OCR Text |
Show Council to Decide Prospector Hotel Issue down in concerns unrelated to the proposal. In addition, Martin expressed express-ed concern that the negative decision on the proposal indicated indi-cated a shift in the planning commission philosophy. "The planning commission and Mr. Preece are becoming involved in how people use their own property," he said, adding that he felt that was inappropriate, unless a negative nega-tive impact on adjoining pro-erty pro-erty could be shown. "We were really never able to tie them down on the impacts of this proposal ... and a man has the right to use his property, unless you can show that negative impact," he said. Martin maintained the impact im-pact of the new zoning would be positive, since it would facilitate the building of a hotel, something, he said, would benefit the Park City economy. "They (the developers) feel a desperate need for additional rooms in Park City .to accommodate accom-modate transients," said Martin, Mar-tin, who feels a shortage of hotel rooms restricted the areas potential as a destination resort. He said discussions with some of the members of the - city council have indicated there is some sympathy there for the proposal, but he said the planners would not push for a decision Thursday. He concluded: "If they (the council) end up envisioning it as a negative thing, and turn it down, I can't imagine us pushing it ... it's not that big a deal." Turned down by the planning plan-ning commission two weeks ago, a proposal to allow hotel rooms with kitchens, which would be sold as condominiums, condomin-iums, to be built in the General Commercial zone will be taken to the Park City Council tonight, Thursday. The proposal is being made by J. J. Johnson and Associates, Associ-ates, planning consultants, on behalf of a client who wishes the Park City Land Management Manage-ment Code be amended with an eye to a hotelcortdominium development in the Prospector Square area, south of U-248. After about two momths consideration, the Park City Planning Commission voted unanimously Nov. 22 to accept the recommendation of City Planner David Preece and reject re-ject the proposed amendment, which would apply only to the General Commercial (GC) district. dis-trict. However, the planning commission com-mission is an advisory body i and the city council could reject that advice. In making that negative re- ' commendation, Planning Commission Com-mission Chairman Burnis Watts told the Record last week that it was felt the proposed zoning would allow for development inappropriate to the commercial area. He and other members of the commission have expressed concern that the hotel rooms with kitchens could eventually become full-time housing. "The proposed amendment would allow for possible abuse by developers to build a high density of apartment units under the pretense of a hotel," stated Planner Preece in a memorandum to the planning commission. Preece went on to state: "If it is the intention of the developer to build condominiums, condomin-iums, he should be required to meet the multi-family units requirements, such as land area, open space and off-street parking, as specified under the Land Management Code. Proponents strongly disagree with that analysis. Consultant Van Martin stating the only reason the units would be sold as condominiums was so it would be possible to obtain financing for the hotel. ' Furthermore, he states, restrictive re-strictive covenanfs and the high cost of the condo's would preclude them from being turn- ed into full-time residences. In an interview, Martin stated sta-ted he "didn't think the planning plan-ning commission had fully understood the issues," and that they had become bogged |