AGENDA. 312/314 Norfolk Avenue Variance to front yard setback and building footprint Quasi-judicial hearing

Transcription

1 PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BOARD OF ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL OCTOBER 15, 2013 AGENDA MEETING CALLED TO ORDER - 5:00 PM pg ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Items not scheduled on the regular agenda STAFF AND BOARD COMMUNICATIONS/DISCLOSURES REGULAR AGENDA Discussion, possible public hearing, and possible action as outlined below 312/314 Norfolk Avenue Variance to front yard setback and building footprint Quasi-judicial hearing PL ADJOURN A majority of Board of Adjustment members may meet socially after the meeting. If so, the location will be announced by the Chair person. City business will not be conducted. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during the meeting should notify the Park City Planning Department at (435) hours prior to the meeting. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 1 of 61

2 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 2 of 61

3 MINUTES OF PARK CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 IN ATTENDANCE: Ruth Gezelius, Rich Miller, Rod Ludlow, Mary Wintzer EX OFFICIO: I. ROLL CALL Polly Samuels-Mclean, City Attorney; Mathew Evans, Senior Planner; Patricia Abdullah, Analyst Chair Gezelius called the meeting to order at 5:08 PM and noted that a quorum was present with all Board members present with the exception of Board member Fuegi who was excused. II. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 MOTION: Board member Miller moved to approve the minutes of September 4, 2012 as written. Board member Ludlow seconded the motion. VOTE: 4-0. Motion passed unanimously. III. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION There was none. IV. STAFF & BOARD COMMUNICATIONS City Attorney Mclean shared that the Planning Commission would be reviewing Land Management Code amendments with proposed changes to sections of the code regarding the Board of Adjustment. The changes included the removal of special exceptions and the current appeal process for historic district design reviews. V. REGULAR AGENDA PL Norfolk Avenue Variance DRAFT Planner Evans introduced the item as a request for two variances to the Land Management Code for 312 and 314 Norfolk Avenue. He stated there were two applicants and two addresses. The first variance is to reduce the front yard setback from 10 feet to 3 feet. The second variance request is to increase the maximum footprint allowance an additional 400 square feet. The variances would allow the applicants to build a detached garage structure that would hold four cars. The structure would be connected via a covered walkway that would lead from the street to the home. The applicant would be required to go through a Condominium Conversion in order to have the shared covered walkway. Originally the applicant had submitted a variance for the front yard setback but upon review Staff found that a variance to the maximum footprint would also be necessary. Staff proposed four possible Conditions of Approval should the footprint variance be granted. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 3 of 61

4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 PAGE 2 In order to grant a variance request the Board of Adjustment must find that the request meets five criteria as outlined in Planner Evan s review found compliance with the five criteria. He recommended that the Board review the request and consider granting the variances based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as outlined in the staff report provided. Board member Miller asked if the current structure was a duplex and why they would be required to do a Condominium Conversion. Planner Evans responded that the building is an existing duplex that is built on two standard old town lots and is separated by a common party wall. Construction is not allowed to be built over property line so in order to allow the covered walkway the duplex would be required to go through the Condominium Conversion process to create a common area and remove the lot line. Board member Wintzer was concerned about snow storage and where the snow would be stored once the garage was constructed. Staff replied that the plow would come up to property line and that the City Engineer would review the plans for compliance and snow storage if the variances were granted by the Board of Adjustment. Chair Gezelius opened the floor to the applicant and representative. Carol O Donoghue, the owner of 312 Norfolk Avenue, addressed the Board. She purchased the property ten years ago and was told at that time that the parking pad on site was not structurally sound. She was assured at the time of purchase by her realtor that should could build a garage. She has retired and is not planning on moving to Park City full time. Currently the spot between her neighbor and her parking pad is used as snow storage in the winter. Board member Miller asked what the snow storage situation was to the South of the property. The snow storage to the south is non-existent in that the snow is simply pushed over the edge of the road. Mrs. O Donoghue explained that there were many issues where people would block the parking pad and treat it as if it was a vacant ski property. Chair Gezelius clarified that in Old Town there may continue to be parking issues as she often times see people park in front of garages and that parking in Old Town is an ongoing problem. Mrs. O Donoghue felt that her parking issues were uniquely challenging because of where her property is located at the end of the dead end street. DRAFT Chair Gezelius asked if there were storm drains on that section of Norfolk Avenue. Staff was uncertain of the location of the storm drains. The owner stated that the existing stairs accessing the duplex were not built to current building code standards and that rebuilding the stairs would require a variance. Chair Gezelius wondered if the duplex was historically accessed through a common walkway. David White, the architect for the project, responded that it is a common walkway and that it is built across property line. Mrs. O Donoghue stressed that she wanted to build a compatible garage that had a historical look and feel that would be an overall improvement to her house and to the neighborhood. Board member Ludlow asked if there was any representative for the other owner at the meeting. Mrs. O Donoghue responded that they were not in attendance and that the other owners live in Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 4 of 61

5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 PAGE 3 Colorado. Chair Gezelius asked if the neighbors were listed as applicants on the application. Mr. White stated that there were letters in the files to that affect. Board member Wintzer asked if the trailhead parking signs were posted by the City and if parking there is something that can be enforced and ticketed. Mrs. O Donoghue stated that it was something a ticket can be written for and that she had been ticketed on previous occasions but that enforcement only happened when someone calls in a complaint. Chair Gezelius opened the floor for public input. Joel Preston a local resident and personal friend of the applicant addressed the Board. He found there were many unique characteristics to this property including; ski access, steep slope, and tunnel access across the street. He found that these elements created a unique hardship for this property and that the owner s request fulfilled the five criteria from the Land Management Code. He further pointed out that some skiers and hikers actually believed the parking pad to be public municipal parking. Ruth Meintsma, a resident living at 305 Woodside Avenue, commented on the project. She discussed the items as provided in the handout (Meeting Exhibit A). When the project was first noticed there were three variances requested. Planner Evans clarified that staff had made a mistake in regards to the fourth story variance and that with a detached garage it was not necessary. Mrs. Meintsma stated that with the covered walkway and continuous roof line then it continues to look like one structure. She spoke regarding how the project does not meet the historic character or scale. She felt that the proposed footprint was massive and infringes on the spirit of the HR-1 district. There was discussion regarding the required setbacks for a duplex in old town and the size of the lots. Board member Miller stated that the proposed setbacks should be 5 on a garage. Mrs. Meintsma added that would then require an additional variance to the side yard setbacks. She stated that the proposed garage may cause issues with a fire engine being able to turn around on a dead end street. She did not feel that parking issues were unique to this property as it was an issue that all off Old Town deals with. She also felt that a fence would prevent snow from being pushed in areas it wasn t permitted. Mrs. O Donoghue responded that there was a fence but it was knocked down the previous year and she planned to rebuild it in the spring. Mrs. Meintsma stated the garage would not solve the parking or snow storage issues. She was worried that a garage built at the end of the Norfolk Avenue would close off the street and threaten the open space character and therefore did not keep with the purpose as stated in the General Plan. DRAFT Debbie Brelender, a resident at 283 Norfolk Avenue, did not feel that a garage would impact the end of the street in any way and that it wouldn t block the view. She felt the Sweeney tunnel was more impactful to the view then a garage. She agreed that there were not enough parking provided at the end of Norfolk. She did not object to the garage. Susan Miyan a friend of the applicant wondered if there was any way to lower the height of the structure as she thought it might help address some of the concerns that were raised. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 5 of 61

6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 PAGE 4 City Attorney Mclean passed along the comment from Brooke Hontz, the Planning Commission liaison, that the current structure is non-conforming in terms of stories but it wouldn t effect the variances request before them. Mr. White addressed the issue of mass and scale and stated that in comparison to other Norfolk structures it was compatible in size. He stated that a portion of the view would be impacted by the garage but as you got closer to the end of the street the view would open up again. He added that it would be possible to lower the height of the structure if necessary. Chair Gezelius asked if the proposed height meets the current code for pitch. Mr. White responded that it did. Board member Wintzer wondered why the applicant needed the additional footprint. Mr. White stated that historically the property had a shared access walkway and he applicant would like to cover it to keep it clear of winter hazards. Mr. White added that the garages would have a 3 foot setback on either side to allow for additional setback from the stairwell to the garage. The stairwell was proposed to be rebuilt to current building code requirements. City Attorney Mclean added that due to the Condominium Conversion it did look like the applicant would need to return to the Board of Adjustment to request a variance to the 5 foot setback requirement once the lots were combined. Board member Wintzer did not feel that she could agree with all five criteria on the variance request. She felt the overall mass and scale of the original building was maximized and would not be allowed by the current standards. A garage at 18 feet high would add closure to the street. She felt that the owner of the property could establish proper signage and policing of the parking pad once she lived here full time. She felt allowing the variance would negatively impact the mass and scale of the neighborhood and create precedence for duplexes. Additionally she did not feel that the reasons stated for the hardships was unique to just this property. Mrs. O Donoghue disagreed that all other full time owners on Norfolk had garages. DRAFT Board member Miller sympathized with the applicant and understood the issues on Norfolk as he had lived there for 10 years. He felt that the property was unique in some respects and that the application did meet some criteria. Additionally he thought there were other issues not being addressed or being missed, such as the additional variance to the side yard setbacks. He understood the importance of a garage in Old Town but he couldn t find that the current request met all five criteria to be granted. Board member Ludlow felt that upper Norfolk has special circumstances for public safety mainly in regards to the tunnel and fire access. He did find that the applicant had met all the criteria necessary for the variances. Chair Gezelius felt that the scale of what the applicant is asking for is an issue. There is a large existing building that by current codes could not be built. She felt that was one of many already present in Old Town. She could not find how a variance to the front yard of that much would allow for any snow storage on the site. She would be more supportive of a variance for a one car garage. She did feel that it was a hardship for this particular house on this particular street as the end house. She found the goal of granting variances to be the improvement of the structures Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 6 of 61

7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 PAGE 5 and the impact on the neighborhood. There was a safety issue on this particular road edge and a garage would address that safety issue. MOTION: Board member Wintzer moved to Deny the request for a variance to the front yard setback and maximum footprint at 312 and 314 Norfolk Avenue in accordance with the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Board member Miller seconded the motion. Board members Wintzer and Miller voted in favor of the denial. Board member Ludlow and Chair Gezelius voted against the motion. VOTE: 2-2. Motion did not carry. City Attorney Mclean stated that by law the Board must have 3 members vote to grant or deny variances. Chair Gezelius suggested that the item be reheard at such time as five members were present. MOTION: Board member Wintzer moved to continue the matter of the Variance at 312 Norfolk Avenue to a date and time in which five Board members are present. Board member Miller seconded the motion. VOTE: 4-0. The motion passed unanimously. Board member Miller advised staff that when the application comes back before the Board that the request for Variances be outlined clearly and that the Board s issues from this meeting regarding mass and scale were taken into consideration. PL Woodside Avenue Variance Planner Evans introduced the item before them as a Variance to the third floor step back requirement prescribed in Land Management Code section (B). The applicant is proposing to construct a basement level garage to a Landmark site. With the introduction of a basement then the current second story would become a third story. By code it requires a 10 foot horizontal step in the setback of the top floor but because of the historic nature of the home the front façade must be maintained. DRAFT Board member Ludlow disclosed that he currently lived size doors north of the subject property but he had no financial obligation to the project. Steve Maxwell, the owner of the site, addressed the Board. According to the guidelines the historic structure could not be moved back or it would lose historic integrity. Jonathan DeGray, the architect for the applicant, reviewed the five required criteria. He reviewed the five criteria and the reasoning in how the request met those criteria. He felt the current application met criteria one as the historic structure was the hardship. To move the third floor façade would deteriorate the historic integrity of the building. He stated that the historic structure was also the leading reason for criteria two as it was the special circumstance of the site. He did not think the Land Management Code took into account these two story historic homes and how to allow for additions and modifications to them. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 7 of 61

8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 PAGE 6 Chair Gezelius asked if the Historic Guidelines allowed for parking solutions to historic structures. Planner Evans responded that the guidelines do address parking and how to accomplish adding parking on historic sites. Mr. DeGray noted that those sections were on page 41 in the packet. Board member Ludlow felt that the Land Management Code had an oversight in this area. He hoped that this would be addressed in the future. He found that the proposed project met the criteria and that giving up usable building space to accommodate a garage is commendable. Board member Miller agreed with Board member Ludlow. He felt it met the criteria for a variance and wanted to see people remodel and reuse historic structures. Chair Gezelius concurred with other board members as well. She felt this project would help historic preservation and would make the structure become a fully livable house for people. Additionally she found the design solution to be compatible to the neighborhood. Board member Wintzer did not agree and could not find that the request met all five criteria. She did not understand why the code did not give a solution for uphill lots. She could not find an unreasonable hardship since the code did not require on-site parking for historic structures. Chair Gezaelius opened and closed the public hearing as no comment was given. MOTION: Board member Ludlow moved to approve the Variance at 543 Woodside in accordance to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval. Board member Miller seconded the motion. Board member Miller wanted to make sure that the uniqueness of the historic significance of the site and structures was clearly identified in the Order. City Attorney Mclean showed that it was sufficiently outlined in Finding of Fact #3 and #6. Board members Miller, Ludlow, and Chair Gezelius voted in favor of the Variance. Board member Wintzer opposed the motion. VOTE: 3-1. The motion passed. DRAFT Findings of Fact 1. The property is located at 543 Woodside Avenue. 2. The property is located within the Historic Residential (HR-1) District. 3. The existing historic home is identified within the Park City Historic Sites Inventory and is identified as the Dr. William Bardsley House which was constructed in The applicant is request a variance to Land Management Code (LMC) Subsection ( ) (B) for the purpose of allowing a basement level garage to be constructed underneath an existing historic home. 5. The proposed basement garage addition does not cause any nonconformities with respect to overall height, setback, footprint, or otherwise. 6. The garage cannot be built without the variance to the requirement for the thirdstory setback. Alterations to the existing historic home to provide for a ten-foot setback on Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 8 of 61

9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 PAGE 7 what would become the top story would violate Historic District Design Guidelines and result in the home being removed from the historic registry. 7. If the variance is granted, the applicant will need to obtain a Steep Slope Conditional Use Permit and HDDR approval prior to the commencement of any construction for the basement and garage addition. 8. The unreasonable hardship is that a garage cannot be placed on the site without violating Land Management Code (LMC) Subsection ( ) (B). Placing a garage under the home will turning it into a three story house which is required to be setback 10 feet. The home is historic and the top floor cannot be altered without losing the historic status of the home, and a garage cannot be added without the variance. 9. The garage and driveway will help ensure that two vehicles could be parked on the property. Although parking is not required for a historic home, the applicant has consistently used the area in front of the home adjacent to Woodside Avenue as parking for the existing historic home. Parking during the winter months in old town is difficult due to snow accumulation and snow storage. 10. Granting of the variance allows to the applicant the same rights as other property owners in the district. 11. Neither the General Plan nor the LMC prohibit or discourage garages in the Historic Residential zone districts. 12. The LMC allows for third story homes in the HR-1 zone district, thus the spirit of the code is met in granting the variance. 13. One of the goals identified in the current General Plan is to ensure that the character of new construction is architecturally-compatible to the existing historic character of Park City. The applicant will be required to go through the HDDR process for compatibility with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines prior to the construction of the basement and garage. 14. The Historic District Design Guidelines contemplate how a basement level garage can be added underneath an existing historic home and give prescribed measures to accomplish such. 15. The spirit of the LMC is observed and substantial justice done. Conclusion of Law 1. Literal enforcement of the HR-1 District requirements for this property causes an unreasonable hardship that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same district. 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same district. 4. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed by this application. 6. Staff has demonstrated that all of the conditions justifying a variance, pursuant to LMC , have been met. DRAFT Order 1. The variance to LMC (B) requiring a ten foot (10 ) horizontal step setback to the third story of the 543 Woodside Avenue home is hereby granted allowing the basement level addition with the garage without the need to modify the historic front façade to create a third-story setback. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 9 of 61

10 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 PAGE 8 VI. WORK SESSION Annual Open and Public Meetings Act Training MOTION: Board member Miller motioned to continue the training until such time a full Board was present. Board member Wintzer seconded the motion. VOTE: 4-0. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Gezelius adjourned the meeting at 7:22 PM. Minutes prepared by: Patricia Abdullah, Planning Analyst DRAFT Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 10 of 61

11 Board of Adjustment Staff Report Application #: PL Subject: 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk Avenue Author: Kirsten Whetstone, MS, AICP Date: October 15, 2013 Type of Item: Variance Summary Recommendations Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment review the requested variances to Section (F) of the Park City Land Management Code to allow a reduced front yard setback from the required ten feet (10 ) to approximately three feet (3 ) for each unit, and to Section (D) maximum building footprint, for each unit, for the purpose of constructing a single car garage within the required front-yard setbacks. Description Applicant: Location: Zoning: Adjacent Land Uses: Reason for Review: Carol O Donoghue, owner of both units 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk Avenue Historic Residential (HR-1) District Residential, open space, ski trails, bike trails, and Upper Norfolk emergency turn around Variances require Board of Adjustment approval Proposal The applicant proposes to re-construct two (2) existing dilapidated parking pads for two (2) existing non-historic duplex dwelling units located at 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk Avenue. The parking pads currently exist within the front setback area of the lots. The owner is requesting the variances in order to construct a single car detached garage on top of each existing parking pad to provide one enclosed parking space for each unit. Each proposed garage would be detached from the front façade of the duplex building. The applicant also proposes to reconstruct and cover an existing staircase to provide a protected common access to the front entrances of the duplex. The covered staircase, also located within the front setback, is requested in order to provide a safe solution to the existing steep, unprotected staircase that is subject to large amounts of snow and ice build-up in the winter. The lots are located at the end of Upper Norfolk Avenue. The street dead-ends in an emergency turn- around that is not a standard cul-de-sac. There is a unique condition on the property as the lots are subject to an inordinate amount of snow due to clearing of the emergency turn- around, to maintain required emergency access radii, and due to utilization of the downhill portion of lots for snow storage from the street. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 11 of 61

12 Purpose The purpose of the Historic Residential (HR-1) District is to: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Preserve present land Uses and character of the Historic residential Areas of Park City, Encourage the preservation of Historic Structures, Encourage construction of Historically Compatible Structures that contribute to the character and scale of the Historic District and maintain existing residential neighborhoods, Encourage single family Development on combinations of 25' x 75' Historic Lots, Define Development parameters that are consistent with the General Plan policies for the Historic core, and Establish Development review criteria for new Development on Steep Slopes which mitigate impacts to mass and scale and the environment. Background On April 1, 2013, the City received an application for a variance request at 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk Avenue. The application was deemed complete on April 1, The applicant requested that Staff not place the item on the agenda until the parties could both be in town for the Public Hearing. The applicant and staff continued to work on components of the application, including a pre-hddr meeting and had various meetings with the architect to review alternative designs. The property is located at the end of Upper Norfolk Avenue where the street terminates in an emergency turn-around area, adjacent to a hiking/ski access trail. The turnaround area is not constructed as a standard cul-de-sac. This application replaces an earlier application where the applicant was requesting variances for the purpose of constructing two double car garages at the same location. That application was heard by the Commission on September 18, 2012 and was continued to a date uncertain (See Exhibit E). At the September 18, 2012, the Board of Adjustment conducted a hearing on the previous application for front yard setbacks, as well as variances to the maximum building footprint for each, to allow construction of one detached two car garage for each unit. Most of the meeting was spent getting an understanding of the existing conditions and what is the unique situation of the property, including the dead end emergency turn around, the public parking on the private parking pads to access the trails, the steep downhill lot and treacherous staircase shaded by the parking pads, the lack of on-street parking due to the narrow street, and the excess snow due to being at the end of the street. There was discussion about the added mass of two double car garages at the street and historic compatibility. There was clarification about the number of stories and height of the existing building. Public input in support of the variance was provided at the meeting confirming the unique issues facing this property. There were suggestions that the garages should be scaled down and a single car garage should be considered as this configuration was Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 12 of 61

13 more historically compatible on downhill lots. After discussion of the proposed project the Board s vote ended in a 2 to 2 tie on a motion to deny. The applicant requested a continuation of the application in order to revise the proposal based on the input provided at the meeting and to reschedule when a full board is present. The Board voted unanimously to continue the item to a date uncertain. On April 1, 2013, the applicant submitted a new application for variances to construct two single car garages and re-construct and cover the staircase. On July 19, 2013, the original applicant, the owner of 312 Upper Norfolk, acquired 314 Upper Norfolk. The application was revised on September 18, 2013 to reflect the new ownership. New mailing list and envelopes were provided, along with a revised title report. The revised application is now the current application being presented to the Board at this meeting. Applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback for both units, as well as to the maximum building footprint for both units, for the purpose of constructing a single car garage for each unit with a covered walkway between the two detached single car garages. The previous request for the two car garages for each unit is no longer being requested. Analysis The applicant proposes to re-construct two (2) existing dilapidated parking pads for two (2) existing non-historic duplex dwelling units located at 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk Avenue. The parking pads exist within the front setback area of the lots. The owner is requesting the variances in order to construct a single detached garage on top of each parking pad to provide one enclosed parking space for each unit. Each proposed garage would be detached from the front façade of the duplex building. The second required parking space would be located on the parking pad adjacent each garage. The applicant also proposes to reconstruct and cover an existing staircase to provide a protected common access to the front entrances of the two dwelling units. The covered staircase, also located within the front setback, would provide a safe solution to the existing steep, unprotected staircase that is subject to large amounts of snow and ice build-up in the winter. The lots are located at the end of Upper Norfolk Avenue and are subject to an inordinate amount of snow due to clearing of the emergency turn- around to maintain required emergency access radii, and utilization of the downhill portion of streets for snow storage. The property is located within the HR-1 District. The site is currently occupied by a duplex that contains two (2) separate dwelling units adjoined by a zero setback common party-wall. This is an existing condition that was permitted at the time of construction and is an existing condition for the adjacent duplexes as well. The building is located on a steeply sloping hillside on the downhill side of the street. The units were constructed as a duplex structure in The units are located below the parking pads with access to the street via a steep staircase located between the parking pads. A property line separates the two units which are each situated on a 1,875 square feet lot. Both units contain approximately 2,588 square feet of floor area with a building footprint Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 13 of 61

14 of 828 square feet. Both of the dwelling units have an elevated parking pad structure that extends from the street to within approximately 5-7 feet of each unit. An open parking pad structure is allowed in the HR-1 District with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The area underneath the parking pads is used for storage and is open on three sides for each unit. Both dwelling units have an approximate twenty-six foot (26 ) front yard setback between the street and the structure where the parking pads are located. Each unit also has a five-foot (5 ) side yard setback and a ten-foot (10 ) rear yard setback. By Building Code definition, the entire structure is considered a three (3) story building, and each unit has multiple floors (mezzanine levels and half floors) as the building steps down the hill from Upper Norfolk. In order to be able to move forward with the proposed garages, the applicant is requesting that two (2) variances be granted for each unit, as conditioned. Each variance is necessary in order to construct the single car garages as proposed. The variances necessary are: Front yard setback - LMC (F) requires that each lot have a minimum ten foot (10 ) front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a front yard setback of approximately three feet (3 ). Covered or uncovered steps are permitted in the front setback area provided they are not more than four feet in height from final grade, the stairs exist and no variance is required. Building Footprint - LMC (D) limits the building footprint to 844 square feet. Each unit has a footprint of 828 square feet. Each proposed onecar garage has a 264 square foot footprint; therefore the applicant is requesting a variance to the 844 sf building footprint, to allow a total footprint of 1,092 square feet. Internal dimensions are limited to 11 wide by 21 deep. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 14 of 61

15 The increase in footprint does not increase the habitable living space for either unit. The applicant currently proposes a single car garage per unit, both detached from each other and from main structure. The applicant proposes a three foot side yard setback for the garages, meeting the minimum side setback of three feet (3 ). Height of the garages would be twenty-six feet (26 ) from existing grade at the highest point, where a maximum of twenty-seven feet (27 ) is allowed. The garage at the street level is approximately eighteen feet (18 ) in height. At the rear elevation the garage would be twenty-six feet (26 ) in height (see illustration below). The applicant stipulates to the conditions that the garages not become living space and that the area beneath the garages not be converted to living space, though it may be utilized for unconditioned/unheated storage space. Last year Staff visited the site with the Architect to determine if the garage could be achieved without the variance requests. It was concluded that an attached garage constructed over the existing units would require a variance for height due to the steeply sloping grade. A variance to the allowed number of stories would also be required, unless changes are made to the Land Management Code regarding stories. The applicant is not pursuing these variances. LMC Review Criteria In order to grant the requested variances to the aforementioned code sections, the Board of Adjustment must find that all five (5) criteria located in LMC are met. The Applicant bears the burden of proving that all of the conditions justifying a variance have been met (see Exhibit C). Criteria 1. Literal enforcement of the LMC would cause an unreasonable hardship for the Applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the LMC. In determining whether or not enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 15 of 61

16 unreasonable hardship under the BOA may not find an unreasonable hardship unless the alleged hardship is located on or associated with the Property for which the variance is sought and comes from circumstances peculiar to the Property, not from conditions that are general to the neighborhood. In determining whether or not the enforcement of the LMC would cause unreasonable hardship the BOA may not find an unreasonable hardship if the hardship is self-imposed or economic. Upper Norfolk Avenue is a long narrow street that terminates just beyond the applicants lots. The lots are situated on the downhill side of Upper Norfolk. The lots slope steeply down from the Street. The literal enforcement of the current code puts an unreasonable hardship on the owner of these units. Currently both lots have an elevated parking pad that sits in front of and above each unit. These parking pads are the only available parking to the owners on this narrow street. The street dead-ends and does not cul-desac or terminate at a circle at the end of the street. There is an emergency turn around at the end of the street that requires snow removal to maintain emergency access. This is one of the only such emergency turn-around areas within the district. Because the street terminates beyond the property parking during winter months is especially difficult on the open pads. Once the snow is pushed to the end of the street, there is no place to store it due to the elevated nature of the pads. According to the applicants, much of that snow ends up in front of or on each parking pad and much of it gets pushed below the parking pads in the opening between the two elevated parking pads. Garages at this location would provide for the owners the ability to back out of their driveways during the winter months because they would not be burdened with being buried in snow incidentally plowed into their driveways. According to the applicant, it is often difficult to park two cars on the driveway after the streets have been plowed due to the snow pile up on the parking pad structure. The distance from the garage door to the street would be reduced with setback variance, and there would be less room for snow accumulation. As proposed, the snow would not be pushed onto the staircase and would have to be pushed to the open space areas. Snow will likely still be pushed onto the open parking pad required for the second parking space. The garages would allow for better access to each unit as well as better public safety and fire protection access during the winter months. The applicant has indicated that the roofs will be designed to shed snow into the side-yard areas where there is room for snow storage. The north side has no structures adjacent to the proposed garage, and snow can shed freely into this area and will have no negative impacts on the adjacent property, which is adjacent to the Treasure Hill Open Space owned by Park City Municipal Corporation. There are no homes on the east side of Upper Norfolk Avenue beyond the applicants property. A garage within the front yard setback would not burden additional homeowners when pulling out of their driveways due to lack of clear vision of the street. There are additional homes across the street, but their driveways have direct access to the street and would not be negatively affected by the presence of garages at the Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 16 of 61

17 location where the parking pads are now. Thus the purposes of the setbacks within the LMC are not violated. Criteria 2. There are special circumstances attached to the Property that do not generally apply to other Properties in the same zone. In determining whether or not there are special circumstances attached to the Property the BOA may find that special circumstances exist only if the special circumstances relate to the hardship complained of and deprive the Property of privileges granted other Properties in the same zone. There are special circumstances related to the hardship that deprives the property of privileges granted to other property in the same zone. These special circumstances include the location at the end of a long street that ends not with a cul-de-sac but with an emergency turn around area. Both units are situated on the downhill side of Upper Norfolk Avenue, and below elevated parking pads, which are below the grade of the street. Because the street comes to an abrupt end approximately fifteen feet past the elevated parking pads, the front of the home and the staircase leading to both homes are continuously subject to being buried with snow when the roads are plowed to the downhill side. The snow plows push the snow, which falls between the neighboring driveway and hits the front of the home at 312 because of how the home is situated below the grade of Upper Norfolk Avenue. The proposed garages and covered stairway remedy this health and safety issue for the owner. The uncovered staircases are also subject to being buried with snow for the same reason, the street terminates and there is no place to store the snow being plowed. Furthermore, the current design of this property is unique as it is the only property that has a common open stairway going below grade to a common open area. All other duplex homes in the area are above grade with separate entrances. This shared area between both units is confusing to those who visit and rent 314 Upper Norfolk nightly during the winter months. The proposal corrects this issue by creating a common covered staircase that leads to a walkway below to each front door. Criteria 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial Property right possessed by other Property in the same zone. Granting of the variance allows to the applicants the same substantial Property right as possessed by other property owners in the same zone. Virtually every duplex (approximately 4) and home on Upper Norfolk has the same downhill configuration as the applicants do. Most dwellings on the street have garages adjacent to the street (see photos attached hereto as Exhibit C ). Granting the variance allows the property owner to construct a historically compatible garage and provide covered off-street parking as a substantial property right possessed by other Property in this zone and on this narrow dead end street. The open parking pads are often confused with public trail head Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 17 of 61

18 parking and off-street resident guest parking for other property owners on the street. Covering the parking pads will differentiate the garages from off-street parking areas that others may use without impacting the required parking spaces for the duplexes. A similar variance was approved on McHenry for a single car garage at the street. Criteria 4. The variance will not substantially affect the General Plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. Granting of the variances allows the construction of a single car garage for each duplex, compatible with other garages on Upper Norfolk. The variances do not substantially affect the General plan and are not contrary to the public interest. One of the goals identified in the current General Plan is to ensure that the character of new construction is architecturally-compatible to the existing historic character of Park City. The proposed garages would be required to meet the standards as outlined within the Historic Districts Design Guidelines, as well as go through the HDDR approval process. Single car detached garages at the street on downhill lots are a typical configuration in the historic district. The current parking pads are in general disrepair and could be considered an eye sore. The proposed garages will greatly improve the curb appeal and allow this property to blend with the neighborhood of attractive larger homes and would not be contrary to the public interest. The garage addition will not increase the habitable living space or footprint of the existing home, could still be considered two of the smallest homes in the area. Additionally, providing garage doors will discourage public parking on the street behind the garages allowing better emergency access and snow removal for the emergency turn-around area which is in the public interest. Criteria 5. The spirit of the Land Management Code is observed and substantial justice done. The variance as proposed will not conflict with the spirit of the zoning ordinance. Granting the variance will allow the applicants to construct a single car garage for each unit of the existing duplex that will be setback from the edge of curb by three feet (3 ). The spirit of the Land Management Code is observed and substantial justice is done in that the allowed variance allows the owner to provide enclosed, useable off-street parking while reducing the impact of the dilapidated open elevated parking pads on the streetscape. Garages are allowed in the HR-1 zone district, and neither the zone nor the General Plan prohibit or discourage the construction of new garages. The garages could be constructed to meet the design standards within the Historic District Design Guidelines (the drawings are conceptual and will require formal analysis and review but appear to meet the intent said guidelines). Single car detached garages at the street on downhill lots are a typical configuration in the historic district. Future Process Approval of this variance request by the Board of Adjustment constitutes Final Action that may be appealed following the procedures found in LMC Approval of a Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 18 of 61

19 Historic District Design Review or HDDR for the design of the garage structures is necessary prior to the issuance of a building permit. Standards for new construction as listed within the Historic District Design Guidelines will apply. HDDR s are an administrative approval and are processed by the Planning Staff. A steep slope Conditional Use Permit is not required because the garages do not exceed 1,000 square feet in area and are not located on an area with a slope of greater than 30%. The garages are proposed to be located on top of the reconstructed parking pads. Reconstruction of the parking pads does not require a Steep Slope CUP. Department Review The revised application was taken to the Development Review Committee for additional interdepartmental review. No further issues were brought up at that time. Significant Impacts There are no significant fiscal or environmental impacts from this application. Consequences of not taking the Suggested Recommendation The property would remain as is and no construction of the proposed garages could take place. The applicant could repair or replace the existing driveway pads so long as they are not increased in such a manner that they violate setbacks, or other LMC standards, unless a variance to those standards is applied for and approved. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment review the proposed variance requests, conduct a public hearing, and consider granting the variances based on the following findings of facts and conclusion of law. Findings of Fact (for Approval) 1. The properties are located at 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk Avenue. 2. The properties are located within the Historic Residential (HR-1) District. 3. The existing duplex structure is not historic and there are no homes located on the historic sites inventory within close proximity of the structure. 4. The property owner is requesting two variances for each address, the first is to reduce the required front yard setback to allow for a three (3 ) foot setback where ten feet (10 ) is required, and the second is to allow 1,092 square foot footprint for each unit where a maximum of 844 square feet is allowed. Footprint dimensions of 12 by 22. Internal dimensions of 11 wide by 21 deep. 5. The entire site is 3,750 square feet, and each property is a standard old town lot consisting of 1,875 square feet, which is the minimum lot size allowed in the HR- 1 District. 6. The existing duplex footprint complies with current setback requirements with exception of two existing decks which are nonconforming with respect to current setbacks standards. The duplex was constructed as a zero lot-line structure with a common party wall. This was an allowed and common situation at the time of construction of this duplex and the adjacent duplex on Upper Norfolk. 7. There are two existing dilapidated parking pad structures built within the front Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 19 of 61

20 yard setback, which are allowed with the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP). There is no record that a CUP was issued prior to construction of the parking pads. The structures were built prior to the requirement for the CUP. 8. If a garage was built atop the existing units, variances would be required due to the maximum stories allowed not to exceed three (3), as well as to height requirements that could not be met. 9. The unreasonable hardship is that the owner s properties are at the end of a long street and snow removal by the City during the winter months causes their driveways and walkway to be covered in snow due to the fact that there is no cul-de-sac in which to turn, or for the plow to store the snow, and the required parking areas are uncovered and on the downhill side of the street. The turnaround is an emergency turn-around that is required to be cleared to the full required width for emergency vehicles. 10. The enclosed garages will help ensure that at least one vehicle for each dwelling unit can be parked off the street. The other parking space for each dwelling unit would be on the remaining area of the parking pads, as uncovered spaces. 11. Due to the fact that there is little to no on-street parking nearby these properties, parking within the garages will be utilized for the associated dwelling units. Parking during the winter months on Upper Norfolk is difficult due to snow accumulation at the street s end, public parking by trail users, and resident guest parking. 12. Granting of the variance allows to the applicant the same rights as other property owners in the district. Most properties have enclosed parking in garages that discourage public from parking within/or behind them. This is not the case with the subject property parking pads, which are often utilized by trail uses, resident guests, and other users as mistaken on-street parking. 13. Without the variance, the applicants will not be able to build the garages and would continue to have problems with snow removal and public parking on the parking pads. 14. Granting of the variances would ultimately allow the applicants to build two (2) single car garages with a common covered walkway between them, providing safer access and egress from the homes during the winter months. 15. One of the goals identified in the current General Plan is to ensure that the character of new construction is architecturally-compatible to the existing historic character of Park City. The applicant will be required to go through the HDDR process for compatibility with the adopted Historic District Design Guidelines prior to the construction of the garage. 16. The spirit of the LMC is observed and substantial justice done. Conclusion of Law (for approval) 1. Literal enforcement of the HR-1 District requirements for this property causes an unreasonable hardship that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same district. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 20 of 61

21 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same district. 4. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed by this application. 6. It can be shown that all of the conditions justifying a variance, pursuant to LMC , have been met. Order (for approval) 1. The variances for each address to LMC (F) front yard setback requirements, and LMC (D) - the building footprint requirements are hereby granted allowing a three foot (3 ) front yard setback where ten feet (10 ) is required, and allowing each garage to have internal dimensions of 11 by 21 with a maximum footprint of 264 sf (12 by 22 ) for each single car detached garage. Total building footprint for each unit is a maximum of 1,092 square foot where an 844 square foot footprint is the allowed maximum in the zone. 2. The variances run with the land. Conditions of Approval 1. The variance is limited to single car garage buildings as proposed. The space shall not be used for any other type of detached building or additional living space, and no portion of the garages shall be used for additional living space. 2. The garage interior shall be used exclusively for parking and not additional storage space, except that the attic area may be used for storage. 3. The proposed garage shall not exceed the height of the zone (27 ) at the rear and 18 at the front and the interior area shall not exceed 11 wide by 21 deep. 4. The area underneath the garages shall be limited to storage area, and not used as additional habitable living space. 5. The above conditions of approval will be recorded as notes on the future Condominium record of survey plat. Exhibits Attachment 1- Findings of Fact and Order for Denial (in the event the Board does not find compliance with the Criteria) Exhibit A Survey of the property and Conceptual Elevations (garage) and Site Plan Exhibit B Photo s Exhibit C Applicants justification statements for variance Exhibit D Public input from previous application Exhibit E See minutes of the September 18, 2012 Board of Adjustment meeting attached to this packet Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 21 of 61

22 Attachment 1 Finding of Fact (for Denial) 1. The property is located at 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk Avenue. 2. The property is located within the Historic Residential (HR-1) District. 3. The existing duplex structure is not historic and there are no homes located on the historic sites inventory in the vicinity of the structure. 4. The property owner is requesting two variances for each unit. The first is to reduce the required front yard setback to allow for a three (3 ) foot setback where ten feet (10 ) is required. The second is to allow a 1,092 square foot footprint where a maximum of 844 square feet is allowed. 5. The entire site is 3,750 square feet, and each property is a standard old town lot consisting of 1,875 square feet, which is the minimum lot size allowed in the HR- 1 District. 6. The existing duplex footprint complies with current setback requirements with exception of two existing decks which maybe nonconforming with respect to setbacks. 7. There are two existing parking pad structures built within the front yard setback, which are allowed with the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP). The structures were built prior to the requirement for the CUP. 8. Homes without a garage in Old Town are not uncommon and the owner s circumstances are not unique in HR-1 Zone. 9. The Proposed garages create an increase in allowed footprint for each unit which is self-imposed. 10. The alleged hardship comes from conditions general to the neighborhood, not from circumstances peculiar to the property. 11. The reduction in front yard setback requirement also self-imposed. 12. The findings in the Analysis section are incorporated herein. Conclusions of Law (for Denial) 1. Literal enforcement of the HR-1 zone requirement for the increase footprint would not cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. Special circumstances are not attached to the property and generally apply to other properties in the same district. 3. Granting the variance is not essential to the enjoyment of substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same district. 4. The proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed by this application. 6. All of the conditions justifying a variance, pursuant to LMC section , have not been met. Order (for Denial): The variance to LMC (F) front yard setback requirements, and LMC (D) building footprint requirements allowing a three foot (3 ) front yard setback where ten feet (10 ) is required, and allowing for a 1,092 square foot footprint for each unit where an 844 maximum square foot footprint is required, is hereby denied. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 22 of 61

23 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 23 of 61

24 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 24 of 61

25 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 25 of 61

26 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 26 of 61

27 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 27 of 61

28 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 28 of 61

29 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 29 of 61

30 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 30 of 61

31 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 31 of 61

32 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 32 of 61

33 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 33 of 61

34 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 34 of 61

35 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 35 of 61

36 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 36 of 61

37 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 37 of 61

38 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 38 of 61

39 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 39 of 61

40 Statement describing request for increase of footprint allowance at 312 Upper Norfolk The subject property at 312 and 314 Upper Norfolk contains a nonconforming, non-historic duplex built in 1988 on two normal 25 X75 Old Town Lots in the HR-1 districts. The lots exist separately and the two units are owned separately by Carol O'Donoghue. The common wall lies on the common lot line and the lot lines runs through the middle of the common center stairs.. 1) Literal enforcement of the land management code would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the land management code. The general purpose of the code is to prevent structures that are not compatible with their neighborhood by size, design, etc. Literal enforcement in this case is an unreasonable hardship and prevents the owner from creating a safe environment. Because of the very steep grade of this lot and its location at the dead end of a very narrow street (set completely below grade) the proposed one car garage with covered stairs would make this property finally compatible with the neighborhood. Currently it is a neighborhood eyesore and a danger to those of us living here or visiting. With out a variance the stairs cannot be rebuilt to code. Without a variance they cannot be covered to prevent slipping and falling accidents. The current parking pad and safety railings are sagging terribly leaving the concrete broken and crumbling with huge potholes that form frozen puddles. It was re-paved the year I purchased it; and it immediately began to crack apart again because of the progressive sagging and continued freezing of the potholes - it cannot be repaired. The uncovered stairs are too narrow and too steep-which is a dangerous tripping hazard -even on clear sunny days. During the winter they are constantly covered with very Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 40 of 61

41 thick ice. No matter how many times we chip off the ice ( an ax is needed, it is so thick)... as soon as you finish clearing the steps...the snow on the parking pads melt and drip on the stairs from both sides freezing quickly creating a large mass of icesickles, ice coated steps and ice covered hand rails. This is the ONLY way to enter the home. If granted this variance we would be able to enter a covered stairs from the garage and this would allow us the safe entrance that we think we deserve in a home. 2) There are special circumstances attached to the Property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone. The current design and location of this property is unique as it is the only property that has a common open stairway AND the only one going below grade to another open area. (all other duplex homes are above grade with separate entrances.) Because the home is not visible from the street (our neighbors homes are on grade) and because it is adjacent to the mountain - we are often considered public parking for the ski access. Commercial vehicles block our entrance/exit often both summer and winter. Snow is piled up all winter at the end of the driveway- as they run out of space to push it over the edge next to the drive. (the designated snow drop for city plows) this space is used by private plows also. A garage would allow us guaranteed safe parking and remove 2 more cars off of the road where congestion and snow build-up. The combination of illegally parked cars(many which are neighbors who don t want to walk up the stairs) and snow buildup as the season progresses...often blocks the street preventing emergency vehicles safe passage or room to turn. 3)Granting of the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by others in the same zone. As seen by the photos - all other properties in this zone possess a 1-4 car garage with safe direct entrances to their home, or they Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 41 of 61

42 have safe, same level parking with covered entrances. No other property in this zone has a common open staircase that straddles a property line or has one that is attached to open parking pads on both sides creating a hazardous combination. When I purchased this home 11 yrs ago I thought I possessed the right to build a garage and covered stairs to make this property safe. It was a mess; but I had a vision for a place that my 3 adult sons and their families would want to visit. Grandma, skiing and Park City Old town seemed like a wonderful destination! Carrying a baby across this treacherous pad and down these steps would be impossible. I am afraid every time I have to exit or enter my own home and know that it is just when not if someone is seriously hurt and I am held liable. I fully understand the reason for planning and protection of the old town charm. It is this charm that drew me to search for a home in Park City for my retirement. I am a fixer upper person and had plans the minute I saw this property and knew I could make this property look great and be safe at the same time! I know that the only way to do this is to tear down the dalapetated parking pads and stairs and to build a safe structure that is 100% compatible to the neighborhood and old town. 4)The variance will not substantially affect the General Plan and will not be contrary to public interest; The construction of the proposed one car garage will dramatically improve the look of the Norfolk access area and will not block any other residents view. (all homes are much taller) The general plan promotes neighborhood compatibility and the current structure is definitely NOT compatible...in stark contrast it is an eye sore and embarrassment - broken concrete pads with supports that are sagging (which is easily seen from all angles). Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 42 of 61

43 The proposed garage will greatly improve the curb appeal and allow this property to blend with the neighborhood of nice and much larger homes. It will still be the smallest home in the area and the proposed 1 car garage will be very small compared to the 2 structures directly across the street that both have 4 car garages. It would also be very compatible to the design of the garages all the way down the street. I have letters of support from 4 neighbors who are of of town in the summer/fall. 4 other neighbors even attended the last meeting to speak on my behalf- in support of the proposal. The Neighbors have been encouraging me to do this for years and everyone I have met is very supportive. Strangers stop by and offer support continually- asking if I am still trying to get a garage... and I am told to stick with it. I bought this house with the intention of making it one that Park City would be proud of (and I would be proud to own it.) Now, 11 years later I am still embarrassed that my home does nothing to enhance the resort or historical image of Park City. I don t think I should be held to a different standard because I own the last home on the street. 5)The spirit of the land management code is observed and substantial justice done. The spirit of the land management code is to preserve the historic feel of old town park city and to keep things visually in proportion. My goal is the same. I am not trying to add any living space to my home, I am only trying to make it a safe place to live and a place where I can safely have guests without the fear of injury trying to reach the front door.. I have drastically reduced the size of the garage in this new design; as suggested by the board (the design has been reduced over 60%) My number one desire is to make the design of this garage as historical looking as possible and to be as unobtrusive as possible. I seriously think that the broken up pads and uncovered stairs are a huge risk for myself, family and others who come here whether old or young. We have had 3 falls and Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 43 of 61

44 luckily they were not serious... (we had a guest slide off the stairs this week grabbing the railing with both hands and then slip again at the landing). I am seriously afraid of a serious accident and law suit... enough to motivate me to continue to pursue this variance and do what is right. My home is in a unique area which has high traffic and visibility to tourists and visitors to park city. The cars go non-stop to the dead end and turn around (most often by accident thinking it goes thru) Those using the trails for skiing and biking park here to use the mountain and view these crumbling structures. I think we can also make a positive impact on the neighborhood and community by building a historical style structure that is compatible with the neighborhood and old town. I hope that you understand the seriousness of the safety issue and allow me to do this. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 44 of 61

45 Mathew Evans From: Sent: To: Subject: moore bob Thursday, August 09, :10 AM Mathew Evans Permit Dear Sir I understand that you are considering a permit to erect a garage on the property at 312 Norfolk Ave in old town. We support the issuing of this permit as the site is currently an eye sore. The current configuration allows only parking for one car in the winter which forces a second car on the already over crowed situation on the street. Any new structure would be a vast improvement. I have know Carol and Joel for 10 years and know them to be upstanding citizens. If you have any question you can reach at above or Thank you for your positive consideration of this matter Bob & Judy Moore 306 Norfolk 1 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 45 of 61

46 Mathew Evans From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Monday, August 20, :30 PM Mathew Evans O'Donoghue property We live across the street (283 Upper Norfolk Ave) from Carol and Joel, who are asking for a variance for a garage. We do not have any objections to the variance or their plans for a garage. As you know, Upper Norfolk Ave has limited parking and it would be good to get any cars off the street. Parking and congestion continue to be an issue during both the summer and winter. The condo complex across the street at ( Upper Norfolk Ave, east side of street) always has too many vehicles for their available spaces, and this would hopefully free up parking spaces that are currently being jammed into the Park City easement area (west side side of street at approximately 263 Upper Norfolk). The parking pads along the east side of the street certainly are an eye sore and could use improvement. We are unable to make the meeting, but wanted to send along our thoughts, and as a neighbor who lives full time in Park City. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns to discuss with us, Debbie & Jeff Brabender Cell Cell Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 46 of 61

47 Mathew Evans From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Boswell, Justin Tuesday, August 14, :53 AM Mathew Evans Carol O'Donoghue PARK CITY VARIANCE FOR GARAGE Mr. Evans, My name is Justin Boswell. I am the next door neighbor to Ms. Carol O Donoghue. I wanted to send you a brief note to convey my wholehearted support for the improvements Ms. O Donoghue is hoping to make to her home. I sincerely believe this will be beneficial to our neighborhood by improving the look of the area, improving parking congestion, easing snow removal and improving general safety in the area. I sincerely hope you will approve her request. If you have any questions or I can help in any way, please contact me at Thanks very much, Justin 1 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 47 of 61

48 GENERAL PLAN III. COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT (page 12) Issue Statement Park City s small-town, historic, mountain resort atmosphere attracts tourists and new residents from all over the world. In numerous meetings and surveys, residents proclaim community character is fundamentally important. But the scale of new development, changing commute patterns, economic factors, and other factors threaten the community s character. Discussion important components of Park City s distinctive character: Broad vistas across ridge lines, hillsides, and meadows give the town an open feeling, uninterrupted by obtrusive development. Trees and vegetation on the hillsides and mountain slopes maintain the town s link with nature. Open space that is visually connected and internally functional with other planned and existing open space areas will enhance the community s resort image. New commercial and residential development, modest in scale, and utilizing historic and natural building materials. Neighborhoods with a mix of housing opportunities, including affordable and employee housing; neighborhoods with an emphasis on open space, transportation systems, and community facilities that meet community objectives and needs. IV. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (page 21) Discussion (page 22) The visual and environmental quality of Park City and its surrounding lands is critical to promoting the resort economy, adding to the quality of life, and advancing the vision of Park City as a unique mountain community. One component of open space is the current system of trails, which is valued as a primary and secondary means of travel. Other uses of the trail system include fitness and recreation. Policies open space components types of open space Highly visible ridge lines - (the tops of mountains and hills visible to pedestrians and motorists traveling in and around the community); Undisturbed visual open space - (private or public open space left in its natural condition and serves primarily as a visual relief from the urban environment); Trail connections and corridors - (routes directing hikers, bikers and skiers onto developed trails or through areas which eventually connect to trails) Neighborhood public open space - (open space areas intended to serve a local neighborhood primarily but open to the public in general) Set aside open spaces that are sizeable and visually apparent; provide substantial connections to other open spaces. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 48 of 61

49 Require neighborhood links through trail systems. Target activity areas such as schools, commercial zones, and recreation areas for trail connections. VI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Discussion Loss of Open Space and Reasonable Expectation of Adjacent Land Use Concerns (Page 61) Residents do not want expansion of the urban area to cause them to lose the feeling of living in an open, mountain environment. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Aesthetics (page 89) Maintain and enhance trail and open space linkages. XII. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT Park City Historic District Design Guidelines Actions: (page 149) Maintain and enhance trails and open space linkages within the Historic District. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES SPECIFIC GUIDELINES A. SITE DESIGN A.2. Lot Coverage A.2.1 Lot coverage of new buildings should be compatible with the surrounding Historic Sites. (page 45) A.5. Landscaping A.5.4 The character of the neighborhood and district should not be diminished by significantly reducing increasing the proportion of built or paved area to open space. (page 46) D. OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, GARAGES, & DRIVEWAYS D.1. Off-Street Parking Areas D.1.3 Parking areas and vehicular access should be visually subordinate to the characterdefining streetscape elements of the neighborhood. (page 49) D.2.3 Single-width tandem garages are encouraged. Side-by-side parking configurations are strongly discouraged; if used, they should be visually minimized when viewed from the public right-of-way. (page 50) LMC HISTORIC RESIDENTAL (HR-1) DISTRICT PURPOSE. (C) encourage construction of Historically Compatible Structures that contribute to the character and scale of the Historic District and maintain existing residential neighborhoods (F) establish Development review criteria for new Development on Steep Slopes which mitigate impacts to mass and scale and the environment. Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 49 of 61

50 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 50 of 61

51 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 51 of 61

52 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 52 of 61

53 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 53 of 61

54 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 54 of 61

55 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 55 of 61

56 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 56 of 61

57 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 57 of 61

58 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 58 of 61

59 Board of Adjustment - October 15, 2013 Page 59 of 61

60 Board of Adjustment - Page October 60 of 15,