COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: MINUTES SNYDERVILLE BASIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018 Sheldon Richins Building 1885 West Ute Boulevard, Park City, UT Canice Harte- Chair Thomas Cooke Ryan Dickey Joel Fine STAFF PRESENT: Patrick Putt Community Development Director Peter Barnes Planning & Zoning Administrator Sean Lewis- County Planner Chuck Klingenstein Bea Peck Malena Stevens Dave Thomas- Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Strader- Senior Planner Kathryn Lewis- Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:30 PM. REGULAR SESSION 1. General Public Input The public hearing was opened. No comments were made and the public hearing was closed. 2. Discussion and possible action regarding The Commons at Newpark Final Subdivision Plat and Final Site Plan for a seven residential unit development; 1153 Center Dr.; Parcel NPTCR-R-2; Matthew Crandall, Applicant Amir Caus, County Planner Planner Caus said at the last public hearing, the Commission discussed different ways the structure could be oriented to the lot. In response to that discussion, the applicants have revised the project and have submitted a new option that has an 180 O flip of the structure. Staff recommends approval of this option because it best addresses the public s concerns.
Page 2 of 32 APPLICANT S COMMENTS The applicant s team consisted of: Trent Smith (architect), Justin Keys (attorney), Matthew Crandall and Ryan Crandall (property owners/developers). Mr. Smith spoke first. He reviewed the different possible options that were discussed. Trent Smith said the only changes involve the garages and the front doors. The front doors and the garage doors will face the amphitheater side. The balconies and the way the structure steps back from the amphitheater will remain. They are trying to do all they can reduce both the visual and shadow impact. A private drive will be created along the garage side of the structure. Ms. Smith said the decision was made to remove the affordable unit in order to help the project fit better on the site. No sun calendar discs will be impacted. The distance between the Newpark Hotel and the Commons will be increased. Mr. Smith said that guest parking will be entirely removed. Guests can park at one of the nearby parking structures. A retaining wall will be added. It will serve as a natural barrier between pedestrians and the vehicles. Planters and benches will be added to the amphitheater side of the retaining wall to provide seating for those attending the concerts. A sidewalk will be added to increase connectivity. A fly-through video was shown of the project as currently proposed. Commissioner Klingenstein asked if they considered putting in a frosted window at ground level on the Main Street side in order to break up the façade and create more character. Mr. Smith said there would be a privacy issue. Commissioner Fine asked if there are any frosted windows on the garage doors themselves. Mr. Smith said there are some small windows in the garage door.
Page 3 of 32 Commissioner Stevens asked what materials will be used for the retaining wall. Mr. Smith answered that they are planning on concrete. They would be willing to look at having stamped and stained concrete. Commissioner Fine asked if they intend to have both a retaining wall and a fence. Mr. Smith answered in the affirmative. The fence will be about 3 feet high. The public hearing was opened. Susan Daniero said it seems there has been solid progress on creating a compromise. She likes that there is one unit less. She has a question about trash. The trash enclosure behind the Newpark Terraces has four dumpsters, one of which is for recycling. The retail dumpster is filling up and doesn t have enough pick-ups. She suggested that be turned into another residential dumpster instead of retail. If that were done, they would have enough pick-ups for seven more units. Planner Caus said that a trial period was suggested to see if this arrangement will work well. If it doesn t work out, a spot was designated on the site plan for garbage collection. The trial period is one year. Commissioner Peck said an entire year is a very long time to not have adequate trash removal. She suggested this be evaluated quarterly. Chair Harte said that could be added as a condition. Jeff Edmondson said he is against the project. He is a Newpark resident. He believes the area is over developed. The original Newpark plan had three areas designated as parks. This is the only one. He has jokingly referred to the Newpark area as nopark. He suggested the Commons be built where retail buildings sit empty. That way the amphitheater green space could be saved. Dean Tutor said he owns his own business across the street from this property. Is this is a foregone conclusion? If so, why are they having this meeting? Do the Crandall s have a legal right to build on the property? If they do, it should be allowed. Will seven residential units do anything to alleviate the affordable housing shortage?
Page 4 of 32 Mr. Tutor said it seems that the shadow study shows the amphitheater will be totally within the building s shadow during the summer concerts. This will negatively impact the community. If permitting this structure is a foregone conclusion, some of the public may not attend future meetings. Chris Engelman said he is a townhome owner and fulltime resident. He is concerned about the sun impacting the amphitheater. Kathy Decker lives in the Foxpoint community. If this is passed, it will be an unfortunate addition to the community. It is not the best use of space. There is very little open space in Newpark. She believes the community needs to be more involved in the process. She is hearing about a large park and ride lot that may be put in Kimball Junction. Development projects need to be brought to the neighborhood sooner, not later. Tom Richards said he just found out about this meeting earlier in the day. He asked what percentage of the Newpark plaza will remain after this is built. He said during the concerts there is standing room only. Hunter Klingensmith works at Swaner Nature Preserve. They are frequently told that their building is already hard to find. This development will make it even more difficult. Will new signage be added? Chris Retzer said he is against the project, although it is nice to see some of the changes that were made. He said the Commission should not vote in favor of the project if it can be made better. He had a slide presentation to make, during which he listed the concerns associated with the development. He read portions of the DA while listings these concerns.
Page 5 of 32 The design detracts from Main Street, the plaza, and amphitheater experience The design doesn t honor the Development Agreement The land use doesn t conform to the principals of a true town center The design doesn t meet the general architectural character of Main Street General parking- currently, all garages are accessed off alleys or parking lots The Sun Calendar plaza is the centerpiece of the town center. Outdoor dining was designated for this area. This project doesn t add to the vitality of Newpark. He read from the urban design guidelines. A retaining wall and 3-foot fence is not a welcoming element. Mr. Retzer next offered options for improvement. Adhere to the requirement of first level store fronts on Main Street Adhere to the requirement of only allowing 2-3 level townhomes Remove the top floor Construct an underground garage Eliminate the garages- owners could park on the street or in the terrace garage. Shift the footprint south Rotate the footprint and orient the buildings to be north/south Mr. Retzer encouraged the Commission to push the applicants to find a better design. He is a member of the Kimball Junction Master Plan Committee. At a recent meeting, pictures were shown of various Kimball Junction developments. The statement was made that these pictures show there could have been better development designs. He hopes that in the future, people won t point to The Commons as an example of something that could have been done better. It does not work to put a private lane and private structure next to an amazing public space.
Page 6 of 32 John McMurragh said he walks that area every day. He is against these seven units being built. He said the Commission should listen to the voice of the community. Has the County given any thought to purchase the land? Brett Green encouraged the Commission to look at the big picture and how this will impact the area. There are 1,400 people that have signed a petition to see something else done with the land. This project will add to the congestion of the area. The entire community will be impacted. Jacqueline Hess said she attends the outdoor concerts. Visitors to Park City come to the Sun Dial Plaza. The concerts are a family event. A four-story building will not feel like Newpark. She is very much opposed to the project. When she was viewing the video, she noticed the designated turn-around area is a key walking area. People use it to access Maxwells and Swaners. There are kids on bikes and rollerblades. The video only showed bollards blocking the area. That will not hinder pedestrian activity. There will be a safety issue between vehicles and people. This will remove parking from an area where people want to park. David Jacobs purchased property in Newpark in 2004. From a property owner s point of view, he understands wanting to maximize an investment. He doesn t want to see a loss of the open-area atmosphere. A restaurant would be better choice for this area. Please respect the intent of the area. Norman Scwartz is a real estate investor and developer. This project is ill conceived. The area that will be impacted is part of the core of Newpark. It would be denied. He doesn t believe the applicants have made an effort to attract a restaurant come to this location. He doesn t believe this would have been approved originally. The public hearing was closed.
Page 7 of 32 COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Chair Harte said one of the things brought up by the public was trash. He agrees with Commissioner Peck that one year would be a very long time to wait if there is a problem. Matthew Crandall said for visual effects it was decided to eliminate the dumpster. More trash pickups will be scheduled. He said if the project opens in November, people will not only have boxes from moving, but boxes from Christmas. He would like to have a long enough time period to give a true sample of what to expect. Planner Caus displayed a slide showing the conditions of approval (#1-#3.) He said there was a place designated on the plat for trash collection if the need arises. Funds have been placed in an escrow account for the HOA to provide an enclosure for the dumpster. During construction, separate dumpsters will be used. Commissioner Peck said someone will need to monitor the trash pickup to see if it is frequent enough. They have heard from the neighbor that there is already a problem. Matthew Crandall said they will work together with The Terraces. Chair Harte asked Attorney Thomas to comment on the question Mr. Tutor asked about if the public hearing is a moot point. Attorney Thomas said the DA vests certain uses and densities. The approval process for this application is a CUP. Under Utah law, this means the use is permitted with conditions. The public can point out the negative impacts of the project. Those impacts need to be mitigated through conditions applied to the development. The fact that people are simply opposed to the project cannot be considered with a CUP. Attorney Thomas said there was a fairly profound change in Utah State law during the past year. The difference is that unless there is a clear restriction on the use of the property, the applicant will prevail.
Page 8 of 32 This means there is a presumption that a development going through the CUP process is permitted unless there is a restriction within the DA. If the DA is unclear because it seems to be saying two different things, under Utah law, the decision is found in favor of the owner/applicant. Attorney Thomas said there is a provision in the DA that says the height may be 2-3 stories high, but another provision says 45 feet high is the height limit. A prohibition against garages on Main Street could be enforced. Garages on Main Street aren t restricted if there isn t a provision that prohibits them. The Commission is put in a position of looking for restrictions that can be applied and then mitigating the impacts. Public comment that bears on those two things can be taken into consideration. Commissioner Klingenstein said that Kathy Decker said she is trying to understand what the best use for this site is. He said the best use for the site was determined in 1998 when the DA was signed. He noted that a lot of the guidelines were designed to be flexible. He said the DA has morphed and changed over time. Commissioner Klingenstein said the Commission is operating with a DA that was approved with a previous developer. He said the word may not shall was written throughout the design guidelines. Attorney Thomas responded that he was there when this was written. Flexibility was purposely built in. A running total was kept of all the densities laid out on the plat. This was meant to be a mixed-use dense project. Attorney Thomas said the language about the market conditions was an acknowledgement that the developer had the right to change the market conditions anytime they wanted to. It allowed flexibility in the uses. The DA was intended to be flexible. That is why the language is written the way it was.
Page 9 of 32 Matthew Crandall said they inherited the DA. They are trying to work with, and not against, the rules. They have not proposed exceeding the height or the density. He said the opposition was involved with the creation of the DA. The same people who took advantage of the inconsistencies are now the people who are opposing them. Chair Harte said that ultimately the Commission will measure this by the rules. Chair Harte said that way-finding signage is the responsibility of the master developer, not this particular developer. He told Kathy Decker the developments occurring for the Kimball Junction area is now entering the phase where public input will be sought. The future of Kimball Junction will become a hot topic. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Commissioner Dickey asked the applicant to describe how they will prevent pedestrians from walking through the area where cars will turn around. How will the traffic and pedestrians be kept separate? Mr. Smith said along the east side, they will provide a fence in addition to the retaining wall. This will assist with the grade change along with preventing pedestrians from accessing the area. Mr. Smith said the goal was to keep the north end of the project more open to allow pedestrians to walk through and for fire truck access. They are trying to make it very clear what is road and what is pathway. They will put in a sidewalk to the south to help direct pedestrian traffic away from the private road. Currently there is no sidewalk. A curb will be added. They are increasing the Sun Calendar Plaza by the actions they are taking. The height of the curb, wall, and fence is 42 inches. Commissioner Stevens thanked the applicants for the work that was done. It has become a better project. She asked if the parking spaces on the south end of the project is required. Planner Caus said the ADA parking space is a requirement. Two spaces are temporary. They are serving as a place holder for a possible garbage dumpster.
Page 10 of 32 Commissioner Stevens asked if the curb-cut will be made of the same materials as the plaza. She was told that is correct. She would like to see more dimensions added to the façade on Main Street. It would make it more visually appealing. Commissioner Fine had no comments. Commissioner Cooke asked if the retaining wall and fence are located within the townhome property boundary or on the amphitheater property. It isn t clear in the different diagrams. Mr. Smith acknowledged that the diagrams need to be corrected. It is shown one way in one diagram, another on the next. Mr. Keys said the Crandall s own both properties. They have an easement agreement with the Newpark Owners Association (NOA). The NOA operates the amphitheater on their behalf. They will work with them to determine how the seating is best built out. Matthew Crandall said to some degree, this is out of their control. Mr. Keys said they will build a landscape buffer, subject to the easement agreement. Commissioner Stevens said she would like to add a condition that the concrete of the retaining wall be stained and stamped. This will beautify the area in case the NOA and the owners can t come to a conclusion. Matthew Crandall said they wouldn t have any problem doing that, but they would want to know up front if that is required so the cost could be built into the budget. Commissioner Cooke asked Attorney Thomas what can and cannot be conditioned for the transition from the amphitheater to the townhouses. Attorney Thomas answered anything that will mitigate an impact can be made as a condition of approval. The Commission needs to point out what the impact is and tailor their condition to that. He thinks Commissioner Stevens suggested condition fits into the parameters.
Page 11 of 32 Commissioner Cooke asked what the appeal process is. Attorney Thomas said this goes to the County Manager. He believes the County Manager s decision is appealed directly to Third District Court. He will check with the DA to be certain. Commissioner Klingenstein said the public s input is very valuable to the Commission. Sometimes they can t say no, but they seriously consider what the public has to say. It has helped to reshape the project from its original proposal. Commissioner Klingenstein said he likes the idea of making the bench area more aesthetically pleasing. He likes the trees and shrubbery that was added. It helps to mitigate the visual impacts of the garages. He wants to have language that guarantees this actually happens. They have done good work by bringing the building closer to Main Street. Commissioner Klingenstein asked the applicant to describe the façade of the building on Main Street. Mr. Smith said stone is used where the building touches the ground. Above that will be hardy board. Commissioner Klingenstein said he would like to see some kind of architectural element be included on the Main Street side. Something like a frosted window would help break up the pedestrian scale. Commissioner Peck said she would like to let Staff work with the applicant on design features. Planner Caus said the final decision could be made by Director Putt. Commissioner Peck asked if Commissioner Stevens would be comfortable with letting the stamped concrete and other beautification efforts be worked out with Director Putt. If a resolution can t be reached, it would come back to the Commission. Commissioner Stevens said that would be acceptable to her. Commissioner Peck verified with Attorney Thomas that the applicants have a legal right to build a residential structure. Attorney Thomas said affordable housing is not relevant to this application. The DA already provided for the needed affordable housing. That requirement has already been satisfied. Commissioner Peck said the
Page 12 of 32 applicant voluntarily added the affordable housing, but because of the configuration requested by the Commission, it was removed. Commissioner Peck said there seems to be some concern that this will totally block the sun during the concert series. The sun study was displayed. Mr. Smith said a study was completed for 4 different times of the year. The most pertinent study would be the summer solstice. He said the building will shade the majority of the amphitheater during the time the concert series will be held. The impact has decreased greatly. The current plan has moved the building 26 feet away from the amphitheater. Matthew Crandall said it appears that the shadow is just past the obelisk around 6:00 p.m. He thinks there will be a good portion of the amphitheater that will have sun. He has people tell him they wouldn t mind the shade during the summer months. Mr. Smith pointed out where the property line for the townhouses falls. Commissioner Peck said a concern was expressed that there will be nowhere to park. The amount of available parking was pointed. There seems to be plenty of parking within a block of this area. Matthew Crandall said this parcel was always intended as a building pad. The parking at this location has always been temporary. It was paved and made available for parking until development took place. This was never included in the parking study or count. He said that some people said they would prefer a restaurant. If two restaurants were built, it would have a lot more traffic than seven townhouses. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Harte said it was stated in the public hearing that a better solution would be if someone purchased the land and donated it to the plaza. Even though that is a great idea, it is out of their control. He said the DA leaves the option open for townhomes.
Page 13 of 32 Chair Harte expressed appreciation to the applicant for their work and flexibility. He personally desires that the project wouldn t be built there. In the end, the structure will look very nice. He believes that the right to build is there. Commissioner Cooke said there is strong language in the General Plan about open space. He asked if the County or BOSAC has investigated the purchase of this property. He would like to know if this was considered. Attorney Thomas said that BOSAC used to have members of the Planning Commission on it. That no longer occurs because of the potential conflict of interest. He is the attorney for BOSAC and the County Council. They currently don t have designs to acquire this property. Commissioner Stevens made a motion to send a positive recommendation to the County Manager for the final plat and final site plan with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of Approval including an added condition (#8). Commissioner Fine seconded the motion. A discussion ensued about the additional condition. The verbiage of Condition was agreed upon. Commissioner Stevens and Commissioner Fine both accepted the amended condition. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Newpark Development Agreement was approved on October 18, 2001 and was subsequently amended in December 2002. It provided for 819.360 square feet of density on approximately 37 acres. 2. Newpark Retail LLC is the owner of record of parcel NPTCR-R-2. 3. The development parameters for this project are specifically set forth in the Newpark Development Agreement. 4. The zoning section of the Newpark Development Agreement identifies the proposed site as Zone One.
Page 14 of 32 5. Per the Newpark Development agreement, Zone One allows for a number of uses, including residential. 6. The Newpark Development Agreement includes a change in market conditions clause. 7. The change in market condition has been used on multiple occasions in the past by previous developers. 8. On March 18, 2016, the Community Development Director found that a Development Agreement is not required in order to process a development permit application for a townhome project in the subject location. 9. The Community Development Director found that the Development Agreement documents allow for reasonable flexibility assigning the density for residential and retail purposes. 10. Page 5 of the Newpark Development Agreement States: Other community benefit include design principles as outlined in the Community Benefits Statement on page 39 of this document. Page 39 of the Newpark Development Agreement (Compatible with Town Center Design) section states: Redstone Parkside complies with the provision of Policy 2.2 of the Snyderville Basin General Plan. 11. Policy 2.2 of the 2001 Snyderville Basin General Plan states: Designate Town, Resort, and Village Centers on the Neighborhood Planning Area land Use Plan Maps. These locations for higher density development have been determined to be appropriate because: a) Visual impacts are minimized and, with regard to view shed protection, these location are consistent with community objectives b) They are compatible with the specific development objectives of the respective Neighborhood Planning Areas c) Each location is highly accessible from major roadways in the Snyderville Basin d) Access to and from each area will not adversely affect existing residential neighborhoods
Page 15 of 32 e) Each area is in close proximity to existing economic and employment generators within the Snyderville Basin f) Each area is near or contains appropriate infrastructure and County services 12. Policy 2.2.1 of the 2001 Snyderville Basin General Plan states: Town Center should be designated within the appropriate area at Kimball s Junction. The Town Center should be the focal point for the Snyderville Basin community and may include a mix of commercial retail, office space, and supporting uses serving the needs of the entire Snyderville Basin, together with neighborhood residential concentrations, including various types and sized of residential dwelling units with ownership and rental opportunities. Other uses that are generally appropriate may include parks, open space and recreation opportunity, community facilities and amenities, churches, schools, and other similar uses typically found in a traditional downtown area. Its scale and scope should help meet the social, economic recreational, cultural, and educational needs of residents from throughout the Snyderville Basin. 13. The Newpark Design Review Committee met four times with regard to the Commons at Newpark proposal and has reviewed variations of the proposed Final Plat and Final Site Plan. 14. The Newpark Design Review Committee voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission by a majority vote of 4 to 1. 15. Staff consulted with the Summit County Attorney s Office on whether a return to the Design Review Committee was warranted. 16. The Summit County attorney s office found that while the Design Review committee reviewed previous iterations, the concept of the project is substantially same and the latest change did not warrant returning to the Design Review Committee. 17. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 22, 2017. 18. The Planning Commission held a work session on September 26, 2017.
Page 16 of 32 19. During the September 26 work session, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use is allowed per the Newpark Development Agreement. 20. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 28, 2017. 21. The proposed Final Subdivision Plat and Final Site Plan are legally described as The Commons at Newpark. 22. At the time of the application, there were 10,289 square feet of remaining density for the Newpark Town Center. 23. The proposed project consists of 10,150 square feet of residential density and is configured into 7 market rate units, each 1,450 square feet. 24. The density is established by the Newpark Development Agreement pool of density. 25. If approved, the remaining institutional density would be 139 square feet. 26. Heights in Newpark vary from 22 feet to 65 feet and are recommended by the Design Review Committee. 27. Height allowed per the Newpark Development Agreement is 45 feet. 28. The proposed maximum height is 45 feet. 29. Public notice of the public hearing was published in the February 2, 2018 issue of The Park Record. 30. Postcard notices announcing the public hearing were mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcels on January 31, 2018. 31. Service providers have reviewed the Final Site Plan for compliance with applicable standards and no project issues have been identified that could not be mitigated. 32. Staff has reviewed the proposed Final Subdivision Plan and Final Site Plan for compliance with applicable Development Code standards. 33. Staff has viewed the proposed Final Subdivision Plan and Final Site Plan for compliance with the Newpark Development Agreement standards. CONCLUSION OF LAW: 1. The proposal meets the terms of the Newpark Development Agreement.
Page 17 of 32 2. The proposal meets the applicable standards of the Snyderville Basin Development Code. 3. The proposal meets the applicable standards of the Snyderville Basin General Plan. CONDITIONS S OF APPROVAL: 1. A note shall be place on the Final Site Plan noting the trial period and escrow agreement regarding the solid waste facilities enclosure (dumpster enclosure). 2. The applicant shall place funds in an escrow account for the Home Owner s Association to be able to provide a solid waster enclosure (dumpster enclosure) should the Public Works Director determine one is needed. 3. Should the solid waste enclosure (dumpster enclosure) be required, the design that was approved by the DRC shall be used. 4. The Community Development Director shall review and approve the Landscaping Plan prior to the County Manager decision. 5. Final details of the project shall be reviewed and approved prior to the Summit County Manager approval. 6. All necessary permits must be obtained and fees shall be paid prior to the commencement of any construction activity, including but not limited to the Summit County Engineering and the Summit County Building Departments. 7. All other service provider requirements shall be met. 8. The Community Development Director shall work with the applicant, Staff, and (when appropriate) the NOA to review, finalize, and approve: a) Adding windows and other treatments to the Main Street side of the building b) Concrete treatments, benches, shrubs, and other treatments to the Commons property and the adjacent NOA easement property If the Community Development Director cannot find resolution regarding these issues with the applicant, these issues may be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Page 18 of 32 MOTION CARRIED (7-0) 3. Public Hearing and possible action regarding two Subdivisions at The Colony at White Pine Canyon Phases 5B and 5D Subdivisions Final Plat Decision Amendment; John O Connell, applicant- Amir Caus, County Planner Planner Caus reminded the Commission that in April, 2017 they approved The Colony Subdivision Plats. The applicant is requesting to amend the approval for 5B and 5D of The Colony. Planner Caus said The Colony Development has 274 units of density, which are to be developed in five phases. There were 257 lots recorded with 17 units of density remaining. Phase 5B has four lots with a total of 22.94 acres. There is an 11.83 acre ancillary parcel. The ancillary parcel will be used for open space. Phase 5D has four lots with a little less than 11 acres. If the Commission approves the request, two units of density will return to The Colony density pool for a total of 19 units remaining. Planner Caus said the service providers have reviewed the proposal. Staff has received no comment that cannot reasonably be fulfilled. The application meets the five standards of approval. Staff recommends approval. The applicant, John O Connell, had no comments. Chair Harte called for a motion to be made. Commissioner Dickey made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Stevens, to approve the Phase 5A-5D Final Subdivision Amended Plat as outlined in the Staff Report and as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Iron Mountain Associated LLC, are the owners of record of Parcel PP-12 (208.69 acres) and Parcel PP-32-A (91.19 acres), which is located at 258 White Pine Canyon Road.
Page 19 of 32 2. PP-12 and PP-32-A are currently undeveloped. 3. On April 25, 2017 the approved The Colony Phases 5A-5D Final Subdivision Plats. 4. The approved Colony at White Pine Canyon Phase 5B Meadow Lakes Subdivision consists of four lots and an ancillary parcel for a total of 34.77 acres. The ancillary parcel would serve as open space and would not be used for residential purposes. 5. The approved colony at White Pine Canyon Phase 5d Meadow Lakes Subdivision consists of four lots and totals 10.96 acres. 6. The Colony Phases 5B and 5D Final Subdivision Plats have not yet been recorded. 7. The applicant is requesting to amend the approval for Colony Phases 5B and5d. 8. The applicant proposed to remove one lot and increase the acreage between the remaining three lots in Phase 5B. 9. The applicant proposes to remove one lot and add Parcel A which would accommodate for a ski easement, chairlift, and a future water pump house in Phase 5D. 10. The proposed Final Subdivision Plat are legally described as The Colony at White Pine Canyon Phase 5B Meadow Lakes Subdivision Plat and The Colony at White Pine Canyon Phase 5D Meadow Lakes Subdivision Plat. 11. If the amendment is approve, 2 units of density would go back to The Colony density pool and 19 units would remain available to be platted. 12. The Canyons Development Agreement established that all development within The Colony shall go through the Minor Development review process. 13. The Snyderville Basin Development Code established that the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission is the land use authority for minor developments. 14. Postcard notices announcing the public hearing were mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcels on January 31, 2018. 15. Public notice of the public hearing was published in the February 2, 2018 issue of The Park Record.
Page 20 of 32 16. Service providers have reviewed the plats for compliance with applicable standards. 17. Staff has reviewed the plats for compliance with applicable Development Code standards. 18. Staff has reviewed the plats for compliance with Development Agreement Standards. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The proposal complies with the base zoned density or incentive density according to Section 10-2-11 of the Snyderville Basin Development Code, established for the property described in the application. 2. The proposal is generally consistent with the spirit of the general plan. 3. The proposal conforms to all pertinent provision of the Snyderville Basin Development Code. 4. The proposal complies with all appropriate concurrency and infrastructure provision of Chapter 4 of the Snyderville Basin Development Code. 5. The proposal if not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of residents of the Snyderville Basin. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All service provider requirements shall be met. 2. Open Space dedications shall be confirmed by the Attorney s Office prior to Final Plat Recordation. MOTION CARRIED (7-0) 4. Public Hearing and possible action for a Plat Amendment to amend the right-ofways adjacent to Lots 16 and 32 in Silver Creek Subdivision, Unit I; 6801 and 6818 North Earl Street; Parcel SL-I-2-21 and SL-I-4-16; Derrick Radke, Summit County Public Works Director, on behalf of Summit County Jennifer Strader, Senior Planner
Page 21 of 32 Planner Strader showed a plat map. She pointed out the existing and proposed property boundaries of Lot 16. A portion of the lot would be dedicated to Summit County for a future road dedication. The second amendment is for Lot 32. The existing and proposed property lines were also pointed out on the plat map. Planner Strader said the property lines in this subdivision extend to the center line of the road. The purpose for this amendment is to ensure the lot is consistent with the other lots of the subdivision. Service providers have reviewed both plat maps and any conditions they have will be noted on the mylar prior to final recordation. Planner Strader said no public comments have been received. Planner Strader said that since the Staff Report went out Lot 16 was sold. The property owners are aware of this request. They will be required to sign the plat amendment. Engineer Derek Radke said he hasn t talked to the owners yet. Commissioner Peck asked if this is a case of having the cart before the horse. The property owners may not agree to this action. She said if they do not agree to sign the final mylar it cannot move forward. Engineer Radke said Woodside Homes was the owner when the application was made. Planner Strader said the Commission will make a recommendation to the County Manager for both of the plat amendments. The Commission can condition the approval to have signed consent from the property owner prior to the County Manager making the final decision. Commissioner Peck said she is concerned that if the Commission gives approval, this could be construed by the property owner as something that is out of their hands.
Page 22 of 32 Commissioner Klingenstein said the condition should be that this is resolved before it goes to the County Manager for approval. Commissioner Peck said she doesn t want to hold up the application, but she wants it understood that this action in no way is meant to influence or apply pressure to the property owner. She wants the property owner to be assured they have their rights. Attorney Thomas said they may not know all of the facts. He imagined that this action would have been built into the price. He agreed that having the signature on the plat before it goes to the County Manager should be made a condition. The Commission had no further comments or concerns. The public hearing was opened. No comments were made and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Peck asked if the new owners received notice of this public hearing, Planner Strader said the public hearing notices went out, but she doesn t know if the new owners received notice. She understands the purchase of the property was only completed this evening. Attorney Thomas said the Commission s action at this meeting is a recommendation. The condition that this is signed by the property owner before the County Manager takes action on it will be important. Commissioner Peck said that condition will satisfy her. Commissioner Stevens made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the County Manager pursuant to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval with the additional condition that the property owners will sign the plat before submission to the County Manager. Engineer Radke said the owners of both Lot 16 and Lot 32 will have to sign the plat. Commissioner Peck seconded the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT
Page 23 of 32 1. On November 16, 2017, Derrick Radke, Public Works Director, on behalf of Summit County submitted an application to amend Silver Creek Unit I, Block 2, Lot 32 (Parcels SL-I-2-32) and Silver Creek Unit I, Block 4, Lot 16 (SL-I-4-16). 2. SL-I-2-32 contains 0.93 acres. 3. SL-I-4-16 contains 1.15 acres. 4. The zoning for Parcels SL-I-2-32 and SL-I-2-32 is Rural Residential. 5. Silver Creek Subdivision, Unit I was recorded in 1965, prior to any zoning regulations in Summit County. 6. Woodside Homes is currently constructing single family detached homes on a number of vacant lots located on Earl Street in Unit I. 7. Summit County has been researching locations for a future road connection between Silver Creek Unit I and Bitner Road. 8. One of the preferred alignments of a future road connection between Silver Creek Unit I and Bitner Road cuts the corner of Lots 16, Block 4, Unit I and then parallels I-80. 9. The plat amendment is being requested to amend the corner of Lot 16, Block 4, Unit I so that in the event this alignment is chosen for a future road connection between Silver Creek Unit and Bitner Road, the necessary right-of-way will be in place. 10. Woodside Homes constructed Earl Street so that it would connect to a potential future connecting road at a right angle. This construction fits within the existing right-of-way; however, the centerline of the new alignment does not follow the typical platting of lots within the subdivision to the center of the road. 11. This amendment would adjust the lot line (centerline of the road) between Lot 32, Block 2 and Lot 16, Block 4. 12. The amendment to Lot 32 causes the lot to be consistent with the other lots in the plat in that the property line will extend to the centerline of the road. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Page 24 of 32 1. Neither the public nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed amendment. 2. There is good cause for the amendment. 3. The plat amendment will not result in an increase of density. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All necessary service provider requirements shall be noted on the final mylar prior to recordation. 2. The property owners will sign the plat before submission to the County Manager. MOTION CARRIED (7-0) 5. Public Hearing and possible action regarding a Condominium Plat for a previously approved 68 unit multi-family development; Quarry Springs, Southwest corner of Kilby Road and Pinebrook Blvd; Parcel SS-8-; Quarry Springs, Quarry Springs; LLC, Applicant Jennifer Strader, Senior Planner Planner Strader said Quarry Springs at Pinebrook is a 68 unit multi-family development that was approved in 2011. Currently there are four or five buildings being constructed. The applicant, Doug Bowers, is requesting approval of the condominium plat so they can sell individual units rather than rent them as apartments. A display of the approved final site plan was shown. It will not be affected by the condominium plat. It is required for ownership purposes only. A copy of the proposed condominium plat was sent out to service providers. They have reviewed the development and comments were provided. These will be addressed prior to the final mylar being printed.
Page 25 of 32 The Building Department has requested that two of the units be designated as accessible (ADA) units. Mr. Bowers has been working with the Building Department. This will be designated on the plat before the final mylar is printed and recorded. Planner Strader said this item was noticed as a public hearing. Staff received two phone calls from inquiring neighbors. Staff recommends the Commission hold a public hearing and vote to forward a positive recommendation to the County Manager. Mr. Bowers requested they move ahead and approve this subject to the condition added by the Building Department. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Commissioner Dickey had no questions. Commissioner Stevens asked if this will have any impact on the housing needs for the county. Can that be considered? Planner Strader said this project was built under a previous consent agreement for Pinebrook. Attorney Thomas said that is not a consideration for this project. Attorney Thomas explained that a consent agreement is an option for the County to enter into consent agreement where there is a colorable legal claim on a land-use application. This means they have a legal claim that the County thinks is valid. The County will enter into a negotiation process. In the end, a consent agreement is signed. It acts like a development agreement. Commissioner Stevens asked if there is an affordable housing element with this development. Attorney Thomas said there is not because of the consent agreement. Commissioner Fine asked if the project was originally approved as rental property. Is this considered a PUD? Planner Strader verified it was originally rental property. She said the County doesn t have PUDs.
Page 26 of 32 Commissioner Cooke had no questions. Commissioner Klingenstein asked if this was drafted with no specific designation about the ownership of the units. Attorney Thomas said that is correct. Mr. Bowers said there is nothing that precludes condominiums. Commissioner Peck asked about the steep hill in this area. Where will the structures be placed? Planner Strader answered this is located close to the bottom near Kilby Road. This will be located on the front side of an old rock quarry. It does not go up and over the hill. Commissioner Peck said the area is already filled. Are there standards on how close the buildings can be to each other? Planner Strader said all of those things were reviewed and approved when the final site plat was reviewed in 2011. The public hearing was opened. No comments were made and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Dickey made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the County Manager per the Staff Report dated. Commissioner Stevens seconded the motion. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On November 20, 2017, Quarry Springs LL submitted a condominium Plat application to the Community Development Department for the Quarry Springs at Pinebrook development. 2. Quarry Springs at Pinebrook is located on the southwest corner of Kilby Road and Pinebrook Blvd. 3. Quarry Spring at Pinebrook is located Parcel SS-8-B-2 and contains 11.08 acres. 4. Quarry Springs at Pinebrook is zoned Hillside Stewardship (HS). 5. Quarry Springs at Pinebrook is a sixty-eight unit multi-family development.
Page 27 of 32 6. Quarry Springs at Pinebrook consists of thirty-four buildings, including duplexes and fourplexes. 7. Construction has commenced on at least four of the buildings. 8. The final Site Plan for the project was recorded on June 23, 2011. 9. The applicant is requesting to condominiumized the project for ownership purposes only. 10. The condominium plat will allow the units to be sold, rather than rented. 11. The previously approved Final site plan will not change due to this request. 12. Staff sent the condominium plat to the applicable service providers for their review. 13. The Snyderville Basin Development Code does not contain standards for approval of a condominium plat; however, Utah State Code does require that condominium plats be recorded wi5th the associated covenants, conditions, and restriction (CCRs) for the development. 14. CCRs have been provided to Staff. 15. The process for approval of a condominium plat follow the same as the process as final site plan. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The condominium plat is consistent with all prior approvals for the project. 2. Approval of the condominium plat will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All necessary service provider requirements shall be noted on the final condominium plat prior to recordation. 2. Prior to final approval of the condominium plat, two units shall be designated as accessible units and accessible routes to all public spaces will be identified. MOTION CARRIED (6-0)
Page 28 of 32 6. Public Hearing and possible action regarding a Plant Amendment to amend the plat notes relating to setbacks on Lot 61 of the Sunrise Hills Subdivision; 4160 west Sunrise Drive; Parcel SR-1-61; Knight West Builders, Applicant- Sean Lewis County Planner Planner Lewis said this is a complicated subdivision situation. In 1965, the Sunrise Hills Subdivision was platted prior to zoning ordinances. There were 133 lots. In 1993, a majority of the owners decided to replat the subdivision. The South Ridge Subdivision was created. Of the 133 lots, 19 were not included in this subdivision. These lots remain as part of the Sunrise Hills plat. Planner Lewis said when the subdivision was replatted most of the lots were renumbered. The result is there are two lots numbered 61 in the same neighborhood. When the South Ridge subdivision occurred, a table was created listing the setbacks for every lot within the subdivision. It is possible the setbacks of the South Ridge Subdivision were applied to the lots remaining in the original Sunrise Hills Subdivision. An aerial photograph was shown of the setbacks of the houses within the South Ridge Subdivision. The setbacks range between 9 feet to 28 feet. The applicant would like to reduce the front setback to 15 feet to the top of the curb. Because Sunrise Hills was platted before zoning, they are subject to the current setbacks. This is 30 feet on the front and 20 feet on the sides and rear of the property. Planner Lewis said the applicant wanted to go through the variance process, but Staff was unable to find a hardship that would allow them to qualify for the reduced setbacks. It was recommended they come in for a plat amendment. The proposed setbacks are 15 feet from back of curb to the front door and 20 feet from back of curb to the garage door. The combined side yards total 20 feet or more with no less than 8 feet on either side. This is similar to the setbacks that are found in the South Ridge
Page 29 of 32 Subdivision and the majority of the homes immediately surrounding this lot. The proposed plat amendment does not amend the boundaries in any way. Planner Lewis said there may two to three lots in both subdivisions that are still vacant. This will not impact the remaining lots. Staff recommends approval as described in the Staff Report. Speaking for the applicant was Douglas Weight. He said this will fit what is already there. With the property owner s house plan, the garage will be 20 feet from the road. The front door is a little further than that. If they adhere to the 30-foot setback, they will be digging into the hill. It will be unattractive. The Commission had no questions. They thanked Planner Lewis for making the application clear and understandable. The public hearing was opened. No comments were made and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Dickey made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Klingenstein, to approve the proposed amendment to Lot 61 of the Sunrise Hills subdivision, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as outlined as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Julie Snyder and Knight West Builders are the listed fee title owner of assessment Parcel SR-1-61. 2. Parcel SR-1-61 is 0.25 acres in size. 3. Parcel SR-1-61is located at 4160 West Sunrise Drive. 4. Parcel SR-1-61is located in the Hillside Stewardship (HS) Zoning District. 5. The Sunrise Hills Subdivision plat was originally platted as entry #101602 on August 24, 1965.