1 00:00:52,560 --> 00:00:57,900 Order to order. And I would like a roll call from my right. 2 00:01:00,980 --> 00:01:06,240 Douglass Stevens. Lola Beetlebrox. Randy Scott. Dalton Gackel. 3 00:01:07,600 --> 00:01:18,360 Okay. The next item of order is approval of the minutes for July 1st. Does anybody have any changes or questions? 4 00:01:22,520 --> 00:01:24,680 No, everybody is shaking their head. 5 00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:26,380 May I have a motion to approve them? 6 00:01:26,960 --> 00:01:28,920 Move to approve the minutes as they are. 7 00:01:29,900 --> 00:01:30,320 Second. 8 00:01:31,060 --> 00:01:32,140 All those in favor? 9 00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:33,160 Aye. 10 00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:34,460 Any opposed? 11 00:01:35,360 --> 00:01:37,460 The motion carries unanimously. 12 00:01:39,260 --> 00:01:39,860 Okay. 13 00:01:41,440 --> 00:01:45,220 Now it's time for staff and board communications. 14 00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:49,420 Do you have anything to tell us, Rebecca? 15 00:01:49,420 --> 00:02:00,020 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. 16 00:02:00,460 --> 00:02:05,120 It's provided for information, but if there are any questions. 17 00:02:06,540 --> 00:02:25,520 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. 18 00:02:27,340 --> 00:02:31,760 Okay. Any questions about what you read in the packet? 19 00:02:33,180 --> 00:02:42,460 I'm just going to suggest I'm still confused about the two grant competitive bid requests for grants over $10,000. 20 00:02:44,880 --> 00:02:49,920 I think we're even seeing that with the mining work that's having to be done. 21 00:02:49,920 --> 00:02:55,700 I mean, the difficulty in getting two competitive bids 22 00:02:56,340 --> 00:02:59,220 in this community right now with the building trades, 23 00:02:59,340 --> 00:03:02,820 I think it's just putting a burden on the grant applicants. 24 00:03:03,940 --> 00:03:06,800 That when at the actually at the end of the day, 25 00:03:09,300 --> 00:03:13,040 the work has to be substantiated not by the estimate 26 00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:14,460 but by actually invoicing. 27 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:18,780 And so we're not gonna be sending out any money 28 00:03:18,780 --> 00:03:20,540 that's not been spent. 29 00:03:22,460 --> 00:03:35,300 As I recall, it wasn't about finding out whether or not the work was actually done. 30 00:03:35,580 --> 00:03:41,860 It was about making sure that there were competitive bids so that they got, 31 00:03:43,080 --> 00:03:49,240 So that they were presenting something that was realistic to us in order to approve it. 32 00:03:50,020 --> 00:03:51,040 That's what it was. 33 00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:58,840 Well, again, it's just so hard to get two competitive bids on work that's being done. 34 00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,620 I mean, I keep hearing this over and over again from people. 35 00:04:01,620 --> 00:04:02,920 Just from a lack of contractors? 36 00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:07,980 Yeah, just somebody trying to get a painting contractor to get two bids out. 37 00:04:07,980 --> 00:04:21,760 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. 38 00:04:22,360 --> 00:04:28,600 And I, and I'm trying to keep the threshold for the people applying for a grant as low as possible. 39 00:04:29,660 --> 00:04:31,800 I think it needs to be a detailed bid. 40 00:04:31,800 --> 00:04:36,540 But I think we're leaving it up. 41 00:04:37,080 --> 00:04:40,620 That's just, I'm still bothered by that if you can't tell. 42 00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:45,000 And I think that could be something discussed in the next work session. 43 00:04:45,220 --> 00:04:50,700 I think the last time we implemented the changes, there was consensus on the two bids. 44 00:04:50,820 --> 00:04:56,940 But that is something as the grant program continues to get refined that we could review 45 00:04:56,940 --> 00:04:58,640 if there's interest from the board. 46 00:04:58,640 --> 00:05:08,480 bring this back in the fall so we can thank you okay if there are no more 47 00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:14,740 comments then we'll move on to public communications are there any board 48 00:05:14,740 --> 00:05:24,020 communications and disclosures no so we will move on to public 49 00:05:24,020 --> 00:05:31,000 communications if anybody is here or online to talk about something that is not on the agenda tonight 50 00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:40,400 would you please raise your hand? No hands raised. Okay as there is no communications from the public 51 00:05:40,400 --> 00:05:47,200 we'll move on to the regular agenda and the first item is this things mind site grant application. 52 00:05:58,890 --> 00:06:00,690 Just one second here. 53 00:06:19,100 --> 00:06:22,200 I apologize I'm having some technical difficulties with my PowerPoint 54 00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:25,300 point slides. Take your time. 55 00:07:04,820 --> 00:07:13,620 Here we go. So sorry. Okay, Elisa Martin here to present 56 00:07:13,620 --> 00:07:22,180 on the Thames Mine Shop in Cages Historic District Grant. And as you know, the Thames 57 00:07:22,180 --> 00:07:28,040 Mine Site is located at the southeast corner of Park City Mountain near the Jupiter Access 58 00:07:28,040 --> 00:07:31,280 Hoist, Thanes, and Single Jack ski runs. 59 00:07:33,630 --> 00:07:36,370 And the significant historic site was 60 00:07:36,370 --> 00:07:43,370 constructed circa 1937. It contains the Thanes Mine Hoist House, Conveyor 61 00:07:43,370 --> 00:07:47,330 Gallery, and Fire Hydrant Shack. They're all designated as historic 62 00:07:47,330 --> 00:07:52,690 structures on Park City's historic sites inventory. And this picture shows the 63 00:07:52,690 --> 00:07:59,210 site in 2009, which when it was fully, well not fully intact, but looked really 64 00:07:59,210 --> 00:08:10,010 good. And after heavy snow loads in 2023, the roof collapsed. And in August 7, 2024, 65 00:08:10,410 --> 00:08:16,010 the HPB approved a material deconstruction application to remove the historic roof materials. 66 00:08:16,850 --> 00:08:22,890 And also on August 7, the HPB awarded a historic district grant to support the work to remove 67 00:08:22,890 --> 00:08:24,690 the roof and stabilize the hoist house. 68 00:08:29,360 --> 00:08:32,000 On January 2, 2026, the planning director 69 00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:37,980 issued a HDDR Historic District Design Review waiver letter for the Thames Mine Preservation 70 00:08:37,980 --> 00:08:45,100 Project and subsequently on January 7, 2026, the HPB awarded a grant for the comprehensive 71 00:08:45,100 --> 00:08:52,580 repairs to the mine site, hoist house, garage door facade, shaft tower, watchman shed, fire 72 00:08:52,580 --> 00:08:54,740 hydrant shed, and ore shed facade. 73 00:08:57,020 --> 00:09:00,960 The current grant application for the Thames Mine Preservation Project is specifically 74 00:09:00,960 --> 00:09:09,100 specifically to support repairs to the mine shaft and cages and the estimated total cost 75 00:09:09,100 --> 00:09:18,380 of the project is $74,589. The funding request is $21,989 and would be sourced from the Citywide 76 00:09:18,380 --> 00:09:28,130 General Fund for fiscal year 2026, which has a balance of $22,186. The mine shaft 77 00:09:28,130 --> 00:09:32,590 and cages represent an important era of transition for Park City as the Thames 78 00:09:32,590 --> 00:09:38,250 mine site was the last mine complex constructed before the mining decline 79 00:09:38,250 --> 00:09:42,670 and operation season Park City and the ski industry began to emerge in its 80 00:09:42,670 --> 00:09:48,330 place. The mine shaft became iconic for its adapted use as a ski with operation 81 00:09:48,330 --> 00:09:49,970 in the 1960s. 82 00:09:51,990 --> 00:09:54,590 The applicants proposed scope of work falls within the 83 00:09:54,590 --> 00:09:59,610 eligible work item category of restoring historic features and includes 84 00:09:59,610 --> 00:10:07,370 structural framing, foundation repairs, and closing and protecting the shaft openings, and preserving and stabilizing the shaft structure. 85 00:10:08,810 --> 00:10:25,170 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. 86 00:10:25,170 --> 00:10:36,670 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. 87 00:10:38,500 --> 00:10:43,980 And we do have Brian buck here. If you have any questions specifically regarding the project. 88 00:10:45,380 --> 00:10:46,400 Welcome Brian. 89 00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:47,640 Thank you. 90 00:10:48,600 --> 00:10:50,000 My name is Brian buck. 91 00:10:50,220 --> 00:10:52,860 I live at 84098. 92 00:10:54,000 --> 00:10:59,600 I am the project manager for the Friends of Ski Mountain Mining History, and I'm responsible 93 00:10:59,600 --> 00:11:06,520 for executing our plans to preserve the FAIN's mine facility. 94 00:11:07,380 --> 00:11:12,920 I want to thank the Historic Preservation Board and the planning staff for considering 95 00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:16,440 our grant application and giving it a thorough review. 96 00:11:18,040 --> 00:11:20,520 As Alyssa said, this shaft is important. 97 00:11:20,520 --> 00:11:24,340 I'm a minor, and so any of these features are important to me. 98 00:11:24,980 --> 00:11:29,560 But this shaft is very important for our ski industry, which is really interesting. 99 00:11:30,820 --> 00:11:39,420 And because it's the only such facility where people were put on subway cars driven two 100 00:11:39,420 --> 00:11:44,820 and a half miles through a tunnel under a mountain where they got on the lift line 101 00:11:44,820 --> 00:11:51,400 underground at the 1700 level of the shaft and were lifted 1700 feet in two 102 00:11:51,400 --> 00:11:55,820 and a half minutes to the surface where they were then back in the sunlight and 103 00:11:55,820 --> 00:12:02,620 could ski. It's the only such ski lift that I'm aware of that included that 104 00:12:02,620 --> 00:12:09,500 kind of a subway train and also a mine shaft elevator in the world and so it's 105 00:12:09,500 --> 00:12:16,020 very unique facility and we want to give homage to that and to have our visitors be able to 106 00:12:16,560 --> 00:12:27,560 see that and enjoy it. So, when the building collapsed in 2223 and the roof fell in and 107 00:12:27,560 --> 00:12:35,120 the walls fell in, it exposed the front of what we call the shaft tower. There's a building 108 00:12:35,120 --> 00:12:43,200 that encloses the head frame and the front of that tower used to be contained within 109 00:12:43,200 --> 00:12:43,600 the building. 110 00:12:44,380 --> 00:12:49,420 Well, when the building collapsed, it completely exposed the front of that tower. 111 00:12:50,060 --> 00:12:55,980 And so now the shaft and the cages that are exposed at the top of the shaft are exposed 112 00:12:55,980 --> 00:13:00,180 to the weather, and they're also exposed for potential vandalism. 113 00:13:01,120 --> 00:13:06,900 And so we want to protect the shaft and those cages from both of those risks. 114 00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:16,760 So what we intend to do is to add a new structure, which will be placed against that shaft tower 115 00:13:16,760 --> 00:13:21,240 that will meet the same roof line as the old building did that collapsed, 116 00:13:21,840 --> 00:13:25,360 and will extend out from the shaft tower about six and a half feet. 117 00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:32,640 that will be built and covered with the same rusty old corrugated metal that is 118 00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:36,200 present on the rest of the building to make it look like it was part of the 119 00:13:36,200 --> 00:13:41,880 original building. And then the front of that will be covered with chain link 120 00:13:41,880 --> 00:13:46,100 fence. So people in the future will be able to walk into that area and visit 121 00:13:46,100 --> 00:13:51,860 that site, walk up to the shaft, see the cages of the shaft and the 122 00:13:51,860 --> 00:13:58,800 structure of the head frame and see the yellow painted shaft cage which was the 123 00:13:58,800 --> 00:14:05,340 cage that they actually used to lift the skiers between 1964 and 1969 and that's 124 00:14:05,340 --> 00:14:09,120 there at the surface and they'll be able to see that. And so we want people to be 125 00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:13,820 able to enjoy that and connect with that history. The cost for that project 126 00:14:13,820 --> 00:14:21,360 is about $75,000. As Alyssa said we've requested just under $22,000 127 00:14:21,360 --> 00:14:24,780 That amount of money will be very helpful to us. 128 00:14:25,240 --> 00:14:32,340 And if you can approve that grant, it would be extremely important to us. 129 00:14:32,580 --> 00:14:35,300 And I promise you, you will love the outcome. 130 00:14:36,400 --> 00:14:37,140 Thank you. 131 00:14:39,890 --> 00:14:40,830 Thank you, Brian. 132 00:14:43,370 --> 00:14:50,070 I'd like to open it up to the board for questions or discussion. 133 00:14:52,300 --> 00:14:59,880 unless I just have one question on the on the funding then I help clarify so it's the 47,000 134 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:10,440 Also, it's in the citywide fund that's being shown on the report. Is that for 2026, 2027? 135 00:15:10,940 --> 00:15:17,020 That's the, yeah, that's the beginning balance of that fund before any grants. 136 00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:18,880 As of August, July 1. 137 00:15:19,040 --> 00:15:20,860 July 1, is that the fiscal year? 138 00:15:21,260 --> 00:15:21,980 Yes, exactly. 139 00:15:22,340 --> 00:15:25,740 So is this 21,000 coming out of that 47,000? 140 00:15:25,740 --> 00:15:32,480 Correct, but there was already a grant that was awarded out of that fund from the $47,000. 141 00:15:33,340 --> 00:15:37,180 So the balance is, I believe, $22,000. 142 00:15:38,280 --> 00:15:38,400 Yeah. 143 00:15:39,360 --> 00:15:44,020 So when between the grant that was already awarded, then that fund will not be available 144 00:15:44,020 --> 00:15:46,220 the rest of until 2027? 145 00:15:47,580 --> 00:15:48,820 Well, that ended in December. 146 00:15:49,320 --> 00:15:52,680 So their application came in, I'm sorry, not December. 147 00:15:53,500 --> 00:16:04,220 the end of fiscal year 2026 so July 31st and then we have June 30th sorry and so 148 00:16:04,220 --> 00:16:14,640 the fiscal year 2027 started July 1st and so now we're into new funding that's 149 00:16:14,640 --> 00:16:19,080 it's reset it's confusing because we're doing this after it's already reset but 150 00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:20,420 But this is previous balance. 151 00:16:21,140 --> 00:16:23,360 So this is from the prior budget then? 152 00:16:23,780 --> 00:16:27,000 Yes, because they were able to submit the application 153 00:16:27,000 --> 00:16:29,240 during the fiscal year 2026. 154 00:16:29,860 --> 00:16:33,560 Then we'll be starting over with additional funds 155 00:16:33,560 --> 00:16:34,600 July 1st. 156 00:16:34,860 --> 00:16:35,180 That's right. 157 00:16:35,960 --> 00:16:36,680 Thank you. 158 00:16:40,170 --> 00:16:41,690 Any other comments or questions? 159 00:16:42,830 --> 00:16:44,170 Just a quick question. 160 00:16:44,790 --> 00:16:46,570 When you restore everything, are you 161 00:16:46,570 --> 00:16:51,130 to take people up the tower and noun them in the hole? 162 00:16:53,390 --> 00:16:54,630 It's a fair question. 163 00:16:55,430 --> 00:16:57,230 The answer is no. 164 00:16:58,630 --> 00:17:04,210 The shaft tower and the head frame are not suitable for public visitation. 165 00:17:04,410 --> 00:17:09,850 They were never built to code and do not comply with any of the safety codes that we now 166 00:17:09,850 --> 00:17:11,550 have for buildings. 167 00:17:11,550 --> 00:17:19,390 The shaft itself collapsed near the surface of the ground. 168 00:17:20,110 --> 00:17:27,610 The shaft itself is 1,760 feet deep, and the top 100 feet of it collapsed. 169 00:17:28,830 --> 00:17:37,610 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. 170 00:17:37,610 --> 00:17:42,690 collapse. If it had continued to collapse, we could have had a situation like we all 171 00:17:42,690 --> 00:17:51,210 saw at the daily west shaft in 2015. So we paid for the engineering study and for the 172 00:17:51,210 --> 00:17:58,270 design. We teamed with the State of Utah, the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, who have 173 00:17:58,270 --> 00:18:04,350 a program to close abandoned mine shafts and tunnels and portals and such all across 174 00:18:04,350 --> 00:18:10,070 the state and we provided the engineering they provided the know-how to do the 175 00:18:10,070 --> 00:18:15,050 actual construction work and they hired the contractor and so they closed the 176 00:18:15,050 --> 00:18:24,170 top of that shaft so there is now almost a hundred foot thick plug in the top 177 00:18:24,170 --> 00:18:31,250 of that shaft to arrest the collapse that was occurring there so that shaft 178 00:18:31,250 --> 00:18:34,230 just permanently closed and no one will ever go down it. 179 00:18:36,340 --> 00:18:37,240 I have to say those 180 00:18:37,240 --> 00:18:40,980 skiers must have been pretty dedicated because I never would have gone through 181 00:18:40,980 --> 00:18:45,880 all that just to go down a hill. I think there's a list that only did it once. I 182 00:18:45,880 --> 00:18:54,080 don't know. I did it multiple times. Oh my good. And it was it was fun and the 183 00:18:54,080 --> 00:19:00,580 other thing was better than waiting line to go up the gondola. How was the lift line 184 00:19:00,580 --> 00:19:08,040 on the 1700 level underground. Did it move? You went into the building, I think, that got remodeled 185 00:19:08,040 --> 00:19:11,880 at Silver Keen over there. That was where you waited in line. I think you knew that. Silver 186 00:19:11,880 --> 00:19:18,460 Star was fine. Silver Star. Silver Star, I mean, yeah. Yeah. No, it was interesting to get right 187 00:19:18,460 --> 00:19:24,340 to the top. Yeah. And the lines at the gondola were an hour and a half. Yeah. So. 188 00:19:25,720 --> 00:19:30,000 I see pictures of people coming out of that garage door. Yeah. There's a number of photographs 189 00:19:30,000 --> 00:19:33,660 passive people coming out of the garage door. And by the way, we are going to preserve that 190 00:19:33,660 --> 00:19:40,680 garage door too, again, and so much for this shaft being a ski lift. But the people look 191 00:19:40,680 --> 00:19:43,100 so thrilled to once again be in the sunlight. 192 00:19:44,580 --> 00:19:52,400 I can imagine. But they experienced what a minor experienced. And so that, to me, that's 193 00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:58,060 no pun intended. It was a major experience to do that. So I wish I'd been here then. 194 00:19:58,060 --> 00:19:59,960 I really do, because I would have done it. 195 00:20:01,580 --> 00:20:01,940 Thank you. 196 00:20:02,440 --> 00:20:05,980 Do you have any of you filled this out? 197 00:20:06,480 --> 00:20:11,740 This is a criteria evaluation scoring mechanism. 198 00:20:12,740 --> 00:20:13,620 I forgot to. 199 00:20:13,740 --> 00:20:14,340 You forgot? 200 00:20:16,020 --> 00:20:16,860 That's okay. 201 00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:24,900 Well, I gave everything the top highest score, so it came out to 16 points. 202 00:20:24,900 --> 00:20:32,540 So I am very much in favor of providing this grant for this incredible project. 203 00:20:33,280 --> 00:20:35,160 Does anybody else want to weigh in? 204 00:20:36,240 --> 00:20:38,440 No, I'm very positive on it too. 205 00:20:38,860 --> 00:20:40,200 Yeah, I also support the grant. 206 00:20:40,520 --> 00:20:41,160 Yeah, absolutely. 207 00:20:41,700 --> 00:20:42,880 Similar score for me. 208 00:20:43,420 --> 00:20:43,760 Okay. 209 00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:45,400 So could I hear a motion? 210 00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:49,200 Before we did we open a public hearing? 211 00:20:49,380 --> 00:20:51,480 We need to open a public hearing. 212 00:20:51,480 --> 00:21:01,680 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. 213 00:21:04,720 --> 00:21:07,240 Okay. Is there any, is anybody online? 214 00:21:08,020 --> 00:21:08,220 No. 215 00:21:08,660 --> 00:21:10,620 Okay, then we'll close the public hearing. 216 00:21:12,260 --> 00:21:13,800 And may I have a motion? 217 00:21:17,760 --> 00:21:21,400 I move that we approve this grant. 218 00:21:21,980 --> 00:21:23,120 I'll second the motion. 219 00:21:24,140 --> 00:21:25,360 All those in favor. 220 00:21:25,360 --> 00:21:25,960 Hi. 221 00:21:26,120 --> 00:21:26,400 Hi. 222 00:21:26,780 --> 00:21:27,620 Any opposed? 223 00:21:28,620 --> 00:21:32,180 Since there are no opposition, the motion carries. 224 00:21:34,060 --> 00:21:40,940 We can't wait, and by November I heard, that is amazing. 225 00:21:41,440 --> 00:21:42,180 That is amazing. 226 00:21:42,440 --> 00:21:44,140 I would love to come up and see. 227 00:21:44,380 --> 00:21:46,080 We'd love to take the entire board up. 228 00:21:46,420 --> 00:21:47,580 We'll finish with the project. 229 00:21:47,960 --> 00:21:49,740 Yeah, we're ready. 230 00:21:50,020 --> 00:21:50,980 We'll be there. 231 00:21:51,360 --> 00:21:53,100 I have my winter coat on. 232 00:21:54,460 --> 00:21:57,240 Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Brian. 233 00:21:57,620 --> 00:21:57,920 And 234 00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:04,820 I can't imagine growing up there and then going down 1,700 feet. 235 00:22:04,820 --> 00:22:07,520 Oh, can you imagine? I can't know. 236 00:22:09,340 --> 00:22:11,480 Skiing is... We did it multiple years. 237 00:22:12,660 --> 00:22:14,980 To ski is like being feeling like a bird. 238 00:22:16,160 --> 00:22:22,640 There you go. Yeah, that would do it. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the 239 00:22:22,640 --> 00:22:25,580 work session on the land management code amendments. 240 00:22:29,100 --> 00:22:30,620 Thank you, Chair. 241 00:22:33,190 --> 00:22:34,230 Okay, so we 242 00:22:34,230 --> 00:22:38,450 have some slides to work through here. We're going to try to keep it concise, 243 00:22:38,870 --> 00:22:45,930 so that's a lot of information we realized. So this is the staff report 244 00:22:45,930 --> 00:22:51,110 that's in your packet is all about changes to, proposed changes to the 245 00:22:51,110 --> 00:22:59,170 construction section in Chapter 15-11. So just to start out with some background, so the purpose 246 00:22:59,170 --> 00:23:07,930 of the HPB in part is to preserve the city's unique historic character and encourage compatible 247 00:23:07,930 --> 00:23:11,970 design and construction through periodic updates to the historic district regulations. 248 00:23:12,990 --> 00:23:18,990 And to this end, the HPB conducted a work session in December 2025 to review priorities 249 00:23:18,990 --> 00:23:22,530 strategies for historic preservation identified in the 2025 general plan. 250 00:23:23,510 --> 00:23:27,930 And one of the strategies in the general plan calls for regularly assessing and evaluating 251 00:23:27,930 --> 00:23:33,910 regulations for historic districts and historic sites in the LMC for consistency and potential 252 00:23:33,910 --> 00:23:39,110 modifications that further preservation efforts while supporting a degree of flexibility. 253 00:23:40,130 --> 00:23:46,090 And so as I said, this work session is focused on proposed amendments to land management 254 00:23:46,090 --> 00:23:52,510 Code section 15-11-12.5, Historic Preservation Board Review for Material Deconstruction, 255 00:23:53,050 --> 00:23:59,010 including to reintegrate core preservation principles into the evaluation criteria, 256 00:23:59,970 --> 00:24:07,150 provide specificity regarding compliance with LMC chapter 15-13 regulations for historic 257 00:24:07,150 --> 00:24:12,030 districts and historic sites, clarify the definition of material deconstruction, 258 00:24:12,030 --> 00:24:18,050 and clarify HPB review of modifications to historic materials while staff review 259 00:24:18,050 --> 00:24:21,690 would be limited to repair of historic materials. 260 00:24:24,620 --> 00:24:27,960 And so chapter 15-11 261 00:24:27,960 --> 00:24:33,840 section on material deconstruction was established in 2015 via ordinance 15-53 262 00:24:33,840 --> 00:24:37,600 and before that time review of material deconstruction was an 263 00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:42,300 administrative review conducted by staff and the standards of review were 264 00:24:42,300 --> 00:24:47,080 outlined in the Historic District design guidelines. The design guidelines included 265 00:24:47,080 --> 00:24:53,460 core principles of preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and historic integrity that were 266 00:24:53,460 --> 00:24:58,880 pertinent to the review of material deconstruction. And in 2019, when the design guidelines were 267 00:24:58,880 --> 00:25:04,320 codified, the core principles were moved to the definition section and not clearly referenced 268 00:25:04,320 --> 00:25:08,120 in the material deconstruction section under Chapter 15-11. 269 00:25:11,640 --> 00:25:13,440 And so staff conducted 270 00:25:13,440 --> 00:25:21,400 did research as part of this effort to understand peer communities, best practices, and historic 271 00:25:21,400 --> 00:25:24,100 district regulations and guidelines of peer communities. 272 00:25:25,100 --> 00:25:30,640 And we found that most of the peer communities incorporate the core principles of preservation, 273 00:25:31,040 --> 00:25:37,440 rehabilitation, restoration, historic integrity, and period of significance in some form 274 00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:40,620 into their standards of review for material deconstruction. 275 00:25:40,620 --> 00:25:56,560 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. 276 00:25:58,180 --> 00:26:00,280 And just to go through some of these. 277 00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:15,960 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. 278 00:26:16,280 --> 00:26:22,700 And this would be related to when a project is going through an addition or renovation. 279 00:26:22,700 --> 00:26:29,180 preservation. And then staff also recommends historic materials approved for removal should 280 00:26:29,180 --> 00:26:34,500 be salvaged and incorporated back into the site, either to make repairs to other facades 281 00:26:34,500 --> 00:26:39,180 of the historic structure or be integrated elsewhere on site to promote the core principle 282 00:26:39,180 --> 00:26:46,840 of preservation, which explicitly talks about reusing materials in the definition 283 00:26:46,840 --> 00:26:47,260 of that. 284 00:26:49,520 --> 00:26:56,720 Staff recommends modifications to, that modifications such as removing windows or 285 00:26:56,720 --> 00:27:01,380 architectural features added at a later time should be reviewed through the lens of restoration 286 00:27:02,350 --> 00:27:12,120 such as period of significance. So right now we do look at this, we tend to in our staff reports 287 00:27:12,120 --> 00:27:22,920 have an analysis on period of significance when the project involves modifications to the historic 288 00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:28,680 structure that are from different eras or different times, later additions or later changes that 289 00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:34,580 were that took place to the structure. But it's not very, it's not codified. We don't really 290 00:27:34,580 --> 00:27:41,260 have it explicitly required in the standards of review. So that would be something we'd want 291 00:27:42,520 --> 00:27:44,060 reintegrate into that section. 292 00:27:47,760 --> 00:28:01,020 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, 293 00:28:01,020 --> 00:28:05,940 workmanship, feeling, and association. So that would be part of how we would 294 00:28:05,940 --> 00:28:09,440 evaluate material deconstruction requests in our staff reports, like 295 00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:15,740 outlining how and requesting from the applicant that they provide that 296 00:28:15,740 --> 00:28:20,420 narrative as well and then staff would provide that in the analysis of the 297 00:28:20,420 --> 00:28:20,860 staff report. 298 00:28:23,890 --> 00:28:29,750 So our requested feedback is these three questions are does the 299 00:28:29,750 --> 00:28:33,150 HPB concur with staff that material deconstruction requests should be 300 00:28:33,150 --> 00:28:39,930 evaluated based on the definitions and criteria for rehabilitation, preservation and restoration 301 00:28:39,930 --> 00:28:47,470 and historic integrity and then yet incorporating the seven criteria for historic integrity 302 00:28:47,470 --> 00:28:53,450 for evaluation of material deconstruction and then what additional information or 303 00:28:53,450 --> 00:28:59,390 analysis does the HPB need from applicants or staff to effectively evaluate material 304 00:28:59,390 --> 00:29:00,370 deconstruction requests. 305 00:29:00,370 --> 00:29:06,410 And we could if you prefer we could go through and just while we're on these 306 00:29:06,410 --> 00:29:13,070 slides have the discussion and then move on to the next topic if would you like 307 00:29:13,070 --> 00:29:17,050 to do that or would you want to come back to talk 308 00:29:19,770 --> 00:29:25,370 about this one okay so you 309 00:29:25,370 --> 00:29:26,790 You must have something out of mine. 310 00:29:27,170 --> 00:29:28,750 I just don't want to go on to a new topic. 311 00:29:29,150 --> 00:29:33,790 Okay, but they're very, they're very integral. 312 00:29:34,330 --> 00:29:39,310 So it's almost as if you need to have the whole picture. 313 00:29:39,850 --> 00:29:41,430 That would be my preference. 314 00:29:43,230 --> 00:29:44,750 Anybody else have any? 315 00:29:45,250 --> 00:29:45,390 Okay. 316 00:29:45,530 --> 00:29:46,890 So let's keep going. 317 00:29:47,690 --> 00:29:47,990 Okay. 318 00:29:53,190 --> 00:29:54,750 So in the staff report, 319 00:29:54,750 --> 00:29:59,450 This section of the analysis and proposed amendments just deals with. 320 00:30:00,660 --> 00:30:10,440 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. 321 00:30:10,900 --> 00:30:17,440 And there are very specific standards that relate to material deconstruction in that chapter. 322 00:30:17,960 --> 00:30:23,780 But there's also a whole bunch of other regulations that don't relate to modifications to historic structures. 323 00:30:23,780 --> 00:30:34,600 There's the residential infill for new construction, there's, anyway, I'm blanking on the other 324 00:30:34,600 --> 00:30:43,960 ones, but so the idea would be to actually call out the specific sections that we would 325 00:30:43,960 --> 00:30:51,920 be reviewing material deconstruction requests and just specify for residential sites, there's 326 00:30:51,920 --> 00:30:57,880 these three sections for universal regulations, primary structures, and additions to primary 327 00:30:57,880 --> 00:31:00,600 structures, and then it's the same for commercial. 328 00:31:01,500 --> 00:31:06,520 And so that would be the only change there, it's just to provide that specificity, 329 00:31:08,900 --> 00:31:09,200 okay. 330 00:31:09,840 --> 00:31:11,500 And then Meredith is going to take it from here. 331 00:31:12,160 --> 00:31:16,980 So another portion of our recommended updates to the code is to update the definition 332 00:31:16,980 --> 00:31:18,260 of material deconstruction. 333 00:31:18,800 --> 00:31:22,560 So right now we have one definition in the definition section and then we reference 334 00:31:22,560 --> 00:31:28,980 the purpose of material deconstruction in chapter 1511. And so we're proposing to amend the definition 335 00:31:28,980 --> 00:31:34,920 just to align better with that purpose and then to reference the updated definition in chapter 1511 336 00:31:34,920 --> 00:31:39,720 to help with some of the review for material deconstruction. So we'll see the proposed 337 00:31:39,720 --> 00:31:45,000 amended definition on screen and we can talk about this more when we go into some of the 338 00:31:45,000 --> 00:31:51,860 discussion points. This is the definition as it exists. This is the definition as proposed 339 00:31:53,520 --> 00:31:55,620 This is the proposed definition. 340 00:31:56,180 --> 00:31:58,040 Okay. Would you mind reading that? 341 00:31:58,460 --> 00:31:58,720 Yes. 342 00:31:58,960 --> 00:32:11,440 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. 343 00:32:11,440 --> 00:32:24,980 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. 344 00:32:27,880 --> 00:32:30,600 I don't know if this is just a typo in the slide itself. 345 00:32:30,840 --> 00:32:32,440 There should be a space between names. 346 00:32:32,740 --> 00:32:39,230 So just making sure that's not in the actual text because a historic is a different word. 347 00:32:41,740 --> 00:32:49,320 Okay, so if you want feedback on this particular definition, I think it's very precise and it 348 00:32:50,180 --> 00:32:55,200 merely makes a lot of sense, but perhaps somebody else has questions about it. 349 00:32:56,580 --> 00:32:58,280 I think it's really thorough as well. 350 00:32:58,440 --> 00:33:00,500 It makes me curious on what the current definition is. 351 00:33:00,560 --> 00:33:03,480 We can pull it up if you'd like. 352 00:33:03,600 --> 00:33:04,100 Don't review. 353 00:33:06,560 --> 00:33:07,040 Okay. 354 00:33:07,260 --> 00:33:08,140 Thank you for the feedback. 355 00:33:09,760 --> 00:33:22,120 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. 356 00:33:22,300 --> 00:33:37,860 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. 357 00:33:37,860 --> 00:33:43,020 which is what it is currently, but also that the HPV would review modifications to historic 358 00:33:43,020 --> 00:33:47,640 window and door openings and if there were historic windows or doors on site that were 359 00:33:47,640 --> 00:33:52,480 being proposed to be removed from the site, then the HPV would review that. 360 00:33:52,540 --> 00:33:55,560 So we're just trying to clarify the scope of review for each body. 361 00:33:55,560 --> 00:33:56,760 that 362 00:33:58,780 --> 00:34:09,540 makes a lot of sense to me because our purview is to make sure that we're 363 00:34:09,540 --> 00:34:19,600 saving historic material and so it's really important that we review something 364 00:34:19,600 --> 00:34:30,220 that is so well accommodating additions. I mean we all know about how that can work if it's if 365 00:34:30,220 --> 00:34:37,100 it's a really large addition and new construction and structural upgrades. I mean that's really 366 00:34:37,100 --> 00:34:37,660 important. 367 00:34:40,280 --> 00:34:41,580 And it streamlines the others. 368 00:34:44,060 --> 00:34:47,540 On the planning director's side we've got 369 00:34:48,120 --> 00:34:53,880 repair of the following historic wood features. Would that include? So that 370 00:34:53,880 --> 00:34:58,060 would be repairing, not replacing or removing any of the historic material, 371 00:34:58,160 --> 00:35:04,200 but just the repair. So I'm just trying to think of any unintended consequences 372 00:35:04,200 --> 00:35:09,860 for all this and the process. So I mean it's clear what we've been doing in 373 00:35:09,860 --> 00:35:14,140 the past with regards to removal, historic siding to accommodate a new 374 00:35:14,140 --> 00:35:21,580 addition on it. And that seems to be going really quite well as far as how 375 00:35:21,580 --> 00:35:26,920 the guidelines have been working. But if somebody comes in, and maybe this doesn't 376 00:35:26,920 --> 00:35:32,280 happen where they're not actually doing an addition, but it's on the rear 377 00:35:32,280 --> 00:35:40,800 of a facade, I mean could they actually come in? And at what point does it 378 00:35:40,800 --> 00:35:47,140 always have to go towards and have more process for just a small removal. Somebody wants to 379 00:35:47,140 --> 00:35:52,500 say put in a window in the back or something or just even the siding has gone bad and so 380 00:35:52,500 --> 00:35:58,480 they're trying to replace it with some new siding of a light kind. I'm not sure why that would 381 00:35:58,480 --> 00:36:04,180 need to come to us. I guess why it would come to us. Under the the draft code if there was 382 00:36:04,180 --> 00:36:09,800 a proposal to change a historic facade and open a new window even if it's secondary or 383 00:36:09,800 --> 00:36:15,640 tertiary we would bring that to the board for something that is just a minor 384 00:36:15,640 --> 00:36:20,560 repair of maybe there was water damage on a portion of historic material that 385 00:36:20,560 --> 00:36:26,880 would go through staff and one of the considerations even for minor repairs the 386 00:36:26,880 --> 00:36:32,120 current code requires public notice public hearing but that could be revised 387 00:36:32,120 --> 00:36:38,860 so it's a waiver letter similar to other minor scopes of repair. 388 00:36:38,860 --> 00:36:46,100 But I think what I was just hearing was that, that repair of historic wood features, siding, 389 00:36:46,280 --> 00:36:51,400 for example, not getting into windows or doors or new openings, would be just that it would 390 00:36:51,400 --> 00:36:52,300 just be a repair. 391 00:36:52,500 --> 00:36:56,720 It might be taking it off, sanding it down, priming it, and putting it back up again. 392 00:36:56,920 --> 00:37:03,700 But what if that siding is, is not repairable, doesn't, isn't that, and it's just a small 393 00:37:03,700 --> 00:37:04,280 amount even. 394 00:37:04,480 --> 00:37:07,800 It's just, you know, the, the first two boards on the bottom in the back of 395 00:37:07,800 --> 00:37:13,760 piece of property. Yeah, I see what you're saying and I think in the chapter 15-13 it does allow 396 00:37:14,320 --> 00:37:21,060 some discretion where there's historic material that's beyond reuse. So in the broader scope of 397 00:37:22,160 --> 00:37:29,620 repairing historic siting, we've interpreted that to allow for minor replacements. 398 00:37:30,480 --> 00:37:35,960 So that's still under your purview is what I'm hoping, but it didn't seem like that when I read 399 00:37:35,960 --> 00:37:45,280 Yeah, and maybe we could clarify that, because in that case, they're repairing to put the 400 00:37:45,280 --> 00:37:47,260 end result will appear the same. 401 00:37:47,400 --> 00:37:53,960 What would trigger HPB review is something that would change that final result, and maybe 402 00:37:53,960 --> 00:37:55,580 we could clarify. 403 00:37:56,560 --> 00:38:00,640 Is there a definition in the definition sections of the word repair, like what that 404 00:38:00,640 --> 00:38:04,420 looks like, and how, especially in terms of preservation? 405 00:38:05,160 --> 00:38:12,140 I don't think so, but I think that was something we had discussed. Also, re-roof is the technical 406 00:38:12,140 --> 00:38:18,480 definition is putting the new material over the old. And so we thought it might be helpful 407 00:38:18,480 --> 00:38:24,800 to clarify that if they're proposing to come in and remove everything, then if there 408 00:38:24,800 --> 00:38:29,960 are historic roof materials that would come to the board. But if they're re-roofing 409 00:38:29,960 --> 00:38:39,440 and repairing or building something over that could be a staff review, a staff waiver letter. 410 00:38:40,680 --> 00:38:46,300 You mean covering up historic material? For the roofing that's how it's been 411 00:38:46,300 --> 00:38:53,000 addressed in the past. Yeah like if they're doing new tiles or something on the roof 412 00:38:53,000 --> 00:38:58,500 but they're not disturbing any of the historic material that's been through the 413 00:38:58,500 --> 00:39:03,480 that's been considered the re-roof that goes through that staff review. I 414 00:39:03,480 --> 00:39:09,930 understand they can re-roof three times. I don't know that we've had anything 415 00:39:09,930 --> 00:39:17,930 there's no specific number in the in the current code maybe three they can have 416 00:39:17,930 --> 00:39:23,830 three layers of roofing. Building code requirement because of the weight of 417 00:39:23,830 --> 00:39:33,410 material? Yeah, maybe one is too much if the structure was not wasn't built for it to begin with. 418 00:39:34,630 --> 00:39:38,450 Well, I think you understand my concern about just clarifying that. 419 00:39:39,810 --> 00:39:46,130 So the feedback I'm hearing is that just wishing to clarify moving forward that repair of 420 00:39:46,130 --> 00:39:51,390 unusable historic material would and replacement of that unusable historic material in a minor 421 00:39:51,390 --> 00:39:59,920 scope would continue to be under the staff review like all the other changes in the other sections 422 00:39:59,920 --> 00:40:06,920 and I don't see any other like things we need to direct you to look at in those sections 423 00:40:08,560 --> 00:40:12,280 anybody else going back to like when Randy wanted to talk about those sections 424 00:40:12,860 --> 00:40:17,120 yeah we can go back to the previous sections is there another slide 425 00:40:18,340 --> 00:40:20,960 It was just the recommendation from staff. 426 00:40:21,400 --> 00:40:29,120 Okay. So I did have a concern, and it's not in your slideshow. 427 00:40:29,360 --> 00:40:31,560 And I don't have... 428 00:40:33,350 --> 00:40:39,070 Can we go back to the historic integrity criteria slide? 429 00:40:41,270 --> 00:40:43,730 I did just want to clarify one thing. 430 00:40:44,130 --> 00:40:48,230 The historic integrity slide here shows the seven aspects. 431 00:40:48,230 --> 00:40:54,010 and in the staff report it noted the city attorney's office recommends taking 432 00:40:54,010 --> 00:40:59,450 that word feeling and replacing it with something a little more specific I think 433 00:40:59,450 --> 00:41:06,990 they're recommended language in the staff report was I have to look it up but 434 00:41:06,990 --> 00:41:13,890 that that was one term that we wanted some feedback on the period 435 00:41:14,570 --> 00:41:19,630 Do you have that list of seven that you can put on the screen? 436 00:41:20,630 --> 00:41:24,290 I mean, feeling is already defined by the National Park Service though, right? 437 00:41:24,670 --> 00:41:28,270 So we could just have that as a definition in the definitions section. 438 00:41:29,510 --> 00:41:38,210 I wonder if we could do like historic feelers. 439 00:41:38,770 --> 00:41:42,450 Just to have the defined term feeling in this. 440 00:41:42,450 --> 00:41:50,590 So there you have that feeling again, but keep going because this isn't the page that I had the worry about. 441 00:41:54,650 --> 00:41:56,550 I just feel like with. 442 00:41:56,830 --> 00:42:01,210 This is my, I mean, I don't, I don't mind if there's a cross reference to the. 443 00:42:01,930 --> 00:42:12,450 The Department of Interior definition of feeling, but I think from the Utah statutory perspective, I strongly recommend going with the recommended language. 444 00:42:12,450 --> 00:42:29,670 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. 445 00:42:29,670 --> 00:42:36,270 And so I don't, you know, obviously we can reference that department of interior standard. 446 00:42:36,750 --> 00:42:42,270 But I really recommend using something a little more specific. 447 00:42:43,610 --> 00:42:46,930 And it really seems to mean association with that time period. 448 00:42:48,310 --> 00:42:55,250 So I, number six and number seven are the ones that I had a concern about. 449 00:42:56,090 --> 00:43:03,690 and mainly association in number seven is that's that's fine because we all know 450 00:43:03,690 --> 00:43:12,030 when an important person has lived in an historic site we just had that happen 451 00:43:12,030 --> 00:43:19,930 with our wonderful principal I've forgotten his name buddy anyway that's 452 00:43:19,930 --> 00:43:24,290 the kind of association there but period association I had a little problem 453 00:43:24,290 --> 00:43:30,090 with that. And then one of the reasons, if you go back to the three periods that are listed, 454 00:43:30,570 --> 00:43:40,110 you know, the mining days and then the other two periods, the thing about is the expression of the 455 00:43:40,110 --> 00:43:47,590 aesthetic, historic sense, that can be actually all over the place. Not everybody, not every 456 00:43:47,590 --> 00:43:55,230 property that's historic is going to have the same kind of aesthetics. However, I think 457 00:43:55,230 --> 00:44:06,770 the period characteristic of might be a better word, and then that takes into account lots 458 00:44:06,770 --> 00:44:15,210 of different elements during that same period that are characteristic of that period might 459 00:44:15,210 --> 00:44:22,150 It might be a little bit better, easier for, certainly for me to understand, but certainly 460 00:44:22,150 --> 00:44:28,910 for someone who is, you know, purchasing a home or what happened, have you? 461 00:44:29,290 --> 00:44:32,410 So period character instead of period association? 462 00:44:33,030 --> 00:44:37,910 Yes, that's what I'm proposing, but you all can talk about it. 463 00:44:39,870 --> 00:44:43,510 How do you like the word character in terms of recommendation, Mark? 464 00:44:46,080 --> 00:44:49,400 Yeah, no, I like that distinction. That's satisfactory. 465 00:44:53,680 --> 00:44:56,620 Yeah, because having the word association twice just might be a little confusing. 466 00:45:00,140 --> 00:45:14,860 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. 467 00:45:17,660 --> 00:45:18,420 Understood. 468 00:45:22,560 --> 00:45:24,700 Other board members have input on that? 469 00:45:25,340 --> 00:45:26,160 Carl Winters. 470 00:45:26,780 --> 00:45:28,400 Right, exactly. Carl Winters. 471 00:45:28,400 --> 00:45:35,220 I adore the man, especially because he reminds me of my husband and just builds whatever he wants. 472 00:45:40,220 --> 00:45:51,500 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? 473 00:45:52,540 --> 00:45:54,420 I think it's a better word too. 474 00:45:56,940 --> 00:46:03,280 Well, especially when, you know, our audience to this, who's going to be reading this may 475 00:46:03,280 --> 00:46:08,640 not be familiar with National Park Service definitions and guidelines, so this might be 476 00:46:08,640 --> 00:46:09,740 more descriptive then. 477 00:46:10,340 --> 00:46:10,860 Agreed. 478 00:46:11,260 --> 00:46:11,420 Okay. 479 00:46:12,260 --> 00:46:18,640 I was, again, trying to look at the unintended consequence of the narrative on this. 480 00:46:18,640 --> 00:46:27,770 And so, you know, I can see, you know, what first jumps out is, you know, clearly we've 481 00:46:27,770 --> 00:46:31,510 been doing this a number of times where there's been a new addition going on to the back and 482 00:46:31,510 --> 00:46:32,910 we've been taking off. 483 00:46:34,490 --> 00:46:38,890 Applicants have been coming in asking, say, like on the Centennial, have pieces that 484 00:46:38,890 --> 00:46:43,010 were added later on taken off and those types of things, you know, kind of major 485 00:46:43,470 --> 00:46:43,910 renovations. 486 00:46:43,910 --> 00:46:52,850 But again, if we're doing a smaller renovation, I'm just trying to see what the, does the narrative, what that looks like. 487 00:46:53,070 --> 00:46:58,950 And maybe, because this is just a work session, maybe it would be nice for me. 488 00:46:59,050 --> 00:47:03,410 I don't know if anybody else agrees with this, but maybe come back with an example of the narrative. 489 00:47:07,570 --> 00:47:12,750 Yeah, and almost like two projects, I mean, one would be the simplest one is actually going 490 00:47:12,750 --> 00:47:15,950 to be one where we take a historic house and do an addition on the back of it because we 491 00:47:15,950 --> 00:47:16,890 do that all the time. 492 00:47:16,970 --> 00:47:23,470 I think it's the outliers, maybe a smaller project that may come across in the past. 493 00:47:23,870 --> 00:47:24,430 I don't know. 494 00:47:24,490 --> 00:47:27,630 I don't want to make this onerous for the planning department, but I think it might 495 00:47:27,630 --> 00:47:32,510 help us synthesize this a lot more quickly if we could see how we're going to be 496 00:47:32,510 --> 00:47:38,710 taking this new information because I'm not really sure how some of these things from the 497 00:47:38,710 --> 00:47:45,510 National Park Service really fit into our evaluations as we've been doing them in the past. 498 00:47:47,750 --> 00:47:53,250 I'm not saying it doesn't, but it also seems a little bit vague because the National Park 499 00:47:53,250 --> 00:47:58,830 Service guidelines are trying to handle a colonial house in New England and here we are. 500 00:47:58,830 --> 00:48:08,070 I know when I've submitted tax credit applications to the National Park Service and SHPO has been 501 00:48:08,070 --> 00:48:13,130 there to support them understanding this, but it's hard for them to sometimes with their 502 00:48:13,130 --> 00:48:21,170 guidelines they're going to back east to review back there what a historic mining town structure 503 00:48:21,170 --> 00:48:21,910 looks like. 504 00:48:22,050 --> 00:48:27,670 It's not anything at all like a well-built, at least masonry or stone structure back 505 00:48:27,670 --> 00:48:36,190 in New England. I understand where they're coming from on this, but I'm not sure that's 506 00:48:36,190 --> 00:48:41,850 how that really helps us. I'm not sure I'm being really clear with you, either. 507 00:48:42,050 --> 00:48:47,910 No, no, that's okay. I'm just going to confirm what I'm hearing. You're speaking of the seven 508 00:48:47,910 --> 00:48:56,450 aspects of historic integrity and that those might not always apply to the scope 509 00:48:56,450 --> 00:49:04,290 for a scale of a project that some minor like what I think what I heard was that we'd just like to 510 00:49:04,290 --> 00:49:09,130 see some examples especially with ones that we've already grappled with that definitely 511 00:49:09,130 --> 00:49:13,650 where it's doable where this would be applied yeah we can bring examples I think that's a great 512 00:49:13,650 --> 00:49:19,850 idea I can think an applicant you know to have some examples to see you know to read it's one 513 00:49:19,850 --> 00:49:24,610 thing but to point to it like this is exactly what we're talking about but are we evaluating 514 00:49:24,610 --> 00:49:30,730 this based on the seven principles under historic integrity or re-evaluating it 515 00:49:30,730 --> 00:49:37,850 under the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration? Well and that's where I think 516 00:49:37,850 --> 00:49:47,670 it depends on what the project is like if your if the project is in addition then 517 00:49:47,670 --> 00:49:52,390 you're you know we would be looking at the rehabilitation definition and how 518 00:49:52,390 --> 00:49:59,030 that applies because rehabilitation specifically says the actor process of making possible 519 00:49:59,030 --> 00:50:04,790 compatible use through repair alterations and additions while preserving those portions 520 00:50:04,790 --> 00:50:06,150 of features or features. 521 00:50:07,650 --> 00:50:15,110 And so that's where I think if the project is not proposing an addition and it's actually 522 00:50:15,110 --> 00:50:20,710 just a restoration or rehabilitation of the historic structure, then we would be looking 523 00:50:20,710 --> 00:50:32,150 at restoration and then probably leave it at that because at that point, I mean, if the 524 00:50:32,150 --> 00:50:37,270 restoration, I guess I shouldn't say that because restoration could mean a lot of different 525 00:50:37,270 --> 00:50:46,150 things depending on what features they're restoring or wanting to modify based on the 526 00:50:46,150 --> 00:50:52,350 period of significance or the era of significance. When you have those 527 00:50:52,350 --> 00:50:56,750 structures that have had later additions but they're still kind of like in the 528 00:50:57,930 --> 00:51:05,430 1940s or there they could be considered historic features still. Well for 529 00:51:05,430 --> 00:51:10,990 example with Carl Winters the project there I mean that was an addition but 530 00:51:10,990 --> 00:51:15,570 there were also modifications to the roof. There were things that we looked 531 00:51:15,570 --> 00:51:24,490 we did need to look at historic integrity and how the that relationship with the association 532 00:51:25,380 --> 00:51:33,910 played into it. So I do think it is it can be kind of confusing and having some examples would be 533 00:51:33,910 --> 00:51:39,710 helpful to clarify like how you would apply each of these principles to different projects. 534 00:51:39,710 --> 00:51:48,750 And so when we're typically looking at these projects, we're looking at, it seems like 535 00:51:48,750 --> 00:51:53,550 we're typically looking for an identification of a time period that they're trying to bring 536 00:51:53,550 --> 00:51:54,570 the house back to. 537 00:51:54,990 --> 00:51:59,750 And if we take that through that, and if they're putting a new addition on it, it really 538 00:51:59,750 --> 00:52:02,670 could be under rehabilitation, preservation, and restoration. 539 00:52:03,330 --> 00:52:03,710 Right. 540 00:52:04,310 --> 00:52:07,070 I think it just definitely depends on the scope. 541 00:52:07,070 --> 00:52:14,050 but you could also in the process of doing that become to honor us with say 542 00:52:14,050 --> 00:52:20,590 the preservation part of it on the historic building. In terms of salvaging 543 00:52:21,250 --> 00:52:26,650 materials. Yeah I mean there's so that's when we're all through with this I 544 00:52:26,650 --> 00:52:32,290 think the idea is to make it more clear only for the review process but for 545 00:52:32,290 --> 00:52:35,110 for us and for the planning staff and for the applicant, correct? 546 00:52:36,290 --> 00:52:36,590 For sure. 547 00:52:36,930 --> 00:52:42,850 Maybe what we can clarify in the next work session on this item is where we have applicants 548 00:52:42,850 --> 00:52:51,930 coming forward proposing to restore a site to a certain time period to give that specific 549 00:52:51,930 --> 00:52:59,930 criteria on how do we ensure that the historic designation is preserved because then once 550 00:52:59,930 --> 00:53:06,010 that is determined then that establishes what is and is not historic material. 551 00:53:06,690 --> 00:53:11,110 Yeah and I agree with you because I think when we've had this when we've had 552 00:53:11,110 --> 00:53:15,450 these issues before it almost seems like we're hashing out what period are you 553 00:53:15,450 --> 00:53:20,450 restoring this to in this meeting and they're going well you know like the 554 00:53:20,450 --> 00:53:24,910 1930 Sanborn map or something. Exactly. Yeah so we're trying to get them to 555 00:53:24,910 --> 00:53:31,470 to provide that information and have staff analysis of that. 556 00:53:32,170 --> 00:53:35,410 That's starting to clarify that. That would make sense. 557 00:53:37,190 --> 00:53:43,450 But then we also have smaller projects where there's historic material being removed 558 00:53:43,450 --> 00:53:46,510 that maybe doesn't need to have a narrative to it. 559 00:53:47,010 --> 00:53:47,710 I'm not sure. 560 00:53:47,710 --> 00:53:52,730 I think yeah there are like there was project I recently worked on where there 561 00:53:52,730 --> 00:53:57,670 was a rear addition and they weren't proposing any modifications except for 562 00:53:57,670 --> 00:54:02,030 removing the material for the addition but no modifications to the historic 563 00:54:02,030 --> 00:54:08,970 structure just to basically restore the material so that it was up to good 564 00:54:08,970 --> 00:54:13,610 quality yeah but that would have probably probably wouldn't have looked 565 00:54:13,610 --> 00:54:19,970 at period of significance for that. Well I've just been afford if this is going 566 00:54:19,970 --> 00:54:24,250 to become clarified in the land management code we just want to make sure 567 00:54:24,250 --> 00:54:29,590 that we're not making this on us for every applicant and ask to do this and 568 00:54:29,590 --> 00:54:34,450 so how do we take and judge where you know we have a well-qualified planning 569 00:54:34,450 --> 00:54:44,600 department staff and trust you to do these things so okay so the plan will 570 00:54:44,600 --> 00:54:50,160 be for the next work session, we'll bring some examples and kind of run through different 571 00:54:50,740 --> 00:54:54,700 different types of projects and how that how they would work with the new regulations. 572 00:54:55,520 --> 00:54:59,980 Yeah, just how to work, you know, how to work through it, how the expectations that 573 00:55:00,620 --> 00:55:02,540 was expected of us working through it. 574 00:55:02,880 --> 00:55:03,580 That sounds good. 575 00:55:03,680 --> 00:55:03,760 Yeah. 576 00:55:04,120 --> 00:55:04,400 Okay. 577 00:55:04,860 --> 00:55:05,740 Does that make it easier? 578 00:55:06,160 --> 00:55:06,620 I hope. 579 00:55:07,780 --> 00:55:09,360 I think that would be excellent. 580 00:55:09,760 --> 00:55:10,380 Yeah, I do too. 581 00:55:10,380 --> 00:55:11,720 I 582 00:55:14,120 --> 00:55:21,120 just wanted to go back to the slides and see if we have additional feedback needed. 583 00:55:28,140 --> 00:55:30,340 I think we had consensus on the definition. 584 00:55:31,060 --> 00:55:31,760 Yes, definitely. 585 00:55:32,520 --> 00:55:32,700 Okay. 586 00:55:33,000 --> 00:55:41,720 And then for providing specificity for the applicable sections of code in Chapter 15-13. 587 00:55:42,860 --> 00:55:43,240 Okay. 588 00:55:43,240 --> 00:55:51,320 So, and then on, I think we covered this section as well. 589 00:55:52,060 --> 00:55:52,180 Yes. 590 00:55:53,260 --> 00:56:03,240 Are there any additional topics or any additional thoughts on these amendments and criteria that needs to be added? 591 00:56:06,590 --> 00:56:07,390 I don't think so. 592 00:56:09,650 --> 00:56:11,310 Not with me today. 593 00:56:11,310 --> 00:56:17,970 I would love to see the next session so we can clarify even more for sure. 594 00:56:18,330 --> 00:56:20,510 Okay, well done though. This is great. 595 00:56:21,330 --> 00:56:28,950 One last point that it's just, are we really clear about what our expectations are when it comes to historic windows? 596 00:56:30,450 --> 00:56:31,790 What do you mean by that? 597 00:56:31,790 --> 00:56:36,930 well what what can be well I'm not sure I've ever seen a historic window that 598 00:56:36,930 --> 00:56:41,450 could be you know restored according to the National Park Service guidelines 599 00:56:42,250 --> 00:56:49,390 it is kind of a rare occurrence that we see historic windows that are actually 600 00:56:49,390 --> 00:56:56,830 the historic material we generally get requests more for replacing windows in 601 00:56:56,830 --> 00:57:01,230 the same location but that have already been replaced with something newer 602 00:57:01,230 --> 00:57:09,030 Yeah, it's almost impossible also to have the historic one don't ever meet building code in thermal energy codes 603 00:57:09,630 --> 00:57:14,450 Nor do we necessarily want people to be uncomfortable in their homes. Yeah 604 00:57:14,450 --> 00:57:18,730 I'm so I'm not sure you know if you look at this without 605 00:57:19,510 --> 00:57:21,610 clarification on doors and windows and 606 00:57:22,430 --> 00:57:25,910 You know and our also our goal to have an energy efficient 607 00:57:25,910 --> 00:57:30,910 Built environment right here, too. I'm just wondering if we're if we're clear on 608 00:57:30,910 --> 00:57:35,250 And if the applicant will be clear on what their options are with that. 609 00:57:36,730 --> 00:57:36,910 Yeah. 610 00:57:37,050 --> 00:57:44,170 I mean, I think the code currently requires historic windows to be repaired if they can 611 00:57:44,170 --> 00:57:44,930 be, right? 612 00:57:45,110 --> 00:57:50,790 And then if it's beyond repair, then there's the options for replacement. 613 00:57:51,370 --> 00:57:58,750 But we could look at that further and provide some clarity and review on that in the 614 00:57:58,750 --> 00:57:59,230 next session. 615 00:57:59,230 --> 00:58:07,470 session might be helpful. We can provide some clarity on what the historic windows 616 00:58:07,470 --> 00:58:12,550 there are and Douglas knows more about this than I do but there are companies 617 00:58:12,550 --> 00:58:15,570 that can replicate them perfectly. 618 00:58:19,790 --> 00:58:26,760 And right now the for historic structures 619 00:58:27,460 --> 00:58:33,620 is to replace like for like so it would be wood material instead of 620 00:58:33,620 --> 00:58:39,420 something else. For additions and new construction, it can be wood or aluminum 621 00:58:39,420 --> 00:58:41,520 clad wood for windows. 622 00:58:45,060 --> 00:58:52,740 Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So before we adjourn, 623 00:58:52,840 --> 00:58:57,700 something's jumped into my mind while we were talking about, oh, we need an 624 00:58:57,700 --> 00:59:04,560 example and I thought, oh, the Centennial House. And then I thought, I thought we 625 00:59:04,560 --> 00:59:13,880 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. 626 00:59:15,340 --> 00:59:28,220 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. 627 00:59:28,220 --> 00:59:41,540 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. 628 00:59:41,780 --> 00:59:47,580 So they're, they're getting there. Good. Yeah. Good. Good question. 629 00:59:48,500 --> 00:59:54,460 They did get flooded. And they got flooded with these storms we've been having. 630 00:59:54,460 --> 00:59:55,660 It'll bring you to a Friday one. 631 00:59:56,700 --> 00:59:57,240 Yikes. 632 00:59:58,000 --> 00:59:59,980 Yeah, the whole basement was... 633 01:00:13,950 --> 01:00:20,440 Okay, if there's nothing else, I guess we can move to the turn. 634 01:00:22,940 --> 01:00:23,580 Second. 635 01:00:24,640 --> 01:00:25,280 Second. 636 01:00:25,800 --> 01:00:27,760 All those in favor, get up. 637 01:00:27,760 --> 01:00:28,280 I