OCR Text |
Show CITY Adjustment Board Denies P.C. Village Variance Requests denied with a vote of 4 to 1. Katherine Janka, the board member who voted to allow the variance in the height instance said she felt more input was needed regarding the formula used to measure height. City Manger Arlene Loble called the board's decision prudent given their statutory responsibility. She added she thought the code infractions infract-ions are not apparent in the project at present but will occur as building continues in the future. She explained it was her impression the building currently under construction at the site is within height restrictions but others in the future may exceed those limits. She said also the project has more than enough parking for what is presently under construction but that that number will fall short when the entire multi-phased project pro-ject is completed. Members of the Board of Adjustments are: John Quinn, Carol Calder, Greg Vinson, Randy Rogers and Katherine Janka. Two separate variance requests re-quests made by the municipal munici-pal planning staff on behalf of the Park City Village project were denied by the Board of Adjustments Tuesday Tues-day evening. The denial could force Village developers to either appeal the decision in the district court or drastically revise their plans to comply with land management code specifications. More importantly the decision decis-ion has placed the city in an uncomfortable situation because be-cause the Planning Commission Commis-sion earlier approved the project's plans knowing portions port-ions of the mammoth development deve-lopment may exceed the city's high limitations and that the code required more parking stalls than were proposed. According to the land management code, the Planning Plan-ning Commission has the digression to flexibly interpret inter-pret the ordinances when dealing with a planned unit development but not in the case of a conditional use. Since the Village project is a conditional use. Planners did not have the power to flexibly interpret the code. Planners apparently approved ap-proved certain portions of the project thought to exceed height limits by around five feet because they were unclear about methods used in measuring the proposed height of the, buildings. Specifically, whether they should measure from the plaza level or from a point based on average slope of the site. Under the code so many parking spaces must be provided for each proposed condominium unit. Additional Addition-al spaces are required to serve shoppers in the commercial com-mercial areas of the project and still more to serve day skiers. To meet the needs of the Park City Village Project, the code specifies 3087 parking stalls would be required yei the Planning Commission approved the project with only 2400 stalls. The appro val was apparently giver because planners believec the persons staying in the project's units would also be those shopping in commercial commer-cial areas and skiing at Park City resort. Since in many cases the three uses requiring separate separ-ate parking would serve the same people, planners felt it was prudent to allow fewer stalls. Recently, however, the Planning Commission discovered dis-covered they did not have the latitude to flexibly interpret the ordinance in the case of the Park City Village Project, necessitating approaching the Board of Adjustment foi variances , in the areas of height and parking. Becuase the Park City . Planning Commission and planning staff realized it was their oversight that caused the problem, they represented represent-ed the village project in the variance request. The duties of the five-member Board of Adjustments are explicitly set forth in state statutes. They are statutority charged with the power to grant a variance or code exception in cases where nature of a building site creates a hardship preventing the owner from "enjoying" his property in a reasonable way". Examples would be irregulary shaped lots or those with large rocky outcroppings which prevent physically the owner from building according to code. In the case of the Park City Village project, board members mem-bers could not find evidence of hardship relating to the building site. Members of the municipal planning staff contended the hardship existed not within the site but within the sheer size of the huge project. They thought an exception was warranted because of the unusual nature of the project, pro-ject, primarily its size. In making their determination. determinat-ion. Board Members carefully careful-ly weighed the situation and concluded they were enpow-ered enpow-ered only to rule on cases of hardship accompanying a specific site and were bound to deny the variance ' requests. re-quests. The request for a variance in parking requirements was denied unanimously while the height request was |