Justin Keys, [email protected] Direct: 435.731.9195, HOGGAN LEE HUTCHINSON March 1, 2024 VIA EMAIL & HAND DELIVERY Park City Appeal Panel Michelle Kellogg, City Recorder michelle.kelloge @parkeity.org PO Box 1480 Park City, Utah 84060 Re: Petition to Appeal the Conditional Use Applications and Plat Amendment Application for 220 King Road Approved at the February 21, 2024 Hearing Dear Panelists, The undersigned and those listed in the attached Exhibit A file this petition to appeal the approvals of Plat Amendment # PL-22-05319 as well as Conditional Use Permit # PL-23-05571 (the “Steep Slope CUP"), Conditional Use Permit # PL-22-05318 (the “Single-Family Dwelling CUP”), and Conditional Use Permit # PL-22-05523 the “Accessory Uses CUP”) (collectively the “CUPs"). Each of the undersigned submitted written comment or testified in opposition to the CUPs and Plat ‘Amendment, o own property within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject site. In addition, attached as Exhibit B is a list of Park City residents who may not have standing under a strict interpretation of Park City Land Management Code §15-1-18(D) but who support this appeal and have consented to expressing that support by allowing us to affix their name to the Exhibit B list. We and many other residents in the Old Town and Rossi Hill subdivisions believe the approval of the above-mentioned CUPs and Plat Amendment should be reversed. On February 21, 2024, a split Planning Commission Approved Findings of Fact and Conelusion of Law with limited conditions to (1) Amend the Plat Notes to the Treasure Hill Subdivision, Phase |; @) for Conditional Use Permits for Residential Design of the Proposed Structure and accompanying pool: and (3) for a Conditional Use Permit to Construct in the Very Steep Slope of the Sensitive Lands Overlay. STANDARD OF REVIEW Park City LMC § 15-1-18G instructs that the Appeal Panel “shall act in a quasi-judicial manner.” “The appeal authority shall review factual matters de novo, without deference to the land use authority's determination of factual matters.” And “{tJhe appeal authority shall determine the correctness of the land use authority’s interpretation and application of the plain meaning of the Jand use regulations, and interpret and apply a land use regulation to favor a land use applicationunless the land use regulation plainly restricts the land use application.” Finally, the Appeal Panel's review is not limited to the record below: rather, “[nlew evidence may be received so long as it relates to the scope of the appeal.” ARGUMEN’ ‘The Appeal Panel should reverse the Planning Commission's decision to Amend the Plat Notes to the Treasure Hill Subdivision and approve the CUPs because the Planning Commission (1) failed to properly apply the Park City Land Management Code, (2) the proposed structure does not meet the express requirements of the Park City Land Management Code, and (3) the Planning Commission dove not have the authority to exempt the Applicant from the LMC provicions the proposed structure violates. 1. The Planning Commission's decision relied on the incorrect assertion by the Applicant that only the restrictions in the MPD and Subdivision Plat, rather than the Land Management Code, apply to this property. ‘The Planning Commission erred in accepting the Applicant's claim that rules from the Land Management Code (LMC) do not apply if they are different from the restrictions in the Sweeney MPD." This assertion directly contradicts the conditions stipulated in the Sweeney MPD. Section III (1) of the Sweeney MPD states that “[a}¢ the time of conditional use or subdivision review, the staff and Planning Commission shall review projects for compliance with the adopted codes and ordinances in effect at the time, in addition to ensuring conformance with the approved Master Plan.” Although the Applicant acknowledges this provision in its January 24 letter to the Planning Commission, it argues that the Land Management Code should be ignored where the Plat or MPD. have more permissive restrictions. The primary reasoning for this, given by the Applicant, is not based on any law, precedent, or a conflicting provision, but rather that “[oltherwise, the MPD would have no meaning.” This argument is groundless. The restrictions in the MPD remain meaningful even if the property is subject to stricter LMC rules. The logical reading of the above clause is that the MPD and LMC work together to set the limits for projects in the development. ‘The appropriate application of the LMC and MPD is that the stricter of the two restrictions apply. If the LMC is changed to be more permissive, than the restriction from the MPD would be the governing restriction. When the LMC is stricter, it governs. ‘The LMC rules for the HR-I district apply to every property in the HR-I district. The rules in the Sweeney MPD apply to every property in the MPD. If the property is in both the Sweeney MPD and the HR-I district, as 220 King is, then both sets of rules apply. When two equally applicable sets of rules govem an overlapping area, the stricter rule is the one that must be followed. For example, if Park City passed a law making it illegal to serve alcohol after 10 pm and Utah were to later pass a law making it illegal to serve alcohol after 9 pm, the 9 pm cutoff would govern. If the state were to, however, change its rule to 11 pm, the applicable cutofT in Park City would become 10 pm because itis the stricter of the two rules. It would be patently absurd to argue that the less strict rule covering the smaller overlapped area is the applicable cutoff simply because it would be meaningless otherwise. This same principle applies to the MDP and LMC in this ease. Within the overlapping area, the stricter rule applies. " Exhibit C, Letter fiom Wade R. Budge, Attorney for Applicant, to Planning Commission (January 24,The second argument advanced by the applicant for why the LMC does not apply are statements made by City staff. The most notable is a quotation from’a 1985 letter by City Attorney Tom Clyde to Ed Sweeney (the original applicant for the Sweeney MPD). He stated: “Having filed your development proposal and paid the fees with the Planning Department, your zoning rights with respect to this particular project and application are vested under the existing zoning and would not be affected by subsequent zone changes.” While this appears to support the Applicant's argument, the timing of the statement makes it inapplicable here. The 1985 letter is dated as received June 26, 1985. The Sweeney MPD was approved on December 18, 1985. Thus, even if ‘Tom Clyde’s statement was correct atthe time, the subsequent inclusion of the provision requiring compliance with the zoning cade “at the time of” canditianal use review rendered it irrelevant. While standard practice may be that land use applications are governed by the zoning code in place ‘when the application is filed, the specific terms of this MPD dictate that the houses built in the ‘Sweeney MPD are to comply with the LMC as it reads at the time of the conditional use review. There are other statements in the record supporting the idea that properties in the MPD are not subject to code changes, however, these statements have no authority in this case as statements made by staff in direct contradiction of written terms are not binding. In addition to the Sweeney MPD, 220 King Rd. is bound by restrictive covenants which state that the “zoning ordinances of Park City . . . are in full force and effect” and that “no Lot shall be ‘occupied or used in a manner that is in violation of any such ordinance or code.”? The argument by the Applicant that the LMC does not apply to this property or only applies when the MPD and Plat are silent is impossible to reconcile with the restrictive covenants stating that the zoning ordinances of Park City (i. the LMC) are in “full force.” If the LMC does not apply or only applies in a limited manner it is not in “full force and effect.” Likewise, because the restrictive covenants were put in place in 1996 (ten years after the Sweeney MPD) it would not make sense for the restrictive covenants to state that the LMC is in “full force and effect” if only the ordinances in place prior to the creation of the Sweeney MPD applied to this property. The restrictive covenants also specifically require that “[ajll improvements and construction on the Covered Property is subject to the applicable existing architectural and other design and building restrictions in effect now and from time to time in the future.” This further reinforces that any structure built ‘on 220 King must comply with all current design rules (.., historic design regulations, roof size and shape restrictions, height restrictions, etc.) 2. The proposed structure does not meet the express requirements of the Park City Land Management Code as expressly required by the Sweeney MPD and the Restrictive Covenants The Applicant’s proposed structure on 220 King Rd. violates numerous provisions of the LMC. These include limitation requirements for height, roof shape, building footprint, design, and the Sensitive Land Overlay. First, the proposed structure exceeds the LMC’s height requirements. The LMC limits exterior height for buildings with pitched roofs in the HR-I district to 27 feet from existing grade.’ Here, Exhibit D, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (King Road Lots)(2)a). + LMC § 15-225.the plans approved by the Planning Commission (and required to remain the same as a condition of approval) not only exceed the 27 feet required by the LMC but also the 30 foot limit stated in the plat (even after this amendment) and the 25 feet required by the Sweeney MPD. The MPD specifically states in its height restrictions that parcels in the HR-i district “shall abide by the Land Management Code and no height exceptions will be considered.” The external building height here, therefore, violates the MPD, Plat, and LMC. Additionally, the Applicant has insisted that where LMC § 15-2.2-5(A) says “lowest finish floor plane” what it really means is “lowest finished floor.” This interpretation, however, does not comport with the intention of the Planning Commission and Council when reviewing the staff report and minutes when the ordinance creating this phrasing, Ord. No. 13-48, was approved.’ The discussion shows that what this change was trying to achieve was to maintain roughly the same height requirements for HR-I and HR-2 that were previously in place while granting the flexibility to property owners to have split level floor plans that would have conflicted with the previous restrictions-reversing the trend of people going deeper with their bottom floor. The Staff Report when this change was made establishes that the change was intended to maintain a similar restriction of three standard stories, including the basement level, while allowing for split level plans of a similar height to a standard three-story home. Planning Commission minutes from January 9, 2013 discussing this change show that one of the problems they were concerned about was the depth of basements. With this concern in mind, it does not make sense that they would have intended this provision to mean you can build down as far as you want and have an unlimited internal height if there is only thirty-five feet from the lowest “finished” floor to the point of the highest wall top plate. It appears from the wording® that the planning commission forwarded a positive recommendation on that the word “finish” was never intended to be put into the code here but rather was accidently left in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 13-48 from a previous draft. The word “finish” must be read within the context of what the Planning Commission and Council were trying to achieve. Ifa floor can be easily converted into livable space (i.., partially or fully above grade and not exclusively mechanical space or a crawl space) it should be considered for the internal height restrictions. It was clearly not intended that someone would be allowed to build two floors to a depth of twenty-four feet below the point at which the internal height is measured from. Staff found the internal height of the building to be 53.5 feet, but the Applicant convinced the Planning Commission of the incorrect notion that the internal height requirements did not apply and argued that even ifthey did apply, they could comply by simply not finishing a massive portion of the house. As the internal height requirements do apply, the house does not comply with the internal height restriction as Council intended it to function when approving it. The Applicant should not be allowed to get around this rule simply by having the plans show the space as “unfinished” (especially considering the Applicant's representative refused to agree to a condition requiring that the Applicant not go in later and finish these floors). “Exhibit E, Sweeney MPD (IIIKS\(a). S Bxhibit F, Staff Report for PL-13-01889. ©*A Structure shall have a maximum height of thirty five Feet (35°) measured from the lowest floor plane to the point ofthe highest wall top plate that supports the ceiling joists or roof rafters.” 4Within the height restrictions of LMC § 15-2.2-5 are also restrictions on roof pitch that the Applicant’s proposed structure violates. LMC § 15-2.2-5(C) requires that homes in the HR-1 district have @ roof pitch for the Contributing Roof Form’ of between seven: twelve and twelve twelve. Here the proposed building’s Contributing Roof Form has a roof pitch of three: twelve Even under the Applicant’s theory of Section III(1) of the Sweeney MPD (that the LMC applies only when the Plat and MPD are silent) this isa violation as neither the MPD or Plat mention roof pitch, Beyond the proposed structure’s height violations, it violates the building footprint requirements. ‘The LMC limits the building footprint to 4,500 square feet and MPD and Plat set the building footprint limit at 3,500 square feet. As the MPD is more restrictive, it governs The MPN does nat have a method of calculating building footprint. As it was written to incorporate the LMC, the LMC definition should be used to determine whether the proposed structure complies with the MPD. ‘The Plat has its own method of measuring the building footprint which has been modified to try to maneuver around its own rules since the proposed structure does not comply with the Plat limits. Even with the Plat Amendment, however, the proposed structure should not be viewed as in compliance with the Plat’s building footprint limit. Under the LMC method, the Planning Department calculated the building footprint to be approximately 11,300 square feet, well beyond both the MPD limit and the LMC limit on building footprint. The calculation would be the roughly the same (still well above the limit) under the Plat’s rules both before and after amendment depending on whether or not the space where they intend to park their cars is a garage or not. Plat Note 2 (both before and after amendment) says that footprint “shall be calculated from the outside face of walls on any single level, and a maximum of three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet footprint including garages.” In an attempt to avoid this, restriction, the Applicant has chosen to refer lo the area where cary will be parked as a “parking, area” rather than a “garage” and amend Plat Note 2 by adding to the exceptions from footprint calculation “that portion of any carport, mechanical space, parking area, or living space that is located below existing grade and which has landscaping or deck (as provided in |(a)) located above The Applicant argued to the Planning Commission that the difference between a “garage” and “parking area” is determined by whether the space has a door, but the Applicant's assertion that the subject space is a parking area and not a garage simply because it does not have a door is baseless. “Garage” and “parking area” are not defined by the MPD or the Plat, but they are defined by the LMC. Those definitions support that the relevant space is a garage. The LMC definitions are’ Garage, Private. An Accessory Building, or a portion of the Main Building, used for the storage of motor vehicles for the tenants or occupants of the Main Building and not by the general public.* 7 As defined in LMC § 15-15-1: The most visually prominent roof form viewed from the primary public right-of-way. "TMC § 15-15-1. There are four definitions for Garage in the LMC Defined Terms (Commercial Garage, Front Facing Garage, Private Garage, and Public Garage).PARKING AREA. An unenclosed Area or Lot other than a Street used or designed for parking.” ‘The space cannot be a parking area because it is enclosed. The plans for the proposed structure show that at the level where cars will be parked is underground, surrounded by walls on all four sides, and has a ceiling and floor. That is the very definition of enclosed. The argument that a space is not enclosed just because there is an entryway twelve feet above the space at the end of a long tunnel despite the space being surrounded by walls is frivolous. The space does, however, fit the definition of Private Garage. It isa portion of the main building that is intended to be used for the storage of motor vehicles by the occupants. The Applicant’s requested edits to Plat Note 2 suggest that even the Applicant knows that this space is a garage and not a parking area. Although Plat Note 2 was amended, the Planning Commission did not acquiesce to all the Applicant’s requested changes. The Applicant sought to have “including garages” deleted from the section of Plat Note 2 discussing what is included in the footprint calculation and adding “garages” to the list of new exceptions in the note. If this space is not going to be a garage, there would be no reason for the Applicant to try excluding garages. Since the space is a garage, the proposed structure violates the building footprint requirement, regardless of whether the Plat method or the LMC method is used to calculate the footprint. Further, the proposed structure violates the design requirements of LMC (beyond the roof design issue discussed above). LMC § 15-13-8(A)(4) requires that “new infill residential buildings shall differentiate from historic structures but be compatible with historic structures in materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the Historic District as a whole. The massing of the new infill residential buildings shall be further broken up into volumes that reflect the original massing of historic buildings; larger masses shall be located at the rear of the lot.” As stated in the report from the from the only Qualified Historic Preservation Profession in the record, the design fails to meet any of the requirements in this LMC section." The report emphasizes that the project is not compatible in size, scale, and proportion and states that the materials and features are compatible with industrial design in the area but not with residential design as required for the HR-I zone. Likewise, the massing requirements of LMC § 15-13- 8(B)(2)(a)(9) were not met since the modules on the primary facades exceed 25 feet in width. Finally, the approval of the Steep Slope CUP violates the Sensitive Land Overlay Zone (SLO) Regulations.'* The Applicant is shifling the building envelope into the Very Steep Slope of the Sensitive Land Overlay (“SLO”). Park City’s Land Management Code has strict requirements for developing in the SLO. An applicant is required to provide a “Sensitive Lands Analysis” that is then reviewed by Staff who is to issue a “Sensitive Lands Determination.” '? Here, no analysis has been provided and no affirmative determination made. Where steep slopes are involved, an applicant must also “prove that the Development will have no significant adverse impact on adjacent Properties.”'* The Planning Commission can only determine that the steep slope requirements are met “if the Applicant proves: (1) [tJhe Density is Compatible with that of adjacent ° LMC § 15-15-1 "See Enclase, MERRIAM WEBSTER COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (11 e4, 2003). "See Exhibit G, SWCA Memo. "LMC § BEMe §Properties; (2) [t]he Architectural Detail, height, building materials, and other design features of the Development are Compatible with adjacent Properties: and (3) [t]he Applicant has adopted appropriate mitigation measures such as landscaping, screening, illumination standards, and other design features to buffer the adjacent Properties from the Developable Land.” ‘The Applicant has not and cannot prove any of these elements, The proposed density of more than 20,000 square feet is not compatible with adjacent properties. The industrial architectural design details with its massing, scale, and height are not compatible with the adjoining residential properties. Nor has the Applicant demonstrated how it is taking any mitigation measures to buffer adjoining properties. 3. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to exempt the Applicant from the LMC provisions the proposed structure violates. While it is possible to attain exceptions from the requirements of the LMC, CUPs and Plat Amendments are not the legally authorized tool for granting these exceptions. Nor is the Planning Commission the body empowered to make such exceptions. LMC § 15-1-11 requires that any such variance (ie., exception) must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment, not the Planning Commission. If the Applicant wants to build this non-conforming structure in the HI district, it must use the same process as anyone else seeking to avoid one of the LMC’s requirements. Whether or not the Applicant should be allowed to proceed with the proposed structure, with its many LMC violations, should be determined by the Roard of Adjustment under the striet standards of LMC § 15-10-8(C)—not the Planning Commission based on subjective personal preferences. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that you reverse the Planning Commission’s decision on applications # PL-22-05318, # PL-22-05319, # PL-22-05523, and # PL-23-05571 to ensure that the LMC is properly enforced and the appropriate review process is followed. Thank ‘you for your consideration in this matter. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, HOGGAN LEE HUTCHINSON Justin J. Keys Enel, id