,
and
it's
still
a
great
idea
and
the
landmarks
commission
may
have
the
ability
to
allow
increased
height
for
those
bulkheads.
I
that
may
be
something
to
chat
with
staff
about,
but
it
would
add
a
concern
that
in
particular
that
east
bulkhead
would
make
what
I
call
the
bambi
meets:
godzilla
28-foot
facade
to
that
historic
home.
F
I
would
like
to
end
with
one
primary
concern,
and
that
is
is
that
I
think
that
these
front
steps
and
decks
are
completely
apologetic
and
there's
just
tremendous
room
for
improvement
there
to
me.
It's
a
place
for
amazon
to
leave
a
package,
but
no
human
being
is
actually
going
to
sit
there
and
engage
with
their
their
neighbors
as
they
walk
by.
F
I
And
I've
seen,
I
might
add,
that
I've
represented
some
developers
on
projects
just
like
this,
and
although
I
didn't
represent
the
one
on
ninth
east
and
seventeenth
south,
where
they
have
little
patios
out
front,
you
see
stuff
out
there,
but
you
never
see
anyone
sitting
there,
because
the
traffic
noise
is
kind
of
crazy.
The
one
that
I've
seen
more
successful
is
a
bit
of
a
half
wall
where
you're
protected
from
that
street
and
from
passersby.
B
B
R
B
That
will
allow
public
interaction
with
with
your
your
personal
limits,
I
think,
is
a
very
good
point
that
david
and
bads
remarked
on
and
again
as
david
said,
you
guys
are
good
architects.
I
think
you
could
probably
take
that
concept
and
develop
it
within
the
context
of
the
approach
you've
taken
so
far.
D
D
In
my
experience
on
on
multi-family
housing
projects,
like
you
know,
stuff,
like
venting
the
the
dryers
comes
into
play,
and
then
they
just
kind
of
get
scatter
shot
placed
on
that
that
rear
facade,
and
you
know
that,
combined
with
with
some
plaster
execution
issues,
it
can
like
get
ugly
fast
like
a
turning
point
in
a
football
game
or
something
it
can
just
kind
of
spiral
from
there
in
my
mind.
So
I
do
like
that.
There's
these
porches
here.
D
I
think
those
are
great,
and
you
know
I
like
the
style
of
garage
door
with
the
with
the
lights
in
it.
I
do
just
worry
about
the
flat
the
intended
flat
plaster.
I
don't
know
if
other
commissioners
have
experience
in
that
in
the
context
of
the
historical
landmark
commission,
but
we
just
don't
have
the
the
crafts
people
that
we
used
to.
D
D
Close
to
the
corner,
I'm
just
in
street
view
right
now
like
and
the
the
house
to
the
south
that
four
plex
or
whatever
it
is,
is
set
back
pretty
far.
It
looks
like
it's
got
about
a
30
foot
front
yard,
so
you're
gonna,
as
you
drive
up
end
street
you're
gonna,
really
see
that
that's
gonna
be
like
your
primary
experience
of
this
building.
If
you're
going
north
through
the
avenues.
B
B
D
Well,
yeah,
I
think
that
wood
kind
of
slivers
a
good
move.
It
really
helps
break
it
up,
and
I
know
we
don't,
or
I've
heard
it
said
we
don't
really
consider
stuff
like
stucco
score
joints,
because
that's
more
of
a
kind
of
constructability
detail,
but
maybe
just
kind
of
laying
those
out
a
little
bit
in
the
drawings
would
help.
F
P
F
B
P
B
P
D
B
B
P
Yeah,
we'll
look:
we've
we've
really
gone
back
and
forth
on
the
porches,
and
you
know
ultimately,
these
row
house
typologies.
You
know
these
are
a
little
over
20
feet,
wall-to-wall
from
kind
of
the
brick
to
the
wood
for
each
unit.
So
you
know
it
just
it
makes
for
it's
already
kind
of
a
tough
layout,
but
you
know:
we'd
have
to
eat
into
kind
of
this
kitchen
dining
area
to
introduce
a
larger
porch
up
at
that
door
level.
F
I
There
are
you
see
them
in
mexico,
you
see
them
in
europe,
they're,
just
like
a
long
white
box,
almost
and
they're
highly
efficient
and
they're
about
5,
000
bucks,
a
piece
and
you
put
them.
I
don't
know
three
and
three
or
four
of
them
in
there
and
then
you
don't
have
to
do
the
venting
and
you
don't
have
the
condenser.