The Park City Board of Adjustment on Tuesday unanimously ratified the decision to overrule Planning Director Rebecca Ward’s approval of the historical design fit of Matthew and Tatiana Prince’s plans to build a new home overlooking Old Town.

The board ruled last week 3-2 on an appeal brought by adjoining neighbor Eric and Susan Hermann that Ward erred in her interpretation of three points of the city’s land management code, saying in part, according to the planning staff’s draft letter to ratify the decision:

• Land Management Code Section 15-13-8(A)(1)(5): “Although the proposed building uses prior disturbed area, the design does not minimize cuts and retaining resulting in its near singular massing and scale projecting outward, looming over the district, rather than stepping with the topography.”
• Land Management Code Section 15-13-8(B)(2)(a)(9): “Regardless of lot frontage, the primary façade is not compatible with the width of surrounding historic buildings.” … “Modules on a primary façade should generally not exceed 11 feet to 25 feet in width. The modest roof change and color variation do not result in modules of a scale and massing compatible with historic massing in the streetscape or character area, including the Sweeney MPD.”
• Land Management Code Section 15-13-8(B)(1)(d): “Retaining walls are not used to create gradual steps consistent with historic retaining walls in terms of mass, scale and design.”

The Planning Commission and Appeals Panel approved the plans and found that they complied with the zoning rules and amended plat notes in the Sweeney Master Planning District made up of larger lots and home sizes than in the traditional historic district of small lots below them.

The existing homes at 220 King Road were torn down in July. They were slightly higher, with slightly more finished square feet than the single-family home that would replace them. Also, they did not comply with historic district or Sweeney MPD rules, including for height and building footprint.

They did not have two unfinished basement floors or a wide, below-grade turnaround area for fire apparatus, either, although the Board of Adjustments did not directly dispute those features.

Board members Stephanie Wilson, John Stafsholt and Beth Armstrong voted to overturn Ward’s approval of the Prince’s home. Chair Jennifer Franklin and board member Ruth Gezelius voted to support the planning director’s decision and deny the appeal.

They all voted to ratify the decision.

Attorneys for the Princes said they plan to appeal in Third District Court, which is where the Hermanns have filed suit against Park City for the Planning Commission approving and Appeals Panel upholding the approval to build the new home.

The Princes own The Park Record.

The post Board of Adjustment ratifies decision to overturn OK of Prince home plans appeared first on Park Record.

Next stop, Third District Court, where Matthew and Tatiana Prince’s quest to build a new home overlooking Old Town always seemed destined.

The Park City Board of Adjustment in a 3-2 vote Tuesday night overturned Planning Director Rebecca Ward’s approval of the house’s historic design review. This was the last step in the city gantlet of long meetings and narrow votes over the past year.

Eric and Susan Hermann briefly celebrated in the City Council Chambers, hugging friends, after their first victory in their fight against their neighbor’s plans to tear down two existing houses and build a large single-family home in its place on a 1.23-acre lot overlooking the historic district of homes on small lots laid out at 25 by 75 feet each.

“At long last a victory of common sense,” Eric Hermann said. “This is a win for all citizens of Old Town and greater Park City.”

The majority of board members expressed the most concern at the breadth of the home that would span a number of the smaller historic lots below it, and were unpersuaded by its location in the Sweeney Master Planning District of larger homes on larger lots above traditional Old Town. While the Planning Commission and Appeals Panel in their turns had ruled the Sweeney MPD took precedence, the Board of Adjustment compared the plans more to the historic district below these homes.

One of Prince’s attorneys, Bruce Baird, said they would appeal to Third District Court, saying the Planning Department was correct and the board should have supported Ward’s approval, as two members did.

“The errors that they are claiming are simply wrong,” Baird said. “You can’t build a home in the Sweeney subdivision and compare it with the lot widths in Old Town of 25 feet. That’s fairly obvious.”

Beth Armstrong struggled with her vote to grant the appeal.

“I think whenever you have such a huge amount of information that you have to go through, it’s not inconceivable that there were some — I hate to call them errors because they’re really not,” she said. “You just can’t look at every single thing. It’s just a massive amount. This is more let’s go back and see if you can make it better. … Because this goes to precedent.”  

Armstrong questioned the retaining walls, and amount of cut and fill involved with building the house that would have two unfinished floors below grade.

Stephanie Wilson talked about the length of the proposed home compared to the small-lot historic district homes.

“I keep getting stuck on the streetscape,” she said, “specifically to a line where it says the width of a new building shall not appear to be visibly greater than historic buildings in the streetscape or character area. It’s the massing, how large it is looming over Old Town. I question that.”

John Stafsholt ticked off a laundry list going back to the original zoning in the 1980s despite later rulings by the City Council and the plat notes of the property in the Sweeney MPD with which the plans conform.

Mostly, though, it was the length of the roof, lack to his eye of breaking up the home into clearly distinct modules, and the large size that seemed to bother him the most.

Chair Jennifer Franklin and board member Ruth Gezelius said they didn’t see that Ward had made any mistakes in her design review approval, even if board members might disagree with some of her conclusions.

Franklin spoke to the board members’ packet for this application, three to four inches thick, before saying, “I do believe that (this was) reasonable decision-making and that Director Ward is supported by substantial evidence in making her decisions.”

The Planning Commission and Appeals Panel each found that the plans for the home conformed with the city’s zoning and other rules, and Prince’s attorney Wade Budge made a point of telling the Board of Adjustments that there were no variances or exemptions sought for the plan.

The existing homes at 220 King Road were demolished in July. They had a slightly larger building footprint, slightly more finished living space, and were slightly higher than the house planned to replace them.

The new Prince house would have 7,461 square feet of finished living space, 5,898 square feet of unfinished basement space, and a 1,103-square-foot home office. On multiple listing services, property records, and Zillow and similar sites, it would be cast as a 7,500-square-foot home.

The Hermanns in August filed a lawsuit in Third District Court appealing the Planning Commission’s approval of the home and Appeals Panel denying their appeal of that decision. A suit from the Princes will soon enough join this one as the phase of city consideration of the plans plays out with the Board of Adjustment.

The appeal was granted in part, though the part granted — concerning size, bulk and depth of excavation — doesn’t appear to be easily remedied.

The board will direct staff to write up the details of their reasoning and specific code they are referencing as mistakes in the next 15 days, and ratify their decision.

The Princes own The Park Record.

The post Board of Adjustment tosses out planning director’s approval of Prince home’s historical design appeared first on Park Record.

Nextdoor neighbors Eric and Susan Hermann filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Third District Court asserting that they are harmed by the approvals of the Park City Planning Commission and rejection of their appeals to date of the plans for a large new home at 220 King Road.

The couple alleges in their claim against Park City’s government that they are harmed by the municipality’s actions and plans for a new house on the adjoining property they say is out of character for Old Town.

Their arguments through their attorney, Justin Keys, are the same as they have argued unsuccessfully at each turn of the approval process since last October, when the Princes submitted amended plans to tear down two homes on the property that were slightly taller on a slightly larger building footprint with slightly more square footage of finished living space than the 7,500-square-foot single family home they aim to build.

Their plans last week passed the final municipal approval in an administrative historic-design review led by Park City Planning Director Rebecca Ward, who determined that the roof overhang on the north end of the structure should be about 13 feet shorter, and that remaining floor-to-ceiling windows on the east-facing side in the plans needed to go.

The Princes bought the property in 2020 and since then have worked to build the home they have said they want to raise their children in and see their daughter married in.

Matthew Prince in spring 2022 unsuccessfully tried to have the state Legislature override the local approval process. In October 2023, the Princes put forward amended plans to the Planning Commission and invited feedback on those. At the beginning of 2024, they requested that the commission decide on their plans, triggering a 45-day deadline according to state law.

Among the bigger changes in the plans the Planning Commission approved narrowly on Feb. 14 at the close of a nearly six-hour meeting were a 24-section of roof line raised three feet to break up a 117-foot straight-line section, and leaving two stories of basement space unfinished to meet an interior height requirement that the applicants disputed was necessary in the master planning district where the property is located.

They also sought to shift the building footprint several feet further west, into the slope, which they said would also lessen the visual impact of the 33-foot-high structure.

The Planning Commission determined that the plans complied with the rules of the Sweeney Master Planning District, where larger homes on larger properties overlook Old Town’s historic district on small lots. The application for the home on 1.23 acres was complicated by the overlapping districts and the view of 220 King Road from City Hall.

The Appeal Panel upheld the Planning Commission’s process and approvals, and last week the application passed the design review, which is subject to appeal to the city Board of Adjustment.

In the suit, the Hermanns argue that the historic district codes should take precedence over the Sweeney Master Planning District rules and plat notes for 220 King Road, declare that the Princes made few changes in their application after planning staff in 2022 raised concerns about it, and forced the Planning Commission in 2024 to rush to a decision.

The suit also notes that the Appeal Panel declined to consider a late letter from the Hermanns questioning the Planning Commission’s determination that the city’s sensitive lands overlay boundary did not touch the Prince’s property and did not apply to their application. The suit alleged the Appeal Panel should have held another meeting after determining that the Hermanns’ assertions of errors in the commission’s meeting over the sensitive lands boundary were incorrect.

The suit also asserts that the Planning Commission improperly ruled that improvements to the driveway that crosses a Hermann property can happen as outlined in the plan within the easement.

The Hermanns in their 24-page suit argue that the commission approved illegal plat notes and therefore the body’s approval was illegal too.

They ask the court to reverse the Planning Commission’s approvals and award them reasonable attorneys’ fees.

The existing homes at 220 King Road were demolished in July. The new Prince house would have 7,461 square feet of finished living space, 5,898 square feet of unfinished basement space, and an 1,103-square-foot home office.

The largest plane of four levels, including the two basement floors, is 11,300 square feet and includes the area of the home, parking area, fire truck turnaround, and ancillary space.

The Princes own The Park Record.

The post Nextdoor neighbors file anticipated lawsuit vs. Prince home approvals appeared first on Park Record.

Matthew and Tatiana Prince’s plan to build a new home overlooking Old Town on Thursday passed its historic-design review, albeit with the northern end of the roof clipped back by about 13 feet.

Park City Planning Director Rebecca Ward, leading the administrative review, also determined that remaining floor-to-ceiling windows along the eastern façade of the structure needed to be replaced by ones more compatible with “industrial mining patterns.”

She said that the determinations about the property at 220 King Road would not set a precedent for the general historic district since it is part of the Sweeney Master Planning District with much larger lots and sitting in a transition zone between the traditional Old Town neighborhoods and the open space above.

This property at 1.23 acres is nearly 29 times the size of lots in the historic district, which originally were plotted out at 25 by 75 feet each, and the plans for the new house conform with the Sweeney MPD and similarly large homes built in the Treasure Hill Subdivision, she noted.

City planners reviewed a long list of materials and design aspects of the house plans for compatibility with industrial mining structures, as the property has no history of residential use and is not in a residential neighborhood, they said. They also looked closely at massing, height and the roof line, which the Planning Commission did as well before approving the structure.

Prince attorney Bruce Baird argued against reducing the northern overhang to no more than five feet, producing slides intended to show no one would notice if viewing from any distance, and he tried to persuade Ward that enough had been done already with the windows to satisfy the Planning Commission. But Prince’s team didn’t object when Ward stuck with the planning staff’s recommendation.

The historic-design review is the last of the city approvals for the house, which has undergone four years so far of municipal scrutiny, reviews and decisions.

But it’s unlikely that the 7,461-square-foot house is home free. The adjoining neighbors, Eric and Susan Hermann, appealed the Planning Commission’s narrow approval of the plans in February, and this review can be appealed as well. This one would go to the Park City Board of Adjustment rather than the Appeal Panel, which at the end of April rejected the Hermanns’ appeal of the Planning Commission approval.

Only the Hermanns and their attorney, Justin Keys, submitted written comment ahead of Thursday’s hearing. And only one person spoke about the house during the public hearing itself, which lasted less than four minutes.

Nicholas Shaffer expressed concern about how the city would enforce a condition that the house not be used as a nightly rental, and worried aloud that an “industrial mining” design standard might establish a precedent throughout Old Town.

In her determination, Ward added language saying: “This historic design review is limited to the Treasure Hill Subdivision single-family dwellings in the Sweeney MPD and shall not create precedent nor interpretation of general applicability in the HR-1 Zoning District or (Land Management Code) regulations.”

Eric Hermann concluded his letter objecting to design approval by saying: “No matter how you try to prevent this being a precedent, people are watching to see if one can scrape multiple Old Town homes and in their place build castles.”

The existing homes at 220 King Road were demolished in July. They had a slightly larger building footprint, slightly more finished living space, and were slightly higher than the house planned to replace them.

The new Prince house would have 7,461 square feet of finished living space, 5,898 square feet of unfinished basement space, and a 1,103-square-foot home office.

The adjoining Hermann property consists of three interconnected houses, including a guest home and investment property, with a total of 16,500 square feet of finished living space, which includes 5,800 square feet of finished basement and other space, according to property records.

Besides the dispute over the house plans, Matthew Prince in recent months has sued the Hermanns over their dogs running unleashed on the Princes’ property, and filed another suit over a wall on the Hermann’s property crossing into his property. The Hermanns also own the property where the driveway to 220 King Road crosses through.

The Princes own The Park Record.  

Editor’s note: This story corrects the total finished square feet of the homes on the adjoining neighbor. Also, the square footage of the proposed home office was corrected, as well.

The post Prince home passes historic-design review appeared first on Park Record.

The Sensitive Land Overlay boundary does not cross a corner of the home Matthew and Tatiana Prince plan to build overlooking Old Town, the Park City Planning Commission determined Wednesday night.

Like much else with a complicated property that straddles zoning districts, there was confusion over where the overlay’s boundary line exists. Is it as depicted on paper maps as set by ordinance approved in the 1990s by the City Council? Or the digitized map around 2010 that shows a drift of the boundary of around 30 feet downhill, though never sanctified by the council?

Those 30 feet made all the difference between clipping a corner of a planned home office on the property or the line not crossing the property at all.

And the question got more tangled from there. After a two-and-half-hour discussion that ranged widely and included a handful of opponents bringing up a new element — the risk of a landslide  —  the commissioners in attendance agreed that the property at 220 King Road was not subject to the overlay since its essential building rights predated the zone that came later. Commissioners Henry Sigg and Rick Shand were absent.

But most also determined that a shift of the current building footprint several feet into the hillside, which they approved on Valentine’s Day, represented a “substantive change” in the plan and erased the vested rights that would grandfather the property against zoning changes that came later, such as the Sensitive Lands Overlay.

And then the majority decided that didn’t matter anyway, as the line did not cross the property, never mind the planned home’s building area.

Commissioners John Frontero, Bill Johnson and Christin Van Dine approved of language the Planning Department will draft and send back to the new Park City Appeal Panel, which some wags have dubbed the shadow Planning Commission, to consider.

Commissioner Laura Suesser voted against the motion, saying she believed in the digital map that shows the overlay crosses a few feet across where a home office would go below grade.

During the public hearing portion of the meeting, all eight speakers fastened on the risk of a landslide, each referencing a slide in April 2023 at the King’s Crown affordable housing site next to Park City Mountain that was 100 feet long and 70 feet wide. Press reports at the time noted landslides in Old Town were “extremely rare” and there was little damage. The construction work continued without pause.

“They were lucky,” several speakers said.

Bruce Baird, an attorney for the Princes, asked at the end of the public comment period in which only opponents spoke if he could reply.

This was greeted with muted shouts “No!” from the opponents, prompting Planning Commission Chair Sarah Hall to admonish the audience about decorum for the first time since sessions on the house plans began last October. Baird did not reply.

The Princes did not attend the session, and while brothers Pat and Mike Sweeney observed, the supporters of the Princes’ application did not speak.

But the risk of landslides or other considerations weren’t what the Planning Commission had convened to consider, having been remanded from the Appeal Panel a narrow question concerning the body’s approval of the Princes’ plans about the Sensitive Land Overlay boundary. The Appeals Panel had rejected the rest of an appeal led by next door neighbor Eric Hermann.

Only Planning Commissioner Bill Johnson had brought up the risk of landslides before Wednesday, which went largely overlooked during the Planning Commission’s deliberations and then approval in February, and city officials and the applicants themselves said they are taking measures to prevent what would affect their properties most of all.

Hermann, whose neighboring three interconnected houses total nearly 11,000 square feet of finished living space above ground and nearly 5,000 square feet of finished basement, according to property records, told the commission during public comment he was worried the 7,500-square-foot Prince home by the same measure poses a landslide risk next to his on the steep hillside.

The Princes also own several properties on Norfolk Avenue just below the 1.3-acre property where they plan to demolish two houses and build anew. The new home, while large, would have a slightly lower height profile than the two houses there now, which do not comply with current zoning regulations.

The new house plans include two unfinished basement stories totaling 6,000 square feet, along with a 11,300-square-foot plane below grade encompassing the footprint for the structure, parking areas, firetruck turnaround, a home office, and other space. Construction will require digging up to 80 feet below grade, which some speakers during the public comment period made a point of noting. Most excavated material will be taken up Kings Road to be dumped rather than down through Old Town, however.

The Appeal Panel will review the Planning Commission’s determination about the sensitive lands boundary at a later date to be determined. The plan still faces a historical design review with a design tailored to industrial mining structures vs. the residential neighborhood the home would overlook.

Meantime, the current houses — which are not historical structures — are in the beginning stages of demolition.

The Princes own The Park Record.

Editor’s note: This story corrects the total finished square feet of the houses on the adjoining neighbor‘s property.

The post Planning Commission finds that sensitive land boundary does not clip planned Prince home appeared first on Park Record.

The Park City Appeal Panel on Tuesday night denied the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Matthew and Tatiana Prince’s proposal to build a new home overlooking Old Town, and sent back a decision allowing a corner of the property to be built into a possible sensitive lands zone for further study.

The panel voted 2-1 to remand the part of the Planning Commission’s approval concerning the sensitive lands, while all agreed that the commission followed the correct procedures on the other elements of their decision.

It took a while to get there, however — nearly six and a half hours, including presentations, 16 public comments mixed between supporting and opposing the home, and nearly a half hour in the end huddling privately with their counsel before voting.

Appeal Panel Chairman Adam Strachan, who served on the Planning Commission for nearly 10 years about a decade ago, also expressed concern after the vote about settling property matters such as height limits through evolving plat notes, but he also recognized the City Council had adjusted the height limit for homes in the Sweeney Master Planning District to 30 feet in the mid-1990s this way before the Planning Commission became the determining body for such property matters.

But otherwise the Appeal Panel agreed with the Planning Department and the applicant team that the Planning Commission had done its work correctly.  

Matthew Day voted with Strachan to send the steep slopes issue back to the Planning Commission, citing an abundance of caution. Esteban Nunez said that ambiguity is supposed to favor the applicant by rule and voted against that.

The panel sidestepped a motion to deny standing to supporters who had signed on to the Hermanns’ appeal because none had property adjoining 220 King Road besides the Hermanns by agreeing the Hermanns’ standing was enough. They decided that as a result, they didn’t need to concern themselves with whether stricter state law governing this, as it would in District Court, or looser Park City standards applied.

The Hermanns’ attorney, Justin Key, attempted to show that the historical record going back to 1985 demonstrated that building heights in the Sweeney MPD could never be higher than 27 feet, while city planners and the applicant team went through history as well to refute these and other claims because the master planning district and plat notes essentially override the historic district below.

As part of the process to attain 43 acres of open space on Treasure Hill, eight larger lots with larger homes were granted. Seven overlap with the historic district, which has made Planning Commission decisions about them more complicated.

The fact of the current two homes at 220 King Road being “non-conforming” to the MPD and the historic district’s rules about height and size has added to the complexity.

The proposed home would have a slightly lower height profile, a smaller building footprint as measured at all the other properties in that subdivision, and fewer square feet of living space than the houses there now.

Keys showed an image of the proposed home as if entirely above ground at the scale of the 23,000-square-foot City Hall to some audible gasps in the audience of 60 people at the time. Brilliant theatrics, Prince attorney Wade Budge conceded when he began presenting the case defending the Planning Commission’s decision, but irrelevant and the Prince home while large, certainly, would be less than half the actual size of the Marsac Building. An eye test of the homes on the property now likewise reflects an image sized more to impact than scale. The profile of the proposed home is lower than the current houses.

Sixteen people spoke during public comments, none sticking to instructions to focus on whether they thought the Planning Commission followed the law and correct procedures in applying the mix of zoning areas and code on a property governed by the historical district, the Sweeey MPD above it and plat notes to its decision.

James Doilney spoke with suspicion about the state Legislature passing legislation in February that strengthens the power of plat notes, the instructions tailored to an individual property. The Planning Commission amended the plat notes for 220 King Road to set the height; the measurement of the building footprint to the main structure, consistent with the other homes in the MPD; and that the property can only be used for a single family home, no longer any form of rental as it has in the past.

And it was in those plat notes where the Appeal Panel found what it concluded was the flaw in the Planning Commission’s work.

In their turn at the podium during public comments, the Hermanns complained about nuisance lawsuits Matthew Prince filed against them over their unleashed dogs and a rock wall that crossed into property newly purchased by the Princes after they appealed. They also declared the Princes purchased The Park Record to control coverage of their efforts to build a new home at 220 King Road.

Matthew Prince slipped in the size of the Hermann’s complex next door at 19,500 square feet while claiming he substantially reduced the height of his home at the end closest to the Hermann’s place from the house there now to help their view that way, which is upslope of them.

Supporters extolled the virtues of the new house, and critics expressed woe that the place would ruin Old Town. Some neighbors praised the Princes’ engagement and others said they had never met them. A couple of speakers took no overt positions but talked about the character of Park City and love for historic Old Town.

One spoke of the healing that surely would have to follow all this at some point.

The Appeal Panel afterward stuck to assessing whether the Planning Commission had followed the right procedures and laws while coming to a narrow approval with the commission’s chair breaking two ties on whether to approve conditional use permits and a 4-2 approval of the amended plat notes.

In the plat notes, Strachan found fault in how the commission dealt with the sensitive lands overlay, though the applicant and Planning Department both addressed that issue but not to form, in his view. The Planning Department with its experts was supposed review whether the sensitive lands zone indeed crossed the property or not, and if it did, prepare a conclusion for the Planning Commission to review and decide whether to accept, he said.

That piece will go back to the planners and Planning Commission. It’s a fair bet it all will wind up soon in district court. Appeal Panel members and attorneys made no secret about that throughout the hearing, especially in the wrangling over who had standing to appeal the commission’s approval in the first place.

The Prince proposal next will go through a historical design review and vote by the Historic Preservation Board — assuming, that is, they get through the Planning Commission taking another look at where the property really sits with respect to the sensitive lands overlay.

The post Appeal of Prince home approval denied, but steep slope analysis sent back to Planning Commission for further study appeared first on Park Record.

The Park City Planning Department and attorneys for Matthew and Tatiana Prince declared that the appellants have erred at every turn in their case against the Planning Commission’s approval of plans for a large home overlooking Old Town.

This is according to a staff report and other documents filed Friday ahead of the Appeal Panel hearing scheduled for 5 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall.

The hearing is likely to begin with a challenge to the standing of all but one of the appellants to bring a case.

Only Eric and Susan Hermann own property adjoining 220 King Road, where the Princes aim to replace two houses with a new home, and therefore the eight others who joined the appeal are ineligible, argue attorneys for the Princes, citing state law overriding looser local rules governing standing.

Further, Bruce Baird and Wade Budge wrote in a motion to dismiss them, none paid their $500 fee and so have no standing on that basis alone even if the Hermanns wound up paying for them.

From there, the three-member panel will listen to presentations from city planners and attorneys for each side, as well as take public comment, before taking up the case themselves.

The members are Adam Strachan, an attorney who once served on the Planning Commission; Esteban Nunez, a real estate agent; and Matthew Day, who manages a private equity firm.

Their role is to review the elements of the decision raised in the appeal and decide whether the Planning Commission applied the correct standards in its approval.

The staff report at each key point asserts the Planning Commission acted within its proper, legal scope and goes through a long list of what the city views as errors and failed arguments in the appeal, which is broken into two appeals. Both were written by the Hermanns’ attorney, Justin Keys.

The most problematic one in terms of asserted facts for the Hermanns concerns the driveway easement. They have misstated the height of the retaining walls, erroneously claimed it goes through a sensitive lands area, overstated the impact on the stretch of driveway through property they own, and are making an owner’s permission argument that has nothing to do with the Planning Commission, the staff report says. That’s a matter for building permits.

It doesn’t get better in the main appeal, in which they and eight others argue the land management code as expressed through the Old Town historic district largely takes precedence over the Sweeney Master Planning District and plat notes for the 220 King Road property.

Not true, the staff report says over the course of 16 pages refuting the contentions in the appeal, one after the other.

A key point raised by the Princes’ attorneys is that the spirit of the zoning is to mitigate the visual impact of what is built on the property. So, for instance, the lower roof pitch raised as an issue by the appellants actually reduces the visual impact of the structure, ironically, and is not seen in any case from the closest streets or the Main Street area. The Sweeney MPD doesn’t regulate roof pitches, and the historic district didn’t start doing so until 2009, long after the MPD was put in place.

The Hermanns’ complex of homes next door would be larger than what was approved for the 220 King Road, and the houses on the property now have a slightly higher profile as well as more total living space in square footage than the new home would.

While much has been made of the 11,300 square feet of building footprint, it’s mainly below grade and out of sight, the Planning Department and the Princes’ team note. Besides, every other home in the Sweeney MPD also does not count parking areas and such in its building footprint. The building footprint, as measured at each home in the subdivision as wall to wall of the main structure itself, is smaller at under 3,500 square feet than the houses on the property now.

The appeal also argues that “finished” floor is not the same as “finish floor plane” described in the historic district code language concerning interior height and references as an exhibit hundreds of pages of Planning Commission discussion about how to determine stories in homes with split levels.

But the staff report treats the words as the same and notes the applicant agreed to the more restrictive historical district code denoting a 35-foot interior height limit from the lowest finished floor in their conditional use permit than what the property notes outline. And the Princes’ attorneys point out there is no alternative definition for “finish floor plane” than “finished,” which the appeal does not define, either.

The staff report also says the commission has latitude to make limited changes and stayed within those parameters in approving the plans.

The planning staff is in a position to defend the Planning Commission’s work, as are the Princes’ attorneys, at the hearing. The Appeal Panel has its own independent counsel apart from the city.

Apparently damaging for the appellants is a consulting attorney’s evaluation in 2009 of the Sweeney MPD’s standing, or vesting right, compared to other zoning regulations at the time they are granted. This adds weight to the MPD’s precedence over later zoning code changes. In short, Jody Burnett’s analysis doesn’t appear to support the appellants’ contention that the more modern historic district zoning overrides the MPD or plat notes.

The reports, exhibits and legal briefs run past 1,000 pages in all, not including all the case law and individual cases cited among them.

The onus in the appeal is on the appellants to prove where the Planning Commission made mistakes in applying its authority and interpreting the mix of zoning among the land management code, historic district, Swift MPD and the plat notes.

According to the Planning Department and Princes’ attorneys, the appeal doesn’t come close. But they aren’t the ones who will make those determinations, of course.

The post Appeal of Prince home fails on every point, Park City planning staff and applicant’s attorneys assert appeared first on Park Record.

The closest neighbor to the property where Matthew and Tatiana Prince won narrow approval to build a new home overlooking Old Town has appealed the decision.

Eric and Susan Hermann argue the Park City Planning Commission in February erred in approving conditional use permits by two 4-3 votes and amending specific property notes 4-2 for the property at 220 King Road. The Princes aim to tear down two existing houses on the property and replace them with a home that the Hermanns and other critics say is too large for the historic district.

At stake is whether the Sweeney Master Planning District encompassing six other large homes in addition to 43 acres of open space supersedes the historic district and city’s land management code, as the Planning Commission found, or the other way around.

An appeals board of three members appointed by the Park City Council will hear the case, and further appeals are possible through the court system.

The key questions in the appeal deal with the exterior height, interior height, the building footprint and whether the new home intrudes on sensitive lands, in addition to arguing that the city’s land management code should be the defining document guiding new construction in the Sweeney MPD.

Among a long list of conditions, the Planning Commission allowed:

• 33 feet for a section of the otherwise compliant 30-foot-high roof line from grade to break up the long look. The higher section takes up 24 feet of the 117-foot-long roof.

• The measurement of the lowest finished floor to conform with the interior height limit of 35 feet, leaving the bottom two floors unfinished beneath the grade.
• That the property is not subject to sensitive land zone restrictions.
• That the building footprint would not include driveways, parking area and turnaround wide enough for firetrucks, or a separate home office built below grade.

Driveways and parking areas were excluded from building footprints of other homes in the Sweeney MPD, and several exceed the interior building height limits. The living space approved by the Planning Commission, 7,500 finished square feet, in the plat notes is the second lowest in the district of large homes above Old Town. The unfinished space is about 6,000 square feet. Under the commission’s conditions of approval, the Princes would need to return to the commission for permission to finish that space.

The current homes at 220 King Road, built in the late 1990s, also exceed historic district standards for exterior and interior height, and are slightly higher than the proposed home.

The appeal argues:

• “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 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 appeal argues that the interior height is really over 53 feet and questions whether lowest finished floor plane refers to the lowest finished floor; that the exterior height is not measured correctly; and the same with the building footprint, which the appeal argues is really over 11,000 square feet.

The appeal asks that the appeals board reverse the Planning Commission’s approval “to ensure the LMC is properly enforced and the appropriate review process is followed.”

Planning commissioners Henry Sigg and Laura Suesser spoke out against the Planning Commission’s process and said they felt rushed to make a decision with a 45-day limit about to elapse Feb. 14, when the commission approved the proposal after several hours of deliberation.

Commissioner Bill Johnson voted for the plat note amendments and against the conditional use permits.

Commissioners John Frontero, Rick Shand and Christin Van Dine voted for the plat note amendments and the conditional use permits. Chair Sarah Hall broke the ties in favor of the conditional use permits.

The Princes own The Park Record.

The post Neighbor appeals split Planning Commission’s approval for Prince home overlooking Old Town appeared first on Park Record.

The Planning Commission on Wednesday was supposed to ratify city staff’s edits to documents recording the commission’s narrow votes the previous week for Matthew and Tatiana Prince’s plans for a new home overlooking Old Town.

Was the editing correct, complete? Did the new sentences say what they were supposed to say? Yay or nay?  

Instead, Commissioner Laura Suesser sought to re-legislate aspects of the plan she’d voted against the previous week, taking up most of the next hour asking questions that had seemed well settled during previous meetings on the proposal.

She appeared confused between the building footprint and breakdown of square footage of the proposed structure after Commissioner John Frontero asked for a definition of “unfinished” space in the plan.

“I’d like to piggyback on that,” Suesser said after Frontero spoke, and she talked about the staff report on the proposal before the Jan. 24 work session. The applicant introduced revisions at that meeting to meet the interior height standard. The commission discussed them then, and again at length before voting Feb. 14 with a long list of conditions to pass the proposal.

“So I’m concerned about the footprint, and the height,” she began Wednesday.

This revision to meet the interior height requirement also reduced the “finished,” or living space, to under 7,500 square feet, second fewest of the five large homes in the Sweeney Master Planning District just above the rest of the historic district. And that left 6,000 square feet in the subterranean levels as “unfinished.”

The large amount of “unfinished” space had attracted the attention of commissioners, who spent long portions of the Jan. 24 work session and the Feb. 14 hearing on the topic, along with the roof length and the steep slope of the property.

Suesser also talked about how the building footprint was determined and her understanding that it was over 11,000 square feet rather than 3,500 square feet.  

Commissioner Rick Shand suggested the square footage of the house and the square feet of the building footprint were being conflated, which confused the conversation.

“I hope that we’re not using some terms interchangeably,” he said.

Any clarity in the pause that followed didn’t last.

Suesser continued asking about the parking area and a home office that the Planning Commission eliminated from the building footprint as measured by the outer walls of the dwelling itself at each of four levels, two of those below ground, and the interior height — which are two different measurements.

The applicant team had pointed out how some other homes in the MPD had the same features eliminated in their building footprints, and so the documents were amended over the course of lengthy conversation on Feb. 14 to leave out the parking area and a home office in the building footprint, like the others.

“This is inconsistent with my understanding of the Jan. 24 (staff) report,” Suesser said at one point.

“But it is consistent with the Feb. 14 direction provided by the majority of the Planning Commission,” Planning Director Rebecca Ward replied.

And on it went.

Ward frequently referenced the staff reports and the Planning Commission’s deliberations a week ago in correcting Suesser’s voiced misunderstanding of the documents, the discussions, the resulting editing of the final action letters, and what they all had voted on.

Suesser dwelled on an apparent mistake in the staff’s Feb. 14 report that still had the interior height in an earlier version of the plan at 53.5 feet while recognizing the revised plans in two other parts of the report. She declared the 53.5 feet was correct despite the revisions in “finished” and “unfinished” floors.

The Feb. 14 staff report included the definition of the measurement as from the lowest “finished” floor, and noted at the top that the proposal had been revised to nearly 7,500 square feet of the “finished” space and the nearly 6,000 square feet of “unfinished” space. But the report didn’t correct the outdated height on the new report with the “unfinished” floors, leaving it at 53.5 feet when the new height by definition was really now within the 35-foot limit.

No matter, the commission on Feb. 14 had written the requirement of the historic district into the specific notes guiding the construction of the proposal, and added the provision that the Princes would have to go through the Planning Commission again if they ever wanted to finish the space. Further, the commission would have to agree to change the plat notes for the property to permit that, a more rigorous process.

Suesser never was satisfied, and she continued to argue her belief that the interior height was really 53.5 feet regardless of the specifics outlined for how the measurement would be determined.

Frontero kept coming back to ask for his definition of “unfinished” space. The applicant team and commission agreed that the space would be left in concrete flooring and used for storage and utilities.

Matthew Prince in earlier meetings had said he wanted to finish the space and believed that the MPD made the historic district restriction moot, but he would leave the space unfinished to meet the measurement requirement to move the process along.

Frontero and others had some minor questions about the landscaping plan and how many trees would be planted to help shield the house. The plan calls for more than 100 trees on the 1.3 acre property.

City Attorney Margaret Plane reminded the commission the vote was supposed to be on whether the language and edits that the majority of the commission sought in the plat notes, conditional use permit for the dwelling, and conditional use permit for building on a steep slope were in order. They weren’t voting again on the proposal itself.

“I don’t believe the commission properly analyzed and went through the appropriate process in processing this application,” Suesser said after Plane finished. “So I don’t agree that any of the final action letters accurately reflect a well-reasoned commission decision.”

“I’m in agreement,” Commissioner Henry Sigg added. “For me there just wasn’t enough empirical data and there were too many conflicting statements by some of the important review bodies, and that format that was presented at the last meeting was unfamiliar, and so on that basis I object to the findings of fact.”

With that, the commission voted the same on each item as they did the previous week, with Suesser and Sigg “no” on the language and rewritten forms of the plat amendments, and Commissioner Bill Johnson joining them to vote “no” on the conditional use permit edits.

Commissioners Frontero, Shand and Christin Van Dine voted for each part, and Chair Sarah Hall broke the ties again in favor of the conditional use permit language.

Unspoken in this meeting was the 45-day time limit that began by state law on Jan. 2 when the Princes asked for a vote. By Feb. 14, the clock indeed was ticking down, and several commissioners noted that during a relative marathon of a session. The Princes pointed out that they had been working on this for four years.

Critics have pointed out the timing with the state Legislature’s annual session that ends March 1. The Princes a year ago were unsuccessful in an attempt at legislation that would have enabled them to build their home outside of city control.

The proposal still must pass a historical design review, with a different board making determinations about the structure’s homage to industrial mining history vs. residential.

The Princes own The Park Record.     

The post Dissenting planning commissioner rehashes Prince proposal at session to ratify edits of approval conditions appeared first on Park Record.

On Valentine’s, the Park City Planning Commission gave preliminary approval to Matthew and Tatiana Prince’s plans to replace two houses overlooking Old Town with a new family home, subject to a raft of conditions, along with a historical design review.

The commission in three votes Wednesday night approved revisions in property notes guiding standards for construction, conditions under which they’d be allowed to build, and requirements for building on a steep slope.

As part of the property notes portion, the commission decided in a 4-2 vote there was enough “good cause” to amend the notes. Commissioners John Frontero, Bill Johnson, Rick Shand and Christin Van Dine voted for this, and Henry Sigg and Laura Suesser against.

In those notes, the commission agreed to exceptions from the Old Town historic district code in favor of the overriding Sweeney Master Planning District guiding five other large homes in the Treasure Hill Subdivision, along with 43 acres of open space on Treasure Hill.

The commission deadlocked 3-3, with Johnson joining the “no” side, on a conditional use permit for the dwelling, and Chair Sarah Hall broke the tie in favor.

The commissioners also deadlocked 3-3 on the steep slope conditional use permit, which again Hall broke with a vote in favor.

City staff will prepare a final action letter for the commission to review Feb. 21.

The commission agreed that the required maximum 3,500-square-foot building footprint would exclude a parking area and fire truck turnaround, as well as a home office, all built below ground level; accepted a 24-foot stretch of the 117-foot-long roof raised three more feet to break up the straight line; and added restrictions on lighting to limit the impact on neighbors as part of a long list of conditions. Vegetation including conifer trees must further screen the home and the windows, according to the plan the commission narrowly accepted.

The finished living space in the home will be limited to under 7,500 square feet, with under 6,000 square feet of unfinished space. The commission edited out a line in the property notes that would have eliminated the interior height limit of 35 feet. Leaving the lower two floors unfinished will meet the interior height limit. The finished area, or living space, is less than all but one of the other houses in the Sweeney MPD and less than the current homes at 220 King Road taken together.

Sixteen people offered public comments in person or online, seven speaking clearly in favor of the proposal, six opposing it, and three who talked about the integrity of Old Town historical values or their concern about water usage without offering a clear opinion on whether they supported or opposed the home.  

Nearly everyone who spoke against the proposal acknowledged its architectural virtues but doubted the scale of the home and worried about the effect on the Old Town historical district below it.

Eric Hermann, a close neighbor on Sampson Avenue to the proposed home, said he was shocked that the Planning Commission would contemplate approval of a plan out of compliance with Old Town rules and guidance, and that he and his wife would have liked to build bigger and with more windows, too.

“As citizens, we all agreed to restrict ourselves for the common good,” he said. “We all abide by laws and regulations. The Old Town building code maintains Old Town’s unique character, and planning staff has determined that the proposed structure does not comply.”

Their attorney, Justin Keys, also spoke in public comment on their behalf to argue against the proposal.

Commissioners and city staff later worked out how the Sweeney Master Planning District governs the lot where the Princes want to build their home, along with the five other larger homes in the district, rather than the other homes in Old Town outside the MPD, including the Hermanns’ home.

Declared supporters, who include all but two immediate neighbors as Tatiana Prince showed on a map of the neighborhood, have referenced their perception of the proposed home being a better fit than the two houses now on the property, and a few also spoke in the public comments portion of the hearing.

Ben Dahl, one of the adjacent neighbors, called the house design inspiring.

He said the Princes have been “extremely collaborative with their neighbors as it relates to the impact of the design, what it will mean for the neighbors.” He said he is most concerned about wildfire, and the firefighting access appealed to him, which he called “an extreme upgrade for the neighborhood.”

Dahl and other supporters who spoke hailed the design and the homage to Park City’s mining era and improvement from the current homes in fit with the area.

Tina Lewis recalled much of her early work on the City Council and establishing the historic district guidelines. She, like another speaker, cautioned the commission to protect Park City’s “magic” without taking a specific stance on the proposal.  

Commissioners also spent considerable time discussing the steepness of the slopes and whether the current Sensitive Lands Overlay affected a portion of a home office proposed to be built into the hillside. Eventually, they determined with the help of the city’s land use attorney, Mark Harrington, that the overlay didn’t come into play, although other issues with steep slopes pertained.

The session ran for over four hours as the commission worked through revisions to plat notes, the relationship between the overriding Sweeney Master Planning District guiding the handful of larger homes above the rest of Old Town and its codes, the steep slope considerations, and language of the conditions in the conditional use permit.

The conflict between the Sweeney MPD and Old Town codes added complexity to the discussion, and there was pressure to vote Wednesday by state law after the applicant asked early last month for the hearing and consideration, which had to be granted within a 45-day window.  

For the Princes, the Planning Commission’s broad approval of their plans culminated a four-year effort to reach this point, while some commissioners noted the pressure on them to vote now.

The discussion rolled on well past Hall’s time allowance for it, with a couple of other agenda items and their applicants waiting for their turn. The in-person audience peaked at 38, including city staff, applicant team and interested citizens, along with the handful there for other matters.

Among the requirements of 220 King Road in the future is that the home replacing what had been used for nightly rentals cannot be used for that purpose or under fractional ownership. It can only be a single family home.

The Princes own The Park Record.

The post Planning Commission chair breaks two tie votes to advance Prince home above Old Town toward final approval appeared first on Park Record.