Email 171
Michelle Kellogg
From:Diane Bernhardt <diane.a.bernhardt@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 18, 2016 12:38 PM
To:Tim Henney
Cc:Council_Mail; Bruce Erickson; Heinrich Deters
Subject:Re: 7/14/16 Council Meeting Agenda Item: Plat Amendment for 632 Deer Valley Loop
...and thanks to all of you for your time and consideration.
We look forward to working together to find ways to conserve the Rossie Hill Historic Open Space!
Thanks again, Diane
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 17, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Tim Henney <tim.henney@parkcity.org> wrote:
Diane,
Thanks for your concern, comments and input.
Best,
Tim Henney
On behalf of Park City Council
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 13, 2016, at 9:57 AM, Diane Bernhardt <diane.a.bernhardt@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Council,
I spoke at the April 14, 2016 City Council Meeting during Public Forum regarding the BLM
parcel on Deer Valley Drive. I represent the Snow Park HOA, the Tahoma HOA, the Portico
HOA and a group of additional homeowners in the Rossie Hill area. Our group advocates for the
preservation and protection of the historic BLM land of which 632 Deer Valley Loop is a part. I
am writing this letter to provide public input on the proposed Plat Amendment.
This Plat Amendment is not your run-of-the-mill Plat Amendment: it is our community’s first
opportunity to influence preservation of the BLM land. It is a Plat Amendment for accepting
into our municipality a listed Park City Historic Site (structure and land), but assigning to it a zone
that encourages new medium density residential (RM) development. Because the RM zone
encourages, but does not enforce historic preservation, and because RM zoning does not consider
preservation of open space, our community must take unique precautions, particular to this
property, to ensure that safeguards are placed right now to protect this Park City heritage being
entrusted into our safekeeping.
As the Plat Amendment is currently written, it does not ensure preservation of the historic cottage
and protection of the open space surrounding it. Instead, it “kicks down the road” the protection
of this inventoried historic site to another Planning Commission and another Planning Staff Team.
Our group recommended to the Planning Commission that the Good Cause for this Plat
Amendment was insufficient, and we request that for this particular property additional Good
2
Cause be required for Amendment approval. Ideal augmentation of Good Cause for this property
would be conditions of approval that protect it, for example: (1) the property remains a single
family home as it is today, (2) the preservation of the historic structure is bound to its original
setting, location, and footprint, (3)* the restoration of the structure requires Historic Guideline
review and (4) the open space surrounding the cottage is preserved or dedicated as open space.
Our Requested Actions:
1. Deny Plat Amendment as currently written.
We respectfully ask you to deny this iteration of the Plat Amendment sending it back to Staff to be
reworked to make certain the preservation of the historic cottage and protection of the open space
surrounding it.
2. Develop a long-term, strategic plan for the BLM parcel.
We also ask Council to prioritize work on a formal and long-term plan for the future of the BLM
parcel which incorporates the following goals:
Conserve the land as open space for the benefit of the public.
Foster vulnerable wildlife by protecting the existing large animal migration corridor.
Restore and preserve the historic mining-era cottages within existing context and setting.
Protect and improve existing recreational trail network.
Prevent negative impact of increased traffic due to development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully, Diane Bernhardt
*Although Staff recommended a condition that specifically required Historic Guideline Review protection, the Planning Commission weakened the condition prior
to their approval.
<Letter Council Meeting 20160714.pages>