OCR Text |
Show S P f , 1 : 'If rga 0 o ill . : " g-. ZuZT M - ""' V- ",ir urging Couneilmen to expedite exped-ite its adoption. 'If we continue to allow high densitv in these areas, it "will only cost the tax-pavers tax-pavers money in the form ot expanded services which will have to be provided." Mr. Decker said, adding. "It might cost some money in the short run with legal feel and possible suits but it will be a savings to the taxpayers over the long period." Developer Jack Sweeney, arguing against the proposal insisted that there was already a moratorium in effect at the banks because of limited capital and high interest rates, adding that he could see no reason to compound the problem with a building moratorium in Park City. "It's pretty darn scary." said Mr. Sweeney, Park Avenue resident Gary Boyle supported Mr. Sweeney's statement saying, "Maybe we don't need a moratorium if the economy will take care of things naturally." Mr. Boyle also asked "if the City had explored the possible financial finan-cial ramifications of such z move. Planner Ligety responded to that saying that he, didn't feel the economic pinch would be so hard felt in Park City because of unique appeal and high demand real estate. Councilman Steve Dering who was participating in his last official meeting, argued effectively in favor of the proposal reminding the audience aud-ience that a moratorium would not be necessary at this time if Park Avenue v residents had allowed the area to be properly down-zoned down-zoned in 1977 when the Land Management Code was approved. ap-proved. Otto Carpenter who owns several lots on Norfolk Avenue, said he thought the proposal was blatently against the "little, man." He maintained that the big developers could continue to build in the new subdivisions while the individual property owner is faced with a moratorium. "Thfe little man has a chance to sell his property for a good price and you're trying to tell us we Please Turn to Page 7 A Steve Dering and Eleanor Bennett, on either side of Mayor Jack Green, listen to citizen Input on proposed conditional use permit limitations. It was their last meeting as members of the City Council. - Building Limitation Hearing Held Approximately 30 Park City residents appeared at last Thursday's meeting of the City Council to offer input into a proposal to limit conditional use permits in residential zones south of 15th Street for a period of six months. The proposal was made over a month ago by members of the Planning Commission but has vet to be enacted by the Council. City Pianner. Bill Ligety addressed the diverse audience audi-ence and explained that the area effected by the proposal limitation would run south from 15th Street to the city limits. He added that Main Street would not be affected nor would the Recreation Commercially zoned area near the Park City Resort. Heber Avenue would be included in the area but not Deer Valley proper. He continued that under the proposal, only single and duplex residences could be Iruih in the area during the six month period and because be-cause anything else requires a conditional use permit under present zoning ordinances, ordi-nances, the wording "building "build-ing permit" had been deleted from the original recommendation because it was unnecessary. As primary justification for the limiting of conditional use permits in the area, the Planner referred to the Planning Commission's original ori-ginal statement on the subject which is as follows: "The Planning Commission Commis-sion feels that the present zoning regulations in the older part of town do not provide adequate guidance for either themselves or property owners and prospective pro-spective developers. It is felt that the present system of conditional uses encourages a density and configuration of development which was not intended in the formulation formula-tion of the ordinance. Furthermore, Fur-thermore, continued issuance issuan-ce of conditional use permits for relatively dense multi-unit multi-unit housing projects may overburden the old town's narrow street system, impair fire fighting capabilities,' cause adverse impacts on existing residential stability, and also depreciate the historic character which is a vital element of Park City appeal. The purpose of the limitation and associated study is to determine which conditional uses are in fact appropriate and consistent with Park City development goals. Also a determination needs to be made as to what additional building stand ards should be applied to rjcbMfi6fial u&s? rFi i i 1 4 ' Ligety added that because a new Master Plan and subsequent Land Management Manage-ment Code is forthcoming for Park City. Planning Commissioners Com-missioners are reluctant to approve any projects which may not receive a favorable recommendation under the new plan. He said that preliminary recommendations recommenda-tions pertaining to the Master Plan revisions point toward a two-phased plan for the historic areas of Park City. First, Mr. Ligety addressed the southern area of the historic district beginning begin-ning at approx. 8th Street. In this area, he said, current thinking would see the area developed primarily as a residential neighborhood restricted re-stricted most likely to duplexes du-plexes and single family residences. The northern area on the other hand would be condu-sive condu-sive to multi-unit projects of greater density but with strict set back, side yard and square footage requirements to enhance the area with landscaping and open space included in each individual project. Ligety added that the Planning Commission just needs "some breathing room" to consider the two-faceted two-faceted plan and other Master Plan revisions without with-out being bombarded with development proposals in the effected area. There are apparently six proposals for multi-unit developments in the historic area now before Planning Commissioners. From the floor, former City Councilman Mary Leh-mer Leh-mer urged that the jimition proposal also include a six month moratorium on hill-, hill-, side development until the subject can be addressed by the Master Plan Update Committee. Bruce Decker, former City Treasurer and Recorder, also spoke in favor of the proposal commending the Planning Commission forheilanand 'X ?yy';, y, ., rf- I jv r I,, I'-i l "t fyk V City Planner Bill ligety 1 , r " f r ' f i'f p r r ' " !' " ' ' ' more hearing . Continued from Page 6A can't. You're stealing from us by down-zoning our property," said Mr. Carpenter. Carpen-ter. Councilman and life long resident Rich Martinez offered of-fered a convincing argument against the proposal pointing out that the majority of the property owners effected by the limitation are older residents who have lived in Park City all their lives. 'These people have stuck it out here and kept the town going through the worst times you've ever seen. Now they have a chance to sell their property for enough money to allow them to retire and enjoy some of the comforts they never had and we're trying to take that away." Mr. Martinez continued, con-tinued, "It sounds like you're trying to shut down old town and move everything every-thing out north." Rich's statement drew loud applause from the audience from those in attendance who assumed that the restrictions would greatly devalue their property proper-ty much of which large developers have already expressed an interest in acquiring for condominium and other multi-unit development develop-ment sites. Planner Ligety argued that the limitations would do no such thing, insisting that if the number of people who could live in a given area was limited, then it could do nothing but increase the value of all property within that area, regardless of what could be built upon it. City Councilmen announced announ-ced at the outset of the hearing that it was "merely an input session" and that . no action would be taken. When the new City Council will act on the proposal is unknown. Underlying it all J whether or not the proposal as presented will actually accomplish the goals set forth by Planning Commissioners Commis-sioners when they made the initial presentation. |