OCR Text |
Show Mt. Top Subdivision Fails First Test The 14-lot Mt. Top subdivision, proposed for Quarry Mountain just north of the Park City limits, has failed to obtain the first step in the approval process from the Summit County Planning Commission. Com-mission. According to County Planning Director Max Greenhalgh, the project was not given a commitment commit-ment to approve a zoning change for the property, following an October 25 public hearing, because a proposed access road did not meet county standards. Under the new county zoning ordinances, any developer must seek a zone change for his property before it can be considered for approval. Greenhalgh reported that developer dev-eloper Alan Thomson of Snyderville Snyder-ville had proposed an access road with a 13 percent grade and asked that it be gravel instead of a paved street. County standards would require a paved road with a 10 percent grade. "The county's position is that as long as we're responsible for maintenance, we won't accept a road unless it meets our standards," said Greenhalgh. "It would have to be paved and meet the grade." Thomson reportedly told the planning commission that he would obtain a letter from city officials in Park City saying that the site of the access road is likely to be annexed by the city sometime in the future. If the road came under city jurisdiction, it would relieve the county of any responsibility for maintenance. Greenhalgh said Thomson would be seeking preliminary approval for the subdivision Tuesday, November 8, and that the planning commission was likely to grant the approval on the condition that final approval would not be received until the road was annexed by Park City, provided he presented a letter stating that Park City intended to annex the area. City officials reported last week that Thomson had contacted them and plans to resubmit his request for annexation of the site of his proposed 80 acre Treasure Hills subdivision, adjacent to the Mt. Top development. Thomson had originally requested re-quested annexation of the property proper-ty by the city in February. His request was finally denied this summer by the city council when no agreement could be reached on providing water for the development, a requirement of the city's recently adopted annexation policy. The denial followed months of with the council and planning commission, which voted to recommend annexation of the property shortly before the action by council , , , . , . , |