►
Description
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - December 02, 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
B
B
B
B
Thank
you
and
good
evening,
everyone.
It
is
now
5
30.,
it's
time
to
begin
the
historic
landmark
mission
meeting
it's
second
of
december
2021.,
I'm
mike
bella
chairman
a
chair
of
the
historic
landmark
commission,
hereby
determined
that,
with
the
ongoing
covet
19
pandemic
conditions
existing
in
salt
lake
city,
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
elevated
number
of
cases,
that
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
presents
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
would
be
present.
B
C
I
think
that
it's
going
to
be
up
to
people's
comfort
level,
that
if
they
would
like
to
participate
in
person
they
they
will
have
that
opportunity,
whether
it's
commissioner
or
member
of
the
public,
but
if
they
do
not
feel
comfortable
meeting
in
person
right
now,
we
could
we
will.
We
will
be
able
to
have
commissioners
logged
in
or
present
and
still
be
able
to
work
very
good.
C
D
E
F
D
G
E
G
F
If
you
want
yeah,
this
is
amy,
so
I
also
somebody
from
the
tribune
reached
out
to
me,
and
let
me
know
that
somebody
had
removed
the
fence
from
the
brigham
young
cemetery,
so
I
contacted
them
because
they
didn't
have
approval
to
remove
the
fence.
They
don't
even
have
approval
for
the
repairs
of
the
fence,
yet
so
we're
working
closely
with
the
representative
of
the
church
on
those
repairs.
F
They
indicated
to
me
that
there
was
some
confusion
regarding
some
of
the
things
that
they
were
approved
for
one
of
those
things
being
repairs
to
the
retaining
wall,
so
they
were
under
the
impression
that
they
were
allowed
to
remove
that
fence
in
order
to
make
those
repairs
to
the
retaining
wall.
So
anyways
we're
working
closely
with
them
in
order
to
make
sure
that
that
fence
is
being
stored,
safely,
they've
indicated
that
it's
been
cataloged
and
they
are
going
to
submit
information
for
repairs
to
the
fence.
At
this
point,.
B
A
H
C
I'm
just
a
reminder
for
those
who
are
in
attendees
or
who
isn't
is
an
attendee.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
during
this
time,
please
make
sure
to
click
on
that
little
right
hand
on
your
screen
on
the
bottom
right
hand
indicating
that
you'd
like
to
do
so.
Mr
I
do
know
that
cindy
cromer,
who
is
in
attendance,
would
like
to
speak.
If
you'd
like
me
to
take
her
off
mute,
very
good.
I
Hi
everybody,
prior
to
the
pandemic,
the
city
acquired
allen
park
my
topic
tonight
in
a
miracle
similar
to
the
one
which
saved
gilgal
garden
a
few
months
later
in
a
pandemic
and
following
an
earthquake,
I
doubt
that
the
mayor
would
have
felt
the
city
could
take
the
risk
on
such
a
unique
space
under
the
circumstances
we've
encountered
in
2020
and
21.
I
am
not
complaining
about
the
city's
lack
of
action
on
the
zoning
for
allen
park,
which
is
rmf
30..
I
We
knew
from
the
potential
development
proposed
in
2019
that
the
base
zone
would
not
protect
the
park,
but
the
city
has
had
multiple
things.
Other
things
to
do
now.
With
the
development
occurring
to
the
south
of
the
park,
we
are
seeing
the
loopholes
in
the
rmf
30
zone.
There
is
a
reduced
setback
when
the
budding
property
is
also
rmf.
30.
developers
have
an
uncanny
way
of
identifying
these
loopholes
in
the
current
market.
I
In
my
opinion,
allen
park
qualifies
as
a
stand-alone
historic
district
based
on
its
cultural
landscape
and
the
collection
of
historic
structures
on
it.
The
need
for
another
overlay
is
very
clear
to
me.
The
protection
that
the
park
does
have
is
the
riparian
corridor
overlay
and
that
served
it
well
in
2019,
but
it's
not
enough
identifying
the
appropriate
base
zone
is
more
challenging
because
of
the
uniqueness
of
the
resources
and
because
we
don't
have
a
clear
plan,
but
how
we
about
how
we
want
to
use
the
park
in
the
future.
I
What
is
very
clear
is
that
we
need
to
address
these
issues
soon.
Unfortunately,
this
commission
has
never
received
the
authority
to
initiate
petitions
related
to
preservation.
If
you
haven't
been
to
allen
park,
I
urge
you
to
go.
If
you
have
please
go
again
and
think
about
the
tools
that
we
already
have
and
the
ones
that
we
need
to
create
in
order
to
protect
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
B
C
K
All
right,
so
this
is
a
request
from
mr
stevens,
who
owns
the
property
located
at
1253
east
100
south.
This
is
a
request
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
defeat
the
brick
on
the
property.
This
would
be
a
retroactive
approval
because
the
brick
has
been
painted.
This
did
come
to
us
as
an
enforcement
case.
K
As
you
see
on
the
screen
on
the
left,
we
have
a
photograph
from
salt
lake,
county
archives
that
show
the
home
earlier
stage
and
then
the
image
on
the
right
is
the
home
a
few
months
ago,
showing
that
it
has
been
painted
just
to
orient
everybody.
The
property
is
located
along
first
south
between
12th
and
13th
east,
and
it
is
located
in
the
university
local
historic
district.
K
K
So
staff
is
bringing
this
to
the
landmark
commission
this
evening,
because
the
historic
design,
the
residential
design
guidelines,
do
not
support
the
painting
of
previously
unpainted
masonry,
because
it
does
constitute
a
hazard
through
the
moisture
barrier
of
the
brick.
It
doesn't
allow
it
to
breathe
and
sometimes
it
can
damage
the
unpainted
masonry.
K
Now
the
applicant
has
had
this
home
for
a
while
and
he
provided
a
copy
of
the
photograph
on
the
left
indicating
that
the
property
has
been
painted
in
the
past,
and
we
spoke
with
staff.
Now
that
goldily
confirmed
this,
I
believe
it
was
in
the
early
2000s
when
the
brick
was
painted,
and
then
the
applicant
or
I'm
sorry,
the
property
owner
at
that
time,
went
through
a
process
to
make
some
modifications
to
the
home
and
remove
the
beads
at
that
point
in
time,
and
that
since
then
have
have
no
reasoning
to
go
home
again.
K
E
K
E
K
The
current
owner
informs
me
that
the
property
has
been
in
his
family
for
a
long
time.
I
don't
know
exactly
the
span
of
the
years
at
that,
but
I
believe
it
may
have
changed
hands
between
the
family
members,
but
he
did
indicate
that
this.
This
has
been
a
home,
that's
been
in
their
family
for
generations,.
K
It
was
so
he
provided
the
photograph
on
the
left
with
the
lady
in
the
blue,
dress,
standing
out
front
showing
the
home
when
it
was
painted,
and
it's
unclear
to
us
as
to
exactly
when
the
paint
was
removed.
Anecdotally,
we
spoke
to
some
of
our
staff,
who
were
here
in
the
early
2000s
and
it
sounded
familiar
to
them.
They
had
worked
on
a
project
on
this
property.
L
K
K
D
C
J
K
C
C
J
Stevens,
okay,
I
purchased
the
home
in
late
2017.
My
family
has
had
no
history
with
his
house,
it
was
just
me
and
it
within
a
year.
I
started
to
notice
that
there
was
orange
dust
around
the
outside
of
the
front
of
the
house,
and
I
realized
the
bricks
were
deteriorating
and
then
the
brick
started
falling
out
of
the
wall.
One
of
them
almost
hit
my
dog
on
the
porch
and
the
other
ones
would
just
fall
into
the
garden.
J
J
According
to
the
original
photograph,
I
have
of
the
house
where
it
was
originally
a
screened-in
porch
and
there
what
brick
was
there
was
painted
white.
The
house
was
white
originally,
but
through
the
decades
and
various
owners
somebody
renovated
and
added
on
closed
in
one
of
the
half
of
the
porch,
with
this
brick
to
enlarge
the
dining
room
light
I
presume
so.
The
brick
is
old
and
it's
extremely
porous
and
dusty,
but
it
is
not
historic.
J
J
I
started
getting
all
these
letters
saying
I
had
violated
a
code,
and
so
I
did
look
up
the
historic
district
and
I
realized
my
house
actually
was
in
the
historic
district.
There's
five
houses
along
that
side
of
the
road
two
of
the
houses
were
drug
crack
houses
with
boarded
up
windows
and
the
other
two
houses
are
completely
falling
apart.
J
I
filled
up
another
application
for
a
permit
and
in
the
mission
statement
of
historic,
landmark
commission,
it
says
your
role
is
to
develop
and
maintain
historic
homes,
and
so
that's
exactly
what
I
was
trying
to
do,
because
I
don't
know
if
the
brick
is
adobe
or
not,
but
it
is
cheap,
brick
not
original,
and
if
I
hadn't
painted
it
it
would
have
been
total
eyesore
and
a
safety
issue
and
and
during
the
time
the
pandemic.
I
couldn't
get
any
help
from
anybody
and
it
would
be.
J
I
would
hate
to
have
the
bricks
all
fall
out
and
I
think
you,
people
being
from
the
historic
viewpoint,
would
not
want
me
to
have
to
rebrick
that
house
with
new
brick
and
anyway.
So
I
hope
that
all
is,
I
really
want
is
just
the
permit
to
have
that
painted,
and
I
realized
it
was
my
mistake
not
knowing
I
was
in
the
historic
district
and
therefore
not
getting
a
permit.
J
But
I
looked
on
the
website
of
the
planning
commission
and
I
think
it's
under
minor
alterations.
It
says
all
changes
must
be
made
with
a
permit
comma,
except
painting.
So
I
didn't
think
I
was
in
violation,
but
I
understand
other
people
have
a
different
view.
I
guess,
but
I
as
much
as
you
want
to
maintain
the
integrity
of
that
house
and
the
historic
value
of
it
and
the
only
way
I
knew
how
to
do
that
was
to
save
the
brick.
J
J
J
Now
I'm
saying
the
foundation
of
the
house
is
one
brick
and
the
brick
they
used
at
some
point
during
a
renovation
to
extend
that
room
is
a
different
brick,
and
that
is
the
brick
that
I
painted
over
the
brick
that
was
disintegrating
and
I
just
really
feel
that
if
I
go
in
and
have
the
paint
stripped
and
sanded,
it
will
further
deteriorate.
The
brick
and
just
open
up
a
whole
new
can
of
worms
and
it's
going
to
cost
about
between
eight
and
ten
thousand
dollars
to
have
that
done.
J
J
J
I
already
spent
seven
thousand
getting
the
bricks
painted
and
I
don't
know
it
would
just
be
a
really
a
financial
hardship
to
tell
you
the
truth.
I
haven't
had
any
work
for
the
last
year
and
a
half
because
I'm
an
artist
and
anyway
my
shows
have
been
canceled.
I've
had
to
cancel
my
classes
this
and
that,
but
I
just
think
it
I'm
trying
to
preserve
the
integrity
of
that
brick
and
if
I
stripped
it
and
sanded
it,
it
will
just
become
dust
not
not
to
mention
falling
out.
L
M
Let
me
offer
a
theory
on
that,
because
we've
I'm
a
preservation,
architect,
who's
worked
on
similar
buildings
relatively
recently.
The
brick
probably
wasn't
very
porous
to
begin
with.
Brick
is
kind
of
part
of
the
value
of
brick
as
a
material
is
that
it
kind
of
forms
a
patina
and
it
hardens
over
time
as
it
is
exposed
to
air,
so
it's
probably
pretty
hard
on
the
outside
and
then
once
they
painted
it
whenever
that
was
before
19
that
1950s
photo
color
photo
on
the
exterior
60s.
M
J
B
J
N
I
have
a
question
for
the
staff
actually
looking
at
the
photographs,
the
the
photo
the
original
tax
photo
and
then
also
the
photo
of
the
the
woman
standing
in
front
of
the
house
shows
a
porch
that
actually
extends
around
the
front
and
across
the
front
face
of
this
building.
That's
no
longer
there
do.
We
have
any
sense
of
when
that
was
removed.
K
D
B
C
I
Hi
everybody-
I
have
a
lot
of
history
with
this
house.
I
knew
the
previous
owner.
So
if
I
run
out
of
time,
please
ask
me
questions
that
you
might
have
remaining.
I
want
to
begin
by
telling
you
why
this
house
is
so
important
in
the
university
historic
district.
First
of
all,
it's
one
of
the
older
structures,
its
original
simplicity
and
the
character
of
the
unpainted
brick
indicate
that
it's
very
much
an
orange
brick
with
a
very
granular
appearance.
I
I
The
addition
on
the
rear
was
completely
unsympathetic
to
the
modest
character
of
the
house,
and
the
commission
did
review
that
the
previous
commission
and
they
did
approve
it.
The
important
points
here
are
that
the
brick
were
treated
appropriately
in
the
remodel,
although
the
porch
was
not
and
that
they
returned
to
an
unpainted
appearance.
I
I
You
know
I
I
don't
remember,
but
it
it
should
certainly
be
in
the
archives.
It
was
extensive.
It
involved
dealing
with
the
driveway
between
the
two
houses.
I
remember
that
much
it
was.
It
was
after
95,
because
I
became
a
regular
attendee
at
the
landmarks
commission
after
I
came
off
of
the
planning
commission,
so
I
can
tell
you
that
I
was
not
doing
double
duty
and
going
to
both
prior
to
95.,
so
it
was
sometime
after
95.
I
ca,
I'm
not
good
with
dates
folks,
but
it
should
be
in
the
records.
I
K
K
C
O
Yes,
hello,
jen
colby,
I
live
in
the
bryant
neighborhood
and
I'm
on
the
east
central
community
council
board
speaking
personally
on
this-
and
I
main
concerns
here-
are
twofold
one.
You
know:
cindy's
brought
up
her
perspective
on
or
her
historical
perspective
there,
which
is
very
helpful.
Obviously,
the
larger
question
is
as
far
as
long-term
preservation,
whether
you
know
painted
unpainted
more
damage
less
damage,
and
that
obviously,
is
for
professionals
to
determine.
O
I
just
want
to
say
that
as
a
homeowner
in
the
national,
but
not
local,
historic
district,
I'm
very
sympathetic
to
the
owner,
who
didn't
realize
he
was
buying
into
a
historic
district,
although
obviously
the
information
is
out
there,
and
I
would
just
encourage
the
city
to
do
a
much
better
job
of
outreach.
I
got
one
random
letter
way
back
like
20
years
ago.
O
Luckily,
that
pointed
me
to
tax
credits
which
are
wonderful,
and
I
would
also
point
that
out
to
this
homeowner
that
that
might
be
something
to
look
into,
but
this
larger
issue
of
just
what
strikes
me
both
as
a
lack
of
support
overall
for
historic
preservation
in
the
city
right
now
and
lack
of
information
being
provided
to
residents
in
these
districts.
I
know
this
is
not
directly
the
purview
or
responsibility
of
the
landmarks
commission,
but
I
am
extremely
concerned,
especially
given
this
yet
another
push
of
giant
pools
of
investor
money.
O
P
Yeah,
so
I'm
actually
living
in
the
house
next
door
at
12
57
and
wanted
to
attest
to
the
care
that
terry's
put
into
that
property.
I
can
attest
to
the
the
dusty
crumbling
brick
scenario
that
he's
described,
and
I
think
that
he's
taking
a
lot
of
of
time
and
effort
to
try
to
do
this.
The
correct
way-
and
I
hope
that
you
guys.
Q
A
I
want
to
add
one
thing
too:
I'm
jennifer's
husband
and
we
also
were
not
notified
that
we
were
in
a
historic
area.
I
mean,
obviously
we
know
the
difference
between
a
historic
house
and
not,
but
you
know
just
to
further
that
concern
that
you
know
homeowners
are
not
notified
of
that
situation,
because
yeah
I
mean
I
need
to
paint
the
front
of
our
house
and
if
I
didn't
do
it
in
the
same
color
I'd
be
under
this
group's
notice
for
the
same
issue.
Terry's
run
it
too.
C
C
Q
Hi,
my
name
is
sally
schatz
and
I
live
in
the
university
district.
I
was
not
informed
when
I
purchased
my
home
in
2008
that
I
was
in
the
historic
district.
It
would
have
been
wonderful
to
have
known
that
when
I
did
improvements
on
the
house,
I
have
to
say
I
loved
working
with
the
historic
district
and
amber
anderson
was
exceptional
to
work
with,
but
what
I'm
hearing,
if
you
don't
know,
you're
in
your
historic
district
it
it's
it's
problematic.
Q
The
mason
who
came
to
work
on
my
place,
told
me
a
lot
of
the
soot.
I
mean
I'm
sorry
a
lot
of
the
brick
that
was
built
at
that
time
had
soot
in
it.
So
there
is
structural
issues
and
there
is
the
possibility
of
those
bricks
deteriorating
that
make
preserving
your.
You
know
your
brick,
a
different
situation
than
a
brick
hardening.
So.
Q
C
G
C
J
I
just
want
would
like
to
thank
everybody
for
their
support
and
their
information
that
I
didn't
know
about,
and
anyway
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
I
am
committed
to
having
that
house
go
through
another
century
or
two,
and
hopefully
you
know
I
haven't.
It
was
just
a
minor
alteration.
It
was.
I
haven't
done
anything
major
to
that
house
and
I
wouldn't
because
it's
just
fine
the
way
it
is
for
now.
B
J
B
You,
sir,
well
hearing
no
further
public
comments
or
comments
from
the
applicant.
I
think
it's
time
now
to
close
the
public
hearing
for
this
and
opened
to
executive
session
by
the
commissioners,
john
I'd.
I
I
would
like
to,
I
think,
you're,
probably
the
at
least
one
of
the
more
expert
commissioners,
because
this
is
in
your
line
of
work,
you've
kind
of
described,
and
I
believe
I
understand
it
well
enough
in
that
brick
is
a
porous
material.
B
B
M
Yeah,
that's
my
concern
with
that
last
comment
that
the
damage
has
already
been
done.
My
fear
is
that
the
damage
has
not
already
been
done
if
the
bricks
gonna
keep
being
painted
and
part
of
the
issue
is
that
it's
not
just
that
first
layer
of
paint
as
you
as
you
add
layers
of
paint,
it
becomes
even
less
and
less
breathable.
The
vapor
permeability
just
goes
down
and
down
and
down.
M
So
we're
like
we're,
seeing
that
on
a
building
downtown,
that's
been
painted
a
dozen
times
over
the
last
50
years
and
the
brick
is
pretty
much
it's
it's
getting
to
the
point
of
being
toast
at
this
point.
So
that's
one
of
my
concerns
with
allowing
the
paint
to
remain
on
the
building
and
it's
definitely.
M
D
M
D
D
M
Of
the
issue,
too,
is
yeah.
They
have
like
pro
soco
makes
a
consolidate
treatment,
but
the
jury
is
really
still
out
on
that
stuff.
It's
not
settled
science
yet,
and
I
know
the
city
code
also
doesn't
really
like
you
know.
Even
if
it's
a
relatively
clear
film,
that's
not
widely
accepted
either.
So
it's
definitely
a
catch-22
once
the
once
the
brick
is
painted
and
starts
to
deteriorate.
L
M
E
You
can
see
it
from
the
street,
you
can
see
it.
It's
not
pointed
anymore.
It's
caved
in.
There
is
dust
I
have
to
say
I
have
to
chime
in
here
as
a
planning,
commissioner,
I
urge
the
city
to
work
with
the
assessor's
office,
the
planning
commission,
the
title
companies
to
at
least
put
on
title
reports
that
properties
were
in
historic
districts.
L
E
L
L
L
I
know
that
we
have
talked
about
that
before
you
know
if
the
state
legislature
would
put
something
in
yes,
these
two,
but
these
two
people
real
estate
agents
had
some
sort
of
yes.
I
agree
with
you
there's
some
sort
of
responsibility
to
disclose
that,
but
regardless
it
I
mean,
I
will
speak
for
the
city
and
if
you
find
another,
if
you
find
a
title
report
that
is
missing
that
notice
from
the
city.
I
would
love
to
see
that
and
these
two
people.
E
Were
saying,
they
never
saw
that,
so
that's
that
I'm
just
pointing
that
out.
The
other
part,
too,
is
this
property
was
built
in
1891
in
1891
was
when
the
salt
lake
pressed
brick
company
was
created
that
crew,
that
that
made
the
harder,
brick
and-
and
I
see
this
all
the
time
in
in
historic
homes
and
selling
historic
homes-
is
that
you
have
the
bricks
that
were
pressed
and
that
are
going
to
last
for
what
seems
forever
and
the
ones
that
aren't
hard
surface
and
they
turn
into
dust.
E
Yes,
I
think
paint
has
seals
in
some
of
the
moisture,
but
on
something
like
this.
You
can
tell,
from
the
surface
of
it
just
from
10
feet
away
that
that
brick
is
dissolving
and
the
only
way
to
save
it
is
paint
in
my
opinion
and
having
owned
a
property
like
this.
I
it
was
not
in
a
historic
neighborhood,
but
I
I'm
in
total
disagreement
here.
D
Yeah
I've
got
I've
got
at
least
two
cents
worth
here
myself.
This
is
there's
kind
of
a
conundrum
here,
whereas
clearly
we've
had
cases.
I
think
one
a
couple
years
ago,
where
some
developers
bought
a
building
over
in
capitol
hill
and
weren't
aware
of
the
historic
and
painted
it,
and
we
told
them
take
it
off.
D
That
was
pretty
straightforward.
This
one
is
not
so
straightforward.
I
I
think
babs
make
some
good
points.
I
wonder
if
this
was
really
a
fire,
brick
or
if
it
was
simply
a
a
hardened
brick,
a
naturally
hardened
brick.
You
know
how
durable
is
it
there's
the
if,
if
we
take
as
a
given
that
painting
it
started
the
deterioration
and
then
removing
the
paint
has
not
stabilized
things
well,
that
was
done
by
a
previous
owner.
This
owner
was
simply
trying
to
solve
a
problem
in
the
only
way
that
he
was
available.
D
D
I
think
owners
ought
to
have
some
ability
to
do
something
and
either
be
called
on
it
or
to
let
it
be
in
a,
and
the
last
point
is
that
I
don't
disagree
with
john,
that
we
need
to
nip
painting
raw
brick
in
the
bud.
Get
it
before
it
happens
is
the
best
solution,
but
in
our
guidelines,
if
this
was
a
wooden
house,
we
wouldn't
be
sitting
here
talking
about
this.
D
You
know,
even
if
originally
when
it
was
built
in
1905,
it
was
painted
blue,
and
I
want
to
paint
it
green.
I
could
do
that.
You
know
we're
we're
getting
down
to
just
some
some
nitpicky
stuff
on
this
one
that
is,
is
a
little
bothersome.
I
know.
There's
our
guidelines
say
one
thing,
but
just
in
practicality,
whereas
our
sail
was
a
house
built
out
of
cedar
and
bear
cedar,
will
will
weather
and
and
kind
of
seal
itself
off
or
redwood
turn
that
nice
gray.
D
H
Oh,
I
was
just
when
we
were
talking
about
the
integrity
of
the
brick
and
the
process
of
what
painting
does
to
masonry.
I
was
just
gonna
add
in,
but
john
has
had
it
covered,
so
I
don't
have
much
more
to
add
to
that
yeah.
I
don't
have
much
more.
I
guess,
since
I'm
already
talking
I'm
kind
of
t-tottering
as
well.
Are
we
we're
in
executive
discussion
right.
H
Yeah
yeah,
it's
a
hard,
a
hard
thing.
I
think
a
lot
of
it
does
come
down
to
education.
I
think
whether
sometimes
whether
a
homeowner
knows
if
they
are
in
historic,
district
or
not
or
if
their
home
is
certain
protections,
it
is
difficult,
just
common
knowledge
of
how
to
care
for
masonry.
So
I
can
understand
why
the
owner
would
have
painted
the
home.
However,
there
are
methods
that
I
think
would
be
comparable
to
the
cost
of
painting
the
home
that
could
have
helped
repair
the
the
bricks.
H
I
think
that
it's
difficult,
because
we
don't
as
a
commission-
not
all
of
us-
are
experts
on
how
to
care
for
masonry,
but
I
do
believe
that
is
our
purview,
because
we
know
that
painting
a
wood
framed
home
does
help
with
the
protection,
but
a
historic
home
that
wasn't
originally
painted
and
now
this
method
that
can
cause
damage.
I
do
understand
why
those
things
are
in
our
guidelines,
the
way
that
they
are,
but
I
wish
that
we
knew
the
type
of
brick
I
wish.
H
We
knew
the
method
that
the
paint
was
removed
by
which
the
paint
was
removed
a
decade
or
two
whenever
the
paint
was
removed
to
know
more
about
that
damage
and
that
we
were
able
to
see
that
brick
so
moving
forward
it's
hard.
I
know
I
remember
victoria
always
talking
about
how
much
she
disliked
the
fact
that
we
get
code
enforcement
cases
which
I
kind
of
agree
with.
It
is
kind
of
difficult
to
to
be
in
the
code
enforcement
case
realm
as
an
administrative
board.
H
But
I
think
it
also
is
helpful
because
if
this
were
a
case
that
we
could
nip
it
in
the
butt
and
have
the
paint
removed
so
that
the
integrity
of
the
the
brick
could
last
for
years
to
come,
opposed
to
just
total
deterioration
sooner
than
not.
That
is
a
helpful
thing
that
we
could
help
with.
But
I
don't
know
if
that's
necessarily
the
path
that
we
can
take
so
yeah.
It's
a
difficult
decision
for
me
as
well.
A
Q
L
We
absolutely
could
ask
for
a
test
patch.
In
fact,
in
the
past
the
commission
has
asked
for
a
test
patch
to
be
done.
They
tabled
the
project,
a
test
patch
was
done,
the
brick
hadn't
been
damaged
underneath
and
then
it
came
back
to
the
commission
and
the
commission
decided
that
the
brick
that
it
should
be
removed
the
paint.
L
Certainly
if
we
look
at
the
test
patch
and
we
do
have
experts
on
staff-
and
we
would
hope
that
the
applicant
would
retain
some
sort
of
expert
who's
worked
with
historic
masonry.
To
take
a
look,
we
can
go,
take
a
look
at
that
brick
and
see
what
we're
actually
working
with
to
have
more
knowledge
to
follow
our
standards
and
guidelines.
A
L
A
L
And
that's
our
main
concern
from
staff's
perspective
as
well.
It
is
difficult
when
we
are-
and
it's
so
much
easier
when
we
are
contacted-
and
this
isn't
against
the
applicant.
Perhaps
he
didn't
know,
but
we
do
have
10
planners
on
staff
that
are
trained
up.
We
could
pull
one
of
you
in.
We
could
pull
another
architect
in
at
the
city
to
go
over
and
take
a
look
when
it's
covered.
B
B
We
think
we
conjecture
that
damage
was
done.
We,
I
think,
that's
probably
the
case,
but
we
need
to
find
out
and
now
that
that
it's
painted
again
and
and
if
indeed
it
the
paint
is
then
removed,
are
we
making
it
better
or
worse
and-
and
I
think
quite
frankly,
the
having
having
somebody
like,
like
john,
had
indicated
a
masonry
restoration
company
and
there's
there's
multiple
here
in
town,
but
that
could
determine
if
we
did
this,
it
would
do
that.
N
N
Is
there
the
the
experience
that
I've
had
with
consolidators
and
whatnot
for
brick
and
sandstone
has
been
less
than
stellar
in
my
view,
and
there
aren't
generally
very
good
options
once
once
damage
has
been
done.
It
may
not
be
entirely
true
that
it
something
could
not
be
done
to
salvage
that,
but
at
the
same
time
I
think
there
is
some
credence
to
the
view
that
the
damage
was
done.
A
I've
listened
to
all
the
discussion
this
evening
and
I
I
don't
need
to
repeat
it,
but
I
come
down
in
the
same
place
where
kenton
and
and
babs
and
carlton
are
I've
practiced
real
estate
law
for
40
years,
and
I've
renovated
two
old
houses
in
the
lower
avenues
and
in
the
80s
and
90s.
I
was
often
concerned
about.
D
D
Based
on
the
information,
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing,
I
moved
that
the
historic
landmark
commission
approved
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
with
the
following
findings
that
the
damage
to
the
brick
was
done.
Previous
to
the
current
owner.
D
D
Not
a
known
gentle
means
of
restoration
that
is
that
has
clearly
been
done
demonstrated,
would
preserve
this
structure
and
bring
it
back
to
its
its
original
integrity
and
that,
in
fact,
the
removal
of
the
existing
paint
could
be
could
contradict.
Any
contradict.
Could
compromise
the
the
preservation
that
the
the
paint
is
not
revolving.
B
Q
B
I
think
kent
and
I
think,
we're
in
the
same
place,
because
what
this
is
my
question
is
illegal.
What
we're
attempting
to
do
here
is
not
say
that
painting
a
brick
is:
okay,
painting
seems
to
be
the
least
invasive
treatment
for
this
particular
case,
and
that
that
what
we
are
thinking
and
saying
and
discussing
here
is
to
be
applied
to
this.
This
structure
solely
and
not
opening
the
door
from
this
point
forward
that
you
know
painting
is
good
and
that's
what
we're
doing.
B
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
say
here
is
that,
because
there
was
perceived
damage
previously,
the
painting
may
or
may
not
have
have
saved
this
the
structure
or
helps
the
structure
or
prevented
it
from
being
deteriorated
more
so
so
the
painting
issue
that
we're
talking
about
applies
solely
to
this
this
case
here.
Does
that
make
sense.
R
B
So
hannah
I
just
one
more
question,
please
and-
and
I
realize
that
that
what
we
do
as
commissioners
sets
precedent
in
precedent
matters
and
so
mckellar
had
had
indicated
earlier
on-
and
several
have
mentioned
this
as
well-
the
using
different
terms,
either
a
test
patch
or
a
test
area
to
verify
that
the
brick
to
verify
exactly
what
we
all
think
is
the
brick.
But
I'm
I'm
thinking
more
for
precedent
that,
if
indeed
there
was
a
test
that
was
done.
B
That
indicates
this
is
the
condition
of
the
brick
and
it
states
it
emphatically,
then,
wouldn't
that
make
this
precedent
even
more
telling
that
there
was
a
test
of
the
brick
and
that
in
the
future
a
test
of
the
brick
would
have
to
be
done
and
and
then
it
would
be
again
key
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
Would
it
make
the
case
in
the
future
stronger
if,
indeed
the
brick
was
tested
or
or
is
that
irrelevant.
L
I
get
what
you're
saying
and
yes,
I
appreciate
that
the
commission
is
looking
at
this
as
far
as
its
own
case
on
its
own.
Will
there
ever
be
another
one
exactly
like
this?
Probably
not
because
this
is
its
own,
unique
property
it
there
still
could
be.
We
try
to
take.
We
try
to
be
as
consistent
as
possible
with
how
we
treat
one
applicant
in
a
sort
of
enforcement
case,
and
maybe
that's
a
policy
discussion
that
we'll
want
to
have
later.
L
Then,
if
we
have
an
enforcement
case
where
we
don't
factually
know
ex
and
have
examined
the
brick
that
has
been
painted
over
from
a
staff's
perspective,
we
can
relay
what
your
policy
direction
is.
We
can
say-
and
maybe
that's
a
discussion
we'll
have
later.
Yes,
the
commission
will
ask
for
a
test
strip
or
a
test
patch.
Please
go
and
have
that
done
right.
L
Right
now
we
have
our.
You
know.
We
have
some
conjecture,
we,
you
know
we
have
some
assumptions
that
have
been
made
and,
from
a
staff's
perspective,
we're
trying
to
stay
consistent
with
our
design
guidelines
and
with
our
our
standards
of
review.
But
perhaps
this
is
a
policy
direction
and
we'll
make
sure
to
put
your
statement
in
the
minutes.
L
If
the
commission
ultimately
approves
this
for
the
next
enforcement
case,
that
comes
and
we
need
to
pull
minutes
and
and
provide
that
sort
of
reminder
that
that
the
commission
wasn't
being
wishy-washy
in
any
sort
of
way
they
made
all
of
their
findings
based
on
this
particular
property
and
we'll
move
forward.
Does
that
matter
make
sense.
B
A
A
H
B
S
S
S
S
Just
a
little
bit
of
background,
the
update
to
the
university
neighborhood
historic
national
register
nomination
blah
has
been
a
priority
of
the
state
historic
preservation
office.
The
city
received
a
clg
grant
to
hire
a
consultant
to
update
the
1995
national
register.
Nomination,
sherry
ellis
was
engaged
by
the
city
she's
with
certis
environmental
solutions
and
she
produced
the
update
document.
Sherry
is
with
us
tonight
and
we'll
join
in
the
conversation.
If
you
have
questions
in
a
nutshell,
the
impetus
for
the
update
to.
S
S
S
This
is
the
newest
iteration
of
the
district
map,
and
this
was
included
as
part
of
the
update
and
you
have
received
that
in
your
packet.
So
I
hope
you've
had
a
little
chance
to
look
at
that,
and
also
another
map
that
was
included
was
the
resources
from
the
extended
period
of
significance.
So
those
structures
shown
in
black
are
included
in
that
extended
period
and
they'll
be
contributing,
and
then
the
hatch
would
be
non-contributing.
S
M
S
K
S
P
All
right
yeah,
so
we
did
look
at
using
1971.
there.
I
think
there
were
only
one
or
two
additional
structures
that
would
have
been
added
to
the
count
if
we
had
extended
that
period,
the
extended
period
271
so
from
from
66
to
71.,
we
chose
to
go
with
66
because
that
that
period
from
42
really
to
66
really
captured
the
initial
wave
of
construction
in
the
post-war
era.
P
That
was
spurred
by
the
gi
bill
and
and
all
of
those
types
of
things,
and
so
if
that
period
really
captures
90
95
of
the
apartment
and
multi
family
dwelling
construction
that
occurred.
And
what
is
that's?
That's
what's
significant,
so
we
decided
that
that
made
more
sense
than
just
using
an
arbitrary
50-year.
P
M
Yeah
that
answers
my
question.
I
I
worked
on
a
building
in
the
south
temple
historic
district
that
was
like
a
year
after
the
period
of
significance
when
they
redid
it
in,
I
think
2016
or
so
so
we
had
to
go
back
and
individually
listed
on
the
national
register
to
get
you
know,
tax
credit
considerations.
So,
but
if
you
know,
if
those
other
couple
of
examples
between
66
and
71
aren't
you
know
it
very
significant,
I
I
think
that's
a
good
good
decision.
I
was
just
kind
of
curious.
P
Yeah
it
I,
it
was
our
sort
of
my
opinion
that,
if,
by
by
extending
the
period
just
to
add
in
those
couple
abilities
in
some
ways,
watered
down
the
power
of
the
argument
as
to
what
that
extended
period
represents
and
why
it
is
actually
important
within
the
history
of
the
district,
and
it
didn't
gain
us
much
in
terms
of
preservation
in
terms
of
numbers
of
buildings
or
architecture
that
wouldn't
otherwise
be
captured
in
that
period.
Up
to
66..
E
I
didn't
have
any
comments
per
say,
I'm
more
interested
if
there's
anyone
from
the
public.
That
has
any
comments
if
anybody's
heinously.
Against
this
I
mean
it
seems
absolutely
logical
and
I'm
glad
to
see
lex,
although
lex
gosh,
I
haven't
seen
you
in
so
long.
What
is
all
that
white
stuff
on
your
face.
F
E
F
So
well
so
this
item
does
have
a
public
hearing.
We
did
advertise
it
for
a
public
hearing,
but
in
terms
of
just
the
initial
process,
there's
not
a
process
to
you
know
not
like
an
early
notification
process
or
anything
like
that.
I
am
working
on
a
text
amendment,
but
it
does.
It
doesn't
impact
the
process
in
terms
of
notifying
the
public,
but
the
commission,
the
chair,
should
open
up
a
public
hearing
on
this
item.
F
B
Very
good
amy.
This
is
very
similar
to
the
case
that
we
had
last
week
where
the
third
paragraph
that
alexis
prepared
is
really
what
we're
being
asked
to
do
is
whether
there's
a
reasonable
case
to
to
put
forth
updating
the
original.
You
know
1995
national
register
nomination.
That's
all
we're
being
asked
to
do,
and
it's
it's
got.
The
two
points
that
he
talked
about.
The
count
is
a
little
bit
different
and
now
the
dates
are
are
extended
from
from
previous
two
to
1966,
I
guess.
F
N
The
the
carlton
tower,
for
example,
on
4th
avenue,
was
built
in
1963,
but
you
know
some
some
might
disagree
with
this
buildings
of
that
nature,
in
the
avenues
detracted
and
can't
contribute
to
what
the
avenues
represented
when
it
was
the
original
neighborhood
of
salt
lake
city.
So
I'm
curious
about
the
thought
process
and
the
background
behind
that
and
incorporating
additional
buildings
that
essentially
become
historic
by
this
definition
that
would
not
have
been
considered
historic
or
contributing
to
the
original
nature
of
the
region.
F
P
Sure
I
mean
I
can
sort
of
give
my
two
cents
to
the
the
supplies
generally
occur
just
as
process
across
all
historic
districts,
not
specific
to
this
district,
but
there
are
different
levels
of
reasons
why
we
might
consider
extending
periods
of
significance
to
bring
in
different
types
of
structures,
and
one
of
them.
Certainly
I
mean
the
history
you've,
given
the
avenues
as
an
example,
so
I'll
use
that
the
history
of
the
avenues
is
not
over
historical
neighborhoods
are
living
evolving
creatures.
If
you
will
areas.
That
is
why
they
are
significant.
P
A
P
So
I
think
of
a
copperton
or
something
like
that,
a
neighborhood
that
that
develops
because
of
a
very
specific,
very
circumscribed
time
frame,
set
of
activities
and
nothing
beyond
that
gets
added
for
the
most
part,
though,
in
other
neighborhoods,
we
consider
those
neighborhoods
to
evolve
and
to
change
and
new
things
might
come
into
significance
if
the
patterns
of
development
during
those
more
recent
periods
contribute
to
that
neighborhood's
history
in
a
meaningful
way
or
if
architectural
types
and
styles
come
into
play.
That.
P
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
when
the
original
nomination
was
listed
when
it
was
when
it
was
done
in
1995,
they
were
using
pretty
close
to
a
50-year
cut
off,
just
as
a
as
a
standard
of
that's
going
to
be
the
our
time
frame
for
the
end
period,
and
it
wasn't
necessarily
the
basis
of
that
wasn't
necessarily
tied
to
the
history
and
evolution
of
that
neighborhood.
It
was
really
more
here's
your
50-year
rule
type
of
type
of
decision.
P
You
know
these
buildings
that
are
newer,
that
may
not
be
as
quaint
as
some
of
the
ones
from
the
earlier
periods
are
representative
of
that
and
certainly
represent
more
the
history
of
the
neighborhood,
if
not
profound
architecture
that
we
love.
I
guess
I
mean
that's
sort
of
my
two
cents
in
on
it,
but
you
know
staff
probably
have
other
input
as
well.
D
E
S
F
G
Hi
again,
everybody,
I
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
you
do.
This
is
it's
difficult
at
times.
So
the
reason
I'm
in
favor
of
this
it
sort
of
surprised
me.
First
of
all
that
reintroducing
and
enlarging
the
requirement
is
actually
positive,
because,
whether
you
I
don't
know
if
the
board
realizes
but
there's
developers
and
the
university
are
there's
some
encouragement
to
redevelop
a
piece
of
university
street
with
a
12
12
story,
800,
bed,
student
housing
complex-
were
you
guys
aware
of
that?
Right?
Opposite?
It's?
G
In
this
revised
document,
so
they're
proposing
and-
and
I
think
the
developer
has
it's
called
harbor
bay-
the
developer
has
already
put
some
houses
on
contract.
They,
I
don't
think
they
bought
them
and
I
think
the
university-
although
I
don't
know
this
for
a
fact-
is
in
favor
of
of
this
idea
because
they
own
the
annex.
G
G
Their
argument
is
that
it's
because
of
the
track
station
that
they
put
at
the
bottom
of
the
stadium
parking
lot,
that
this
is
trans
oriented
development
prone
and
just
who
everybody
knows.
I
live
on
university
street
just
west
of
the
track
station,
so
I'm
I've
been
there
for
40
years,
so
not
quite
almost,
and
so
there's
just
fear
that
this
would
be
the
nose
of
the
camel
for
further
development
where
landowners
would
be
enticed
to
sell
their
homes
for
over
market
value
and
a
developer
come
in
and
take
my
whole
block.
F
O
Yeah,
thank
you
jen
colby.
I
live
in
the
bryant
neighborhood
and
I
am
in
favor
of
moving
this
forward
and
endorsing
this.
This
update,
I
was
unaware
of
this
process
and
I'm
pleased
to
see
it.
I've
been
digging
into
our
own
neighborhood
the
experience
expansion
for
the
national
historic
district,
and
that
could
certainly
is
an
update,
and
I
hope
the
process
continues
within
our
city,
and
I
also
concur
that
it's
important
to
have
this
protection.
I
appreciated
carlton's
comments.
O
On
the
other
hand,
people
are
actually
doing
some
interesting
updates
to
them.
I
suppose,
but,
but
I
have
the
same
concern
at
a
broader
level.
I
will
one
very
minor
point
that
it
wasn't
clear
to
me.
The
document
mentions
the
religious
building,
which
is
under
question.
Now
it's
now
that,
and
it
almost
implied
that
it
was
still
owned.
It
was
still
operated
as
a
church.
I
don't
think
it's
worth
revising
this,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
that
is
indeed
currently
owned
by
the
university.
F
B
M
Thing
very
good
in
the
interest
of
public
information,
I'm
on
the
live
salt
lake
city
maps
website
and
the
boundary
of
the
national
district
on
the
website
is
trimmed
at
what
is
at
5th
south
and
13th,
east
or
university,
which
is
not
the
same
as
what's
in
the
application
materials
that
we
saw.
So
I
just
I
was
wondering
if
I
don't
know,
maybe
planning
should
look
at
that
and
re
remap,
the
gis
boundary
in
there
I'll
take
a
look
at
it.
M
M
F
M
B
And
I'm
going
to
end
the
discussion
and
call
for
a
motion,
and
the
motion
would
be
the
recommendation
is,
is
our
vote
and
that
is
a
recommendation
to
the
national
register.
Nomination
evaluation
that's
been
presented
to
us
and
and
yes,
amy
and
elects,
as
with
the
case
last
month,
there's
a
document
that
that
I'm
to
to
sign
there's
a
series
of
checkoffs
there
that
the
commission
recommends
that
the
property
or
properties
appear
to
be.
The
national
register.