OCR Text |
Show Silver Pine Developers Win Approval on Appeal r'r.rcscntatives of Portfolio, Portfo-lio, Inc. by-passed the Planning Commission's approval ap-proval process last Thursday and had their 18 unit Silver Pine condominium lodge proposed for the Silver Lake area of Deer Valley approved directly by the City Council. The developers took their project to the City Council on appeal essentially because of the length of time it has taken Commissioners to make a policy declaration on what constitues an unbroken roof line. In approving the project the City Council basically reprimanded repri-manded the Planning Commission Com-mission for taking so much time on the project and urged that body to be more decisive. The Silver Pine project came before the Planning Commission over six weeks ago after a lengthy staff review process which ended in a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval. The original lodge plans showed an unbroken roof line running 200 feet along the top of the building. The impact of the roof line, however, was minimized bv gabled windows. Under specifications of the land management code. Commissioners Commis-sioners have the discretion of insisting the roof line be broken varying the height and pitch of the roof. At the original meeting. Commissioners tabled any action on the lodge and asked the developers to revise their plans to reflect a broken roof line. Two weeks later, propo-nants propo-nants of the project appeared again before the Planning Commission with revised plans for the project which Bruce Erickson of Park City engineering firm, J.J. Johnson John-son & Assoc., said "would-not "would-not work on the . site anyway." Despite the alleged un-workability un-workability of the plans, Commissioners approved the revised renderings for the lodge after a 3 to 3 tie vote was broken by Commission Chairman Greg Lawsen. Two days later, Commissioners Commis-sioners realized the plans they approved would not . meet the set back requirements require-ments of the land management manage-ment code and their approval was nullified. Two weeks later the developers deve-lopers were again before the Commission. This time they brought back their original plans and asked Commissioners Commis-sioners to reconsider their earlier objections to the project. Commissioners again declined to take action on the development asking they be allowed time to make a policy declaration on what constitutes a broken or unbroken roof line. Although the Planning Commision had not denied the original plans and had actually approved the revised revis-ed plans, the developers became frustrated with the lengthy approval process and successfully appealed to the City Council. Council member Tina Lewis moved to approve the project and the motion passed 4 to 1 . Council members Wells, Shellenberger, Lewis and Alvarez voted to approve the project and Bill Coleman voted no. Coleman said he felt approval appro-val was not appropriate because the Planning Commission Com-mission had not made an actual decision on the project. pro-ject. Coleman earlier urged the City Council to direct the developers back to the Planning Commission and instruct that body to make a decision on the project at their next meeting. The Council's decision could set an important precedent that could see a continuous string of developers develo-pers appealing their projects to the City Council after becoming frustrated bv the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission. |