Plat - July 14, 2016 City Council Staff Report
DATE: July 14, 2016
TO HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The site known as Lilac Hill Subdivision at 632 Deer Valley Loop consists of all of
Government Lot 26 in Section 15, Township 2 South, Range 4 East, Salt Lake Base
and Meridian. It was formerly known as the 11th House on the south side of Deer Valley
Park City. The owner requests this plat amendment in order to create a legal platted lot
of record and to develop the site.
Respectfully:
Anya Grahn, Planner II
Packet Pg. 80
City Council
Staff Report
Subject: Lilac Hill Subdivision at 632 Deer Valley Loop
Author: Anya Grahn, Historic Preservation Planner
Project Number: PL-16-03153
Date: July 14, 2016
Type of Item: Legislative – Plat Amendment
Summary Recommendations
Staff recommends City Council hold a public hearing and consider approving the Lilac
Hill Subdivision located at 632 Deer Valley Loop based on the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of Approval as found in the attached ordinance.
Description
Applicant: 632 DVL, LLC represented by Matt Mullin
Location: 632 Deer Valley Loop
Zoning: Residential Medium (RM)
Adjacent Land Uses: Residential—Single family, duplex, and multi-family
dwellings
Reason for Review: Plat Amendments require Planning Commission review and
City Council review and action.
Acronyms
Board of Adjustment BOA
Bureau of Land Management BLM
Determination of Significance DOS
Historic District Design Review HDDR
Historic Preservation Board HPB
Historic Sites Inventory HSI
Residential Medium RM
Historic District Design Review Pre-Application Pre-app
Executive Summary/Proposal
The site known as Lilac Hill Subdivision at 632 Deer Valley Loop consists of all of
Government Lot 26 in Section 15, Township 2 South, Range 4 East, Salt Lake Base
and Meridian. It was formerly known as the 11th House on the south side of Deer Valley
Park City. The owner requests this plat amendment in order to create a legal platted lot
of record and to develop the site.
District Purpose
The purpose of the RM District is to:
A. Allow continuation of permanent residential and transient housing in original
residential Areas of Park City,
B. Encourage new Development along an important corridor, that is Compatible with
Historic Structures in the surrounding Area,
Packet Pg. 81
C. Encourage the rehabilitation of existing Historic Structures,
D. Encourage Development that provides a transition in Use and scale between the
Historic District and the resort Developments,
E. Encourage affordable housing,
F. Encourage Development that minimizes the number of new driveways Accessing
existing thoroughfares and minimizes the visibility of Parking Areas
Background
On April 26, 2016, the City received a Subdivision application for the Lilac Hill
Subdivision located at 632 Deer Valley Loop; the application was deemed complete on
April 28, 2016. The property is in the Residential Medium (RM) District. Its legal
description is all of Government Lot 26 in Section 15, Township 2 South, Range 4 East,
Salt Lake Base and Meridian; it was formerly known as 11th House on the south side of
Deer Valley, Park City.
This site is listed on Park City’s Historic Sites Inventory (HSI) and is designated as a
Significant Site. The house was constructed c.1900 during the Mature Mining Era
(1894-1930) by George and Elizabeth Thompson. The early twentieth century Sanborn
Fire Insurance Maps show that this site was part of a much denser neighborhood
comprised of approximately fourteen (14) structures. Of these, only four (4) structures
currently exist.
This property has had a long history. The house was initially constructed on mining
claims, which came to be held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). At the time
of its construction, it consisted of a two-room cottage; however, between 1912-1918, it
was expanded to a four-room cottage. Then c.1969, the house was remodeled to what
exists today. The property was purchased by William and Juli Bertagnole in 1981 from
Harold and Mary Dudley. On May 17, 1999, a fire damaged the rear addition of the
structure. The Bertagnoles did not make repairs following the fire. The BLM granted
the Bertagnoles a land patent for ownership of the parcel on May 2, 2013 (Exhibit G).
On August 21, 2013, the Park City Building Department issued a Notice and Order to
Vacate and Demolish the structure due to the fire damage and the dilapidated state of
the structure. The Planning Department moved forward with a Determination of
Significance (DOS) to review the site’s historic designation; on November 13, 2013, the
Historic Preservation Board (HPB) found that the site should remain designated as
―Significant‖ on the Historic Sites Inventory (HSI) in accordance with LMC 15-11-
10(A)(2). The Bertagnoles appealed the HPB’s decision to the Board of Adjustment
(BOA) on April 15, 2014; however, the BOA remanded it back to the HPB as the
applicant had submitted new evidence. The HPB once again found that the site met the
criteria for ―Significant‖ on May 21, 2014. The Bertagnoles withdrew their appeal on
July 9, 2014.
The Bertagnoles finalized the sale of the property to its current owner, 632 DVL, LLC in
February 2016. On December 2, 2015, the current owner submitted a Historic District
Design Review (HDDR) Pre-Application (Pre-app) to discuss renovation options for this
Packet Pg. 82
historic structure and development opportunities for the site. The applicant has not yet
submitted a HDDR application for the improvements, but has chosen to move forward
with the plat amendment in order to make future site improvements.
Analysis
The proposed Plat Amendment creates one (1) lot of record from the existing legal
description. The proposed Plat Amendment combines the property into one (1) lot
measuring 14,446 square feet.
A portion of Deer Valley Loop (64.27 SF) cuts across the northwest corner of the site
and the platted Rossie Hill Drive (62.72 SF) across the southeast corner of the property,
consuming a total of 127 square feet (SF). The property surrounding this lot is owned by
the BLM, but the BLM has granted a right-of-way easement to the City for the streets
that cross over the BLM parcel. The portion of 632 Deer Valley Drive that includes the
two streets will be dedicated to the City during this plat amendment, and the street
dedication shall be noted on the recorded plat, as reflected in Condition of Approval #3.
The portion of the street dedication will reduce the overall lot size to 14,319 square feet
and is included on the calculations for footprint below.
The property is located outside the Park City Landscaping and Maintenance of Soil
Cover Ordinance (Soils Ordinance) and therefore not regulated by the City for mine
related impacts. If the property owner does encounter mine waste or mine waste
impacted soils they must handle the material in accordance to State and Federal law.
Staff has included this as Condition of Approval #7.
A single-family dwelling is an allowed use in the RM District. The minimum lot area for
a single-family dwelling is 2,812 square feet. The proposed lot meets the minimum lot
area for single-family dwellings. The required minimum lot width is 27.50; the proposed
lot width is 129.41 feet. The proposed lot meets the minimum lot width requirement.
The following table shows applicable Land Management Code (LMC) development
parameters in the RM District:
Required Existing Permitted
Lot size 14,319 SF1 2,812 square feet minimum
Complies
Front yard setbacks 35 feet front yard (north
property line)
15 feet Complies
Rear yard setbacks 52 feet rear yard
(Rossie Hill Drive)
10 feet Complies
Side yard setbacks 17 feet (west), 65 feet
(east)
5 feet, Complies
1 This represents the size of the lot after the street dedication.
Packet Pg. 83
There is no footprint requirement in the RM District.
The only encroachment that exists is a gravel driveway or parking area off of Deer
Valley Loop on the northwest corner of the site. No other encroachments, other than
the portion of Deer Valley Loop that crosses the property, exist.
This area of Park City is designated as Significant on the Historic Sites Inventory (HSI).
Any proposed development or work on the historic house will require approval of a
Historic District Design Review (HDDR) to ensure compliance with the Design
Guidelines for Historic Sites in Park City.
Staff finds that this site, along with the BLM-owned property to the northeast that
contains the three (3) historic cottages at 555, 560, and 577 Deer Valley contribute to
Park City’s history and provide a density of historic structures that largely retain their
relationship with one another and the hillside. As this area is currently zoned RM, it
allows for a much greater density to be added to these sites or larger additions to the
historic houses than would be seen in Old Town’s H-districts. Under 15-11-12 of the
LMC, Historic District/Site design review is required for all Historic Sites; however, any
new sites created by a future subdivision would not be required to comply with the
Design Guidelines as they would not be considered a historic site. Only the site in
which the historic house is located is the historic site.
Staff found that the General Plan identifies this lot as part of the Old Town
neighborhood boundary. The General Plan emphasizes that infill and new additions be
compatible in the neighborhood context and subordinate to historic structures; the City
prevent incompatible infill and the loss of historic structures; the character of historic
sites be preserved; and the aesthetic of the Old Town neighborhood be preserved.
Staff also found that the purpose statements of the RM District support the goals of the
General Plan in that they encourage new development that is compatible with historic
structures in the surrounding area; encourage the rehabilitation of existing historic
structures; and encourage development that provides a transition in Use and Scale
between the Historic District and the resort Developments.
Staff found that it was important that we preserve the historic character of these sites.
Therefore, as the historic site encompasses the entire lot and future subdivision will
affect the context of the historic home, staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve this plat with a condition of approval that stated:
Any development on this lot or future subdivided lots within this lot shall provide a
transition in scale between the historic structures in this neighborhood, the Historic
District, and Deer Valley Resort. The Planning Department shall review the
proposed plans for compliance with the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and
Sites.
Staff found that such a condition of approval would ensure that any future development
is in keeping with the historic character of this pocket neighborhood of historic houses
and will allow the historic house at 632 Deer Valley Loop to become the focal point of
any future project.
Packet Pg. 84
Staff based this condition of approval on existing language in districts neighboring the
H-districts, such as the Recreation Commercial (RC) zoning district, that require
development within two (2) blocks of the H-district to comply with the Design Guidelines
so that they create a transition between the historic district and the resort area.
The applicant was opposed to this Condition of Approval. The applicant believed staff
was premature in its determination for the Condition of Approval as no development is
currently proposed on the lot and any new development would likely require a future
subdivision of the existing lot. Further, they argued that if the City wanted new
construction to meet the Design Guidelines, then the property should have not been
zoned RM. They found that the property is visually, geographically, and topographically
separated from the HR-1 zoning district. The applicant’s opposition is included as
Exhibit F.
The Planning Commission also found that staff was premature in recommending such a
Condition of Approval. The Planning Commission understood the need to preserve the
historic character of the site and its context related to the other BLM-owned historic
houses; however, they found that the purpose statements of the RM District were
sufficient to ensure future compatible infill and rehabilitation of the historic structure.
Further, the Planning Commission found that it was more appropriate to add a Condition
of Approval to a future subdivision application, rather than the current one (1) lot
subdivision that will already fall under the purview of the Design Guidelines as a
designated historic site. A draft copy of the Planning Commission Minutes has been
included as Exhibit I.
Planning Commission recommended amending the Condition of Approval to read:
4. Any development on this lot or future subdivided lots within this lot shall provide a
transition in scale between the historic structures in this neighborhood, the
Historic District, and Deer Valley Resort. The Planning Department shall review
the proposed plans for compliance with the purpose of the RM District, which
specifically encourages development that is compatible with historic structures in
the surrounding area.
The updated condition of approval is reflected in Exhibit A- Draft Ordinance.
The City Engineer will also require the applicant to grant two (2) – ten foot (10’) snow
storage easements along Deer Valley Loop Road and Rossie Hill Drive to address
street frontages, per Condition of Approval #5.
The utilities were disconnected from this property on May 26, 1999. The City will also
require the applicant to dedicate a public utilities easement to the City for the existing
waterline that is located within the Deer Valley Loop right-of-way; this is reflected in
Condition of Approval #6. A final utility plan will be required at the time of the building
permit prior to any development of the site.
Packet Pg. 85
Good Cause
Staff finds good cause for this Plat Amendment as the interior block line running through
the property will be removed and existing encroachments will be resolved. Public snow
storage easements will be provided along Park Avenue, Heber Avenue, and Main
Street. Additionally, sidewalk and utility easements will be provided along Park and
Heber Avenues as well as Main Street. More importantly, no rehabilitation of the
historic house can occur without this plat amendment; the City could not issue a building
permit if the property was not a legal lot of record. If the plat amendment is not
approved, the applicant cannot move forward with a Historic District Design Review
(HDDR) to rehab the historic house.
Department Review
This project has gone through an interdepartmental review. No further issues were
brought up at that time.
Notice
On April 9, 2016, the property was posted and notice was mailed to property owners
within 300 feet. Legal notice was also published in the Park Record on April 13, 2016,
according to requirements of the Land Management Code.
Public Input
Public input has been provided on this proposed plat amendment and is attached as
Exhibit H. During the Planning Commission meeting, public comment was provided that
there was not good cause for the plat amendment. The public also urged the Planning
Commission to deny the plat amendment until there was a Master Plan for this parcel
and the other BLM-owned parcel. The public was concerned about over-development
of the site to create high density development, need for trailheads, impact to wildlife
corridors, and additional traffic congestion in the neighborhood. The public comment is
outlined in the draft Planning Commission minutes included as Exhibit I.
Process
The approval of this plat amendment application by the City Council constitutes Final
Action that may be appealed following the procedures found in LMC § 15-1-18.
Alternatives
The City Council may approve the Lilac Hill Subdivision at 632 Deer Valley Loop;
or
The City Council may deny T the Lilac Hill Subdivision at 632 Deer Valley Loop
and direct staff to make Findings for this decision; or
The City Council may continue the discussion to a date certain and provide staff
with direction to provide additional information necessary in order to make a final
decision on the record of survey plat.
Significant Impacts
There are no significant fiscal or environmental impacts from this application.
Packet Pg. 86
Consequences of not taking the Suggested Recommendation
Consequences of not taking the Planning Department's recommendation are that the
Site would remain as is and Deer Valley Loop and Rossie Hill Drive would continue to
encroach on to the property. No snow storage or public utilities easements would be
granted to the City. No building permit could be issued for the rehab of the historic
house.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and consider approving the
Lilac Hill Subdivision at 632 Deer Valley Loop, based on the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of Approval as found in the attached ordinance.
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance with Proposed Plat (Attachment 1)
Exhibit B – Survey
Exhibit C – County Tax Map
Exhibit D – Aerial Photographs with 500’ Radius
Exhibit E– Site Photographs
Exhibit F– Applicant’s Opposition to Condition of Approval #4
Exhibit G– BLM Land Patent 5.2.13
Exhibit H– Public Comment
Exhibit I– Draft Planning Commission minutes, 6.22.16
Packet Pg. 87
Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2016-32
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE LILAC HILL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 632
DEER VALLEY LOOP, PARK CITY, UTAH.
WHEREAS, the owners of the property located at 632 Deer Valley Loop have
petitioned the City Council for approval of the Plat Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2016, the property was properly noticed and posted
according to the requirements of the Land Management Code; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2016, proper legal notice was sent to all affected property
owners; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 22, 2016, to
receive input on plat amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on June 22, 2016, forwarded a positive
recommendation to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to receive
input on the plat amendment; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Park City, Utah to approve the Lilac Hill
Subdivision located at 632 Deer Valley Loop.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Park City, Utah as
follows:
SECTION 1. APPROVAL. The Lilac Hill Subdivision located at 632 Deer Valley Loop,
as shown in Attachment 1, is approved subject to the following Findings of Facts,
Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of Approval:
Findings of Fact:
1. The property is located at 632 Deer Valley Loop.
2. The property is in the Residential Medium (RM) zoning district.
3. The subject property consists of all of Government Lot 26 in Section 15, Township 2
South, Range 4 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. It was formerly known as the
11th House on the south side of Deer Valley, Park City. The proposed plat
amendment creates one (1) lot of record.
4. This site is listed on Park City’s Historic Sites Inventory (HSI) and is designated as
Significant.
Packet Pg. 88
5. The Plat Amendment creates a legal lot of record from the government lot.
6. The proposed Plat Amendment combines the property into one (1) lot measuring
14,319 square feet.
7. A single-family dwelling is an allowed use in the District.
8. The minimum lot area for a single-family dwelling is 2,812 square feet. The
proposed lot meets the minimum lot area for single-family dwellings.
9. The proposed lot width is width is 116.38 feet along the north property line (facing
Deer Valley Drive) and 129.41 feet along the south property line (Rossie Hill).
10. The minimum lot width required is 37.50 feet. The proposed lot meets the minimum
lot width requirement.
11. LMC § 15-2.2-4 indicates that historic structures that do not comply with building
setbacks are valid complying structures.
12. The minimum front yard setbacks are fifteen feet (15’) and rear yard setbacks are 10
feet. The historic house has a front yard setback of 35 feet and rear yard setback of
52 feet.
13. The minimum side yard setbacks are five feet (5’). The historic house has a side
yard setback of 17 feet on the west and 65 feet on the east.
14. Deer Valley Loop consumes 64.27 square feet of the northwest corner of the lot and
Rossie Hill Drive consumes 62.72 square feet of the southeast corner of the lot.
15. All findings within the Analysis section and the recitals above are incorporated herein
as findings of fact.
Conclusions of Law:
1. There is good cause for this Subdivision.
2. The Plat Amendment is consistent with the Park City Land Management Code and
applicable State law regarding lot combinations.
3. Neither the public nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed Plat
Amendment.
4. Approval of the Plat Amendment, subject to the conditions stated below, does not
adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Park City.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The City Planner, City Attorney, and City Engineer will review and approve the final
form and content of the plat for compliance with State law, the Land Management
Code, and the conditions of approval, prior to recordation of the plat.
2. The applicant will record the plat at the County within one year from the date of City
Council approval. If recordation has not occurred within one (1) years’ time, this
approval for the plat will be void, unless a request for an extension is made in writing
prior to the expiration date and an extension is granted by the City Council.
3. The applicant shall dedicate a portion of the property that consists of Deer Valley
Loop Road and Rossie Hill Drive to the City as part of this plat amendment.
4. Any development on this lot or future subdivided lots within this lot shall provide a
transition in scale between the historic structures in this neighborhood, the Historic
District, and Deer Valley Resort. The Planning Department shall review the
proposed plans for compliance with the purpose of the RM District, which specifically
Packet Pg. 89
encourages development that is compatible with historic structures in the
surrounding area.
5. Two (2)- ten foot (10’) wide public snow storage easement will be required along the
Deer Valley Loop Road and Rossie Hill Road frontages of the property.
6. A public utilities easement is required along Deer Valley Loop for the existing water
line and shall be indicated on the final plat.
7. The property is located outside the Park City Landscaping and Maintenance of Soil
Cover Ordinance (Soils Ordinance) and therefore not regulated by the City for mine
related impacts. If the property owner does encounter mine waste or mine waste
impacted soils they must handle the material in accordance to State and Federal
law.
8. Modified 13-D sprinklers will be required for new construction by the Chief Building
Official at the time of review of the building permit submittal and shall be noted on
the final Mylar prior to recordation.
9. New construction shall comply with Land Management Code Section 15-2.15-3
regarding setbacks, building height, building envelope, building footprint, etc.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2016.
PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
________________________________
Jack Thomas, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Mark Harrington, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment 1 – Proposed Plat
Packet Pg. 91
Packet Pg. 92Exhibit A
Packet Pg. 93Exhibit B
Packet Pg. 94Exhibit C
Packet Pg. 95Exhibit D
Packet Pg. 96Exhibit E
Packet Pg. 97
Packet Pg. 98
Packet Pg. 99
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Anya Grahn
Park City Planning Department
RE: Plat Amendment PL-15-03010 632 Deer Valley Drive
Anya,
We understand you would like to place a Condition of Approval on Lilac Hill Plat requiring any
and all future development be subject to the HDDR Design Guidelines, due to the property
being located within "within a two (2) Block radius of the HR-1 District" (from the RC Zone Code
- 15-2.16-7 Architectural Review).
We are Opposed to this Condition of Approval for the following reasons:
1. This seems premature as the current application does not contemplate development of the
site: a) any construction which attempts to attach to the historic structure would be subject to
HDDR Approval because of the home being a designated Historic Site. b) Any construction
attempted that does not attached to the Historic home would need be built upon a new lot,
necessitating a Subdivision application, which would be the proper time to deal with this issue;
though the points below show that HDDR Approval is being improperly applied to the RM Zone.
2. If the City would like the language from the RC Zone to apply to the RM Zone, why isn’t it
included within the RM Zone code language? Which other Zones in Park City are Subject to RC
Zone Code - 15-2.16-7 Architectural Review?
2. The code referenced in this Condition Of Approval (15-2.16-7 Architectural Review) that
creates the “2 Block” standard is for the RC Zone, not the RM Zone, which the property is
within. Applying Code from other Zones would create a precedent that would require property
owners in one Zone to potentially adhere to randomly chosen sections from another Zone,
which may or may not even be contiguous to their Zone.
3. The Land Management Code 15-15-1.31 defines a block as "BLOCK. A tract of land
bounded by Streets, or by a combination of Streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad
Rights-of-Way, shore lines of water ways, or City boundary lines, as shown on an official plat.”
Therefore a “BLOCK” could be multiple sizes and the nearest and largest BLOCK wouldn’t
project 2X towards Lilac Hill. See Attached image.
4. The Property is visually, geographically, and topographically separated from the nearest
portion of the HR-1. There are numerous modern/contemporary or newly built homes and
condominiums separating this parcel from any portion of HR-1 and a person leaving the the
Packet Pg. 100
Exhibit F
HR-1 district headed toward Lilac Hill cannot get there without passing by 10-15 non-historic
properties that are also not in a HR Zone.
Matt Mullin
632 DV Loop, LLC
Packet Pg. 101
SerialNo.UTU-52468 00969304 B: 2183 P: 1779
Page 1of2
Alan Spriggs,Summit county Utah Recorder
05/02/2013 03:09:29 PM Fee $12.00
By High Country
Title
ElectronicallyRecorded
51)Wniteb States of 5merica
to alltoidjamtf)esepresentsshallcome,keetfugs:
WHEREAS,
William T.Bertagnole and JulfM.Bertagnole,
As Trustees of the JuliM.Bertagnole Family
Trust dated September 7,2005
areentitledto a land patentpursuant to the Act of December 22, 1928,
as amended (43.U.S.C.
1068-1068b),forthe followingdescribedland:
SaltLake Meridian,Utah
T. 2 S.,R.4 E.,
Sec.15,lot26.
Containing .33acre,more orless.
NOW KNOW YE,thatthereis,therefore,grantedby theUNITED STATES unto William T..
Bertagnole and JuliM.Bertagnole,Trustees,the lands describedabove;TO HAVE AND TO
HOLD theland with allthe rights,privileges,immunities,and appurtenances,of whatsoever
nature,thereuntobelonging,unto William T.Bertagnole and JuliM.Bertagnole,Trustees,and to
theirsuccessorsand assigns,forever.
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE UNITED STATES:
1.A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructedby the authorityof the
United States.Act of August 30,1890 (43 U.S.C.945).
2. All mineral depositsinthe land so patented,and to it,or persons authorizedby it,the
rightto prospectfor,mine and remove such depositsfrom the same under applicable
law.
PatentNo.43-20 13-000 1 Page1of2
Packet Pg. 102
Exhibit G
SUBJECT TO:
1. Those rights for a road granted to Park City Municipal Corporation,its
successorsor assigns,by Right-ofWay No.UTU-45920,pursuant to the Act
of October 21,1976 (43 U.S.C.1761).
By acceptingthispatent,patenteesagreeto indenmify,defend,and hold thegrantorharmless
from any costs,damages,claims,liabilities,and judgments arisingfrom past,present,and
futureactsor omissions of thepatentees,theiremployees, agents,contractors,lessees,or any
thirdpartyarisingout of or in connectionwith patentees'use,occupancy,or operationson
thepatentedrealproperty.This indemnificationand hold harmless agreement includes,but
isnot limitedto,actsand omissions ofthepatentees,theiremployees,agents,contractors,
lessees,or any thirdparty,arisingout of orin connectionwith theuse and/or occupancy on
thepatentedrealpropertywhich has alreadyresultedor does hereafterresultin:(1)
Violationsof federal,state,and locallaws and regulationswhich arenow,or may inthe
futurebecome,applicabletothepatentedrealproperty;(2)Judgments,claims,or demands
assessedagainstthe grantor;(3)Costs,expenses,or damages incurredby theUnited States;
(4)Releases or threatenedreleaseson or intoland,propertyand otherinterestsof the grantor
by solidwaste and/orhazardous substances(s)as definedby federalor stateenvironmental
laws;(5)Other activitiesby which solidorhazardous substancesor wastes,as defined by
federaland stateenvironmental laws were generated,released,stored,used or otherwise
disposed on thepatented realproperty,and any clean-upresponse,naturalresourcedamage,
or otheractionsrelatedin any manner to saidsolidor hazardous substancesor wastes. This
covenant shallbe construed asrunning with the patentedrealproperty,and may be enforced
by the United Statesina courtof competent jurisdiction.
INTESTIMONY WHEREOF,theundersignedauthorizedofficerof
theBureauofLandManagement,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheActofJune17,1948(62Stat.476),has,inthenameofthe
unitedstates,causedtheseletterstobemaderatent,andtheseat
oftheBureautobehereuntoaffixed.
Give undermy hand,insaltLakecity,utah.theso*dayof
AprilintheyearofourLordtwothousandandthirteenandthe
Independenceoftheunitedstatesthetwohundredandthirty-
Deputy StateDirector,
Division of Lands and Minerals
Bureau of Land Management
00969304 Page 2 of 2 Summit county
PatentNo.43-2013-0001 Page2 of2
Packet Pg. 103
1
Anya Grahn
From:Sydney Reed <sydreed@msn.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 11, 2016 10:41 AM
To:Jennifer Strauss Gurss; Matey Erdos; Diane Bernhardt; Jeff Camp;
jennifer@jeffcamp.com; Matt Shier; Christina Shiebler; John and Linda Mason; Mary
Wintzer; Morgan Hole; Howard Klein; Dennis Wong; Bob Gurss; Anya Grahn
Subject:Re: Rossie Hill Update
Attachments:Mullin property.pdf
Thanks for the update Jennifer.
My main concern is that that home built in 1916 is preserved to reflect our heritage.
It has been poorly maintained in the hopes it would not have to be saved.
I feel it is imperative that home maintain it's integrity.
I remember the family that owned that home. They were meticulous about their lilac bushes, peony plants
and yard. Their home always was kept well, they raised their children there and had a good life in Park City.
That is the neighborhood we moved into and I feel strongly we need to maintain vestiges of that life forever.
Sydney Reed
668 Coalition View Ct.
From: Jennifer Strauss Gurss <straussgurss@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:40 PM
To: Sydney Reed; Matey Erdos; Diane Bernhardt; Jeff Camp; jennifer@jeffcamp.com; Matt Shier; Christina Shiebler; John
and Linda Mason; Mary Wintzer; Morgan Hole; Howard Klein; Dennis Wong; Bob Gurss
Subject: Rossie Hill Update
I'm 90% sure you each got a copy of the attached letter, indicating upcoming Planning Commission and City
Council meetings (June 22 and July 14, respectively) regarding a plat amendment for the property on the north
side of Rossie Hill. However, since ours was addressed to the condo association, I thought I'd make sure
everyone is in the (deer valley) loop....
Not quite sure what the next step is, or even what constitutes Government Lot 26....
Packet Pg. 104
Exhibit H
Joseph E. Tesch
Stephanie K. Matsumura Jared W. Moss
314 Main Street - Suite 200
PO Box 3390 Park City, Utah 84060-3390
Tel: (435) 649-0077
Fax: (435) 649-2561
www.teschlaw.com
T ESCH
LAW OFFICES
A Professional Law Corporation
June 22, 2016
VIA EMAIL
Park City Planning Commission Re: 632 Deer Valley Loop—Lilac Hill Subdivision- Request for Subdivision Approval
Dear Planning Commission:
This letter introduces myself and Tesch Law Offices, P.C. as attorneys representing the Snow Park Subdivision Homeowners Association, a sixteen lot development adjacent to the
requested subdivision and directly affected by it.
As you know, if this property and the BLM parcel, of which this lot is currently a part of, were not owned by the Federal Government, this one lot subdivision would not be permitted. Our ordinances will require the entire parcel to be comprehensively planned to make sure there is
adequate open space and a protected wildlife corridor and other protections for the adjoining
properties. The BLM process of slicing and dicing this property piecemeal avoids all of those
protections. To stop that practice, Park City Municipal should forewarn the BLM that it will not be approving any additional single lot subdivisions without its review and without comprehensive planning of the entire parcel.
As you know, this is an extremely important hillside embodying not only historical structures,
but also Park City’s colorful mining history. Therefore, the obligations of the Planning Commission to insure that there is adequate “Good Cause” is doubly important. The requirement of the Applicant to demonstrate Good Cause is mandatory as set forth in Section 15-7.1-6.C. of the
Park City Land Management Code and Section 10-9a-609 of the Utah Statutes. The fact that the
new private party owner is now subject to these claws was determined in the case of Mount Olive Cemetery Association v. Salt Lake City, 164 F.3d 480 a 1998 case decided by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The good cause portion of the Planning Packet is set forth on page 33. It reads as follows:
“Good Cause Staff finds good cause for this Plat Amendment as the plat amendment will create a legal lot of record from a government parcel and a portion of the Deer Valley Loop and Rossie Hill
Packet Pg. 105
Park City Planning Commission June 22, 2016 Page 2 of 3
__________________
Drive rights-of-way will be dedicated to the City. Public snow storage and utility easements will also be provided on the lot.”
In our opinion, this finding by Staff is inadequate to show Good Cause in that it is an
illusion and, in fact, no good cause has been shown at all. Just analyzing that paragraph:
1. Creating a legal lot of record. How does this provide good cause for the community? It allows a single lot development without planning the entire hillside. It creates a lot of
record which only benefits the Applicant. It creates no benefit whatsoever for the
community.
2. Dedicating a portion of Deer Valley Loop and Rossie Hill Drive rights-of-way to the City. Frankly, the City already has ownership of those roads and the additional dedication really
provides nothing. See §72-5-104(2)(a) of the Utah Statutes and the just decided case of
Clearwater Farmers, LLC v. Giles, 2016 UT App 126 (decided June 16, 2016). Under State
law, a road becomes a state road when it has been used by the general public for 10 consecutive years. These roads have been used much, much longer than that and, under case law decisions, the community already has vested rights in those roads. So the City is
getting nothing.
3. Public Snow Storage and Utility Easements. No one will be able to get a building permit without dedicating the 10’ snow storage and public utility easement. So, there is no benefit and, therefore, no Good Cause.
Typically, a showing of good cause requires a donation of some new significant valuable
item. Sometimes good cause is shown by the Applicant agreeing to a smaller footprint than he is otherwise permitted. Sometimes a smaller square footage, sometimes a lowering of height, sometimes dedication of a new road or spending money improving a current road. Sometimes by
dedicating open space for trails or a wildlife corridor. Whatever good cause is proposed, it has to
show that the citizens of Park City end up with more than they originally had, not just the same
thing. As a result, I would encourage the Planning Commission to find that the Applicant hasn’t
shown Good Cause and that the Applicant needs to come back with a plan that at least preserves the
character of the current hillside and its historic structures. Ordinarily, if the BLM was in the
situation of a private owner, this subdivision would never be permitted. The Planning Commission should require any application for this parcel contain actual and not just illusionary Good Cause. In my opinion, I think the Planning Commission would be on thin ice to approve this subdivision on
the current statement of Good Cause.
Also, the conversation with the Planning Commission, shouldn’t necessarily be “what does the code permit and what does that zone permit?” The question should be, “what significant items
Packet Pg. 106
Park City Planning Commission June 22, 2016 Page 3 of 3
__________________
www.teschlaw.com
are you giving to the community that the citizens don’t already have? I hope this is helpful. If I can provide additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
TESCH LAW OFFICES, P.C.
Joseph E. Tesch
JET/tw
cc: Anya Grahn
Packet Pg. 107
K CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARSAC MUNICIPAL BUILDING
JUNE 22, 2016
COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Chair Pro Tem Melissa Band, Preston Campbell, John Phillips, Laura Suesser, Doug
Thimm
EX OFFICIO:
Bruce Erickson, Planning Director, Kirsten Whetstone, Planner; Anya Grahn, Planner;
Makena Hawley, Planning Tech; Polly Samuels McLean, Assistant City Attorney
===================================================================
REGULAR MEETING
Director Erickson noted that two Commissioners were absent this evening and other
Commissioners would be recusing themselves from different matters on the agenda. The
Planning Commission would have a quorum throughout the evening; however, the
Commissioners needed to nominate a Chair Pro Tem to conduct the meeting.
MOTION: Commission Phillips nominated Melissa Band as the Chair Pro Tem.
Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed unanimously.
Director Erickson noted that Commissioner Band would be recused from one agenda item
and the Commissioners needed to nominate a Vice-Chair Pro Tem.
MOTION: Commissioner Campbell nominated John Phillips as the Vice-Chair Pro Tem.
Commissioner Thimm seconded the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed unanimously.
ROLL CALL
Chair Pro Tem Band called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and noted that all
Commissioners were present except Commissioners Joyce and Strachan who were
excused.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
June 8, 2016
Packet Pg. 108
Exhibit I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 4
find the right compromises. He has great respect for Mr. Murphy and appreciates
the fact that he was willing to join their team.
Chair Pro Tem Band closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Suesser moved to CONTINUE 1401 & 1415 Kearns Blvd.,
the northeast MPD pre-application to a date uncertain. Commissioner Campbell
seconded the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed unanimously.
REGULAR AGENDA - DISCUSSION/PUBLIC HEARINGS/ POSSIBLE ACTION
1. 632 Deer Valley Loop – Plat Amendment for the Lilac Hill Subdivision located
at 632 Deer Valley Loop (Application PL-16-03153)
Planner Anya Grahn presented an aerial showing the project location.
Planner Grahn noted that this property has had a long and complicated history. The house
is listed on the Historic Sites Inventory and is commonly known as the “burnt out house” on
Rossi Hill Drive. The fire damaged occurred in 1999. The house was originally
constructed around 1900 and renovated between 1912 and 1918. The property was
purchased by William and Julie Bertagnole in 1981. At that time they purchased the house
but the land itself was still owned by the BLM. The Bertagnole‟s were in a legal battle with
the BLM for almost 30 years before they retained a land patent for the ownership in 2013.
At that time the Bertagnole‟s were considering developing the property and they wanted to
tear down the house. However, the Historic Preservation Board did a determination of
significance and found that the house was historic could not be demolished. Following that
determination the Bertagnole‟s sold the property to 632 Deer Valley Loop LLC in February
of 2016.
Planner Grahn introduced Matt Mullin, the applicant representative for 632 Deer Valley
Loop LLC.
Planner Grahn reviewed the proposal for a plat amendment to create one legal lot of
record which would contain 14,446 square feet. A small portion of Deer Valley Loop cuts
across the parcel. A portion of Rossi Hill also cuts across the property. Planner Grahn
stated that the property where the roads are actually build is owned by the BLM. However,
the BLM has granted the City a right-of-way easement for these streets.
Packet Pg. 109
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 5
The City has also requested that the applicant dedicate the portion of the land they own to
the City for these street dedications, as well as an easement for a water line that runs
across Deer Valley Loop. The property is located in the RDM zone. Planner Grahn
understood that the three houses on Lower Deer Valley Driver are stilled owned by the
BLM.
Planner Grahn stated that due to the historic nature of this site the Staff wanted to ensure
that new development would not detract from the historic character of the site. Therefore a
condition of approval was drafted as dictated by the General Plan. The General Plan
outlines the Old Town neighborhood and it includes the Deer Valley Loop area. The
General Plan also talks about preserving the historic character of the neighborhoods. It
discusses compatible infill and neighborhood context, and making sure infill is subordinate
to historic structures. The General Plan also calls for preventing the loss of historic
structures and preserving the aesthetic of the Old Town character.
Planner Grahn noted that the RM District purpose statements also encourage new
development that is compatible infill and rehab of existing structures; and it encourages
developments that provide a transition of use and scale between the historic district and
resort development.
Planner Grahn reported that the applicant believes the condition of approval is premature
since any new development would likely require a second subdivision for single family
housing or condominiums.
Matt Mullin, representing the applicant, explained that his concern with the HDDR review
standard for this property is that it is premature and it can be applied later on when the
house is rebuilt or development occurs. At this stage they were only trying to create a lot of
record. Since no development was proposed at this time he could understand why they
were addressing design issues.
Mr. Mullin also stated that the language Planner Grahn referenced for requesting the
condition of approval comes from another zone which is two zones away. He was
concerned about setting a precedent for property owners to have to check the Code across
all zones in town and then determine which pieces of the Code would be applied to their
piece of property.
Mr. Mullin stated that even in the RC zone it should be two blocks away from a historic
Zones. He noted that a block is not easily defined in the LMC; however, even using the
liberal definition, this property is more than two blocks away from a historic zone. Mr.
Mullin commented on the geographic and topographic separation. He pointed out that this
property cannot be accessed either walking or driving, without passing entire zones of new
Packet Pg. 110
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 6
construction or contemporary construction. He believed the standards that should only
apply to the renovation of the house if that should occur were being applied to the entire
property, and the Staff was supporting that argument by referencing Code language from
other parts of town. Mr. Mullin stated that even if this were not premature, he had issues
with taking language from other zones and putting it into the RM zone where it does not
currently exist.
Director Erickson clarified that the RM Zone in which this project is located has
requirements for preserving historic character. Those requirements were outlined in the
Staff report. He explained that the difference is that this condition of approval was brought
in from other applications where this condition of approval was used in order to support
the current zone language. Director Erickson emphasized that it was a consistent
application of the condition of approval. This property is in a zone that requires
preservation and integration with the historic character of the neighborhood and the Staff
wrote a consistent recommendation for a condition of approval.
Commissioner Suesser read language in the Staff report, “Staff has based this condition of
approval on existing language in districts neighboring the H-Districts. Director Erickson
replied that it was a condition of approval in support of the underlying zone. He clarified
that the HDDR process was not on this particular application, and it would not take place
until an application for a building is submitted.
Chair Pro Tem Band believed that everyone agrees that there is historic character and
these gems are the last in that part of the neighborhood. She asked if those protections
were sufficient without the condition of approval. Director Erickson stated that in the
absence of a similar condition of approval they would need to rely on the zone
requirements. If someone brings in an application it would be reviewed against the zone
requirements for neighborhood compatibility. What the Staff was recommending would
give the Planning Commission an additional condition of approval.
Commissioner Suesser asked if it would include the Design Guidelines for Historic Districts.
Director Erickson replied that it would not. Planner Grahn remarked that the site is one lot
of record with a historic house, and it falls under the Historic District Design Review
process because it is a historic site designated on the Historic Sites Inventory. If the
property was subdivided in the future, the lot with the historic house would still have to
comply with the Design Guidelines because the house is on the HSI. However, other lots
created by a subdivision would only have to meet the requirements outlined in LMC 15-
2.15, which is the RM zoning District.
Chair Pro Tem Band thought it made more sense to wait until the applicant comes in with
an application to re-subdivide the lot to add the condition of approval. She understood that
Packet Pg. 111
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 7
this application was only creating one lot of record. She was struggling to find a reason for
doing it now. Assistant City Attorney McLean stated that Planning Commission had the
purview to decide whether to require this condition of approval at all; and whether to do it
now or later. Ms. McLean explained that doing it now would make subsequent owners or
potential buyers aware of the Planning Commission‟s intention. Without the condition, the
individual lot with the minimum lot size around that historic house would have the
protection of the Design Guidelines, but future lots surrounding the existing lot would not be
bound by the requirements of the Guidelines. The zone has purpose statements but not
specific guidelines; and the purpose statements are difficult to enforce. Chair Pro Tem
Band thought they were using the purpose statements to add the condition of approval.
Assistant City Attorney answered no. In addition to the purpose statements they also have
the fact that currently the house sits on the entire lot and it has been on that lot historically.
The Staff was recommending the condition of approval because the historic sites
encompasses the entire lot and future subdivisions would affect the context of the historic
home.
Commissioner Campbell thought they could accomplish the same purpose if they added
the condition of approval at the time of subdivision application. He agreed that the
subdivision was a better time to address the issue.
Mr. Mullin stated that if it was the intent of the Planning Commission to make their views
clear for future Planning Commissions or Staff, he suggested that they write it into the
Code for the RM zone. Revising the Code would make everyone aware that language from
other zones could randomly be applied.
Planner Grahn handed out public comment from the Tesch Law Office that was related to
this application.
Chair Pro Tem Band opened the public hearing.
Diane Bernhardt, a Park City resident and homeowner at 630 Coalition View Court, stated
that she was representing the Snow Park HOA, the Portico HOA, and a group of additional
neighbors and homeowners a short distance from 632 Deer Valley Loop. Ms. Bernhardt
read a letter expressing their concerns about the proposed plat amendment.
“As an overview, the subject property recently put into private ownership is part of a much
larger parcel which has been owned for the BLM for over 100 years. This parcel is a one
of a kind piece of heritage land with remarkable variety. It holds historic significance for the
cluster of National Historic Register and Mining Boom houses with their notorious red light
district past. It includes an established trailhead and well-loved recreational trails which
were built by the Mountain and Trails Foundation, and are an integral part of the Park City
Packet Pg. 112
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 8
Trail Network. In addition, it is the last available passage for moose and wildlife to make
their way to their only accessible source of drinking water. This BLM Hillside is an
extremely important civic asset with a powerful potential to increase civic value. Our
position is that a well-planned development of this property is the only way to preserve its
historical, recreational and natural community heritage, and to improve its availability to the
public. To improve the plat amendment the Planning Commission needs sufficient
demonstration of good cause, particularly in light of the detriments that would occur. We
believe that good cause, as documented in the Staff report, is inadequate. The good
cause portion of tonight‟s planning packet is set forth on page 33 and it reads as follows:
Staff finds good cause for this plat amendment as the plat amendment will create a legal
lot of record from the government parcel, and a portion of Deer Valley Loop and Rossi Hill
rights-of-way will be dedicated to the City. Public snow storage and utility easement will
also be provided in the lot. Our view of this finding by Staff is that is an illusion and in fact
no good cause has been shown. Let‟s address the good cause item by item. One, good
cause by creating a legal lot of record. Creation of a single lot without planning the entire
BLM hillside creates benefit only for the applicant, not for the City. Number two, good
cause by dedicating rights-of-way to the City. The City already has ownership of those
roads and the additional dedication really provides nothing. We understand that under
Utah Law a road becomes a State Road when it has been used by the General Public for
ten consecutive years. These road have been used much longer than that, and under
case law decisions the City already has vested rights to these roads. Therefore, the City is
getting nothing. Number three, good cause by providing snow storage and utilities
easements. No building permit will be issued without dedicating ten foot snow storage and
public utility easement. Since the City is already entitled to the snow, snow storage and
easement there is no benefit. Good cause is not a simple reiteration of what the City of
Park City already have, or something to which they are already entitled, as we find in this
proposed plat amendment. A showing of good cause must illustrate that the citizens of
Park City gain more than they originally had. It requires a donation of significant value to
the City. For example, dedication of open space and safe passage for the protection and
preservation of wildlife, restoration and preservation of historic structures, dedication of
new recreation trails and trailheads, dedication of pedestrian sidewalks and stairways.
Dedication of new roads or improvements to an existing road, or agreement to a smaller
footprint, square footage or building height that is otherwise permitted. Due to the subject
property‟s inclusion within this historic BLM parcel, the proposed plat amendment and its
show of good cause must illustrate how its approval contributes to a big picture plan for the
whole of this one of a kind property. First, applicants should be required to comply with
open space plan providing for the accommodation of the existing BLM wildlife corridor,
which is Rossi Hill‟s Wildlife last and only access to their source of drinking water.
Applicant should be required to show good cause by documenting how the subject property
contributes to the open space plane. Second, applicant should be required to comply with
a historic preservation plan providing for the restoration and preservation of the collection
Packet Pg. 113
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 9
of four architecturally and historically significant homes. Applicant should be required to
show good cause by documenting how the subject property contributes to the historic
preservation plan. Additionally, approval of the plat amendment should be made
conditional and the renovation and preservation of the existing single family home located
at 630 Deer Valley Loop. Its renovation should approximate its current size, location and
scale. Its historic attributes and significance should be restored. Its setting, landscape and
surroundings, including potential new development there should reflect its historic era.
This, applicant should be required to comply with the pedestrian pathway plan providing for
the dedication and preservation of pedestrian walkways, stairways, recreational trails and
trail heads. Applicant should be required to show good cause by documenting how the
subject property contributes to the pathway plan. Fourth, applicant should be required to
comply with a plan providing for sufficient infrastructure associated with the growth and
development of the BLM parcel with respect to traffic, parking, water, sewer, utilities, snow
management and transportation. documenting how the subject property contributes to the
infrastructure plan. Finally, as residents of this neighborhood we would like the City to get
out in front of the development of the BLM Land. We are asking for the Planning
Commission to direct Staff to take a proactive leadership role by creating an intelligent,
long sighted development plan which advocates for community considerations and
respects the rights of the eventual land owners of the BLM Land. Once created, applicants
should be required to comply with this master development plan and should be required to
show good cause by documenting how the subject property contributes to the overall
development plan. Without this show of good cause supporting an overarching plan for
well-considered development, this application should be tabled pending BLM‟s transfer of
the remainder of the parcel pursuant to federal law, so that the entirety of the parcel can be
made part a master development plan. If the Planning Commission were to approve this
plat amendment it would appear that this prize, BLM open space is being sliced, diced, and
lots of record being approved simply because it was formerly subdivided by the federal
government for its convenience rather than for the best interest of the municipality in which
it is located. The City is not bound to honor the federal subdivision of the BLM parcel as if
it were buildable lots. Had the BLM parcel been owned by a private owner the City would
require that the entire parcel be planned. The members of this Planning Commission have
illustrated in their previous decisions that the extent of benefits necessary for the finding of
the good cause requires significantly more donated benefits than is offered in the proposed
plat amendment. We encourage the Planning Commission to find that the applicant has
not shown good cause and refuse to take action without establishing a master plan for the
entire BLM parcel. Thank you for your time and attention.”
Ms. Bernhardt stated that a number of neighbors would have attended this evening but
they had conflicts. If necessary, she could provide a list of the neighbors she was
representing.
Packet Pg. 114
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 10
Robert Gurss, a resident at 654 Rossi Hill Drive, echoed support for the comments read by
Ms. Bernhardt. Mr. Gurss stated that the other owners of his condominium agree with this
statement, as do many of the other neighbors. It is important that this piece of property is
carefully looked at and that they do not make mistakes today that could be regretted five or
ten years from now. It is one of the rare historic properties that has certain environmental
benefits, and over-development of this area could have devastating impacts overall.
Alison Kitching stated that she lives directly across from this property in the Portico units.
She is also on the Board of the Portico HOA. Ms. Kitching remarked that she was
personally looking forward to having the historic home renovated, but her concern is that
the property would be over-developed. Ms. Kitching stated that Matt Mullin is her neighbor
and he lives directly above. She understood that the temptation to over-develop the lot is
financially beneficial and she was concerned that it might outweigh the concerns of the
neighborhood in terms of density. Ms. Kitching asked the Planning Commission to
consider whether there was a way to ensure that only the historic structure would be
renovated or integrated into something that would fit into the neighborhood. She
supported the comments read by Ms. Bernhardt. She sits on her patio every day and she
sees deer come down off the hill going to the creek. She has heard comments on the
radio several times that if something is not in the Code there is nothing the City can do to
stop development that does not support what the City wants to see for a certain property.
Ms. Kitching suggested that this was the time for the City to make extra assurances that
this would be developed in alignment with the City‟s values.
Christina Shiebler, a resident at 638 Coalition View Court, stated that she backed the
comments by Ms. Bernhardt as a representative of their neighborhood.
Chair Pro Tem Band closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Suesser asked Planner Grahn to respond to the good cause argument and
whether or not the Staff has adequately looked at that issue. Planner Grahn replied that
the Staff looked at it as they would any traditional plat amendment application. They
always look at what the City would achieve. In this case they are getting dedications for
the street. The City does not own the street and the BLM has granted right-of-way
easements for the portions on their property. The City is also getting a utility easement and
snow storage. Planner Grahn appreciated the neighbor‟s comments and concerns
regarding the development; however, that would be the next step if this plat amendment is
approved.
Mr. Mullin pointed out that renovation of the burned out historic house was another benefit
to the City for good cause. He noted that during public input everyone wanted a proper,
well thought out, well contemplated development, and that could only occur if the lot is
platted.
Packet Pg. 115
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 11
Commissioner Thimm recalled a previous comment by Director Erickson about using
language from other zone ordinances for structuring conditions of approval. He asked if
there was a specific precedent for using language with regard to historic preservation.
Director Erickson replied that when the Staff writes conditions of approval, they try to use
standardized conditions from all other applications in an effort to consistently apply the
rules. He explained that the distinction is taking a relatively standard condition of approval
from a number of past approvals and using it to substantiate the requirements of the zone
and the General Plan for neighborhood character and preservation of historic sites. He
emphasized that it was a standard condition of approval from projects already approved in
the zone. They were not taking language from one zone and applying it to another.
Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the historic house is already protected without the
condition of approval. He understood that the intent is to protect the area beside it that
could one day become another one or more lots. He pointed out that if this owner or a
future owner came back to further subdivide, the Planning Commission would have the
opportunity to add appropriate conditions at that time. Director Erickson stated that if their
discussion focuses on the recommendation for approval and public comment, the Planning
Commission could craft a condition of approval stating that any further subdivision would
be required to demonstrate compliance with the Historic District Guidelines and Universal
Standards.
Chair Pro Tem Band stated that in the meantime they could amend the LMC and add
language to this particular zone before another subdivision application came forth. Director
Erickson agreed. He clarified that the Staff was only trying to make it clear that in terms of
how the RM zone is structured, they would be reviewing any development on this parcel
consistent with maintaining the historic character.
Commissioner Campbell stated that he was not trying to do away with the controls. He
was only looking for a way to be consistent. He preferred to have language in the LMC for
that zone.
Assistant City Attorney McLean stated that there are only a handful of historic houses in
that zone in the old red light district. Therefore, the zone itself is not designated as a
historic zone. However, because the historic house sits on the larger site, in order to
preserve the context of the house the Staff decided to add a condition of approval to say
that the entire site should be treated under the guidelines. Ms. McLean clarified that the
idea was to preserve that small area and give people notice.
Commissioner Campbell suggested that they do a zone change and make that area part of
HR-1. Assistant City Attorney McLean noted that the lot sizes are different and the
Packet Pg. 116
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 12
restrictions are different in the HR-1. Director Erickson thought they would achieve more
density rezoning to a standard HR-1 lot than what is allowed in the RM zone. He remarked
that the Planning Commission has the obligation in reviewing the zone requirements to
make sure it would not degrade the context of the BLM homes as well. That is the second
part of the argument for saying that at some point they need to make sure that
neighborhood compatibility, mass, materials and scale consistent with the RM zone are
maintained on this parcel and the next one as well, due to the proximity to the listed
homes. It is important not to degrade the integrity of the homes.
Commissioner Thimm agreed with the Staff regarding good cause. Defining right-of-way
and defining land, shape and form has importance. Establishing utility easements and
establishing this as a true lot is appropriate. Commissioner Thimm felt that keeping this
property in a waiting posture for actions on other BLM property is out of their control in
terms of when it might happen. In looking at this property and the preservation elements
he preferred the idea of defining the property. With regard to the preservation of the
historic aspect of the site, Commissioner Thimm wanted to see that happen but he was not
convince this was the appropriate time. As he read through the zone it appeared that
protections are in place as actual development decisions are brought forth to the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Suesser concurred with Commissioner Thimm. She thought the good
cause arguments made by the Staff were appropriate; but she believed the strongest
argument for good cause was the need for a plat amendment to preserve the historic
structure. Commissioner Suesser preferred to amend the condition of approval proposed
by Staff to change the last sentence to read, “The purpose of the RM District is to
encourage development that is compatible with historic structures in the surrounding area.”
She thought it was better to state that in the condition of approval as opposed to saying
that the proposed plans will be in compliance with the design guidelines for historic
districts. Director Erickson suggested revising the last sentence of the condition of
approval to read, “The Staff will review for consistency with the purposes of the RM zone.”
Commissioner Suesser added, “Specifically to encourage development that is compatible
with historic structures in the surrounding area.”
Commissioner Campbell agreed with amending the last sentence of the condition. He
also believed that the best reason for good cause is to preserve a historic structure that
would not survive many more winters. He thought all the neighbors would be happy to see
the historic house rebuilt in accordance with the guidelines.
Commissioner Phillips agreed with his fellow Commissioners. He understood the
perspective of the neighbors because it is a very sensitive property and an important part
of Park City. Commissioner Phillips thought it was important to make sure no mistakes are
Packet Pg. 117
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 13
made. He pointed out that Park City does more plat amendments that most places.
Commissioner Phillips agreed with the Staff on the reasons for good cause. He also
realized that the plat amendment needs to occur in order to rehab the historic house.
Commissioner Phillips understood that Mr. Mullins believed the Staff‟s approach was
premature, but it was inevitable and they would have to go through the process either now
or later. He asked Mr. Mullin what impact it would have on the applicant moving forward.
Commissioner Phillips favored the idea of adding the condition now so the intent is clear to
future owners of the property.
Mr. Mullins stated that he is in the real estate industry in Park City and he feels strongly
about the consistency and predictability of the Code. He lives to see regulations applied at
the right time so landowners and future landowners know what to expect when they make
a decision to buy or sell property. For this particular property, Mr. Mullin thought the more
accurate time to address the issue is when a proposal comes in. It may not be necessary
at that time or the Staff may want to more from the development relative to specific issues
of renovating the house. In his opinion, adding the condition now would be making a
decision without definitive information regarding potential development. Mr. Mullin
summarized that his issues were consistency of Code and the fact that this application was
to plat a lot without any kind of construction.
Director Erickson clarified that the purpose of recommending the condition of approval is to
make sure that when someone does their due diligence in advance of making a purchase,
the property is readily identified early in the process before the purchase has been
completed and the owner submits for development. He explained that the subdivision plat
would be approved with conditions of approval. A potential buyer doing their due diligence
would review the subdivision plat and the conditions, which would reflect Condition of
Approval #4. Director Erickson stated that the Staff was trying to be proactive given the
sensitive nature of the site.
Commissioner Phillips understood both perspectives. Mr. Mullin noted that he and Planner
Grahn have talked about this at length and they have a difference of opinion.
Commissioner Phillips stated that his biggest concern is when someone purchases the
property without knowing all the facts it puts the Planning Commission in a difficult position
when development is proposed. Commissioner Phillips agreed with the proposed
amendment to Condition #4.
Chair Pro Tem Band understood there was consensus among the Planning Commission
that there is good cause to approve the plat amendment; and that they all have concerns
regarding the future of this parcel because of the significance of the historic home and
wanting to protect that particular area. Chair Pro Tem Band believed there was consensus
to amend Condition #4 as suggested by Commissioner Suesser and Director Erickson.
Packet Pg. 118
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 14
Mr. Mulling requested that the Planning Commission read the revision being proposed.
Commissioner Suesser stated that the last sentence of Condition #4 would be revised to
read, “The Planning Department shall review the proposed plans for compliance with the
purpose of the RM District, which specifically is to encourage development that is
compatible with historic structures in the surrounding area.”
Assistant City Attorney McLean stated that the Planning Commission could add that
language and it was consistent with the zone. However, it would not require that the
Historic District Guidelines be applied to the remainder of the lot. Commissioner Campbell
pointed out that the property is not in the Historic District. Ms. McLean replied that it is
currently a historic site. If the property is not subdivided and developed on one lot it would
be subject to the Design Guidelines. Planner Grahn agreed that it would be subject to the
Guidelines because the house and the site are considered a historic site. If the property is
subdivided, the new lots would only be required to meet the LMC and not the design
guidelines. Ms. McLean stated that legally purpose statements are helpful in reviewing
applications, but they are not mandatory. If the intent of the Planning Commission is to
make sure that if the property is subdivided a potential developer would have notice that
development must be compatible with the area around it, she recommended that they add
that condition now so a future owner would be aware of that. They could also leave it for
the next Planning Commission to address if development comes forward. She pointed out
that protection currently exists on the lot because it is a historic site.
Chair Pro Tem Band asked if Ms. McLean was suggesting that the proposed language to
amend the condition was not strong enough to protect a future subdivided lot. Ms. Mclean
did not believe the language would be very effective in terms of a condition of approval.
Commissioner Campbell asked about Condition #9. Planner Grahn replied that it was the
standard language of what would be required by the zone. Mr. Mullin clarified that
Condition #9 related to the RM zone and Condition #4 had the added language of the
design guidelines from the neighboring district.
Chair Pro Tem Band preferred to err on the side of caution. She agreed with the applicant
on the issue of consistency and Code. She believed this property was a special
circumstance and it should be protected. Chair Pro Tem noted that the Planning
Commission has added conditions of approval in the past on that were out of the ordinary
for historic sites.
Commissioner Campbell was concerned that if they want this level of detail and try to think
of what every applicant might ever do, nothing would ever get accomplished. He thought
Packet Pg. 119
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 15
the Planning Commission should agree to modify Condition #4 and move forward because
they will have the opportunity to review this again if the property is ever subdivided.
MOTION: Commissioner Suesser moved to forward a POSITIVE recommendation to the
City Council for the Lilac Hills Subdivision at 632 Deer Valley Loop based on the Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval as amended to replace the last
sentence of Condition #4 in the draft ordinance to read, “The Planning Department shall
review the proposed plans for compliance with the purpose of the RM District, which
specifically encourages development that is compatible with historic structures in the
surrounding area.” Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed unanimously.
Findings of Fact – 632 Deer valley Loop – Plat Amendment for the Lilac Hill Subdivision
located at 532 Deer Valley Loop (Application PL-16-03153)
1. The property is located at 632 Deer Valley Loop.
2. The property is in the Residential Medium (RM) zoning district.
3. The subject property consists of all of Government Lot 26 in Section 15, Township 2
South, Range 4 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian. It was formerly known as the
11th House on the south side of Deer Valley, Park City. The proposed plat
amendment creates one (1) lot of record.
4. This site is listed on Park City‟s Historic Sites Inventory (HSI) and is designated as
Significant.
5. The Plat Amendment creates a legal lot of record from the government lot.
6. The proposed Plat Amendment combines the property into one (1) lot measuring
14,319 square feet.
7. A single-family dwelling is an allowed use in the District.
8. The minimum lot area for a single-family dwelling is 2,812 square feet. The
proposed lot meets the minimum lot area for single-family dwellings.
9. The proposed lot width is width is 116.38 feet along the north property line (facing
Deer Valley Drive) and 129.41 feet along the south property line (Rossie Hill).
Packet Pg. 120
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 16
10. The minimum lot width required is 37.50 feet. The proposed lot meets the minimum
lot width requirement.
11. LMC § 15-2.2-4 indicates that historic structures that do not comply with building
setbacks are valid complying structures.
12. The minimum front yard setbacks are fifteen feet (15‟) and rear yard setbacks are 10
feet. The historic house has a front yard setback of 35 feet and rear yard setback of
52 feet.
13.The minimum side yard setbacks are five feet (5‟). The historic house has a side
yard setback of 17 feet on the west and 65 feet on the east.
14. Deer Valley Loop consumes 64.27 square feet of the northwest corner of the lot and
Rossie Hill Drive consumes 62.72 square feet of the southeast corner of the lot.
15. All findings within the Analysis section and the recitals above are incorporated herein
as findings of fact.
Conclusions of Law – 632 Deer Valley Loop
1. There is good cause for this Subdivision.
2. The Plat Amendment is consistent with the Park City Land Management Code and
applicable State law regarding lot combinations.
3. Neither the public nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed Plat
Amendment.
4. Approval of the Plat Amendment, subject to the conditions stated below, does not
adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Park City.
Conditions of Approval – 632 Deer Valley Loop
1. The City Planner, City Attorney, and City Engineer will review and approve the final
form and content of the plat for compliance with State law, the Land Management
Code, and the conditions of approval, prior to recordation of the plat.
2. The applicant will record the plat at the County within one year from the date of City
Council approval. If recordation has not occurred within one (1) years‟ time, this
approval for the plat will be void, unless a request for an extension is made in writing
prior to the expiration date and an extension is granted by the City Council.
3. The applicant shall dedicate a portion of the property that consists of Deer Valley
Packet Pg. 121
Planning Commission Meeting
June 22, 2016
Page 17
Loop and Rossie Hill Drive to the City as part of this plat amendment.
4. Any development on this lot or future subdivided lots within this lot shall provide a
transition in scale between the historic structures in this neighborhood, the Historic
District, and Deer Valley Resort. The Planning Department shall review the proposed
plans for compliance with the purpose of the RM District, which specifically encourages
development that is compatible with historic structures in the surrounding area.
2. 215 Park Avenue – Steep Slope Conditional Use Permit for construction of a
new single-family home on a vacant lot (Application PL-16-03141)
Commissioner Band recused herself and left the room. Commissioner Phillips assumed
the Chair.
Planner Grahn reviewed the application for a Steep Slope CUP at 215 Park Avenue. The
applicant, David Houston, and his architect, Jonathan DeGray were present.
Planner Grahn noted that the application had gone through plat amendment process and it
was approved by the City Council on December 3, 2015. The plat was still going through
the redlined process and had not yet been recorded with Summit County. The applicant
was still working on encroachment agreements and other issues.
Planner Grahn stated that the Steep Slope CUP and the HDDR applications are
conditioned to the recording of the plat amendment. No building permit can be issued until
the plat amendment has been recorded at the County.
Planner Grahn corrected a misprint in the Staff report regarding the total house size. It was
correct in the Findings of Fact, but in the narrative it should read 2,758 square feet. The
total lot size is actually 2044.5 square feet.
The Staff had reviewed the Steep Slope CUP criteria of the LMC and the Design
Guidelines and found no unmitigated issues. Planner Grahn thought the elevation
drawings of the house were misleading because it looked at the house straight on, which
makes it appear very tall. However, in looking at the side elevations, she believed the
applicant had done a good job burying most of the mass into the hillside. Planner Grahn
indicated how the building mass was broken up by stepping up the grade. She presented
renderings showing how the house steps up the hill, as well as showing the gable pitch, the
shed dormer and other elements that contribute to the Historic District.
Planner Grahn reported that the applicant has met the parking requirement. Single family
homes in this District are required to provide two parking spaces. One will be in the garage
Packet Pg. 122