[0:52] Order to order. And I would like a roll call from my right.

[1:00] Douglass Stevens. Lola Beetlebrox. Randy Scott. Dalton Gackel.

[1:07] Okay. The next item of order is approval of the minutes for July 1st. Does anybody have any changes or questions?

[1:22] No, everybody is shaking their head.

[1:24] May I have a motion to approve them?

[1:26] Move to approve the minutes as they are.

[1:29] Second.

[1:31] All those in favor?

[1:32] Aye.

[1:33] Any opposed?

[1:35] The motion carries unanimously.

[1:39] Okay.

[1:41] Now it's time for staff and board communications.

[1:46] Do you have anything to tell us, Rebecca?

[1:49] Yeah, this evening there is a staff communication in the packet that just summarizes the previous discussions on updates to the grant program and outlines next steps.

[2:00] It's provided for information, but if there are any questions.

[2:06] We'd be happy to provide more information and we anticipate coming back in the fall and having that joint work session with both the Historic Preservation Board and the City Council to discuss some of the overall changes that will be happening with the available funding for the grants.

[2:27] Okay. Any questions about what you read in the packet?

[2:33] I'm just going to suggest I'm still confused about the two grant competitive bid requests for grants over $10,000.

[2:44] I think we're even seeing that with the mining work that's having to be done.

[2:49] I mean, the difficulty in getting two competitive bids

[2:56] in this community right now with the building trades,

[2:59] I think it's just putting a burden on the grant applicants.

[3:03] That when at the actually at the end of the day,

[3:09] the work has to be substantiated not by the estimate

[3:13] but by actually invoicing.

[3:15] And so we're not gonna be sending out any money

[3:18] that's not been spent.

[3:22] As I recall, it wasn't about finding out whether or not the work was actually done.

[3:35] It was about making sure that there were competitive bids so that they got,

[3:43] So that they were presenting something that was realistic to us in order to approve it.

[3:50] That's what it was.

[3:51] Well, again, it's just so hard to get two competitive bids on work that's being done.

[3:59] I mean, I keep hearing this over and over again from people.

[4:01] Just from a lack of contractors?

[4:03] Yeah, just somebody trying to get a painting contractor to get two bids out.

[4:07] You know, I think we're taking, if the owner does not feel good about the bid, because they're paying at least half, if not more of this, I'm not sure why we need to get into that credibility issue.

[4:22] And I, and I'm trying to keep the threshold for the people applying for a grant as low as possible.

[4:29] I think it needs to be a detailed bid.

[4:31] But I think we're leaving it up.

[4:37] That's just, I'm still bothered by that if you can't tell.

[4:41] And I think that could be something discussed in the next work session.

[4:45] I think the last time we implemented the changes, there was consensus on the two bids.

[4:50] But that is something as the grant program continues to get refined that we could review

[4:56] if there's interest from the board.

[4:58] bring this back in the fall so we can thank you okay if there are no more

[5:08] comments then we'll move on to public communications are there any board

[5:14] communications and disclosures no so we will move on to public

[5:24] communications if anybody is here or online to talk about something that is not on the agenda tonight

[5:31] would you please raise your hand? No hands raised. Okay as there is no communications from the public

[5:40] we'll move on to the regular agenda and the first item is this things mind site grant application.

[5:58] Just one second here.

[6:19] I apologize I'm having some technical difficulties with my PowerPoint

[6:22] point slides. Take your time.

[7:04] Here we go. So sorry. Okay, Elisa Martin here to present

[7:13] on the Thames Mine Shop in Cages Historic District Grant. And as you know, the Thames

[7:22] Mine Site is located at the southeast corner of Park City Mountain near the Jupiter Access

[7:28] Hoist, Thanes, and Single Jack ski runs.

[7:33] And the significant historic site was

[7:36] constructed circa 1937. It contains the Thanes Mine Hoist House, Conveyor

[7:43] Gallery, and Fire Hydrant Shack. They're all designated as historic

[7:47] structures on Park City's historic sites inventory. And this picture shows the

[7:52] site in 2009, which when it was fully, well not fully intact, but looked really

[7:59] good. And after heavy snow loads in 2023, the roof collapsed. And in August 7, 2024,

[8:10] the HPB approved a material deconstruction application to remove the historic roof materials.

[8:16] And also on August 7, the HPB awarded a historic district grant to support the work to remove

[8:22] the roof and stabilize the hoist house.

[8:29] On January 2, 2026, the planning director

[8:32] issued a HDDR Historic District Design Review waiver letter for the Thames Mine Preservation

[8:37] Project and subsequently on January 7, 2026, the HPB awarded a grant for the comprehensive

[8:45] repairs to the mine site, hoist house, garage door facade, shaft tower, watchman shed, fire

[8:52] hydrant shed, and ore shed facade.

[8:57] The current grant application for the Thames Mine Preservation Project is specifically

[9:00] specifically to support repairs to the mine shaft and cages and the estimated total cost

[9:09] of the project is $74,589. The funding request is $21,989 and would be sourced from the Citywide

[9:18] General Fund for fiscal year 2026, which has a balance of $22,186. The mine shaft

[9:28] and cages represent an important era of transition for Park City as the Thames

[9:32] mine site was the last mine complex constructed before the mining decline

[9:38] and operation season Park City and the ski industry began to emerge in its

[9:42] place. The mine shaft became iconic for its adapted use as a ski with operation

[9:48] in the 1960s.

[9:51] The applicants proposed scope of work falls within the

[9:54] eligible work item category of restoring historic features and includes

[9:59] structural framing, foundation repairs, and closing and protecting the shaft openings, and preserving and stabilizing the shaft structure.

[10:08] The staff report analysis does go on in detail to describe how the project meets the grant program evaluation criteria, which is based on the fiscal year 2026 criteria prior to updates that were made in the new fiscal year for 2027.

[10:25] And staff's recommendations for the district grant application for the things mine shaft and cages open a public hearing and determine whether a grant should be awarded.

[10:38] And we do have Brian buck here. If you have any questions specifically regarding the project.

[10:45] Welcome Brian.

[10:46] Thank you.

[10:48] My name is Brian buck.

[10:50] I live at 84098.

[10:54] I am the project manager for the Friends of Ski Mountain Mining History, and I'm responsible

[10:59] for executing our plans to preserve the FAIN's mine facility.

[11:07] I want to thank the Historic Preservation Board and the planning staff for considering

[11:12] our grant application and giving it a thorough review.

[11:18] As Alyssa said, this shaft is important.

[11:20] I'm a minor, and so any of these features are important to me.

[11:24] But this shaft is very important for our ski industry, which is really interesting.

[11:30] And because it's the only such facility where people were put on subway cars driven two

[11:39] and a half miles through a tunnel under a mountain where they got on the lift line

[11:44] underground at the 1700 level of the shaft and were lifted 1700 feet in two

[11:51] and a half minutes to the surface where they were then back in the sunlight and

[11:55] could ski. It's the only such ski lift that I'm aware of that included that

[12:02] kind of a subway train and also a mine shaft elevator in the world and so it's

[12:09] very unique facility and we want to give homage to that and to have our visitors be able to

[12:16] see that and enjoy it. So, when the building collapsed in 2223 and the roof fell in and

[12:27] the walls fell in, it exposed the front of what we call the shaft tower. There's a building

[12:35] that encloses the head frame and the front of that tower used to be contained within

[12:43] the building.

[12:44] Well, when the building collapsed, it completely exposed the front of that tower.

[12:50] And so now the shaft and the cages that are exposed at the top of the shaft are exposed

[12:55] to the weather, and they're also exposed for potential vandalism.

[13:01] And so we want to protect the shaft and those cages from both of those risks.

[13:07] So what we intend to do is to add a new structure, which will be placed against that shaft tower

[13:16] that will meet the same roof line as the old building did that collapsed,

[13:21] and will extend out from the shaft tower about six and a half feet.

[13:26] that will be built and covered with the same rusty old corrugated metal that is

[13:32] present on the rest of the building to make it look like it was part of the

[13:36] original building. And then the front of that will be covered with chain link

[13:41] fence. So people in the future will be able to walk into that area and visit

[13:46] that site, walk up to the shaft, see the cages of the shaft and the

[13:51] structure of the head frame and see the yellow painted shaft cage which was the

[13:58] cage that they actually used to lift the skiers between 1964 and 1969 and that's

[14:05] there at the surface and they'll be able to see that. And so we want people to be

[14:09] able to enjoy that and connect with that history. The cost for that project

[14:13] is about $75,000. As Alyssa said we've requested just under $22,000

[14:21] That amount of money will be very helpful to us.

[14:25] And if you can approve that grant, it would be extremely important to us.

[14:32] And I promise you, you will love the outcome.

[14:36] Thank you.

[14:39] Thank you, Brian.

[14:43] I'd like to open it up to the board for questions or discussion.

[14:52] unless I just have one question on the on the funding then I help clarify so it's the 47,000

[15:00] Also, it's in the citywide fund that's being shown on the report. Is that for 2026, 2027?

[15:10] That's the, yeah, that's the beginning balance of that fund before any grants.

[15:17] As of August, July 1.

[15:19] July 1, is that the fiscal year?

[15:21] Yes, exactly.

[15:22] So is this 21,000 coming out of that 47,000?

[15:25] Correct, but there was already a grant that was awarded out of that fund from the $47,000.

[15:33] So the balance is, I believe, $22,000.

[15:38] Yeah.

[15:39] So when between the grant that was already awarded, then that fund will not be available

[15:44] the rest of until 2027?

[15:47] Well, that ended in December.

[15:49] So their application came in, I'm sorry, not December.

[15:53] the end of fiscal year 2026 so July 31st and then we have June 30th sorry and so

[16:04] the fiscal year 2027 started July 1st and so now we're into new funding that's

[16:14] it's reset it's confusing because we're doing this after it's already reset but

[16:19] But this is previous balance.

[16:21] So this is from the prior budget then?

[16:23] Yes, because they were able to submit the application

[16:27] during the fiscal year 2026.

[16:29] Then we'll be starting over with additional funds

[16:33] July 1st.

[16:34] That's right.

[16:35] Thank you.

[16:40] Any other comments or questions?

[16:42] Just a quick question.

[16:44] When you restore everything, are you

[16:46] to take people up the tower and noun them in the hole?

[16:53] It's a fair question.

[16:55] The answer is no.

[16:58] The shaft tower and the head frame are not suitable for public visitation.

[17:04] They were never built to code and do not comply with any of the safety codes that we now

[17:09] have for buildings.

[17:11] The shaft itself collapsed near the surface of the ground.

[17:20] The shaft itself is 1,760 feet deep, and the top 100 feet of it collapsed.

[17:28] And so we hired an engineering firm to do a design of how to close the top of the shaft so it wouldn't continue to collapse.

[17:37] collapse. If it had continued to collapse, we could have had a situation like we all

[17:42] saw at the daily west shaft in 2015. So we paid for the engineering study and for the

[17:51] design. We teamed with the State of Utah, the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, who have

[17:58] a program to close abandoned mine shafts and tunnels and portals and such all across

[18:04] the state and we provided the engineering they provided the know-how to do the

[18:10] actual construction work and they hired the contractor and so they closed the

[18:15] top of that shaft so there is now almost a hundred foot thick plug in the top

[18:24] of that shaft to arrest the collapse that was occurring there so that shaft

[18:31] just permanently closed and no one will ever go down it.

[18:36] I have to say those

[18:37] skiers must have been pretty dedicated because I never would have gone through

[18:40] all that just to go down a hill. I think there's a list that only did it once. I

[18:45] don't know. I did it multiple times. Oh my good. And it was it was fun and the

[18:54] other thing was better than waiting line to go up the gondola. How was the lift line

[19:00] on the 1700 level underground. Did it move? You went into the building, I think, that got remodeled

[19:08] at Silver Keen over there. That was where you waited in line. I think you knew that. Silver

[19:11] Star was fine. Silver Star. Silver Star, I mean, yeah. Yeah. No, it was interesting to get right

[19:18] to the top. Yeah. And the lines at the gondola were an hour and a half. Yeah. So.

[19:25] I see pictures of people coming out of that garage door. Yeah. There's a number of photographs

[19:30] passive people coming out of the garage door. And by the way, we are going to preserve that

[19:33] garage door too, again, and so much for this shaft being a ski lift. But the people look

[19:40] so thrilled to once again be in the sunlight.

[19:44] I can imagine. But they experienced what a minor experienced. And so that, to me, that's

[19:52] no pun intended. It was a major experience to do that. So I wish I'd been here then.

[19:58] I really do, because I would have done it.

[20:01] Thank you.

[20:02] Do you have any of you filled this out?

[20:06] This is a criteria evaluation scoring mechanism.

[20:12] I forgot to.

[20:13] You forgot?

[20:16] That's okay.

[20:17] Well, I gave everything the top highest score, so it came out to 16 points.

[20:24] So I am very much in favor of providing this grant for this incredible project.

[20:33] Does anybody else want to weigh in?

[20:36] No, I'm very positive on it too.

[20:38] Yeah, I also support the grant.

[20:40] Yeah, absolutely.

[20:41] Similar score for me.

[20:43] Okay.

[20:44] So could I hear a motion?

[20:46] Before we did we open a public hearing?

[20:49] We need to open a public hearing.

[20:51] And real quick before that, I just need to disclose that I work for the Park City Historical Society, who's the parent of the Franciske Mountain Mounting History, but I'm not involved in this project.

[21:04] Okay. Is there any, is anybody online?

[21:08] No.

[21:08] Okay, then we'll close the public hearing.

[21:12] And may I have a motion?

[21:17] I move that we approve this grant.

[21:21] I'll second the motion.

[21:24] All those in favor.

[21:25] Hi.

[21:26] Hi.

[21:26] Any opposed?

[21:28] Since there are no opposition, the motion carries.

[21:34] We can't wait, and by November I heard, that is amazing.

[21:41] That is amazing.

[21:42] I would love to come up and see.

[21:44] We'd love to take the entire board up.

[21:46] We'll finish with the project.

[21:47] Yeah, we're ready.

[21:50] We'll be there.

[21:51] I have my winter coat on.

[21:54] Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Brian.

[21:57] And

[22:01] I can't imagine growing up there and then going down 1,700 feet.

[22:04] Oh, can you imagine? I can't know.

[22:09] Skiing is... We did it multiple years.

[22:12] To ski is like being feeling like a bird.

[22:16] There you go. Yeah, that would do it. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the

[22:22] work session on the land management code amendments.

[22:29] Thank you, Chair.

[22:33] Okay, so we

[22:34] have some slides to work through here. We're going to try to keep it concise,

[22:38] so that's a lot of information we realized. So this is the staff report

[22:45] that's in your packet is all about changes to, proposed changes to the

[22:51] construction section in Chapter 15-11. So just to start out with some background, so the purpose

[22:59] of the HPB in part is to preserve the city's unique historic character and encourage compatible

[23:07] design and construction through periodic updates to the historic district regulations.

[23:12] And to this end, the HPB conducted a work session in December 2025 to review priorities

[23:18] strategies for historic preservation identified in the 2025 general plan.

[23:23] And one of the strategies in the general plan calls for regularly assessing and evaluating

[23:27] regulations for historic districts and historic sites in the LMC for consistency and potential

[23:33] modifications that further preservation efforts while supporting a degree of flexibility.

[23:40] And so as I said, this work session is focused on proposed amendments to land management

[23:46] Code section 15-11-12.5, Historic Preservation Board Review for Material Deconstruction,

[23:53] including to reintegrate core preservation principles into the evaluation criteria,

[23:59] provide specificity regarding compliance with LMC chapter 15-13 regulations for historic

[24:07] districts and historic sites, clarify the definition of material deconstruction,

[24:12] and clarify HPB review of modifications to historic materials while staff review

[24:18] would be limited to repair of historic materials.

[24:24] And so chapter 15-11

[24:27] section on material deconstruction was established in 2015 via ordinance 15-53

[24:33] and before that time review of material deconstruction was an

[24:37] administrative review conducted by staff and the standards of review were

[24:42] outlined in the Historic District design guidelines. The design guidelines included

[24:47] core principles of preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and historic integrity that were

[24:53] pertinent to the review of material deconstruction. And in 2019, when the design guidelines were

[24:58] codified, the core principles were moved to the definition section and not clearly referenced

[25:04] in the material deconstruction section under Chapter 15-11.

[25:11] And so staff conducted

[25:13] did research as part of this effort to understand peer communities, best practices, and historic

[25:21] district regulations and guidelines of peer communities.

[25:25] And we found that most of the peer communities incorporate the core principles of preservation,

[25:31] rehabilitation, restoration, historic integrity, and period of significance in some form

[25:37] into their standards of review for material deconstruction.

[25:40] And so these concepts of staff believes are pertinent to review of material deconstruction requests, and we recommend reintegrating them into the chapter 15-11 to support staff and HPB review of these applications.

[25:58] And just to go through some of these.

[26:00] So staff recommends additions to a historic structure should be reviewed through the lens of the definition for rehabilitation to ensure that portions or features of the historic structure, which convey historical cultural architectural values of the site are preserved.

[26:16] And this would be related to when a project is going through an addition or renovation.

[26:22] preservation. And then staff also recommends historic materials approved for removal should

[26:29] be salvaged and incorporated back into the site, either to make repairs to other facades

[26:34] of the historic structure or be integrated elsewhere on site to promote the core principle

[26:39] of preservation, which explicitly talks about reusing materials in the definition

[26:46] of that.

[26:49] Staff recommends modifications to, that modifications such as removing windows or

[26:56] architectural features added at a later time should be reviewed through the lens of restoration

[27:02] such as period of significance. So right now we do look at this, we tend to in our staff reports

[27:12] have an analysis on period of significance when the project involves modifications to the historic

[27:22] structure that are from different eras or different times, later additions or later changes that

[27:28] were that took place to the structure. But it's not very, it's not codified. We don't really

[27:34] have it explicitly required in the standards of review. So that would be something we'd want

[27:42] reintegrate into that section.

[27:47] And then finally, staff recommends incorporating the overarching core principle of historic integrity in standards of review and the seven aspects of location, design, setting, materials,

[28:01] workmanship, feeling, and association. So that would be part of how we would

[28:05] evaluate material deconstruction requests in our staff reports, like

[28:09] outlining how and requesting from the applicant that they provide that

[28:15] narrative as well and then staff would provide that in the analysis of the

[28:20] staff report.

[28:23] So our requested feedback is these three questions are does the

[28:29] HPB concur with staff that material deconstruction requests should be

[28:33] evaluated based on the definitions and criteria for rehabilitation, preservation and restoration

[28:39] and historic integrity and then yet incorporating the seven criteria for historic integrity

[28:47] for evaluation of material deconstruction and then what additional information or

[28:53] analysis does the HPB need from applicants or staff to effectively evaluate material

[28:59] deconstruction requests.

[29:00] And we could if you prefer we could go through and just while we're on these

[29:06] slides have the discussion and then move on to the next topic if would you like

[29:13] to do that or would you want to come back to talk

[29:19] about this one okay so you

[29:25] You must have something out of mine.

[29:27] I just don't want to go on to a new topic.

[29:29] Okay, but they're very, they're very integral.

[29:34] So it's almost as if you need to have the whole picture.

[29:39] That would be my preference.

[29:43] Anybody else have any?

[29:45] Okay.

[29:45] So let's keep going.

[29:47] Okay.

[29:53] So in the staff report,

[29:54] This section of the analysis and proposed amendments just deals with.

[30:00] It's pretty simple, really. It's just that material deconstruction requires compliance with chapter 15-13, which, you know, has all of our design guidelines.

[30:10] And there are very specific standards that relate to material deconstruction in that chapter.

[30:17] But there's also a whole bunch of other regulations that don't relate to modifications to historic structures.

[30:23] There's the residential infill for new construction, there's, anyway, I'm blanking on the other

[30:34] ones, but so the idea would be to actually call out the specific sections that we would

[30:43] be reviewing material deconstruction requests and just specify for residential sites, there's

[30:51] these three sections for universal regulations, primary structures, and additions to primary

[30:57] structures, and then it's the same for commercial.

[31:01] And so that would be the only change there, it's just to provide that specificity,

[31:08] okay.

[31:09] And then Meredith is going to take it from here.

[31:12] So another portion of our recommended updates to the code is to update the definition

[31:16] of material deconstruction.

[31:18] So right now we have one definition in the definition section and then we reference

[31:22] the purpose of material deconstruction in chapter 1511. And so we're proposing to amend the definition

[31:28] just to align better with that purpose and then to reference the updated definition in chapter 1511

[31:34] to help with some of the review for material deconstruction. So we'll see the proposed

[31:39] amended definition on screen and we can talk about this more when we go into some of the

[31:45] discussion points. This is the definition as it exists. This is the definition as proposed

[31:53] This is the proposed definition.

[31:56] Okay. Would you mind reading that?

[31:58] Yes.

[31:58] So the proposed definition is the removal of historic material for the purpose of repairing or replacing historic materials that are beyond repair or to accommodate an addition, new construction or structural upgrades.

[32:11] In some cases, deconstruction may be used for salvaging and reusing construction materials or building components of a historic site or to remove nonhistoric materials from a historic site or structure to achieve restoration.

[32:27] I don't know if this is just a typo in the slide itself.

[32:30] There should be a space between names.

[32:32] So just making sure that's not in the actual text because a historic is a different word.

[32:41] Okay, so if you want feedback on this particular definition, I think it's very precise and it

[32:50] merely makes a lot of sense, but perhaps somebody else has questions about it.

[32:56] I think it's really thorough as well.

[32:58] It makes me curious on what the current definition is.

[33:00] We can pull it up if you'd like.

[33:03] Don't review.

[33:06] Okay.

[33:07] Thank you for the feedback.

[33:09] And then we're going to the last section of our analysis. So we are also recommending amendments to clarify that the historic preservation board reviews any material deconstruction requests that modify historic materials.

[33:22] Well, staff review would be limited to the repair and routine maintenance that's seen on screen. So this would be as amended. So the historic preservation board would be reviewing any removal of historic material to accommodate new additions, new construction or structural upgrades.

[33:37] which is what it is currently, but also that the HPV would review modifications to historic

[33:43] window and door openings and if there were historic windows or doors on site that were

[33:47] being proposed to be removed from the site, then the HPV would review that.

[33:52] So we're just trying to clarify the scope of review for each body.

[33:55] that

[33:58] makes a lot of sense to me because our purview is to make sure that we're

[34:09] saving historic material and so it's really important that we review something

[34:19] that is so well accommodating additions. I mean we all know about how that can work if it's if

[34:30] it's a really large addition and new construction and structural upgrades. I mean that's really

[34:37] important.

[34:40] And it streamlines the others.

[34:44] On the planning director's side we've got

[34:48] repair of the following historic wood features. Would that include? So that

[34:53] would be repairing, not replacing or removing any of the historic material,

[34:58] but just the repair. So I'm just trying to think of any unintended consequences

[35:04] for all this and the process. So I mean it's clear what we've been doing in

[35:09] the past with regards to removal, historic siding to accommodate a new

[35:14] addition on it. And that seems to be going really quite well as far as how

[35:21] the guidelines have been working. But if somebody comes in, and maybe this doesn't

[35:26] happen where they're not actually doing an addition, but it's on the rear

[35:32] of a facade, I mean could they actually come in? And at what point does it

[35:40] always have to go towards and have more process for just a small removal. Somebody wants to

[35:47] say put in a window in the back or something or just even the siding has gone bad and so

[35:52] they're trying to replace it with some new siding of a light kind. I'm not sure why that would

[35:58] need to come to us. I guess why it would come to us. Under the the draft code if there was

[36:04] a proposal to change a historic facade and open a new window even if it's secondary or

[36:09] tertiary we would bring that to the board for something that is just a minor

[36:15] repair of maybe there was water damage on a portion of historic material that

[36:20] would go through staff and one of the considerations even for minor repairs the

[36:26] current code requires public notice public hearing but that could be revised

[36:32] so it's a waiver letter similar to other minor scopes of repair.

[36:38] But I think what I was just hearing was that, that repair of historic wood features, siding,

[36:46] for example, not getting into windows or doors or new openings, would be just that it would

[36:51] just be a repair.

[36:52] It might be taking it off, sanding it down, priming it, and putting it back up again.

[36:56] But what if that siding is, is not repairable, doesn't, isn't that, and it's just a small

[37:03] amount even.

[37:04] It's just, you know, the, the first two boards on the bottom in the back of

[37:07] piece of property. Yeah, I see what you're saying and I think in the chapter 15-13 it does allow

[37:14] some discretion where there's historic material that's beyond reuse. So in the broader scope of

[37:22] repairing historic siting, we've interpreted that to allow for minor replacements.

[37:30] So that's still under your purview is what I'm hoping, but it didn't seem like that when I read

[37:35] Yeah, and maybe we could clarify that, because in that case, they're repairing to put the

[37:45] end result will appear the same.

[37:47] What would trigger HPB review is something that would change that final result, and maybe

[37:53] we could clarify.

[37:56] Is there a definition in the definition sections of the word repair, like what that

[38:00] looks like, and how, especially in terms of preservation?

[38:05] I don't think so, but I think that was something we had discussed. Also, re-roof is the technical

[38:12] definition is putting the new material over the old. And so we thought it might be helpful

[38:18] to clarify that if they're proposing to come in and remove everything, then if there

[38:24] are historic roof materials that would come to the board. But if they're re-roofing

[38:29] and repairing or building something over that could be a staff review, a staff waiver letter.

[38:40] You mean covering up historic material? For the roofing that's how it's been

[38:46] addressed in the past. Yeah like if they're doing new tiles or something on the roof

[38:53] but they're not disturbing any of the historic material that's been through the

[38:58] that's been considered the re-roof that goes through that staff review. I

[39:03] understand they can re-roof three times. I don't know that we've had anything

[39:09] there's no specific number in the in the current code maybe three they can have

[39:17] three layers of roofing. Building code requirement because of the weight of

[39:23] material? Yeah, maybe one is too much if the structure was not wasn't built for it to begin with.

[39:34] Well, I think you understand my concern about just clarifying that.

[39:39] So the feedback I'm hearing is that just wishing to clarify moving forward that repair of

[39:46] unusable historic material would and replacement of that unusable historic material in a minor

[39:51] scope would continue to be under the staff review like all the other changes in the other sections

[39:59] and I don't see any other like things we need to direct you to look at in those sections

[40:08] anybody else going back to like when Randy wanted to talk about those sections

[40:12] yeah we can go back to the previous sections is there another slide

[40:18] It was just the recommendation from staff.

[40:21] Okay. So I did have a concern, and it's not in your slideshow.

[40:29] And I don't have...

[40:33] Can we go back to the historic integrity criteria slide?

[40:41] I did just want to clarify one thing.

[40:44] The historic integrity slide here shows the seven aspects.

[40:48] and in the staff report it noted the city attorney's office recommends taking

[40:54] that word feeling and replacing it with something a little more specific I think

[40:59] they're recommended language in the staff report was I have to look it up but

[41:06] that that was one term that we wanted some feedback on the period

[41:14] Do you have that list of seven that you can put on the screen?

[41:20] I mean, feeling is already defined by the National Park Service though, right?

[41:24] So we could just have that as a definition in the definitions section.

[41:29] I wonder if we could do like historic feelers.

[41:38] Just to have the defined term feeling in this.

[41:42] So there you have that feeling again, but keep going because this isn't the page that I had the worry about.

[41:54] I just feel like with.

[41:56] This is my, I mean, I don't, I don't mind if there's a cross reference to the.

[42:01] The Department of Interior definition of feeling, but I think from the Utah statutory perspective, I strongly recommend going with the recommended language.

[42:12] The definition essentially replaced use the words from the definition to substitute just the feeling because that's just so hard to defend in terms of having an objective standard for review.

[42:29] And so I don't, you know, obviously we can reference that department of interior standard.

[42:36] But I really recommend using something a little more specific.

[42:43] And it really seems to mean association with that time period.

[42:48] So I, number six and number seven are the ones that I had a concern about.

[42:56] and mainly association in number seven is that's that's fine because we all know

[43:03] when an important person has lived in an historic site we just had that happen

[43:12] with our wonderful principal I've forgotten his name buddy anyway that's

[43:19] the kind of association there but period association I had a little problem

[43:24] with that. And then one of the reasons, if you go back to the three periods that are listed,

[43:30] you know, the mining days and then the other two periods, the thing about is the expression of the

[43:40] aesthetic, historic sense, that can be actually all over the place. Not everybody, not every

[43:47] property that's historic is going to have the same kind of aesthetics. However, I think

[43:55] the period characteristic of might be a better word, and then that takes into account lots

[44:06] of different elements during that same period that are characteristic of that period might

[44:15] It might be a little bit better, easier for, certainly for me to understand, but certainly

[44:22] for someone who is, you know, purchasing a home or what happened, have you?

[44:29] So period character instead of period association?

[44:33] Yes, that's what I'm proposing, but you all can talk about it.

[44:39] How do you like the word character in terms of recommendation, Mark?

[44:46] Yeah, no, I like that distinction. That's satisfactory.

[44:53] Yeah, because having the word association twice just might be a little confusing.

[45:00] Yeah, you have a two different, same word, association, but use two different ways in the same document that it really did, as an English major it bothered.

[45:17] Understood.

[45:22] Other board members have input on that?

[45:25] Carl Winters.

[45:26] Right, exactly. Carl Winters.

[45:28] I adore the man, especially because he reminds me of my husband and just builds whatever he wants.

[45:40] Is there a consensus from other board members on that change, clarifying that one could be more associated with character defining features of the period?

[45:52] I think it's a better word too.

[45:56] Well, especially when, you know, our audience to this, who's going to be reading this may

[46:03] not be familiar with National Park Service definitions and guidelines, so this might be

[46:08] more descriptive then.

[46:10] Agreed.

[46:11] Okay.

[46:12] I was, again, trying to look at the unintended consequence of the narrative on this.

[46:18] And so, you know, I can see, you know, what first jumps out is, you know, clearly we've

[46:27] been doing this a number of times where there's been a new addition going on to the back and

[46:31] we've been taking off.

[46:34] Applicants have been coming in asking, say, like on the Centennial, have pieces that

[46:38] were added later on taken off and those types of things, you know, kind of major

[46:43] renovations.

[46:43] But again, if we're doing a smaller renovation, I'm just trying to see what the, does the narrative, what that looks like.

[46:53] And maybe, because this is just a work session, maybe it would be nice for me.

[46:59] I don't know if anybody else agrees with this, but maybe come back with an example of the narrative.

[47:07] Yeah, and almost like two projects, I mean, one would be the simplest one is actually going

[47:12] to be one where we take a historic house and do an addition on the back of it because we

[47:15] do that all the time.

[47:16] I think it's the outliers, maybe a smaller project that may come across in the past.

[47:23] I don't know.

[47:24] I don't want to make this onerous for the planning department, but I think it might

[47:27] help us synthesize this a lot more quickly if we could see how we're going to be

[47:32] taking this new information because I'm not really sure how some of these things from the

[47:38] National Park Service really fit into our evaluations as we've been doing them in the past.

[47:47] I'm not saying it doesn't, but it also seems a little bit vague because the National Park

[47:53] Service guidelines are trying to handle a colonial house in New England and here we are.

[47:58] I know when I've submitted tax credit applications to the National Park Service and SHPO has been

[48:08] there to support them understanding this, but it's hard for them to sometimes with their

[48:13] guidelines they're going to back east to review back there what a historic mining town structure

[48:21] looks like.

[48:22] It's not anything at all like a well-built, at least masonry or stone structure back

[48:27] in New England. I understand where they're coming from on this, but I'm not sure that's

[48:36] how that really helps us. I'm not sure I'm being really clear with you, either.

[48:42] No, no, that's okay. I'm just going to confirm what I'm hearing. You're speaking of the seven

[48:47] aspects of historic integrity and that those might not always apply to the scope

[48:56] for a scale of a project that some minor like what I think what I heard was that we'd just like to

[49:04] see some examples especially with ones that we've already grappled with that definitely

[49:09] where it's doable where this would be applied yeah we can bring examples I think that's a great

[49:13] idea I can think an applicant you know to have some examples to see you know to read it's one

[49:19] thing but to point to it like this is exactly what we're talking about but are we evaluating

[49:24] this based on the seven principles under historic integrity or re-evaluating it

[49:30] under the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration? Well and that's where I think

[49:37] it depends on what the project is like if your if the project is in addition then

[49:47] you're you know we would be looking at the rehabilitation definition and how

[49:52] that applies because rehabilitation specifically says the actor process of making possible

[49:59] compatible use through repair alterations and additions while preserving those portions

[50:04] of features or features.

[50:07] And so that's where I think if the project is not proposing an addition and it's actually

[50:15] just a restoration or rehabilitation of the historic structure, then we would be looking

[50:20] at restoration and then probably leave it at that because at that point, I mean, if the

[50:32] restoration, I guess I shouldn't say that because restoration could mean a lot of different

[50:37] things depending on what features they're restoring or wanting to modify based on the

[50:46] period of significance or the era of significance. When you have those

[50:52] structures that have had later additions but they're still kind of like in the

[50:57] 1940s or there they could be considered historic features still. Well for

[51:05] example with Carl Winters the project there I mean that was an addition but

[51:10] there were also modifications to the roof. There were things that we looked

[51:15] we did need to look at historic integrity and how the that relationship with the association

[51:25] played into it. So I do think it is it can be kind of confusing and having some examples would be

[51:33] helpful to clarify like how you would apply each of these principles to different projects.

[51:39] And so when we're typically looking at these projects, we're looking at, it seems like

[51:48] we're typically looking for an identification of a time period that they're trying to bring

[51:53] the house back to.

[51:54] And if we take that through that, and if they're putting a new addition on it, it really

[51:59] could be under rehabilitation, preservation, and restoration.

[52:03] Right.

[52:04] I think it just definitely depends on the scope.

[52:07] but you could also in the process of doing that become to honor us with say

[52:14] the preservation part of it on the historic building. In terms of salvaging

[52:21] materials. Yeah I mean there's so that's when we're all through with this I

[52:26] think the idea is to make it more clear only for the review process but for

[52:32] for us and for the planning staff and for the applicant, correct?

[52:36] For sure.

[52:36] Maybe what we can clarify in the next work session on this item is where we have applicants

[52:42] coming forward proposing to restore a site to a certain time period to give that specific

[52:51] criteria on how do we ensure that the historic designation is preserved because then once

[52:59] that is determined then that establishes what is and is not historic material.

[53:06] Yeah and I agree with you because I think when we've had this when we've had

[53:11] these issues before it almost seems like we're hashing out what period are you

[53:15] restoring this to in this meeting and they're going well you know like the

[53:20] 1930 Sanborn map or something. Exactly. Yeah so we're trying to get them to

[53:24] to provide that information and have staff analysis of that.

[53:32] That's starting to clarify that. That would make sense.

[53:37] But then we also have smaller projects where there's historic material being removed

[53:43] that maybe doesn't need to have a narrative to it.

[53:47] I'm not sure.

[53:47] I think yeah there are like there was project I recently worked on where there

[53:52] was a rear addition and they weren't proposing any modifications except for

[53:57] removing the material for the addition but no modifications to the historic

[54:02] structure just to basically restore the material so that it was up to good

[54:08] quality yeah but that would have probably probably wouldn't have looked

[54:13] at period of significance for that. Well I've just been afford if this is going

[54:19] to become clarified in the land management code we just want to make sure

[54:24] that we're not making this on us for every applicant and ask to do this and

[54:29] so how do we take and judge where you know we have a well-qualified planning

[54:34] department staff and trust you to do these things so okay so the plan will

[54:44] be for the next work session, we'll bring some examples and kind of run through different

[54:50] different types of projects and how that how they would work with the new regulations.

[54:55] Yeah, just how to work, you know, how to work through it, how the expectations that

[55:00] was expected of us working through it.

[55:02] That sounds good.

[55:03] Yeah.

[55:04] Okay.

[55:04] Does that make it easier?

[55:06] I hope.

[55:07] I think that would be excellent.

[55:09] Yeah, I do too.

[55:10] I

[55:14] just wanted to go back to the slides and see if we have additional feedback needed.

[55:28] I think we had consensus on the definition.

[55:31] Yes, definitely.

[55:32] Okay.

[55:33] And then for providing specificity for the applicable sections of code in Chapter 15-13.

[55:42] Okay.

[55:43] So, and then on, I think we covered this section as well.

[55:52] Yes.

[55:53] Are there any additional topics or any additional thoughts on these amendments and criteria that needs to be added?

[56:06] I don't think so.

[56:09] Not with me today.

[56:11] I would love to see the next session so we can clarify even more for sure.

[56:18] Okay, well done though. This is great.

[56:21] One last point that it's just, are we really clear about what our expectations are when it comes to historic windows?

[56:30] What do you mean by that?

[56:31] well what what can be well I'm not sure I've ever seen a historic window that

[56:36] could be you know restored according to the National Park Service guidelines

[56:42] it is kind of a rare occurrence that we see historic windows that are actually

[56:49] the historic material we generally get requests more for replacing windows in

[56:56] the same location but that have already been replaced with something newer

[57:01] Yeah, it's almost impossible also to have the historic one don't ever meet building code in thermal energy codes

[57:09] Nor do we necessarily want people to be uncomfortable in their homes. Yeah

[57:14] I'm so I'm not sure you know if you look at this without

[57:19] clarification on doors and windows and

[57:22] You know and our also our goal to have an energy efficient

[57:25] Built environment right here, too. I'm just wondering if we're if we're clear on

[57:30] And if the applicant will be clear on what their options are with that.

[57:36] Yeah.

[57:37] I mean, I think the code currently requires historic windows to be repaired if they can

[57:44] be, right?

[57:45] And then if it's beyond repair, then there's the options for replacement.

[57:51] But we could look at that further and provide some clarity and review on that in the

[57:58] next session.

[57:59] session might be helpful. We can provide some clarity on what the historic windows

[58:07] there are and Douglas knows more about this than I do but there are companies

[58:12] that can replicate them perfectly.

[58:19] And right now the for historic structures

[58:27] is to replace like for like so it would be wood material instead of

[58:33] something else. For additions and new construction, it can be wood or aluminum

[58:39] clad wood for windows.

[58:45] Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So before we adjourn,

[58:52] something's jumped into my mind while we were talking about, oh, we need an

[58:57] example and I thought, oh, the Centennial House. And then I thought, I thought we

[59:04] We were going to have some updates about what's going on with the Centennial from time to time, and I wondered when our update might be happening.

[59:15] So, throughout the process, the, the city's historic preservation consultant stand tech has been working with the applicant through the processes. I think we could provide a stop communication in the September meeting.

[59:28] That would be wonderful. I think they're, we recently met with them and they're getting, I think they indicated they still have a few more months of construction before they start bringing the historic materials back to the site.

[59:41] So they're, they're getting there. Good. Yeah. Good. Good question.

[59:48] They did get flooded. And they got flooded with these storms we've been having.

[59:54] It'll bring you to a Friday one.

[59:56] Yikes.

[59:58] Yeah, the whole basement was...

[1:00:13] Okay, if there's nothing else, I guess we can move to the turn.

[1:00:22] Second.

[1:00:24] Second.

[1:00:25] All those in favor, get up.

[1:00:27] I

Historic Preservation Board Meeting

Transcript