GRAMA PACKET 1
Park City Municipal Building Department
Date Requested:
July 18, 2016
Follow-up Date:
July 27, 2016
Requestor:
Matt Mullin
Contact
Information:
PO Box 123
Park City, UT 84060
(435) 901-4707
matt@ironwoodresorts.com
Request Type:
Copies
Request #:
GR-16-0719.1
Detail of Request:
All records on file since 2011 for 632 Deer Valley Loop
Cost Due:
$16.70 ( 1 hour 15 minutes, first 15 minutes are free @ $16.70/hr.)
Comments:
Per your request I have researched and located all of the building records for 632
Deer Valley Loop Rd.
The documents been attached for your reference.
If you have questions on the materials provided please contact the Building
Department at (435) 615-5100.
Jennifer Barclay
Analyst II
jbarclay@parkcity.org
(435) 615-5102
Planning Dept.
Memorandum
Subject: PL-13-02160 632 Deer Valley Loop
Author: Anya Grahn
Date: August 19, 2014 Type of Item: DOS Appeal
On July 9, 2014, staff received email notification from property owner Juli Bertagnole
regarding the appeal of the Historic Preservation Board’s Determination of Significance.
Per the email, the owners no longer intended to pursue their appeal to the Board of Adjustment.
Board of Adjustments
Council Chambers – City Hall
April 15, 2014
NOTE: The recorder did not work properly for the duration of this meeting. These notes have been
compiled to the best of staff’s ability.
Recorder Notes by Makena Hawley
Board Members: Richard Miller (RM), Hans Fuegi (HF), Ruth Gezelus (RG), Jennifer Franklin (JF), Mary
Wintzer (MW), Steve Joyce (SJ) –(Liaison) - Quorum
Staff: Anya Grahn (AG), Thomas Eddington (TE), Polly Samuels McLean (PS), Makena Hawley (MH)
Meeting Called to order at 5:06 PM
ROLL CALL
All Members are present and accounted for.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 18, 2014
MOTION: HF moved to approve
VOTE: Seconded by MW
ADOPTION OF MINUTES motion carried unanimously
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
None
STAFF/BOARD DISCLOSURES
TE- None
MW- I will be recusing myself because of a personal and business relationship with this applicant.
TE- 333 Main affordable housing. In response to a request for information at the last meeting there is no
requirement for affordable housing at this site. The original approval of this building did not require
such.
REGULAR AGENDA
RG -632 Deer Valley Loop – Appeal of Historic Preservation Board’s determination of historical
significance of the site.
AG- Identified as a significant site in 2009, applicants have been fighting with The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for years. The Bertonelis obtained ownership of the historic house. Was the building
really significant? The staff was then tasked with doing background research
Staff made a determination on that the site was indeed a historic site and should remain on the Historic
Sites Inventory (HIS). This determination was appealed to the Historic Preservation Board (HPB).
The HPB reviewed it, and agreed with staff’s determination – The site and structure are historic.
PS provided information for clarification at the time of the appeal.
PS- The applicants have submitted a report that was not heard by the HPB.
Appeals to the HPB can be heard by the Board of Adjustments stated in the LMC. This body may
consider it but if you view the newly provided report the BOA could remand back to HPB to be heard
again with this new information in hand. If you believe the information contained in the report is not
substantial, you may consider this info and hear the appeal tonight.
AG – What would you all like to do? While I find their efforts towards the research commendable, I don’t
personally think that it has relevance and the appeal should be heard tonight..
Bruce Baird (Applicant) - We would request it be remanded to the HPB –My clients didn’t understand
the meeting with the HPB, they weren’t prepared. They want to return to HPB more prepared. If
everyone agrees, we would like to return to HPB.
RM- I would like to speak to that. The HPB probably has more expertise in this type of decision. I’m not
sure how carefully we have to step around this line as far as introducing new evidence. I think what they
presented is different from what the HPB heard. I have no problem sending this back to HPB.
HF – New facts, are noted; after reading through the report again, I think the HPB would be interested in
reviewing this report again. They are the experts here, more so than us. I think there is a lot of material
that HPB has not yet heard.
JF – I agree that the amount of research here justifies sending this back to the HPB
RG – Should I open for public hearing?
PS- Not necessary.
RM- If they go back to HPB and they rule that it’s significant; do they still have the opportunity to appeal
again here at the BOA?
PS- Yes. You are not taking a position on this appeal at this time. Your decision tonight is simply whether
to remand back to HPB.
RG- May I have a motion?
RM- I move to remand the appeal back to HPB to look over the new evidence properly.
HF – Seconded.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Meeting adjourned at 5:18 PM