Thank you for a chance to comment on the proposed development at PCMR mountain base.
My perspective is shaped as a longtime resident/owner (for 25 years) of several units in the Snow Flower condominiums, which border the proposed development and my wife Laura moved to Park City in 1972 so we have a pretty strong history with the area and appreciate it’s character.
Several of the criteria specified in Park City’s Exhibit G: Master Planned Development process are explicitly not served with the current proposed project. The specific criteria on which the proposed development falls short include:
B. Ensure neighborhood Compatibility: A set of buildings which have variances in both height and setback from the property line are not compatible with the neighborhood, where current buildings have a maximum height of three stories. Furthermore, the roughly 1,000 parking space shortfall from what is needed (based on the parking study provided as an exhibit) will force day skiers into the driveways and garages of nearby residences including Snow Flower, which borders the proposed development.
C. Strengthen the resort character of Park City: Park City’s resort character is in part based on accessibility for skiing. A 1,000 parking space shortfall will cause traffic congestion in and around the resort area as frustrated skiers fruitlessly search for a parking place, weakening the resort character of the community.
D. Result in a net positive contribution of amenities to the community: While there would be additional desirable amenities in the buildings, the massive increase in traffic caused by the parking shortfall will be a net negative amenity.
F. Provide the highest value of open space for any given Site: Allowing variances to both height and setback would enable a material reduction in the value of open space, as each of these would literally build more into open space.
Thank you for a chance to comment on the proposed development at PCMR mountain base.
My perspective is shaped as a longtime resident/owner (for 25 years) of several units in the Snow Flower condominiums, which border the proposed development and my wife Laura moved to Park City in 1972 so we have a pretty strong history with the area and appreciate it’s character.
Several of the criteria specified in Park City’s Exhibit G: Master Planned Development process are explicitly not served with the current proposed project. The specific criteria on which the proposed development falls short include:
B. Ensure neighborhood Compatibility: A set of buildings which have variances in both height and setback from the property line are not compatible with the neighborhood, where current buildings have a maximum height of three stories. Furthermore, the roughly 1,000 parking space shortfall from what is needed (based on the parking study provided as an exhibit) will force day skiers into the driveways and garages of nearby residences including Snow Flower, which borders the proposed development.
C. Strengthen the resort character of Park City: Park City’s resort character is in part based on accessibility for skiing. A 1,000 parking space shortfall will cause traffic congestion in and around the resort area as frustrated skiers fruitlessly search for a parking place, weakening the resort character of the community.
D. Result in a net positive contribution of amenities to the community: While there would be additional desirable amenities in the buildings, the massive increase in traffic caused by the parking shortfall will be a net negative amenity.
F. Provide the highest value of open space for any given Site: Allowing variances to both height and setback would enable a material reduction in the value of open space, as each of these would literally build more into open space.