The URL can be used to link to this page

Appeal - May 21, 2014 Historic Preservation Staff ReportHistoric Preservation Board Staff Report Subject: 632 Deer Valley Loop Author: Anya Grahn, Historic Preservation Planner Date: May 21, 2014 Application: PL-13-02160 Type of Item: Determination of Significance Summary Recommendations The Board of Adjustment (BOA) remanded the appeal of the Historic Preservation Board’s (HPB) Determination of Significance (DOS) of 632 Deer Valley Loop to the HPB due to new evidence submitted by the applicant at the appeal. Staff recommends the HPB review the new evidence and find that the structure meets the criteria for a significant site. 6WDIIUHSRUWVUHIOHFWWKHSURIHVVLRQDOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRIWKH3ODQQLQJ'HSDUWPHQW7KH +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG+3%DVDQLQGHSHQGHQWERG\PD\FRQVLGHUWKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQEXWVKRXOGPDNHLWVGHFLVLRQVLQGHSHQGHQWO\ Description Applicant/ Appellant: Bill and Juli Bertagnole Location: 632 Deer Valley Loop Zoning: Residential-Medium Density (RM) District Adjacent Land Uses: Residential Reason for Review: The Board of Adjustment remanded the appeal back to the HPB in order to consider new evidence submitted by the applicant. Background The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) held a hearing and determined that the structure should remain on the inventory as a “Significant” site on November 13, 2013. (See Staff Report, minutes and findings, Exhibits A and B.) The Planning Department received an appeal of the HPB’s determination on November 25, 2013, within ten (10) days of the HPB’s determination. The hearing was scheduled several times over the winter, but was continued at the applicants’ request. Finally, the appeal was heard by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) on April 15, 2014. The applicants submitted a packet of information concerning the site to the BOA which the HPB had not seen. The BOA determined that the new information was better reviewed by the HPB to evaluate and remanded the appeal back to the HPB due to this new information. (See BOA Minutes, Exhibit D.) Appeal As shown by Exhibit C, the applicants submitted a research report just prior to the BOA hearing outlining the history of the structure. The BOA found that the HPB was better able to review the information in the report in its consideration of the Determination of Significance (DOS). The BOA appellate role is only to review the record that was before Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 15 of 208 the HPB and therefore did not have the ability to review or evaluate the report. The BOA therefore remanded the appeal back to the HPB so that the HPB could review this new information. Per LMC 15-11-10, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) may designate Sites to the Historic Sites Inventory(HSI) as a means of providing recognition to and encouraging the Preservation of Historic Sites in the community. The report submitted by the appellants raised the following objections to the HPB’s findings for the Determination of Significance: x Separate building periods for this property have resulted in a loss of the Essential Historic Form. x The many alterations on the interior and exterior of the structure have destroyed any historic fabric. x There is no record of any important person or even that occurred at this site. x The site has lost its historical context. Analysis History of the Structure: Summary of Building Development The City’s Historic Site Form provides a brief history of the structure. The residential structure constructed at 632 Deer Valley Loop was originally built circa 1900. The 1900 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps did not include this portion of Park City as it was outside the dense development of Old Town. Staff finds that the applicants’ analysis of the initial development of the structure is correct. The applicants’ report is consistent with the HSI in finding that the structure was built circa 1900. A copy of the 1904 quitclaim deed, outlining the transfer of the property of George and Elizabeth Thompson to Sven and Hannah Bjorkman, shows that in 1904 the structure was a “two (2) room frame dwelling.” Staff finds that this is consistent with the 1907 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps: As the applicants’ research demonstrates, the structure was expanded between 1912 and 1918. In 1918, owner Carl Hoger transferred the property to Willis A. Simmons. The quit claim deed describes the structure as a “four room frame dwelling house.” The four(4) room cottage first appeared on the 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, shown below: 6DQERUQ0DS Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 16 of 208 The applicants’ research indicates that staff erred in the analysis presented to the HPB in November 2013 as staff found that the addition expanding the house from a rectangle to a square floor plan was added across the rear (south) elevation of the structure. The applicant suggests that the addition was actually added across the front (north) elevation of the structure. Staff finds that this is a plausible hypothesis. As families came to inhabit these structures and the economy improved, additions were constructed to meet the growing needs of homeowners. It was not uncommon in Park City to see additions constructed atop existing structures, transforming hall-parlor structures to two (2)-story houses. Lean-tos, shed additions, and new wings were also added to structures as they expanded. The addition on this structure is seamless and transformed the house into a four-room side gable form. The applicant has provided an analysis of the numerous additions constructed that exist today: Staff cannot verify the measurements provided on this analysis; however, overall, staff believes this is a feasible explanation of the development of the structure with the 6DQERUQ0DS Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 17 of 208 exception that it does not address the rear shed addition that is visible in the 1930s tax photograph. As the applicants note in this analysis, the 1941 Sanborn Fire Insurance map is inaccurate in its depiction of the structure as it does not show the porch that is visible in the late-1930s tax photograph (Exhibit B). The 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance map does not depict any accessory structures, and it is unclear whether this structure is a later short-lived addition, or a non-identified outbuilding. Further, the Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows that this is not a neighboring structure as houses in this neighborhood were scattered and not constructed as closely to one another as those west of Main Street. Above.7KHDUURZGHQRWHVWKHVWUXFWXUHWRWKHUHDURIWKHEXLOGLQJLQWKHODWHV,WLVXQFOHDU LIWKLVLVDVKRUWOLYHGDGGLWLRQRUDQXQLGHQWLILHGRXWEXLOGLQJ Below.7KH6DQERUQ)LUH,QVXUDQFH0DSVKRZVWKDWWKHORWVLQWKLVQHLJKERUKRRGZHUH ODUJHUWKDQW\SLFDO2OG7RZQORWVDQGWKHKRXVHVZHUHVFDWWHUHGDQGVSDFHGDJRRGGLVWDQFH DSDUW2IWKHVHQHLJKERULQJKRXVHVRQO\WKHWKUHHRQ5RVVLH+LOO'ULYHDUHH[WDQW Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 18 of 208 The tax cards included in the Historic Site Form also support the applicants’ conclusion that the side porch depicted in the late-1930s tax photograph was enclosed as a mudroom at a later date, likely at the same time the rear addition was constructed along the rear (south) wall of the structure. The applicants’ depiction of the structure in 1941 closely resembles the 1949 tax card, completed just eight (8) years later. It demonstrates that in the 1940s, the structure had a relatively square footprint with a full-width porch across the façade (north) elevation as shown in the late-1930s tax photograph. Further, it demonstrates that the side porch extended only as far as the rear (south) wall of the historic structure. It is unknown why in 1949 the surveyor only showed two (2) walls of this side entry on the west elevation (drawn in blue ink). The addition or structure located just south of the structure in the 1930s tax photograph is also not depicted in either the 1941 Sanborn Map, nor the 1949 tax card. The applicants also assert that the rear addition along the back wall and enclosure of the side porch to create a mudroom was completed in 1969. 7D[&DUG$SSOLFDQWV¶$QDO\VLV 7D[&DUG$SSOLFDQWV¶$QDO\VLV Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 19 of 208 It is very clear in the 1969 tax card that the width of the mudroom is roughly twelve feet (12’). This does not appear consistent with the existing structure as the enclosed side porch extends beyond the south wall of the gable structure and over the rear addition. It also appears that the rear shed addition may have been added over the eave of the gable, rather than beneath it. From the late-1930s photograph, it is evident that the mysterious structure to the south was not constructed over the existing gable. In evaluating the applicants’ research, staff concludes that the c.1969 rear addition may have replaced the structure or addition shown in the tax photograph. 1.Mudroom extends beyond the original south wall of the side-gable structure. 2.The historic photo shows that the side-gable is symmetrical and the eave is detached. The current photograph shows that the gable has been shortened in order to add the shed roof of the addition. 2 2 1 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 20 of 208 Further, photographs of the interior of the structure show that the rear addition has a wood stud wall construction. It is not the single-wall construction of the four (4) room dwelling that was created between 1912 and 1918. The following photograph taken during a staff site visit and the applicants’ analysis show the construction of the exterior walls. The applicants’ analysis also demonstrate that this house’s structural system is comprised of two (2) different sized horizontal boards that create rigidity; whereas, typical single-wall construction is consists of vertical interior plank walls covered by exterior horizontal siding. In Park City, miners and businessmen built rudimentary houses and structures that were meant to provide temporary shelter during the mining rush. These structures were comprised of single-wall construction—vertical interior boards covered by horizontal exterior siding. Though makeshift, this type of construction was very common in rapidly expanding and temporary communities, such as Park City, that sprung up in response to industries such as mining, sawmills, railroads, and oilfields. Single wall construction is a vernacular construction technique that likely evolved from plank construction, used traditionally on the East Coast and in the Midwest. Typically, box houses were built with no foundation, though sometimes a rudimentary root cellar or crawlspace encased by wood or stacked stone was constructed. The sill plate of the structure was laid on the ground or the foundation. Vertical interior planks and horizontal exterior siding were attached to create the walls. Because walls were typically constructed in whole panels on the ground and then stood up to form rooms, there were no corner posts or vertical structural members. Door and window openings were cut out after the walls were constructed. Two by four (2”x4”) rafters, connected by ceiling joists, were covered by roof sheathing to build the roof. Wood shingles were then applied atop the sheathing. Though this structure’s single-wall construction technique is comprised of adjoined horizontal planks of different sizes, it is nonetheless significant in that the structure was constructed of a simple building technique. We often refer to these structures as “wood tents” because of this rudimentary wall construction. Single wall construction was the most common type of construction utilized in Park City during the Mining Boom. Later additions, constructed to create more permanent structures for Park City’s residential families, were built using stud wall construction. $SSOLFDQWV¶$QDO\VLV Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 21 of 208 $VVHHQLQWKHSLFWXUHEHORZWKHZDOOFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHQHZDGGLWLRQFRQVLVWVRIVWXG ZDOOVFRYHUHGE\KRUL]RQWDOSODQNV7KLVLVPRUHPRGHUQFRQVWUXFWLRQPHWKRGWKDQWKH UXGLPHQWDU\³ZRRGWHQW´FRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHKLVWRULFVWUXFWXUH7KHZLQGRZRSHQLQJV DSSHDUWREHWKHRULJLQDOVDQGWKH\DUHQRWLQGLFLWLYHRIWKHVL]HVSURSRUWLRQVRU RULHQWDWLRQRIKLVWRULFZLQGRZV Photograph shows stud wall framing and original window openings of the c.1969 addition. Summary of Above Argument The applicant argues that staff erred in their original analysis of the structure. The following outlines staffs response to these allegations. A.Separate building periods for this property have resulted in a loss of the Essential Historic Form. 1.Finding of Fact #3: The existing structure has been in existence at 632 Deer Valley Loop since circa 1900. The structure appears in the 1904 and 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. Furthermore, the Historic Site Form contains tax cards of the structure from 1949, 1958, and 1969. A late-1930s tax card photo also demonstrates that the overall form of the structure has not been altered. The applicants’ research report claims that the Essential Historical Form is the two (2) room miner’s shack, built by George Thomspon, that appears on the Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 22 of 208 1904 Sanborn map, not the structure that we see today. They argue that the structure as it exists today is a compilation of additions to the Essential Historic Form of the two room miner’s shack, lost inside the form that is now visible. It does not “demonstrate that the overall form of the structure has not been altered.” The applicants contend that the structure shown in the late-1930s tax photograph is the four (4) room structure built by Carl Hoger in 1918. They also point out that the structure in the 1904 map is the miner’s shack; whereas, the 1927 map shows the additions which compose the structure in the tax photographs. They further ascertain that the tax cards are inaccurrate as those who filled out the cards transferred inaccurate information from year to year without measuring or updating changes; it was not until 1969 that the tax card accurately described the structure. As described previously, staff supports much of the evidence provided in the applciants’ research. It is apparent in analyzing the 1907 and 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps that the two (2) room structure was expanded into a four (4) room structure between 1912 and 1918. Staff cannot verify the accuracy of the tax cards, and agrees with the applicant that the rear addition was likely constructed c. 1969 or later. It is possible that the shed addition was expanded as many as two (2) times as the applicant has indicated in their report that the rear addition was first reflected in the taxes in 1972. Staff does, however, disagree with the applicants regarding the Essential Historical Form. The Land Management Code defines Essential Historical Form as: 7KHSK\VLFDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRID6WUXFWXUHWKDWPDNHLWLGHQWLILDEOHDV H[LVWLQJLQRUUHODWLQJWRDQLPSRUWDQWHUDLQWKHSDVW The Historic Site Form has identified this structure as being historically significant to the Mature Mining Era (1894-1930). As such, staff finds that the structure does retain its Essential Historical Form in that the form that existed at the end of the historic period c.1930 is the form that exists today. The 1927 Sanborn Map correlates with the late-1930s tax photograph as it is evident that the following features existed: x Wood frame dwelling with a relatively square footprint x One story in height, though an attic likely existed beneath the gables x Side porch Further, Universal Design Guideline #2 for Historic Sites states that changes to a site or building that have acquired historic significance in their own right should be retained and preserved. Though the two(2)-room mining shack may have been the original form of the structure, it is evident that the four(4) room cottage Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 23 of 208 existed during the historic period and continues to exist today. It has gained historical significance in its own right, as designated by the Historic Site Inventory (HSI). Further, the structure meets the critera for “significant.” As outlined by Land Management Code (LMC) 15-11-10(A)(2)(b), major alterations that destroy the Essential Historical Form include: (i) Changes in the pitch of the main roof of the primary façade if 1) the change was made after the Period of Historic Significance; 2) the change is not due to any structural failure; or 3) the change is not due to collapse as a result of inadequate maintenance on the part of the Applicant or a previous owner (ii) Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories occurred after the Period of Historic Significance, or (iii) Moving it from its original location to a Dissimilar Location, or (iv) Addition(s) that significantly obscures the Essential Historical Form when viewed from the primary public Right-of-Way In reviewing these criteria, Staff finds that the Essential Historical Form has not been lost. A slight change has been made to the rear gable, as it appears to have been slightly shortened in order to extend the shed roof of the c.1969 addition. This addition, however, does not detract from the Essential Historical Form, nor does it significantly obscure the Essential Historical Form of the building when viewed from the primary public Right-of-Way. Further, no new additions of upper stories have been constructed atop the historic structure. There is also no evidence that the structure was moved from its original location to a Dissimilar Location. Staff finds that the late 1930s tax photograph is an accurate record of what likely existed in the historic period. Though the 1927 Sanborn Map does not depict a full-width porch across the façade of the house as shown in the tax photograph, it is likely that this porch existed during the historic period and may have been constructed immediately after the Sanborn survey. In their research, the applicants also points out that the front porch was likely constructed by Carl Hogar at the same time he made the front door, between 1912 and 1918, in order to access the front door that sits roughly six feet (6’) above grade. In analyzing the 1930s tax photograph to a current photograph of the structure, it is evident that the essential side-gable form of the house exists today. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 24 of 208 /DWHVWD[SKRWRJUDSK &XUUHQW3KRWRJUDSKIURP+LVWRULF6LWH)RUP 2.Finding of Fact #4. The Hall and Parlor structure and later rear addition were both constructed within the Mature Mining Era (1894-1930) and are historic. As previously noted, staff finds that the applicant is correct in their analysis of the development of the structure. In order to expand the structure from two (2) rooms to four (4) rooms between 1912 and 1918, it is likely that the structure was expanded to the north, or front, of the building rather than the rear. This explains how the location of the side porch has remained consistent. Staff admitts to erring in the original analysis, as the rear addition is not historic and was likely constructed c.1969. Staff recommends amending this fact as follows: Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 25 of 208 7KHIRXUURRPFRWWDJHZDVFRQVWUXFWHGZLWKLQWKH0DWXUH0LQLQJ (UDDQGLVKLVWRULF7KHUHDUDGGLWLRQLVQRWKLVWRULFDQGZDV OLNHO\FRQVWUXFWHGF 3. Finding of Fact #11. The rear addition to the structure, dating prior to 1927, was severely damaged in a fire on May 17, 1999. As previously noted, staff agrees with the applicants’ findings. The applicants have shown that staff erred in the original analysis that the rear addition was historic. As outlined earlier, the mysterious addition or unidentified structure to the south of the structure did not disrupt the original symmetrical gable; however, the gable that exists today is asymmetrical as it appears that the length of the plane on the south side of the gable has been shortened in order to accommodate the shed addition made c. 1969. Further analsyis also shows that the rear addition was constructed with frame walls, rather than the single-wall construction that exists on the four (4)-room cottage. Therefore, Staff recommends amending this finding as follows: 7KHUHDUDGGLWLRQRIWKHVWUXFWXUHZDVVHYHUHO\GDPDJHGLQDILUHRQ 0D\%HFDXVHWKHUHDUDGGLWLRQLVIRXQGWRQRWEHKLVWRULFLWPD\ EHUHPRYHG B. The many alterations on the interior and exterior of the structure have destroyed any historic fabric. The applicants argue that given the many alterations on the inside and outside of the structure, there is not sufficient “historic” fabric remaining to warrant a preservation effort. Secondly, they contest, that the fire in 1999 has left the building open to the weather for nearly 15 years and the extent of the damage and rot is so severe that the “historic” materials which remain are in very, very poor conditions, perhaps beyond the point of any feasible effort to preserve. Moreover, staff finds that the many alterations have destroyed much of the historic integrity of the structure. Since the late 1930s, the house has suffered from a number of modifications that have significantly diminished its historic integrity. The 1949 appraisal card notes that the house was sided with Bricktex and the roofing was a patterned shingle. There was no foundation. A concrete block or brick foundation was noted in the 1958 tax assessment. As the staff and the applicants have pointed out, there were a number of renovations completed after 1969. The double-hung windows on the façade were removed and expanded to install larger, undivided rectangular windows. The original wood double- hung windows throughout were replaced by aluminum windows. The Bricktex siding was covered with new wood vertical siding, concealing the attic window. The turned wood porch posts were replaced with new decorative metal columns. A brick chimney was installed above the enclosed side porch that was later repaired with Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 26 of 208 thick layers of Portland Cement. Finally, vertical siding was applied over the Bricktex. Though these changes have resulted in a loss of the historic character, they did not alter the Essential Historic Form of the structure—it remains a four-room single-wall framed cottage with full-width front porch. The front porch roof and footprint have not been lost, despite the introduction of incompatible metal columns. The historic front door remains. The original wood siding exists beneath layers of non-historic siding. The window opening on the west elevation is extant, though the original double-hung window has been lost. The original brick chimney on the southeast corner of the house also remains. Though the 1999 fire largely damaged the non- historic rear addition, the remainder of the historic four(4)-room cottage remains intact. Years of deterioration and exposure to the elements should have resulted in greater damage and the rapid decline of the exposed walls and roof joists; however, they are in surprisingly fair condition. C.There is no record of any important person or even that occurred at this site. The applicant argues that the earliest owners of this structure were simple Park City families and there is no record of any important person or event that occurred there. They also contest that there is no evidence of any relationship to prostitution nor the Redlight District except by location. Staff agrees with the applicants’ finding that the structure was built by everyday people and families. Nevertheless, staff argues that this structure contributes to our understanding of Park City’s Mature Mining Era (1894-1930). Park City has the largest and best preserved group of residential buildings in a metal mining town in Utah. As such, they provide the most complete documentation of the residential character of mining towns of that period, including settlement patterns, building materials, construction techniques, and socio-economic make-up. These structures greatly add to our understanding of a significant aspect of Park City’s economic growth and architectural development as a mining community. The Historic Site Inventory (HSI) identifies all structures of historical significance located in Park City. The four (4) remaining structures located on Rossie Hill Drive and Deer Valley Loop road are the only remaining indication of what was once a much denser neighborhood comprised of many residential structures. Some of these structures made up the City’s Red Light District, while others were the homes of middle-class mining families. These structures are identified as historic on the City’s Historic Sites Inventory (HSI), while the three (3) structures on Rossie Hill Drive are also listed on the 1984 nomination for the Mining Boom Era Thematic National Register District due to their historical significance. The zoning in this area is not “HR” or “Historic Residential” due to there not being a dense concentration of historic resources within the zoning district. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 27 of 208 1929 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map.7KLVPDSRXWOLQHVWKHGHQVLW\RIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG'9/LV FLUFOHGLQUHG7KHVHVWUXFWXUHVZHUHORFDWHGRQPXFKODUJHUORWVWKDQWKHW\SLFDOIW[IW2OG 7RZQ/RWV D. Loss of historic context, outlined by Baird M. Smith letter dated 2.12.14. In his letter, Architect Baird M. Smith, FAIA, FAPT outlined that the city’s criteria for historic designation does not consider “context” or “setting.” Baird argues that this criteria is utilized to measure the integrity of the historic resource regarding the broader context of historic buildings, site, and landscape features. Further, Baird finds that the context and setting have been lost as well as any historic landscape features. Staff agrees that there has been a loss of historic context; however, that is not to say that all historic context has been completely lost. Baird is correct in noting that early Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show that this site was part of a much denser neighborhood comprised of approximatly fourteen (14) structures. Of these, only four (4) structures currently exist. There is no denying that the loss of these surrounding buildings has altered the look and feel of the neighborhood; however, staff finds that the loss of these structures have emphasized the importance of preserving those that remain. As Baird acknowledged, historic context is not a criteria for local historic designation. LMC 15-11-10, outlined below, does not require staff to consider the historic context of the surrounding properties when considering whether a structure should be classified as “Significant” or “Landmark.” Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 28 of 208 Criteria for Designating Sites to the Park City Historic Sites Inventory The Historic Preservation Board is authorized by Title15-11-5(I) to review and take action on the designation of sites within the Historic Sites Inventory. The Historic Preservation Board may designate sites to the Historic Sites Inventory as a means of providing recognition to and encouraging the preservation of historic sites in the community (LMC 15-11-10). Land Management Code Section 15-11-10(A) sets forth the criteria for designating sites to the Park City Historic Sites Inventory. Because the home does retain its Essential Historic Form, the evidence supports the conclusion that the home is “Significant”. The additional evidence presented by the applicants in their report also supports this conclusion. A reconstruction of the home, which is necessary based on the structural integrity of the home raised by the Chief Building Official, would also allow the house and site to remain ”Significant” based on the following definition: 6LJQLILFDQW6LWH$Q\EXLOGLQJVPDLQDWWDFKHGGHWDFKHGRUSXEOLFDFFHVVRU\EXLOGLQJV DQGRUVWUXFWXUHVPD\EHGHVLJQDWHGWRWKH+LVWRULF6LWHV,QYHQWRU\DVD6LJQLILFDQW6LWH LIWKH3ODQQLQJ'HSDUWPHQWILQGVLWPHHWVDOOWKHFULWHULDOLVWHGEHORZ D,WLVDWOHDVWILIW\\HDUVROGRUKDVDFKLHYHG6LJQLILFDQFHLQWKHSDVWILIW\ \HDUVLIWKH6LWHLVRIH[FHSWLRQDOLPSRUWDQFHWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DQG« Complies The original two (2) room mining shack was constructed circa 1900; however, it was expanded between 1912 and 1918 in order to create the four (4) room cottage that continues to exist today. If we consider that the four (4) room cottage is the Essential Historical Form, then the structure is roughly 96 to 102 years old, although portions of the structure may be as many as 113 years old. E,WUHWDLQVLWV(VVHQWLDO+LVWRULFDO)RUPPHDQLQJWKHUHDUHQRPDMRUDOWHUDWLRQV WKDWKDYHGHVWUR\HGWKH(VVHQWLDO+LVWRULFDO)RUP0DMRUDOWHUDWLRQVWKDWGHVWUR\ WKH(VVHQWLDO+LVWRULFDO)RUPLQFOXGH L&KDQJHVLQSLWFKRIWKHPDLQURRIRIWKHSULPDU\IDoDGHLIWKHFKDQJH ZDVPDGHDIWHUWKH3HULRGRI+LVWRULF6LJQLILFDQFHWKHFKDQJHLVQRW GXHWRDQ\VWUXFWXUDOIDLOXUHRUWKHFKDQJHLVQRWGXHWRFROODSVHDVD UHVXOWRILQDGHTXDWHPDLQWHQDQFHRQWKHSDUWRIWKH$SSOLFDQWRUD SUHYLRXV2ZQHURU LL$GGLWLRQRIXSSHUVWRULHVRUWKHUHPRYDORIRULJLQDOXSSHUVWRULHV RFFXUUHGDIWHUWKH3HULRGRI+LVWRULF6LJQLILFDQFHRU LLL0RYLQJLWIURPLWVRULJLQDOORFDWLRQWRD'LVVLPLODU/RFDWLRQRU LY$GGLWLRQVWKDWVLJQLILFDQWO\REVFXUHVWKH(VVHQWLDO+LVWRULFDO)RUP ZKHQYLHZHGIURPWKHSULPDU\SXEOLF5LJKWRI:D\Complies. The home retains its Essential Historical Form. There has been a slight modification to the rear gable in order to accommodate the circa 1969 addition; however, this change has not significantly altered the overall form of the structure. The circa 1969 rear addition does not detract or negatively impact the historic form of the structure. It could be removed if the owners chose to restore Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 29 of 208 the structure as it has not achieved significance in its own right. Any future panelization or reconstruction will also preserve the historic side gable form of the structure. F,WLVLPSRUWDQWLQORFDORUUHJLRQDOKLVWRU\DUFKLWHFWXUHHQJLQHHULQJRUFXOWXUH DVVRFLDWHGZLWKDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJ L$QHUDRI+LVWRULFLPSRUWDQFHWRWKHFRPPXQLW\RU LL/LYHVRI3HUVRQVZKRZHUHRI+LVWRULFLPSRUWDQFHWRWKHFRPPXQLW\RU LLL1RWHZRUWK\PHWKRGVRIFRQVWUXFWLRQPDWHULDOVRUFUDIWVPDQVKLSXVHG GXULQJWKH+LVWRULFSHULRGComplies. As previously outlined by staff, this structure contributes to our understanding of Park City’s Mature Mining Era (1894-1930). This house is one of many in Old Town that makes up the state’s largest and best preserved collection of residential buildings in a metal mining town in Utah. Structures such as the one at 632 Deer Valley Loop provide insight into the residential character of mining towns of that period, including settlement patterns, building materials, construction techniques, and socio-economic make-up. The fact that this house was constructed and expanded by middle-class families in this location tells a story about the development of Park City regarding the need for homes to accommodate growing families, and the methods in which these structures were expanded the availability of financial resources to fund construction. The criteria for designating sites to the Park City Historic Sites Inventory as a Landmark Site include: D,WLVDWOHDVWILIW\\HDUVROGRUKDVDFKLHYHG6LJQLILFDQFHLQWKHSDVWILIW\ \HDUVLIWKH6LWHLVRIH[FHSWLRQDOLPSRUWDQFHWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DQG E,WUHWDLQVLWV+LVWRULF,QWHJULW\LQWHUPVRIORFDWLRQGHVLJQVHWWLQJPDWHULDOV ZRUNPDQVKLSIHHOLQJDQGDVVRFLDWLRQDVGHILQHGE\WKH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFHIRU WKH1DWLRQDO5HJLVWHURI+LVWRULF3ODFHVDQG F,WLVVLJQLILFDQWLQORFDOUHJLRQDORUQDWLRQDOKLVWRU\DUFKLWHFWXUHHQJLQHHULQJ RUFXOWXUHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDWOHDVWRQHRIWKHIROORZLQJ L$QHUDWKDWKDVPDGHDVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHEURDGSDWWHUQVRI RXUKLVWRU\ LL7KHOLYHVRI3HUVRQVVLJQLILFDQWLQWKHKLVWRU\RIWKHFRPPXQLW\VWDWH UHJLRQRUQDWLRQRU LLL7KHGLVWLQFWLYHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIW\SHSHULRGRUPHWKRGRI FRQVWUXFWLRQRUWKHZRUNRIDQRWDEOHDUFKLWHFWRUPDVWHUFUDIWVPDQ Staff finds that the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop meets the standards for local “significant” designation, but does not meet the criteria for “landmark” designation. In order for the site to be designated as “landmark,” the structure would have to retain its historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Moreover, it would be eligible for the National Register. Due to the alterations, loss of its historic materials, and changes in window and door configuration, the structure is no longer eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 30 of 208 Process The HPB will hear testimony from the applicant and the public and will review the Application for compliance with the “Criteria for Designating Historic Sites to the Park City Historic Sites Inventory.” The HPB shall review the Application with the new information submitted by the applicant. If the HPB finds that the application does not comply with the criteria set forth in Section 15-11-10(A)(1) or Section 15-11-10(A)(2), the Building and/or structure will be removed from the Historic Sites Inventory. If the HPB finds that the application does comply with the criteria, the structure will remain on the Historic Sites Inventory. The HPB shall forward a copy of its written findings to the Owner and/or Applicant. The Applicant or any party participating in the hearing may appeal the Historic Preservation Board decision to the Board of Adjustment. Appeal requests shall be submitted to the Planning Department ten (10) days of the Historic Preservation Board decision. Appeals shall be considered only on the record made before the HPB and will be reviewed for correctness. Notice The property was posted and a notice was mailed to adjacent property owners. Legal notice was also placed in the Park Record on May 10, 2014. Public Input A public hearing, conducted by the Historic Preservation Board, is required prior to adding sites to or removing sites from the Historic Sites Inventory. The public hearing for the recommended action was properly and legally noticed as required by the Land Management Code. No public input was received at the time of writing this report. Public input was provided as the 11.13.13 HPB meeting. (See Exhibit F for details.) Alternatives: x Conduct a public hearing to consider the Determination of Significance for 632 Deer Valley Loop described herein and find the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop meets the criteria for the designation of “Significant” to the Historic Sites Inventory according the draft findings of fact and conclusions of law, in whole or in part. x Conduct a public hearing and find the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop does not meet the criteria for the designation of “Significant” to the Historic Sites Inventory, and providing specific findings for this action. x Continue the action to a date uncertain. Consequences of not taking the Recommended Action If the Historic Preservation Board chooses to remove this site from the HSI, the structure will not be a designated historic site and will be eligible for demolition and complete removal. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 31 of 208 If the Board finds the criteria for a Significant site is met, no change will occur to the designation of 632 Deer Valley Loop on the Historic Sites Inventory. The structure will not be eligible for demolition. It may be a candidate for reconstruction to retain its existing form. Summary Recommendations Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Board conduct a public hearing and find that criteria have been met to continue the designation of 632 Deer Valley Loop as “Significant” within the Park City Historic Sites Inventory according to the following finding of fact and conclusions of law. Staff has highlighted the facts which have been amended from the November 25, 2013 hearing. Findings of Fact 1. 632 Deer Valley Loop is within the Residential-Medium Density (RM) zoning district. 2. There is an existing side gable hall-parlor structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop. This structure is currently listed on the Park City Historic Sites Inventory as a “Significant” Structure. 3. The structure was initially constructed as a two (2) room hall-parlor structure with an entry on the west elevation circa 1900. 4. Between 1912 and 1918, the structure was expanded to the north to create a four (4)-room cottage. It is this side-gable structure that is depicted in the late-1930s tax photograph. 5. Circa 1969, a rear addition was constructed along the full width of the south wall. This addition differs from the single-wall construction of the four (4)-room structure in that it has stud-wall framing. It is believed that the side porch was expanded at this time to create a mudroom; the width of the enclosed porch extended beyond the south wall and onto the new addition. 6. The existing structure is in serious disrepair and is not habitable in its current dangerous condition. 7. There is very little original exterior materials remaining on the exterior of the home. The original wood lap siding has been covered by layers of Bricktex and vertical wood siding 8. The double-hung windows on the façade were removed and expanded to install larger, undivided rectangular windows after 1969. The original wood double-hung windows throughout were replaced by aluminum windows. 9. After 1969, the turned wood porch posts were replaced with new decorative metal columns. A brick chimney was installed above the enclosed side porch that was later repaired with thick layers of Portland Cement. 10. The rear addition of the structure, dating circa 1969, was severely damaged in a fire on May 17, 1999. Because the rear addition is found not to be historic, it may be removed. 11. Between 1912 and 1918, the four (4)-room cottage was constructed. It is believed to be between 96 and 102 years old. Portions of the structure, dating from the original hall-parlor plan, may be as much as 113 years old. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 32 of 208 12. Though the structure has lost its historic integrity due to the out-of-period alterations to its historic materials, it has retained its historical form. The out-of-period addition to the south and west elevations of the structure do not detract from its historic form. 13. The structure is important in local or regional history because it is associated with an era of historic importance to the community, the Mature Mining Era (1894-1900). 14. The Historic Preservation Board found that the structure met the criteria of LMC 15- 11-10(A)(2) and thus should remain on the Historic Sites Inventory (HSI) on November 13, 2013. 15. The applicants submitted an appeal to this determination on November 25, 2013, within ten (10) days of the HPB’s determination. 16. The appeal was reviewed by the Board of Adjustment on April 15, 2014; however, the BOA remanded the appeal back to the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) due to the applicant’s submittal of new evidence. The evidence submitted has been incorporated into the facts herein. Conclusions of Law 1. The existing structure located at 632 Deer Valley Loop meets all of the criteria for a Significant Site as set forth in LMC Section 15-11-10(A)(2) which includes: (a) It is at least fifty (50) years old or has achieved Significance in the past fifty (50) years if the Site is of exceptional importance to the community; and (b) It retains its Essential Historical Form, meaning there are no major alterations that have destroyed the Essential Historical Form. Major alterations that destroy the Essential Historical Form include: (i) Changes in pitch of the main roof of the primary façade if 1) the change was made after the Period of Historic Significance; 2) the change is not due to any structural failure; or 3) the change is not due to collapse as a result of inadequate maintenance on the part of the Applicant or a previous Owner, or (ii) Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories occurred after the Period of Historic Significance, or (iii) Moving it from its original location to a Dissimilar Location, or (iv) Addition(s) that significantly obscures the Essential Historical Form when viewed from the primary public Right-of-Way. (c) It is important in local or regional history, architecture, engineering, or culture associated with at least one (1) of the following: (i) An era of Historic importance to the community, or (ii) Lives of Persons who were of Historic importance to the community, or (iii) Noteworthy methods of construction, materials, or craftsmanship used during the Historic period. Exhibits Exhibit A – HPB Staff Report, 11.13.13 Exhibit B – HPB Minutes from 11.13.13 Exhibit C – Applicants’ Appeal to BOA Exhibit D – Draft BOA Minutes, 4.15.14 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 33 of 208 Historic Preservation Board Staff Report Author: Anya Grahn, Historic Preservation Planner Subject: Historic Sites Inventory Address: 632 Deer Valley Loop Project Number: PL-13-02094 Date: November 13, 2013 Type of Item: Administrative – Determination of Significance Summary Recommendation: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Board review the application, conduct a public hearing and confirm the status of 632 Deer Valley Loop as a Significant Site on the Park City Historic Sites Inventory. Topic: Project Name: 632 Deer Valley Loop Applicant: Park City Municipal Corporation Owners: William and Juli Bertagnole Proposal: Determination of Significance Background: The Park City Historic Sites Inventory, adopted February 4, 2009, includes four hundred five (405) sites of which one hundred ninety-two (192) sites meet the criteria for designation as Landmark Sites and two hundred thirteen (213) sites meet the criteria for designation as Significant Sites. The existing structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop was added to the Inventory as a Significant Structure based on a reconnaissance level survey by then-Historic Preservation Consultant Dina Blaes in 2009. It had been previously identified as historic in a 1995 reconnaissance level survey, but was not included in the 1982 Historic District Architectural Survey. During the reconnaissance-level survey, Dina noted that the Sanborn maps identified the structure as a “Hall-Parlor” home, but noted that the side addition had likely been added outside the Mature Mining Era, between 1949 and 1969. Sandborn Fire Insurance maps were used to determine the original shape of the home. Though the structure has retained its historic form, much of its historic integrity has been lost due to changes in its exterior materials. The wood siding material is not original, nor are the aluminum windows and doors. The porch supports have also been replaced. The second floor window opening has been lost as well, and a side porch appears to have been enclosed to create additional interior living space after 1969. A fire on May 17, 1999, severely destroyed the rear of the structure. Though it had a negative impact on the rear addition, the remainder of the historic structure remained intact on the hall-parlor portion of the house. Years of deterioration and exposure to the elements should have resulted in greater damage and rapid decline of the exposed walls and roof joists; however, they are in surprisingly fair condition. Planning Department +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 34 of 208 Exhibit A A trust deed was recorded at the Summit County Recorder’s Office on May 2, 2013, transferring ownership from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Bertagnoles, following decades of litigation with the BLM. In August 21, 2013, a Notice and Order to Vacate and Demolish the structure was issued due to the fire damage and dilapidated state of the structure. The property owners would like to demolish the structure in order to accommodate new development; they do not believe it is historically significant. Site visits have been made by the Chief Building Official and Planning Director. Because of the limited information available in the HSI, the Planning Director has directed staff to conduct additional research to determine the historic significance of the 632 Deer Valley Loop site. The purpose of this staff report is to have the HPB review the criteria to determine whether the structure is a “Significant” site. History of the Structure: The residential structure constructed at 632 Deer Valley Loop was originally built circa 1900. The 1900 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps did not include this portion of Park City as it was outside the dense development of Old Town. The structure first appears in the 1904 Sanborn map, however, as seen below, circled in red The one (1) story, side gable house was constructed as a hall-and-parlor. It appears, per the Sanborn maps, that the structure did not originally have a front porch. Nevertheless, it did have a porch on the west elevation, likely over a side entry, as shown in the 1927 Sanborn Map. 1904 Sanborn Map +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 35 of 208 By 1927, a rear addition had been added across the south elevation of the structure. The side porch had also been relocated to this rear portion of the structure. A front porch had not yet been added, or was not identified by the Sanborn map. A single photograph from the late-1930s tax assessment depicts the structure in much the same form as it exists today (Exhibit B). One-over-one double-hung windows framed the central entry door on the front porch. The front porch had a hip roof supported by turned porch posts. Horizontal railings framed the porch while vertical siding enclosed the area beneath it. On the west elevation, a side entry porch covered shielded a side door. The one-story rear addition is visible behind the porch. An attic entrance or window is provided at the top of the gable on the west elevation. This photograph documents the appearance of the structure during the Mature Mining Era. 1927 Sanborn Map +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 36 of 208 Over the next four decades, the house suffered from a number of modifications that have significantly diminished its historic integrity. The 1949 appraisal card notes that the house was sided with Bricktex and the roofing was a patterned shingle. There was no foundation. A concrete block or brick foundation was noted in the 1958 tax assessment. Finally, the 1969 tax card notes a rear porch of about 60 square feet. It is likely that 60 square foot porch had existed all along as reflected in the Sanborn maps, but had not been identified on the tax cards. After 1969, the house appears to have been renovated. The double-hung windows on the façade were removed and expanded to install larger, undivided rectangular windows. The original wood double-hung windows throughout were replaced by aluminum windows. The Bricktex siding was covered with new wood vertical siding, concealing the attic window. The turned wood porch posts were replaced with new decorative metal columns. A brick chimney was installed above the enclosed side porch that was later repaired with thick layers of Portland Cement. The following c.1990s photograph shows the house largely as it exists today. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 37 of 208 On May 17, 1999, heavy smoke and flames were seen from the rear of the building. By the time first responders arrived, the door had been kicked in by bystanders. The back bedroom was fully engulfed in flames, leaving it scorched from floor to ceiling and compromising its roof structure. The fire was identified as suspicious with numerous points of origin; however, the current property owners have explained that the fire was likely caused by their tenant’s pets knocking over a heat lamp above an iguana terrarium. Since that time, the Building Department has required the property to be secured and boarded; however, it has been difficult to secure the structure and there have been several reports of unauthorized access Analysis and Discussion: The Historic Preservation Board is authorized by Title15-11-5(I) to review and take action on the designation of sites within the Historic Sites Inventory. The Historic Preservation Board may designate sites to the Historic Sites Inventory as a means of providing recognition to and encouraging the preservation of historic sites in the community (LMC 15-11-10). Land Management Code Section 15-11-10(A) sets forth the criteria for designating sites to the Park City Historic Sites Inventory. Because the home does retain its historic form, the evidence supports the conclusion that the home is “Significant”. A reconstruction of the home, which is necessary based on the structural integrity of the home raised by the Chief Building Official, would also allow the house and site to remain ”Significant” based on the following definition: Significant Site. Any buildings (main, attached, detached or public), accessory buildings and/or structures may be designated to the Historic Sites Inventory as a Significant Site if the Planning Department finds it meets all the criteria listed below: +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 38 of 208 (a) It is at least fifty (50) years old or has achieved Significance in the past fifty (50) years if the Site is of exceptional importance to the community; and (…)Complies The structure was originally constructed circa 1900, and not later than 1910 making the structure 113 years old. (b) It retains its Essential Historical Form, meaning there are no major alterations that have destroyed the Essential Historical Form. Major alterations that destroy the Essential Historical Form include: (i) Changes in pitch of the main roof of the primary façade if 1) the change was made after the Period of Historic Significance; 2) the change is not due to any structural failure; or 3) the change is not due to collapse as a result of inadequate maintenance on the part of the Applicant or a previous Owner, or (ii) Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories occurred after the Period of Historic Significance, or (iii) Moving it from its original location to a Dissimilar Location, or (iv) Addition(s) that significantly obscures the Essential Historical Form when viewed from the primary public Right-of-Way. Complies. The home retains its original historic form. The 1960s side addition does not detract or negatively impact the historic form of the structure. It could be removed if the owners chose to restore the structure as it has not achieved significance in its own right. Any future panelization or reconstruction will also preserve the historic hall-and-parlor form of the structure. (c) It is important in local or regional history, architecture, engineering, or culture associated with at least one (1) of the following: (i) An era of Historic importance to the community, or (ii) Lives of Persons who were of Historic importance to the community, or (iii) Noteworthy methods of construction, materials, or craftsmanship used during the Historic period. Complies. This structure contributes to our understanding of Park City’s Mature Mining Era (1894- 1930). The houses within Old Town and the historic district are the largest and best preserved group of residential buildings in a metal mining town in Utah. As such, they provide the most complete documentation of the residential character of mining towns of that period, including settlement patterns, building materials, construction techniques, and socio-economic make-up. These structures greatly add to our understanding of a significant aspect of Park City’s economic growth and architectural development as a mining community. The criteria for designating sites to the Park City Historic Sites Inventory as a Landmark Site include: (a) It is at least fifty (50) years old or has achieved Significance in the past fifty (50) years if the Site is of exceptional importance to the community; and +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 39 of 208 (b) It retains its Historic Integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places; and (c) It is significant in local, regional or national history, architecture, engineering or culture associated with at least one (1) of the following: (i) An era that has made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (ii) The lives of Persons significant in the history of the community, state, region, or nation; or (iii) The distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman. Staff finds that the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop meets the standards for local “significant” designation, but does not meet the criteria for “landmark” designation. In order for the site to be designated as “landmark,” the structure would have to retain its historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Moreover, it would be eligible for the National Register. Due to the alterations, loss of its historic materials, and changes in window and door configuration, the structure is no longer eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Process: The HPB will hear testimony from the applicant and the public and will review the Application for compliance with the “Criteria for Designating Historic Sites to the Park City Historic Sites Inventory.” The HPB shall review the Application “de novo,” giving no deference to the prior determination. If the HPB finds that the application does not comply with the criteria set forth in Section 15-11-10(A)(1) or Section 15-11-10(A)(2), the Building and/or structure will be removed from the Historic Sites Inventory. The HPB shall forward a copy of its written findings to the Owner and/or Applicant. The Applicant or any party participating in the hearing may appeal the Historic Preservation Board decision to the Board of Adjustment. Appeal requests shall be submitted to the Planning Department ten (10) days of the Historic Preservation Board decision. Appeals shall be considered only on the record made before the HPB and will be reviewed for correctness. Notice: Legal Notice of this public hearing was published in the Park Record and posted in the required public spaces. Public Input: A public hearing, conducted by the Historic Preservation Board, is required prior to adding sites to or removing sites from the Historic Sites Inventory. The public hearing for the recommended action was properly and legally noticed as required by the Land Management Code. No public input was received at the time of writing this report. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 40 of 208 Alternatives: x Conduct a public hearing to consider the DOS for 632 Deer Valley Loop described herein and find the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop meets the criteria for the designation of “Significant” to the Historic Sites Inventory according the draft findings of fact and conclusions of law, in whole or in part. x Conduct a public hearing and find the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop does not meet the criteria for the designation of “Significant” to the Historic Sites Inventory, and providing specific findings for this action. x Continue the action to a date uncertain. Significant Impacts: There are no significant impacts on the City as a result of retaining the existing building described in this report to the Historic Sites Inventory as a “Significant” Structure. Consequences of not taking the Recommended Action: If no action is taken, no change will occur to the designation of 632 Deer Valley Loop on the Historic Sites Inventory. The structure will not be eligible for demolition. If the Historic Preservation Board chooses to remove this site from the HSI, the structure will not be a designated historic site and will be eligible for demolition. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Board conduct a public hearing and find that criteria have been met to continue the designation of 632 Deer Valley Loop as “Significant” within the Park City Historic Sites Inventory according to the following finding of fact and conclusions of law. Finding of Fact: 1. 632 Deer Valley Loop is within the Residential-Medium Density (RM) zoning district. 2. There is an existing side gable hall-parlor structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop. This structure is currently listed on the Park City Historic Sites Inventory as a “Significant” Structure. 3. The existing structure has been in existence at 632 Deer Valley Loop since circa 1900. The structure appears in the 1904 and 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. Furthermore, the Historic Site Form contains tax cards of the structure from 1949, 1958, and 1969. A late-1930s tax card photo also demonstrates that the overall form of the structure has not been altered. 4. The hall-and-parlor structure and later rear addition were both constructed within the Mature Mining Era (1894-1930) and are historic. 5. Though out of period, the enclosed side porch entrance added in the 1960s does not detract from the historic significance of the structure. 6. The existing structure is in serious disrepair and is not habitable in its current dangerous condition. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 41 of 208 7. There is very little original exterior materials remaining on the exterior of the home. The original wood lap siding has been covered by layers of Bricktex and vertical wood siding 8. The double-hung windows on the façade were removed and expanded to install larger, undivided rectangular windows after 1969. The original wood double- hung windows throughout were replaced by aluminum windows. 9. After 1969, the turned wood porch posts were replaced with new decorative metal columns. A brick chimney was installed above the enclosed side porch that was later repaired with thick layers of Portland Cement. 10. The structure is a hall-parlor plan and typical of the Mature Mining Era. 11. The rear addition of the structure, dating prior to 1927, was severely damaged in a fire on May 17, 1999. 12. The site meets the criteria as Significant on the City’s Historic Sites Inventory. 13. Built circa 1900, the structure is over fifty (50) years old and has achieved Significance in the past fifty (50) years. 14. Though the structure has lost its historic integrity due to the out-of-period alterations to its historic materials, it has retained its historical form. The out-of- period addition to the west elevation of the structure does not detract from its historic significance. 15. The structure is important in local or regional history because it is associated with an era of historic importance to the community, the Mature Mining Era (1894- 190). Conclusions of Law 1. The existing structure located at 632 Deer Valley Loop meets all of the criteria for a Significant Site as set forth in LMC Section 15-11-10(A)(2) which includes: (a) It is at least fifty (50) years old or has achieved Significance in the past fifty (50) years if the Site is of exceptional importance to the community; and (b) It retains its Essential Historical Form, meaning there are no major alterations that have destroyed the Essential Historical Form. Major alterations that destroy the Essential Historical Form include: (i) Changes in pitch of the main roof of the primary façade if 1) the change was made after the Period of Historic Significance; 2) the change is not due to any structural failure; or 3) the change is not due to collapse as a result of inadequate maintenance on the part of the Applicant or a previous Owner, or (ii) Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories occurred after the Period of Historic Significance, or (iii) Moving it from its original location to a Dissimilar Location, or (iv) Addition(s) that significantly obscures the Essential Historical Form when viewed from the primary public Right-of-Way. (c) It is important in local or regional history, architecture, engineering, or culture associated with at least one (1) of the following: (i) An era of Historic importance to the community, or (ii) Lives of Persons who were of Historic importance to the community, or +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 42 of 208 (iii) Noteworthy methods of construction, materials, or craftsmanship used during the Historic period. Exhibits: Exhibit A – Historic Sites Inventory Form, 2008 Exhibit B – Historic photograph, late-1930s Exhibit C – Letter from Principal Allen Roberts, CRSA Exhibit D – Photographs from site visits +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 43 of 208 HISTORIC SITE FORM - HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (10-08) 1 IDENTIFICATION Name of Property: Address: 632 DEER VALLEY LOOP RD AKA: City, County: Park City, Summit County, Utah Tax Number: PC-537 Current Owner Name: BERTAGNOLE WILLIAM T & JULI M TRUSTEES Parent Parcel(s): Current Owner Address: 1600 LUCKY JOHN DR, PARK CITY, UT 84060-6948 Legal Description (include acreage): 11TH HOUSE S SIDE DEER VALLEY PARK CITY(#632 DEER VALLEY); ALSO DESC AS BEG S 42*52'44" E 1038.31 FT FROM E1/4 COR SEC 16 T2SR4E SLBM; TH S 76*43' E 116.60 FT; TH S 9*17' W 83.58 FT; TH S 80*29' W 129.40 FT; TH N 14*51' E 51.12 FT; TH N 10*39' E 82.35 FT TO BEG CONT 0.29 2 STATUS/USE Property Category Evaluation* Reconstruction Use ; building(s), main Landmark Site Date: Original Use: Residential building(s), attached ; Significant Site Permit #: Current Use: Residential building(s), detached Not Historic Full Partial building(s), public building(s), accessory structure(s) *National Register of Historic Places: ; ineligible eligible listed (date: ) 3 DOCUMENTATION Photos: Dates Research Sources (check all sources consulted, whether useful or not) tax photo: abstract of title ; city/county histories ; prints: 1995 & 2006 tax card personal interviews historic: c. original building permit Utah Hist. Research Center sewer permit USHS Preservation Files Drawings and Plans ; Sanborn Maps USHS Architects File measured floor plans obituary index LDS Family History Library site sketch map city directories/gazetteers Park City Hist. Soc/Museum Historic American Bldg. Survey census records university library(ies): original plans: biographical encyclopedias other: other: newspapers Bibliographical References (books, articles, interviews, etc.) Attach copies of all research notes and materials. Blaes, Dina & Beatrice Lufkin. "Final Report." Park City Historic Building Inventory. Salt Lake City: 2007. Carter, Thomas and Goss, Peter. Utah’s Historic Architecture, 1847-1940: a Guide. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Graduate School of Architecture and Utah State Historical Society, 1991. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998. Roberts, Allen. “Final Report.” Park City Reconnaissance Level Survey. Salt Lake City: 1995. Roper, Roger & Deborah Randall. “Residences of Mining Boom Era, Park City - Thematic Nomination.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Nomination Form. 1984. 4 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION & INTEGRITY Building Type and/or Style: Rectangular or “Hall-Parlor” House No. Stories: 1½ Additions: none ; minor major (describe below) Alterations: none minor ; major (describe below) Researcher/Organization: Preservation Solutions/Park City Municipal Corporation Date: 12-2008 Exhibit A +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 44 of 208 632 Deer Valley Loop Road, Park City, UT, Page 2 of 3 Number of associated outbuildings and/or structures: accessory building(s), # _____; structure(s), # _____. General Condition of Exterior Materials: Good (Well maintained with no serious problems apparent.) Fair (Some problems are apparent. Describe the problems.): ; Poor (Major problems are apparent and constitute an imminent threat. Describe the problems.): Vacant. Slightly sagging roofline, missing shingles, boarded up and exposed window openings, unkempt property, staggered and missing boards along porch foundation, peeling paint, and missing sections of roofline gutters and boards. Uninhabitable/Ruin Materials (The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time in a particular pattern or configuration. Describe the materials.): Foundation: Not visible and therefore its material cannot be verified Walls: Vertical wooden boards, wooden trim, decorative metal porch supports (no railings) Roof: Undetermined shingle material (asphalt?) with metal cap endings along roofline edge Windows: Collaboration of picture windows, aluminum single hung windows, and window openings (windows missing). Essential Historical Form: ; Retains Does Not Retain, due to: Location:; Original Location Moved (date __________) Original Location: Design (The combination of physical elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style. Describe additions and/or alterations from the original design, including dates--known or estimated--when alterations were made): Building card indicates side room addition between 1949-1969. Siding is not likely original, neither are the porch supports. The window configuration on the primary façade is also not typical of early mining era homes and is not likely original. Setting (The physical environment--natural or manmade--of a historic site. Describe the setting and how it has changed over time.): Structure built on a sloped building lot above the roadway. Surrounding grounds and property unkempt and overgrown with naturally occurring grasses and terrain. Narrow building lot surrounded by what appears to be newer multi-family housing developments. Workmanship (The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during a given period in history. Describe the distinctive elements.): The physical evidence from the period that defines the typical Park City mining era home-- simple methods of construction, the use of non-beveled (drop-novelty) wood siding, plan type, simple roof form, informal landscaping, restrained ornamentation, and plain finishes--have been altered and, therefore, lost. Feeling (Describe the property's historic character.): The physical elements of the site, in combination, do not effectively convey a sense of life in a western mining town of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Association (Describe the link between the important historic era or person and the property.): The Hall-Parlor house form is the earliest type to be built in Park City and one of the three most common house types built in Park City during the mining era. The extent of and cumulative effect of the alterations render it ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 5 SIGNIFICANCE Architect:; Not Known Known: (source: ) Date of Construction: c. 1900 1 1 Summit County Recorder. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 45 of 208 632 Deer Valley Loop Road, Park City, UT, Page 3 of 3 Builder:; Not Known Known: (source: ) The site must represent an important part of the history or architecture of the community. A site need only be significant under one of the three areas listed below: 1. Historic Era: Settlement & Mining Boom Era (1868-1893) ; Mature Mining Era (1894-1930) Mining Decline & Emergence of Recreation Industry (1931-1962) Park City was the center of one of the top three metal mining districts in the state during Utah's mining boom period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it is one of only two major metal mining communities that have survived to the present. Park City's houses are the largest and best- preserved group of residential buildings in a metal mining town in Utah. As such, they provide the most complete documentation of the residential character of mining towns of that period, including their settlement patterns, building materials, construction techniques, and socio-economic make-up. The residences also represent the state's largest collection of nineteenth and early twentieth century frame houses. They contribute to our understanding of a significant aspect of Park City's economic growth and architectural development as a mining community.2 2. Persons (Describe how the site is associated with the lives of persons who were of historic importance to the community or those who were significant in the history of the state, region, or nation): 3. Architecture (Describe how the site exemplifies noteworthy methods of construction, materials or craftsmanship used during the historic period or is the work of a master craftsman or notable architect): 6 PHOTOS Digital color photographs are on file with the Planning Department, Park City Municipal Corp. Photo No. 1: Northwest oblique. Camera facing southeast, 2006. Photo No. 2: Southeast oblique. Camera facing northwest, 2006. Photo No. 3: East elevation. Camera facing west, 2006. Photo No. 4: Northwest oblique. Camera facing southeast, 1995. 2 From “Residences of Mining Boom Era, Park City - Thematic Nomination” written by Roger Roper, 1984. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 46 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 47 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 48 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 49 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 50 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 51 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 52 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 53 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 54 of 208 +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 55 of 208 Exhibit B +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 56 of 208 October 18, 2013 To: Anya Grahn, Preservation Planner, Park City From: Allen Roberts, AIA, Preservation Consultant, CRSA In response to the City’s request to assess the age of the house at 632 Deer Valley Loop, I provide the following information: 1) A c. 1940 photograph taken from the same angle as the photo in the City’s 2012 Historic Sites Inventory shows the house to be a c. 1900 (+/- 10 years) residence. The earlier photo clearly shows its turned-wood Victorian columns, “novelty” wood siding, small-paned windows (as used prior to the arrival of the railroad), corbelled brick chimney and simple, hall-parlor floor plan—all evidence of a c. 1900 structure. 2) A small, shed-roofed room was added to the right, rear corner of the house, much later than the initial construction. 3) The information on the property’s tax card also indicates that the main residence dates from the turn-of-the-century period. 4) The building’s exterior has been altered and its architectural integrity compromised, with newer porch columns, windows and siding, which obscure the original materials and design. The historic corbelled chimney remains intact, however, as does the basic form of the exterior massing. In summary, the house’s exterior materials and design elements were in common use in Park City from the 1870s until about 1910 when newer materials and styles were introduced. While we have not discovered an exact date of construction, it is highly unlikely that the residence was constructed after about 1910, and it could have been built considerably earlier. Respectfully submitted, Allen Roberts, AIA President, CRSA Exhibit C +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 57 of 208 632 Deer Valley Loop Photographs Northwest Corner West Elevation Exhibit D +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 58 of 208 Northwest Corner North Elevation (façade) +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 59 of 208 Northeast Corner Close-up of East Elevation +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 60 of 208 East Elevation (note fire damage) Southeast Corner +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 61 of 208 South Elevation Fire Damage on South Elevation +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 62 of 208 Fire damage at southeast corner Exposed roof eave, showing old growth timber +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 63 of 208 Wood floorboards on porch Dilapidated vertical wood siding used on porch (as seen in 1930s tax photo) +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 64 of 208 Bricktex beneath vertical wood siding. The original wood lap siding is likely beneath this layer of Bricktex. Original wood trim. Note the reveal. Layers of Bricktex and vertical wood siding have hidden much of the reveal on this original trim. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 65 of 208 Original wood trim. Note the reveal. Layers of Bricktex and vertical wood siding have hidden much of the reveal on this original trim. Charred ceiling structure, interior +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 66 of 208 Charred bead-board ceiling in kitchen Antique nail and charred roof structure, interior +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 67 of 208 Fire-damaged rear addition. Note the horizontal lumber atop vertical studs. Historic paneled wood door with antique hardware. +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 68 of 208 Historic interior wood window trim in front bedroom. Wall paper applied atop wood wall structure +LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHHistoric Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 69 of 208 PARK CITY MUNICPAL CORPORATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013 BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: David White, - Puggy Holmgren, Marian Crosby, John Kenworthy, Gary Bush Hope Melville, Clayton Vance EX OFFICIO: Kayla Sintz, Anya Grahn, Polly Samuels McLean, Patricia Abdullah ROLL CALL Chair Pro-Tem White called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. and noted that all Board Members were present except Board Member Kenworthy, who arrived later. ADOPTION OF MINUTES August 7, 2013 MOTION: Board Member Holmgren moved to APPROVE the minutes of August 7, 2013 as written. Board Member Bush seconded the motion. VOTE: The motion passed unanimously. August 21, 2013 Board Member Bush moved to APPROVE the minutes of August 21, 2013 as written. Board Member Crosby seconded the motion. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS There were no comments. STAFF/BOARD COMMUNICATION & DISCLOSURES Planning Manager Sintz stated that the HPB would elect a Chair at the next meeting. REGULAR MEETING - Discussion, Public Hearing and Possible Action. 1. 632 Deer Valley Loop – Determination of Significance (Application PL-13-02094) Planner Anya Graham stated that the Historic Sites Inventory is the go-to resource in terms of determining whether or not buildings and structures in Park City are Significant or Landmark. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 70 of 208 Exhibit B Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 2 Planner Grahn reported that a question was raised regarding the significant of 632 Deer Valley Loop. The owners had received a Notice and Order from the Building Department. The property previously owned by the BLM was in litigation for 30 years. As part of the Notice and Order it was brought to their attention that the Historic Sites Inventory form for this particular property may not have been as thorough as it could have been. Planner Grahn clarified that the discussion this evening was strictly to determine whether or not the structure should remain significant on the Historic Sites Inventory. Planner Grahn stated that the building was previously identified as historic in 1995 on a reconnaissance level survey that the City conducted, but it was not included in a 1982 Historic District architectural survey. The 2009 HSI recognizes that it is a Hall-Parlor plan that has a compatible but non-historic side addition, and it has lost much of its historic integrity due to exterior changes to its materials. Planner Grahn provided background and history of the site as outlined in the Staff report, and presented slides showing photos of the original structure and how it was changed over time. Planner Grahn reiterated that the focus this evening was on historic significance and not the condition of the building. Planner Grahn stated that the LMC defines that any building, (main, attached, detached or public), accessory buildings and/or structures can be designated to the Historic Sites Inventory as a Significant Site if it meets the following criteria: a) The site must be at least 50 years old or has achieved significant in the past 50 years if the site is of exceptional importance to the community. The Staff believed the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop complies because the Sanborn maps shows that it was built between 1900 and 1910, making it over a 100 years old. b) The site retains its essential historic form and that major alterations were not made to the actual form of the building. Planner Grahn explained that changes that could alter the significance include changes to the main roof of the primary façade. She explained why the Staff believed the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop retains its essential historic form. She indicated the side gable that was built with the Hall-Parlor Plan and the rear addition. c) Has the site achieved importance in local or regional history, architecture, engineering or cultural association. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 71 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 3 Planner Grayn pointed out that as implied by the HSI, the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop is historically significant to their understanding of the Mature Mining Era. The building is located in what used to be the red light district and it was of the few remaining buildings. Planner Grahn pointed out the difference between the criteria for Significant and Landmark Designations. To be considered a local landmark the site needs to be at least 50 years old, retain its historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship as defined by the National Park Service for a National Register. It also needs to be significant in local, regional or national history. Planner Grahn explained that the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop would not comply because the loss of materials makes it ineligible for the National Register of Historic places. Planner Grahn recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and find that the criteria outlined shows that the building meets the criteria as defined by the LMC as Significant; according to the findings of fact and conclusions of law outlined in the Staff report. Board Member Melville understood that there was not an application to remove the structure from the Historic Sites Inventory. Planner Grahn stated that when the Staff was working with the owners to resolve the Notice and Order, the Planning Director recommended that the Staff should come before the Historic Preservation Board and reiterate that the structure should be left as Significant on the HSI because it meets the criteria. Planner Grahn clarified that if the structure had not met the criteria, she would be making a recommendation to remove it from the HSI. Board Member Melville noted that the original exterior siding was underneath a couple of layers of siding. She asked if that could be removed to bring it back to Landmark status. Planner Grahn stated that she had asked Cory Jensen with the State Historic Preservation Office the same question, because many of the historic homes have the retained historic materials but it is buried underneath other materials. Mr. Jensen told her that it depends on how much of the historic material was retained and how much could be salvaged. It also depends on how much of the historic material stayed intact during remodeling. Planner Grahn believed that things could be done to possibly return the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop to Landmark Status and possibly on the National Register. Board Member Bush asked why the structure was not on the 1985 survey. Planner Grahn was unsure. She stated that the reason could be because it was on BLM land and not within the Old Town core in the area designated as the Historic District. Planner Grahn remarked that a number of sites are outside of the Historic District but remain the on the Historic Sites Inventory. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 72 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 4 Board Member Bush asked if anyone knew the shape and size of the parcel that the house sits on. Planner Grahn replied that there was not a survey with that information. Board Member Holmgren noted that the earlier surveys were not very accurate. One survey shows her house as being built in 1957, but it is substantially older. Her other house was not even on the survey. She believed the current surveys are the most accurate. Madeline Smith, the owner, asked when it was changed from not being in the Historic District to coming into the Historic District. Planner Grahn replied that it was included in the HSI in 2009. Ms. Smith stated that as the owner she was never noticed. Otherwise, she would have dealt with it in 2009. Planner Grahn asked Ms. Smith if she was the owner in 2009. Ms. Smith stated that she has owned the property since 1979. Planner Grahn stated that she could not speak to past notification. She was not with the Planning Department when the Design Guidelines were revised in 2009 and the LMC was amended. Board Member Holmgren stated that no one was noticed. The survey was done and adopted by the City Council. Board Member White concurred. Patricia Abdullah clarified that every property owner was noticed if their structure was going on the inventory. She recalled that because this was still on BLM land, the notice would have gone to the BLM. Assistant City Attorney McLean stated that one reason why the Planning Director decided to bring this application to the Board was due to the possibility of a noticing discrepancy. This process allows the owners the opportunity to have the determination of significance evaluated by the HPB. Board Member Vance asked when Ms. Smith took possession of the property. He was told that it was in 1980. Board Member Vance wanted to know how that coincided with the BLM owning it in 2009. William Bertagnole, the applicant, provided a brief history. He explained that in 1980 it was purchased from Mary Dudley. During the process, Ms. Dudley’s husband passed away and they got a quit claim did from her. Two years later he received a letter from the BLM and the Mining Company telling them to get off their property. They had unpatented mining claims, which meant nothing, and they continued to try to make Mr. Bertagnole leave. He received another letter from the BLM informing him that he did not own the mineral rights and he needed to leave. Mr. Bertagnole refused to leave and it ended up in a 33 year court battle until the Spring of 2013. Mr. Bertagnole always understood that they were not in the Historic District and the building has been remodeled so much that the Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 73 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 5 historic elements and materials were gone. Mr. Bertagnole noted that a renter had started a fire in the back of the house and it destroyed the interior. Chair Pro Tem White pointed out that the original structure is still intact. Mr. Bertagnole agreed that the structure was there but it is not on a foundation and the house is crooked. Chair Pro Tem White remarked that the T111 siding is covering the original historic material and it would have to be inspected to know how much of the original material was retained. Chair Pro Tem White stated that the basic form, shape, size and mass of the house is still there, regardless of what occurred on the interior. Board Member Bush asked what Mr. Bertagnole intended to do with the structure. Mr. Bertagnole stated that he started the process when he was 30 or 40 years old, and at that time he probably would have rebuilt it. He is now 72 and he would like to sell it. Board Member Bush agreed that the building is badly damaged because it was left unattended for a long time, and it would be difficult to salvage any material. However, the form is still intact. If Mr. Bertagnole wanted to rebuild the form with in-period material, it was something he could support. Board Member Bush did not believe anyone on the HPB expected Mr. Bertagnole to make the old wood beautiful. The HPB was interested in saving or re-creating the form of the historic structure. Mr. Bertagnole replied that at his age he was not interested in building anything. Board Member Bush asked if Mr. Bertagnole was looking for a clean lot that he could sell. Mr. Bertagnole stated that he has had developers contact him wanting to purchase the property. He pointed out that the fire department, the police department, and the building inspectors have all said that the structure was trash. Three or four years ago the former Building Official, Ron Ivie, begged him to tear it down. However, he could not tear it down because it was his claim to the BLM since it was sitting on BLM ground. Mr. Bertagnole explained that he was very young when he purchased the home and was not aware that it was on BLM ground. His plan at that time was to tear down the house and rebuild. After spending years of time and money working on the house and he had no interest in rebuilding it now. All he wants is the ability to sell it so someone else could rebuild it. He is now faced with the issue of the structure being on the Historic Sites Inventory. Board Member Bush understood that Mr. Bertagnole wanted to get the value out of the home without redeveloping. He also understood that the developers who approached Mr. Bertagnole were not interested in buying unless they could tear down the house. Mr. Bertagnole replied that he wants to tear down the house because it is unsafe and a danger to the neighborhood. Construction people use the property to store materials and others use it as a dump. There have been drug and transient problems and the City has been after him to do something Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 74 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 6 about it. Therefore, he applied to demolish the house. His other choice is to cover it up, but plywood can be pried off and the problems return. Chair Pro Tem White clarified that the issue before the Board this evening was whether or not to keep the Significant Site designation. Board Member Bush stated that based on that issue, two of the three criteria were very clear. The material is gone but the form and age support keeping the Significant designation. He understood the hazards it poses to the property owner, but he was unsure how that could be addressed based on the criteria. Chad Root, the Chief Building Official, stated that like Ron Ivie he had issued a Notice and Order early last year when it was still BLM property. Mr. Root clarified that the City has no jurisdiction on federal or state entities. Therefore, when the ownership transferred to Mr. Bertagnole earlier this year, another Notice and Order was sent informing him that the structure needed to either be demolished or repaired. The Building Department later found out that the structure was listed as historically significant and the Notice and Order was changed to repair the structure. Mr. Root stated that the Building Department was looking at a mothballing effort in terms of repairing the damaged areas to protect from weather; and also boarding up the doors and windows from the inside to keep out transients. Mr. Bertagnole could not recall every being told that he could put plywood on the inside of the windows, and he could not recall ever being told to repair it. All the documents he read from any of the City entities have been to tear it down. Mr. Root clarified that the newest Notice and Order took away the option to tear it down because it is historic. Planner Grahn stated that per the LMC, the City does not favor demolition of buildings because it ruins the urban fabric and the history is lost. If restoration is not an option due to the dilapidated state of the building, there is always panelizing and reconstruction. She believed that was the only option at this point. Ms. Smith did not believe it was right that four years ago things suddenly changed and the structure was considered to be in the Historic District. She noted that it was ten years after the fire and it was impossible to repair or restore the house to its historic form. Board Member Holgrem concurred with Board Member Bush that the structure meets the criteria for a Significant designation. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 75 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 7 Board Member Bush pointed out that Mr. Bertagnole was stuck with a liability regarding safety issues. Mr. Bertagnole remarked that he is unable to insure the house and he would be personally liable. Board Member Bush stated that a chain link fence could be installed around the house but people would still find a way in. He stated that typically an owner wants to redevelop and the HPB would ask them to incorporate the form into their design, and to use as much material as possible. However, in this case, the owner only wants to eliminate a liability and has no interest in rehabilitating the house in any way. He asked if removing the liability could be tied to a commitment to rebuild that form with the land. The owner would no longer have the liability and the City could retain the Significant structure. Planner Grahn stated that through the Historic District Design Review process one option could be for the owner to tear down the structure but provide the financial guarantee and document the historic building. The City would retain the financial guarantee until the structure is reconstructed or meets what was approved with the HDDR. Planner Grahn stated that even though it was an option, the issue before the HPB this evening was determination of significance. She explained that the City was sympathetic to the liability issue and the Planning and Buildings Departments have been trying to find a workable solution for Mr. Bertagnole. Board Member Melville asked if there was a City program that could assist in securing the building. Mr. Root stated that the Building Department has an abatement program, which is a fund to abate certain structures and to assist; however it is a revolving fund. The City secures the doors and mothballs the building, and if the owner is not able to pay it back to the City, the money is recouped through their taxes. Chair Pro Tem White opened the public hearing. Bob Martin a resident across the street at 595 Deer Valley Loop, felt this matter was interconnected with a number of issues. He was unsure of the BLM situation with the City; however, he understood that the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop sits in the middle of the BLM piece. Mr. Martin stated that those four homes sit across from house and he has been the epicenter of the construction phase of Deer Valley Drive. Mr. Martin was unsure whether the City intended to work a deal with the BLM over this piece of property, but he believed the house is historic. This house and the other three houses that sit on that piece of property are the only things remaining from the red light district of Park City. Mr. Martin preferred that the City do something that piece of property rather than sell it to a developer. His attempts to get answers from the City or the BLM have been unsuccessful. Mr. Martin thought it was legitimate for the HPB to make a decision regarding the significance of the structure, but he also felt it was Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 76 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 8 important for the City to have a plan. He asked if the property with the other three houses was settled with the BLM. He noted that someone lives in one of those structures. Mr. Martin would like the City to put in a historic park rather than to allow development. His understanding was that the land would be traded and he could be looking at a large condo development on the last piece at the entrance to Deer Valley. Mr. Martin remarked that in terms of historic preservation, it was important to focus on the bigger picture. He has three ribbons on his fence indicating that his home is historic. His home and another home are the only two that still exist inside the Loop. Those two and the four homes on BLM land are the only historic homes in that area. Sandra Morrison, with the Park City Historical Society and Museum thanked the City for a terrific job creating the Historic Sites Inventory in 2009. They hired an extremely well qualified consultant who spent from 2006-2009 identifying all the historic structures in Park City. She noted that both the Historic Preservation Board and the City Council held public hearings before the HSI was adopted. Ms. Morrison welcomed anyone who wanted to do additional research to use the library at the Park City Museum. Ms. Morrison also commended the City on the decision to hire Cooper Roberts to conduct an intensive level survey, which she believed would answer some of the questions raised this evening regarding the amount of historic fabric remaining on the building. She recognized that some of the questions could not be answered tonight, but the Historical Society Museum fully supported the Planning Department and the listing of this house on the Historic Sites Inventory because it is a historic house. Ms. Morrison was pleased to hear about the mothballing effort and she believed it was a good interim plan. She offered the help of the Historical Society Museum and encouraged the owners to contact her. Alison Kitching, a resident at 670 Deer Valley Loop Drive, stated that her patio in the Portico Townhome complex was adjacent to the structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop. She is single and lives alone and she was uncomfortable having drug dealers next to her in that home. She has had to call the police twice to report activity outside the house. Ms. Kitching requested that the HPB do something with the structure that would help her feel secure. She thought she was moving into a safe community environment and she still believed that it was a good place to live. However, it would be better if the HPB could help with that issue. Ms. Kitching enjoys being around historic homes and that was one of the reasons why she moved to that area. She preferred that the house not be torn down and the property redeveloped. Ms. Kitching encouraged a solution where the current owners could work with a developer to stay within the same footprint and architecture and redeveloped in a way that fits the area. Chair Pro Tem closed the public hearing. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 77 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 9 Board Marian Crosby understood that the cost of mothballing the home would be the responsibility of the owner, and if the owner was incapable of paying for it that it would be added to the taxes and paid when the property is sold. Mr. Root explained that the responsibility goes to the owner. If the owner does not follow through with mothballing and taking care of the property, the City abates it under the Abatement of Dangerous Building code. At that point, the City hires a contractor to mothball the structure and cover the windows and doors. He was told that the burned out portion on this structure was not historic because it was a shed addition to the back of the house. Mr. Root stated that the main purpose is to protect the historic structure. The shed may come down because so much of it is burned out. Board Member Crosby asked if the burned out shed could be demolished as part of mothballing. Planner Grahn replied that from the Sanborn map it looks like the shed or at least a portion of the shed is historic. However, the Staff would have to research it further to be sure. Board Member Crosby asked if there were cost estimates. Mr. Root replied that the Building Department had not obtained any estimates. Board Member Holmgren reiterated that the HPB was only being asked to determine whether the structure should remain on the HSI as a Significant structure. Any other issues were not for discussion this evening. Planner Grahn stated that if the Board was interested in the abatement issue, she could bring it back as a work session item to give them a better understanding of the process as it applies to Old Town. Board Member Melville understood that part of the process for removing a site from the Inventory was that the owner has the burden of proving that it did not meet the criteria and that it should be removed from the list. Assistant City Attorney McLean explained that this particular issue was more of a hybrid. The HPB should evaluate it based on the criteria outlined in the Staff report from the standpoint of whether or not it meets the criteria of Significant. She noted that in 2009 when the structures were listed on the Inventory, all the owners were noticed. If the owner disagreed with the finding, they had the ability to have the HPB look more specifically at their structure to determine whether or not it was significant. Because of the issues with the land and the possibility that only the BLM was noticed and not the homeowner, the Staff felt it was appropriate for the HPB to relook at the determination. Board Member Melville clarified that the issue was unique to this property because of the BLM and owner dispute. She wanted to make sure the HPB would not be setting a precedent that all properties on the Historic Sites Inventory would have to be reconfirmed. City Attorney McLean replied that this was a unique situation because of the ownership issue. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 78 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 10 Board Member Melville believed the criteria were clear for this structure to remain a Significant site. The house is 50 years old. In comparing the 1938 photo with the current photo, it has retained its essential historical form. It also meets the criteria of local history due to its importance to the mining era. Board Member Holmgren felt strongly that the structure was significant. MOTION: Board Member Holgrem moved to keep the property at 633 Deer Valley Loop listed on the Historic Sites Inventory as a Significant Historic Site, in accordance with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law outlined in the Staff report. Board Member Crosby seconded the motion. VOTE: The motion passed. Board Member Kenworthy was not present for the vote. Findings of Fact – 632 Deer Valley Loop 1. 632 Deer Valley Loop is within the Residential-Medium Density (RM) zoning district. 2. There is an existing side gable hall-parlor structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop. This structure is currently listed on the Park City Historic Sites Inventory as a “Significant” Structure. 3. The existing structure has been in existence at 632 Deer Valley Loop since circa 1900. The structure appears in the 1904 and 1927 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. Furthermore, the Historic Site Form contains tax cards of the structure from 1949, 1958, and 1969. A late-1930s tax card photo also demonstrates that the overall form of the structure has not been altered. 4. The hall-and-parlor structure and later rear addition were both constructed within the Mature Mining Era (1894-1930) and are historic. 5. Though out of period, the enclosed side porch entrance added in the 1960s does not detract from the historic significance of the structure. 6. The existing structure is in serious disrepair and is not habitable in its current dangerous condition. 7. There is very little original exterior materials remaining on the exterior of the home. The original wood lap siding has been covered by layers of Bricktex and vertical wood siding. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 79 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 11 8. The double-hung windows on the façade were removed and expanded to install larger, undivided rectangular windows after 1969. The original wood double hung windows throughout were replaced by aluminum windows. 9. After 1969, the turned wood porch posts were replaced with new decorative metal columns. A brick chimney was installed above the enclosed side porch that was later repaired with thick layers of Portland Cement. 10. The structure is a hall-parlor plan and typical of the Mature Mining Era. 11. The rear addition of the structure, dating prior to 1927, was severely damaged in a fire on May 17, 1999. 12. The site meets the criteria as Significant on the City’s Historic Sites Inventory. 13. Built circa 1900, the structure is over fifty (50) years old and has achieved Significance in the past fifty (50) years. 14. Though the structure has lost its historic integrity due to the out-of-period alterations to its historic materials, it has retained its historical form. The out-of- period addition to the west elevation of the structure does not detract from its historic significance. 15. The structure is important in local or regional history because it is associated with an era of historic importance to the community, the Mature Mining Era (1894-190). Conclusions of Law – 632 Deer Valley Loop 1. The existing structure located at 632 Deer Valley Loop meets all of the criteria for a Significant Site as set forth in LMC Section 15-11-10(A)(2) which includes: (a) It is at least fifty (50) years old or has achieved Significance in the past fifty (50) years if the Site is of exceptional importance to the community; and (b) It retains its Essential Historical Form, meaning there are no major alterations that have destroyed the Essential Historical Form. Major alterations that destroy the Essential Historical Form include: (i) Changes in pitch of the main roof of the primary façade if 1) the change was made after the Period of Historic Significance; 2) the change is not due to any structural failure; or 3) the change is not due to collapse as a result of inadequate maintenance on the part of the Applicant or a previous Owner, or (ii) Addition of upper stories or the removal of original upper stories occurred after the Period of Historic Significance, or (iii) Moving it from its original location to a Dissimilar Location, or Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 80 of 208 Park City Historic Preservation Board November 13, 2013 12 (iv) Addition(s) that significantly obscures the Essential Historical Form when viewed from the primary public Right-of-Way. (c) It is important in local or regional history, architecture, engineering, or culture associated with at least one (1) of the following: (i) An era of Historic importance to the community, or (ii) Lives of Persons who were of Historic importance to the community, or Historic Preservation Board. (iii) Noteworthy methods of construction, materials, or craftsmanship used during the Historic period. Board Member Kenworthy arrived. 2. 820 Park Avenue, Rio Grande – Appeal of Staff’s Determination (Application PL-13-02108) Planner Grahn requested that the HPB review this appeal de Novo. They were looking at it anew to find whether or not unique conditions exist to move the building. Planner Grahn emphasized that the discussion should not focus on the design or what could be built on the site. Planner Grahn reported that Planning Director Thomas Eddington and Chief Building Official Chad Root had written a determination letter stating that unique conditions did not exist for this site. She had provided the Board with a copy of Director Eddington’s testimony, since he was out of town. Mr. Root was present to testify for himself. Chair Pro Tem White asked if any Board member had disclosures related to this appeal. Board Member Bush disclosed that he has worked with the appellant, Rory Murphy, on projects in the past. He did not believe that association would interfere with his judgment on this appeal. He and Mr. Murphy have no current business dealings. Assistant City Attorney McLean stated that if any of the Board members had anyone speak to them outside of this meeting concerning the appeal, that should also be disclosed, as well as the content of the conversation, since this was a quasi-judicial hearing. Jeff Love disagreed with Board Member Bush’s assessment of his relationship with Rory Murphy. Assistant City Attorney McLean clarified that Board Member Bush is entitled under the State Code to make a disclosure how he wishes. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 81 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 82 of 208 Exhibit C Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 83 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 84 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 85 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 86 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 87 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 88 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 89 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 90 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 91 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 92 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 93 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 94 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 95 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 96 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 97 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 98 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 99 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 100 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 101 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 102 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 103 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 104 of 208 Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 105 of 208 Board of Adjustments Council Chambers – City Hall April 15, 2014 NOTE: The recorder did not work properly for the duration of this meeting. These notes have been compiled to the best of staff’s ability. Recorder Notes by Makena Hawley Board Members: Richard Miller (RM), Hans Fuegi (HF), Ruth Gezelus (RG), Jennifer Franklin (JF), Mary Wintzer (MW), Steve Joyce (SJ) –(Liaison) - Quorum Staff: Anya Grahn (AG), Thomas Eddington (TE), Polly Samuels McLean (PS), Makena Hawley (MH) Meeting Called to order at 5:06 PM ROLL CALL All Members are present and accounted for. ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 18, 2014 MOTION: HF moved to approve VOTE: Seconded by MW ADOPTION OF MINUTES motion carried unanimously PUBLIC COMMUNICATION None STAFF/BOARD DISCLOSURES TE- None MW- I will be recusing myself because of a personal and business relationship with this applicant. TE- 333 Main affordable housing. In response to a request for information at the last meeting there is no requirement for affordable housing at this site. The original approval of this building did not require such. REGULAR AGENDA Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 106 of 208 Exhibit D RG -632 Deer Valley Loop – Appeal of Historic Preservation Board’s determination of historical significance of the site. AG- Identified as a significant site in 2009, applicants have been fighting with The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for years. The Bertonelis obtained ownership of the historic house. Was the building really significant? The staff was then tasked with doing background research Staff made a determination on that the site was indeed a historic site and should remain on the Historic Sites Inventory (HIS). This determination was appealed to the Historic Preservation Board (HPB). The HPB reviewed it, and agreed with staff’s determination – The site and structure are historic. PS provided information for clarification at the time of the appeal. PS- The applicants have submitted a report that was not heard by the HPB. Appeals to the HPB can be heard by the Board of Adjustments stated in the LMC. This body may consider it but if you view the newly provided report the BOA could remand back to HPB to be heard again with this new information in hand. If you believe the information contained in the report is not substantial, you may consider this info and hear the appeal tonight. AG – What would you all like to do? While I find their efforts towards the research commendable, I don’t personally think that it has relevance and the appeal should be heard tonight.. Bruce Baird (Applicant) - We would request it be remanded to the HPB –My clients didn’t understand the meeting with the HPB, they weren’t prepared. They want to return to HPB more prepared. If everyone agrees, we would like to return to HPB. RM- I would like to speak to that. The HPB probably has more expertise in this type of decision. I’m not sure how carefully we have to step around this line as far as introducing new evidence. I think what they presented is different from what the HPB heard. I have no problem sending this back to HPB. HF – New facts, are noted; after reading through the report again, I think the HPB would be interested in reviewing this report again. They are the experts here, more so than us. I think there is a lot of material that HPB has not yet heard. JF – I agree that the amount of research here justifies sending this back to the HPB RG – Should I open for public hearing? PS- Not necessary. RM- If they go back to HPB and they rule that it’s significant; do they still have the opportunity to appeal again here at the BOA? PS- Yes. You are not taking a position on this appeal at this time. Your decision tonight is simply whether to remand back to HPB. Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 107 of 208 RG- May I have a motion? RM- I move to remand the appeal back to HPB to look over the new evidence properly. HF – Seconded. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Meeting adjourned at 5:18 PM Historic Preservation Board - May 21, 2014 Page 108 of 208