GRAMA PACKET 2Board of Adjustment
Staff Report
Subject: 632 Deer Valley Loop
Author: Anya Grahn, Historic Preservation Planner
Project #: PL-13-02160
Date: April 15, 2014
Type of Item: Quasi-Judicial – Appeal of Historic Preservation Board’s
Determination of Significance
Summary Recommendations
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment hear the appeal of the Historic Preservation
Board’s (HPB) determination of significance of the historic site at 632 Deer Valley Loop.
The HPB determined that the site meets the criteria for designation as a “Significant” site.
Topic
Applicant: William and Juli Bertagnole
Location: 632 Deer Valley Loop
Zoning: Residential-Medium Density (RM) District
Adjacent Land Uses: Historic Residential-1 (HR1), Historic Residential-Low Density
(HRL), Estate (E), and Residential Development (RD) Districts
Reason for Review: Appeal of the Historic Preservation Board’s determination of
significance of the historic site at 632 Deer Valley Loop.
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. Sanborn 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. (The history of this structure is outlined further in the HPB
Report for November 13, 2013, Exhibit C.)
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 23 of 105
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 the rapid decline of the exposed walls and roof
joists; however, they are in surprisingly fair condition.
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. On August 21, 2013, a Notice and Order to
Vacate and Demolish the structure was issued by the Building Department 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, Planning Director, and Planning
Department staff.
Because of the limited information available in the HSI, the Planning Director directed staff
to conduct additional research to determine the historic significance of the 632 Deer Valley
Loop site. The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) determined that the structure should
remain on the inventory as a “Significant” site on November 13, 2013.
The Planning Department received an appeal of the HPB’s determination on November 25,
2013, within ten (10) days of the HPB’s determination.
Appeal and Burden of Proof
The specific appeal is to the Historic Preservation Board’s Determination of Significance.
LMC 15-11-10(B)(4) states that the Applicant or any party participating in the hearing may
appeal the Historic Preservation Board decision to the Board of Adjustment pursuant to
Section 15-10-7 of this Code. Appeal requests shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within ten (10) days of Historic Preservation Board final action.
Appeals shall be considered by the Board of Adjustment on the record made before the
Historic Preservation Board. Appeals to the Board of Adjustment will review factual matters
for correctness and determine the correctness of the decision of the land use authority in its
interpretation and application of the land Use ordinance.
Upon appeal, the Board of Adjustment shall conduct a hearing and shall review the matter
under de novo standard review. The BOA, in conformity with the provisions of the Code,
may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or
determination as ought to be made. The Owner bears the burden of demonstrating that the
HPB erred in their findings.
The applicant’s appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The applicant’s basis of appeal is
that:
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 24 of 105
1. There is no historic material or elements that may be significant.
2. It is an old building that retains its c. 1900 footprint, but there is no evidence that
the structure is significant to the regional history, architecture, engineering, or
culture. There is no evidence of significance in the lives of persons associated
with the building.
3. The applicant finds that the structure does not meet the criteria outlined in the
Municipal Code for designation as a “significant” structure.
Analysis
The applicant finds that the structure does not meet the criteria outlined in LMC 15-11-
10(A)(2) regarding the designation of the historic site. The following analysis addresses
their findings.
1. The applicant finds that there are no original log walls or any other elements that
may be significant.
Staff finds that log walls would likely relate to the settlement period of Utah or even the
region, and that the pioneer period is not the only period of significance. The structure
should be considered “significant” as part of the Mature Mining Era (1894-1930).
A single photograph from the late-1930s tax assessment depicts the structure in much the
same form as it exists today. 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
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 25 of 105
the gable on the west elevation. This photograph documents the appearance of the
structure during the Mature Mining Era.
The applicant is correct in that much of the historic character and original features of the
building have been lost. 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. No original wood windows remain.
The historic structural system of the building remains and has allowed the structure to
maintain its historic form. The hip roof of the front porch has been preserved, though steel
porch columns have replaced the turned wood columns. The central brick chimney and
wood entry door on the façade are also original elements.
Though many of the original features are not visible, they do remain. The historic wood
siding has been covered by layers of Bricktex and vertical wood siding. The wood trim
around the historic door and window openings exist as well, though their profiles have been
compromised by layers of cladding. If the Bricktex and existing wood siding were to be
removed, the second story gable window opening would likely be exposed or at least
shown to exist through ghost lines.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 26 of 105
2. The applicant finds that it is an old building that retains its c. 1900 footprint, but
there is no evidence that the structure is significant to the regional history,
architecture, engineering, or culture. There is no evidence of significance in the lives
of persons associated with the building.
In order for a structure to remain “Significant” on the City’s Historic Sites Inventory (HSI), it
must be 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.
As outlined in the Historic Sites Form, staff finds that this structure contributes to our overall
understanding of the history of the community. Along with the other residential structures
that make up the City’s historic districts, these houses provide insight and understanding of
the residential character of mining towns of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
including settlement pattern and socio-economic makeup.
Park City is one (1) of three (3) metal mining districts in the state during Utah’s mining
boom period (late-19th Century through early-20th Century). The city is one (1) of only two
(2) major metal mining communities to have survived to the present. As such, Park City has
the largest and best preserved collection of residential buildings of any Utah metal mining
town. As a whole, these structures provide the most complete documentation of the
residential character of mining towns of the period.
The structure at 632 Deer Valley Loop was once part of the larger Red Light District. Many
of the structures that once made up this neighborhood have been lost; however, four (4)
remain in close proximity to one another—632 Deer Valley Loop; as well as 622, 652, and
660 Rossie Hill Drive. The relationship between these four (4) houses demonstrates the
density of the Red Light District and this neighborhood that existed just outside the
congestion of the downtown.
The applicant is correct in that the structure is not historically significant based on the lives
of persons who were of Historic importance to the community. The original builder and
residents of this structure are unknown. It was likely also not designed by an architect but,
rather, by the property owner or a carpenter-builder.
Staff finds, however, that the structure is historically significant due to its methods of
construction, materials, and craftsmanship that reflect the Historic Period. Park City has the
state’s largest collection of late-19th Century and early-20th Century frame houses. The use
and application of simple building materials—including lumbered wood and brick—
represent traditional building patterns. The structure’s lack of foundation and frame
construction also depict a common construction technique in Park City.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 27 of 105
3. Lastly, the applicants argue that the structure does not meet the criteria for
significance established in the Municipal Code.
Staff and the Historic Preservation Board have found that the structure does meet the
criteria outlined in LMC 15-11-10(A)(2) for Significant Sites. As defined, 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:
(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.As previously described, the 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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 28 of 105
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
(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.
The HPB has found 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.
Future Process
Final Actions by the Board of Adjustment on Appeals may be appealed to Third District
Court within thirty (30) calendar days.
Staff Recommendation
Staff requests the Board of Adjustment review the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law and order and consider adopting them and denying the appeal.
Alternatives
1. The Board of Adjustment may reverse the Historic Preservation Board’s
determination of significance.
2. The Board of Adjustment may remand the appeal back to the Historic Preservation
Board to evaluate the new evidence.
3. The Board of Adjustment may direct staff to provide additional analysis and continue
the appeal to a future date.
Findings of Fact
1. 632 Deer Valley Loop is within the Residential-Medium Density (RM) zoning district.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 29 of 105
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
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
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 30 of 105
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.
Order
1. The appeal of the Historic Preservation Board’s determination of significance for 632
Deer Valley Loop is denied.
Exhibits
Exhibit A — Applicant’s appeal (November 25, 2013)
Exhibit B — Applicant’s report on historical significance (March 31, 2014)
Exhibit C — Historic Preservation Board Staff Report 11.13.13
Exhibit D — Historic Preservation Board Minutes, 11.13.13
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 31 of 105
Exhibit A
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 32 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 33 of 105
Exhibit B
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 34 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 35 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 36 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 37 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 38 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 39 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 40 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 41 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 42 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 43 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 44 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 45 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 46 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 47 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 48 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 49 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 50 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 51 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 52 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 53 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 54 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 55 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 56 of 105
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 57 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJH
Exhibit C
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 58 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 59 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 60 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 61 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 62 of 105
(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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 63 of 105
(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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 64 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 65 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 66 of 105
(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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 67 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJH Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 68 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 69 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 70 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 71 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 72 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 73 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 74 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 75 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 76 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 77 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJH Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 78 of 105
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 79 of 105
Exhibit B
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 80 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 81 of 105
632 Deer Valley Loop Photographs
Northwest Corner
West Elevation
Exhibit D
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 82 of 105
Northwest Corner
North Elevation (façade)
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 83 of 105
Northeast Corner
Close-up of East Elevation
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 84 of 105
East Elevation (note fire damage)
Southeast Corner
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 85 of 105
South Elevation
Fire Damage on South Elevation
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 86 of 105
Fire damage at southeast corner
Exposed roof eave, showing old growth timber
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 87 of 105
Wood floorboards on porch
Dilapidated vertical wood siding used on porch (as seen in 1930s tax photo)
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJH Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 88 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 89 of 105
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%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 90 of 105
Charred bead-board ceiling in kitchen
Antique nail and charred roof structure, interior
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 91 of 105
Fire-damaged rear addition. Note the horizontal lumber atop vertical studs.
Historic paneled wood door with antique hardware.
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 92 of 105
Historic interior wood window trim in front bedroom.
Wall paper applied atop wood wall structure
+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ%RDUG1RYHPEHU3DJHBoard of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 93 of 105
PARK CITY MUNICPAL CORPORATION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2013
BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: David White, Chair Pro Tem - 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.
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.
Exhibit D
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 94 of 105
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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 95 of 105
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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 96 of 105
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
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 97 of 105
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
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 98 of 105
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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 99 of 105
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
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 100 of 105
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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 101 of 105
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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 102 of 105
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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 103 of 105
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
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 104 of 105
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.
Board of Adjustment April 15, 2014 Page 105 of 105
1
PARK CITY MUNICPAL CORPORATION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2014
BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Chair John Kenworthy, Puggy
Holmgren, David White, Marion Crosby, Gary Bush, Hope Melville, Clayton
Vance
EX OFFICIO: Thomas Eddington, Kayla Sintz, Anya Grahn, Polly Samuels
McLean, Makena Hawley
ROLL CALL
Chair Kenworthy called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. and noted that all Board
Members were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 16, 2014
MOTION: Board Member Holmgren moved to APPROVE the minutes of April
16, 2014 as written. Board Member Bush seconded the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT
There were no comments.
STAFF/BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
Marian Crosby disclosed that she has a personal relationship with one of the
applicants on the agenda this evening; however, she felt it would not influence
her decision this evening.
Director Eddington asked if the Board was comfortable receiving printed packets
or if they preferred to utilize them electronically. By a show of hands, all the
Board members still wanted to receive printed packets.
Planner Grahn reported that the RFPs had gone out for the Historic Preservation
award.
Planner Grahn noted that the next HPB meeting was scheduled for June 4th,
which was their regular week to meet. Because of the July 4th holiday, the July
meeting would be scheduled for July 16th. She anticipated that the HPB would
be back on their regular schedule in August.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
2
REGULAR AGENDA – Discussion, Public Hearing and Possible Action
632 Deer Valley Loop – Determination of Significance Remanded back to the
Historic Preservation Board to Consider Newly Submitted Materials by the
Applicant (Application PL-13-02160)
Planner Anya Grahn reported that in November 2013 the HPB reviewed the
determination of significance for 632 Deer Valley Loop. On November 25, 2013
the applicant submitted an appeal, which was heard by the Board of Adjustment
in April 2014. Due to new evidence, the Board of Adjustment remanded it back
to the HPB for further consideration.
Planner Grahn stated that the structure was built as a two room structure in
1900. That description remained consistent with the 1907 Sanborn Fire
Insurance Map. Between 1912 and 1918 the structure was expanded into four
rooms, as shown on the 1917 and 1927 Fire Insurance Maps. Planner Grahn
reviewed an analysis the applicant had prepared of how the building was
expanded over the years. By the 1930’s the structure had a full-width front porch
and the side porch was enclosed. A rear addition was added in 1969. Planner
Grahn presented photos showing how the structure looked at the end of the
historic period and a little after the historic period in the late 1930’s. She
indicated a portion of the roof that overhangs. When the Staff initially did their
analysis they thought it was the addition on the back of the building. However,
Planner Grahn was unsure what the building was because it is evident from the
Sanborn maps that there were no outbuildings and the structure was too far
away to be visible in a photograph.
Planner Grahn remarked that the 1941 Sanborn map was inaccurate in that it did
not show the porch. However, as the applicant points out in his report, there is
no way to get to the front door without a porch or some type of landing. Planner
Grahn stated that the square shape of the structure is consistent with the 1949
tax card, but it shows the porch. She was unsure why the 1949 tax code shows
only two lines to the side porch. The structure remained the same over the
years, but in 1969 the rear addition was added.
Planner Grahn noted from the late 1930’s photograph that the porch had not yet
been enclosed. The end of the porch along the south wall was consistent with
the edge of the cable. In looking at a current photograph, it appeared that the
porch had been expanded. A symmetrical gable was evident in one photo, but a
later photo showed that the gable was interrupted to accept the shed roof of the
new addition.
Planner Grahn stated that the applicants had also done an analysis to show that
the four room structure is single wall construction, which was typical of historic
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
3
construction techniques used in Park City. This structure is unique in that it is
two sets of horizontal boards stacked on top of each other, rather than the typical
vertical interior siding with horizontal exterior siding. Planner Grahn presented a
photograph of the 1969 addition showing stud wall framing rather than single wall
framing. The window openings are more horizontal than the typical historic
vertical orientation. Planner Grahn pointed out the differences in material which
differentiates this addition from the previous addition.
Planner Grahn stated that a main source of disagreement is that the applicant
finds that the two-room historic mining structure that was built in 1900 is the
essential historic form. The applicant believes the historic form was lost because
of the addition that transformed it into four rooms and added a consistent gable
over the entire roof. The Staff disagrees with the applicant’s assessment.
Planner Grahn remarked that the essential historic form is defined by the LMC
as, “The physical characteristics of a structure that make it identifiable as existing
in or relating to an important era in the past.” She noted that the structure is a
wood frame dwelling with a relatively square footprint, and that portion remains.
It is one story in height and it still has the side porch.
Planner Grahn stated that equally important is that Universal Design Guideline
#2 states that, “Changes to a site or building that have acquired historical
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. In this case, the
four room structure has gained historical significance. It is what appeared in the
late 1930’s tax photograph and it is over 50 years old. It also has importance to
the Mature Mining Era. Planner Grahn reviewed a number of things that can
destroy the essential historic form, which were listed in the Staff report. Loss of
the roof pitch, adding additional stories, or relocating the structure outside of the
historic period can have an adverse effect on the essential historic form. In
looking at what the house looked like in the 1930’s compared to present day,
Planner Grahn believed that most of the details were similar.
Planner Grahn reported that the applicant also argued against Finding of Fact #4
in the original Staff report. The Staff amended the Finding to say that the four
room cottage was constructed within the mature mining era, and that the rear
addition, as the applicant proved in their analysis, was likely constructed around
1960. Planner Grahn noted that Finding of Fact #11, which is the new Finding of
Fact #10, was revised to say that the rear addition is not historic and that a fire
destroyed it in 1999. Because it is not historic it could likely be removed in the
future. The applicant also argues that many alterations have been made to the
interior and exterior of the structure, which have destroyed the historic fabric.
Planner Grahn remarked that some of the changes that occurred are not
uncommon in Park City and many houses have suffered these same alterations.
Planner Grahn thought they could determine that the essential historic form
remains for the reasons outlined in her presentation.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
4
Planner Grahn stated that the applicant also argues that there is no record of any
important person or event that occurred at this site. The Staff finds that the
structure contributes to the understanding of the Mature Mining Era. Park City
has one of the largest and best preserved groups of residential buildings built in a
metal mining town in Utah and across the nation. The single wall construction
method is unique to Park City and to the time period in which it was built. Four
remaining structures, three on Rossi Hill Drive and this house on Deer Valley
Loop, are an indication of what was once a much larger and denser historic
neighborhood. The three houses on Rossi Hill are still on BLM land and are
listed as part of the 1984 National Register nomination.
Planner Grahn remarked that another argument is that the historic context has
been lost, as outlined in a letter included as part of the applicant’s analysis. She
agreed that some of the historic context in the neighborhood has been lost, but a
lot of it still remains. Planner Grahn noted that the LMC designation for
Significant does not require them to consider the historic context in terms of what
the neighborhood looks like. She believed the three remaining houses in front of
this house speak to what the neighborhood used to look like.
Planner Grahn reviewed the criteria for a Significant Site outlined on page 30 of
the Staff report, and explained why she believed the house at 632 Deer Valley
Loop meets the criteria. Planner Grahn stated that the consequences of not
taking the Staff’s recommended action is that the site could be removed from the
Historic Sites Inventory, which would make it eligible for demolition.
Bruce Baird, legal counsel representing the applicant, stated that he helped write
the Salt Lake City Historic Code when he was with the Salt Lake Legal
Department. The Code received a number of awards for how well it helped
preserve Salt Lake City.
Mr. Baird stated that the applicant, Bill Bertagnole, spent 32 years fighting the
BLM for ownership of this property. He would explain why that was important for
a reason he would talk about later regarding the demolition after the fire. Mr.
Baird remarked that when the HPB met in November 2013 the applicants were
not represented by Counsel and they did not understand the process or what to
expect. Since that time they retained legal counsel and a consultant, and went
before the Board of Adjustment. He pointed out that the Board of Adjustment
remanded it back to the HPB to make them aware of the information contained in
the applicant’s analysis.
Mr. Baird presented his response to the Staff report. Mr. Baird stated that a large
part of historic analysis is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether
something is more or less historic is somewhat of a judgment call. He referred to
the two comparison photos on page 20 of the Staff report and noted that one
difference between the two is that all of the windows were changed. There was
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
5
also new addition in the rear and the building mass has changed. He pointed out
how the siding had gone from horizontal to vertical. A chimney was added and a
side porch was enclosed. Mr. Baird suggested that the difference between the
photos shows that the historical integrity of the building is lost.
Mr. Baird referred to the photo on page 22 of the Staff report captioned, “photo
shows stud wall framing and original window openings.” He felt that was
incorrect and that the photo actually shows a building falling down with a hole in
the roof and everything snow covered. To say that the photo shows the stud wall
is to overlook the most important aspect, which is a building falling down. Mr.
Baird stated that there was a major fire in this building, and after the fire the City
ordered this building to be demolished. At that time the structure was vastly
older than 50 years. The only reason the building was not demolished at that
time was because Mr. Bertagnole needed the continuing existence of the building
as part of his due diligence claim with the BLM to gain ownership. He noted that
the building condition has worsened since the fire but the applicant is prohibited
from demolishing it now.
Mr. Baird referred to page 23 of the Staff reported and remarked that the Staff
had changed their argument from the historic form being a two room structure in
1918 to now say that the historic form is the four room building from 1930. Mr.
Baird felt it was important to note that the Staff had changed their argument,
which negates the newly proposed Finding of Fact #11, because it is untrue that
the four room cottage was constructed between 1919-1918. Mr. Baird clarified
that the two-room structure was constructed during that time. Making it a four
room structure was an addition that came later. Mr. Baird thought there were
arguments for whether or not it detracts from its essential historical form.
However, other parts of the Staff report clearly acknowledge that it does detract
from the historic form. The rear addition was specifically found to be non-historic
and it could be demolished. He pointed out that removing the addition but
leaving the house in place would cause a significant expense to fix the back of
the house.
Mr. Baird read from page 26 of the Staff report, “Moreover, the Staff finds that the
many alterations have destroyed much of the historic integrity of the structure.”
He gave Planner Grahn credit for her candor in acknowledging that much of the
historic integrity of the structure is destroyed. He suggested that it was not within
the Code or any legal principle not to allow a building to be demolished if much of
its historic integrity has been destroyed.
Mr. Baird commented on the statement on page 27 of the Staff report stating that
there is no record of any historic person or event that occurred at this site, and
noted that the Staff simply says that normal people lived there and normal people
are important. Mr. Baird stated that this was not the way historic preservation
works. Average, middle-class miners cannot be deemed historic people simply
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
6
by saying that it proves how middle-class people lived. Mr. Baird stated that he
heard Planner Grahn talk about how this building illustrated the historic density of
this area. However, later in her presentation she described the density as it
really is, and as shown on the map on page 28, as rural. He remarked that it
could not be considered evidence of historic density and called rural at the same
time. It is one or the other but not both. In terms of the neighboring structures,
three of those structures are owned by the BLM. One is leased and the other
two are allowed to rot away. There is no reason to assume that the BLM will do
anything to save the other two structures. Regarding the historic context issue,
Mr. Baird did not believe the City Code has context as a determining factor. He
understood that the City was in the process of redoing its Historic Code to match
the Federal Code, which does have historic context as a determining factor. He
thought everyone could agree that these four houses sitting in the middle of a
massive ski resort surrounded by condos had very little context remaining.
Mr. Baird referred to the criteria for designating historic sites on page 29 of the
Staff report, and read from the second paragraph. “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 site to remain significant. He
understood that to mean that if the structure was reconstructed exactly as it was,
it would go back to being significant. Even if that was true, it did not prove that
this building in its current condition was worth restoring.
Mr. Baird referred to page 30 of the Staff report and Planner Grahn’s argument
that because the structure has been changed a number of times proves that it is
historic, because part of the history of Park City is the growth and evolution and
changing of structures. He was unsure how she reached that conclusion other
than to imply that the more you change something from its past the more
important it is to keep it for its past.
Mr. Baird commented on the process. If the HPB determines that the structure is
historic, the applicant would appeal their decision to the Board of Adjustment. If
the Board of Adjustment agrees with the HPB, that decision would be appealed
to the District Court. He emphasized that there was no way this building would
be reconstructed unless it was ordered by the US Supreme Court or the Utah
Supreme Court. At best, the building will sit for years until the next heavy snow
knocks it down completely. He did not believe either court would order a
property owner to spend the money required to rebuild a structure in this
condition when its historical integrity has been destroyed, according to the Staff
report. Mr. Baird stated that if the City really likes this building and thinks it is
historic, the applicant would sign over a release and the City could move it
anywhere it sees fit. That was another option for their consideration.
Mr. Baird believed that the Staff report shows that the structure is not historic,
and that the appropriate remedy is to allow its demolition. Mr. Baird read from
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
7
Finding of Fact #12, “…though the structure has lost its historic integrity due to
the out of period alterations to its historic materials.” He noted that the Staff
report goes on to say that the structure has retained its historic form; and Mr.
Baird felt he had established that it did not. Even if it did, this building was not
historic and it will not stay standing. He asked the HPB to allow the owner to
take care of this out-of-context, already destroyed, burned-out building that the
City previously determined should be demolished.
Board Member Holmgren noted that Mr. Baird had compared the photographs on
page 20, which showed the structure from different angles. She pointed out that
the photos shown on page 25 showed the structure form the same angle of the
old and the new, and she thought it was a better comparison of the roof line and
the gables. Mr. Baird clarified that the differences he pointed out in the
construction were the same regardless of which angle is shown. Board member
Holmgren disagreed. She thought the roofline and the gables looked the same in
both photos on page 25. It was graphically different on page 20. Mr. Baird
remarked that the roofline and the gable were all that was left. If the HPB
thought that was enough to call it historic, they could vote against the applicant
and he would fight it.
Chair Kenworthy asked if they released the house to the City whether they would
release the land with it. Mr. Baird answered no.
Board Member Holmgren stated that when the HPB discussed this issue in
November 2013, she felt the structure met the criteria for Significant designation.
and her opinion had not changed.
Chair Kenworthy opened the public hearing.
Ruth Meintsma, a resident at 305 Woodside, referred to the four bullet points on
Page 16 of the Staff report and the issues raised by the applicant. The first bullet
point - separate building periods have resulted in a loss. She believed that every
structure on the HSI has similar additions, add-ons, and siding changes. This
particularly structure was not unique on that fact. The second bullet point – Many
alterations on the interior/exterior of the structure have destroyed any historic
fabric. She thought it was better to say “some or much” historic fabric because a
lot of it may be covered up as opposed to actually missing. Ms. Meintsma noted
that the term “fabric” is not considered in the Determination of Significance. It
only talks about essential form. In her opinion, the essential form is retained with
this structure. Ms. Meintsma stated that the fourth bullet point- The site has lost
historical context. She pointed out that context is not considered in a significant
structure. It is only considered in a Landmark structure for DOS. If the Code
changes in the future where context is considered for Significant structures, she
has many comparisons of the Sanborn maps to Google maps showing that tons
of context is still available around that structure.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
8
Ms. Meintsma referred to the third bullet point – No record of any important
person or events. She assumed the history of ownership on page 84 of the Staff
report was a BLM list because it looked different from the Summit County
ownership format. Ms. Meintsma had researched the list to find any names that
may have been in the Park Record. However, when she reached 1919 and the
name Willis A. Simmons, she found that Mr. Simmons was a part of park City
history. She presented slides of her research and what she learned about Mr.
Simmons. Ms. Meintsma noted that Willis Simmons lived in Park City four years
before he lived at 632 Deer Valley Loop. He lived at 632 for eleven years. Ms.
Meintsma noted that in 1918 Carl Hoger transferred the property to Willis A.
Simpson. The structure is described as a four room dwelling house. She
pointed out that Mr. Willis had 11 children and the house was expanded. The
Staff report indicates that the addition was constructed to meet the growing
needs of the homeowner. Ms. Meintsma had proof that there is history and the
character of Park City in this house at 632 Deer Valley Loop, and the City should
not allow it to be demolished.
Mr. Baird believed that the evidence produced by Ms. Meintsma was a definite
stretch. Having to go that far to claim a person of historical significance only
proved that all they had were rooflines and gables. Chair Kenworthy informed
Mr. Baird that the purpose of this meeting was to hear new evidence and that the
Board appreciates the efforts of the public.
Jill Lesh, stated that she drives by this conclave of houses and she would hate to
see one house compromised because each one is critical to this diminished
mass of houses. It is important to be reminded that that area is also part of the
historic mining era
Chair Kenworthy closed the public hearing.
Board Member Holmgren stated that she has lived in Park City for more than 25
years. Just because Mr. Simmons was not a higher authority in town did not
mean the house was not significant. What is significant, and what they have held
on to for some many years is the ongoing history. The applicants’ representative
presented nothing new that would change her mind. She still believed the
structure met the criteria for being designated Significant. Board Member
Holmgren was unsure whether the City has a policy to prevent demolition by
neglect. She understood that one structure was being held to task on Park
Avenue and she suggested that the City should take that direction on this
structure.
Chair Kenworthy reiterated that the HPB was hearing this issue for the second
time because it was remanded back to them to consider new evidence. He
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
9
emphasized that their discussion should only focus on the new evidence
presented.
Board Member White echoed Board Member Holmgren. In his opinion, the
original historic massing and roof line was retained. It was unclear what historic
material was under the existing non-historic siding, but he would still maintain
that this structure is Significant.
Board Member Crosby noticed that the lot lines were shown on the Sanborn
maps. The GIS map shows the lot line around the structure at 632, but then it
shows multiple ownership and no lot lines on the balance of the property. She
wanted to know why there were no lot lines and why it only shows the parcel
numbers that are combined ownership. Board Member Crosby asked about the
remaining BLM land that was showing in the ownership on the GIS.
Director Eddington was unsure when the property transferred to the BLM, but he
understood that the people who lived in the houses retained renter squatter rights
to the houses.
Bill Simon stated that he lives directly above the parcel in question. He
understood that Board Member Crosby was asking why there were tax ID
numbers but no lot outlines. He explained that the BLM owns the land but it does
not own the houses. The Summit County tax records identify individual owners
of those structures, and those pertain to the Tax ID numbers. Board Member
Crosby asked why the lot lines appear in the Sanborn maps. Mr. Simon
assumed that back then there was less of a definition as to who owned the
property. Therefore, the Sanborn maps would just outline what looked like
someone’s land. Director Eddington clarified that it likely preceded BLM
ownership where it was consolidated. Mr. Simon stated that from a legal chain of
history, the situation is that the BLM shows title to this parcel plus the triangle
above it, plus the triangle further up the hill.
Board Member Crosby asked if a copy of the Notice to Vacate that was issued in
2013 was included in the Staff report. Planner Grahn stated that it was a
standard building Notice and Order to Repair, but it was not included it in the
Staff report.
Board Member Crosby stated that she would not argue that the site meets the
criteria for a Significant site, and that based on the 1995 and 2009 Renaissance
Level Surveys it should be on the HSI, nor that the staff erred in their initial
analysis regarding when and where the additions were made to the structure,
and that the structure did retain its essential historic form. As a member of the
HPB she fully supports and encourages preservation of historic structures,
especially the structures that have appeared in water color paintings over the
years. They are an essential part of the historic fabric of Park City for all the
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
10
reasons that the Staff outlined in the Staff report, and for the new evidence
presented.
Board Member Crosby had visited the site twice and in the Notice to Vacate
Order that was issued by the City, there seemed to be enough evidence to
support that the structure is in serious disrepair and has been deemed
uninhabitable. In using the LMC and the Historic District Guidelines as their
tools, Board Member Crosby questioned whether the HPB could subjectively
reach a decision for this structure to remain a Significant site without placing an
undue economic burden on the owners. In addition, the owners have stated that
when they were litigating with the BLM they were not given proper notice that
their property was being placed on the Historic Sites Inventory.
Board Member Crosby found this to be a difficult situation. She understood that
some of the Board members felt strongly that it should remain a Significant site;
but she was not that certain based on the new evidence presented, the Staff
report, and the reasons for why the building was deemed uninhabitable.
Director Eddington responded to Board Member Crosby’s question about
whether being deemed uninhabitable would justify removing it from the Historic
Sites Inventory, and stated that the answer was no. He noted that many of the
historic sites are uninhabitable or have other issues.
Board Member Crosby felt the HPB was being asked to make a difficult decision
under the circumstances. She believed it was forcing a moratorium on these
types of homes. She also believed that it was an undue hardship on the owners.
However, if the Board is limited to basing their decision on the historic site and
whether it retained its historical form under the alterations made over the years, if
that is the preview of this board, she would have to agree with the keeping the
Significant designation.
Board Member Bush remarked that this issue speaks loudly to what they struggle
with in the Historic District. It is a diamond in the rough and they somehow need
to change the dynamics. He was unsure how that could be done and whether
additional grants, tax relief, or other incentives would help. Board Member Bush
thought it was clear that this was a “hot potato” and that the Board was imposing
their will on these property owners. He questioned whether they have the right
morally and legally in a property rights state to impose their will. That was the
reality they were dealing with.
Chair Kenworthy agreed that this was a difficult issue with extremely unique
circumstances. However, the HPB could only stay within their boundaries and
look at it from the scope of their purview.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
11
Board Member Bush stated that often when they designate the historic
structures, particularly in Landmark situations, they are committing the property
owners to be curators, and that is a huge responsibility and a financial burden.
He suggested that eventually the owner, or a potential new owner, would realize
the potential for a historic property and the best use of it. Board Member Bush
believed all the essential form of the structure was still there, and it met the
criteria for a Significant designation. For those reasons he supported leaving the
structure as Significant on the Historic Sites Inventory. Board Member Bush felt
it was important for the Board to understand that the house would be demolished
if they decided to remove it from the HSI. He could not see how the house could
be restored or rehabilitated. It would be demolished and rebuilt and he believed
that was the proper course. The question was how to make it attractive for the
property owner to go in that direction. Board Member Bush recommended that
the HPB keep the structure on the HSI and explain to the applicant that they
were not expected to repair or restore this fabric. He pointed out that the owners
were in a predicament because they could not realize the value of the house until
they sell it, and no one will buy it until the house is gone and rebuilt. He asked if
the City could allow the owners to get rid of this hazard, but commit that form to
the site.
Director Eddington stated that Board member Bush was talking about
panelization and/or reconstruction, which is frequently done with other structures.
It is a viable option for the owners. Other opportunities include adding new
additions that are done correctly in accordance with the Design Guidelines.
Board Member Bush asked if the City has ever encumbered the title to the
property with an obligation to replace the form. Assistant City Attorney McLean
stated that the decision whether to reconstruct and/or panelize is considered
when someone comes in with a preservation plan. It has its own process and the
process is considered in the Guidelines. When someone is ready to do
reconstruction or repair a historic house and submits a preservation plan, a
financial guarantee is put in place to make sure that the preservation plan is
adhered to. Ms. McLean commented on the distinction between demolition and
reconstruction. Demolition means it goes away forever and it is removed from
the Inventory. Reconstruction means the structure needs to be built back to its
essential form that now exists. If the structure remains on the HSI, the applicant
has the opportunity to submit a preservation plan and a plan for any associated
development, and work with the City to try to achieve it.
Board Member Bush recalled that the applicant previously stated that they were
not interested in restoring the house, and without an application that process will
never happen. He suggested the possibility of trying to create a new solution
that works for everyone.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
12
Assistant City Attorney McLean stated that every situation is different. She
pointed out that several houses in Park City are in very poor condition, which is
basically demolition by neglect. Sometimes owners do not maintain the historic
house. If it falls down it is removed from the HSI and, the applicant no longer has
to adhere to the Inventory. Ms. McLean clarified that this was only one scenario
and there were many other reasons why that could happen. The City has begun
to address demolition by neglect through the Guidelines and the process. If a
house is in disrepair the owner is required to stabilize it so it remains standing
and continues to retain its form.
Assistant City Attorney remarked that the purview for the HPB was whether or
not this house meets the criteria for a Significant designation on the Historic Sites
Inventory.
Board Member Bush asked if historic integrity was form, material, location or
something else. The term is used frequently and he was unsure what it meant.
Planner Grahn replied that it was all of the above. Historic integrity is looking at
what exists and being able to tell what it looked like during the historic period.
For example, replacing historic materials with different materials takes away
some of the integrity and character of when it was originally built. Its historic
location also contributes to the integrity of the structure.
Assistant City Attorney McLean asked Planner Grahn to clarify Finding of Fact
#12 since the finding indicates that the structure has lost its historic integrity.
Planner Grahn suggested revising Finding #12 to say, “Though the structure has
lost some of its historic integrity due to out-of-period alterations, such as the non-
historic siding, aluminum windows and replacement of porch posts, it has
retained its essential historic form. The out-of-period addition to the south and
west elevations of the structure do not detract from its historic form”. Planner
Grahn recommended including additional findings of facts after the Board had
made their comments.
Chair Kenworthy appreciated the comments from Board Member Bush because
this unique situation is very conflicting. Chair Kenworthy noted that Councilman
Dick Peek was in attendance. He encouraged Mr. Peek to ask his fellow Council
members to fund some of these grant programs so the City would have a
mechanism to help the owners. Within their purview, the HPB was looking at this
form and finding out new evidence and new history about the occupants of this
building. It was a difficult situation for the HPB. Chair Kenworthy believed that if
the City had better funding and the owners understood the process of applying
for financial assistance, it would help with historic preservation.
Councilman Peek stated that the City Council was currently in budget talks and
he encouraged the Board members to attend the meetings or send the City
Council a letter outlining the importance of financial assistance.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
13
Board Member Vance was grateful for all the comments and he thanked Board
Member Bush for his comments. As a member of the HPB, he felt it was both a
blessing and a burden to be able to make these decisions. He clarified that none
of the Board members were against the applicants, but they were obligated to
uphold the current laws. Based on the Findings of Fact, Board Member Vance
did not believe anything presented this evening provided additional evidence that
would persuade him to change the previous decision. Board Member Vance
noted that the applicant’s attorney had mentioned the Old North Church in
Boston during his presentation. He thought it was an ironic example considering
that the Old North Church is out of context and surrounded by new modern
buildings. Board Member Vance stated that this very dilapidated but wonderful
historic house could be something very similar in the future. Board Member
Vance encouraged the applicants to continue their pursuit and the HPB would
continue to follow what they were obligated to do, which it to preserve Park City’s
historical character.
Board Member Melville noted that since the last meeting the house had been
boarded up and secured from vandalism. She thought that was a positive step
forward. Board Member Melville stated that the Staff report was very
comprehensive and everything was addressed, including the new evidence. She
agreed that the page 25 comparison of the 1930s tax photo with the current one
helps make it clear that the essential historic form is there. Board Member
Melville appreciated that the applicant would prefer to have vacant land, but the
building meets the criteria for a Significant site per the Code. It is at least 50
years old, it retains its essential historic form and it is in the historic era. It is not
Landmark but it is Significant. Board Member Melville did not believe they could
treat this property any different than they treat other similar properties. She
agreed that this situation highlights the importance of historic preservation grants
and having more funds from the City to offer assistance. It does cost more to
own and maintain a historic property, and it benefits everyone in the City.
Chair Kenworthy stated that public hearings are not typically re-opened, but
because this was a unique situation he was interested in hearing additional input
or questions.
Someone wanted to know what other properties in and around Park City looks
like the one in question. Chair Kenworthy replied that there is a very dilapidated
property on Park Avenue that has significant problems very similar to the
property at 632. There were at least a dozen other properties throughout the
City. Chair Kenworthy thought it was unfortunate that so many historic
homeowners are faced with these difficult situations.
Patricia Smith stated that she was instrumental in bringing historic preservation
to Park City, and she was one of the original two-person campaigns to get 13
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
14
independent sites listed on the National Register and to get two historic districts
formed. She started the Park City Museum and she re-established the Park City
Historical Society and the cemetery preservation. She has been a
preservationist since 1976. She instigated the tax reform act in Park City to
begin block grants on Main Street for rehabilitation. Ms. Smith thought it was
important to make Park City Codes match the Federal Guidelines. The City was
missing the most important guideline, which is context. Context is the buildings
that used to be around this building. It would be the outhouse, the woodshed,
the underground food storage, and other elements in this property that ties it to
its function, history and use.
Ms. Smith noted that the City has commissioned Cooper Roberts to do a full
historic sites survey on the 400 existing properties in Park City within the next
two years. One of the things they will be doing is adopting the criteria of context.
Ms. Smith agreed that this particular situation was very contentious. She felt
very gratified with this last Staff report because they had been carefully
considered and their interests were represented and answered. However, the
reality is that the Bertagnole’s will put the property up for sale. It is maximum
density zoning and it can hold four triplexes without the house. If the house
remains it would be three triplexes and this house would be a vestibule addition
on to one of the triplexes and incorporated into the new redevelopment. Ms.
Smith pointed out that the house itself would not be respected as to its
boundaries from the public view shed. It will simply be incorporated into another
building. If the Bertagnole’s do not put the property up for sale, they cannot
afford to, nor do they have any interest in fixing the house. They have already
invested $261,000 into this project. They now own the property and they own the
land. Theirs is the first patent received in that entire area. Before that it was
squatters rights and no deeds.
Ms. Smith stated that if Cooper Roberts brings Park City up to date with the
Federal standards in the next two years, this house, having lost all of its context,
will be delisted. Ms. Smith did not have solutions, but she could say with
confidence that this little house would not be visible from any angle because of
future development. If they want a reminder of their history in Deer Valley, she
suggested that it could be a park. They could form a non-profit support group to
acquire those buildings and restore them as public property. Ms. Smith
reiterated that in two years when the context criteria is written, the house will
either be demolished or it will become a front room for a triplex.
Ms. Smith understood how difficult it was for the HPB to do their work. She
commented on the process and noticing. By going through this process they
found that the requirements and the timing on documents and communications
were hard to figure out. They were never notified about the first public hearing.
Secondly, they were never told that they had the opportunity to appeal because
the notice went to the BLM and not the owners. It is a confusing process and
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
15
she would like to see something smoother and more direct. One suggestion
would be to re-examine the notice times.
Chair Kenworthy thanked Ms. Smith for her time and he hoped she understood
that the HPB had considered this carefully from every viewpoint.
Chair Kenworthy closed the public hearing.
Assistant City Attorney McLean recommended adding a finding of fact stated that
historic materials currently exist on the house. Another finding should outline the
essential historic form that still exists. Ms. McLean noted that there was
significant reliance on the 1930’s tax photo and she recommended adding a
finding of fact referencing the 1930s photo and that the structure essentially looks
the same in the more recent photograph. Ms. McLean felt it was important to
have that information contained in the Findings of Fact to support why the HPB
made their decision in the event that it is litigated.
Planner Grahn read the additional Findings of Fact for consideration as follows:
Finding #17 - Historic materials that exist include wood siding beneath layers of
Bricktex and vertical siding; the original window opening on the west elevation;
original full-width porch and roof; original brick chimney on the four (4) –room
structure; and single wall construction.
Finding #18 - Out of period materials visible on the historic house today include
the aluminum windows, non-historic vertical wood siding, decorative metal porch
posts, changes to window sizes, and changes to roofing materials.
Finding #19 - The structure retains its Essential Historic Form in that the physical
characteristics of the structure that make it identifiable as existing in or relating to
an important era in the past include the original four (4)-room side gable cottage
with full width porch.
Board Member Bush thought they should say that the porch is on the front.
Planner Grahn agreed and added, with full-width porch on the front.
Finding #20 - The structure meets the criteria for local designation as significant
as the two (2)-room structure is nearly 113 years old, though the renovation to a
four (4)-room cottage was completed between 1912-1918. The structure retains
its Essential Historic Form in that the 1969 addition does not negatively impact
the four (4)-room side gable cottage and full-width porch form. The structure is
important to local history, architecture, an culture in that it contributes to our
understanding of Park City’s Mature Mining Era (1894-1930) and documents
settlement patterns, building materials, construction techniques, and socio-
economic makeup.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
16
Assistant City Attorney McLean recommended adding another Fact regarding the
evidence presented by Ruth Meintsma showing that Willis Simmons lived in the
house and was recognized as a notable person in the Park Record. Ms. McLean
requested that Ms. Meintsma provide the Staff with a copy of her presentation.
Planner Grahn drafted Finding of Fact #21 - There is evidence that W.A.
Simmons lived in the house, and he is recognized as notable to Park City’s
history.
Finding #22 - The Essential Historic Form is depicted in the late 1930s historic
tax photograph and can be seen in relation to the photo on page 25.
Chair Kenworthy asked if they should address the fact that the home is still in its
original location.
Planner Grahn drafted Finding #23 - The structure is in its original location.
Assistant City Attorney McLean added Finding #24 - No additions obscure the
Essential Historic Form when viewed from the primary public right-of-way. No
addition of other stories occurred after the period of historic significance, and
there have been no changes in the pitch of the main roof of the primary façade.
Juli Bertagnole, one of the owners, stated that the three people who own this
house were not financially or physical able to do what the HPB was asking them
to do. In her mind, reconstruction is not preservation. Reconstruction is tearing
down the building to reconstruct it.
Chair Kenworthy believed that Ms. Smith understood the process and the
different options. He pointed out that the Board was encouraging the City
Council to provide financial assistance through the grant program.
Ms. Bertagnole stated that the owners did not have time to wait for tax credits or
financial grants. They needed to be able to sell their property. Chair Kenworthy
assured Ms. Bertagnole that the Board understood the uniqueness of the
situation and the owners’ frustration. Ms. Bertagnole asked for a clear
explanation of what she should tell a potential buyer in terms of what they would
be required to do if they purchase the property. Chair Kenworthy reiterated that
Ms. Smith understood the process and she could explain it to Ms. Bertagnole.
Assistant City Attorney McLean explained that because it was such a lengthy
analysis, the HPB was considering the analysis in the Staff report as part of the
Findings of Fact, as well as the new evidence presented this evening.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
17
Assistant City Attorney McLean added Finding #25 - The analysis of the report is
included herein with the new evidence.
Board Member Melville asked if the change to Finding #12 that was mentioned
earlier in the discussion was already incorporated in the Findings of Fact.
Planner Grahn answered yes.
MOTION: Board Member Holmgren made a motion that based on the evidence
heard this evening, and the Findings of Fact, as amended with the additional
Findings 17 through 25, that the structure should be kept on the Historical Sites
Inventory as a Significant designation. Board Member Vance seconded the
motion.
VOTE: The motion passed. Board Member Crosby voted against the motion.
Chair Kenworthy encouraged the owners to apply for a grant. Board Members
Melville and Crosby expressed an interest in seeing the park that Ms. Smith had
suggested come to fruition.
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 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.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
18
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.
12. Though the structure has lost some of its historic integrity due to the out-of-
period alterations to its historic materials—such as the non-historic siding,
aluminum windows, and replacement of the porch posts—it has retained its
Essential Historic 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.
17. Historic materials that exist include wood siding beneath layers of Bricktex
and vertical siding; the original window opening on the west elevation; original
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
19
full-width porch and roof; original brick chimney on the four (4) –room structure;
and single wall construction.
18. Out of period materials visible on the historic house today include the
aluminum windows, non-historic vertical wood siding, decorative metal porch
posts, changes to window sizes, and changes to roofing materials.
19. The structure retains its Essential Historic Form in that the physical
characteristics of the structure that make it identifiable as existing in or relating to
an important era in the past include the original four (4)-room side gable cottage
with full width porch on the front.
20. The structure meets the criteria for local designation as significant as the two
(2)-room structure is nearly 113 years old, though the renovation to a four (4)-
room cottage was completed between 1912-1918. The structure retains its
Essential Historic Form in that the c.1969 addition does not negatively impact the
four (4)-room side gable cottage and full-width porch form. The structure is
important to local history, architecture, an culture in that it contributes to our
understanding of Park City’s Mature Mining Era (1894-1930) and documents
settlement patterns, building materials, construction techniques, and socio-
economic makeup.
21. The Essential Historic Form is depicted in the late 1930s historic tax
photograph and can be seen in relation to the photo on page 25.
22. There is evidence that W.A. Simmons lived in the house, and he is
recognized as notable to Park City’s history.
23. The structure is in its original location.
24. No additions obscure the Essential Historic Form when viewed from the
primary public right-of-way. There are no changes in pitch of the main roof of the
primary façade and no additions of upper stories or removal of upper stories.
25. The analysis of the report is included herein with the new evidence.
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
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
20
(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.
1255 Park Avenue – Carl Winter’s School Remodel and Addition
(Application PL-13-02117)
Assistant City Attorney McLean remarked that it was unusual for the Historic
Preservation Board to participate in the Design Review Process. She recalled
that the last time was with the Museum several years ago. Ms. McLean
explained that the HPB was being asked to look at the design review and provide
input so the City, as the owner, could consider their viewpoints. She understood
that it could be confusing when the City is the applicant and also the
administrator of the guidelines. In this case the City was wearing two hats; and
the HPB was being asked by the owner to participate in the design review.
Chair Kenworthy clarified that this was an opportunity for the Board members
and the public to provide input to help the HPB formulate a response to the City
Council. He noted that the project had not yet been approved. Chair Kenworthy
understood that if it was appealed, it would go the Board of Adjustment and not
the HPB.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
21
Board Member Melville asked about the timeline. She understood that the
Library was already closed and the books were moved out and that construction
had already started. She wanted to know why the historic design review was so
late in the process.
Chair Kenworthy believed the Staff would answer many of the questions in their
presentation.
Planner Ryan Wassum presented the timeline over the past year. On March 28,
2013 the City Council agreed on the scope and budget for an expanded Carl
Winter’s Building. On September 5, 2013 the City Council directed the HPB to
participate in the design review of the Library remodel and addition as outlined
per the LMC. On November 23, 2013 and March 19, 2014 the applicants
attended a pre-application conference for the HDDR process. April 18, 2014 the
HDDR application was submitted to the Planning Department and was deemed
complete on that date. On May 1, 2014 the required HDDR public hearing was
held. Today, May 21, 2014, the HPB has the opportunity to provide design
comments for the City Council.
Planner Wassum noted that the Planning Department must make a decision on
the HDDR by June 16, 2014, which is within the initial 45 days. The appeal
process would be ten days following final action for approval or denial. The
appeal would be scheduled per the Board of Adjustment time frame.
Chair Kenworthy dispelled the comments that the project was approved and
construction had started.
Planning Manager Sintz explained that this project required a Master Planned
Development. The original MPD for the Library was approved in 1992 and they
came back for modifications. That final approval was granted by the Planning
Commission on December 11, 2013. She commented on two exhibits in the
Staff report. One was a letter from Jim Telford dated January 24th, which she
recalled was in response to the MPD report because the HDDR application had
not yet been submitted. The second exhibit was a letter that was solicited from
Steve Swanson in regards to the Utah Heritage Foundation. Based on the date,
Planning Manager Sintz believed that the report provided to the Utah Heritage
Foundation also related to the Master Planned Development drawings and not
the HDDR application.
Planning Manager Sintz noted that the owner’s representatives were present this
evening and they would walk the Board through a discussion that occurred in
January when the City Council put a hold on the project to re-evaluate the site. It
greatly affected the timeline as to when the HDDR application was actually
submitted.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
22
Board Member Melville stated that because the process had progressed so far
and appeared to be on the road to approval, she felt it was too late for the HPB to
participate or for their comments to have any impact on the project.
Jonathan Weidenhamer, the Economic Development Manager for the City, and a
representative for the applicant, replied that the HPB would have impact on the
project. When the HPB was asked to participate in the Museum process their
input was taken seriously by the City Council. Board Member White was on the
Board at that time and he recalled that changes were made based on HPB input.
Mr. Weidenhamer understood that the process was not ideal from the standpoint
of timeline. When they were asked to revisit the scope and the site in late
December, the timeline was delayed because it took several months before the
City Council re-affirmed the commitment to the adaptive reuse of this building
with the Library as the centerpiece of the development area. Mr. Weidenhamer
stated that a couple more months of scope was added to the project to make it
more green and more sustainable. It also took 9 weeks to do the construction
documents required for the HDDR. Mr. Weidenhamer recognized that the
process was not perfect and it has added a lot of stress to the project and
deadlines. However, he was optimistic that the process would continue to go
well and that they were moving in the right direction. They have worked very
closely with Staff and consistently within the guidelines.
Mr. Weidenhamer stated that the comments and opinions expressed by the HPB
would be presented to the City Council at their first meeting in June. They have
already spoken with the Building and Planning Departments regarding the scope
of work involved. He did not believe that potential changes recommended by the
HPB would hinder the timeline or cause substantive changes to the exterior. Mr.
Weidenhamer clarified that when the City Council gave the authority to move
forward with the project they were clear about wanting to hear HPB input as a
second opinion.
Planning Manager Sintz stated that if there could be consensus from the HPB on
specific comments, Mr. Weidenhamer could take those to the City Council. The
Board would be notified when that occurs. Their comments would also be
reflected in the minutes from this meeting.
Mr. Weidenhamer introduced Matt Twombley, the project manager for the City,
and noted that Mr. Twombley was involved with the library addition for the City in
2004. He also introduced Jasmina Jusic, the Development Services Librarian,
and Kevin Blaylock the project architect. He provided a brief summary of Mr.
Blaylock’s accomplishments and professional expertise.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
23
Kevin Blaylock, the project architect, stated that his firm was commissioned by
Park City and the Library in January 2013 to begin this project. He outlined the
process and the approach that led to where they were today. Mr. Blaylock stated
that in March 2013 they started the public input process to determine the types of
materials that the public had deemed acceptable for the addition to the library, as
well as the program components of the library. At the same time they conducted
a process of analyzing the project to determine whether to add a small, medium
or large addition, or whether they should find a new piece of land and build a
brand new library to avoid some the challenges of remodeling the existing
Library. After looking at the construction timeline costs and the City goals, they
decided on a smaller addition and an interior remodel, which was the current
proposal being presented this evening. Mr. Blaylock stated that through that
process they shared their design in back and forth dialogue with the City Council,
the Planning Commission, the Steering Committee, the Friends of the Library
and the Library Board to keep their finger on the pulse of the community. The
approach incorporated the Library goals and the City goals, which included
respect for the historic building, reveal more of it if at all possible, and comply
with the Department of Interior Guidelines for historic places.
Mr. Blaylock stated that the project objective for the Library is to create a 21st
Century library and to develop a stronger civic identity. He pointed out that a 21st
Century library has nothing to do with design or appearance. It is about
programs, functionality, and how it works within the community and for the
community as a civic hub. The building programming consists of a number of
new areas and new offerings to the public. It has to be Code compliant and part
of that is being successful in meeting of all the ADA requirements.
Mr. Blaylock provided a brief history to re-familiarize the Board members with the
Library building. He provided a slide showing the footprint of the structure in the
early 1900’s. It is a four-sided building and the front is slightly buried by the
parking lot. The two entry points on each side were originally exits for the High
School. In 1992 a three-story addition was added that started to wrap around the
building. In some areas it did not respond well to the historic fabric of the
building. Since then a shuttle stop and other civic amenities were developed in
the area. Mr. Blaylock stated that part of the challenge was to capitalize on these
site opportunities. One challenge was to find a way for the Library to create a
strong civic presence and to act as an anchor for the Lower Park Avenue master
planned development.
Mr. Blaylock stated that they started to look at opportunities to link the public
skate park and the City Park and connect all the different icon city elements to
the Library. They thought about creating a pedestrian walkway that gathered
everyone and brought them to the new front door of the Library. Mr. Blaylock
noted that along this timeline, as part of the MPD process and public feedback,
they originally had the new building entry on the east historic face. After working
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
24
with the Planning Commission changes were made and the entry is now set back
approximately 22 feet from the building face.
Mr. Blaylock indicated the location of the shuttle stop and the pedestrian
crosswalk which lends itself to working more favorably with their proposed
solution. He stated that the intent was to create a single cohesive addition.
Therefore, they explored ideas for removing all or a portion of the 1992 addition
and reveal more of the historic character of the building. Mr. Blaylock reviewed
slides of the building and noted that there were prominent historic components
that responded to the historic building, but they did not believe the components
contributed to the historic fabric of the original structure. In comparing the
historic front side of the building on the east with the north side of the building,
they could start to see the L-shaped piece that was added in 1992 that covered
up a large portion of the historic structure in the back. He indicated two windows
that he believed were in place with the original construction.
Mr. Blaylock reviewed the current proposal, which included removing the 1992
addition all the way around the back of the building and to reveal what it was
originally. He stated that they were able to achieve all of the program
requirements of a 21st Century Library and the community multi-purpose event
space, and still reduce the footprint to help reveal some of the historic fabric.
Mr. Blaylock presented images to show the context and mass.
Mr. Blaylock stated that the materials pallet was derived from the building, as well
as materials that are found in the immediate context. Two primary building
materials were shown. One was zinc, which is a dull matte metal that has been
used for centuries in Europe. The second was a real wood siding product that
was developed in Europe and has some reference to historic Park City. They
chose zinc for its longevity and sustainability, but also because the gray tone was
a way to imply the gray concrete base of the building without replicating it. It was
also more affordable.
Mr. Blaylock reiterated that part of the goal was to create a multi-purpose, multi-
use library. He indicated the portion of the Library that, in addition to being the
entry, would also serve for after-hours uses. The Library itself could be secured
even if the remainder of the building is being used for other events after the
Library closes. That led to the opportunity of creating an active zone that
activates the park and provides a place for social gatherings.
Board Member Holmgren referred to the checkerboard in front of the glass on the
north side and asked about the material. Mr. Blaylock replied that it was a
concrete terrace. Board Member Holmgren asked if he had considered using
granite for the terrace like they were doing for the sidewalks on Main Street. Mr.
Blaylock replied that they were dissuaded from using granite due to maintenance
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
25
issues. They also need to respect the budget they were given for this project.
Board Member Holmgren thought the granite material had worked well on Main
Street. Mr. Jonathan stated that they would like to do granite but it was not
affordable.
Planning Manager Sintz reported that early in the process the owner group talked
about the subordination of materials and making sure that the materials used in
the historic portion of the building remained the dominant features. The concrete
was dressed up with the scoring pattern, but they were very cognizant that it is a
secondary, subordinate, less important addition. They were asked to respect the
original library and not use materials that would be termed “nicer” that what the
original structure had.
Board Member Holmgren understood the concerns, but she thought it was very
impressive that they could put those types of sidewalks and curb and gutter in
Main Street Old Town. She believed it was all American granite. Board Member
Holmgren clarified that she only mentioned it as a suggestion.
Mr. Blaylock reiterated that one of the challenges was to create a more
sustainable building. As they construct buildings now days, they typically create
a structure that they add insulation to, and then put clouding over the top.
However, they do not have that opportunity with the Library building. Instead,
they have to strip away the interior components and add insulation and make the
walls fatter on the inside. Mr. Blaylock noted that all the windows were changed
out in 1992 and they had done a good job matching the existing historic windows
that were in place in the early 1900s. He stated that a few of the windows would
be replaced on the back where the brick that was covered up would be exposed.
Mr. Blaylock noted that in 1992 the stair tower off the back of the building was
removed and it was patched with gray concrete. They found the existing brick in
the basement of the building and they plan to use as much of that brick as
possible for infill. Mr. Blaylock explained how they also intend to expose some of
the existing historic brick walls in the study rooms on the second floor, and have
natural light coming in from the west off Norfolk.
Planning Manager Sintz asked Mr. Blaylock to summarize the discussion they
had with City Council regarding the energy efficiency and the desire to modify the
roof form to get a higher efficiency rating, but still retain the historic roof. Mr.
Blaylock remarked that currently there was no insulation in the building. He
reiterated his previous explanation on how they plan to insulate the walls to be
more energy efficient. He noted that the same exploration needed to be done on
the roof. Mr. Blaylock stated that currently the building loses energy through the
roof and that allows snow to melt. The roof was reinforced in order to add
insulation so it would support the required snow load and still maintain its historic
character. Mr. Blaylock stated that in 1992 swamp coolers were added to the
roof and they are visible from Norfolk and up the hillside. Those swamp coolers
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
26
were removed in the image he presented because they would be replaced with a
high-efficiency mechanical system.
Mr. Weidenhamer noted that the City Council had to wrestle with their goals of
being sustainable versus the policy for historic preservation. They asked the City
Council to make a priority decision and it was unanimous that historic renovation
on both the interior and exterior was most important. Therefore, they decided to
pursue a LEED certification as opposed to Energy Star certification. Mr.
Weidenhamer believed they were very close to achieving LEED Silver standard.
Planning Manager Sintz stated that when the City Council called time-out on the
project to look at all the options, there was a hard discussion on the fact that per
the newly adopted general plan, one of the greatest forms of preservation is
adaptive re-use. She believed that utilizing this building in the lower Park
Avenue area was a long-term commitment by the City Council to look at adaptive
re-use of the City’s historic structures. It could also be used as an example for
future economic development. Planning Manager Sintz thought this was an
exciting project, particularly with the ability to have LEED certification with a
Landmark structure. She recalled from public input documents that the desire for
this building is to be listed on the National Register. Planning Sintz believed
there was a strong commitment from the City Council to move that process
forward once the renovation is complete.
Mr. Weidenhamer stated that one of the primary goals for the project, and driven
by the library programs, was to identify an entry way into the Library. He
believed that had been accomplished. Working with Staff, preservation
consultants, and an experienced architect they were able to modify the design
based on input, and to subordinate the new entry way. He pointed out that the
City Council has a commitment to a community center; and there are already
community tenants in the building that use the traditional and historic entryway.
He recognized that the entry has been split up and the main entrance to the
Library would be focused on the north end. The rest of the community uses
would continue to use the main historic doors. He thought it was a good balance
of community goals and Council goals over the Library program. It also
highlights the commitment to authentic community fabric. Mr. Weidenhamer
believed the proposal was consistent with the City Council goals and the current
guidelines.
Chair Kenworthy liked the proposal. He asked if the entrances would be
seasonal entrances or used for the different uses inside the building. Mr.
Weidenhamer replied that the entrances would continue to be open as they are
today. Chair Kenworthy asked if people could access all aspects of the building
through those entrances or if it would be partitioned for specific uses. Mr.
Weidenhamer stated that people would have full access to the building through
those entrances.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
27
Mr. Blaylock clarified that in an effort to address the security of the Library,
people entering through the stair tower entry might encounter another set of
doors.
Board Member Crosby asked about security surveillance. Mr. Twombley stated
that currently there were 12 to 15 cameras in and around the building. There is a
desire to enhance the security with additional cameras and additional door
security.
In looking at the new view from Park Avenue, Board Member White liked the fact
that the total original building seems to be maintained. He thought it was a good
idea to have the entry on the north end and to keep the original stair towers.
Board Member White liked how the height of the addition on the north side was
the same height as the concrete base with the same color. He assumed the dark
brown on the west side and the north side was a wood material. Mr. Blaylock
replied that he was correct. Board Member White asked about the maintenance
and longevity versus using another material. He suggested the possibility of
using a more sustainable material in the same dark brown that was shown.
Mr. Blaylock explained that the proposed material is a real wood veneer with a
protective film that is laminated on to a resin backer. It is insect and rot resistant
and it will not warp or fade like real wood, even though it has a real wood face.
The upkeep is minimal. Board Member White asked about if the ultra-violet
would fade. Mr. Blaylock stated that it has a ten year warranty against fading.
The color may eventually lighten a little beyond its ten year mark, but it would
always look like brown wood. Mr. Blaylock noted that they were still exploring a
completely synthetic material as another option. The material is all manmade but
it has the same look.
Board Member White supported what was being proposed for the project.
Board Member Holmgren referred to the north side and asked if anything was
planned for the area above the new entrance. She asked if they would consider
a roof garden. Mr. Blaylock stated that they intent to put in a decorative gravel
mulch. The portion on the corner would be an outdoor reading terrace that
comes directly off a reading room on the second floor. Mr. Weidenhamer noted
that the unusable portion was driven by the budget. He explained that there
would not be enough structure underneath to support a rooftop garden.
Director Eddington asked if the balcony on the upper level would be usable. Mr.
Blaylock stated that it was originally intended to be usable in the original
adaptation; however, budget constraints forced them to remove that amenity.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
28
Board Member Melville asked why the 1992 addition was being removed, since it
would result in losing space. Mr. Blaylock replied that most of the space was
stage wing and storage space on the third floor. The storage needs were
accommodated with a more efficient plan and the wing space that was used for
theatrical productions is no longer necessary for film productions. He believed it
was a worthwhile sacrifice to remove the addition in order to attain more of the
historic nature of the existing building.
Board Member Melville asked why they would not just remove the top level of the
addition because doing that would achieve the same amount of exposure they
are getting with the new addition. She wanted to know why they would not leave
the brick of the addition in the back and on the sides rather than rebuild it. Mr.
Blaylock explained that they wanted to make sure that the addition looked
consistent all the way around the building to avoid a piecemeal look with the
existing historic structure, a 1992 addition and a 2014 addition. Secondly, the
1992 addition does not conform with the current structural codes and
requirements. The amount of retrofit work required to punch openings and add
insulation involved more work and expense than if they removed the addition and
started with new construction.
Board Member Melville thought the view was jarring, particularly the north side
driving down Park Avenue. She noted that the old addition was brick and the
new construction is a slick composite and zinc. She did not like the appearance
of two new materials tacked on to an old building or the different levels and
heights of various materials and colors. In her opinion, the zinc wall looked like a
penitentiary wall going around the building. Board Member Melville was looking
for harmony within the entire building, but instead she saw a number of different
pieces.
Board Member Melville asked if an assessment had been done to determine
whether this proposal would affect the National Register eligibility, which was a
condition of approval for the project. Mr. Blaylock replied that nothing proposed
would hamper or restrict National Register eligibility. In his view and that of the
historic consultant, they were doing everything to promote the ability for the
building to be recognized for the National Register.
Board Member Melville asked if an analysis had been done by a professional
consultant to verify that it would meet the requirements for the National Register.
Planning Manager Sintz pointed out that the Historic District Design Guidelines
are based on the Secretary of Interior Standards, and the whole process for
HDDR and the universal guidelines is based on that process. The architect and
the owner representatives have been meeting with Staff to go through the
different analyses. Based on the process, Ms. Sintz was confident that the
proposed project would be eligible for the National Register; otherwise, it would
undermine the entire Historic District process.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
29
Board Member Melville believed there were a number of areas where the project
did not meet the historic design guidelines. If the project is built to the plans
presented, she preferred to have it analyzed now rather than after it is built.
Board Member Melville strongly encouraged an analysis of whether this project
would meet the requirements to be eligible for listing on the National Register as
part of the approval. She felt it was very important to have that confirmed before
they move forward. Board Member Melville had read the letter from the Utah
Heritage Foundation regarding the placement of the primary entrance. The letter
states that the secondary entrance is fine when needed for ADA compliance, but
the proposal to include a new exterior entry separate from the building runs
counter to accepted preservation philosophy, which recommends that historic
entrances continue to be used as primary entrance. She thought that was an
important factor that had not been addressed.
Planning Manager Sintz noted that she had clarified earlier in the meeting that
the Utah Heritage Foundation letter was in reference to the MPD drawings. She
remarked that the Staff had the same concern and the entrance was moved back
22 feet because of the comment in the letter that Ms. Melville had referenced.
Board Member Melville pointed out that it was still meant to be a primary
entrance. Ms. Sintz replied that it would be a primary entrance for the Library but
not necessarily for the building. She thought it was important to understand the
different functions occurring in the building. If the entire structure was just a
library she could see where the entrance might be a concern.
Director Eddington referred to the rear façade and asked if there was a reduction
in mass on the west side. Mr. Blaylock replied that it was a three story brick
volume along the residential street. He recalled that one of the Planning
Commissioners had asked if there was a way to break down the scale to make it
more compatible with the residential neighborhood. Mr. Blaylock reiterated that it
is a four-sided building with different activities on all four sides. That was one
reason why they looked at breaking it down a little. In addition, the City has a
requirement to break up continuous expanses with separation or stepping.
Director Eddington noted that the reduction on the back was significant.
Board Member Melville emphasized her request to have a professional historic
preservation consultant look at the drawings and provide guidance to assure that
the building would not lose its ability to be listed on the National Register.
Planning Manager Sintz offered to pass her suggestion on to the City Council.
Board Member Vance stated that according to MPS.gov, the Secretary of Interior
standards for rehabilitation, presentation, etc., encourages an addition that does
not imitate the historical structure. He believed that standard would qualify the
Library for Landmark status on the National Register. Board Member Vance
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
30
remarked that he personally thought the Department of Interior was completely
wrong. Just because something is law does not mean it is right. He thought the
real issue was how to break up a façade. Commissioner Vance agreed that the
addition looked like a brick wall. However, the system of columns, window
placement, fenestration and the order of the building broke it up in such a way
that the mass did not appear large because it was broken down. Rather than
breaking it down into smaller masses, he preferred to see something that stays
with the continuity of the order of the existing structure and breaks it up in the
same order as the original structure using like materials. At the same time, they
could make it modern in accordance with the Secretary of Interior standard to
keep its historic status. Board Member Vance outlined some of his issues with
the proposed design. He thought the wing that comes out further on the north
wall should align. He was also unsure how the bottom as shown relates to the
existing building. Board Member Vance stated that he personally likes to see
historic additions on historic structures, recognizing that his opinion did not agree
with the Department of Interior.
Chair Kenworthy noted that a historic addition would not satisfy the goal of
keeping it as a Landmark structure. Board Member Melville thought it could be
done and still keep its historic status. She noted that the Marsac Building was
renovated without adding additional pieces and different materials. She did not
believe the finished product would have looked nearly as good if those things had
been added. Board Member Melville suggested that they renovate the Library in
a similar way as the Marsac Building.
Mr. Weidenhamer stated that the Marsac Building already lacked needed space
when it was completed, and the City plans to do a $100,000 interior remodel
within the next month because they are out of space. He noted that the City was
very close to walking away from the Library building for the same reason;
however the City Council revisited the issue and re-committed to the adaptive re-
use knowing that space would be an issue. Mr. Weidenhamer felt it was time to
find the balance and understand that there are trade-offs when committing to the
re-use of a 1922 building.
Board Member Melville clarified that she favored adaptive re-use of the Library
because it is a wonderful building. The question was how to do the exterior.
Board Member Melville outlined areas where she did not believe the proposal
met the design guidelines. She read, “Additions should be visually separated
from historic buildings when viewed from the public right-of-way.” She did not
think the new entrance was removed from the building by a transitional element.
Board Member Melville further read, “Window shapes and patterns found on the
historic building should be reflected in the new addition.” She noted that the
windows on the north side looked nothing like the historic building.
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
31
Board Member Melville read from Guideline D2.1, General Compatibility,
“Additions should complement the visual and physical qualities of the historic
buildings.” In her view, the addition of the zinc banding that wraps around the
building, and the wood component on various heights in no way complemented
the physical and visual qualities of the historic building. She read from D1.2,
“Additions should be visually subordinate to the historic buildings when viewed
from the primary public right-of-way.” Board Member Melville remarked that the
proposed addition was so different that it was jarring and it would overpower the
rest of the building.
Chair Kenworthy asked if Board Member Melville thought the addition provided
the functionality for what she would like to see in the community. Board Member
Melville replied that it might flow better if the addition was separated a little more
and there was less variety of materials. She was bothered visually by the
different heights that do not relate to the old building. Chair Kenworthy asked if
Ms. Melville liked the functionality of the indoor/outdoor space. Board Member
Melville stated that indoor/outdoor is always nice, but she believed it could be
achieved in ways other than what was proposed.
Board Member Holmgren doubted that there were many people drive up and
down Park Avenue more than she does. She comes home from the grocery
store south on Park Avenue and she starts looking over there right away to see
who is out with their dog or she starts looking for a parking place. With the
mature greenery, the front entrance is not noticeable until you reach the front of
the building. She looks at that building every day and realizes the contrast from
when she moved into her house in 1991. At that time someone was filming a
ghost movie there and the City was getting ready to tear down the building. Six
weeks after she moved in the City decided to save the building and refurbish it.
She visits the Library building every day and sometimes twice a day because it is
a gorgeous structure. Board Member Holmgren pointed out that before even
reaching the building you have to pass the unattractive condominiums that stick
up to the end of the parking lot, the parking lot itself, and then the trees.
Board Member Melville noted that the trees on the north side would be removed
with the construction. Board Member Holmgren understood that the trees would
be replaced. Mr. Weidenhamer clarified that four trees would be removed and
replaced.
Board Member Holmgren thought the architect had done a great job designing
the project, and that the mature landscaping softens the look. Her primary
concern was parking generated by increased use and capacity. Mr. Blaylock
stated that approximately seven parking stalls would be lost to add more green
space. Planning Manager Sintz recalled that because this is a high-use for
public transit, the Planning Commission had requested a thorough analysis of the
parking and found it to be acceptable for the other amenities. Board Member
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
32
Holmgren pointed out that with the current parking on a movie night, there is no
room for emergency vehicles to get in if necessary. Ms. Sintz understood that
there were parking issues with special events. Ms. Holmgren stated that besides
the Library parking lot, the problem extends to the Mawhinney lot across the
street and people parking in private yards.
Mr. Weidenhamer stated that language from the original 1992 MPD carried
through stating that when an event reaches a certain size, a threshold is reached
where there are additional requirements set by the Building Official and Fire
Marshall. Director Eddington recalled language about a connection to the
Mawhinney parking lot. Mr. Weidenhamer replied that the Mawhinney parking lot
is required to be kept as parking for the use of the building.
Chair Kenworthy asked for the net gain or loss of square footage. Mr. Blaylock
stated that they were gaining approximately 2400 square feet of net space.
Chair Kenworthy pointed out that they were gaining interior space and losing
seven parking spaces.
Board Member Crosby asked if they had considered replacing or relocating the
lost parking spots. Mr. Twombley stated that the biggest issue with parking was
the use from the 1992 MPD. At that time there were two pre-schools and the
University of Utah, in addition to the film series and the Library. Those schools,
including the U of U, have all gone away. The uses include the Library, the new
preschool, and the Film series. Because of the reduction in uses and the number
of people using the building at one given time, a parking reduction was
warranted.
Board Member Bush noted that there was a small parking lot on the north side of
the athletic field that could easily accommodate eight additional spaces. Mr.
Blaylock remarked that parking was heavily discussed at both the Planning
Commission and City Council levels. Ultimately, both groups wanted to be more
sustainable and promote a more walkable community. They felt that with the site
development and connecting the pedestrian trails, people should be able to park
at point A and get to point B without getting back in their cars.
Board Member Holmgren stated that it was a lovely game plan but it would never
happen. She favored Board Member Bush’s suggestion about adding parking to
the lot at the north end of the athletic field.
Chair Kenworthy opened the public hearing.
Ruth Meintsma, a resident at 305 Woodside Avenue, thought the plan was
gorgeous. She liked the separation on the north side and how the height was
diminished and stepped back. She liked the different materials. Ms. Meintsma
thought the way they did the exposure at the back was beautiful. She stated that
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
33
a lot of the homes look down on roofs and she was pleased that they had made
the roof of this building pleasant to look at. Ms. Meintsma thought the zinc wall in
the back had a curvature element to it. She remarked that the addition is very
different from the historic and it was broken up by the brown color and the zinc.
She believed they were different enough that the historic building blooms out of
the new addition. It gave it a stage to stand on. Ms. Meintsma stated that her
comments were strictly her personal opinion as a neighbor but she thought the
project was exciting.
Chair Kenworthy closed the public hearing.
Chair Kenworthy asked the Board for their final comments.
Board Member Vance clarified that he and Board Member Melville thought the
proposal presented was very jarring. They would like to see an addition that is
more harmonious and compatible in materials, and one that follows the historic
order of the building rather than be the focal point.
Board Member Melville stated that her concern was whether it continues to be a
Landmark building and whether it meets the criteria of the Code 15-11-10(A),
Landmark Sites, 1(b), “that it retains its’ historic integrity in terms of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.” She did not
believe this addition was what it could be in terms of accomplishing all of that.
Ms. Melville had concerns about jeopardizing the Landmark status and its listing
on the National Register of Historic Places. She would like to see a good opinion
from a certified professional as part of what goes to the City Council.
Chair Kenworthy stated that he would like to see a parking and transit plan to see
how the plan supposedly works. He had concerns with having a multi-purpose
building centered around a City Library, with an extended 2400 square feet and
less parking.
Board Member Crosby commented on the additional 2400 square feet, and she
wanted to know the parking ratio per thousand square feet. Planning Sintz stated
that the ratio was analyzed for the Planning Commission in the MPD. She could
not recall the facts; however, it did meet the criteria. Board Member Crosby
recalled that it was three spaces per 1,000 square feet. Ms. Sintz replied that the
ratio is based on the type of use. She noted that an MPD has the ability to
modify parking after going through a specific analysis.
Board Member Crosby referred to the north side and asked which parts
specifically would be removed and when they were built. She was told that it
would be all of the 1992 addition. Ms. Crosby understood that it was being
replaced with the zinc covered wall. Mr. Blaylock replied that most of it would be
replaced with the wood clad material. Ms. Crosby referred to the west elevation
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
34
and indicated the mature trees around it. She thought the zinc wall appeared to
be a long span without a break and asked if there was a way to break it up. She
commented on the bump outs on the southwest side of the original building and
asked if there was a way to reflect something similar to that in the zinc wall to
break up the expanse of straight zinc.
Mr. Blaylock reported that the zinc is a panelized product that helps reduce the
scale. The wavy pattern shown was a perforation through the metal to show the
glass behind the wall, which were the study rooms. The intent was to allow as
much natural light as possible. Ms. Crosby felt that was an important fact to
know. Otherwise, it just looks like a penitentiary wall. Mr. Weidenhamer stated
that when they first walked into the Library with Mr. Blaylock they talked about
the glow and vitality of the interior uses and finding a way to let the community
know that Library and community events were occurring inside. Mr.
Weidenhamer noted that he and Director Eddington had a similar reaction when
Mr. Blaylock first proposed the metal. However, as they looked at pictures of
applications, they quickly changed their mind. He noted that Mr. Blaylock had
includes pictures of the zinc application in his presentation, but he had asked him
to remove them to avoid confusing the discussion. Mr. Weidenhamer apologized
for not providing the pictures.
Board Member White agreed that retaining the Landmark status was the most
important issue and they should get a professional opinion to make sure this
project would not have a negative effect. He also agreed with the concerns
regarding the parking. In terms of the architecture, Board Member White thought
Ms. Meintsma’s comment about the historic building blooming from the addition
was completely accurate. He personally liked the design very much.
Board Member Holmgren reminded them about the parking area on the other
end of the dog field. If it belongs to the City they could make it bigger.
Chair Kenworthy asked Jasmina Jusic for her thoughts on the design, as well as
the functionality and the expansion of the interior. Ms. Jusic stated that the
Library Staff was neutral on the exterior design. Regarding the interior, the plan
would improve functionality and allow for an expanded children’s area and an
expanded teen and tween area. There will be more room for the Library
collection and it will allow room for a digital medium lab of appropriate size. It
provides flexible space for all types of community events, as well as different
types of programming. It also allows the flexibility to keep changing the Library
interior as things evolve. Ms. Jusic personally liked the exterior design and she
thought it made the historic building stand out.
Planning Manager Sintz summarized a list of items taken from the discussion this
evening: 1) Board Member Holmgren would like to see granite on the exterior
patio. 2) Chair Kenworthy had raised questions regarding the entrances. Chair
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
35
Kenworthy clarified that he liked all the entrances, including the new entrance. It
was important to do everything possible to retain the Landmark Status and the
National Register of Historic Places and he believed that could be accomplished
with the proposed design. There was consensus among the Board that keeping
Landmark Status and the eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places
was very important. 3) Board Member Crosby had asked about the surveillance
system. She also had questions about the ability to break up the zinc wall and
received clarification on that. 4) Board Member White had agreed with the
comments regarding the Landmark status and the National Register Status. He
liked the views from Park Avenue and that the stair towers were being left intact.
He liked the different materials and massing and thought the addition was
subordinate to the historic. Board Member White had questions on the durability
and maintenance of the wood material. 5) Board Member Holmgren had asked
about putting a roof garden over the new entry. 6) Board Member Melville had a
number of concerns and felt that the materials and the different levels and
heights were jarring. She thought there was lack of cohesiveness. She was
concerned about problematic elements of the addition. Board Member Melville
felt strongly about making sure that the National Register Eligibility would not be
compromised. She did not feel that the entry had been separated. She would
also prefer less material components. 7) Board Member Vance had echoed Ms.
Melville’s concerns. He also stated that he did not agree with the Secretary of
Interior standards. Board Members Vance and Melville had made comments
about retaining the 1992 addition or utilizing some of the brick material similar to
the 1992 addition. 8) All of the Board members expressed major concerns
regarding the loss of parking. 9) Board Member Bush had made comments
about potentially using the parking lot on the north end of the athletic field to
make up the lost parking spaces.
Assistant City Attorney McLean asked if there was consensus regarding the
materials. She understood that Board Members Vance and Melville thought the
materials were jarring, and she asked if the rest concurred. Board Member
Holmgren thought the building was nice looking and she liked the proposed
materials. She had attended all of the public meetings and she thought the
architect followed a lot of the public input. With the exception of Board members
Vance and Melville, the rest of the Board members liked the materials and
design.
Assistant City Attorney McLean pointed out that all of their comments would be
forwarded to the City Council. She asked about the timeline for presenting their
comments to the City Council. Mr. Weidenhamer anticipated that it would be the
first City Council meeting in June. Planning Manager Sintz thought the City
Council should also have a copy of the minutes from this meeting. Director
Eddington questioned whether the minutes could be prepared in time for the
June 5th meeting and suggested that it may not be until the June 12th meeting.
Ms. McLean asked if Chair Kenworthy would be available to represent the HPB
Historic Preservation Board Meeting
May 21, 2014
36
at the City Council meeting on either June 5th or June 12th. Chair Kenworthy
stated that he would be out of town on June 5th. Ms. McLean requested that
Chair Kenworthy choose someone to represent the HPB if he was unable to
attend. Planning Manager Sintz would contact Chair Kenworthy as soon as the
date was confirmed.
The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
Approved by
John Kenworthy Chair
Historic Preservation Board