[4:15] Go ahead and call the August 12th Planning Commission meeting to order.

[4:20] We have all commissioners present today, except for Commissioner Bill, who is excused today, and we have commissioners

[4:28] day and strong joining us via Zoom tonight. Hi, guys.

[4:36] Do we have any amendments or a motion for the minutes from July 8th?

[4:47] Sure.

[4:48] I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from planning commission reading on July 8th.

[4:56] Second.

[4:57] We have a motion by Commissioner Shannon.

[4:59] Second by Commissioner Frontero.

[5:00] All those in favor.

[5:01] All right.

[5:02] Aye.

[5:03] my motion passes and we'll move into item number three staff and board communications and

[5:11] disclosures will start first with any staff communications we have not tonight and then any

[5:17] board disclosures for this evening. Chair Van Dyne, I'd like to disclose that I had been approached

[5:26] by someone who I didn't know the name of to discuss one of the items on the agenda tonight

[5:31] will have no bearing on my decision or my decision making process.

[5:36] Okay, for the five acres, right? Yes.

[5:39] I'd like to disclose that I was approached by an individual that didn't identify themselves

[5:46] who stated they were in support of the five acres site.

[5:52] All right. Any other disclosures?

[5:55] Okay. We'll move into our item then.

[5:57] Item 3, A Planings Commission Chair, Elections, do we have any comments, questions, nominations,

[6:06] any of the above?

[6:10] No questions here.

[6:12] I'd like to address my fellow commissioners and make a nomination to elect Chair Van Dine to

[6:18] a second term as the Chair of the Planion Commission.

[6:22] Yes, second.

[6:25] All right.

[6:26] we have a motion by a commissioner shan, a second by was a commissioner day?

[6:33] Happy to second second.

[6:35] Oh, no. I sorry. I thought I heard the second, but oh, Adam. Sorry. Commissioner Sean,

[6:39] all those in favor. All right. All right. All right. All right. Motion passes. And with that,

[6:45] as well, we need to elect a program as well. Commissioner frontera husband serving as our

[6:51] time. Do we have any questions, concerns, discussion, or

[6:56] enomination?

[7:00] If you're a van dynamite, I'd like to

[7:01] elect or nominate John Frontaro to continue for another term as our

[7:07] chill program.

[7:10] Perfect. We have a motion by Commissioner Sand, a second by Commissioner

[7:14] Straun, all those in favor. All right, motion passes. So we'll continue as is for the

[7:24] next year. Thanks guys. Then moving into item number.

[7:30] Number 4, public communications. Anyone wishing to speak on an item not on this evening's agenda. Please feel free to step forward.

[7:38] Real quick, while we have people stepping forward. A reminder for comments this evening. Please limit your comments to three minutes. We will have a timer. You'll get a ding.

[7:47] And I will remind you to wrap up if that ding goes if you keep going past that. Please note responses to any comments. We don't clap.

[7:55] chair, boo, anybody in here, everyone's entitled to their comments and their opinions as we go in here.

[8:03] And we'll sum up some of some more comments before our next comment section.

[8:08] Please make sure you sign in and states your name for the record.

[8:11] Got it. I am Julie Caldwell. I live in 8406. I am here with neighbors tonight to go on record,

[8:21] expressing our concern over the Park City School District's

[8:25] athletic expansion, which now includes a shot-put and

[8:29] discus structure on the south end of the North 40 fields.

[8:34] This structure is not on the existing plans for the athletic facilities

[8:38] outlined on the district website, and neighbors were only made

[8:42] aware of it yesterday when footings were poured and we started

[8:46] asking questions. Our first question is

[8:49] Pan Park City School District unilaterally,

[8:52] construct permanent facilities on the North 40 fields.

[8:57] The joint use agreement,

[8:58] specifically addresses permanent or substantial physical changes

[9:02] to the fields and requires appropriate written approval.

[9:06] A shop-put discuss facility would seem to fall

[9:10] within this category.

[9:13] Second and perhaps most importantly,

[9:15] The city's 2025 planning commission record specifically described the North 40 as an area that, quote,

[9:24] will not and has not been disturbed, unquote, as part of the new athletic facilities project.

[9:32] My understanding from Randy Upton with the district is that subsequent changes around the dozer facility are what ultimately created the pressure to move the structure onto the North 40.

[9:43] It is not clear whether the shot put discist facilities on the North 40 were part of the approved

[9:50] CUP, or subsequently approved as a modification.

[9:55] So I think it's very reasonable question to raise with your committee tonight.

[10:00] We would request a halt on further construction of this structure before these basic questions are answered.

[10:06] Thanks.

[10:09] Thank you for your comments.

[10:10] Anyone else wishing to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda?

[10:15] All right.

[10:15] We will close public communications and we will move into our regular agenda.

[10:20] Our first item is item 5A, five acre site subdivision, master plan development, and conditional use permits.

[10:30] Thank you, Chair.

[10:32] And I will share my screen here one second.

[10:46] All right.

[10:46] The five acre site is up for review tonight for a master plan development to condition use permits and a subdivision.

[10:56] The site is located at the southwest corner of Kerns Boulevard in Bonanza Drive.

[11:02] The site is owned by Park City, and through a public private partnership with Brinshwar

[11:08] Development is the purpose and the redevelopment of the site.

[11:12] The property has three frontages, one on Munchkin, Bonanza Drive, and Kerns Boulevard,

[11:19] and is located in the general commercial and frontage protections zone.

[11:23] It's proposed that the site is redeveloped with a mixed use that includes seven builders.

[11:31] The proposed 185,512 square feet, 88 affordable rental restricted housing units, 18 unrestricted housing units,

[11:44] Over 30,000 square feet of retail restaurant, cafe, nonprofit art space, amphitheater, playground, public art in a child care center.

[11:59] The applicant is proposing a master plan development, which requires the finding that the project incorporates best planning practices for sustainable development.

[12:12] We are joined by Sylia Peterson from Sustainability Online to review with the planning commission her work with the applicant in meeting this criteria.

[12:25] If the planning commission has questions for Sylia, they're welcome to ask her after she speaks.

[12:31] Any other general questions on the project can be addressed at the end of the presentations.

[12:38] And Sylia, are you, can you hear me?

[12:40] Nann, it looks like Sylia is delayed this evening.

[12:43] So if we can continue with the presentation

[12:45] and then when she's able to join on Zoom,

[12:48] we'll let you know.

[12:49] Great, thank you, Rebecca.

[12:52] So we'll go back to that.

[12:58] As review prior, the site is within

[13:00] a general commercial zoning district,

[13:02] which has an allowed building height of 35 feet

[13:05] or 40 feet with allowed roof exceptions.

[13:09] The required setbacks for a master plan development is a 25 foot perimeter setback on the project.

[13:17] The frontage protection zone runs along Kerns Boulevard.

[13:21] The FPZ extends 100 feet into the property from the Kerns Boulevard right away line.

[13:29] The FPZ requires a 30 foot setback for all structures along Kerns Boulevard.

[13:34] No structures are proposed within this 30 foot setback.

[13:38] All construction activity within the FPZ requires a conditional use permit that is subject to review by the planning commission. Tonight we will be focusing on building height parking and traffic and at the end of our presentation staff is requesting feedback from the commission.

[13:58] And we will also circle a circle of background to Silly when she's ready.

[14:07] Through the MPD process, applicant is requesting additional building height for review by the commission.

[14:14] The commission may grant building height building high exception through the MPD process

[14:19] if the applicant sufficiently demonstrates the sixth criteria and the LMCR being met.

[14:26] During the June 24th and July 8th, Commission meetings, the Commission requested additional information from the applicant to clarify building high and provide examples of different roof pitch heights for the review the applicant has provided three roof variations for the Commission review the 12 12 roof pitch on the six buildings that are requesting additional height.

[14:55] range from 54 and a half to 65 feet tall.

[15:00] Measured from existing grade. Option 2 is the 5th of building heights ranging on the six buildings from 46 and a half feet to 55 feet and options option 3 with a 412 roof pitch has building heights ranging from 46 and a half feet to 55 feet. And that's further broken down into this in the staff report.

[15:27] The

[15:31] first of the six criteria is the increase in building height doesn't result in an increase in

[15:36] square footage or building volume. The applicant has submitted the development density potential

[15:43] showing the buildable area of the site. The potential is 482,078 square feet. The applicant

[15:52] is proposing a development with 185,512 square feet,

[15:59] or approximately 38% of the allowed density potential

[16:03] of the site.

[16:05] Based on staff's analysis, the proposal

[16:07] appears to comply with this criteria.

[16:13] The second criteria is buildings have been positioned

[16:16] to minimize visual impacts on adjacent structures.

[16:20] Potential problems on neighboring properties caused

[16:23] shout-shadows, loss of solar access, and loss of air circulation have been mitigated.

[16:29] The applicant has submitted a solar shadow study showing any potential impacts on adjacent

[16:36] structures. It also appears that this, the project is compliant with this criteria.

[16:48] Criteria is three as the requirement for adequate landscaping and buffering from adjacent properties

[16:53] and uses.

[16:54] The applicant has updated their landscaping plan to show a landscape buffer with trees along

[17:01] the west property line of the site.

[17:03] This area is outlined in red on the screen and this also appears to be compliant with

[17:09] the code.

[17:12] Excuse me, compliant with the criteria.

[17:17] Criteria for requires increased setbacks and separations from adjacent properties.

[17:21] The Master Plan Development requires a 25 foot setback along the perimeter of the project.

[17:28] The applicant is proposing a 51 and 1.5 foot setback along Kerns Boulevard, 34 foot setback along Bonanza Drive.

[17:41] Along Munchkin Road, it's compliant with a 25 foot setback and additional setback of 40 feet along the west property line.

[17:51] that it joins the neighboring site.

[17:56] This also appears to comply with criteria four.

[18:04] Criteria five requires that the additional height

[18:06] results in more than minimum open space required

[18:09] and results in open space that is publicly accessible.

[18:14] The applicant provided an open space plan

[18:17] showing the location and amount of publicly accessible

[18:21] open space highlighted in green on the screen.

[18:24] For a redevelopment project in the GC zoning district requires 30% of the site is open space.

[18:35] The applicant is proposing 60.6% open space and this also appears to be compliant based on staff's analysis.

[18:51] And finally, the master plan development requires the finding that the additional building height is designed in a manner.

[18:58] That provides transition and roof elements in compliance with Chapter 155 of the LMC, which is the architectural review.

[19:11] While the 1212 roof pitch option complies with facade variation requirements, the flat and 412 roof pitch options.

[19:23] for the building facade to be compliant with this criteria.

[19:35] And as stated earlier, construction within the FPZ requires a conditional use permit,

[19:41] reviewed by the Commission and subject to all applicable review criteria.

[19:46] The two applicable criteria include building mass, bulk, orientation, and the location of building

[19:52] on-site, including orientation to buildings on a joint, a jointing life.

[19:58] Excuse me, a jointing loss.

[20:05] The second criteria is physical design and compatibility

[20:10] with surrounding structures in mass scale,

[20:13] style, design, and architectural detailing.

[20:21] I'm on the right side.

[20:24] Buildings 2 and 3 shown on the screen are within the FPC district.

[20:30] Building 4 has a covered and unenclosed patio that extends into the F.P.C.

[20:36] Buildings 2 and 3 heights ranged from 46 and a half feet to 58 feet, depending on the roof form option that the applicant has submitted.

[20:48] Buildings 2 and 3 are proposed to front along Kerns, Kerns Boulevard, and are set back a minimum of 51 feet six inches.

[20:58] building forest proposed to be set back a minimum of 72 feet.

[21:04] The six larger structures on the site are proposed to be oriented to both the public street and to the interior publicly accessible courtyard.

[21:15] The five acres site is bounded on three sides by streets and the only adjoining property is the site to the west with commercial uses.

[21:25] The nearest commercial structure is within the FPZ as well, and is set back approximately

[21:30] 45 feet, six inches, and is a single story structure.

[21:40] Next we want to highlight some of the key points from the applicant's suite of exhibits

[21:45] addressing parking and traffic. This includes a parking analysis, a transportation impact

[21:50] study, and a traffic demand management plan that were all prepared by a third party consultant.

[21:56] And the applicant has reviewed these documents with the engineering team and the engineering team has worked with a separate consultant to review these documents as well.

[22:06] This table highlights the proposed mix of uses.

[22:09] At the five acres site, based on the uses that are proposed, the project order quality of the basis, the applicant is proposing 280 spaces, which is about 35% more spaces than required by code.

[22:25] All of these spaces are proposed within an underground parking structure that would be active.

[22:30] Excessed, along Benanza Drive, and then on a separate driveway connecting Munchkin Road and Kerns Boulevard.

[22:37] There's also some surface parking spaces about nine spaces on Munchkin Road, not shown in this table as well as a drop off area on Munchkin Road.

[22:51] The applicant's proposal complies with the land management code requirements for electric vehicle charging stations,

[22:57] conduit requirements for future installations, as well as outdoor and enclosed bicycle storage.

[23:08] The applicant submitted a parking management plan that outlines their proposal to manage

[23:14] the 280 parking spaces within the underground garage.

[23:18] The applicant indicated that there would be dedicated parking for residential uses.

[23:22] So about 118 of the required spaces are for residential units.

[23:27] the applicant is also proposing dedicated parking spaces for some of the larger units in excessive

[23:33] what the code requires. The applicant is proposing a paid parking program for retail uses and

[23:39] visitors to the site as well as parking monitoring and enforcement and then adaptive parking

[23:45] management strategies looking at the project as developed and finding ways to adjust

[23:53] parking monitoring and enforcement based on what is observed.

[24:00] The planning commission can require additional

[24:04] off-street parking spaces or reduce the off-street parking

[24:07] requirement based on a parking analysis that is submitted by the applicant.

[24:12] Because the applicant is proposing additional parking,

[24:15] they've submitted a parking analysis that reviews each of the criteria you see on the slide in front of you.

[24:20] As NAN indicated earlier, about 38% of the allowed density for the site is being developed under this proposal, so that is the proposed use obviously a project that is of higher density would require additional parking mixed use developments often require less parking then single use developments because they generate less parking demand and so while the code doesn't identify a percentage reduction that the planning commission can apply to a mixed use development.

[24:50] It does give the commission the option to reduce that parking requirement.

[24:56] The applicant noted that special events are expected to draw additional visitors to

[24:59] the site visitors could be encouraged to take transit, walk or bite to the site, and then

[25:05] the applicant's parking management plan highlights some other potential ways to reduce single

[25:10] occupant vehicle trips to the site, paid on site parking, shuttle service, and events

[25:15] specific parking management, so the project could be conditioned to include some of those elements.

[25:23] The applicant could also consider shared parking agreements because there are a mixture of uses.

[25:28] Shared parking agreements could be recorded to reduce the overall parking demand for the site.

[25:35] Staff recommends that the applicant could submit a comparison of projects of similar size, which is the final criteria for the planning commission to review when

[25:43] considering an increase or a reduction in parking.

[25:50] The context for traffic at five acres site

[25:52] is, and there's existing gaps within the sidewalk and trail network in Benanza Park.

[25:58] This image is from the Benanza Park's small area plan, so it was developed as the plan was being

[26:03] developed. Some of these gaps, like the orange line you see along the home safe road, have been

[26:08] addressed with projects that took place this year. The sidewalk gap along Munchkin Road would be

[26:15] address with the proposed five acresite project.

[26:22] And then there are other projects in the works

[26:25] are being reviewed that could address the deficiencies

[26:31] on the traffic network, the Munchkin Road extension,

[26:33] the complete sheet improvements that have occurred

[26:35] along Homestake Road, et cetera.

[26:39] Currently there are 10 vehicle access points

[26:42] on the five acresite.

[26:43] The applicant is proposing to reduce that to three,

[26:46] so a single access point on each of Kerns

[26:48] Ananza and Munchkin.

[26:52] And then the final slide is the applicant's transportation

[26:56] demand management plan due to traffic volumes on the site.

[26:59] The applicant is proposing to restrict left turns into and from the site

[27:05] on both the NASA and Kerns.

[27:07] The applicant is proposing to provide space for dedicated transit lanes.

[27:12] On the NASA drive, lanes in both direction,

[27:16] as well as some additional space for buffers.

[27:18] The project incorporates a bike share station and provides about double the required outdoor and enclosed bicycle storage.

[27:29] The project would also establish pedestrian connections, most notably to the rail trail, but also to other sidewalks and trails within the region.

[27:38] The applicant has indicated they would implement a carpool and vanpool program as part of this project and then as we discussed earlier the project would reserve dedicated parking spaces for residents

[27:48] and implement a parking management and enforcement plan.

[27:52] I believe the applicant has a presentation to share as well and then we can return with some

[27:57] questions for the the commission at the end of the applicant's presentation.

[28:05] Thank you.

[28:24] Just you guys know we're getting more chairs for people on the floor.

[28:28] What? Just so you guys know we're getting more chairs.

[28:47] I think while we're waiting,

[28:49] Just a reminder to everybody when we do open up for a public comment, we understand that there is some community opposition to this project in general.

[28:59] And people wanting different things with this area, but our job here is planning commission is to process the application in front of us.

[29:05] So comments should be tied to the land management code, the general plan and other concerns with the project.

[29:13] We don't make the policy. We process the applications. Again, comment will be limited to three minutes per person and tonight we're on a pretty hard cut off time. So we're going to keep our comments.

[29:28] We're going to keep our comments time frame set, but we will have more opportunity in the future for comment. This is not the last meeting.

[29:36] And also at any time you can submit comments to planning at Parkcity.gov and all of that gets

[29:42] included in the public record and we read all of them.

[29:45] So if you don't get a chance tonight feel free to submit those as well or come back to future

[29:50] meetings.

[29:51] You guys ready?

[29:53] Yes.

[29:53] Well, thank you all for letting us present our project once again.

[30:00] I'm Steve Swisher with GTS Development. We have Lisa Swisher here with GTS and David Brent with Brent Shaw development and our civil engineers and architects and we're here to kind of tell our story a little bit, but also to answer questions and work with the planning commission to sort of arrive at a good place with this project when we're done, we together. So I wanted to start out tonight and back up just to hear and talk about what we're doing.

[30:30] where this project came from, and where the design came from, and when we were selected to

[30:38] co-develop this five acres with the city, one of the driving forces in the RFP that drove our design

[30:47] in our selection was the idea that we would implement the policies of the new small area plan, and we have

[30:55] based all of our design on trying to implement these policies.

[30:59] And in the small area plan, one of the things that really proposed is

[31:05] what the mixed use development was to do vertical management.

[31:09] One of the other things that was proposed is that if

[31:12] a development provided lots of community amenities that there would be some flexibility for both density and building height,

[31:20] Our design did not attempt to seek extra density, but we are trying to get some extra building height.

[31:29] So on the next slide, one of the things that I thought was interesting about the small area plan was that it went on to go to

[31:39] great detail to define what community benefit was, and this is a page out of the small area

[31:48] plan and it talks about workforce housing, outdoor community space, transit mobility hub,

[31:54] connectivity, underground parking, art place making, community facilities, net zero development

[32:00] and transit oriented development. And it goes on to explain what those are and in the small area

[32:07] And these were the community benefits that made it worth extending some density or additional building height.

[32:15] That was sort of the now this was a policy document. It was never implemented into the land management code.

[32:23] And that effort is still in process, but we feel that the land management code as it sits today in this project.

[32:31] still work together because the land management code does provide some flexibility on looking at the building height in relation to some of those issues.

[32:41] So on the next slide.

[32:44] This is our site plan and for everyone that hasn't looked at it lately on the right hand side, the diagonal street there is current and the serving street at the bottom is Benanza and the vertical street on the left is Monchkin.

[32:59] And then on the east west it's a service drive that's actually a ramp down to the parking garage.

[33:06] We have 15 foot multi-use pathways that we've placed along along the current edge and along the banana edge.

[33:15] And then we've created one that's a goes through the site that goes from the

[33:21] the current entrance and then goes across the face of building one and then connects with

[33:26] much can. The other thing we did is we provided 24 feet of property back to the transportation

[33:39] project so that we could have a completely dedicated bus lane along both sides of the street

[33:46] without impacting Alberta's drive up and then the community benefits that you see here that are on

[33:53] previous list include underground parking, an amphitheater. I call it the Frisbee lawn,

[33:59] grassy play area, a wide gathering space, and multiple playgrounds, restaurants, and

[34:07] flex plaza, which is kind of a food truck plaza at the south end. And down at the intersection

[34:13] is a hard skate plaza we call the welcome plaza as in welcome to park city. So this building being

[34:22] next use is vertically stacked. That means on top of the retail spaces that we were just showing,

[34:29] we have affordable housing units and in the building up in upper left, which is on the west

[34:35] north south west edge, is a four-story building with three stories of affordable housing. The other

[34:43] buildings are all three story buildings with two stories of affordable housing on top of three

[34:48] tail spaces and service spaces. Next slide, those are all stacked like a sandwich on top of this

[34:56] parking garage. The shape of this parking garage exactly matches the outside edge of those

[35:01] buildings and the width of those first two parking rows are the width of a building and that allows

[35:07] us to take the structure all the way to the ground. So this development is kind of a

[35:18] it affects things on three stories or four stories.

[35:25] It's the next slide.

[35:29] So as you can see,

[35:30] our elevations here is this is a typical building is we had a ground floor that was this

[35:39] essentially retail edge that we had the breezeways cut through and then we tried to do some

[35:44] work at the base level and then do metal sighting above that and vary the colors and then do the 1212

[35:51] pitches to pick up on some historic Park City detail, but still do it in a modern fashion.

[35:59] And below you can see that the plan on the right of all the units stacks on the retail plan on

[36:05] the left with the breezeway through the middle. Next slide. So when you cut a cross section through that

[36:12] sandwich of different things that are going on vertically. It leads us to some height issues that

[36:21] push us into asking for the height exemption. And retail spaces, as you see on the bottom right are typically 12 feet.

[36:32] And you need three feet on top of that for both structure and interstitial spaces where all the mechanical gas.

[36:42] Some of the, a lot of the retail spaces will just leave the ceiling off and let it go on up to 14 feet.

[36:50] But part of that's driven by the building code and part of it's driven by.

[36:54] It's understood in the retail business that having daylight and taller spaces helps them with their sales.

[37:00] Then the next level, you see is the affordable housing, which are nine foot ceilings, and then a 1 foot 4 inch structure,

[37:17] and then a 5 foot 9 inch structure, and the reason that structure is so much larger is it's a roof dress, it's carrying 6 foot snow load, but also it's has to slope to drain.

[37:30] So, it can't be a flat structure. So, when you add all those up and then you add five feet on top of that for screening, we end up from a finished floor with a 46 foot 2 inch overall height from the finish floor up to the top of the mechanical screen.

[37:53] Now the LMC allows for a 35 foot height and then another five feet for a mechanical screen.

[38:03] So we're six feet, two inches over the 35 foot in the past.

[38:09] When we look at the finished floor to the top of the mechanical screen.

[38:14] But the issue is that we have on this side is it's a sloping site.

[38:18] So when you have a slope that goes across the face of this building,

[38:21] We tried to make the center point of the building, which is where the

[38:26] breezeways are matched this finish floor.

[38:31] But one end of the building actually goes kind of lower than the existing site and the other

[38:36] edge side ends up in the air.

[38:38] And that variance gets us another two to five or six feet depending on where the building is and how long it is and how it's

[38:51] for approval on with the mechanical screen is 46 foot 2 inches. The other issues that we had

[39:02] on a flat roof.

[39:07] The other height areas that we have all come from the slope of the ground

[39:13] up against that finish floor. So we'll get through that in a little bit. Next slide.

[39:21] So this is looking

[39:23] at the common area, if we were up above the veil site, looking back towards back to the

[39:31] north.

[39:32] Then this shows the transit lane and the breezeways and the articulated 12-12 pitches.

[39:40] One of the things that we tried to do with the pitches were the peak height of those

[39:45] roofs are intermittent and they're only one high roof in each building that high and the

[39:51] prevalent height is actually the parapet height. And you don't really even see the

[39:56] mechanical screen because it sits back 25 feet from that roof edge. Next slide.

[40:03] And then more in particular, this is the idea of how we try to make a very open with both

[40:10] the shops facing both directions in the breezeway. So one of the questions we were asked

[40:18] There we go, is we had this fun drawing that we called the gelomold, which sort of showed

[40:28] the developer height of the project if it was a 35 feet and if you look at the lower right

[40:34] diagram you can see how the tops of the buildings sort of stick up above the 35 feet but the

[40:41] bulk of the building is below the 35 feet and we asked to do some eye level views of the gelomold

[40:47] and it actually comes out pretty interesting because it really fits the intermittent peaks of these

[40:54] buildings. I really what you see extending above the 35 feet and we had probably four or five more

[41:03] of these that we put in our staff report, but I didn't want to go every picture we drew, but just

[41:09] kind of give you the feel. This is looking up an ant looking up an anza. So you get really can see on

[41:15] slide that the the taller roofs are very intermittent. Can we go back to the

[41:20] banana's side real quick? Thank you. You can see that they they show up

[41:25] every so often. It's not like the whole project is that tall. Next.

[41:39] So the other

[41:42] thing we were asked to do is to come back with a flat roof design as an

[41:47] alternative to reduce that building height, which we did. And we brought two versions,

[41:57] in addition to the 1212 pitches. So that's the view with the 1212 pitches. That's buildings

[42:03] two and three, which are the buildings that face onto currents that are in the front-age protection

[42:08] zone. Next slide. There you can see if we reduce those high pitches to a 412 pitch. That's the

[42:18] height of our mechanical screen. But you can't see the mechanical screens because they're set back.

[42:24] And then this is what it would look like with a flat roof. The interesting thing about the

[42:33] facade variation is when we had the 12 12 pitch, the vertical height accounted for a portion

[42:40] of our facade variation. When we lower the roof to this pitch, we need to do we need to change

[42:47] the design to do a 15-foot offset cut back into the building or projected out of the building,

[42:55] which will change our unit count and cause some other things to happen. But it is doable.

[43:00] We think we'll lose about 20 bedrooms or our preliminary analysis. If we do that, not units,

[43:06] just bedrooms. So we'll end up a few less threes.

[43:11] with the flat roof or with the 412 pitch as well.

[43:15] With the flat or the 412, they don't comply.

[43:18] The 1212 complies with the side variation the other two do not.

[43:25] So we have a range of views here of the different buildings with the different heights.

[43:33] As from a design standpoint,

[43:36] we like the historical sort of feel of the 1212 pitch.

[43:40] and we do like the 412 because it sort of breaks up the roof line and visually, but we're

[43:51] we can go whatever direction the planning commission feels we need to go, but and then

[44:02] this is the solar analysis of how we affected Jason sites staff already talked about that so I'm

[44:15] are landscape plan and the breakdown of all the different materials. These are addressing the six

[44:23] criteria.

[44:31] I need to get the six criteria. So I remember what they are. Okay, these are the setbacks.

[44:37] What you see and white here around the front of these buildings, the dark color is the the

[44:42] legal setback or the LMC setback and then you can see all the buildings are well inside of that.

[44:49] next slide. Open space. There was some question about what is the definition of open space

[44:57] and in the LMC as it relates to.

[45:00] Through this open space requirement, it's not building footprints, and not service drives and not parking. So the other, all the other spaces are considered open space. Next time.

[45:18] And then this, this element asked if the project would provide some community amenities, which we talked about, so I'm not going to go through them again.

[45:30] And then this is where am I going to go.

[45:35] Okay. Okay. The parking on the site is all underground and you can see that we have reserved spaces for residents that are in green and the idea there is that their spaces are underneath their buildings and each of those buildings has an elevator and two stairs that go down to the garage.

[45:58] And then the shared spaces in the center would be the parking for the people that work there and the retail customers.

[46:11] One of the challenges on this site for the retail tenants is going to be that all of the other tenants around them.

[46:21] you can park in front of their front door like samis and over there in Park City Plaza. So it's going

[46:29] to be a bit of a challenge to get people to want to go under around a park and to want to pay

[46:34] to park. We will probably end up with some kind of program where you have a certain amount of

[46:40] free time before you get started the charged park. But getting people to come down to this garage

[46:47] instead of going someplace where they can just park in front of the front door is going to be a bit

[46:51] a challenge. So we want the parking to be generous and plentiful. We want the garage to be bright and white and white open and we have a minimum 10 foot ceiling in there. So you can pull in there with a rack over your four wheel drive car and not hit the ceiling. So next slide.

[47:14] So we want to talk a little bit about the context of the site, we're getting into some of the traffic and parking things is within a 10 minute walk in this site.

[47:25] You can access almost every service that you could want from a quick care to a grocery store.

[47:33] I think someone told me that there were 30 restaurants in that radius park city Plaza across the street is basically a food court, the whole complex.

[47:47] And then you can get downtown in a 15 minute walk or down to the park in a 15 minute walk.

[47:54] And it's all the way to the other end of old town in a 20 minute walk and of course faster on bikes and then next slide.

[48:03] There was a staff or a commission question on how the traffic worked in the neighborhood.

[48:13] And in this slide, you can see how

[48:16] Munchkin gets extended over to homestay.

[48:19] And what we want to, what we plan is that on the current

[48:23] front-age, there would only be one curb cut.

[48:26] It would be right in and right out that does two things.

[48:29] it keeps them from being left turn stacking in the middle of currents and it keeps

[48:35] there from being stacking waiting for someone to turn left when they exit the garage.

[48:41] When you come out of the, you can come out of the garage there and turn left and go

[48:46] south to Munchkin. At that point you can turn right or left and you can actually enter

[48:52] from the right of the left and then that Munchkin road, you can connect back to Benanson and

[48:58] to currents or you can take the munchkin extension and go to homestake. So it ends up being a pretty

[49:09] pretty good network of traffic where we're not trying to load up one accident or another.

[49:14] We expect that people as they get used to entering or exiting the garage. We'll go to the place

[49:19] that has the least amount of traffic and disruption which we expect would be the munchkin entrance.

[49:26] Next slide.

[49:28] You can see in red there are the transit lane that we've provided.

[49:34] There's also a bus stop on currents.

[49:37] One of the questions that came up was,

[49:39] Is there a pull off on Benanza?

[49:43] And the answer is transit doesn't want to pull off on Benanza

[49:46] because since it's a dedicated transit lane,

[49:48] they'll actually stop in the transit lane.

[49:51] Next slide.

[49:54] And then you can see this is the bike.

[49:59] active transportation. The trail system adjacent to this is staff showed on the slide is kind of broken up in certain places, but plans are in place to finish it, but on current where we have the multi-use pathway, it connects across the street to the Emporium.

[50:18] There are plans on in place to extend that multi-use pathway across the face of

[50:24] Emporium, and then there's going to be a multi-use pathway on the other side on the

[50:29] south side of Munchkin, which we can connect to through the crosswalk or in the,

[50:35] it'll be a pretty quiet street. You can actually probably cross the street there.

[50:39] And then the connections other than that up at,

[50:43] current across to prospector will be at the crosswalks.

[50:52] So, our parking demand study looked a little different than the cities.

[50:58] We went with ITE parking demand and supplies.

[51:03] And one of the issues that we had with the land management

[51:07] code analysis of the parking is it didn't really reflect the additional

[51:14] parking that we think will be required by the all of the community benefits that we're providing,

[51:20] which are for not for the residents, therefore the whole community. And if we're doing events and

[51:26] concerts and those kind of things there, plus we've designed a project where we tried to maximize the

[51:32] amount of outdoor dining that you could get on the site. So our parking study came up with

[51:43] larger number. And then the next slide. The analysis was done to look at the demand over

[51:50] the time of day. So, in the previous slide, you'll see we came up with a larger number like

[51:56] 399, but then reduced it. And then the amount of parking were proposing to provide us below that.

[52:07] So, I'm going to let this cut here. Can you talk about a little bit about the travel demand management

[52:17] Plan, please.

[52:29] Scotty do close.

[52:30] The hails engineering here. Yeah, so we're travel the management plan. Just kind of incorporated all of the plans that the development is incorporating into their site that it kind of touched on.

[52:43] So we have the transit lane with the stops at the site to increase transit ridership in availability, not only for residents on the site, but people trying to access any of the retail.

[52:59] For bicycles, there's a bike share program, so that'll help encourage more multimodal pedestrian access.

[53:12] There's also a significant number of bicycle parking on the site.

[53:19] It's about double what it's required by a park city code.

[53:22] So I'll also encourage bicycle transportation from the residents and from people needing temporary parking.

[53:35] As was touched on, there's numerous existing multi-use paths that are nearby the site or planned directly adjacent to the site.

[53:50] With the breezeways of the buildings, it makes it easy for anyone on these paths to directly access the site without having to go around and walk out of the way.

[54:06] The retail and restaurant establishments are on the ground level, easy to access.

[54:12] They have street facing the sobs so they're easy to see from the street and attract people

[54:22] There's an on-site child care so that would also reduce the amount of trips

[54:28] for anyone that's accessing the site or for residents on the site that can utilize that

[54:34] community and the parking on the site. As I also mentioned, there's a park garage with paid public parking for anyone trying to access the site.

[54:52] That would kind of discourage vehicle travel and encourage the park city's plan of multi-model and transit.

[55:01] to the site, and then the parking management plan to enforce those.

[55:09] Yeah. Next slide.

[55:14] So we spent a lot of time refining the transit lane layout.

[55:22] That falls in the street with transportation last week or week for last.

[55:28] And we really focused in on this bus stop in front of building sex, which will be 100 feet long.

[55:38] And the reason it's 100 feet long, it's so that two buses can park into end and load there.

[55:46] They think that at potentially they could max out at bus every four minutes.

[55:51] So one of the things that happens when you have a bus at going every four minutes is you can kind of get

[55:59] bunching where that means you get the bus is stacking up while they're waiting for one to load and other to leave.

[56:05] So we had a set aside an area there, a pull off that you see just to the right in front of building five that was a delivery zone and we knew that

[56:15] If we didn't provide that, we'd get Amazon trucks and the UPS trucks and the FedEx trucks

[56:21] and those kind of deliveries would just try to stop in the middle of the transit lane.

[56:25] So we tried to make a place for them to pull off. And the idea that we worked out with transportation

[56:31] was that our transit was that that would be restricted from use during the transit's busiest time.

[56:40] And transit could use that pull-off for a bus if they get a bunching situation where they could pull

[56:46] a bus over and wait for a couple bus a bus to leave. So that worked out pretty nice. And then

[56:53] at the, at the, at the, uh, turns into the site, the intersection there. We took 24 feet off the edge of the site.

[57:01] So we could allow the same kind of dedicated transit lane on the other side of the street and you can see

[57:06] mark there. And then on currents, there will be a bus stop, but it'll be an inline bus stop

[57:14] in the street and then we'll have a bus shelter and that kind of thing there. You'll see it,

[57:19] you see it marked there in the center of currents. So this is the final layout that we worked out

[57:24] in a pretty deep, much, a lot of detail with transit and you can see what other streets section

[57:32] next slide. And then there was a question on in our last meeting of how is garbage going to

[57:41] our contrash. And the way it works is each of these buildings for the residents will have a

[57:49] trash shoot near the elevators and they go into a trash room that's in the drop into the garage.

[57:55] The trash room will have bins on wheels, and the bins will be moved to trash collection area next to the entrance to the garage on the west edge there at the entrance on the west edge, and that's where the, and there's a, it's an enclosed space, and there's a garage door, and when the garbage comes to get picked up they'll move the bins out there and dump them and then,

[58:25] put them back in that and then they will be returned back to the trashrooms under the

[58:30] rooms. We put in a freight elevator and building five, the commercial spaces will collect

[58:37] their garbage inside their spaces, move them to the freight elevator and then transport them over

[58:42] to that same trashroom. We reviewed this with a republic in detail and worked through all the

[58:48] details with them and they're getting back to us with the exact size that they think we should

[58:53] for the trash room, right now it's close to the right side, it's been going to get a good number.

[58:59] And this scheme will also facilitate recycling in the process. So that's how garbage works.

[59:09] Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[59:14] Thank you, guys. So Alex, do you guys want to jump

[59:18] back in now or

[59:24] we can do a public, we can come back to your raises questions and stuff. I think that's

[59:29] or any questions right now from the commission.

[59:37] Yeah, Matthew or Adam.

[59:42] No, nothing for me.

[59:44] Yeah, no questions here.

[59:46] Okay.

[59:46] Any of you guys?

[59:48] We'll get into more substantive,

[59:50] but if you guys have discussions for right now.

[59:53] Sure.

[59:53] I have the question regarding the roof pitch options.

[59:57] So, I do do that the fat buff.

[1:00:00] Doesn't comply with the facade variation, but could you provide more detail about why the 412 pitch does not comply with the facade variation requirement.

[1:00:13] The facade variation requirement requires 15 foot change in a building over 120 feet long a substantial change and that change can be both horizontal and vertical if it's at the same location.

[1:00:28] So when we had the 12-12 pitch, we had a four-foot bump out there at that center.

[1:00:36] Breezeway, pop out. So that was horizontal for four feet.

[1:00:40] And then we had 12 feet tall on the 12-12 pitch.

[1:00:45] So the four in the 12, added up to 16, which put us over the 15-foot requirement.

[1:00:51] And when we go to that 412 pitch, it only gets us another, I think, 2.5 feet above that

[1:00:59] parapet, that plus the bump out only adds up to 6.5 feet.

[1:01:05] That means we need to do some other kind of break in the facade.

[1:01:11] We will probably have to do an inset, like a cut-in type balcony that goes back 15 feet on both sides

[1:01:19] the building to achieve the facade variation requirement. We haven't, of course, had time to design

[1:01:28] that we were just able to do that.

[1:01:33] We can get there, but we think it will cause us to rearrange

[1:01:36] the insides of the building, so to speak, and lose some bedrooms to get that done. So that's

[1:01:43] the back and forth with going to the lower pitch. Commissioner Tulson, the analysis that breaks

[1:01:54] it down with the different roof options is on page 31 of the staff report. Thank you.

[1:02:06] Chair Van Dyne, I want to kind of dive into the parking a little bit. You want to reserve that for later.

[1:02:11] Yeah, yeah, let's just get clarifying questions out right now and we're making a jump in that everything.

[1:02:15] All right, I have a clarifying question,

[1:02:18] Commissioner, Frontero.

[1:02:20] Can I ask the applicant to please pull up the circulation plan?

[1:02:25] My clarifying question is, can you clarify the ingress and egress?

[1:02:33] I believe I understand where the three points are,

[1:02:38] but if you could clearly walk me through those three

[1:02:41] and what left-hand restrictions are just restate the left-hand restrictions you're proposing.

[1:02:50] Okay.

[1:02:54] On Curns,

[1:03:00] is there a cursor? Kate is a possible to move a cursor or something?

[1:03:03] Yeah, we can

[1:03:07] let's start with Curns. Thank you.

[1:03:11] There is one entrance to the path to the Furns and it's right where the cursor is bouncing around

[1:03:17] And that entrance puts you on a service road that actually is a ramp that drops down 18 feet to provide an entrance to the garage.

[1:03:30] At that entrance, we have to do that to do a left turn in, left turn out, but we chose not to do that because of the stacking that happens,

[1:03:44] currents, but also because if someone wants to turn left as they're exiting the garage, at that point,

[1:03:53] they're going to block the driveway and create a long queue back to the garage of people that want

[1:03:59] to turn right. So it's much better for both the traffic on currents and coming out of the garage

[1:04:05] to that have that be a right turn in and a right turn out. When you go over to the banana

[1:04:12] edge there's one curb cut and that's the entrance to the garage there. This is a 300 or 200

[1:04:21] and some space garage. It requires two entrances for life safety. We can't just have one entrance.

[1:04:28] This entrance would be on the other side of the transit lane and a right turn in and right turn out

[1:04:37] would also create, stop the idea of there being stacking in the middle of Benanza waiting to

[1:04:43] turn left to get into the project and interfering in dodging buses. The other thing that would

[1:04:50] happen there is the same as Kurns is it would stop people from waiting at the top of the ramp

[1:04:56] to turn left on to Benanza and then creating a huge cube behind them from people wanting to get

[1:05:02] the garage. So it's really best for the street and for the garage to have that be a right turn

[1:05:09] right turn out right turn in right turn out. The entrance on Munchkin is also a ramp that goes down

[1:05:18] to that same location. At that point you can do a left turn out a left turn in off Munchkin

[1:05:27] Because it's a slower street, it's not going to have as much traffic, and there's a longer

[1:05:33] queue space that goes back to the entrance to the garage.

[1:05:38] Once you get on to Munchkin, you have the choice of going out to Benanza.

[1:05:42] You can go right or left on Benanza, or you can take the Munchkin a new Munchkin extension

[1:05:47] and get out to Homestay, which provides you another route out to Currence and another route

[1:05:54] to Parket.

[1:05:55] So the whole operation there tends to work like a network and what we anticipate to have

[1:06:02] then is that if you live there or you visit there often to shop, you will find the route

[1:06:08] that works best for you and I expect that most people will want to go to the Munchkin

[1:06:17] entrance because there's just let me be less traffic.

[1:06:22] Okay, thanks for the clarification. So, so that the entrance, so there were two entrances to the parking garage, one on Monchkin and one on Bonanza.

[1:06:34] Actually, there's three. So there's three actual ramps down into the into the parking right.

[1:06:40] Three ramps.

[1:06:41] Three ramps.

[1:06:42] Two entrances.

[1:06:45] Okay, I guess I'm confusing to make sure everybody in the audience is quiet.

[1:06:50] appreciate it. We it's really hard for us to hear when there's conversations or timing

[1:06:54] in from the audience. You guys will get to comments. You're welcome to raise those when it's time

[1:06:59] for public comment. Okay, so I think I understand the clarification when you say you're saying

[1:07:05] what there's three ramps, I think I was confusing that with entrances. So there's three ramps,

[1:07:13] two of the ramps are serving one entrance in Munchkin and they're outside. I see.

[1:07:21] And who who owns that that road is that part of the five-acre side or yeah it's part of the it's private it's it's private.

[1:07:30] Part of this development. Yes, and it will be maintained as part of the common area maintenance on the project. And it will probably be heated to because it's of slope to keep it from icing up, but it'll, it's not going to be a city street.

[1:07:49] I see, so in your suggesting over time,

[1:07:56] locals, perhaps, who would part down there, they go down and they get their card, they will know if they need to go left on current, for example, they wouldn't exit on Benanza, that's correct, they would understand that they can't make that left,

[1:08:20] they would, yeah, I see.

[1:08:22] So they would likely exit on the private road, take a right, and then attempt to take a left on currents.

[1:08:31] Yes.

[1:08:34] And it sort of sets up a network of choices that would be different different times a day and

[1:08:39] the destinations.

[1:08:41] Okay, thanks for clarifying.

[1:08:45] All right. Any other commission questions for right now?

[1:08:49] All right.

[1:08:49] So we will go ahead and jump into public comment. Again, reminder of from what we spoke up

[1:08:57] before, three minutes. And we will take both comments in person and on Zoom. So anyone wishing

[1:09:06] to speak on the five-acre site, please step forward in chambers. Feel free to, yep, just

[1:09:15] form a line and then we'll also take some comments as well.

[1:09:23] I know I was going to just grab a figure that out.

[1:09:27] Be is there.

[1:09:28] Be open some windows.

[1:09:29] Okay.

[1:09:30] Yeah, we are working on this.

[1:09:31] I'm sure thanks.

[1:09:35] Welcome.

[1:09:36] Thank you on Mary.

[1:09:38] Oh, chefs.

[1:09:39] He had my day for a six o.

[1:09:42] We've been down this road before and the people spoke.

[1:09:46] And I'm referring to the north side of the public library, which is a park, which everybody in this town wanted, but the city wanted to fill it with edificis.

[1:09:59] It is a park that is used by everybody.

[1:10:04] So I'd like to remind you of what the people said years ago and how it has been a benefit to this city as a park.

[1:10:16] I'd also like to remind you how expensive Park City is.

[1:10:21] Grossries are very expensive.

[1:10:24] You can go out in the county and get much more for your money.

[1:10:30] Gasoline is very expensive in Park City.

[1:10:34] You can go out into the county, not very far,

[1:10:38] and get a much better price,

[1:10:40] plus they're building a Maverick gas station, restaurants in Park City are very expensive.

[1:10:49] You can go out and you can get a moderately priced meal.

[1:10:53] My point is, why are you putting people in an expensive environment when you can be seven

[1:11:01] minutes by bus, maybe 10 minutes, and you have a great variety of everything that would

[1:11:08] would call more of a reasonably priced items. That includes retail also. The bus route has been

[1:11:18] expanded to accommodate these housing facilities and being outside just outside and a short distance

[1:11:28] from town, people have a great, have great more benefits and more money to spend.

[1:11:39] I'd also

[1:11:40] like to remind you that in the winter, and I cross the Nansen Crerons frequently, we have a

[1:11:47] police car park. Maybe you don't realize that police cars parked there in the winter, all winter,

[1:11:54] And that is to manage traffic and accidents because this is a very, very busy intersection and you are in

[1:12:03] cumbering and exacerbating the problem at that light by this by this additional commercial and living.

[1:12:15] I'd also personally like to say I'd like to see panoramic views and not slivers of views.

[1:12:23] all these people pay their taxes. And for me and my family we paid for 50 years. We pay your salaries and the city council.

[1:12:34] And I'd like to know if you are listening to us.

[1:12:39] Thank you.

[1:12:40] Thank you for your comments.

[1:12:42] Sorry.

[1:12:43] You guys, there's no clapping. I'm very sorry. I know people want to support each other, but there is no clapping.

[1:12:49] There's no cheering. There are no comments. Please. Thank you.

[1:12:53] Hi, my name is Dick Rannis. I live in 84060. I'll give you three reasons to turn this project down.

[1:12:59] Number one is I believe there's another another historical precedent. He was only a few years ago

[1:13:05] that the Yaro was proposed to be redeveloped and I believe your predecessors on the planning commission

[1:13:11] turned it down because they didn't grant the building height variance. That's one. Another one is

[1:13:21] In general, if there is a restriction and someone seeks a variance or an exception to it, there's got to be a really good reason, a physical impediment, a financial hardship, there could be others.

[1:13:35] But when you look at the reasons they want this building a high exception, they want it partly for cosmetic purposes, so they can pretend and put up a phony facade of old mining town stuff.

[1:13:52] They also want to do it, so they have higher interior ceilings, 12 feet, 9 feet, why, so they can make the apartments and the retail establishments look more attractive, they can charge more rent and make more money.

[1:14:08] And finally, I'd say the third reason would be the traffic flow pattern that he just described

[1:14:18] is horrible, getting into the facility with a right turn only.

[1:14:23] That would be pretty easy.

[1:14:25] But when it comes time to get out of that parking, and you can only turn right, you're

[1:14:31] going to be doing circles if you want to get back to park medows or back to prospector.

[1:14:36] It's ridiculous. That's going to make the traffic on those side roads and on currents even worse

[1:14:43] There's just so many reasons. This is a bad project. Many of them will come out tomorrow night

[1:14:49] But I think that's three reasons for the planning commission to turn it down. Thank you

[1:14:55] Thank you for your comments. Please I'm not going to say it again. There's no clapping or cheering

[1:15:00] Thank you. Hi, Charlotte O'Connell, 8406O.

[1:15:08] I thought we were going to get more of a traffic analysis,

[1:15:11] like how the intersections are affected, particularly, bananas and currents, how that's, you know,

[1:15:19] for everything that we can look at, it's going to go from, I think it was a C to an F. First, wait, first,

[1:15:24] I want to thank you guys and I want to thank you guys because I know you've done a ton of work to make

[1:15:29] this work and I know you were given marching orders by other people to get as much as you could.

[1:15:34] So I know you've done it's going to work and I do appreciate what you're trying to do.

[1:15:40] That we have to put in a hundred and eight housing units. I don't understand that.

[1:15:45] But for me, the issue is transit. And so if we have just from two websites picked it up today,

[1:15:53] a department typically have seven transit a day and retail has 38. So I think we're going to

[1:16:01] have 24, I don't know if you're allowed to answer this question, it looks like four

[1:16:05] prevailing six buildings would be 24 retail spaces which would give us 912 movements a day

[1:16:11] for the retail and with 108 apartments that would be 756 movements a day for the living. So just

[1:16:19] How we're going to manage having 1,600 vehicles in motion in that area, that's one of my questions to address that.

[1:16:35] And they keep mentioning it keeps being said that they're below the density by a large amount, but it looks like a really dense development to me.

[1:16:43] And I'm curious what development density is allowed.

[1:16:49] Could they have put a whole mother strip of apartments in between the two rows that we have on, you know,

[1:16:55] Kerns and and bananas are right now.

[1:16:57] So I'm just curious what that density would be allowed to be.

[1:17:02] But thanks for your time.

[1:17:04] Thank you for your comments.

[1:17:06] And just so everybody knows there's no back and forth.

[1:17:08] You guys can pose your questions.

[1:17:09] We can either answer them in our comments or address them at another time, but there won't be any back and forth between the applicants or us and public comment. Thank you.

[1:17:19] Deb staff.

[1:17:20] Shalt.

[1:17:20] 8.

[1:17:20] Part of these laws in land management codes are created to protect the citizens.

[1:17:27] Citizens expect our elected officials, our city staff, our planning commission, and our city's partnerships to comply with the codes.

[1:17:35] When the city asks for exceptions to the land management code, the implicitly give permission

[1:17:40] to future developers to do the same.

[1:17:43] This would make it more difficult for planning department and planning commission to enforce the code in the future.

[1:17:50] When I was looking at the parking plan today, RD005, those numbers were different than we'll present it tonight.

[1:17:57] But in effect, I would recommend that you turn down the additional parking,

[1:18:01] especially due to the 163,000 dollar per spot over 25 years at arguably the worst intersection in town.

[1:18:15] I urge you not to grant the CUP for additional parking.

[1:18:19] The post-podge project benefits the residents that will live there more than it does the rest of the city.

[1:18:27] I would urge you to also make the project comply with the high restrictions to protect the

[1:18:34] view quarter for all the citizens and our visitors.

[1:18:38] Thank you.

[1:18:39] Thank you for your comments.

[1:18:41] Sharon, do you have any hands on Zoom?

[1:18:44] There are not any hands currently, right?

[1:18:46] Thank you.

[1:18:52] Chelsea Strong 84060.

[1:18:55] Good evening.

[1:18:56] I'm not here with an opinion tonight.

[1:18:58] I'm here with facts.

[1:18:59] this is public land. The taxpayers bought it in 2017 for $19 million. Let's start with the height because the story here has two parts.

[1:19:10] The city's own code caps this site at 35 feet. That code was already changed once, raising the limit to 45 feet through an affordable housing density bonus.

[1:19:21] That's a 29% increase that was already changed once. And especially, specifically, to enable this deal.

[1:19:30] But the proposed plans show building one at what I believed before this was 53 feet and after tonight,

[1:19:37] I've learned 56 feet. That's 11 feet above even that raised limit to put that in real terms.

[1:19:45] That's roughly a five story building nearly double the height of a typical structure on Main Street.

[1:19:51] This code was rewritten once already for this project.

[1:19:56] Now the project is asking to exceed the rewrite.

[1:20:00] I'm a resident and a property owner in Park City.

[1:20:02] I also own and operate a large commercial multi-family portfolio.

[1:20:07] So I understand the townstake in this decision firsthand.

[1:20:11] And I understand how these deals get structured from the other side.

[1:20:15] This isn't a project built for financial gain,

[1:20:18] wrapped in a philanthropic pitch.

[1:20:20] It's the reverse of what most people in this room assume.

[1:20:25] A development like this is not primarily built to solve a housing problem.

[1:20:30] It's built to be financially viable first for the developer and for the tax credit investors.

[1:20:37] And the housing benefit is what makes the financial structure possible, not the other way around.

[1:20:42] That's not cynicism. That's how this model works.

[1:20:45] Now, the financing, the state housing corporation is expected to contribute roughly 60 million in low income housing tax credit equity to this project.

[1:20:56] That's a tax credit investor buy, that a tax credit investor buys to offset their own liability.

[1:21:03] And the deeper the affordability commitment, the more valuable the credit.

[1:21:07] The truth. The incentive is instantly build affordable housing. It's build the exact thresholds that unlocks the maximum height, density and credit value. Those numbers move together by design.

[1:21:23] And for those in the room who aren't aware, these are low income housing tax credits, also known as light tech units are not restricted to summit county residents or even to Utah residents.

[1:21:34] federal law qualifies tenants by income,

[1:21:38] not by where they currently live or work.

[1:21:41] The local employment preference is legally allowed,

[1:21:44] but only if that's written explicitly

[1:21:46] into the property's tenant selection plan.

[1:21:49] It's not automatic.

[1:21:51] So if the argument for this project

[1:21:52] is that it lets the people who work here also live here,

[1:21:56] does this deals tenant selection plan

[1:21:58] actually include a local employment preference?

[1:22:01] Or we building 166 units on public land

[1:22:03] at a height no other property owner in this town is allowed on ski to please wrap up your

[1:22:07] company. And calling it a workforce housing solution with no mechanism guaranteeing it.

[1:22:12] So my question tonight is simple. The city's own code capsus cited 35 feet. It was changed

[1:22:17] once, raising it to 45 feet and now you're proposing 56 feet, which is why this project is being

[1:22:23] allowed to exceed a height that the city got to change specifically to accommodate it. What is the full

[1:22:29] financial

[1:22:30] All structure and has it been made public and does the tenant selection plan guarantee these units go to people who work in this community. I'm not asking to reject affordable housing. I'm asking you to make the trade visible before you grant an exception. No one else in this town can access. Thank you for your comments.

[1:23:01] Patricia Kip, A4060, I live at 1, 2, 6, 4,

[1:23:06] Erie Drive, the drop sound, I'm the dear valley

[1:23:09] drive.

[1:23:13] I'd like my comments to make sure that they become a part

[1:23:17] of the public record.

[1:23:20] Park City has a top-notch hospital and emergency room.

[1:23:26] The city has a responsibility to make sure

[1:23:29] its citizens are able to travel to the hospital

[1:23:31] foreign and emergency.

[1:23:36] They're during the winter time between three and six, sometimes three

[1:23:40] and seven. It is a parking lot from Deer Valley all the way up to the top of Marsak Avenue all

[1:23:48] the way down to Benanza and many times in the summertime as well. If you are trying to get to the

[1:24:03] of mine, survived in aortic dissection.

[1:24:08] And I'm going to use this, an example,

[1:24:10] just to show you how good our medical care is,

[1:24:14] but if you cannot get there, it does you know good.

[1:24:20] He was able to drive himself to the hospital

[1:24:22] because it happened on a Saturday in May at 1.30 in the afternoon.

[1:24:28] Within 30 minutes, he was diagnosed with an ART dissection

[1:24:32] and he was helicoptered down to St. Mark's hospital.

[1:24:37] He had underwent an eight-hour surgery,

[1:24:39] and he is alive and healthy today.

[1:24:45] The chances of that happening anywhere in the United States

[1:24:49] is extremely low.

[1:24:53] I just want everybody to look right and look left

[1:24:57] and know that at most any time in your life,

[1:25:01] you're going to be dealing with an emergency.

[1:25:04] And your adrenaline's going to kick in once you've made that decision that says I have got to get to the hospital.

[1:25:11] And you get in your car or you call the ambulance and you get down and you get stopped in traffic.

[1:25:19] And minutes matter,

[1:25:26] it was a miracle that he survived, but it wasn't a miracle that he received excellent care from Park City Hospital.

[1:25:33] And I don't want that to be forgotten in this discussion.

[1:25:40] The city just hired a new emergency director, and I met with Clinton, Johnson, and expressed my concerns.

[1:25:48] Every year, the police are sitting down there trying to direct traffic at those times.

[1:25:55] First on the list of goals should be to make sure that the city provides safe and quick passage to the hospital.

[1:26:03] And safe and quick passage for evacuation due to wildfire earthquake.

[1:26:07] I will get the insurance wrap up your comment.

[1:26:09] No matter what is proposed with the five acre city owned parcel, before anything else is done,

[1:26:16] Bananza Drive needs to be widened. Thank you.

[1:26:20] Thank you.

[1:26:23] Hello.

[1:26:24] My name is Jack. I live in 84060.

[1:26:27] I like to first say that I'm strongly opposed to the development on Bananza Drive.

[1:26:33] As a city council, you have the power to block the new development because the new development requires changing the rules.

[1:26:39] therefore if you really wanted to, you wouldn't have to allow this construction to take place.

[1:26:45] I believe the building would put a strain on the water supply. The additional residents would

[1:26:49] create more traffic along Kerns Boulevard. Could raise cost for residents. Additional restaurants

[1:26:56] would drive customers away from small businesses that are currently operate here. More buildings in

[1:27:02] infrastructure would harm the small town feel. I often the building benefits the community and

[1:27:08] wood is a public park with trails and awesome trees. I currently run on the trails, farm trail,

[1:27:15] real trail, one thing I like about those trails that they're flat.

[1:27:20] The land currently on the space

[1:27:22] is one of the few space in the center town that actually has flat trails. I'm sure residents

[1:27:27] who have actually lived here would appreciate some more trails they could run, hike, walk their dog,

[1:27:33] and since Park City Park lost space due to recent development in the city park with that center,

[1:27:38] I think of the beneficial for residents to give them more public spaces

[1:27:41] and help maintain our small town feel.

[1:27:44] It makes Utah and Park City different from other areas in the U.S.

[1:27:47] is the public land that we have.

[1:27:50] See the pictures on the wall, trails are what make Park City special.

[1:27:54] It would be great if we get have trails in the five acre lot.

[1:27:57] And finally, this is Park City, not a part of the city.

[1:27:59] Thank you.

[1:28:01] Thank you for your comments.

[1:28:04] Do we have anything online, Jeremy?

[1:28:06] Valerie Spung. Oh, once again, Karen, do you have any hands up online?

[1:28:10] They're not. Great. Thank you. Sorry, go ahead.

[1:28:17] Valerie Spung, 8406.

[1:28:20] Thank you for taking the time until this until all of us.

[1:28:25] I have some concerns and I want to share and encourage you to address.

[1:28:30] First density, this corner has been clogged up mass for years.

[1:28:34] A police car sits at the bottom of Benanza all winter to prevent gridlock from anxious drivers.

[1:28:40] I think everybody knows what I'm talking about.

[1:28:43] I worked at the park record for 27 years and I was at the mercy of kind of drivers willing to let me in the middle way.

[1:28:51] So adding 280 more parking spots, food trucks, daycare, horses, buses.

[1:28:56] This is going to get worse.

[1:28:57] You, if you take a wrap of the, there's just going to be a policeman at a different corner,

[1:29:04] height. It's way too high. It blocks views for locals, but also for our tourists who unload

[1:29:10] their wallets when they come here. Brinture stated that they have to have nine foot ceilings,

[1:29:16] or the units won't be desirable enough to rent. My house has eight foot ceilings in park medows,

[1:29:22] and many other people sitting here, their hubs have eight-foot seat ceilings.

[1:29:28] Toxic dirt. We know it's there, but almost every development finds that there's more

[1:29:35] expense to removing the toxic dirt than they intended or expected. We know the maverick is an old gas station,

[1:29:44] since nearly all gas stations at age that that age have leaked. I'm guessing there's going to be

[1:29:49] more expensive issues on top of the mining issues in the soil. We won't know until they

[1:29:55] did. In the final note, the headscratcher to me is why are the...

[1:30:00] Our double-tree project was shot down for the same heightal ounces as Brintra once. They wanted to rebuild

[1:30:07] the Tired Hotel, AdRestrance and businesses, all of which would pay taxes to us. They had a

[1:30:15] bike lane and breezeways and 58 affordable housing units, which we didn't have to pay for. We're

[1:30:21] going to have to pay for all of this. Now we're wrestling with something similar on this five

[1:30:26] and five acres isn't that big that was purchased for community art and culture a decade ago.

[1:30:33] It's going to talk cost many millions of dollars and I don't see the return on investment.

[1:30:41] What the city and county build in this community should be built with integrity and something we can all be proud of.

[1:30:48] Please reconsider this project as it stands. Thank you.

[1:30:52] Thank you.

[1:30:55] My name is Owen McConnell and I'm representing eight four zero zero zero.

[1:31:01] I recently moved here from Texas because Park City offered open space and credible

[1:31:06] mountain views in a quieter way of life. This massive apartment project

[1:31:12] funds everything that makes this town special. It will block the views people came here for

[1:31:17] and increased traffic roads that are already overcrowded and even put more pressure on

[1:31:21] our schools and public services. Park City is one of the most expensive towns in the country

[1:31:25] Pretending oversized apartment complex is well suddenly solve affordability is ridiculous

[1:31:30] We need a responsible housing solutions, but they must fit in the town and product protect its character

[1:31:36] I didn't leave Texas just to watch Park City becoming a little become another overcrowded city full of massive buildings

[1:31:41] Once those views and open spaces are destroyed we can never get that view back. Thank you for your time. Did you make sure you sign in?

[1:31:49] Yeah, thank you.

[1:32:01] Andy Miller eight four oh six.

[1:32:10] Oh

[1:32:10] Good evening, commissioners and Park City neighbors, I happen to be married to a member of Park City Council, but I'm here tonight as a 15 year resident who cares deeply just like everybody here about the future of our town and I want to thank you for your stewardship of this project.

[1:32:29] your role is difficult. It requires looking past immediate voices and focusing on the

[1:32:36] community needs that will have 10, 20, 50 years from now. I support the mixed use development

[1:32:42] because it is a kind of forward-thinking sustainable planning that will keep Park City vibrant

[1:32:47] for generations. And while the seedlings presentation had me at Donut Shop, there's one other aspect

[1:32:53] of this I want to focus on for a moment that benefits our entire community. And that is the

[1:32:58] fill workforce housing like that proposed for the site as well as the now completely filled engine

[1:33:05] house workforce housing. This proposed location isn't just a site for housing, it represents a

[1:33:11] strategic answer to sprawl. By placing workforce housing centrally, we reduce the daily reliance

[1:33:18] on our 248 and 244 corridors. We aren't just building units, we're removing vehicle trips from

[1:33:24] roads every single morning and afternoon. This is the definition of smart fiscal responsibility,

[1:33:31] maximizing the utility of existing infrastructure rather than paving over open space elsewhere.

[1:33:39] Furthermore, deed restricted housing generates the year-round occupancy that provides steady,

[1:33:44] predictable foot traffic in places like Old Town at precisely the time when the community is

[1:33:48] with how to bring vitality back to mainstream workforce housing just a small part of the overall

[1:33:55] mixed use development creates essential opportunity in a climate where nearly half of

[1:33:59] park cities housing stock operates as short-term rentals artificially inflating costs based on

[1:34:06] visitor affordability rather than local wages. A wonderful previous park city leader famously

[1:34:13] reminded us that if you're lucky enough to live in proximity to that key enough and I feel that

[1:34:19] gratitude about living in this place every day. But you are responsibility as well as councils,

[1:34:25] your charge, our responsibility is to ensure that the next generation has that same opportunity.

[1:34:31] By supporting this development, you are protecting the character of Park City. By ensuring it

[1:34:37] remains a place for families, workers and long-term residents to build a life. Thank you for

[1:34:43] your time, your wisdom, and your service tonight. Thank you for your comments.

[1:34:51] Sharon, any hands online? There's a knock. Great. Thank you.

[1:34:56] I'm good evening. My name is Lauren Cole and I'm here on behalf of Blosset Advocates for

[1:35:01] Livable Communities or Walk. We are Utah's first statewide pro housing nonprofit. We work across

[1:35:07] the Blosset region including in Park City to advance policies and projects that will create

[1:35:12] more home choices of all sheep's and sizes that all of our neighbors can afford. Housing

[1:35:17] opportunity is community opportunity. When people can afford to live close to their jobs, schools,

[1:35:22] and daily needs, everyone benefits. Employers keep their workforce, commute, shrink, and community

[1:35:28] state economically resilient. Walks submitted a letter of support for the Phi Baker site proposal

[1:35:34] and I'm here tonight to reiterate that support. This project will house the workforce that keeps

[1:35:39] community running. Beyond housing, the proposal brings a genuine neighborhood center with commercial,

[1:35:45] retail, and community serving space, a childcare facility and public gathering areas. We're glad

[1:35:50] to see this is seen ability commitments in this project. It has an all electric design compliance

[1:35:56] with 2026 enterprise green community standards, high efficiency heat pumps in an active investigation

[1:36:02] into geothermal for the site that's a really forward-looking approach to development.

[1:36:08] On parking, we would encourage the commission to hold the line closer to what's required

[1:36:12] under the code. Access parking was the one area where this project didn't score as well in our own

[1:36:17] evaluation. It adds costs and works against the transit and walkability oriented goals this site

[1:36:22] is otherwise achieving. And on building height, we would ask the commission to weigh it in context.

[1:36:27] These buildings are set back from the road and the added height appears tied to preserving

[1:36:31] open space and enabling affordability not to increase overall project intensity for the sake of

[1:36:37] doing so. We respectfully urge the commission to continue advance in this application. Thank you

[1:36:41] for your time. Thank you for your comments.

[1:36:48] All right. We have so the pink shirt in the back

[1:36:53] that's going to be the end of our public comments for this evening. There will be further chances to

[1:36:58] comment and we can always take written comments, but we'll end it there for this evening. We also now

[1:37:04] have hands raised.

[1:37:07] All right.

[1:37:08] We'll take this, so then we'll take it online.

[1:37:10] Hi, thank you for your time.

[1:37:12] My name is Marjorie Ellis, and I live in 8406.0.

[1:37:16] As a homeowner and taxpayer and parkman is,

[1:37:19] I'm opposed to the current plan to pose to five acres.

[1:37:22] The height limit seems to be out of code

[1:37:24] and block our mountain views.

[1:37:25] As I understand, the previous double tree hotel

[1:37:28] was denied adding extra.

[1:37:30] Aye, so why does this project get a several more feet over the current rule? Rules should be rules for everyone. It's not a

[1:37:37] give use of tax money to give the developer $40 million, as well as our city paying to clean up

[1:37:42] the dirt and then leasing back to the developer at $1 per year for 100 years. Then why does the

[1:37:49] developer also get to collect the tax rent? This doesn't seem like a good deal to the payers and

[1:37:54] of it. The car in trash injection, congestion, would heighten the already overburden traffic

[1:38:00] with around 280 extra car parking spots. If I as a resident and being encouraged to take public

[1:38:06] transit or ride my bike, why is this project proposing so much parking? From the grid it looks like

[1:38:12] it's being proposed to have 77 parking spots for a donut and coffee shop. Can the shop even fit 77

[1:38:19] people and look at the shops in the area. They don't seem to have that allocated. These residents

[1:38:25] and workers should be encouraged and mandated to use public transit or bike as well. I'm already

[1:38:31] afraid to bike in the area with the extra cars trying to turn and make the green light if there

[1:38:36] is even a green light that they can make. The citizens did not vote in this plan and most do not

[1:38:41] want this corrupt plan. This project was proposed as a park and art center not a high-rise residential

[1:38:47] community. Once again, I thank you for your time, but I do not see the benefits to the local

[1:38:52] taxpayers. Please revise the plans. Thank you. I'll go ahead and take an online comment from

[1:38:59] soon.

[1:39:02] Kelly G, you have been promoted. Please accept promotion and unmute yourself.

[1:39:07] And then, Jared, we'll take the hands that are raised right now, but no additional ones. Okay.

[1:39:11] There's just one other one. Great. Thank you.

[1:39:16] Please unmute yourself, Kelly, and set your full name for the record.

[1:39:21] Hi, this is Kelly Gallagher. Can you hear me?

[1:39:23] We can. Thank you so much for taking online input tonight.

[1:39:28] I'm in 84098.

[1:39:30] And I would like to stick my support for the current development project for the five acre parcel.

[1:39:36] This plan, well, it's not perfect. It contains the elements that we're considered to be important by locals.

[1:39:41] through the many, many public input sessions, the City Council meetings and other means of input.

[1:39:48] My reason for supporting the project is that I, I've been a county resident since 1993.

[1:39:54] I'm also an artist of a small business owner, and I believe that a vibrant community needs the elements in this career project.

[1:40:01] I will be very excited to have the opportunity to participate in the activation of the community once it's built.

[1:40:08] I've heard and understood the opinions that more, more park space would be valuable, which is why I joined tonight.

[1:40:15] I just disagree that that's the best use of this property.

[1:40:18] If I want to go to a park, library field and see park are both awesome.

[1:40:22] There's a fabulous park with children's play equipment on current at 248, just before we leave town.

[1:40:28] You know, rail trail, all that good stuff.

[1:40:30] And we have many, many options at Quinn's Junction.

[1:40:32] So, and then we need to keep in mind that this current plant also contains substantial park and open area for people to make use of.

[1:40:42] Park City and some at County have invested in trails, parks and other outdoor recreation through spirit decades.

[1:40:48] And I am a recipient of that and I just love it, but it's now time to focus on the other important facets of a vibrant community.

[1:40:56] And I urge the Planning Commission to help this project move forward. Thank you.

[1:41:00] Thank you for your comments.

[1:41:04] Hi. Hi. My name is Jamie Rubin. I'm in 8406 out. I wasn't going to make any comments tonight,

[1:41:10] but my question wasn't answered. So I would really like to know how child care will be

[1:41:16] efficient and safe. When you drop off a child, you have a car that goes in and a car that goes out.

[1:41:22] They didn't discuss where the child drop off would be as you're going to be in the basement in the

[1:41:26] parking lot where cars are driving all over the place will be on. Excuse me. Currents Boulevard will

[1:41:32] will be on Bananza, will it be in the bus lane?

[1:41:35] These are children we're talking about,

[1:41:37] and I just really feel that the whole project

[1:41:39] hasn't been thought out completely.

[1:41:41] There's a, I've done child drop off and pick up the four.

[1:41:44] It's a lot of cars in a very, very busy intersection.

[1:41:49] That's my one issue.

[1:41:50] And the other is, it's not guaranteed

[1:41:53] that Park City workers will be able to live there.

[1:41:57] Thank you, and thank you for your time.

[1:41:59] Thank you for your comments.

[1:42:01] Hi. My name is Beti Wallace. I work in A4Z work. I live in A4Z or 60. Sorry. And I appreciate your time tonight.

[1:42:17] I first want to make sure we understand how many people here are really coming in to ask for this plan to be rejected at this point in time.

[1:42:25] So I'm going to turn around and just ask, sorry. That's not I'm sorry. That's not. We're going to do that. You can give your comments.

[1:42:32] That's what we're not taking.

[1:42:34] I didn't know, but it's okay.

[1:42:37] Thank you.

[1:42:37] Yeah, no worries.

[1:42:38] Thanks for bringing up.

[1:42:40] So with that being said, I'm going to focus on height

[1:42:42] and I'm going to focus on traffic as we've heard before.

[1:42:46] I worked with some film festival and sentence.

[1:42:49] Institute always part of the original plan

[1:42:51] when it was going to be more of a arts and culture

[1:42:54] district and so the percentage of the total

[1:42:56] for that piece of property for art and culture

[1:42:58] was significantly more than it is now.

[1:43:01] Right now, if I look at 180,

[1:43:02] 185,000 square feet available and being being the ground level density, and I look at the

[1:43:09] 8,000 square feet assigned to art and culture. It's around 3%. So it's there, but it's definitely

[1:43:15] not at all the proponent of to why we approve this way back when. I think the second piece I want to

[1:43:22] bring up is when you look at traffic, there's so many different pieces of traffic that

[1:43:26] I'm sure you've thought about, but I don't think it was raised tonight, which is as people come in,

[1:43:31] There are two or three or four other curb cuts that affect Benanza.

[1:43:36] It is on the other side of the street. So it's the curb cuts affecting Elberto's

[1:43:40] Sami's trying to get in and out. That cross street that comes down

[1:43:46] prospector Avenue trying to come across the street. That will just get obviously more and more congested

[1:43:53] as we try to get through that whole area. And of course, some people know that I call it the

[1:43:58] And I think it's going to be a different word after we get through it all.

[1:44:03] The next piece is, as people come through going south on Benanza and we have that pull out,

[1:44:11] I guess you might want to call it, for the buses, is that where we will have trucks and delivery trucks,

[1:44:18] including FedEx, beverage trucks, food trucks to support the different restaurants if there's more than one.

[1:44:26] Where does that get taken in consideration, because that will just increase the traffic along that route?

[1:44:34] Again, thinking about what that first bullet point was on the screen, talking about no

[1:44:38] left-hand turns, open-hands or a current. I'm not sure if that really meant at the corner of

[1:44:45] Benanza and current, so you couldn't come down current, turn left onto Benanza, so you'd have to go down

[1:44:56] around, so coming off of Benand at trying to turn left on current.

[1:45:00] And what does that really mean? So that comment, I don't know if we solved or talked about one aspect of that, or you saying that all left hand concerns off affecting banana incurrence will be managed through this traffic. So we'd love to understand that.

[1:45:15] And then I'm going to go back to the open space, the open space as you put in underground parking, there's definitely needs for clean air and how does the clean air get down into the parking.

[1:45:27] So in many instances, you see these big turbines or turbines that are going to share.

[1:45:34] Does that go through the park? And so that's going to pull apart a little bit of the

[1:45:38] park aspect. So when we talk about, if you could please contact the comments up.

[1:45:42] Yeah, 35 feet or 45 feet or 45 feet up to 55 feet, we already saw being denied before.

[1:45:47] So I'm not sure what is different about this space and how we're saying,

[1:45:50] oh, we should be able to prove it. So I would love for you guys to think about that traffic.

[1:45:54] And then really what's going to go into the open space or green space.

[1:45:59] So thank you.

[1:46:01] Thank you, fair comments.

[1:46:10] Don't start my time yet.

[1:46:17] A lot of new faces in this community.

[1:46:20] And I happen to be one of the older ones.

[1:46:21] I'm Jack Thomas.

[1:46:23] I happen to have the same experience that you're all suffering through the night.

[1:46:27] I was on the planning commission for eight years.

[1:46:30] I remember some faces one face as I look into the monitor over there.

[1:46:35] And thank you for your service.

[1:46:37] I know that Planet Commission is an

[1:46:40] arduous process, long evenings, long days,

[1:46:43] sometimes projects go on for decades.

[1:46:46] As in Treasure Hill, we looked at Treasure Hill for

[1:46:51] the eight years I was on Planet Commission

[1:46:53] and four years while I was mayor.

[1:46:55] And I took a fat long to resolve it and deal with it.

[1:46:59] So I think this endeavor you're looking at needs time.

[1:47:04] I'm not excited about the mass form scale of the project.

[1:47:08] I thought I'd mention a little bit about how the arts of culture came about,

[1:47:11] because I was with another person when we came up with the concept.

[1:47:16] And that was Bob Redford.

[1:47:17] And he had a passion for small towns.

[1:47:20] He had a passion for Park City.

[1:47:22] He thought it could be more than just another resort town.

[1:47:27] And I happened to agree with him.

[1:47:30] While I was mayor, we had this amazing opportunity to see this land that we're talking about today as the arts culture district become available.

[1:47:41] And through the brilliance of some of the staff, including Mark Harrington and Nate Rockwood, we managed to create the 1% resort sales tax and apply the property.

[1:47:52] But when we moved to the community and got our input to the community and from the community,

[1:47:59] we emphasized the fact that it was an arts and culture district.

[1:48:05] I don't see that in the plan today.

[1:48:06] I think you suffered a find it in this plan.

[1:48:09] If it's that small building that sits inside the perimeter of building masses, that ain't it.

[1:48:17] I mean, it's a pathetic plan.

[1:48:19] And I think you should seriously consider walking away from it or reevaluating.

[1:48:25] I think you should seriously consider looking at the original master plan development done by

[1:48:30] Lake and Fleto.

[1:48:31] I thought they did a great job.

[1:48:33] They respected the gateway to the community.

[1:48:35] The impact it would have aesthetically and visually on people coming into town.

[1:48:40] And this does not do that.

[1:48:42] What we see from a perspective is walls of buildings on Bananza and Curns and I think it's it's a overall warming scale and has none of the character none of the amenities none of the purpose that I think we started with.

[1:48:59] It's an opportunity to do something on the most important land we have in this community.

[1:49:05] And so let's get it right even if it takes stepping back

[1:49:09] on evaluating the mass in the scale and taking another look at those original plans.

[1:49:14] Other than that, thank you for your time.

[1:49:18] I've offered up my input periodically over the last eight years.

[1:49:23] I've welcomed people to come and see our town in Bentonville

[1:49:26] and see the difference it's made.

[1:49:28] It's all of the things that I wanted Park City to be.

[1:49:31] So I know it's physically possible, I know we can do that with the right effort and so I got the ding-dong

[1:49:40] Which I don't think I ever applied the ding-dong when I was mayor, but I'll move on and leave time for someone else

[1:49:47] So thank you.

[1:49:48] Thank you for your comments.

[1:49:49] Please don't apply it or cheer.

[1:49:54] Sharon, do we have more comments online?

[1:49:58] Yes.

[1:50:02] Do you want me to promote?

[1:50:03] Yeah. Go ahead. And Kaiser, you have been promoted. Please accept the promotion.

[1:50:14] Please unmute yourself and state your full name for the record.

[1:50:28] You are currently still muted.

[1:50:38] No, look. No. Okay. We'll stick in chambers. Go ahead. Yes. Yeah. Good evening, commissioners and staff. Hello. Oh, sorry.

[1:50:50] We'll jump back to you in just a second online hold on. Go ahead and chambers.

[1:50:57] Okay. I'm Rich Wyman and I live in 8406. I am the performing artist and I've been a

[1:51:05] Park City resident for 35 years and I'm not in favor of this project as a currently stance. It

[1:51:12] is too big, too dense, too tall and importantly, I believe

[1:51:15] it lacks the creativity and imagination

[1:51:18] that this extraordinary piece of publicly owned land

[1:51:21] deserves.

[1:51:21] And I ask you to take the time to redesign it.

[1:51:25] I also believe we should return to the reason Park City

[1:51:28] bought these 5.25 acres in the first place.

[1:51:31] In 2017, the city's own announcement was titled,

[1:51:36] Park City secures 5.25 acres to create city's first dedicated

[1:51:40] arts and culture district. That's what I support, an arts and culture district, heavy on the arts.

[1:51:48] The Planning Commission, you, have an important opportunity right now. The City Council vote

[1:51:53] to move this proposal forward was forward a one. Council member Tannitoli voted no.

[1:52:00] Calling for less housing in the larger arts community. Council member Diego Sagarra voted yes,

[1:52:06] specifically asked for greater consideration of the arts as the project moves forward.

[1:52:12] So this is exactly the time to make meaningful changes.

[1:52:17] If you look at Breckenridge, another historic mountain town, they created an arts culture district,

[1:52:24] with working studios, workshops, performance spaces, public art, artist residences and communities.

[1:52:30] Egladuring's per places. If you look at Bentonville, Arkansas, we're an old factory was transformed

[1:52:35] into a vibrant center for visual and performing arts, music, festivals and public gathering places.

[1:52:42] We can do that here, and we can do it better. Imagine these 5.25 acres with fewer and smaller buildings.

[1:52:50] Beautiful public spaces, affordable artists, studios, rehearsal rooms, classrooms, recording spaces,

[1:52:56] and indoor and outdoor performance spaces, and especially places for our young people.

[1:53:02] Young people in Park City need somewhere.

[1:53:05] They can study, practice, create, and actually do their art, whatever inspires them.

[1:53:11] Park City needs to provide that now.

[1:53:13] With Sundance leaving and the Kimball Arts Center relocating to Kimball Junction,

[1:53:17] a permanent home for all of the arts is more important now than ever.

[1:53:23] I also want to be clear about affordable housing.

[1:53:25] A strongly support affordable workforce housing, my objection is not to affordable housing.

[1:53:31] My objection is to this design, this density, and putting this much housing on this particular 5.25 acres.

[1:53:39] We need affordable housing, and we need arts and culture.

[1:53:43] And we can address our housing needs without sacrificing the extraordinary opportunity for arts and culture.

[1:53:49] This is publicly on land, we do not have to maximize every square foot.

[1:53:56] We have the opportunity to create something extraordinary.

[1:53:59] So please reconsider and redesign.

[1:54:03] Less density, fewer buildings, lower buildings, more open space, more creativity.

[1:54:08] More imagination, and most importantly, much, much, much more art.

[1:54:12] Park City bought this land to create its first dedicated arts and culture district.

[1:54:16] We have the opportunity to fulfill that vision, please don't let it get away.

[1:54:21] Thank you.

[1:54:21] Thank you for your comments.

[1:54:24] Well, hot online.

[1:54:27] Yeah.

[1:54:28] Yeah.

[1:54:28] Go ahead.

[1:54:30] Hi.

[1:54:30] This is Donald Kaiser.

[1:54:32] Eight, eight, four, six, oh.

[1:54:35] Just quick comment.

[1:54:37] Thank you to the committee.

[1:54:38] I recognize that no good D goes unpunished.

[1:54:42] But I'd like to discuss across the street.

[1:54:45] From Alberto Sassamis, you've got multiple existing commercial enterprises and commercial properties.

[1:54:54] The development will negatively impact these interests in important ways.

[1:55:00] Number one, their longtime taxpayers.

[1:55:03] This will create competition and negatively affect the fact that cannibalized tax revenues.

[1:55:09] Number two, parking spaces will be poached by new residents and commercial customers of the new development.

[1:55:18] Even if the underground parking were entirely free, this will still happen. Humans are lazy.

[1:55:25] This will also hurt the patrons of these businesses.

[1:55:29] Making an experience they will have become inclined to go elsewhere.

[1:55:36] So, that's it. Thank you very much.

[1:55:39] Thank you for your comments.

[1:55:43] Good evening.

[1:55:44] My name is Jocelyn Skutter.

[1:55:45] I am the Executive Director of the Arts Council

[1:55:47] for Park City and Summit County,

[1:55:49] and I'm also a resident of 860 living in Old Town.

[1:55:53] And I'm here tonight to express my support

[1:55:56] for developing the five acre bins of parcel

[1:55:58] as a mixed youth community development.

[1:56:01] And I'm so glad I've already had some arts advocates come up in front of me

[1:56:05] So I don't want to be too redundant.

[1:56:06] I know we're here for a long time.

[1:56:09] Us, our people have been here since 2017,

[1:56:11] talking about a potential arts and culture district.

[1:56:14] So this has been a long road.

[1:56:17] And I want to, I understand that there's also some opposition,

[1:56:20] people wanting a park in this area.

[1:56:24] And I understand that.

[1:56:26] We all live love our natural environment here.

[1:56:28] But I also think it's important to ground us.

[1:56:30] And so glad Jack Thomas was up here to talk about how

[1:56:33] came to be, you know, when the city bought the parcel in 2017, the utilized the TRT tax,

[1:56:39] the transit room tax, the hotel tax, so it's taxing visitors to create this amazing opportunity.

[1:56:46] And so I think it's important to remember that I believe that this should be built, and there

[1:56:51] should be brick and mortar, and it should be a community asset in that way to also support the

[1:56:55] hoteliers that are supporting this investment. And so I just, I wanted to make sure that we

[1:57:02] remember the true funding mechanism of this project, you know, I think it felt so important to

[1:57:09] have ground ourselves. I don't think this is a discussion of development versus open space

[1:57:14] necessarily. I think it's it's truly about community benefit, right? What what is going to be

[1:57:19] additive to our community? What are we, what are we lacking? And what are the needs? And I believe

[1:57:25] affordability and arts and culture spaces are two of really critical needs in this community.

[1:57:31] we just approved in January, and that's in culture master plan with Park City Council,

[1:57:36] we're so excited to implement that. There are elements of this plan that help, you know,

[1:57:43] that have arts and culture spaces to be transparent. The arts council, we have talked to

[1:57:49] Brindron, GTS about potentially being a tenant there, bringing great PC programming there,

[1:57:54] housing over 100 artists, local artists to sell their work and to creatively activate the space.

[1:58:00] But, you know, I believe that since, you know, housing affordability and arts and culture are big needs, I think that there is opportunity for this parcel to meaningfully address both of those.

[1:58:14] So, I think I'm totally going off script here because so much was set ahead of me.

[1:58:20] But again, I just, I want to frame this an opportunity community benefit.

[1:58:23] What are we lacking in this community? And I think this is an amazing opportunity to

[1:58:28] To build something wonderful. So thank you. Thank you for your comments

[1:58:36] So if there's anyone hopping in line at this point, we're gonna cut off the line for comment

[1:58:42] Just I don't know if there's anyone jumping in behind, but I can't see but we're gonna stop

[1:58:47] People will have plenty more not plenty. We'll have more chances and you can always submit online comment

[1:58:54] Good evening, Jason Glidden, 84098, but Executive Director of Mountlands Community Housing Trust.

[1:59:03] And I had several pages to talk about affordable housing and the importance of it.

[1:59:06] But I don't really need to.

[1:59:07] I think it's been done already tonight and it did a really great job of doing that.

[1:59:11] So I'll actually do what the chair asked was, let's keep it a way of management code.

[1:59:15] And so I am here to support the project.

[1:59:18] I think that the applicant has done a great job

[1:59:20] of continuing to refine the project

[1:59:23] at the request of the planning commissioners here.

[1:59:27] A few things that, you know, I have to applaud them

[1:59:31] and continue to meet or exceed, you know,

[1:59:33] affordable housing, the open space.

[1:59:35] Little work on the parking, but I think other things

[1:59:37] that we may want to just look at, you know, the height.

[1:59:41] I know that's a big issue,

[1:59:42] and I think that we can continue to talk about it

[1:59:45] and they can continue to bring options

[1:59:46] like they've brought tonight. We'll find a solution that we can meet and hopefully continue

[1:59:52] to move this project forward. We're guarding traffic in the circulation. I don't know if

[1:59:58] it would work or not, but I'd like to try and push.

[2:00:00] Or of the entrance towards the munchkin and not allowing an off-of-currents or a bananza. And then having those be more just exit only, might help with some of that circulation as well.

[2:00:11] So, but again, I just want to speak and support this project. I want to have the community to keep talking about this.

[2:00:19] We're allowed, you know, as the applicants allowed to ask for exceptions. And in fact, you're discretion to whether or not these exceptions get allowed or not.

[2:00:27] And a lot of that is judged on the benefit of the risk

[2:00:31] received through these exceptions.

[2:00:34] And when you talk about affordable housing,

[2:00:36] arts and culture, you talk about daycare,

[2:00:38] you're talking about all the things that are so high up

[2:00:40] on our list of things that need to be addressed here

[2:00:42] in Park City.

[2:00:45] You know, we talked about, you know,

[2:00:46] we're talked about young people coming to enjoy it.

[2:00:48] You're not going to have young people.

[2:00:49] We do not start to create more affordable housing

[2:00:52] in this community, okay?

[2:00:54] The healthcare, we talked about the great healthcare.

[2:00:56] you're not going to continue to have great health care unless you have affordable housing

[2:00:59] and workforce housing to support those people that work there and take care of it every

[2:01:04] single day. So thank you so much for your comments. Allow me to tell you.

[2:01:08] Thanks for your comments.

[2:01:15] My name is Kendall Kelly. I work in April, 6 o'clock. I'm actually just

[2:01:20] going to say my public comment is that I am in support of this project. I'm actually going to say

[2:01:24] no more and submit my comment online because of the additional people that join the line behind me.

[2:01:29] And so that is all I have to say.

[2:01:31] Thank you so much.

[2:01:32] Thank you for coming.

[2:01:33] It's the look forward to seeing them.

[2:01:41] I'm Wendy Petersen and I'm at 8406 so and I wasn't going to speak either.

[2:01:47] Because I was hoping to like it all but I don't.

[2:01:50] I live in the area and I've been in Park City for 38 years and I've dealt with all kinds

[2:01:56] of traffic on Bananza through that time frame coming down Dear Valley Drive connecting to Bananza

[2:02:02] to get to the high school for the kids and the other schools and to get to the mark to play tennis

[2:02:07] and to go to some dance movies and all that. And I've had to talk about it.

[2:02:13] If you could hold on one second, excuse me guys, sorry. I know that it's really hard for us to hear.

[2:02:18] So if you keep conversations in the audience down or out, yeah, or let them know as I,

[2:02:24] I'm not trying to be mean if you're sitting up here, it all comes back at us and it's super hard to hear.

[2:02:28] Okay, sorry about that. I'm just kind of horrified when I saw the little driveways coming out of the lower garages on this this project and going right and left and thinking about how they're going to take a right, but they need to go left and they're going to go around some other neighborhood or around some other thing or going to the car wash and come back out of the car wash.

[2:02:53] like they could get on 40 and go to heaver. I mean, I'm sorry, it's a disaster. I'm

[2:02:59] bananza as it is now. We have, there's a lot of people that come into town to work on construction

[2:03:06] and homes and thank goodness for all that, but it is hard. I mean, I plan my day around traffic and

[2:03:15] I left Chicago 38 years ago to not have that. And I can't imagine 200 and 8 cars.

[2:03:23] coming in and out of those driveways.

[2:03:25] I mean, honestly, when Sundance had a night movie on a Friday night,

[2:03:30] you should have seen me trying to get somewhere.

[2:03:33] I was on every road behind Albert Sons view.

[2:03:36] I'm right-aid going this and that to the Park City Mount Resort

[2:03:39] to get back out a different way.

[2:03:41] I don't want to live like that.

[2:03:43] I'm getting old now.

[2:03:44] I want it to be easier.

[2:03:46] So I'm sorry.

[2:03:46] I know it's not all about me.

[2:03:48] I am.

[2:03:49] I also agree with those that say this is supposed to be an art center

[2:03:53] in our district culture. I've been looking forward to that for 10 years. I really have. I thought this would be great.

[2:04:00] I always volunteered for Sundance. I volunteered for Kimball Arts Center. I thought I could really be a part of it now.

[2:04:06] It's even closer to where I live. And that's not happening. I am four affordable housing big time truly.

[2:04:13] I like what's been done over there. The fire engine or engine departments.

[2:04:18] And I think there's places for and there's even places for them in this development just not to the extent they are.

[2:04:25] I don't agree with the height.

[2:04:28] You know, and also somebody, one person mentioned, there should be something in there for kids.

[2:04:33] You know, kids get out of school, they're middle school kids.

[2:04:36] They don't have a lot of places to go.

[2:04:39] And so it doesn't have to be a giant park.

[2:04:41] I like the open space idea.

[2:04:42] I like arts and culture and a little less height,

[2:04:47] and I really appreciate you all for listening to me.

[2:04:52] Thank you for your comments.

[2:05:07] Well, hi, thank you.

[2:05:08] I came to Park City 14 years ago,

[2:05:10] and I live on Prospector Avenue with which

[2:05:13] we would make this development right in my eyesight

[2:05:17] lines to the front me, to the mountain.

[2:05:20] I bought in this area because I appreciated Park City's height

[2:05:25] restrictions. At the time that we're 35, 40 feet, we've already made an exception. When will it end?

[2:05:33] When are we going to now say, Oh, well, now this guy's got 40 feet. Now let's give this one 55. How about 65?

[2:05:40] And you know, at the very, very beginning of this presentation, they mentioned 65 feet. It was never mentioned again,

[2:05:47] but it was mentioned in the last time the meeting was here. And where is the 65 foot building? And where is that wall?

[2:05:54] I agree with Jack. It's going to be a wall on Benanza. And that is not the development I thought I was moving into. I totally supported the arts and cultural district. It was supposed to diversify Park City. Give us more of a summer time. Have a little bit more of a diversity in what we in people we attract in your round attraction. I would love to see us go back to arts and culture. I'm not against affordable housing. I think I think the formula we use for affordable housing.

[2:06:24] possible housing makes the affordable housing not affordable for most people. But I do think there's other properties that would be more suited than this one diamond that we have right in the center of of of town and why would we do this. Why are we looking to make the developer make more money lower the height of the buildings have less units.

[2:06:48] make them smaller. We don't have to have nine foot ceilings. I don't have nine foot ceilings.

[2:06:53] Most people I know don't have nine foot ceilings. That is not a requirement.

[2:06:58] And then how are we going to, how are we going or how are they going to control the mind

[2:07:03] telling dust? I mean, that was one of the things that killed the arts and cultural district

[2:07:09] was the fact that all that dirt had to go down to dwell. How is that going to happen in this

[2:07:15] development. I mean they're going down in for underground garage. All that dirt's got to come out and

[2:07:21] go somewhere.

[2:07:23] I kind of feel that since the city kind of brought them in, it's almost the conflict

[2:07:28] of interest that you guys have.

[2:07:30] Pre-selected who you want to do this project, and us as individuals who live in the area, have to deal with the ISOA that's being built.

[2:07:40] I think there's a lot better things that could be done on this property. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

[2:07:50] My name is Peter Yugman. I'm in the 806 and I just want to kind of shift the comments.

[2:07:58] I really don't understand your portfolio. If your portfolio is about a specific project

[2:08:04] and heights and setbacks and traffic, your job is important, but frankly, it sounds pretty boring.

[2:08:12] There's a big picture and I don't know how much you get into advising the council on the big picture.

[2:08:19] So we all think affordable housing is important. It's important nationally, not just in Park City.

[2:08:25] If I look at the 19.5 million plus the 40 million and I don't believe the 40 million,

[2:08:30] because like the woman just mentioned, we're going to take substantial soil risk.

[2:08:35] We're at $676,000 per affordable unit.

[2:08:39] That's what we're subsidizing.

[2:08:41] I don't think you're subsidizing the commercial aspect

[2:08:43] of this project.

[2:08:44] Here's what I can buy you for $676,000.

[2:08:49] Within the 30 mile radius of Park City,

[2:08:51] I can't get you without a mortgage.

[2:08:53] A three-bedroom home with a yard.

[2:08:56] I can put into your garage a full self-driving

[2:08:59] Tesla Model 3, and I can pay for your charging

[2:09:02] for the life of the car.

[2:09:04] Are you sure that this is the right long-term strategy for affordable housing?

[2:09:09] You know, we look at, I think Molly Miller at the council meeting said,

[2:09:13] we need 860 more affordable units.

[2:09:17] And that's just through 2032.

[2:09:20] If I take, you need to come up with a number of what our subsidy cost is going to be per unit.

[2:09:26] Is it 100,000?

[2:09:28] Is it 600,000?

[2:09:30] We're pretty soon going to get to half a billion dollars to build the affordable housing that you want to build.

[2:09:38] So we, as a planning commission, as a community, need to think more broadly about how we saw this issue

[2:09:45] in the fiscal irresponsible manner. Because right now, we really don't have a plan.

[2:09:51] It seems like a plan is to chase every shiny object that shows up on your desk

[2:09:55] without looking at the broader bigger picture of what we're really going to do long-term over

[2:10:01] the next 10 years. So that's really what I want you to focus on. Because there's a lot of

[2:10:06] other uses for this property. There's things that could really benefit the community. I think people

[2:10:11] have talked about arts. I think some other ideas are things that would actually benefit the hotels

[2:10:16] and restaurants in this town. We don't have a good convention trade show space. I mean, we could

[2:10:22] have one fairly large building to a three stories and we could solve that problem of the shoulder

[2:10:30] seasons for our restaurants and our hotels and do something that they're actually collecting

[2:10:35] all the taxes for instead of just building affordable affordable housing. So I think you need

[2:10:45] to really take a look at the bigger picture and put this into a much broader context and advise

[2:10:51] Council appropriately. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

[2:11:09] Hello, council. Excuse me. Hello, commissioners. Thank you very much.

[2:11:15] My name is Jimmy May. I live in Park City 84060. I object

[2:11:19] to the Brinsure proposal for several reasons, traffic, green space,

[2:11:24] height, offset and FBZ and expense.

[2:11:29] Traffic. I'll let me know in the comments to the Brinsure

[2:11:30] study. The study I saw was a snapshot.

[2:11:33] One day, during my season, post- skis season before the tourist season.

[2:11:43] We reject the notion that as many people state that this proposal will mitigate traffic

[2:11:50] in the area, green space.

[2:11:52] We're having trouble determining how much usable green space there is.

[2:11:55] I saw some diagrams tonight that were clearer than others that I have seen, but many of

[2:12:01] renderings have been confusing and even misleading. Some show a lot of green, whereas many others

[2:12:08] show much of that green is actually concrete. In the public private park, we'll have enough green

[2:12:16] space really to throw a frisbee without tripping over a ventilation grate on and are there any

[2:12:24] guarantees of the same thing that happened at the Indian House. We're a stroke of a diminished

[2:12:30] which is Frater's pen, reduced a soccer field to a stroke

[2:12:35] to drainage ditch.

[2:12:37] How do we know that's not gonna happen here?

[2:12:40] Most of all, I object to the zoning variances,

[2:12:43] the area of frontal protection zone must not be compromised.

[2:12:48] Please, peace, peace zone documentation,

[2:12:50] I am here, peace, or an answer park, is mixed use.

[2:12:54] I support mixed use, and by the way,

[2:12:56] I support affordable housing.

[2:12:59] This document states, in bold, quote,

[2:13:03] in sure that Park City's entry corridors remain scenic

[2:13:07] and awe-inspiring.

[2:13:10] The current proposal is anything but.

[2:13:15] It includes the document includes a section for quote,

[2:13:18] establishing a density bonus.

[2:13:20] I am not going to read the letting of qualifiers,

[2:13:23] but I will state here that many of these are things

[2:13:27] that we would ask for even expect from a developer,

[2:13:31] developing a gem, such as Vanessa Park.

[2:13:35] As I understand it, granting this so-called bonus

[2:13:38] is discretionary.

[2:13:40] This combination of variances has never been exercised

[2:13:42] to my knowledge.

[2:13:44] Commission, please, do not do so.

[2:13:48] Doing so, we will create a dangerous precedent,

[2:13:52] especially on public property.

[2:13:56] Based on what we know so far, speaking of bonuses,

[2:14:00] Brinshore is already receiving at least 62 million dollars.

[2:14:07] And that's called in bonuses.

[2:14:11] And that's what we know of.

[2:14:13] That's before cost overruns.

[2:14:15] This is...

[2:14:15] I think that your comments at this.

[2:14:16] This is a $100,000 free unit,

[2:14:18] $200,000 half a million.

[2:14:20] As Peter stated,

[2:14:21] these so-called affordable units are affordable

[2:14:24] at over $700,000 free unit.

[2:14:26] Why isn't Brinshore paying...

[2:14:28] us to develop this property. Commissioners, I urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you.

[2:14:36] Thank you for your comments. All right. We're going to go ahead and continue the public hearing for a next meeting.

[2:14:43] You will have more opportunities to comment at any time.

[2:14:45] You can submit comments to planning at parkcity.gov.

[2:14:49] So we'll go ahead and continue the public hearing for this evening and turn back to the commissioners and the staff.

[2:15:00] All right, do you want to pull up your questions? Perfect. And then let's start. Actually, we'll go piece by piece. So commissioners, if you guys want to just, we'll start with, hi, are we going to go through all each of the topics for tonight, Alec? With questions or yeah, we have questions for building heights of P.C.

[2:15:22] and traffic and then still sustainability. Okay. So then let's, we'll do it by that. If you guys want, we're going to go kind of about each section. We can kind of sum up.

[2:15:32] People's comments and then yeah, do we need to take okay we'll take just a five like literally five minutes so we can keep rolling so we're going to take a five minute break and we'll return

[2:15:44] at

[2:15:46] 51

[2:23:18] Madam,

[2:23:24] Matt, Madam, are you guys with us? If not, if you can hear me come on back.

[2:23:30] Yes. Hey, Matt. Hi. And we have Adam and Rebecca said to have this out of that, my.

[2:23:37] Okay, Mark, pairing to city attorney here in town to build join us momentarily, but we'll go ahead and reconvene the August 12th

[2:23:44] planning commission meeting as we jump into commissioner comments for item 5A and we're going to begin with

[2:23:52] building heights. Does anyone have specific things they want to talk about? Or are we okay to jump in

[2:23:59] with questions and kind of respond to these questions as our guide?

[2:24:06] No specific comments?

[2:24:07] All right, we'll just jump in due questions then, Alex.

[2:24:13] Great. So the first question is the planning

[2:24:14] commission have the information needed to determine whether the applicant has met the six criteria

[2:24:19] for a building height exception?

[2:24:25] Jump in first.

[2:24:30] I'll jump in. I'll jump in. It's real quick in

[2:24:31] I appreciate the way staff put this together to kind of step through each one of those elements.

[2:24:37] That was really good to do that, you know, as for the code.

[2:24:41] So I appreciate that work, and that became sort of much clearer to me on how you guys were coming out at each one of those six.

[2:24:48] So that was good. Thanks.

[2:24:53] This commissioner, Frank Terrell.

[2:24:56] Oh, I'll comment.

[2:25:00] Is the applicant meeting the sixth criteria for building ID exception?

[2:25:04] Most likely, I find 1 through 6 is being met, but does it mean I'm going to grant a high exception?

[2:25:16] That means I may consider giving a high exception. There's a big difference.

[2:25:24] This location is a challenging location, FPZ, and it's our entrance corridor.

[2:25:31] And people enter our town from two different main thoroughfares coming into town in the border on this property.

[2:25:42] So to answer your question, specifically, have they met the building height exception?

[2:25:49] I think your question is not worded properly for a building height exception.

[2:25:55] Have they met the criteria?

[2:25:56] But does it mean the automatically get a height exception? I think you should consider rewarding that question.

[2:26:02] Yeah, maybe to clarify, it does the commission have the information needed to make that evaluation not whether they're there.

[2:26:10] So if there's additional clarification.

[2:26:13] So I read the question.

[2:26:15] We'd like you anyway.

[2:26:16] Apologies.

[2:26:18] I read the question.

[2:26:21] I think you can gather where I'm going.

[2:26:24] Yeah, I don't have any further questions.

[2:26:28] I find most of these are being met.

[2:26:29] I still find the height to be concerning,

[2:26:34] and

[2:26:38] should I offer some comments?

[2:26:40] Yeah.

[2:26:40] Rebecca, at this point?

[2:26:41] Yes, specifically.

[2:26:43] So, the fourth story building that has most of the affordable housing

[2:26:50] is one story too high for me.

[2:26:54] I know there's a lot of benefits to this project.

[2:26:58] open spaces, likely the largest one requiring 30%, they're proposing 60% that's not insignificant,

[2:27:08] that is something I am weighing heavily in favor of the project, however, the height on this busy corner in an FPC,

[2:27:18] even though this one building is set back significantly, it's still for me, that's going to be too tall.

[2:27:24] And I asked the applicant in the last meeting how many buildings rather how many units do you likely need at a minimum to get your light tech funding?

[2:27:34] And I think the answer was around 100.

[2:27:38] And we're just slightly over 100 at this point.

[2:27:42] So if we took that down to three stories, I assume light tech funding would be super challenging or maybe not even existent.

[2:27:49] and this whole project would be very challenged, is my, is my suspicion so this is going to be

[2:27:57] the height is going to be a challenge for me getting comfortable considering providing such a

[2:28:07] thank you.

[2:28:08] Just Commissioner Shand, I, I concur with Commissioner Fontaro, I actually took a fence at this at this first question

[2:28:16] assuming that that the height exception was going to be granted. But now re-reading it, I understand.

[2:28:22] I get it. I think that when you take the six criteria, as when you take the land management code

[2:28:28] and pick it apart, you can check off all the boxes. But as a whole, it doesn't make sense. So even though

[2:28:35] you may have checked off the six criteria to me to echo Commissioner Fontaro, the heights can be

[2:28:46] This is Commissioner Tillson. I would need more information to determine the sixth criteria

[2:28:53] because the 12 12 roof pitches are not going to work. They're too high and you stated tonight

[2:29:02] that you will need to redesign some of the buildings to accommodate a smaller pitch and still

[2:29:10] need criteria number six. So I think I need to see that redesign to evaluate the six criteria

[2:29:21] fully and completely because I will tell you I think the 12 12 pitch will like will not work

[2:29:30] it's way too high it blocks far too much of the ridge line views towards the mountains.

[2:29:37] However,

[2:29:41] a smaller pitch may work better, but the redesign needs to comply with the

[2:29:48] write here as well.

[2:29:58] Matthew, Adam, any...

[2:30:00] Anything outstanding that you guys feel you would need for more information or does everyone feel

[2:30:04] we have what we need. Again, that's interesting, but to make a decision going forward.

[2:30:11] Yeah, I'm happy to expand a little more on what I said previously. The six point test is not a test that you

[2:30:17] do get it. It's a test that we may consider it almost. In some ways, it's a kind of a test for us.

[2:30:23] I think it's clearly satisfied under the code, but that I think then just moves it down the decision path.

[2:30:32] So now we are able to give additional height. The question of should we give it comes into kind of all the other aspects.

[2:30:39] So I kind of don't see this as a, okay, let's approve the height number on. I would look at it more in its totality.

[2:30:44] But I don't think this whole thing is for lay because we can't meet the six point test, which is what would happen.

[2:30:51] So I think we're still moving forward with it,

[2:30:53] but I wouldn't be voting on the hype all by itself.

[2:31:00] Yeah, and I have all the information that I need at this point.

[2:31:04] Great.

[2:31:06] And then we further, so things that we're good for the first question.

[2:31:09] The second question, but we have a commissioner

[2:31:13] Tillson, I would agree with that.

[2:31:15] Some more information on that 412 pitch.

[2:31:17] I think I don't think the flat roofs work at all.

[2:31:22] even from a high standpoint, there are still taller.

[2:31:26] But I think for that 412 pitch can really look like,

[2:31:30] would be helpful in the design elements,

[2:31:33] because I think that will contribute more

[2:31:35] to that variation in the design,

[2:31:38] especially the length of the facade.

[2:31:41] Is there anything else someone else wants from that question

[2:31:46] when we're looking at that new,

[2:31:48] the different roof lines?

[2:31:51] But on that one I suppose I would maybe I'd caution that just because it's lower doesn't

[2:31:59] mean it's better and there's, you know, a section in this six point test that hits the fifth

[2:32:04] one which basically says, well, allow more heights along as you are doing more to get more

[2:32:09] of, you know, variation in the roof line and the 12 by 12 is a much better fit for the historic

[2:32:17] nature of the town, you know, I think within it's a historic district that's kind of where, you know, we generally want to land.

[2:32:23] You know, as I just looked at those pictures and all I've got is a few pictures.

[2:32:26] I mean, from my view, I think the 12 by 12 was actually kind of a better fit for the nature of the town than the 4 by 12.

[2:32:32] It just didn't look like it fit really.

[2:32:36] Now that's not to say that the 12 by 12 is the one we should go for.

[2:32:39] But if I was put those two together, I'd rather something a little bit taller that fit the historic nature of the town

[2:32:45] in terms of facade and silhouette than the full by 12,

[2:32:48] at a grade of flats and non-starter, I think.

[2:32:54] I think my position is, I don't know that any of them

[2:32:58] comply any of the different roof alternatives,

[2:33:03] but I have the information I need to make that decision.

[2:33:06] I just need to look at the code more closely

[2:33:08] and I'll do that,

[2:33:11] but yeah, I don't need anything further.

[2:33:17] anyone else anything additional they need for building heights. Okay. So moving on to

[2:33:26] FPC,

[2:33:29] any additional saving, any additional information that anybody would be

[2:33:34] looking for for buildings two, three and four within the FPC.

[2:33:41] Nothing here from me.

[2:33:44] Nothing for my other. Nothing for nothing for me. Nothing for me. Okay.

[2:33:49] And

[2:33:57] then we have a couple of questions for parking in traffic. First does the planning commission find that the applicant's parking analysis supports the discrimination to increase the required number of upstreet parking spaces?

[2:34:11] Commissioner Shand here, could you applicant discuss the discrepancy between the ITE analysis and Park City Code?

[2:34:19] And there's pretty big discrepancy between the parking requirements.

[2:34:24] And I do have a follow-up question after you.

[2:34:35] Yeah, so are you just asking where the data comes from?

[2:34:38] Well, you're proposing 280 spaces, I believe?

[2:34:41] Second one.

[2:34:42] And the IT says that with the plus 10% 399 stalls are required.

[2:34:50] Is that?

[2:34:54] So the IT also provides time of day usage.

[2:34:59] They collect data for each hour of the day.

[2:35:01] So we plugged that in to a chart throughout the day and it comes down to the

[2:35:09] I believe our last part and said it was made it comes down to 317. Okay, let's take a look at that chart. Can we pull that up?

[2:35:19] You had you had the previous version

[2:35:24] Yeah, I believe it. Yeah, I was probably the time of day parking. Yeah

[2:35:28] You had the one before the last one. I gave you but it kind of shows the same thing.

[2:36:02] I think it was

[2:36:04] that your company submitted. Okay. Yeah, okay. Yeah, she's the next page. Next page.

[2:36:13] There you go.

[2:36:18] Yeah, also that chart right there kind of highlights the different land uses

[2:36:23] and when they're supposed to use during each hour of the day. Yeah, this was this is different

[2:36:27] that one was in our packet. Part of your report. Yeah, so the one in your part should say 317. Yeah.

[2:36:32] Yeah, so that was the last one, which one's correct the three 17 based off of Matthew. Can you pull that up in your report?

[2:36:44] Yeah, it's exhibit

[2:36:47] B or C.

[2:36:51] I can get on that. I can pull up the report.

[2:36:56] Well, I think we all want to take a look at work from it. We have to get a page four of exhibits see

[2:37:23] and while we're looking for that, I'm just I just want to understand I think.

[2:37:26] I think the city code says 208 spaces require

[2:37:30] I urge your providing 280, but we show at least on this report. Yes, that one. That, you know, we're, we're right at 280 for most of the day. In fact, we're there from 8 a.m. or 730 a.m. to 830 p.m. We're pretty much maxed out. And I just wanted to to understand the differences between what the city code is asking for and what you're provided.

[2:37:59] and then this analysis that you're company did.

[2:38:04] Who would they have?

[2:38:05] Oh, no, that's, that's, but yeah.

[2:38:09] Yes, I was here.

[2:38:10] So I just wanted to kind of wrap my head.

[2:38:12] So the city code, I believe, asks for 208 parking spots.

[2:38:18] You're providing 280 as indicated by the red line on the chart.

[2:38:25] Mm-hmm.

[2:38:25] Right, everything, okay.

[2:38:26] And so it just appears that from 730, if I got this right, so there's 6, 730 or so AM to 730 or maybe even 8 o'clock PM, we're right at this 280 line, exactly.

[2:38:44] Okay, and and in your report this says that this does not does not include, this is the baseline.

[2:38:52] It doesn't accommodate for non of that operations.

[2:38:57] You feel an event in there like the, I believe you have an amphitheater in here for 980 seats,

[2:39:05] where in which case 245 additional stalls would be required.

[2:39:09] That's correct.

[2:39:09] And I'm reading this right,

[2:39:15] looking at this chart again,

[2:39:16] we've got the baseline, which is the blue line.

[2:39:19] So that's just residential, I believe.

[2:39:23] Yeah, so 120 spots will be just taken up by the residents.

[2:39:28] So that's 120 cars going in and out during the course of the day.

[2:39:33] And then everything below that,

[2:39:35] hold the park, strip retail plaza, and all the other uses

[2:39:39] will be other vehicles using.

[2:39:41] So essentially, this is what we're adding to the parking and the activity in that area.

[2:39:50] All right.

[2:39:50] Thank you.

[2:39:51] I just wanted to clarify, since we had kind of numbers that that contradicted each other.

[2:39:57] Thank you.

[2:40:05] This commission in front of, I have a question regarding exhibit D, which is the transportation impacts study, TIS.

[2:40:16] I'd like the applicant to confirm what I, what I read in here, which is that this project

[2:40:26] is projected to generate 1238 daily vehicle trips. Is that accurate? Do I have that right?

[2:40:55] At the access points, 1238 new trips, I'm then pulling some pass by trips off the road as

[2:41:02] well.

[2:41:03] I didn't hear the last part.

[2:41:05] It'll be polling some pass by trips off the road as well.

[2:41:08] So there will be more time than the XS points,

[2:41:12] but it'll be polling off of existing trips on the road.

[2:41:19] So like if you're traveling from downtown to the high school,

[2:41:25] and you want to get a coffee, you would already be on the road.

[2:41:29] So you'd pull off and grab a coffee and then get back on the road.

[2:41:32] So you'd already be there.

[2:41:35] So some of those 1238 daily trips will already

[2:41:38] be folks that are on the road.

[2:41:40] The 1238 is Jet News Generation trips.

[2:41:46] And then there's 588 additional trips.

[2:41:50] Additional trips.

[2:41:53] So this project is projected on the study, traffic study,

[2:41:59] to put 1238 new daily vehicles on the road in our busiest intersection, right?

[2:42:10] Near the busiest intersection, yeah. Yeah. And the mitigation strategies that I read

[2:42:18] seen wholly inadequate to handle that. And such as

[2:42:27] the reports suggested that future BIT projects

[2:42:30] could help. Oh sure, but those aren't done yet. They're not built out yet. We don't know for sure

[2:42:38] they're going to happen. It seems like the mitigation strategies are a little bit of a wishlist

[2:42:47] that if BRT works it'll be great and if more bosses get through it'll be great.

[2:42:54] And some of that will happen, you know, admittedly, I understand.

[2:42:59] But but I'm finding the hard

[2:43:00] evidence of the mitigation is not there for me.

[2:43:05] I'm not seeing enough hard mitigation strategies

[2:43:12] being put forth for me to get comfortable

[2:43:15] that as you just acknowledge, there's a hunt

[2:43:18] this 1238 new daily cars being put on the road

[2:43:22] because of this project and the project is required

[2:43:24] to mitigate the traffic impact that's going to create.

[2:43:28] and I find the mitigation strategy has been put forward at this point or lacking for me.

[2:43:34] That's my comment. Thank you.

[2:43:39] I have a related comment. Are there any additional mitigation

[2:43:46] strategies that the applicant is considering or may provide down the road or is our record

[2:43:56] locked here on the mitigation.

[2:44:04] Sorry, well, you repeat that again.

[2:44:06] Are there additional mitigation?

[2:44:11] Potential mitigation strategies that you guys are looking at or what we have is what we have.

[2:44:17] Yeah, so we provided some considerations for mitigations.

[2:44:23] We typically, when we're dealing with the kind of rectangle in Park City where all the traffic is.

[2:44:33] Park City's big bowl is to reduce vehicle traffic and increase transit ridership and multi-modal

[2:44:38] transportation.

[2:44:41] So we understand that. We try to keep our recommendations within that, but we also

[2:44:47] listed a lot of major improvements that could be made at the the four main rectangular intersections

[2:44:55] to increase traffic through put.

[2:45:00] Uh, although that would increase the number of vehicles. So.

[2:45:06] And those mitigation measures include kind of redesigning those intersections, adding lanes, things like that.

[2:45:13] Is that what you're referring to saying? Yeah, widening the roads, adding it to a left turn lanes, stuff like that.

[2:45:21] That's not applicant mitigation. That's mitigation that could occur by the city or you doubt or whatever.

[2:45:27] it's not, it's not applicant-generated. Correct. Okay,

[2:45:35] that's the only questions I have.

[2:45:38] Oh, sorry. One more, I apologize. Is there any mitigation or plan and vision if a line

[2:45:48] develops of people trying to turn right as they come up and NASA and try to enter that parking

[2:45:58] garage. What happens if the mechanical arm at the parking garage fails to work on an event

[2:46:05] night when 900 cars are trying to get in so they can see a show in the amphitheater or people

[2:46:11] are circling around in the underground parking and can't find a spot and their acute develops

[2:46:18] down. The man's a drive and starts to extend down to currents. Is there any, has epic considered

[2:46:25] and if so, is there a plan to address that possibility or or anything along those lines?

[2:46:34] The, whenever there's an event, it is required that the event organizer get an event permit.

[2:46:45] And if part of that event permit, they have to work out the additional parking that would be

[2:46:55] parking lot is generally available except for during school hours, of course, or a foot

[2:47:01] ball game. And they actually have a routinely allowed it to be used for those. Or they

[2:47:12] can work transit situation out with Richardson flats. But they have a responsibility for handling

[2:47:21] traffic, hiring, policemen, controlling traffic as you for situations like you said.

[2:47:28] We would not try to park 980 people in the parking garage.

[2:47:32] It would be controlled at some point it would be closed because it's full move on.

[2:47:39] You can't park here, go park where you're supposed to for the event.

[2:47:42] So, those are all traveled handled by traffic management as part of the event permit process.

[2:47:51] So, any concert that was going to happen there would be handled with an event permit with the city,

[2:47:57] like they do all their other events.

[2:47:59] And then the other response I have to that is that the operator of the garage is going to be Park City.

[2:48:09] They operate their other grudges in Park City, and they're very good at handling parking

[2:48:14] during events, as you can, as you know, because there's one every weekend, but they

[2:48:21] know how to handle those grudges.

[2:48:23] And what would happen is, when the grudges, they had someone out there monitoring the grudge occupancy

[2:48:30] when it was full, people would be waived off, they wouldn't allow queueing on an answer

[2:48:35] like that.

[2:48:35] The other thing I want to say about the events, this is not a ticket to the event facility.

[2:48:41] This is set up to do more free events like Mountain Town music.

[2:48:45] It's not fenced off.

[2:48:47] We're not planning on doing touring concerts like you would see up at the canyons or anything like that.

[2:48:55] This is small neighborhood.

[2:48:57] The purpose of this is to do small neighborhood entertainment.

[2:49:04] Okay, I appreciate that, thank you, and then, am I right that the people turning right into the garage on Bananza would cross the transit lane?

[2:49:18] Yes.

[2:49:20] Okay.

[2:49:22] All right.

[2:49:25] I think that's all the questions I have, thank you, questions and comments.

[2:49:30] I just wanted to point something out as different.

[2:49:37] Thank you, Mr. Frantara. I wanted to point out that 1,200 new trips a day, swimming

[2:49:43] 12 hours of operation is 100 an hour, which is 2 minutes. That's it. So it's 1,200 sounds like an enormous amount.

[2:49:53] When you consider that, when you consider that intersection though already, I know two cars a minute doesn't seem like a lot, but when you already have failing intersections, that are that are projected to continue to be failing going forward.

[2:50:11] That's the problem with developing anything in Park City.

[2:50:16] You're not wrong, but that's it.

[2:50:18] It's any site has those issues.

[2:50:20] Yeah, you're not wrong, but that's also our response.

[2:50:22] I mean, that's part of our responsibility.

[2:50:26] Yeah.

[2:50:28] Yeah.

[2:50:30] So I did want to clarify with Scotty.

[2:50:35] That's in and out.

[2:50:39] Yeah, that's in and out.

[2:50:41] So 600 in, 600 out roughly.

[2:50:44] Okay.

[2:50:44] So it's not like 1,200 coming in, 1,200 coming in, 1,200 coming in, 1,600 coming in, 1,600 coming out.

[2:50:52] So for whatever it's worth.

[2:50:56] Mr. Frantar, I have a follow-up question on the exhibit D, if I may.

[2:51:02] So looking, I want to look at two tables if we can.

[2:51:06] If I could ask you kindly to turn to page 2 of exhibit D,

[2:51:12] D, which has our letter grading of levels of service,

[2:51:29] page two of Exhibit D.

[2:51:39] I believe you meant double I, at the very top.

[2:51:46] Page, yeah, page, yeah, that one.

[2:51:49] So I want to start with this and then just go down one table in just a second.

[2:51:53] So, existing, so this is the existing that Park City has provided under the existing, or maybe

[2:52:01] hills knows that this is the existing, right?

[2:52:04] So, so we see, uh, Kerns Boulevard, uh, inside Winder's failing prospector, Kernelius

[2:52:12] failing, and Dear Valley is failing, Dear Valley in Park Avenue is failing in the PM.

[2:52:19] And then when we open this, I'll sidewinder plus the project goes straight to an app.

[2:52:30] Procedure to continue to be enough, motion to go, motion to go, and dear valley in Park Avenue, go to an F.

[2:52:39] So the trend is poor for our intersections. And then when we look further into 2037, magically, somehow, dear valley, drive in Park F seems to improve.

[2:52:53] But I find that hard to believe, but that's a 10 year projection zone, putting less stock into that.

[2:53:01] If

[2:53:04] I find the letter grading of earnest sections to be challenging and I've stated this publicly numerous times,

[2:53:14] just because we start with an F intersection and then your project continues for it to be enough, that's not okay for me.

[2:53:23] capital F. It's a double F. Okay. So if we're going to continue to look at this project

[2:53:34] and we're going to focus on the level of service in the impact of the traffic, I would

[2:53:41] strongly suggest I would like to see the minutes. So I would like to see table one instead of

[2:53:49] give me letter grades, give me the minutes.

[2:53:52] So if existing, if the minute in existing,

[2:53:55] so for example, to be, give you a hard example,

[2:53:58] prospector in Benanza, it's an F in the AM and an F in the PM.

[2:54:02] I'd like to see a grid that says that's 92 seconds currently.

[2:54:07] And then when it says project plus,

[2:54:11] if that goes to three minutes,

[2:54:13] I'd like to see the actual minute increase,

[2:54:17] So I can get a better handle on the context of what the impact is going to be, but starting

[2:54:22] in and off label and then telling me it's still going to be enough, I feel like that's

[2:54:28] that's not quite delving into the detail of what the impact really could be.

[2:54:33] I think I want to see minutes and seconds of what it is now and what it's going to be going

[2:54:39] forward because that will help me understand that it could be three times worse what it is now rather

[2:54:44] in just a letter after it's, I'm not a fan of the letters,

[2:54:48] I'd like to see Smith get a better understanding

[2:54:52] on the context.

[2:54:55] Thank you.

[2:54:56] I think we're right now.

[2:54:58] Are you wanting that executive summary

[2:54:59] because those are listed in each chapter?

[2:55:03] If you can point them out now, I can try to put that together.

[2:55:06] Yeah, it goes in a more detailed with each chapter.

[2:55:11] So what page of your 133 page

[2:55:15] Well, it's only like, the already pages before the appendix, but your first table is going to be on page 9, and it goes through the number of seconds before it goes into an F.

[2:55:34] Okay, my page nine methodology, the methodology page page nine, page nine of 133, that's the page nine of the report page 16 of the PDF.

[2:56:01] Okay, exhibit table four?

[2:56:03] Yeah. Okay. Let's look at that.

[2:56:06] Yeah. So this is same.

[2:56:11] So let's look at wood-binding currents, the top one, for example,

[2:56:15] morning peak. What is 3.6 in parentheses? That's the number of average experience in the

[2:56:23] way.

[2:56:29] Okay. And you, hey, I was engineering tested that yet someone went out physically and

[2:56:36] tested this. Uh, we count the number of vehicles and we, okay. I'm going to new a model to

[2:56:41] really realistically. Okay, and then okay, so then where's the impact of this project? So where's the

[2:56:48] was the plus? That would be the one on the next chapters. So that would be

[2:57:00] table 11 page,

[2:57:09] page 34, the PDF. Page 34. All right, so okay, table 11 page 34.

[2:57:20] So the three seconds are

[2:57:23] goes to 4.8 seconds.

[2:57:29] So that's an A. Okay, so that's an A. So let's look at the F. So let's

[2:57:35] look at side-winder and current's boulevard, which is the third one down. It has F in parenthesis

[2:57:41] greater than 50. Why do you stop at 50? 50 is the threshold for one. That's failing.

[2:57:52] That's, this

[2:57:57] it could be. It could be. I'd like to see that. I'd like to understand the magnitude of the impact in terms of seconds that this project is going to bring into this intersection.

[2:58:08] Because just saying more than 50, I have a feeling it's going to be a lot more than 50, and I'd like to understand in terms of additional seconds impacting our community on these intersections. I think that will be helpful.

[2:58:22] And maybe I'll be wrong, maybe it'll be 52.

[2:58:25] I don't think it will be.

[2:58:27] But I'd like to see that.

[2:58:28] I think that'll help me in the community understand.

[2:58:31] This could go from 50 seconds to 300 seconds,

[2:58:34] and it should be something that's considered.

[2:58:37] John, can I just piggyback on this?

[2:58:38] Please, go ahead and.

[2:58:40] So Scott, first of all, thank you for answering these questions.

[2:58:43] We just lost our screen.

[2:58:44] Can we get that back, please?

[2:58:47] Hi, John.

[2:58:49] I'll wait for a minute.

[2:58:50] What's that?

[2:58:51] I'll wait for a minute.

[2:58:51] Because if I let you go first, I'm going to forget.

[2:58:57] Looking at Bananza and Currence.

[2:59:01] Morning peak.

[2:59:03] 31 seconds of delay coming in the time.

[2:59:06] Is that how I read that?

[2:59:09] Um, average delay per vehicle.

[2:59:12] So not just people coming in the town that people

[2:59:13] leaving town as well.

[2:59:15] Oh, well, you know that we have an inflow and an outflow

[2:59:18] depending on the time of the day.

[2:59:20] if you've ever driven out of Park City from that intersection to go out to Home Depot at 8 in the morning

[2:59:26] don't plan on coming back before 10 a.m. It is backed up all the way to Highway 40 and I would say

[2:59:32] the delay is at least 15 minutes coming up. So you know I don't know if John's points if you're

[2:59:39] able to provide the kind of information that we know anecdotably from living here for 35 years

[2:59:45] But that's a miserable intersection in all but maybe between noon and 1.30 p.m.

[2:59:53] Whether you're coming in the morning or leaving in the afternoon. So, you know, to back up

[2:59:57] what John is saying, they'll label that as-

[3:00:00] See, as an intersection, it's, it's, I don't find it to be accurate, but you're, you're the P.E. not making. So any help.

[3:00:13] That's just my comment. Sorry John.

[3:00:15] Welcome John Roberts and city engineer. These are great questions. This is a very complicated project.

[3:00:22] Traffic studies are very complicated and challenging. They take a lot of time for people to go to school to try to understand these things.

[3:00:28] So totally understand, and so these are very active questions.

[3:00:32] One clarification for Commissioner Frank Terrell,

[3:00:34] I'd like to put on there is that I understand what you're asking

[3:00:36] for, but we also need to understand

[3:00:38] what the impact of the traffic from the project is to the new delay.

[3:00:43] Because if we look in 2037, we'll also

[3:00:45] a whole lot of traffic that's not coming from the development

[3:00:48] that could be adding to the delay.

[3:00:50] So to your point, I think it's a reasonable question

[3:00:52] in your question, but we need to be clear that

[3:00:54] this is what we're analyzing.

[3:00:55] The impact of the project on the network.

[3:00:57] We need to clarify this the delay caused by the project if I think it is and we need a basis

[3:01:04] We need a baseline and then the project plus so there was a project plus call on my assume that's exactly the impact of this project

[3:01:11] That's where you can so rather interesting greater than 50 I'd like it to say

[3:01:17] I like whatever it is. Yeah, let's see it and see that we can understand

[3:01:22] And we know it's greater than 50 I suspect it significantly

[3:01:27] greater, the international, all of those appendices that you have but yes, knowing get totally

[3:01:34] get it. And totally, and it's a reasonable question and good. Okay. Commissioner Shans. So

[3:01:40] when a traffic study is prepared, we look at notes and in-between notes. And so we say,

[3:01:46] well, it takes me 15 minutes to get back from Home Depot back through and through that intersection.

[3:01:51] Well, we're not measuring the distance for that whole corridor to analyze that intersection,

[3:01:59] We analyze between nodes, so we have a node, it's size-winder, the node at Bananason Currents,

[3:02:05] right?

[3:02:06] So, we look at the traffic in that area and how long it takes you to get from that point

[3:02:11] to the next point, and so you're evaluating the whole network, and they also do queuing

[3:02:19] analysis, which helps in that.

[3:02:20] So I know I experience the same thing you do takes longer than 31 seconds to get through there

[3:02:25] but remember 31 seconds your measuring is only between notes so from side-winder to get to

[3:02:31] Benanza is that average delay they're looking at and it's actually the average delay on every movement

[3:02:37] that's happening at that intersection to give you that letter grade.

[3:02:42] So one might experience longer but there might be another one that's not as much.

[3:02:47] So it's an average delay that they look at the intersection.

[3:02:49] I get the, I get the, I get the no role analysis, um, but the, the reality is is that

[3:02:56] because of that intersection and dear Valley Drive and Benanza has a little bit to do with, but

[3:03:01] leaving for four months out of the year, leaving snowpark, and it's backed all the way up to

[3:03:07] dear Valley Drive traffic circle. And they're keeping analysis shows a lot of those long cues that

[3:03:12] you're talking about. Thank you. Thanks, sure. And just to clarify also on that, we add the delay

[3:03:19] of the nodes. So it's not just between nodes, it's the delay on the through, like if you're doing

[3:03:27] but Anza, all the intersections on an Anza, we add them to the signal, because the signals the one that's

[3:03:31] causing the delay.

[3:03:34] So very good questions. I think there's some easy things we can do to help point out

[3:03:37] some of those questions that you're asking for. It's in there. I think Scott has said he can provide that

[3:03:42] type of information in that matter. That would be great. And helpful. Thank you. Yeah, just want to make sure

[3:03:47] was clear that we need to study the impact delay of the project

[3:03:51] project, but not because of what's existing or understand.

[3:03:54] Understood, thank you for the clarification.

[3:03:56] Appreciate that.

[3:04:02] Other comments on traffic and then after traffic

[3:04:07] will jump into parking,

[3:04:12] anyone?

[3:04:12] Traffic traffic.

[3:04:14] We have what we need.

[3:04:18] I see lots of nodding.

[3:04:20] So then, I get the parking one.

[3:04:29] Anyone want to first?

[3:04:30] I mean, again, I don't get to vote.

[3:04:31] But I still feel that I understand the point of your increased parking spaces.

[3:04:42] But I think in general, it still goes against what Park City is trying to do.

[3:04:47] And I don't think it helps to increase your modal shift in transportation.

[3:04:55] So, I personally would like to see the parking reduction from what you guys currently have.

[3:05:05] As the staff has presented, and I think as we've talked about, I understand why, but I, again,

[3:05:14] I think adding those extra spots contributes more to parking on the facility and not lending itself to

[3:05:21] multi-modal transportation use around the development,

[3:05:25] but I'll turn it back to the rest of the commissioners

[3:05:27] and we can jump into that.

[3:05:33] So I don't have a problem with the parking.

[3:05:37] I think to support the businesses that you're proposing,

[3:05:40] you're gonna need the parking there.

[3:05:42] The problem is in my analysis is the added traffic

[3:05:47] that's gonna happen.

[3:05:48] So, on one hand, I think you need 280 spaces to accommodate the residents and the commercial

[3:05:55] space, but they're in-wise the problem is it's going to generate over 1,200 new trips.

[3:06:02] And I think I know we're getting back to traffic, but I think that that is part of the

[3:06:07] problem.

[3:06:07] And maybe that speaks to what Commissioner Van Dyne is saying is that by having the 280 spaces

[3:06:12] you're going to bring this extra extra trust. It's a tough problem, so.

[3:06:21] Yeah, I was coming out at a similar place as you kind of, you need to separate, do we have

[3:06:27] the, is this fit for purpose? Do we have enough parking to fit the purpose? That's question one.

[3:06:32] Now, once we've built this thing, what's the effect on traffic? And so I thought I understood

[3:06:36] this better last time this time, but it seemed to me that the big spread between the the code

[3:06:42] minimums of what was being proposed.

[3:06:44] A lot of that was around the open space area

[3:06:47] and the arts, because generally, the code

[3:06:50] doesn't require very many of those.

[3:06:52] So if we are really going to say, hey, this is actually

[3:06:55] an arts space, and it really isn't

[3:06:57] a open space people are going to use.

[3:06:59] We've got to have parking for that group.

[3:07:01] And I think that was the main spread from memory.

[3:07:04] It was more complicated as we dug into it this time,

[3:07:07] but that's how I understood it.

[3:07:08] So I say, look, I think you do need those parking,

[3:07:10] But then that has groundifications afterwards.

[3:07:20] I concur that the parking or at least that underground space will be needed.

[3:07:27] I think it can be conditions.

[3:07:30] To make those specific parking spaces reserved for things like live share vehicles or kind of rent on demand vehicles that a part main renters can check out just some kind of alternative.

[3:07:53] transportation use that will contribute to, you know, reducing some of the traffic that this project will generate.

[3:08:05] But I do think the spaces are needed.

[3:08:09] I would like to see a better plan to condition them for certain uses.

[3:08:23] Yeah, I don't have really much to add except that, you know, the additional number of spaces is probably going to be needed since.

[3:08:32] If it is built and people do come there, they're going to need to place the park and they can't find it in that underground parking lot.

[3:08:40] They're going to try to park on the street on Monchkin or they're going to even worse they're going to drive around looking for an alternative place to park which just exacerbates the traffic problem.

[3:08:52] on. So in terms of the additional number of spaces, I think it's required, whether it has

[3:08:59] secondary effects that can or can't be mitigated. I'm still not sure yet, but the extra spaces

[3:09:06] seem to make logical sense.

[3:09:11] I agree with my fellow commissioners that 200-naked spaces I always

[3:09:15] thought was going to be very challenging to satisfy the demand that this project is going to create

[3:09:23] 280 seems more reasonable, it was surprised that some of the other studies say we need almost 400

[3:09:36] stalls, the ITE study that numbers shock me, but I don't think it's, I find it that maybe is

[3:09:45] taking into other things into consideration. So I as well, I don't consider 200

[3:09:53] need to be excessive. I know it's been referred to as overparking because the city code only requires

[3:10:00] to await. I don't like my fellow commissioners. I don't see that as overparking. I see that as

[3:10:06] as a reasonable number of spaces for the project. However, it's going to feed into what we

[3:10:16] already discussed, which is the traffic problem. And so, it's still going to be a concern in a challenge

[3:10:25] with the 280 parking, it's sufficient, but likely going to exacerbate the traffic problem.

[3:10:39] Anyone have anything else they need for parking and traffic before the next meeting?

[3:10:48] Sustainability? Yeah, well, NAND's going back to the slide that has that question.

[3:10:52] Siliu Peterson is here with the sustainability team to answer any questions you had upon your review at the staff report.

[3:11:00] The project is proposing high energy efficiency, the other electric design power source from renewables, water efficient plumbing fixtures and water wise landscaping,

[3:11:10] as well as high efficiency heat pumps.

[3:11:13] So, silica, I don't know if you have anything to add or.

[3:11:16] I think you covered at the three criteria for energy that we're really trying to promote is energy efficiency, which this project incorporating the enterprise green communities 26 version hits that mark for us, we're happy to see that.

[3:11:34] on the second criteria, so high efficiency, that's one, the second criteria is no onsite combustion,

[3:11:43] so by committing to all electric, we're happy with that. The third criteria is powered by

[3:11:47] all renewables, and being all electric with the community renewable project that we're working,

[3:11:54] so 100% of citywide electricity would be supplied by net zero renewable electricity.

[3:12:01] it would hit that. We've also concurrently been running a project to explore energy heating cooling

[3:12:09] systems at district scale that would make use of waste heat, for example, from the waste water

[3:12:16] system. We can harvest heat out of that to heat pavement as well as buildings.

[3:12:23] But as Alex mentioned, the high efficiency heat pumps are a great addition to this project that

[3:12:29] we're happy to see to ensure that cost day low for residents, and we're not burning extra

[3:12:35] fossil fuels. Are you seeking any level of lead certification on this project or is that just

[3:12:43] going to be a byproduct of all the energy saving methods? We're not asking for any sort of lead

[3:12:49] certification. I think the enterprise green communities is something comparable to that. So that's

[3:12:54] that's specifically for affordable housing. So that's we're very happy to see that.

[3:13:02] And then on top of that, I mean, tied in with that. Like, appliances will all be energy star.

[3:13:06] So they're really considering making the unit is efficient as possible, which,

[3:13:12] yeah, when you're doing all electric, we want to like make it affordable for people and they've got a good plan for all of that.

[3:13:18] any plan for a compost that I don't think that we've talked about in having recycling like they're considering recycling and that's composting is part of that.

[3:13:34] I don't think that there's any thought about having on-site composting,

[3:13:38] kind of being part of the broader recycling composting that we've been trying to

[3:13:44] work on for several years now by having dedicated recycling spots will help with composting

[3:13:51] if that's what makes sense for that place. Great.

[3:13:58] So I have a question for you. Thanks for attending

[3:14:02] this evening. The grass. The open space is 2.1 acres of open space. How much of that is grass?

[3:14:12] And is it real grass? And it will need to be watered in how much water do we think that's going to take?

[3:14:17] I don't think we've gotten that far. There will be open space obviously. And part of the plan is water-wise

[3:14:25] landscaping. I don't know what that looks like at this point though. So water-wise is definitely

[3:14:29] part of the plan. So I guess sorry this at this point in our schematic design level on landscape.

[3:14:39] The question became how much of this development is active sprinkler turf. All right,

[3:14:49] how much is grass? Yeah. And the limit of right now in Park City is it can't be more than 20%

[3:14:56] We ask our landscape architects to come.

[3:15:00] month with a calculation. He said that sprinkler, turf grass is 14%. And the rest is more passive, native landscaping,

[3:15:13] more landscaping you walk by and look at, not that you run around in. So it's a, it's a big distribution.

[3:15:20] And we tried to show that in the percentages that we broke down on how the property is being used.

[3:15:26] Because you want a balance of the native turf and sort of the passive landscape, active landscape, and then some paved areas where you concrete areas where you can do like food trucks and all that.

[3:15:43] So we did a percentage breakdown where we could you could show all that on one of the exhibits there.

[3:15:49] Okay, all I dig through that. I'll find that exhibit. But thanks for the the update.

[3:15:56] So any other information that Commissioner's need for sustainable design?

[3:16:05] All right. Anything else for this evening?

[3:16:09] Thank you. It's all for us. Thank you.

[3:16:10] All right. Thank you very so much.

[3:16:12] Yes, please.

[3:16:12] My ask your question is when we were working with the city council,

[3:16:18] there was a little more back and forth than it wasn't quite as rigorous as this.

[3:16:22] So am I allowed to ask your opinion about a couple things?

[3:16:26] Yeah, of course. Okay. So

[3:16:31] when we talk about building heights there's a couple ways to think about it and one is there's some number and to me the 1212 pitches when you just consider the number of the height of that pitch that's not really the height of the building height of the building is 12 feet lower than that where the parapet is and those are sort of incremental and there's basically one large one on each building.

[3:16:57] The other way you think about it is how many stories is it, and we have five, three story buildings and one four story building, in terms of your concerns with height, which is more concerning, the fourth floor, or the cable, either the cable.

[3:17:25] jump in people feet hi not stories I mean I'm sorry what feet number of feet it's

[3:17:32] not well you can make it a one story building but it's got to be below 35 feet

[3:17:37] you know you're putting 12 feet clear on the first level to accommodate your retail

[3:17:43] and then you're going 10 over 10 feet to create a nine foot clear for that other story so

[3:17:49] Stories are irrelevant. It's feet. It's a it's a slight line interference.

[3:17:55] Okay.

[3:17:58] Yeah, I think that's again, that comes down to the land management code. So the land management

[3:18:03] code speaks in feet. And so that's where we look at it. And I mean, you heard the comments, we've

[3:18:09] had other projects come through where it's that same thing. We're not looking at how many stories

[3:18:14] we're looking at feet over. And when we start looking at things that are 20 feet over

[3:18:22] Even 15 feet, 15, 20 feet over what are already exception is.

[3:18:28] So for 45 feet for an AMPD and then we have exceptions for another 10 to 15 feet above that that starts getting hard for us to justify within the land management code.

[3:18:40] While we have our criteria, we also have to make sure that we're getting the right balance for the community within the land management code for that.

[3:18:50] So it is difficult. It's a difficult thing to weigh because I would say a lot of the commissioners

[3:18:55] probably agree that the 12 12 pitches look better. But when we're starting to look at 55 plus

[3:19:02] feet of height when the land management code says 35 feet for that zone, that's a stretch.

[3:19:11] So we wish it was in stories of probably would make our lives easier. But it's not it's in feet.

[3:19:18] And then my next question was the idea and the small area plan that you could trade off providing community benefit for additional high through additional density, we're not asking for additional density.

[3:19:34] Do you see that as influencing your thinking about this?

[3:19:41] Could you repeat that question again?

[3:19:43] It's, like, been in the park how we were doing, we made those criteria for more height for that community benefit. So, like, remember, like, the underground parking, the increased park space. And while we haven't, it was exactly, but that's what they have been kind of building towards even though that code hasn't passed. But I, is that, yeah, some of your question. Yeah, literally, we were sort of working within the policy.

[3:20:13] of trying to provide mixed use, vertical mixed use, in exchange, and getting some additional

[3:20:19] height and exchange for providing community benefit, which was sort of the thrust of the

[3:20:24] Banan's park small area plan.

[3:20:29] So the other way to think about it though is providing that additional 30% of open space, we

[3:20:36] could do that because we were stacking the building up.

[3:20:39] So there's just some thoughts.

[3:20:44] And part of the conversation is just sort of thinking through what we want to come back with next.

[3:20:52] For me, so you have seven buildings on the site and currently they're all proposed to be over the height limit.

[3:21:03] 2 and 3 are directly in the site lines that are the FPZ is trying to protect and so, you know,

[3:21:15] if the gavels on those were reduced, I'd like to see what happens to the design of the building.

[3:21:24] for building 4, 5, 6 and 1. Maybe it's okay to have higher gables. I don't know, I haven't

[3:21:34] seen the design yet. So I would like to see kind of a combination of different creative

[3:21:40] ways to reduce the height on the buildings that will most affect the view lines,

[3:22:04] which

[3:22:04] No, I mean, a flag, we're not even remotely close to it, but we're going to get down to the MPD test, which is 17 points, and the 16th point there is about essentially goes to materiality.

[3:22:18] You know, you could see sort of a little bit where I'm going is I don't mind a little bit more high to get some of the fits within the historic district and the fifth point of the sixth test explicitly allows that and it's

[3:22:30] The drafting clearly indicates that this is an area where you can't get a bit more height. Now, should it be this much height? That's a different thing.

[3:22:36] But the reason why I'm interested in it is because it's a benefit with a historic district.

[3:22:40] Fast forward to the MPD test section 16 of that, that goes to all materiality. So I'm going to want to look at, okay, these stepbacks, they're only about two foot stepbacks.

[3:22:49] So they real stepbacks to provide real articulation there. What's the siding material actually look like? At the end of the day, I want to see that, you know, I can satisfy point 16.

[3:22:58] and this is actually a good fit for a start town. It's kind of the other side of the coin.

[3:23:03] If you want some more height on those gables, which I think is arguable, you're going to have to also

[3:23:09] address the exterior as well. I know it went up to that, but it will come up. So it'd be interesting

[3:23:14] to understand what that material is like, but you know, when across these other bridges first.

[3:23:20] Rebecca, I have a question. We keep referencing the six points to qualify a CUP, but in the LMC,

[3:23:28] section 15.2.20-4, lot in site requirements, says that any construction activity, including

[3:23:38] permanent signs, in the setback area between 30 feet and 100 feet, from the nearest right

[3:23:43] of wayline, in the FPC, is subject to all applicable review criteria as stated in section 15-1-10.

[3:23:52] That's about 17 criteria, and not just six.

[3:23:55] Yeah, those 17 criteria, it's the parking, it's the traffic, it's all of those things.

[3:24:02] As far as the design and the height within the front-age protections are in fact, the physical

[3:24:08] massing the architectural detailing, yes.

[3:24:16] So I'd like to echo Commissioner Shand, it's the feed.

[3:24:20] So if you want some suggestions, the nine feet, the residential's, I would sketch Saturday feed.

[3:24:28] I mean, I'm just saying, like, it's the feet, that's the issue, the commercial, if you're

[3:24:36] at 12, you got to look at 10, you know, like it's the only way it's going to get me and it sounds

[3:24:43] like maybe some of my other commissioners more comfortable with the height. We're not, we're not

[3:24:49] underestimating the benefits that are being granted. It's not lost on us that you're providing

[3:24:55] twice the open space. That's the really strongest point of your project. And we're not ignoring

[3:25:01] that, but we're also concerned about how high some of these buildings are getting. So I would

[3:25:12] suggest coming back with less feet totally in this structure. And if you don't think the project,

[3:25:20] If you don't think you can rent eight feet residential,

[3:25:24] you know, that's a business decision.

[3:25:26] If you don't think you can rent 10 foot commercials,

[3:25:28] that's a business decision, but it's just too high

[3:25:32] at the moment, given versus the benefits,

[3:25:35] it doesn't outweigh the benefits currently

[3:25:38] do not outweigh the feet that's being proposed.

[3:25:41] I think that's maybe a way to summarize.

[3:25:48] Yeah, it's feet and I've got a challenge

[3:25:52] with the open space, too.

[3:25:53] You can't see it.

[3:25:56] It's totally blocked from the road.

[3:25:59] Only the person stopped at a stop light in traffic is going to be able to peep through

[3:26:03] the portals and see the open space.

[3:26:06] And if they see anything at the point, they're going to look right at another building.

[3:26:10] The open space is only really available on the open end.

[3:26:15] And if it was a municipal building or something like that, people may be inclined to use it.

[3:26:21] but it's private property, there's 88 plus 12 residential units there, and they're going to

[3:26:30] be using that space, not the public. So I mean, I admire that the 60% is just misproportioned

[3:26:38] or misallocated in my opinion.

[3:26:44] Okay, we got to wrap this one up for tonight. Is there anything else

[3:26:48] we can get you guys for right now? I think we have what we need. Thank you. Okay, so do we have

[3:26:53] motion to continue to August 26 both the application and the public hearing.

[3:27:06] So moved. Second. Second.

[3:27:10] All right, we have a motion by Commissioner for Ontario, second by Commissioner Shanda,

[3:27:13] all those in favor.

[3:27:14] Hi.

[3:27:16] Motion passes.

[3:27:17] Thank you, guys.

[3:27:26] All right.

[3:27:27] and a mid-mounted trailhead conditionally use permit.

[3:27:34] I will go ahead and say now that we're going to continue the work session, Rebecca, sorry.

[3:27:43] And we'll get through as many of these as we can.

[3:27:48] Thank you. This conditional use permit for the mid-mounted trailhead improvements was originally

[3:27:55] can see just a bit of the summit along approval in March 2022. The Planning Commission approved

[3:28:01] a conditional use permit for these improvements in 2024. Since then there have been two

[3:28:06] extensions to the conditionally use permit request as well as a modification to accommodate a

[3:28:11] bus stop. The applicant is requesting an additional minor extension because the work for the

[3:28:17] trailhead improvements is not quite finished. This photo was taken two days ago on Monday and shows

[3:28:23] the condition at that time.

[3:28:26] And here's the photo from this afternoon

[3:28:29] showing that the condition.

[3:28:31] And so the staff is recommending a minor extension

[3:28:33] or acquiring final project completion by no later than August 30.

[3:28:38] Doug Oblevious here, the applicant, if you have any questions.

[3:28:41] Doug, what is next?

[3:28:42] When is it actually going to be done?

[3:28:45] It'll be open to Park tomorrow.

[3:28:48] So we still have, we've got a little landscape work to do.

[3:28:52] We've got some signage to put up.

[3:28:54] We've got to put a safety barrier fence between the mid-mount trail and the top of the retaining wall.

[3:28:59] That trail has been in service for a couple of weeks now.

[3:29:03] We fine-tuned it and then we fine-tuned it to make it better.

[3:29:08] So those barriers should come down tomorrow.

[3:29:12] So the public should be able to park in the parking lot tomorrow.

[3:29:16] So we're here to beg for forgiveness as opposed to request an extension.

[3:29:19] All right.

[3:29:22] Uh-huh.

[3:29:22] Sounds like a little bit of both.

[3:29:23] Yeah, Eddie.

[3:29:25] Any clarifying questions?

[3:29:26] All right.

[3:29:27] We're going to open the public hearing for item 5b, mid-mountain trail extension.

[3:29:32] Condition to the couldn't initial use permit.

[3:29:33] Anyone who wishes to speak, set forward and chambers or raise your hand on zoom.

[3:29:38] I'm assuming no hands on zoom.

[3:29:40] There is a hand from the mark.

[3:29:42] There is a hand from us.

[3:29:44] Mark Harrington.

[3:29:45] Just says mark.

[3:29:47] Oh.

[3:29:47] Go ahead Mark.

[3:29:53] Okay, you've been promoted Mark.

[3:29:57] Can you hear me?

[3:29:59] We can, high marks.

[3:30:00] A mark for sure here. I'm the only reason I publicly commenting is this gentleman and his team has a historic 20-year record of misrepresenting what they're doing for the community.

[3:30:13] Going all the way back to one twisted branch road was supposed to be a public road versus the unsafe 15 road that they're now enjoying, because the road has been piled up so they can put more infrastructure under it.

[3:30:27] So I just wanted to put on the public record that in the event that this is not open to the

[3:30:34] public by midnight tomorrow, I believe they should be shut down. And I have nothing against

[3:30:40] a mother than the fact that they just consistently have misled the public for the last 15 years

[3:30:46] as it relates to making twisted branch road, a public road, a safe road to the top of the mountain.

[3:30:53] And I hope someday they'll wake up and do that.

[3:30:57] So thank you.

[3:30:58] Thank you for your comments, Mark.

[3:31:00] Any other questions?

[3:31:02] They're not.

[3:31:03] All right.

[3:31:04] Seeing no one in chambers, I will close public comments.

[3:31:07] And it looks like the commissioners for any other comments or a motion.

[3:31:11] I have a quick question.

[3:31:12] Is this certificate of occupancy pending?

[3:31:15] No, this certificate of occupancy will likely be in the new year next year.

[3:31:19] But our original, our original conditions of approval required us to complete this parking lot sometime ago.

[3:31:27] So we did do some redesign and request the city last fall.

[3:31:31] So we did not get the retaining walls in last fall and it definitely turned out to be more works

[3:31:35] and we anticipated getting it done this spring.

[3:31:38] But we have been diligently pursuing it this spring and summer.

[3:31:41] Okay, so this isn't the last item you need to get there certificate.

[3:31:44] You have other items that you need to do.

[3:31:45] We have a lot of work to do so.

[3:31:47] Okay.

[3:31:47] Thank you for that clarification.

[3:31:48] I didn't know more questions.

[3:31:53] Motion.

[3:31:55] Good morning.

[3:31:58] Chair Van Dine.

[3:31:59] I'd like to make a motion to extend the required completion date for the mid-mount trailhead from June 30th to August 30th, 2026.

[3:32:14] Based on the findings of that.

[3:32:15] Can you please respond?

[3:32:16] We have a motion for that.

[3:32:18] That's right.

[3:32:19] We have a motion for that.

[3:32:20] We have a motion for that.

[3:32:20] Motion passes.

[3:32:21] until soon all of us in favor.

[3:32:23] All right.

[3:32:24] Motion passes.

[3:32:26] Doug.

[3:32:26] Thank you.

[3:32:28] And thank you.

[3:32:29] The community for your patience on this, but I think you're going to

[3:32:31] find it a much, much better experience than the, uh, that which we removed.

[3:32:35] All right.

[3:32:36] Thanks Doug.

[3:32:37] All right.

[3:32:38] Move to item five C.

[3:32:40] Ten Ten Woodside Avenue conditional use permits.

[3:33:12] All right.

[3:33:12] Good evening commissioners.

[3:33:13] This is Planner's Allanger.

[3:33:16] Um, and we are looking at Ten Ten Woodside Avenue and Tenilman Park Avenue.

[3:33:19] Commissionaries permit. We have the applicant representative Colenite and the applicant

[3:33:24] Brian Wong here. If there any questions, I'll go through a brief presentation.

[3:33:30] It's if they have anything to add. So 1010 coincide and 1011 Park Avenue was a combined

[3:33:37] platinum and approved by the Planning Commission in May of this year. It's in the

[3:33:41] store of residential one zoning district. 1010 coincide Avenue is a landmark historic site.

[3:33:46] And it is proposed to be an accessory apartment.

[3:33:50] Ten-eleven Park Avenue, as you can see in the image on the right, is currently vacant.

[3:33:55] How do the applicants begin to construct a single family dwelling to which the land-market structure would become an accessory apartment?

[3:34:04] On July 1st of this year, the Historic Preservation Board approved the lifting of the Historic structure to accommodate a basement and foundation upgrades for the Historic structure.

[3:34:14] And the applicant is proposing to construct that basement beneath the structure, which partially falls within the front and side setbacks.

[3:34:22] The existing historic structure encourages in different insights at back and partially answer the property.

[3:34:27] Those portions are all outlined by different colors on the image to the right here.

[3:34:33] The blue portion is in the north side setback, the yellow portions in the front setback, the orange portions in the south side setback,

[3:34:42] And the red portion is the portion of the stock structure

[3:34:45] that encroaches onto the southern property

[3:34:47] for which the applicant has an encouragement

[3:34:49] for and just to clarify,

[3:34:51] this proposed basement edition

[3:34:53] will be entirely within the property lines.

[3:34:55] So there will be no basement edition crossing property lines

[3:34:57] or in that red portion shown on the screen here.

[3:35:03] Just a couple additional images to clarify.

[3:35:06] Showed an orange is that portion that encroaches

[3:35:08] into the south side setback, blues, the north side setback

[3:35:12] and yellow is the front step back.

[3:35:16] Land Management Code Section 15-2.2-4 outlines

[3:35:20] that the planning commission may grant an exception

[3:35:22] to the building step back, stands for additional historic

[3:35:25] building's interstructures with the following findings.

[3:35:28] Upon approval of a conditionally use permit,

[3:35:30] which is what we are here today to review.

[3:35:32] And when the scale of the addition is compatible

[3:35:34] with historic building and architecture,

[3:35:36] when the addition comprises that the position

[3:35:37] set this chapter, when the addition comprises

[3:35:39] the adopted building fire codes,

[3:35:41] and when the addition and comprises

[3:35:42] with the design guidelines for historic district and historic sites.

[3:35:45] I don't end in the staff report staff finds that the proposal complies with the

[3:35:50] provisions of the chapter with the zoning requirements and that the proposal is compatible

[3:35:54] with the story building or structure, and that there are some conditions

[3:35:57] that require compliance as the applicant moves forward in the historic district design review

[3:36:02] and administrative permit process for this site.

[3:36:06] The proposal meets parking requirements wherein a single family going requires two parking spaces

[3:36:10] and an accessory apartment with one bedroom requires one parking space.

[3:36:15] Therefore, three parking spaces are required for the entire site.

[3:36:18] The applicant is proposing three parking spaces that will be accessed all of.

[3:36:23] We'll be all accessed off of Park Avenue.

[3:36:25] Initially, we're approval time requires the final plan submitted for a search to design review

[3:36:29] and building permit to be updated to remove.

[3:36:32] There's a proposed parking area in front of the storage structure,

[3:36:34] but I encourage us to, into the right of way,

[3:36:37] and that condition is proposed to remove that

[3:36:39] and the condition also states that those three parking spaces will be accessed off-park Avenue.

[3:36:46] Regarding the condition of use permit criteria, our development review committee reviewed and confirmed compliance with their required standards

[3:36:52] and staff finds is outlined in the report that proposal as condition complies with the condition of use permit criteria.

[3:36:58] Just to run through a few conditions of approval.

[3:37:00] Number four, the applicant shall obtain historic district design review approval and administrative approval for the accessory department from the planning director of prior to submitting a building permit application.

[3:37:10] Number eight, the exterior lighting shock comply with the dark style requirements is listed there.

[3:37:15] And number nine, at the time of the building permits middle and access agreement with adjacent properties will be required to the building department because the proposed construction is within five feet of the adjacent property.

[3:37:25] And therefore staff is recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed

[3:37:28] Commission.

[3:37:30] And what's the avenue and 1011 per revenue? Conduct public hearing and consider approving the proposal based on the findings effect. Conclusions of law and conditions of approval outlined in the draft final action.

[3:37:41] That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, William.

[3:37:45] Commissioners any clarifying questions?

[3:37:48] Yeah, I just have one, what is the design constraint if any, I guess, that requires both

[3:37:58] a front and a side yard setback, exceptions, sorry.

[3:38:05] So the historic structure and the existing historic structure currently encroaches into

[3:38:10] the front setback and the side setback, and the applicant is proposing to build a basement

[3:38:14] directly underneath.

[3:38:16] So the basement footprint would follow the existing footprint of this door structure, so it bumps into the front and side setbacks.

[3:38:24] And then as noted, it does encroach into that south property, but the basement addition would not encroach.

[3:38:30] It would stay within the property boundary.

[3:38:32] And is there any way to build that basement so that it doesn't follow the existing footprint?

[3:38:39] Correct, that's an option.

[3:38:40] How are the applicant is requesting the condition use permit reviewed by the planning commission to allow for that exception?

[3:38:49] And that's not an expanded.

[3:38:54] They're not exacerbating the non-conformance by building the basement inside the setback.

[3:39:01] So all historic structures as outlined in the code are existing non-complying structures.

[3:39:06] And then the code, in that same section of code, it outlines that applicants can request the planning commission given exception to that to

[3:39:16] needs, and I can quote the.

[3:39:18] All right.

[3:39:20] There.

[3:39:21] Yeah.

[3:39:21] I think I know that one.

[3:39:23] Okay.

[3:39:24] Yeah.

[3:39:24] And so that's where the exception comes.

[3:39:26] That's what the applicant is requesting at this point is an exception to the setbacks for that addition.

[3:39:32] And it's not a finished basement, right?

[3:39:34] It is, it will be a finished basement.

[3:39:37] What is?

[3:39:38] Not currently, but it will be.

[3:39:40] Adam, are you looking at which diagram are you looking at?

[3:39:47] Then we're looking at a page eight of this staff report.

[3:39:55] Figure five.

[3:40:01] So Lillian, what part of the basement does not match up with the footprint of the building?

[3:40:06] the southern or left part of the image will be color. That's orange.

[3:40:17] Yes. So it will be close, but it will only go to the property line.

[3:40:20] We'll go over the property line. So the existing home is the orange that it encroaches,

[3:40:26] but the basement will be insulated. I understand. Let me pull up the plans that I can

[3:40:32] clarify. That figure five in the staff report is the proposed basement layout, the new

[3:40:39] construction. In the draft final action letter, the proposed plans are attached, and there's

[3:40:44] the layout for the main level. That shows the portion that goes over the property line.

[3:41:04] So this is level zero or the basement, and you can see an orange. This is where the portion will

[3:41:11] encroach into that south side setback. And then this is the level one apartment existing

[3:41:17] historic structure footprint. And you can see that to the left part of that goes over the

[3:41:24] property line, but that's the existing historic structure. So if you follow this dash line,

[3:41:31] or a solid line here, this is this, this solid line turns into a dash line for the basement,

[3:41:36] and that's the problem.

[3:41:42] So little input a file at point on at the basement will

[3:41:44] approach into the set that's not going to go over the property line. And we're generally

[3:41:49] okay with that because that's sort of how the the little cottage above the ground sits already.

[3:41:56] Correct.

[3:42:03] I will go ahead and open public hearing for 1010 Woodside Avenue Conditional Youth

[3:42:07] Permit. Anyone wishing to speak on this item please step forward or raise your hand on Zoom?

[3:42:13] There are no hands raised. Right. Well close the public hearing and back to the commissioners for

[3:42:17] questions comments. I have a question for

[3:42:22] planners, Zellinger. So, you're understanding is that

[3:42:27] the basement could be built conforming. You're just choosing to come

[3:42:31] and ask for an exception. Now, applicant is requesting for the code.

[3:42:35] The applicant is allowed to request for an exception to that setback.

[3:42:41] Okay. I would like to see the applicant build the basement to code.

[3:42:46] I'm not in favor of an exception.

[3:42:49] If I can maybe clarify something, this is a very narrow section of code for historic structures.

[3:42:56] So the land management code specifically outlines this conditional use permit for this very scenario.

[3:43:04] So, we're not to facilitate the rehabilitation and restoration and preservation of our historic

[3:43:15] structures, they're not going to find structures and they get to maintain those encroachments

[3:43:22] into setbacks if they exceed building footprint or height that historic structure has an

[3:43:28] exception to the code.

[3:43:29] So, it can remain as is, and then the code establishes the conditional use permit process, specifically for this, and this example.

[3:43:39] If they're doing foundation work or they're doing a basement edition, it allows for the preservation of the historic structure, and as Lily and mentioned, the historic preservation of the structure.

[3:43:50] They have approved this finding compliance with the historic preservation goals.

[3:43:57] So, this conditional use permit has those specific criteria for the planning commission to evaluate.

[3:44:05] So, the staff analysis finds compliance with those criteria through this process of the conditional use permit.

[3:44:12] So, I guess my question would be of those very specific criteria that allows for these basement additions for historic structures.

[3:44:20] Is there a particular criteria that you find a non-compliance with?

[3:44:26] Well, I will go back to Adam's comment, he's the word exasperate, but I would also possibly use doubling down.

[3:44:35] So there,

[3:44:39] I get that the existing structure is a non-compliant structure that's okay because it's historic.

[3:44:50] But are we in a sense allowing the problem to be repeated?

[3:44:58] Yeah, so I would call your attack.

[3:45:00] Attention to the specific criteria. That's not when the criteria are maybe lily and you can pull up the screen.

[3:45:08] But we're back even more importantly, it's 15-1-10. The Planning Commission shall approve a conditional use if reasonable conditions are proposed or can be imposed to mitigate reasonably anticipated detrimental impacts.

[3:45:23] They have no unindigated impacts, like so one through 16, sorry, yeah, have no unminigated impacts or they have conditions that mitigate those impacts.

[3:45:38] So in this case, it's these five criteria that Lillian has.

[3:45:42] It's really to allow for the use of these historic structures in a way that preserves the historic integrity.

[3:45:52] So that number five, the design guidelines, you know, encourage an addition to a historic home that is below great.

[3:46:03] Because that is going to allow for the preservation of the character.

[3:46:08] they're not proposing an addition to the historic structure, they're actually removing some of the

[3:46:15] non-historic editions. So through this process it allows it to go back to its original historic

[3:46:23] character. I understand what you're saying.

[3:46:32] I think it's criteria to the scale of the addition is

[3:46:37] compatible with the historic structure. I mean, the historic structure historically didn't have a finished

[3:46:44] basement.

[3:46:48] Very few historic structures ever did, if any.

[3:46:55] So when you're asking Rebecca for what

[3:46:58] criteria, this likely doesn't comply with, it would be that one in my mind.

[3:47:08] I mean, what is the

[3:47:09] Right of the provision of that section of code to preserve the historic structure, right?

[3:47:17] The historic structure is being preserved. It's untouched. What this applicant wants to do is add a finished

[3:47:24] basement underneath it that's neither historic nor conforming. So which part of the code are we

[3:47:34] filling by graph. What vision of the code are we fulfilling by granting the exception, right?

[3:47:40] Or we're not doing anything that's protecting the home any more than it already would be.

[3:47:48] So I guess what goal are we serving as it with a historic structure by granting this exception?

[3:47:58] So, it's really that criteria of five.

[3:48:01] That is citing chapter 15, 13 for a historic home.

[3:48:07] So, the applicant could go to the Board of Adjustment.

[3:48:10] And they, or excuse me, that it's been a long night.

[3:48:13] The historic preservation board.

[3:48:15] And they could request material deconstruction of the rare facade

[3:48:18] and they could build a two story edition, right?

[3:48:20] Like, that is a possibility in the historic districts.

[3:48:24] This section of code allows them to go under the historic structure in a way that's not visible.

[3:48:32] It's not going to change the character of the historic site through this exception.

[3:48:39] And you can see this is specifically for that goal.

[3:48:43] So I think that the reference could be to review the historic preservation board.

[3:48:51] review and findings that are linked in the staff report, there are a lot of options to

[3:48:57] rehabilitate historic structures that can include additions. In this case, that addition

[3:49:03] is going in a basement level in a way that will not be visually impactful at the completion

[3:49:11] of the project.

[3:49:16] understood, but I think we established also that they could build the basement in conformance

[3:49:22] with the setbacks. It could still be a finished basement. In the historic part, the

[3:49:30] historic structure wouldn't be compromised in any way. The visual aesthetics would be irrelevant

[3:49:37] because this is a below-grade improvement so you wouldn't see it necessarily. You certainly

[3:49:44] wouldn't see the difference between building it within a setback versus not building it within

[3:49:48] the setbacks. And if you could, that would be a pretty miniscule offense to your observations

[3:49:56] as a historic preservationist walking down the street of woodside.

[3:50:04] We have our city attorney requesting to be promoted, please turn.

[3:50:13] For us, I mentioned earlier, Mark had to leave and join us. He has been on via Zoom.

[3:50:23] Mark's iPhone has been promoted.

[3:50:26] Thanks, guys. Mark hadn't seen the city attorney. Just a more specific answer to your question,

[3:50:31] because it has a big history at him.

[3:50:34] These sections work in tandem with sort of these equitable provisions that allow sight flexibility

[3:50:42] for adaptive or use of historic structures so that they get, um, they are held to the same

[3:50:50] standard in all regards because they're held such strict standard to protect the existing

[3:50:55] facades. And so if they meet the specified criteria, the commission is supposed to look at,

[3:51:04] you know, allowing some flexibility with the primary goal of a bit of equity as well as

[3:51:12] It's ensuring that there's no one mitigated circumstances.

[3:51:16] They're allowed to get closer to the same use of normal building a lot than the non-historic person next to them that can build up to the maximum square footage because they necessarily can't.

[3:51:30] So I know it's often hard to go through the lens like why would we allow more in a greater expansion of non-conformity,

[3:51:40] But it's really, it's allowing some site flexibility

[3:51:43] that allows the reasonable use of a property

[3:51:46] comparable to light properties in the district,

[3:51:51] given all the other buildings that they have to deal

[3:51:53] with as a historic property owner.

[3:51:56] So that's so means you guys have the flexibility

[3:51:57] of making that decision based on the criteria

[3:51:59] that you're going through.

[3:52:00] But I just do want to make sure it's in the lens

[3:52:03] that it's supposed to be so authority

[3:52:05] And not just someone running, you know, a loop, it's not someone running a loophole to get more square footage, it's intentional.

[3:52:16] And so it's always interesting.

[3:52:19] It is what you're saying then that, you know, because they're going to preserve this historic structure so well and with so much originality that they get.

[3:52:30] A little extra flexibility under the code.

[3:52:34] Yeah, and this Rebecca articulated under ground without adverse impacts. If there are adverse impacts

[3:52:40] in the record, you certainly allowed to address those. But I think she's properly described

[3:52:46] that the thought was different, if it's on your ground and not visible, those are minimized,

[3:52:51] But they can still have that, you know, that extra square footage that are normal family would hope to utilize in a light clock.

[3:53:06] There's also, if I may in our approach to design.

[3:53:09] Sorry about that.

[3:53:10] That's okay.

[3:53:11] Cole Knight.

[3:53:11] I'm here as the architect representative of my client Brian Wong.

[3:53:15] Thanks.

[3:53:15] In our design of this project, one thing that we were trying to do is as was kind of previously outlined.

[3:53:21] Do our very best to restore this building to its most original state, which means removing the additions that added non-original square footage onto the back of it and pairing it down to what was originally a very modest footprint of just below 500 square feet.

[3:53:40] In doing that, what we're going to do is build a new building behind this one that's completely detached and separated so that this can really stand alone.

[3:53:49] a shining example of historic architecture in Park City and the basement which goes beneath it

[3:53:56] is picking up the square footage that we lose and pursuing that historic preservation goal

[3:54:02] and to our understanding of the land management code we are not increasing to any degree the

[3:54:09] noncompliance of the structure because the noncompliance of the structure is the building footprint

[3:54:14] encroachment over the property setbacks. The building footprint is a defined land management code

[3:54:21] that is defined as the furthest wall plan on any level projected to grade because we're staying

[3:54:29] within the current building footprint, there is no enlargement in the non-conformance of this

[3:54:35] structure as the land management code defines it. And this is also somewhat common practice in

[3:54:43] lifting a historic building. It's an enormous expense to a property owner, and so generally anyone who's going through the pains of

[3:54:53] That in Combrance is going to try to pick up some amount of value, and so even if we weren't expanding the basement to match the building footprint

[3:55:02] There would still be

[3:55:04] Concrete foundation walls, which extends to frost grade, which is half the depth of the basement anyways

[3:55:09] So there's really no difference to the public domain on whether or not basement exists beneath the existing building footprint.

[3:55:18] And like I said, the basement that is proposed to our understanding and a very cut and clear reading of the code does not increase the non-conformance.

[3:55:30] Thank you. That's helpful information. Thank you.

[3:55:37] Any other questions or clarifications?

[3:55:40] I just want to stay on the rocket I found that to be a compelling argument and I am

[3:55:45] then leaning inclined to granting the exception at this point.

[3:55:52] Yeah, I would agree.

[3:55:53] I had actually changed my mind after listening a little bit further to some of the code history

[3:55:59] code intent and design realities.

[3:56:08] Still sits funny with me, but we agree on that point. It's an

[3:56:14] odd one. As our many in historic district. Yeah, they, many are. Anyway, that's, that's enough for me.

[3:56:25] I'd holy support this and you know, for what it's worth, you know, we don't have to

[3:56:29] and this has been regularly done in the past

[3:56:32] by a number of different other projects whenever you're dealing with

[3:56:34] these old and start cottages.

[3:56:36] So things are really good outcome.

[3:56:40] The three parking spaces will be in the new building

[3:56:44] access to the park Avenue.

[3:56:47] When do you plan to build that?

[3:56:51] The current intention is to permit all of the work

[3:56:53] under one building permit.

[3:56:56] So essentially all at once, though, you know, as far as staging, it's going to be a process.

[3:57:02] Thank you.

[3:57:07] And do we have a motion, anybody?

[3:57:10] Sure.

[3:57:10] I'll do a motion.

[3:57:11] This way.

[3:57:11] Oh, yeah.

[3:57:12] Oh, sorry.

[3:57:13] Sure.

[3:57:14] Van Dine.

[3:57:15] I move to approve the conditional use permit for the proposed basement under the landmark historic

[3:57:22] structure at 1010 Woodside Avenue.

[3:57:25] That is partially within the front and side setbacks.

[3:57:28] based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval outlined in the draft action letter.

[3:57:35] Could I, I apologize to interrupt. There was just one condition of approval, which I would like to touch on briefly, which is there's a condition requiring the property owner to get construction access agreements from all neighboring properties.

[3:57:52] Thankfully, my client has great working relationships with almost all property owners adjacent.

[3:57:57] There's only one where the properties held in a land trust, and it's been really challenging to get a hold of them.

[3:58:04] Thankfully, we have construction team on board, where we have a solution to achieve all of the proposed construction without crossing the property boundary.

[3:58:14] and that gets into a specific shorting strategy.

[3:58:18] And so it would be really helpful if we could soften

[3:58:21] just that condition of approval.

[3:58:22] It'll be handled through the building department.

[3:58:25] So they'll have to agree to any construction plan.

[3:58:28] But I'm a little bit concerned

[3:58:30] with over-constraining through a condition of approval.

[3:58:33] That the property owner must have access agreements

[3:58:36] to tread on all neighbors' properties

[3:58:38] when the reality might be that that's not achievable.

[3:58:43] And we already have a solution to mitigate the one instance where it's may not be a practical reality.

[3:58:50] What's a solution?

[3:58:52] A soldier piling, essentially, for the shoreing and excavation to create new foundations,

[3:59:00] you either have to lay back the site cut at a one to one,

[3:59:03] or you have to provide the trick to shoreing is that in order to generally do the most cost-efficient strategy,

[3:59:10] It requires soil nails, which cross the property boundary.

[3:59:14] In our case, we're looking at options for not needing to do that

[3:59:19] and keeping all the work on our land.

[3:59:21] So that's the property that you haven't been able to access the owner.

[3:59:24] Yep, the only one, yeah.

[3:59:25] So instead of using soil nails, you're looking at something else

[3:59:28] where you don't have to encourage on their property.

[3:59:32] And so the reality is that with the current plan,

[3:59:35] it'll be a little bit more expensive,

[3:59:37] but the client is happy to do it needs to be done

[3:59:39] to achieve the preservation strategy,

[3:59:43] and not cross the property boundary with any proposed work

[3:59:48] or workers on their land.

[3:59:51] So just so I have this straight, you could go ahead and do this,

[3:59:56] even if you don't get an access agreement.

[4:00:02] Correct. Correct. At a greater expense, but it is possible and that's the current. The current plan we just want to, you know, take all contingencies at face value. Like I said, most neighbors are good with a little bit of construction easement and lay back and potentially even soil nails, but the client is not taking any of that for granted and has contingency plans to achieve all of the proposed work without crops.

[4:00:30] processing property boundaries. And this is of course going to be in the building department's

[4:00:35] purview anyways. So generally, there are the ones that are requiring the easements to be in place.

[4:00:41] So when we submit for a building permit regardless of the condition of approval, they'll ask us

[4:00:46] for our strategy, whether that's a construction access easement agreement, or a suitable alternative,

[4:00:53] which is what we're currently planning to do. But we don't want to then be over constrained from a

[4:00:59] condition that is in access of what the building department negotiations will entail if that makes sense.

[4:01:06] So you're asked as well as I say, so I was either Mark or Lillian or Rebecca is there.

[4:01:13] I mean, if the commission were comfortable with striking it, it will be the policy of the building department is to require those access agreements in old town when any construction is being proposed within five feet of a property line.

[4:01:29] So it will be addressed at the building permit stage.

[4:01:32] So if the commission is comfortable with striking us,

[4:01:35] I'm not comfortable with that because it excludes all property

[4:01:39] owners instead of just one.

[4:01:41] Yeah, we wouldn't be happy even to say to leave it as is and just say,

[4:01:45] unless decided otherwise by the building department at the time of permitting.

[4:01:49] And that leaves it as de facto, unless they make a judgment,

[4:01:53] otherwise,

[4:01:56] I'm okay with that idea.

[4:01:57] Rebecca is that.

[4:01:59] Okay. Yeah, ultimately, it will be the bending department that will review this.

[4:02:05] So, Lily. Perfect.

[4:02:09] That's good.

[4:02:13] Um, so then grants can stand just as amended.

[4:02:17] As amended. Second.

[4:02:20] Uh, we have a motion.

[4:02:21] My commissioner tells them the second by commissioner. She and all those in favor.

[4:02:24] All right. All right.

[4:02:26] All right. Motion passes. Thank you, guys.

[4:02:28] Thanks for your time.

[4:02:29] consideration. Appreciate it. I'm going for sticking around.

[4:02:32] Yeah. All right. Last item. We are going to have a hard stop of 10 o'clock. So if we don't have a motion by 10, we will continue this item to.

[4:02:45] We'll figure it out. Hopefully we can get it through it.

[4:02:50] What?

[4:02:53] Thank

[4:03:01] you. This is a continuation of the item at the last planning commission meeting at 1364 Goldenway.

[4:03:07] I'm just a quick recap. The applicant is proposing or requesting planning commission modify

[4:03:13] application of the sensitive land overlay criteria, specifically the Regelined regulations

[4:03:19] to allow development of a single family dwelling. The area phase two subdivision was plotted

[4:03:24] in 1983 and it predates the sensitive land overlay regulations which were not enacted until 1992.

[4:03:31] You can see here the approximate area of single family dwelling disturbance and purple

[4:03:37] and the ridge line area in blue. The lot would likely not have been created in order to

[4:03:42] today's provisions, but because it predates the SLO regulations, there is a provision in the code

[4:03:49] to ensure that an applicant is not denied all reasonable use of the property. So this

[4:03:55] property is impacted by sensitive land of relay regulations in two ways. There's the very steep slopes

[4:04:01] on the property, and then there's the ridge line area. And the applicant is proposing hardship relief

[4:04:07] for the ridge line area, which is the less impactful

[4:04:11] of the two areas that would be impacted by the development.

[4:04:17] At the previous meeting, the planning commission requested

[4:04:19] additional materials to aid in the analysis

[4:04:22] and the applicant responded with additional analysis

[4:04:26] regarding the seven criteria that have met

[4:04:28] would allow the commission to vary the required 50-foot set

[4:04:31] back from very seat slopes.

[4:04:34] They've also provided additional analysis

[4:04:36] demonstrating that sense of the land overlay regulations would deny all reasonable use of the property

[4:04:41] and updated site plan, reducing the height of the proposed single family dwelling to 28 feet of

[4:04:47] other existing grade which is the zone height and then an alternative conceptual plan that would

[4:04:52] cite the single family dwelling further down the hill in the very steep slopes areas.

[4:04:59] So these are the seven criteria that the planning commission reviews to determine if it can grant

[4:05:04] an exception to the very steep slope criteria. The applicant has indicated that criteria two and five

[4:05:10] could not be met. Given the constraints of the lot and the presence of the ridge lane area

[4:05:17] and very steep slopes. So these state building areas in the setback do not create excessive

[4:05:22] cutter fill slopes and minimal retaining walls and excuse me. And the number five the site plan

[4:05:30] results in an improved organization of units through vegetation avoidance, developing within

[4:05:37] the very seat slopes area would require a driveway that's approximately 164 feet long.

[4:05:43] There would be extensive cuts and fills and retaining walls up to 8 feet.

[4:05:48] The applicant provided this alternative site plan, showing the development of the single

[4:05:59] the site, Park City Fire District indicated that driveways longer than 150 feet required

[4:06:09] turnaround area for fire vehicles. And so this illustration demonstrates what would be

[4:06:16] required to accommodate that given the length of the driveway.

[4:06:22] The applicant provided

[4:06:23] some renderings showing on the left what the single family dwelling would look like if it were

[4:06:32] provided further down the hill in the very steep slope areas, and then on the right the current

[4:06:37] positioning within the ridge lane area. This is as viewed from city hall, and then these

[4:06:45] renderings are as viewed from Old Town again with the development on very steep slopes on the left

[4:06:52] and further up in the ridge lane area on the right.

[4:06:58] The applicant also provided these conceptual

[4:07:00] plan showing, um, where the, uh, maximum building height at 28 feet is located in blue.

[4:07:09] Um, and then the 33 feet, there's an additional 5 feet for, um, roof structures and chimneys.

[4:07:17] Um, and so staff highlighted these areas in blue, the areas between 28 and 33 feet, and then the,

[4:07:23] the areas between 33 and 38 feet, the maximum height in red.

[4:07:30] Here's another view of the structure.

[4:07:37] Again, the applicant is requesting hardship relief to allow development within the rich line area. The 1364 golden weight, lot is outlined here in red. You can see the rich line area in blue.

[4:07:51] Staff is recommending conditions of approval to minimize disturbance within the rich line area.

[4:07:57] non-reflective roofing and facade materials every green landscaping to screen

[4:08:02] destructure and blend in with the hillside is viewed from the vantage points.

[4:08:07] Greater than 75% of the lot to remain open space and to limit disturbance of

[4:08:11] open space areas to the removal of dead and dying vegetation. The maximum

[4:08:16] disturbance area would be 6600 square feet out there lighting restrictions and then

[4:08:23] And as seen in these images, here's staff is recommending that the, the single family dwelling be redesigned to meet the 28 foot height limit in this zoning district and that bay windows dormers chimneys and other features be either removed from the designer relocated to reduce visual impacts.

[4:08:48] As conditions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review this sensitive land

[4:08:53] overlay hardship relief requests for this site conduct a public hearing and consider approving

[4:08:58] based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval, as amended

[4:09:03] in the draft final action letter. And the applicant has the presentation to share as well.

[4:09:10] Even in chair. Commissioners appreciate you having us and keeping staying here late with us.

[4:09:15] We are circling back. I'm going to forgo a formal presentation given that we're on the clock. We get 21 minutes.

[4:09:20] And I'd like to do it. And I think the most important part is to make sure that answering all of your questions. I tried to do that in writing and with the submittal.

[4:09:26] I think the only other component that wasn't in there in a commissioner for Ontario had some specific questions about,

[4:09:31] wait a second, you know, when did we make this retroactive, you know, you acquired the land in 2001, did you acquire on notice?

[4:09:37] It's really difficult sometimes to peruse through all of the prior iterations of the code.

[4:09:41] but I did my artist to get through it all

[4:09:44] and it looked to me it was about 2007

[4:09:45] when they modified the defint they included

[4:09:47] in a new definition of what is developable land

[4:09:50] into this portion of the code

[4:09:52] and that actually drew in existing master plan developments.

[4:09:57] From what I could tell that's the point at which the code

[4:09:59] became retroactive effectively by that definition.

[4:10:03] It was a long time ago and all I have is an ordinance

[4:10:06] and things to work off of,

[4:10:07] but that's the best that I could find and perusing

[4:10:09] all the prior version is to when that became retroactive per set.

[4:10:14] I also defined and included quotes too.

[4:10:16] I don't think it's in the packet,

[4:10:17] but there's a letter from the city attorney dating back in 1992,

[4:10:21] where he says, look, this isn't gonna apply

[4:10:23] to existing developments.

[4:10:26] So there was a question from developments

[4:10:28] that were out there, like, wait a second,

[4:10:29] is this gonna impact us?

[4:10:30] He said, no, unless you came back in,

[4:10:32] to make this substantial change to the development,

[4:10:34] then it would apply to you, right?

[4:10:36] So not the circumstance we have here,

[4:10:38] of course, understandably later on the city decided to make that change. I think in 2007.

[4:10:43] But then you have this hardship relief. And like I said, I won't be laborer the points,

[4:10:47] but I think the materials present well, why it's less impactful to have the property up in the

[4:10:53] ridge line, both less of an impact of the very steep slopes, but then also visually less impactfully.

[4:10:59] You can really see that as it ducks in and line and harmony with the other structures that are all

[4:11:04] constructed within that ridge line overlay up near the Colisec.

[4:11:10] We are good with the majority of the conditions that staff is looking to impose.

[4:11:13] We think they will do well to minimize the impacts.

[4:11:16] The only one that we are not comfortable with at this juncture we are going to try to

[4:11:20] design around it is the 28 foot limitation taking away the exceptions.

[4:11:25] So the code builds in these natural exceptions for two things.

[4:11:30] First for pitches of a roof fright, if you have a pitch above a certain pitch in every zone, you then are allowed a few more extra feet.

[4:11:41] And then there's an exception built in from mechanical equipment and chimneys that sort of thing throughout the code as well.

[4:11:47] And the purpose of this is to allow for architectural interest, right?

[4:11:51] If you just said it's 28 feet everywhere 33 or whatever it is in every location, you're going to get a lot of flat roof structures, right?

[4:11:58] because that's how you maximize,

[4:12:00] that's how you maximize the square footage

[4:12:02] when you have a very firm height limit like that.

[4:12:06] That's why you see these,

[4:12:07] this came up in your conversation earlier,

[4:12:10] not that I want to take you back there,

[4:12:11] but about, you know, they slow up.

[4:12:13] So we would like to have some architectural interest in here,

[4:12:15] my client has a style of home

[4:12:18] that they would like to construct.

[4:12:19] It's not a flat roofed home.

[4:12:20] If this is just 28 feet

[4:12:22] and none of the other exceptions that are in the code,

[4:12:24] apply, we're just gonna go to a flat roof structure, right?

[4:12:27] That's what this becomes.

[4:12:28] and so I have to have the same architectural interest that others in the community have had.

[4:12:33] And we went and surveyed the surrounding homes. The home directly next door is 33 feet tall

[4:12:37] at the reds line. It's actually a little lower. But, you know, that this is going to be,

[4:12:42] it's not like it's going to be taller. And you can see that in the exhibits we submit.

[4:12:45] This is only 20 feet tall at the, at the coldest act. It's substantially lower than the,

[4:12:51] than the properties around it, right? So that that's conditioned six and seven of the

[4:12:57] only wants it that we would request the planning commission not include and in the approval,

[4:13:02] we think that that they're important things to keep the design aesthetic that's contemplated

[4:13:06] by the code currently. With that, I'll let it be. I do think we closed the public hearing last

[4:13:11] time around. I don't know that we did, you know, open it again. But okay, all right, I'm just sorry.

[4:13:16] I'm looking at it. So in the interest of time, I know there was additional public hearing to me.

[4:13:20] All right. So with that, I'm, I'm maybe answer any questions.

[4:13:25] I just, in first of all, really great submittals and answered all my questions, but just to your last point about conditions 6 and 7, I'm looking at the draft final action letter and I don't think it's 6, it just must be 7 that you're concerned about because 6 talks about outdoor lighting and stuff.

[4:13:49] So are we just talking about seven the condition of approval number seven?

[4:13:56] You know what you know and I misspoke it must be seven and eight. I apologize Mr. Trump. Thank you for catching that.

[4:14:02] Okay seven and

[4:14:05] Okay, yeah eight right okay. Tell me since all right sorry that's the only question I have

[4:14:12] for now

[4:14:16] and that and then I would just note that that means that the reference point

[4:14:20] in the findings of fact be one, one, and two, one are off.

[4:14:27] They show us the concept and they should show 70.

[4:14:29] So just a good catch.

[4:14:46] Kind of just point of procedure, Rebecca,

[4:14:50] when we need to re-jigger the conditions of approval

[4:14:54] on the findings of fact.

[4:14:56] How do we make a motion?

[4:14:57] just as

[4:15:00] And if you wanted to be specific, as amended, updating the findings of that related to conditions of approval, six and seven, to rename seven and eight.

[4:15:21] Okay, I'm finding the applicant, I'd like the applicant to give a little better explanation for not keeping to the 28 feet.

[4:15:35] Architectural preference, that sort of hearing, is that it?

[4:15:41] Well, I think in addition, when we discuss this with staff, the component that makes it difficult.

[4:15:46] this were a flat lot, sticking to 28 feet would be even with a chimney and because it's really a

[4:15:52] two story and one in two story product primarily, but because of the steep braid going downward

[4:15:58] in order to not have too many stairs at split level repeatedly this side, you have to step down

[4:16:06] from the garage to the main living area. So there's a sequence of stairs going down. We are building

[4:16:11] down the property line. But it makes it incredibly difficult to do that and have any type of pitch

[4:16:18] to your roof without stepping the house in so many ways that it becomes impractical for somebody

[4:16:26] on a lot that's steep as this. And so that's the design component from a practicality structure

[4:16:34] of someone who wants to live in this home that if you have stairs at every floor to try to make

[4:16:40] work, even though there will be many stairs that makes it difficult. And then really the overlay

[4:16:45] with that is, you know, chimneys do stick up for five feet and if you have a pitch roof,

[4:16:51] it does an extent higher. So it's the combination of those two things that lead us to,

[4:16:56] I think lead to the code provisions in the first place and then the request on our part to keep

[4:17:00] them away. Okay, I'll take that under advisement. If you built further down the slope,

[4:17:07] you'd be entering into steep slope and you'd have even more stairs.

[4:17:11] That's correct. Yes.

[4:17:13] I would say, in general, I'm sensitive to the situation that the lot is in with respect to the

[4:17:21] ridge line and that every home on that cul-de-sac, that's built, is within that area.

[4:17:28] So I'm inclined to grant the relief from the steep slope building up the hill.

[4:17:36] But like Commissioner Frontaro,

[4:17:41] you know, with staff's recommendation to keep it at 28 feet.

[4:17:44] I mean, I get the chimney thing and all that.

[4:17:46] I just need to think about that a little bit as any kind of elevations been done that comply with the 28 foot maximum height.

[4:17:56] We actually did try hard to see if we could make it work with the same type of design.

[4:18:01] And the only way we could make it work was to spread the house up further and take up more.

[4:18:07] It ended up impacting a lot more square footage of the lot.

[4:18:12] And so we couldn't find something that fit the same design aesthetic.

[4:18:17] All we could really find that would make it work is if we went to just a flat roof and remove the chimneys entirely.

[4:18:22] That works.

[4:18:23] But then you're going from a mountain, large-style home to a modern home, right?

[4:18:30] like that, that really is a complete design change.

[4:18:33] And so that's where it went.

[4:18:35] We haven't found the solution other than that yet.

[4:18:39] Yeah, just let me ask you this, forgetting the chimneys

[4:18:43] or what have you, as I understand it,

[4:18:45] you know, this is a bi-ripe thing.

[4:18:48] This is not kind of an osd discretion thing.

[4:18:50] So you're putting inside the SLO.

[4:18:53] You have 28 feet, and as long as you make it a picture,

[4:18:55] if you get 33 feet, it's not kind of anyone's discretion.

[4:18:58] And that's by right as I understand it, right?

[4:19:01] That's correct, completely.

[4:19:02] We're just asking for the same code,

[4:19:04] you know, application because of the same way

[4:19:06] that it was for everybody else.

[4:19:07] I'm going to call the packages by exactly.

[4:19:09] Yeah. And so the reason why starfall, whoever can ask for that

[4:19:13] to come down is because of the sort of discretion

[4:19:15] you're getting with the SLR.

[4:19:18] So, you know, my view on this is,

[4:19:20] I don't think we need to kind of put that condition in.

[4:19:23] I think kind of by right, you would get that 33.

[4:19:25] I'm not, you know, if it goes above that for the chimneys,

[4:19:27] that's kind of a different thing, but I think kind of the code says you get 33 and that's

[4:19:31] a separate thing to this SLO situation,

[4:19:38] whether that's a detriment there or not, so that's

[4:19:41] where I'd come out with it.

[4:19:53] Other comments or feelings or how are people thinking about height with what Matt just proposed?

[4:20:05] So, you guys cut out on me so I don't sure what happened.

[4:20:08] The last couple of seconds I think we cut out, but I think we all got the just of what

[4:20:11] I

[4:20:21] find Matt's points to be valid, you know, I understand the roof pitch provides additional height and I'm inclined to agree with that assessment and I'm also at this point inclined to move to a lot of 33 feet.

[4:20:44] I still,

[4:20:48] I don't know if the chimneys can be moved so that's the best prominent in the design if that's the possibility still.

[4:20:57] Yeah, I think that's certainly something we can explore making the most prominent.

[4:21:01] We're moving them in locations that maybe they're not as tall or crossing as far out.

[4:21:06] That's outside of my Bailey Wick.

[4:21:08] Okay.

[4:21:09] Definitely not the architect, but this road I was here.

[4:21:12] So, you know, we have to get the variety of mechanical equipment up through the roof of one

[4:21:20] form of fashion. So, and typically around different subdivisions were required to create

[4:21:28] a box around those. So, you don't have a series of metal pipes jumping out of the roof.

[4:21:34] I mean, you have to, sometimes we can do stuff horizontally, but, you know, most of the time

[4:21:40] we have to take those pipes up through the roof, same thing with fireplaces, you know,

[4:21:46] you can, that fireplaces probably can be dealt with in the sense that there's a lot

[4:21:53] of horizontal solutions for the plants as long as you're just doing gas fireplaces, but, you

[4:22:00] know, we're trying to get mechanical equipment out through it's, you know, it's the decision

[4:22:07] of having pipes that are better, that are shiny, that are sticking up above the roof versus the

[4:22:14] nice looking chimney. So it's, it's, it's a lot of it is like just and it's said, you know, it

[4:22:22] provides a little bit of

[4:22:27] feeling of movement in the outpatients.

[4:22:30] But the chimney suits well. So it's an architectural thing.

[4:22:38] So I like them. We've got 28 feet. We've got the cable height that allows for an extra five feet.

[4:22:46] So we're really, we're just looking at the additional chimney height.

[4:22:53] Yeah. The condition is worth it to require elimination or relocation of chimney stormers that they would does.

[4:23:00] Okay. So you're asking to get rid of the dormers also.

[4:23:03] And keep everything at 28.

[4:23:07] That's how it's, that's what's recommended in the final action letter.

[4:23:14] It's like you're inclined to go to 33 and then go to that.

[4:23:18] That way, that's.

[4:23:19] Now, I just wanted to understand, you know, what can with the baseline is 28 feet.

[4:23:25] And then if there was an allowance for for dormers on top of that, but what I hear Alex saying is that their recommendation is 28 feet.

[4:23:33] I think Rick's point about rather than having pipe stick up through a roof that's nice to have them in a enclosure and enclosure be in a chimney.

[4:23:48] Thank you for the clarification.

[4:23:54] Yeah, I think that just to be clear that the five foot allowance for chimneys and sort of masking around you that's also in the code that's allowed it's not something we're requesting as an exception in some way it is loud.

[4:24:16] at this point I'm inclined to I'm comfortable striking seven in eight from the conditions of approval.

[4:24:28] If you were, I'm sorry, or John, keep it in there but modify the 28

[4:24:35] to 33 to

[4:24:38] Rick, are you saying modify the 28 and make it 33 and condition seven?

[4:24:44] Yeah, I mean, John suggested striking seven, but I'm just saying maybe we keep seven in there

[4:24:50] as you said. And go to that. I'm 33. Yeah. Change the 28 to 33. Right. What the allowance for

[4:24:58] life is for a chimney? Well, you do. Yeah. So you strike 8, but make the 28 33. Yeah. Yeah.

[4:25:10] Strike 8 completely. Matt. Yeah, because they've got that extra hard for gym needs. It's

[4:25:17] under the code. So yeah, but do you want to? Yeah, but do you want to keep the part that says that

[4:25:24] that's still the design has to blend with natural contour of the hillside reduced

[4:25:28] silhouettes against skyline? Yeah, because because that goes to the SLO.

[4:25:33] If I'm really quick, I don't think we want to say that the zone height is 33. I mean, I would love that

[4:25:39] if we did, but I think that's a that's a height variance. We would be acting almost like legislative

[4:25:44] to change the zone height through a condition of approval, I think, and then there could be an argument

[4:25:50] that we're not required to actually have before a pitch to get the 33 feet because it says that

[4:25:55] we have 33 feet of height. So I think to effectuate what you're saying though, if we leave 7 the way it

[4:26:01] is that that is 7 is just repeating the quote. The code is that our zone height is 28 feet.

[4:26:13] That's

[4:26:14] And then if you're comfortable with 33 feet for the five-foot allowance,

[4:26:20] we could just modify eight to make that clear and the earlier thing that you can

[4:26:24] have the 33 feet for the 4-8 pitch. But then we can say that the chimneys need to come in and

[4:26:33] not another five feet above that. So I think that's if that's the concern. I don't know how

[4:26:37] adequately addressing the concern.

[4:26:42] Well, do you see the chimneys coming in

[4:26:44] And starting at the 33 feet and going up five additional feet?

[4:26:48] I think there is at least one chimney that's on the peak that I mean we run everything

[4:26:52] to the peak and so in one of the locations it is, it is at a 33 feet and then goes five.

[4:26:58] But I'm sure we could work within something where we say, you know, it's only going to

[4:27:01] go three feet above or two feet above the peak of 33.

[4:27:06] I think that probably better affects what you're getting at.

[4:27:10] I'd be more comfortable with that, put putting a slight reduction on the chimney.

[4:27:16] Yeah, okay, the two reworks.

[4:27:18] So the pipes will go up to two feet, three feet.

[4:27:21] Yeah, especially towards the ridge where you don't have to have as much clearance.

[4:27:27] Of course, on distance, me, to end up playing with the roof surface.

[4:27:34] Oh, yeah, we can work with that.

[4:27:39] Okay, show it. In light of that, do we need to, um, the final action letter needs to be modified?

[4:27:50] Yeah, and just to confirm, I understand the commission is wanting to strike condition of approval seven,

[4:27:57] and then modify condition of approval eight to limit the height of chimneys two. Was it three feet? Is it supposed to, by feet?

[4:28:04] that was leave seven

[4:28:09] leave seven I'm sorry no we would strike seven because it says

[4:28:12] she'll reduce that but okay I apologize and we'll show it to them but but I

[4:28:20] meant to say you don't want to make the zone height 33 yeah that's good keep it

[4:28:26] it right we don't need a condition of approval the zone height is 28 plus with

[4:28:32] able roof in 1983. The code is allowing for the defy feet. So then strikes seven and then eight.

[4:28:44] Eight we could say that the application, you know, you know,

[4:28:47] the helmet, the helmet, all chimneys, dormers,

[4:28:52] to no more than three feet above. Fine, I'm fine with that. The 33 foot height.

[4:29:01] Three additional feet.

[4:29:15] And I think it's not about existing grade above the sound.

[4:29:27] The zone high is designed to 28 feet, so if we say about the roof.

[4:29:35] Yeah. Yeah. The highest point of the roof, which is 1 minute to 13.

[4:29:42] 33. By the way, I think the cool you were saying you could even bring it down a little from the highest point of the roof.

[4:29:49] Yeah, I think we can look at it. And this kind of created design that blends with the natural control side reduces silhouette.

[4:29:55] We're okay with all that. We're gonna try to make that happen. Okay, but we do need

[4:30:02] Okay,

[4:30:06] is that wording okay, Justin? Yeah, yes, I'm good with that language.

[4:30:10] Back there, are you good with that?

[4:30:12] Yeah, okay, okay.

[4:30:13] So just to recap, we've got code height of 28 feet, cable height additional five.

[4:30:22] That's great.

[4:30:23] And then chimneys no more than three additional feet.

[4:30:27] Okay.

[4:30:27] I'm not the highest point.

[4:30:28] Okay, all right, all right.

[4:30:38] As a minute, Chair Van Dyne, I'd like to make a motion to approve the sensitive land overlay

[4:30:45] hardship relief request for a 1364 golden way based on the findings of fact,

[4:30:52] conclusions of law and conditions of approval as outlined in the amended draft final action

[4:30:59] letter.

[4:31:00] We have a motion by Commissioner Shand, second by Commissioner Frontero, all those in favor.

[4:31:06] Hi.

[4:31:07] All right.

[4:31:09] We did it with the regular agenda.

[4:31:12] Thank you, guys.

[4:31:13] A little more.

[4:31:13] Motion houses.

[4:31:16] We will make sure we get to those work session items next meeting.

[4:31:21] The promise.

[4:31:25] Motion to adjourn.

[4:31:26] I can just say if you have had an opportunity to review the staff reports, do you have any input that you'd like to provide to us beforehand?

[4:31:38] That would be helpful as we prepare for the next meeting.

[4:31:41] Thank you Rebecca.

[4:31:42] Thank you.

[4:31:44] Thank you.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript