►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - January 07, 2021
Description
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - January 07, 2021
https://www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/
https://www.slc.gov/boards/historic-landmark-commission-agendas-minutes/
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
We're
going
without
an
attorney
because
we
have
work
sessions.
I
know
I
know
it's
risky,
but
we
are
all
right.
B
I'll
try
to
remember
what
paul
knows.
I'm
going
to
read
this
declaration.
B
The
world
health
organization,
the
president
of
the
united
states,
the
governor
of
utah
salt
lake,
county
health
department,
salt
lake
county
mayor
and
the
mayor
of
salt
lake
city
have
all
recognized.
A
global
pandemic
exists
related
to
the
new
strain
of
the
chronovirus
stars,
kobe
2.,
due
to
the
state
of
emergency
caused
by
the
global
pandemic.
I
find
that
conducting
a
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
under
the
current
state
of
public
health
emergency
constitutes
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
may
be
present
at
the
location.
C
Mr
chair,
may
I
ask
sorry
I'm
a
little
bit
late.
I
asked
wayne
to
hit
record.
I
don't.
Unfortunately,
I
do
not
have
the
ability
to
hit
record.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
this
meeting
is
recorded.
Oh,
it
is
okay.
Thank
you.
B
We're
good
thanks,
no
problem.
We
have
in
our
materials
the
agenda
the
minutes
from
the
december
3rd
2020
meeting.
Does
anyone
have
any
comments
or
suggested
changes
or
corrections
for
those
minutes.
E
I
found
one
typo,
but
I
don't
have
my
notes
with
me,
but
I
moved
to
approve.
I
second.
B
They
have
a
second
from
babs
and
all
in
favor.
F
B
I
don't
have
anything
to
report.
Besides
what
I've
already
said
mike,
do
you
have
anything
you
want
to
report.
C
I
do
have
one
thing:
wasatch
community
gardens
has
contacted
me
actually
today
and
they
they're
very
excited
about
their
property.
As
you
recall,
they
had
gone
through
a
rezone
for
the
gardens,
they've
done
some
rehab
and
put
in
some
patios
and
lighting
a
number
of
improvements
to
the
property
and
they're
very
proud
of
it,
and
they
would
they've
extended
an
invitation
to
the
landmark
commission
to
have
a
tour.
C
I
did
discuss
with
ashley
patterson
just
because
of
covid
and
the
emergency
proclamation
that
we
would
love
to
do
a
group
event,
but
probably
right
now.
That
would
not
be
advisable
with
the
transmission
rate,
but
we
she
wants
to
extend
it.
Any
commissioners
would
like
to
have
a
tour
on
site
or
just
go.
Buy
this
go
by
the
gardens
to
see
you
know
the
new
roof
foundations
being
poured
the
new
event
center
building
they'd,
be
happy
to
mask
and
socially
distance
and
just
share
what
they've
accomplished
with
regard
to
the
project.
C
G
Yeah
michaela,
I
will
just
say
that
I've
been
watching
that
development
over
the
last
month
or
month
and
a
half
or
so
they're
really
they're,
really
going
great
guns
and
there's
significant
significant
changes
to
to
the
to
the
site
and
it's
coming
along
very
nicely.
G
D
I'd
add
that
they
must
be
excited,
because
I
just
happened
to
be
talking
to
ashley
earlier
this
afternoon
and
she
asked
if
I
wanted
a
tour,
and
I
said
I
bet
the
commission
would
like
it
to
orange.
She
should
talk
to
you
michaela,
so
clearly,
they're
excited
to
show
off
what
they're
working
on.
C
You
know
just
to
look
at
the
site
and
look
what
they
could
do
and
they've
had
to
go
through
a
number
of
public
processes
and
work
with
the
neighborhood
and
work
with
the
landmark
commission
and
just
I'm
excited
for
them
and
and
just
reach
out
to
me
any
of
the
commissioners.
If
you
would
like
to
be
interested
in
any
sort
of
tour,
we'd
love
to
set
that
up
and
and
make
that
happen
for
you
all
and
for
the
gardeners
they
should
be
very
proud.
H
B
Thank
you,
michaela.
Thank
you.
We
have
now
an
opening
for
public
comments.
Is
there
anybody
wayne
or
michaela?
Do
you
know
of
anybody
from
the
public
that
is
asking
to
make
comment.
B
Okay,
tonight's,
an
unusual
night
in
that
we
don't
have
any
action
items.
We
have
two
work
sessions
tonight
which
are
always
good
to
have
and
productive,
so
we're
looking
forward
to
that
we're
going
to
start
with
the
first
one,
which
is
the
rezone
at
860
and
868
east
on
third
ave,
not
far
from
where
I
used
to
live
for
many
years.
So
we're
happy
to
hear
about
this.
Miss
lima,
I'm
going
to
say
your
first
name
wrong.
So
would
you
say
it
for
me?
Please.
I
All
right,
so
this
is
just
a
work
session
to
discuss
the
request
of
the
rezone
on
the
properties
at
860
and
868
eastern
avenue,
from
cn
and
sr1a
to
rmu
35.
I
The
rezone
involves
two
properties,
one
that
has
a
gas
station
and
auto
repair
and
another
that
has
a
single
family
dwelling.
The
gas
station
was
built
in
1962
and
it
is
listed
as
not
contributing
to
the
historic
district.
The
house
was
built
in
1892
and
it
is
listed
as
contributing
as
a
contributing
structure.
I
The
purpose
of
the
rezone
is
to
allow
for
multi-family
development,
as
shown
on
the
conceptual
plan
on
the
screen.
This
plan
shows
the
applicant's
intent,
but
commissioners
should
bear
in
mind
that
this
is
a
conceptual
plan
only
and
the
reason
request
is
not
associated
with
any
specific
development.
I
I
All
these
considerations
are
summarizing
pages.
Four
and
five
of
the
memo
staff
found
that
the
proposal
complies
with
several
of
the
city
goals
and
policies
and
recommended
a
positive
recommendation,
with
a
condition
that
any
development
needed
to
incorporate
commercial
uses
on
the
corner
of
end
street
and
third
avenue.
Planning
commission
voted
to
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
city
council
but
did
not
include
the
condition
so
for
tonight.
I
What
we're
asking
of
the
hlc
is
any
input
on
the
proposal,
including
any
concerns
on
how
it
may
affect
the
avenues:
local,
historic
district
and
general
preservation
efforts
to
direct
the
conversation
we
suggest,
looking
at
the
compatibility
of
existing
uses
uses
and
those
allowed
by
the
proposed
zoning
district,
the
impact
of
the
rmu
35
zoning
standards
and
any
consideration
to
impacts
of
a
new
development
in
the
area.
G
Just
a
just
a
quick
question,
my
aura
is:
is
the
house
that
is
adjacent?
I
guess
to
the
east
of
the
gas
station.
Is
that
how
what
is
the
current
use
of
that
house
right
now.
H
And
I
went
by
there
and
talked
with
the
owners
and
using
my
new
historic
badge,
and
I
must
say
it's
in
really
great,
looking
shape
that
home.
It's
really
a
nice
feature
to
that
street.
B
So
my
rf,
I
understand
this-
we're
not
we're
looking
at
a
zoning
request,
but
we're
not
looking
at
an
actual
use
tonight
yet
on
this
property.
Is
that
correct?
That
is
correct?
There's
no
conceptual!
In
other
words,
we
don't
know
if
this
house
is
staying
or
if
they're
going
to
want
to
tear
it
down.
Do
we
know
that
yet.
I
I'll,
let
them
speak
more
about
it,
but
their
conceptual
plan,
the
pro
they
provided
to
us,
show
that
they
will
maintain
the
existing
house
and
remodel
it
and
use
the
the
area
that's
vacant
with
the
demo,
with
the
demolition
of
the
gas
station
and
build
something
new
to
the
east
of
the
combined
lots.
I
It's
six
residential
units
and
then
the
house
is
the
one
that
has
hatch.
H
And
the
side
yard
there
is
quite
quite
nice.
I
must
say,
because
I
was
worried
about
how
close
would
that
house
be
to
the
new
development
and
there's
a
lot
of
space
there.
B
F
Okay-
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
the
the
applicant,
but
has
there
been
any
study
or
look
into
how
removing
this
gas
station
would
affect
the
community
in
regards
to
accessibility
to
its
services?.
J
J
We
we
we
own
and
manage
remark
investments
and
we'll
get
the
developer
on
this
site.
Kevin
blaylock,
blaylock
partners
is
also
on
as
well
he's
he's
he's
our
architect
on
the
site
and
in
a
long
time
avenues
resident.
So
we're
definitely
have
glad
to
have
him
on
the
team
and
have
his
experience
on
the
team
and
and
definitely
excited
to
be
in
front
of
the
historic
landmark
commission
tonight,
robert.
You
must
have
definitely
made
your
stamp
in
that
area.
They
are.
J
J
We're
really
excited
about
this
site
really
excited
about
about
the
potential
here,
for
this
site
and
and
and
for
what
we
feel
like
will
be
a
nice
addition
to
the
neighborhood
and
and
we'll
turn
the
time
over
to
kevin,
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
about
the
site
and
design
and
proposal.
What
I
might
do
really
quick
is
answer
a
few
questions,
yeah
first.
J
First,
our
our
the
the
first
question
we
wanted
to
respond
to
is:
is
we
we
absolutely
plan
on
keeping
the
the
historic
hall
or
the
the
home
that
is
on
site
at
the
moment
there
there
is
definitely
zero
plan
to
demolish
it.
J
We
actually
would
we
have
have
have
started
talks
with
general
contractors
on
on
updating
some
of
his
features
and
and
bringing
it
up
to
a
little
bit
more
more
current
design,
just
just
light
touch-ups
on
the
inside
and
and
really
just
doing
whatever
we
can
to
to
beautify
the
yard,
and
then
we
would
like
to
find
a
long-term,
either
renter
or
or
buyer
for
that
site
and
then
use
the
additional
site
to
to
do
our
to
do
the
six
single
family
develop
development.
J
There
so
quick,
quick
answer
to
that
question
and
I
will
turn
the
time
over
to
kevin
as
well
and
then
we're
obviously
happy
to
answer
questions.
Any
questions
you
guys
have
after
as
well.
A
D
A
question
here:
please:
are
you
envisioning
these
as
condo
units
privately
owned,
or
will
they
be
rental
yeah.
J
Absolutely
we
are
currently
planning
on
six
for
sale,
kind
of
nice
upper
scale
class,
a
kind
of
townhome
units
there
at
this
site,
so
there
there
have
been
some
some
some
some
really
nice,
similar
type
projects
that
have
performed
really
well
have
been
have
been
well
received
by
the
market
over
in
capitol
hill
and
and
in
some
different
areas
closer
towards
downtown
and-
and
we
feel
like
a
similar
product
here,
will
would
do
very
well
and
and
and
actually
help
help
help
towards
kind
of
the
housing
issue
we're
having
as
well
and
and-
and
hopefully
you
know,
a
nice
area
for
people.
J
Yes,
kenton,
I
I
I
am,
I
am
sorry
about
that
bob
is
bob-
is
ready
to
retire.
It
sounds
like
he's
he's
he's
a
great
guy.
We
we've
we've
got
a
great
relationship
with
him
and
and
and
he
he
has
done
a
magnificent
job
with
that
repair,
shop
and
and
gas
station
it's
in
immaculate
shape
and
it
sounds
like
he's
he's
ready
to
retire
on,
but
but
we
really
like
him.
So
sorry,
sorry
about
that.
Kenton.
H
H
H
B
I
I
As
far
as
what
they
have
proposed-
it's
it's
not,
it
doesn't
seem
like.
You
need
a
plan
development,
so
it
would
be
considered
a
multi-family
and
then
the
units
would
go
through
a
subdivision
plat
to
be
con.
Condos.
K
Yeah
some
of
this
stuff
is:
can
anybody
hear
me?
Okay,
I'm
kevin.
A
A
K
Okay,
yeah,
everybody
can
see
my
screen,
yes,
okay,
yeah
babs,
back
to
your
your
question.
Your
point
at
the
moment,
warren
and
marcus
are
are
planning
on
these
as
single-family
town,
home
style
developments.
They
each
have
frontage
on
on
third
avenue,
and
the
end
unit
obviously
has
frontage
on
end
street.
So
we
didn't,
we
haven't
gotten
too
far
down
the
road
with
it,
but
to
date
the
discussion
has
been
up
not
to
do
a
pud
and
to
establish
lot
lines
for
condos
or
single-family
ownership.
B
B
K
Correct
yeah,
so
they
would
it's
essentially
multi-family
development,
but
single-family
ownership
from
ground
to
sky.
K
Okay,
so,
like
mayara
indicated
right
now,
the
the
corner
lot
is
zoned
as
cn
the
adjacent
single
family
resident
is
on
like
a
double
wide
lot.
That's
an
sr1a!
K
K
Okay,
and
it
is
worth
noting,
like
like
marcus
mentioned,
they've
they've
both
had
a
number
of
conversations
with
bob,
the
current
owner
and
he's
actually
a
supporter
of
their
their
plan
and
their
approach
as
well.
K
I
know
that
this
isn't
about
design,
but
certainly
we
had
to
talk
about
what
are
what
are
the
potentials
and
what
would
you
like
to
do
there
just
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
viable,
so,
just
as
a
as
a
point
of
clarity,
the
the
green
rectangle
with
the
kind
of
the
six
purple
blue
volumes,
those
are
the
new
single
family
residences
and
the
white
square,
with
the
hatch
on
it
is
the
existing
single-family
residence.
K
That's
planned
to
be
improved
a
little
bit
and
then,
like
marcus,
indicated
either
either
be
a
like
kind
of
a
long-term
renter
or
that's
a
that's
another
home
that
goes
up
on
the
market.
K
So,
in
addition
to
conversations
and
kind
of
working
closely
with
mayara,
we've
also
had
a
couple
of
conversations
with
the
planning
staff,
the
planning,
commission
and
attended
a
couple
of
meetings
with
the
avenues,
greater
avenues,
community
council
just
to
get
let
them
know
kind
of
what
the
intent
was
and
kind
of
the
the
long
range
plan.
K
K
K
We
have.
You
know
the
this
approach.
It
checks
a
lot
of
boxes
right,
we've
got
driveway
access,
shared
driveway
access
at
the
rear
of
the
property.
We've
got
the
required
landscape
buffer
between
the
the
asphalt
or
concrete
driveway
and
the
adjacent
property
to
the
south.
K
We're
exploring
ideas
of
kind
of
creating
these
interactive
front,
porch
expressions
on
third
avenue
and
possibly
along
n
street,
for
the
for
the
new
product,
just
so
that
there's
some
carry
over
some
consistency
with
the
traditional
language
of
the
development
in
the
lower
avenues,
specifically
on
along
the
south
side
of
third
ave.
K
So
two
car
garages
from
entered
from
the
rear,
the
property
slopes
about
three
feet
from
north
to
south
so
from
front
to
back
so
we're
working
with
that
change
in
grade
to
kind
of
modulate
the
elevation
a
little
bit
of
the
new
of
the
new
construction
and
then
yeah
just
results
in
kind
of
a
more
walkable
community,
more
more
green
space
and
we're
really
just
kind
of
getting
ready
to
dive
into
the
design.
K
K
So
this
is
the
preferred
option,
with
the
rezone
to
rmu
35,
basically,
six
new
single-family
residences
and
the
renovation
of
an
existing
single-family
residence
versus
keeping
the
cn
zone
developing
that
corner
and
and
renovating
and
selling
off
the
house.
And
so
we
just
looked
at
a
quick
study
that
that
really
could
develop
12
to
15
kind
of
studio
or
one
bedroom
units,
and
in
that
scenario,
that
would
be
a
for
rent
product
compliant
with
the
cm
zone,
as
opposed
to
the
six
new
for
sale,
single
family
homes.
K
That
is
a
lot
I
feel,
like
I've
been
doing
way
too
much
talking
so
oran
marcus.
If,
if
I
haven't
missed
anything,
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions,
if
you
guys
are.
J
I
think
oren
may
have
had
a
comment
kevin
right
right
before
you
started,
I'm
not
sure
if
we
still
I'm
sorry
or
not,
it
looks
like
he
may
have
no
yeah,
no
problem
guys.
You
guys
answered
everything
so
we're
all
good
hi
everybody,
I'm
lauren
and
just
like
everyone
said
we're
excited
to
be
here
and
go
through
this
working
session
with
you
all
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
further
questions.
We
have
a
couple
of
these
diagrams
that
we
could
continue
to
show
you
that
we've
worked
on.
J
We
just
have
some
robert,
where
we
thought,
through
the
the
landscaping
and
the
open
space
and
kind
of
the
comparison
of
the
current
property
versus
ours,
and
I
mean
just-
I
think
I
think
you
know
there's
a
few
other
iterations
of
this
site
plan
that
got
us
to
kind
of
this
staggering
of
this,
these
front
porches
approach
that
we
really
like
you
know
prior
to
I
don't
know
if
kevin
has
some
of
those
up,
but
just
some
of
the
initial
ones.
K
Yeah,
I
I
think
I
cut
most
of
that
out.
Sorry
oren,
because
it
was,
it
was
all
kind
of
an
evolution
to
like
this
kind
of
this
yeah
really
to
develop
the
front
porch
and
maximize
landscaping.
That.
B
K
Yeah
at
the
moment,
we're
we're
thinking
that
that
single
family
resident
owns
that
their
own
backyard
and
at
least
a
portion
of
the
side
yard
so
they're,
really
the
only
common
area
is
the
front
the
front
of
of
each
unit
onto
third
avenue
or
on
to
end
street.
K
We
are,
you
know
we
haven't
really
dove
into
any
design.
Yet
we
just
did
talk
about
carving
into
some
living
space
to
create
some
some
some
decks
or
terraces,
immediately
off
of
a
living
room
or
a
dining
room
or
a
bedroom,
or
something
like
that
where
they
could
have
some
outdoor
gathering
space
and
have
a
you
know
a
barbecue,
grill
or
something,
but
really
the
intention
is
this.
K
Is
you
know
this
is
a
little
bit
more
kind
of
urban
living
in
an
established,
neighborhood
and
obviously
the
you
know:
they're
they're,
just
trying
to
appeal
to
a
buyer
that
that
doesn't
want
to
have
so
much
yard
maintenance.
F
If
I
may
ask
maybe
to
dive
into
the
like,
I
think
it
was
a
12
unit,
condo
or
apartment
sort
of
rental.
To
me.
That
seems
like
that's
geared
more
towards
providing
more
housing
and
in
that
schematic
there
it
looks
like
you,
have
the
opportunity
for
some
more
shared
green
space
so
that
the
residents
can
have
some
green
space,
but
again
you're
also
providing
more
housing,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that
what
as
far
as
housing
needs,
I
know
that
was
kind
of
brought
up
a
little
bit
earlier.
K
Yeah,
it
is
definitely
a
balance
right.
I
think
a
couple
things
in
response
to
that.
Those
are
our
studio
units,
so
one
maybe
two
people
in
each
one.
You
basically
get
to
the
same
level
of
density
with
the
six,
the
six
new
townhomes,
where
each
of
those
are
two
and
three
bedroom
and
then
the
other
part
of
that
is
the
community
was
at
the
in
our
open,
greater
avenues.
K
Community
council
meeting
the
community
was
a
little
bit
more
reluctant
to
embrace
another
rental
in
in
their
neighborhood
for
fear
of
the
maybe
the
more
traffic,
more
vehicular
traffic
or
more
students.
K
I
think
they
were
just
more
fearful
of
the
unknown.
There
are
two
apartment
buildings
to
the
south
of
the
gas
station
that
are
for
rent
and
I
don't
know
the
history
of
those
and
then
I
think.
Thirdly,
lastly,
the
the
remark
guys
are
this:
this
has
always
been
a
for
sale
product
for
them
and
it
was.
It
was
a
very
short
conversation
between
should
we
do
this
12
to
15
rentals
studio,
12
to
15
studio
unit
as
a
rental
product
versus
a
for
sale
products.
F
And
I
just
want
to
ask
real
quick
if
you
could
just
jump
to
the
slide
that
showed
the
area
that
showed
where
the
other
apartment
complexes
were
in
relation
to
this,
this
site.
K
And
yeah-
and
I
do
have
some
like
you-
know-
google
street
views
or
something
if,
if
we
want
to
go
to
that
as
well.
F
Yeah-
and
it
does
seem
that,
with
that
the
studio
units
that
parking
could
definitely
be
a
problem.
I
know
that
you
were
talking
about
a
walkable
community,
but
I
could
see
that
that
could
potentially
be
a
problem.
There
too.
J
Those
those
those
are
are
a
few
of
some
of
the
issues
that
I
think
I
think
we
were
absolutely
trying
to
be
sensitive
to
the
neighborhood
and
and
and
the
the
gacc
with
you
know,
was
was
parking.
Obviously
parking
is
is,
is
is
always
a
very
important
subject
right
with
with
any
new
development.
That
was
a
big
concern,
and
you
know
you
know
to
be
honest,
we
feel
like
this
location.
J
You
know
really
deserves
a
nice
upper
scale
for
sale
product
where
people
want
to
buy
and
own
for
the
long
term,
right
and
and
and
and
as
much
as
I
support
and
I'm
a
fan
of
for
rent
development
in
the
right
location.
J
You
know,
I,
I
think,
for
the
long
term
of
that
neighborhood
having
having
having
long
trip
long-term
ownership
will
will
definitely
be
a
benefit
to
the
greater
neighborhood
as
a
whole.
So
so
that's
that's.
You
know.
Those
are
those
are
kind
of
a
number
of
reasons
why
we're
really
excited,
especially
about
the
for
sale
approach.
J
F
Well,
I
would
just
say-
and
I
would
definitely
like
to
hear
you
know
from
the
other
commissioners,
but
I
think
that
just
I
know
this
is
very
early
but
right
away,
just
based
off
of
the
very
quick
schematic
the
green
space
or
the
you
know.
Open
space
is
probably
one
of
my
biggest
concerns
right
off
the
bat.
K
Whether
or
not
that
is
you
know,
individual
use
is,
is
maybe
a
separate
discussion.
I
think
we're.
H
I
have
a
question
in
the
process
here
because
is
that:
are
we
micromanaging
that
you
have
lindsay
gardens
as
green
space,
massive
green
space
right
by
this?
So
given
that
the
use
here
has
been
a
gas
station
with
massive
traffic
compared
to
residential,
a
residential
block?
That
didn't
have
that?
H
J
You
know,
and-
and
I
think
I
think
kevin
does-
does
bring
up
a
really
good
point
right
if,
if,
if
we
were
able
to
pull
out
our
our
schematic
design
here
off
of
that
map,
I
mean
really
that
that
entire
corner
is
just
concrete
and
asphalt
right
and
and
even
the
west
portion
of
the
single
family
home.
That
really
is
not
all
grass.
I
I
guess,
as
a
small
amount
of
that
is,
is,
I
think,
actually
kind
of
concrete
and
used.
J
I
thought,
as
I
thought
they
were
potentially
using
that
as
as
a
parking
space
but
yeah
we're.
Like
definitely
understand
you
know
the
desire
for
green
space,
and
and
yet
when
you
look
at
what's
what's
there
now,
I
think
we're
we're
really
happy
with
with,
with
with
what
you
know,
we're
potentially
talking
about
providing.
L
L
From
what
the
purview
of
the
historical
landmark
commission
consideration
would
be,
the
only
thing
I
could
see
really
being
of
concern
would
be
if
we
did
something
that
would
take
away
from
the
contributing
structure,
so
maybe
just
being
cautious
about
setbacks
and
things
that
would
you
know
violate
that.
As
I
looked
at
the
rest
of
the
streetscape,
it
seems
like
it's
staggered,
so
your
tentative
idea
of
staggering
your
the
third
avenue
facing
is
seems
like
it's
all
consistent.
L
I
I
mean
without
any
other
design
concepts
and
just
going
from
a
purely
conceptual
consideration,
it
seems
like
adding
green
space
is
good.
If
I
were
in
the
avenues,
I
might
be
upset
that
I
didn't
have
a
place
to
gas
up
a
little
closer,
but
I
mean
with
the
housing
crunch.
It
feels
like
it's
a
smart
thing
to
do
so
this
I
I
can't
really
see
much
as
long
as
we
are
respecting
that
contributing
structure
and
the
historicity
of
the
structures
around
it.
F
Yeah
and
I'm
curious
just
going
back
to
my
question
I
had
asked
earlier
just
how
far
away
then
would
be
just
out
of
curiosity.
How
far
away
is
the
nearest
gas
station
at
that
point?.
J
Yeah
and
and
just
to
answer
that
too
from
earlier
jessica,
sorry,
I
heard
that
I
was
gonna.
That
was
what
I
was
gonna
kind
of
jump
in
there,
so
this
gas
station
does
not
have
some
of
the
normal
kind
of
services
right
of
a
usual
gas
station.
So
there
is
no
convenience
store
here.
It's
you
know.
Bob
does
not
sell
anything
out
of
this
other
than
just
his
repair
shop
that
he
has
funk
also
is
very
laid
back
on
the
hours
that
they're
open.
J
You
know
they
are
only
open
kind
of
normal
business
hours,
which
obviously
you
know,
pre
pre
kind
of
stay
at
home,
and
everything
was
a
time
where
you
just
didn't
go
get
gas,
I
mean.
Usually
you
go
before
work
or
after
work.
E
D
Hey
robert
point
of
procedure
here
yeah:
are
we
going
to
move
into
a
closed
session
of
discussion
discussion
within
the
commission?
You
know
we'll
let
the
applicant
finish
the
q
a
here
and
then
go
into
our
our
back
and
forth
discussions
and
then
present
them
with
our
our
comments.
B
Well,
I
was
thanks
kent
and
I
was
just
gonna.
I
was
gonna
just
focus
this
meeting.
We
can,
we
can
call
it
closed
session
or
not,
but
you
know
we're
just,
but
we
we
are
gonna
have
to
just
we
don't
have
to,
but
we
are
gonna
discuss
as
a
commission.
What
we're
gonna
do
so
to
focus
this.
We
this
this
project
will
come
back
to
us
for
our
approval
of,
what's
being
built
under
in
the
normal
manner
in
which
we
approve
new
structures
in
a
historic
zone.
Tonight's
meeting
is
purely
about.
B
B
I've
proved
a
recommendation
of
of
this
rezone
and
and
what
the
city
is
city
council
is
asking
us
is
if
we
want
to
give
any
input
to
the
city,
to
the
city
council,
on
the
rezone
and
and
so
what
we're
really
talking
about,
and
their
question
is,
of
course,
we're
we're
a
limited
commission,
right,
landmarks
and
historic
district,
and
so,
if,
if
we
feel
like
this
rezone
is
is
wrong
and
that
it
allows
a
type
of
use
or
a
density
of
use
or
type
of
use,
that
we
don't
want
here
and
that's
where
we
would
that
would
we
would
give
our
objection
that
would
go
to
the
city.
B
So
that's
what
we
will
discuss
here
in
a
second
and
whether
anyone
has
any
input
to
give
the
city
and
then
they'll
rezone
it
and
then
the
bigger
issue.
Most
of
our
questions,
including
mine,
have
gone
towards
really
are
more
appropriate
when
we
get
back
to
the
design,
but
they're
appropriate
now
too,
because
knowing
what's
going
to
happen
affects
whether
we
want
to
see
it
rezoned
or
not.
Right
and
again,
that's
not
our
purview,
but
we
do
get
to
give
input
on
it.
M
Well,
I
have
a
question
to
that
end,
which
is
how
tall
is
the
historic
house?
That's
part
of
the
development.
K
Yeah
yeah,
that's
that's
your!
I
think
mayara
had
a
great
photo
of
it.
That's
your
traditional
single-family,
historic
kind
of
bungalow,
yeah
yeah.
You
know
six
twelve,
seven,
twelve,
eight
twelve
roof
or
something
yeah.
It's
deep.
B
Well,
that's
the
question
that
you
know
we
don't
in
a
way.
This
is
kind
of
unusual
thing
to
be
addressing
zoning
only
because
you're
right
john,
we
when
we
approve
when
we
when
we
look
at
approving,
what's
going
to
be
built
there,
that's
when
we're
going
to
be
able
to
get
into
height
and
materials
and
all
the
other
things
we
get
into.
So
it
fits
in
the
historic,
so
they're
going
to
be
zoned
to
be
able
to
do
a
single
family
on
seven
existing
and
six
more
units,
but
how
they
do
that.
K
M
Right
anyways,
what
I'm
saying
is
that
once
we
because
to
me
the
biggest
implication
of
rezoning
it
to
rmf
35
is
that
you
can
build
a
35
foot
tall
building,
so
once
it
comes
back
to
us,
then
we
won't
really
have
any
say
over
the
height
of
it.
If
it's
zoned
as
rmf
35,
then
you
know
we
don't
have
any
power
over
it.
At
that
point,.
B
What
what's
the
existing
zoning
allow
in
terms
of
all
the
residential
around,
there
is,
what's
the
height
limit
on
the
existing
houses?
F
And
before
you
do
that,
if
I
can
jump
in
so
that
cross
section
just
showed
the
property
just
to
the
east,
and
so
we
can
see
that
35
is
slightly
lower,
have
you
and
as
you're
you
know
answering
this:
have
you
looked
into
kind
of
what
the
grade
changes
over
the
next
couple
properties
just
for
skill
and
perspective?
I
guess.
K
Yeah
we've
we've
started
some
of
that
because
we
know
that
that
is
going
to
be
a
requirement
to
share
with
all
of
you.
Eventually,
when
we
get
into
design
and
we're
we're
trying
to
be
very
take
a
very
sensitive
approach,
you
can
see
the
house
immediately
to
the
east
of
the
of
the
historic
single
family.
This
is
more
of
a
two-story
with
the
more
kind
of
traditional
five
to
six
feet
of
separation
between
houses.
K
The
intersection
we're
35
feet
from
the
back
property
line,
but
we're
more
like
31
or
32
at
the
sidewalk
or
at
third
avenue,
so
that
has
kind
of
the
relationship
with
the
the
fourplex
that's
immediately
across
the
street
on
the
corner,
and
then
you
can
see
the
three-story
apartment,
building
to
the
south
of
our
property,
where
the
gas
station
is
two-story
apartment,
three-story
apartment.
K
So
we're
trying
to
respond
to
all
of
the
different
characteristics
again
at
a
very,
very
high
level,
high
sort
of
planning
level
in
terms
of
what's
immediately
there
at
the
corner
and
the
and
the
and
the
surrounding
existing
structures.
So
pulling
the
building
away
from
the
single-family
house
to
help
mitigate
some
of
that
change
in
scale,
bringing
it
to
the
corner,
which
is
more
of
kind
of
a
urban
master
planning
response
and
is
consistent
with
some
of
the
city
master
planning
objectives
and
we've.
K
We've
just
started
kind
of
a
documentation
process
of
what
the
streetscape
feels
like
from
both
both
the
north
side
of
third
avenue
and
the
south
side
of
third
avenue
on
the
north
side
of
third
avenue,
they're
they're
all
of
the
same
era.
Again,
as
the
south
side,
I'm
not
sure
what
development
pattern
kind
of
forced
this,
but
the
homes
on
the
north
side
of
the
of
the
block
are
much
larger,
they're,
they're,
two
two
and
a
half
and
three
stories.
K
A
lot
of
those
have
been
subdivided
into
like
a
four
plex
or
a
six
black,
six
plus
four
rental,
and
then
on
our
side
of
the
street.
It
is
a
little
bit
more
kind
of
single
family
one
and
a
half
or
two-story
traditional
structures,
so
we're
we're
starting
to
kind
of
piece.
All
of
that
together
and
doing
some.
You
know
just
diagrammatic
scale
studies
again.
K
This
is
kind
of
the
single
family
or
the
south
side
of
the
street,
with
our
development
kind
of
superimposed
across
the
entire
block
face,
and
this
is
the
opposite
side
of
the
street.
The
north
side
of
third
avenue.
F
What
is
the
proposed
or
rough?
I
know
this
is
very
schematic
still,
but
what
is
the
proposed
rough
just
footprint
of
those
individual
six
units.
B
D
F
Mean
by
that?
Well,
I
guess
okay,
so
I
just
like
you
know
just
footprint
on
the
ground
square
footage
yeah,
and
I
guess
where
that
question
is
leading
me,
is
I'm
wondering
if
it's
possible
to
possibly
instead
of
going
with
three
stories,
possibly
eat
into
the
main
level,
a
little
bit
with
the
garage
and
still
have
an
acceptable
amount
of
square
footage
with
just
two
levels.
Instead
of.
F
J
K
Our
average
we're
we're
somewhere
22
to
2500
square
feet,
so
you
know
most
of
that
ground
floor
is
taken
up
by
a
two-story
or
a
two
car
garage.
K
K
So
that
means
that
our
our
unit
square
footage
is
roughly
22
to
2500
square
feet.
If
that
helps
answer
your
question,
I
think
that
was
jessica.
B
I'm
looking
at
I'm
looking
at
the
things
you
just
put
out,
but
I'm
also
looking
in
the
materials
on
figure.
15
shows
those
two
large
houses
north
of
north
of
the
project
across
the
street.
So
just
roughly,
is
if
obviously
they're
sitting
north
they're
sitting
up
there,
big
buildings
they're
high
off
the
ground.
You
know
floors
a
long
way
from
the
street.
So
if
you
get
a
35,
if
we
have
a
if
we
build
to
the
35
foot,
if
you
built
the
35
foot
on
this
gas
station
property,
where
would
that
actually
be
a
rooftop?
K
Yeah
robert,
if,
if
you
can
still
see
my
screen,
this
is
this
is
to
scale
and
illustrates
exactly
what
you're
talking
about
at
the
at
the
top
at
the
top
here
right.
This
is
the
the
corner
house
and,
like
you
pointed
out,
their
first
floor
line
is
well
above
the
street
and
well
above
the
sidewalk,
so
they
have
kind
of
a
porch
entry
sequence
and
then
their
their
roof
line
will
be.
B
So
can
you
show
me
that
same
picture
with
the
proposed
building
with
with
the
single
dwelling
house,
that's
part
of
your
project
next
to
it.
B
K
Yeah
this
this
is
kind
of
a
tiny
house
to
begin
with,
and
again
that's
why
we're
trying
to
you
know,
pull
it
away
a
little
bit
for
whatever
reason,
there's
really
four
or
five
feet
between
these
two
homes
and
then
the
rest
of
the
block
face.
It
gets
to
a
more
typical
five
to
eight
feet
of
separation
and
we're
we're
really
trying
to
get.
You
know,
10
to
10
to
12
feet
of
separation.
D
The
the
issue
here
to
me
isn't
so
much
the
height
in
that
third
ave
view,
which
should
be
labeled
third
and
view
south,
but
rather
the
mass,
and
then
you
get
into
the
whole
the
design
representation
which
right
now
we're
looking
at
a
polygon
rectangle,
essentially,
which
has
none.
D
It
comes
across
poorly
with
respect
to
massing,
with
respect
to
the
houses
to
the
east
of.
It
might
be
more
of
a
precedent
to
consider
down
on
third
and
k
street.
Looking
the
same
way,
the
brick
building
that
formerly
housed
the
wild
rose
sports
across
from
the
7-eleven.
D
It
will
have
a
city.
This
will
have
a
similar
relationship
to
the
adjacent
houses
as
that
building
does.
However,
presumably
this
building
and
given
the
history
of
the
projects
that
kevin
has
presented
to
us
should
be
a
lot
more
sensitively,
masked
and
detailed.
So
I
think
that
will
help,
but
just
bringing
this
around
full
circle
be
careful
when
looking
at
that,
because
it
is
not
really
representing
the
final
outcome.
B
B
K
K
We
can't
go
further
east
or
west
or
or
up
or
down
right.
We.
These
are
kind
of
the
rules
that
we've
given
ourselves
and
we
haven't
started
yet
like
carving
into
it
or
creating
the
massing
or
or
giving
it
any
life
or
detail
we're
just
trying
to
identify
okay.
This
is
our
box
and
we
have
to
color
within
the
lines.
D
Hang
on
john,
let
me
just
say
one
more
thing
I
was
going
to
say
this
does
not
change
what
you
said,
which
is
absolutely
true.
If
we,
if
we
forward
a
recommendation
for
the
rezoning,
they
can
go
to
35
feet
and
they
could
go
flat
roof
as
well.
You
know
it
will
meet
our
our
design
review,
but
yeah
john.
It
does
open
the
door
for
the
maximum
potential
design.
A
Can
I
jump
in
really
quick?
This
is
wayne,
they
will
have
to
come
back
for
new
construction
and
one
of
the
standard.
It
does
allow
the
maximum
height
to
go
up
to
35
feet.
However,
in
the
new
construction
standards,
one
of
those
standards
is
related
to
height
and
how
that
height,
you
know
measures
up
to
the
the
neighboring
properties
in
the
neighborhood.
So
you
will
have,
I
guess,
oversight
over
that
right.
B
B
Thank
you,
so,
commissioners,
how
do
we
you
know?
Our
goal
is
to
to
send
a
recommendation
that
we're
fine
with
this
rezone
or
or
we
have
concerns
with
it.
How
does
everyone
feel
about
that?
What
we
ought
to
be
saying
to
the
city
council
and
again,
our
our
point
is
not
as
broad
as
whether
we
like
something
or
not.
Our
point
is:
do
we
feel
like
this
rezone
is
going
to
be
detrimental
to
us,
maintaining
the
historic
nature
of
the
of
the
property.
G
Yeah
robert,
might
I
guess
my
comment
would
be
that
there
I
I
believe
that
the
proposal
has
been
respectful
in
in
two
directions
to
the
existing.
You
know.
You've
got
a
driveway,
that's
presumably
20,
22,
foot,
plus
or
minus.
You
know
to
the
to
the
south
between
the
proposed
new
construction,
the
existing
single
family
home
and
then
the
the
apartment
to
the
south
and
then
in
the
other
direction.
G
You
know,
as
as
what
mr
blaylock
said,
that
you
know
there's
10
to
12
feet
between
the
proposed
new
and
the
existing,
so
they
are
set
back
just
a
bit
from
that.
I
I
I
also
you
know
the
the
notion
of
having
all
of
the
landscaping
across
the
front
to
fill
in,
I
think
is,
is
a
good
one.
You
know
that
so
I'm
a
little
bit
nervous
that
that
everything
is
could
be
to
that
to
that
height.
G
M
I
agree,
I
think
one
of
the
talking
points
that
we
were
presented
was
whether
or
not
the
use
is
compatible
with
the
historic
nature
which
I
see
no
issue
there,
because
the
avenues,
especially
the
lower
avenues,
is
just
such
a
heterogeneous
mix
of
uses
of
commercial
there's
lots
of
residential
and
it's
all
kind
of
it's
pretty
dense
and
it's
all
kind
of
blended
together
and
even
in
the
sanborn
map
showing
that
that
site,
you
could
tell
that.
M
There's
a
single
family
residence
there
for
a
long
time
to
support
the
store
that
was
on
the
corner
prior
to
the
gas
station.
So
I
have
no
issue
there
and
I
think
what
wayne
just
said
kind
of
easil.
Some
of
my
concerns
about
the
height.
M
I
would
just
encourage
the
applicant
as
they
do
get
into
more
of
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
design,
to
try
to
find
creative
ways
to
mitigate
that.
Maybe
I
don't
know
if
that
last
unit
or
two
is
a
little
lower
than
the
rest
of
the
volume
or,
if
you
know
you
could
maybe
play
with
the
grades
a
little
bit
to
get
the
driveway
in
the
back.
M
A
little
lower,
just
kind
of
lowering
the
whole
thing
or
what
that
entails,
but
that's
kind
of
what
I
would
focus
on
moving
forward
into
the
into
the
design.
But
I
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
the
neighborhood
as
long
as
the
design
ends
up
following
the
guidelines.
D
Yeah
yeah
I'll
jump
in
for
a
second.
I
agree
with
what
mike
and
john
both
said,
and
then
I'd
add
to
that
that
the
staff
had
made
a
recommendation
which
planning
commission
shows
not
the
forward.
But
I'd
like
to
address
that
about
adding
some
retail
to
this.
This
project
and
I'd
agree
with
planning
commission.
I
don't
see
that
as
needed
or
appropriate
here
that
this
recommendation
would
say
it's
all
a
residential
use.
E
You
know
you
know,
I'm
gonna
be
contrary
in
there.
If
that's,
okay,
you
know,
I
I
think
of
this
as
the
far
edge
of
federal
heights
west,
which,
in
my
opinion,
is
around
q
street,
but
we're
not
that
far
away
in
pre-down
zone
before
the
avenues
was
down.
Sound
wholesale,
very,
very
dense
developments
were
allowed
here
and,
to
that
end,
I
I
can
support
whatever
density
the
developer
wants
to
bring
here.
E
However,
I
think
the
commercial
component
is
really
critical
to
this
end
of
the
avenues
there
is,
I
think,
a
vibrant
neighborhood
has
a
mixture
of
uses,
and
historically
this
has
been
a
commercial
node
and
our
neighborhood
I
live
here
is
missing
a
lot
of
commercial
nodes
that
have
disappeared
over
the
last
50
years
and
it
would,
in
my
opinion,
I
agree
with
planning.
I
think
a
commercial
component
is
important
here.
E
Like
I
said
earlier,
I
I
could
support
almost
any
density
and
with
the
caveat
and
nod
to
john
mr
iwanowski,
that
I
think
the
massing
on
this
corner
is
going
to
be
very
important
and-
and
I
suspect
that,
if,
if
the
architecture
firm
that's
presenting
tonight,
you
know
ultimately
does
the
project
will
end
up
with
something
pretty
darn
good.
So
but
yeah
back
to
it.
I
think
the
commercial
conference
is
important.
D
E
Talk
about
that's
a
really
good
question,
because
since
the
wild
rose
was
sold,
you
know
the
different
organizations
that
have
moved
in
there
have
struggled
with
a
higher
rents
and
yeah
what
is
commercially
viable
for
a
new
development
versus
what
is
commercially
viable
for
existing
buildings
is,
is
very
different
and
that
that
way
out
of
my
wheelhouse
and
well
beyond
the
purview
of
our
commission.
E
H
Would
make
it
yeah?
Well,
let's
talk
reality
about
all
of
the
commercial
space
that
is
going
to
be
vacant
and
foreclosed
upon
in
the
avenues
and
surrounding
downtown
area.
I
think
the
future
here
is
rather
ugly
for
commercial
space
and
requiring
a
developer
to
put
in
mixed
use
with
commercial
residential
is
unrealistic.
Also,
given
that
we
are
down
what
50
000
at
least
housing
units,
we
are
in
desperate
need
of
housing
units.
E
So
babs,
are
you
talking
more
towards
office
space?
Are
you
talking
all
all
commercial
space
support,
retail.
H
I'm
pretty
passionate
across
the
board,
restaurants
bars
small
shops
and
and
for
a
small
business
to
go
into
a
space
like
that.
Their
rent
is
going
to
be
oh
easily,
two
thousand
dollars
a
month
and
for
a
small
business
that
may
not
be
feasible
at
all,
but
there's
going
to
be
such
an
influx
of
empty
leased
and
owned
commercial
space
here
in
the
future.
H
B
All
right:
well,
I
think
you
know
these
have
been
great
comments.
I
think
it's
a,
I
think
it's
the
right
direction.
You
know
I
I
like
that
area
and
I
like
what
they're
doing
I
I
I
worry
a
little
bit
about
height
too,
but
you
know
what
25
would
probably
not
make
it
very
commercially
feasible
to
redo
something
like
this.
B
So
we
also
have
to
be
realistic
about
what
can
get
done
and
done
and
done
well,
and
I
think
personally,
having
lived
in
the
avenues
21
years
I
like
more
anytime,
I
could
have
more
residentials
good,
you
know
commercial
was
commercial,
was
you
know,
zoning
laws
were
different
then,
and
you
found
it
everywhere
and
it
it's
not
always
what
we
want.
So
I
don't
mind
this
changing.
B
Do
we
do
we
have?
Do
we
have
consensus
as
a
commission
that
we
were
willing
to
support?
I
guess
really
what
they're
asking
is
we
have
any
input?
Do
we
have
any
input
negative
towards
city
council
approving
this
rezone.
E
B
D
E
I
just
think
that
that
our
you
know
the
text
of
our
conversation
tonight.
If
the
council
chooses
to
read
it
might
be
enlightening.
A
F
Yeah-
and
I
I
also,
I
think
that
there
were
some
really
good
points
brought
up
about
the
the
height
you
know
it
earlier.
In
the
conversation,
I
was
really
trying
to
think
about
that
being
a
corner
and
the
height,
and
you
know
if
that
was
just
going
to
be
just
just
this
mass
this
large
mass
there
and
to
reiterate,
I
think
that
it
might
be
helpful
if
they,
if
they
at
least,
do
hear
some
of
our
concerns.
B
What
if
we
send
a
message
back
to
the
city
council
that
that
we,
that
the
historical
landmarks
commission
is
not
opposed
to
the
rezone,
but
they
do
have
concerns
about
height
and
they
intend
to
address
them
at
their
later
approval
processes
in
our
commission
and
hope
that
the
city
council
will
take
it
into
account
when
they
do
their
own
decision.
Making.
G
I
would
also
mention
that,
in
the
in
the
proposal
where
the
face
of
the
building
facing
third
is,
is
not
monolithic,
it's
it's
in
and
out
and
creates
some.
You
know
some
shade
and
shadow,
you
know,
and
it's
enough
in
front.
I
think
that
is
something
that
that
is
very,
but
that's
a
good
point,
and
I
think
that
that,
because
that's
been
presented,
I
would
want
to
maintain
that,
and
I
suspect
that
that
the
architects
will,
you
know,
continue
with
that,
so
that
uneven
thing
that's.
B
Always
that's
always
that's
right,
mike,
that's
always
a
big
one
when
we
start
approving
the
new
construction,
so
I
think
the
mass
and
the
and
the
monolithic,
those
those
ideas
go
towards
the
approval
process
when
they
come
back
with
plans
to
us
with
respect
to
zoning,
they
don't
really
probably
enter
into
the
zoning.
B
The
zoning's
mostly
used
in
a
height
type
of
thing
so,
but
I
think
the
way
we've
worded
it
with
everyone's
input
here
is
a
is
a
good
recommendation
or
a
good
thought
to
send
to
the
city,
council
and
and
and
as
much
and
more
to
the
applicants.
They
know
they're
here
hearing
what
we're
saying
in
terms
of
what
they
bring
back
to
us
at
a
later
date,
assuming
they
get
the
rezone.
G
B
Okay,
I
think
that's
enough
said
for
a
study
session
unless
said
anyone
else
has
any
input.
We
will
thank
we'll
thank
marcus
and
oren
and
kevin
for
coming
and
spending
some
time
with
us
tonight
for
your
thoughtful
consideration
of
all
these
matters
and
and
good
luck
with
your
project.
B
So
we're
now
going
to
move
into
the
other
work
session,
which
is
the
saxton
barlett
edition
at
7
32
east
on
second
south
is,
is
that
is
that
chelsea,
it's
kelsey
kelsey,
we'll
turn
the
time
over
to
you.
N
N
N
N
The
site
plan
on
the
left
illustrates
the
existing
site,
the
dashed
line
kind
of
in
the
center
of
this
structure.
The
site
plan
indicates
where
the
1950
edition
begins
and
where
the
1915
cottage
ends.
The
site
plan
on
the
right
indicates
the
proposed
edition.
N
N
N
Okay.
At
this
time,
I
will
just
briefly
go
through
the
proposed
elevations
and
then
turn
the
time
over
to
the
applicants.
This
is
the
north
elevation.
N
The
top
image
is
the
proposed
east
elevation.
This
elevation
extends
above
the
existing
roof
line
by
approximately
three
feet:
seven
inches.
Additionally,
the
west
elevation
is
the
lower
image
and
this
elevation
reaches
22
feet.
Nine
inches
the
new
south
elevation
extends
into
the
rear
yard,
which
is
one
of
the
special
exceptions
being
requested
and
is
requested
to
create
a
covered
parking
area.
N
N
Those
include
alterations
to
contribute
structure
to
a
salt
lake
city
landmark
site
and
the
requested
special
exceptions,
and
before
I
turn
the
time
over
to
the
applicants,
I
forgot
to
mention
that
this
has.
This
is
the
second
work
session
for
a
proposed
addition
to
the
site.
The
first
work
session
was
in
march
of
2020.
B
N
It
was
the
same
building.
It
was
a
different
proposal.
It
was
for
a
full
two-story
pop-up.
You
provided
feedback
on
that
proposal
and
I
summarized
the
points
made
from
the
commission
within
the
memo.
F
Before
we
go
any
further,
I
would
just
first
like
to
say
hello
to
wayne
and
also
I'm
going
to
recuse
myself
during
this,
because
I
worked
with
the
firm
during
the
process
of
this
design.
Development.
A
Let
me
let
me
make
you
a
presenter
here,
really
quick
and
then
you'll
be
good
to
go.
O
Okay,
I
gotta
refocus
my
best.
Zingers
were
for
jessica
and
she's
recused
herself,
so.
A
No
that
allows
you
to
draw.
You
should
have
a
place,
go
to
share
file.
O
O
O
That
and
there
we
go
okay.
O
O
Okay,
just
want
to
make
sure
you're
you're
here
angela
was
there.
O
We
go,
you
were
muted
there,
so
you
can,
you
can
jump
in,
take
it
away
wayne!
Okay!
Here
we
go,
you
guys
had
the
staff
reports,
so
the
landmark
status
of
the
freeze,
mansion
and
all
that
you've
got.
O
I
assume
red
it's
it's
for
some
good
reading
the
to
catch
you
all
up
on
the
previous
trip
to
landmarks
was
looking
at
removing
the
roof
and
doing
a
second-story
addition
over
the
whole
building,
which
is
why
we're
back
to
see
about
doing
an
addition
just
on
the
rear
part-
and
I
guess
a
quick
clarification.
O
O
We
know
it's
after
1950
because
it's
not
on
that
sanborn
map,
but
it's
on
like
the
1953
map,
so
we're
essentially
leaving
the
1915
cottage
as
it
is
leaving
the
first
story
of
the
1950
edition,
basically
as
it
is
and
replacing
the
1950
roof
with
our
new
edition.
O
So
it's
kind
of
a
second
story
edition,
if
that
makes
sense
versus
a
two-story
edition,
for
what
it's
worth.
So
that
makes
sense
there.
O
O
If
you
can
see
to
the
right
that
purchase,
partial
nancy
and
jan
even
purchased
a
little
bit,
that's
basically
driveway
for
freeze
mansion
parking
and
then
with
their
parking
on
the
back
of
the
house.
We've
got
no
place
to
go
but
up,
which
is
why
we
are
going
up.
O
And
the
let
me
just
go
to
the
elevations.
O
Here
so
we're
going
up,
and
one
of
the
concerns
we
talked
about
talk
with
kelsey
is
is
massing
doing
what
we
can
to
keep
it
down
using
the
412
pitch
of
that
front.
Porch
kind
of
treating
this
like
the
original
cottage
had
the
812
on
the
main
house
and
412
on
the
appendages,
so
we're
we're
matching
that
and
keeping
the
ceilings
at
eight
feet
so
not
going
any
higher
than
we
need
to
go.
O
The
floor
level
again
is
set
to
keep
the
eight
foot
ceilings
on
the
main
level,
so
we're
we're
keeping
that
down
and
one
concern
came
up
with
kelsey
you
go
to
the
west
elevation.
The
west
facade
of
the
existing
house
is
over
the
setback
line.
However,
we're
building
to
keep
the
existing
again.
The
existing
first
story
of
the
1950
edition
existing
foundation
so
to
to
set
it
in
from
the
west
setback
line,
would
be
pretty
a
major
endeavor,
so
we're
hoping
to
keep
keep
that.
O
Right
there
again
to
provide
cover
parking,
and
at
least
a
bit
of
living
space
on
the
upstairs
this
is
this:
is
a
pretty
small
house
give
jane
and
nancy
a
little
space.
O
Just
making
sense
so
far
to
y'all,
okay,
every
okay,
thanks
kenton
for
nodding,
it
looks
like
you
guys,
are
all
muted
there.
We
go
we'll
use
hand
sign,
because
I
I've
been
looking
at
this
a
lot.
So
it's
all
clear
to
me-
and
you
guys
haven't
seen
it
so
trying
to
make
it
clear
to
you.
So
that's
that's
the
overall
massing
to
try
to
keep
it
down
as
much
as
we
could.
O
The
overall
detailing
keeping
it
simple.
The
original
cottage
was
simple.
The
1950
edition
was
simple,
even
though
it's
part
of
the
freeze,
mansion
parcel
and
national
register
listing
it
was
built
after
the
mansion
and
doesn't
share
that.
So
we're
going
to
stay
simple,
like
the
cottage,
a
couple
of
couple
items
of
thrown
some
roof
brackets
on
there.
Just
that's
pretty
common
throughout
salt
lake
city,
matching
the
eve
open
eve
of
the
existing
collet
cottage.
We
looked
at
the
the
approach.
O
Do
something
different
to
stand
about
from
the
cottage,
but
it
really
wants
to
pull
in
some
of
the
details
and
matching
it.
The
window
trim
the
roof
eaves,
the
siding
will
change
up
a
bit
just
to
differentiate,
but
I
guess
look
like
the
same
building
built
a
little
later,
so
it
goes
with
it.
The
windows
layouts
have
to
do
with
there's
interesting
situation
on
the
site.
O
It's
surrounded
by
apartments,
tall
apartments,
dumpster
enclosures,
covered
parking,
do
get
some
mountain
views,
so
we're
basically
arranging
so
that
jan
and
nancy
can
have
the
good
views
of
the
mountains
and
not
be
looking
at
the
dumpsters.
That's
larger
windows
on
the
east
elevation
here
also
some
larger
ones
on
the
south,
but
also
accommodating
they've,
got
a
some
for
a
sideboard
in
there.
So
we
want
to
try
to
pick
shapes
that
we've
seen
the
west.
O
The
existing
stairway,
which
will
be
utilized,
is
it's
there.
It's
gonna
keep
it
there.
Also
on
the
west.
They
kind
of
mixed
and
matched
their
existing
windows.
That's
existing!
That's
existing
that's
existing
and
that
one's
existing.
O
Let's
see
how
do
I,
how
do
I
get
a
pointer
that
works.
O
Annotate
there
we
go,
I
draw
oh
there.
We
go
that
window
that
window
that
window
in
that
window
house
how's
that
perfect,
okay,
those
those
are
all
those
are
the
existing
windows
on
the
west
side.
So
that's
what
we
had
to
work
with,
let's
see
what
else
we'll
go,
let
you
see
it
from
three
dimensions,
because
that's
actually
how
we're
going
to
see
it.
O
Again,
we
didn't
really
have
the
opportunity
to
do
the
connecting
link
that
I
know
is
preferred
between
existing
and
new
editions.
We
this
oh
now
that
I
can
do
this
watch
out.
O
That
is
essentially
the
original
1915
cottage
we're
looking
at
at
least
doing
a
change
in
the
roof
to
differentiate
that,
and
I
say,
we're
looking
at
once
we
get
farther
down
the
road
into
construction
documents
and
actually
detailing
it.
This
may
may
happen.
We
may
end
up
wanting
to
keep
these
shingles
all
the
way
across.
So
that's
that's
something
to
come
when
we
look
at
how
to
detail
the
roof
and
not
tear
into
the
existing
roof
too
much.
O
One
thing
to
point
out:
one
concern
was
the
street
frontage.
Here
is
what
it's
going
to
look
like
actually
from
second
south
and
have
to
say
it's
been
25
years.
I
actually
lived
across
the
street
in
that
duplex
for
three
years.
O
B
M
And
the
addition
was
done,
I
mean
so.
The
1950
sanborn
in
my
mind,
is
notoriously
incomplete,
but
you
agree
that
that
that
addition
was
done
after
1950
outside
of
the
historical
period
and
should
not
be
considered
a
kind
of
historical
piece
of
this
cottage.
N
The
the
rear
of
the
structure
does
appear
to
be
an
addition,
however,
even
if
it
was
constructed
during
the
historic
period
if
an
addition
is
cited
to
the
rear
and
you
and
an
applicant
is
removing
an
existing
addition.
We
we
approve
those
regularly,
typically
because
they're
not
visible
from
the
public
way.
You
know
they're,
making
contemporary
alterations
to
historic
structure,
so
staff
is
a
little
bit
more
flex
with
rear
sighted
additions
being
removed
and
replaced.
N
M
N
A
O
If,
if
just
to
make
sure
kelsey,
I'm
still
driving,
okay,
that's
fine!
I
just
didn't
want
to
embarrass
myself
thinking.
I
wasn't
so.
You
know
doodling
on
here,
while
I'm
listening
to
someone
so
I'll.
Okay,.
G
I'll
I'll
comment
as
well,
and
I
believe
I
went
back
to
my
notes
of
5th
of
march
of
2020
from
from
my
notes,
the
what
what
you've
shown
here
wayne.
K
A
G
Structure,
the
other
design
seemed
to
overpower
the
original.
This
is
now
it's
pretty
easy
to
see.
One
was
original,
one
is
being
added,
and
so
you
can
see
a
demarcation
between
the
two.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
conversation
when
it
was
originally
brought
up
in
in
march.
I
think
jessica
you
were
there
as
well
was
that
the
proposed
edition
just
dominated
the
the
original
small
structure.
G
So
I
think
I
guess
what
what
my
comment
is
is
you
know
we
talked
about
that
and
you
seem
to
be
very
respectful
of
that
fact
and.
A
G
That's
proposed
design
is
much
different
than
what
was
shown
in
march
of
2020.
E
Mike
I'd
like
to
add
to
that-
and
you
know
this-
this
is
a
small
backlot
property.
It's
a
long
way
away
from
the
street.
It's
it's
a
tight
site,
it
is
surrounded
by
commercial
development
and
you
know
insomuch
as
the
1915
cottage
structure
is
honored
in
this
design
or
future
design.
E
If
we
may
see
it,
I'm
wondering
if
it
might
be
in
the
best
interest
of
our
commission
to
give
the
applicant
a
little
more
relief
with
setbacks
and
specifically
to
the
west,
there's
just
a
parking
lot
to
the
west,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
this
it
might
actually
look
better
if
the
and
feel
better.
If
the
rear
lot
edition
had
a
little
extended
a
little
away
from
the
existing
cottage
rather
than
being
in
line.
I
mean.
E
Would
be
less,
but
in
this
case
I
think
you
know
what,
if
we
we
gave
them
relief
for
the
west
setback,
two
four
or
five
feet
or
or
whatever
I
think
at
a
certain
point.
It
becomes
a
building
code
issue
and
not
a
zoning
issue.
E
O
E
And
and
so
there's
certainly
a
precedence
that
the
commission
could
use
there
and
say:
well,
you
know
a
four
foot.
Setback
historically
would
have
been
very
appropriate
for,
for
this
type
of
dwelling
and
and
the
the
underlying
zoning,
of
course
has
changed
over
the
years
so
architecturally
that
might
not
help
you
with
the
building
code.
But
I
I
my
personal
recommendation
is:
I
think
we
should
give
the
applicant
a
little
more
room
on
the
west
side.
I
will
specifically
say
four
feet:
set
book
setback.
G
Yeah,
I
would
agree
with
that
and
when
I
had
to
kind
of
chuckle
to
myself,
when
mr
gordon
said
you
can
see
it
from
the
street
and
I'm
like
if
you're
looking
for
it,
you
can
see
it
from
the
street,
but
but
you
wouldn't
easily
commonly.
You
know,
see
this
structure
from
the
street
one
way
or
the
other.
O
Like
I
said
I
never
I
never
saw
it
living
across
the
street
for
three
years,
yeah,
I'm
wearing
these.
I
don't
see
a
lot
of
things,
but
well
thanks
for
that.
We
probably
wouldn't
go
any
closer
than
five
feet
just
so
we
don't
have
those
one
hour.
Exactly
all
construction
details.
E
But
I
I
you
know
you
wouldn't
even
that
part
of
the
building
is
not
even
visible
peering
down
the
alley
from
the
street
with
binoculars.
A
M
Taller,
I'm
with
david
on
that.
I
think
it
would
also
break
up
one
way
to
differentiate
between
the
old
volume
and
the
new
volume
is
just
to
have
it
on
a
different
plane,
a
different
plane
or
relationship,
and
I
think,
even
if
it's
bumping
out
rather
than
bumping
in,
I
think
that
would
be
beneficial
and
there
would
be
changing
materials
and
maybe
a
change
in
color
too,
which
would
really
set
it
apart.
So.
A
E
So
angela,
I
I
looked
at
the
shed
and
figured
that
you're
you're,
leaving
it
there
for
good
reason.
But
I
was
looking
at
the
master
bedroom
thinking
that
I
used
to
have
the
smallest
master
bedroom
in
the
world,
and
if
this
is
actually
built,
it
will
be
smaller
than
mine.
E
Sure
you're
absolutely.
I
can
really
see
the
building
that
section
of
the
building
yeah
yeah
yeah
yeah,
whoever
drew
that
wayne
you
drew
that
line.
I
could
see.
D
L
I
remember
this
case
quite
well,
I'm
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
it
is
literally
the
last
thing
we
heard
bef
when
the
last
time
we
saw
each
other
face
to
face-
and
I
remember
the
tension
in
the
room
that
was
palpable
as
we
discussed
it,
and
so
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
the
owners
and
to
the
architects
for
really
taking
to
heart
some
hard
things
to
hear
that
session
and
for
respecting
our
shared
history,
with
what
you're
doing
here
with
this
new
design,
I
I
know
that
that
was
not
what
you
originally
conceived
of,
but
thank
you.
D
Well
as
to
the
owner's
credit
for
realizing,
they
needed
some
help
and
going
out
and
getting
angela
and
wayne,
and
you
guys
to
help
them
out
on
it.
So
good
good
work
to.
O
Them
because
I
guess
I've
had
a
little
plenty
of
time
to
work
on
this.
I
was
on
landmarks
when
nancy
came
in
with
the
addition
to
the
back
of
the
freeze
mansion.
So
I
I
guess
I
kind
of
know
this
site.
B
Anybody
else
have
any
input
tonight,
if
not
we'll
let
the
applicant
come
back
to
us
with
for
the
final
approval,
but
we
know
what
we're
talking
about
in
fact
be
nice
to
do
it
soon,
while
the
some
of
the
comments
will
still
be
we'll
still
remember
what
we
said
so.
D
Yeah,
just
a
minor
matter
of
taste,
I'm
not
sure
I'm
buying
those
little
knee
braces
on
on
the
new
edition,
but
that's
I
I
wouldn't
vote
may
if
those
show
up
again.
O
B
Why
don't
we
unshare
the
screen
and
and
we'll
say
goodbye
to
each
other.