7.A) Park City Mountain Resort Base Parking Lots - MPD Modification - Replace Expired Exhibit D of the DA, the 1998 PCMR Base Area Master Plan Study Concept Master Plan, With a New Master Plan, Known as the Park City Base Area Lot Redevelopment Master Plan Study. The Planning Commission will conduct a Work Session from 5:30-8:30 PM, followed by a public hearing from 8:30-10:00 PM, with a focus on the applicant’s requested exceptions to Setbacks, Building Height and required Parking, in accordance with the MPD, and applicable LMC and General Plan criteria. PL-20-04475.
*Public Input will be taken via e-comments*
(A) Work Session and Public Hearing, No Action Will Be Taken
Proposed building heights for Park City Mountain Resort Base Parking Lots have seen a multitude of changes over the past year. The community is being subjected to the “Whac-A-Mole” arcade game. It’s a “Brain Out!” Most recently Parcel D was whacked and the mole popped up at Parcel C!
First of all, buildings exceed the 35 ft limit. They are too tall for our community.
Second, natural topography used to be a consideration. What happened?
Park City code states, “complement the natural features” … The mountains are our precious natural feature. Reality is they are blocked from view by these too tall monolithic buildings.
PEGs premise was, “Massing steps with the topography.” And higher buildings closer to the mountain. The latest proposed building heights are variably high, higher, and highest from 76’ to 103’ placed with no regard for natural grade. Natural topography is consistently down to the north.
An interactive model of the development in its natural, existing environment is a brilliant way to view and comprehend the actual impact of these monoliths. I urge the Commissioners to take their time. Progress is being made. This will have a major impact on Park City forever.
Dear Planning Commission: This comment is regarding Agenda Item 7A. The process by which the applicant, PEG has requested exceptions to Setbacks, Building Height and required Parking, in accordance with the MPD, and applicable LMC and General Plan criteria. PL-20-04475. Their general approach across the past year has been to disrupt the Commission's normal planning, operation and public input with numerous unscheduled delays of scheduled meetings, many on the day of the meeting because they were not prepared for the discussion and these topics proposed by the Planning Commission months in advance. It seems as if they never have understood the complexity of the overall project. Their repeated delays across the past year, wasted Commission and Public time and input. This seems to have put them up against a seasonally strained building start date and they are now encouraging a rushed approval process and timeline with key issues of Setbacks, Building Height and required Parking still unresolved on the eve of short building start season. I would suggest they take a page from their own playbook and delay the approval and start of their program to take a global look at all they have learned to date, the integration of Setbacks, Building Height and required Parking among other topics they have treated as individual problems and come back with a globally integrated New Master Plan, known as the Park City Base Area Lot Redevelopment Master Plan that is integrated across all topics, even clever in integrating the current PEG plan with the 1998 PCMR Base Area Master Plan rather then replacing it. I urge the Commission not to be pressured into an approval of a work in progress.
G. Efficiently and cost effectively extend and provide infrastructure: A 1,000 parking space shortage would be a significant negative in terms of overall infrastructure.
H. Provide opportunities for the appropriate redevelopment and reuse of existing structures/sites and maintain Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood: No structures are present or being re-used on the current parking lot. However, a set of buildings that are both taller than current code allows and have less setback than the current code allows are not at all compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Snow Flower, for example, was built in compliance with code. If I wanted to add two more floors on top of my current top floor units there, Park City would not permit that even with a great economic argument for my future living situation or rental income. Yet even with two additional floors on top of my Snow Flower units, the height would be much lower than the proposed buildings.
I. Protect residential uses and residential neighborhoods from the impacts of non- residential Uses using best practice methods and diligent code enforcement: The 1,000 parking space shortfall will have a significantly negative impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood, as up to 1,000 frustrated skiers per day who can’t find a day parking place leave their cars in the driveways, private roads and parking spaces and garages of nearby complexes, including Snow Flower.
Thanks again for the chance to comment, and for your consideration.
Proposed building heights for Park City Mountain Resort Base Parking Lots have seen a multitude of changes over the past year. The community is being subjected to the “Whac-A-Mole” arcade game. It’s a “Brain Out!” Most recently Parcel D was whacked and the mole popped up at Parcel C!
First of all, buildings exceed the 35 ft limit. They are too tall for our community.
Second, natural topography used to be a consideration. What happened?
Park City code states, “complement the natural features” … The mountains are our precious natural feature. Reality is they are blocked from view by these too tall monolithic buildings.
PEGs premise was, “Massing steps with the topography.” And higher buildings closer to the mountain. The latest proposed building heights are variably high, higher, and highest from 76’ to 103’ placed with no regard for natural grade. Natural topography is consistently down to the north.
An interactive model of the development in its natural, existing environment is a brilliant way to view and comprehend the actual impact of these monoliths. I urge the Commissioners to take their time. Progress is being made. This will have a major impact on Park City forever.
Dear Planning Commission: This comment is regarding Agenda Item 7A. The process by which the applicant, PEG has requested exceptions to Setbacks, Building Height and required Parking, in accordance with the MPD, and applicable LMC and General Plan criteria. PL-20-04475. Their general approach across the past year has been to disrupt the Commission's normal planning, operation and public input with numerous unscheduled delays of scheduled meetings, many on the day of the meeting because they were not prepared for the discussion and these topics proposed by the Planning Commission months in advance. It seems as if they never have understood the complexity of the overall project. Their repeated delays across the past year, wasted Commission and Public time and input. This seems to have put them up against a seasonally strained building start date and they are now encouraging a rushed approval process and timeline with key issues of Setbacks, Building Height and required Parking still unresolved on the eve of short building start season. I would suggest they take a page from their own playbook and delay the approval and start of their program to take a global look at all they have learned to date, the integration of Setbacks, Building Height and required Parking among other topics they have treated as individual problems and come back with a globally integrated New Master Plan, known as the Park City Base Area Lot Redevelopment Master Plan that is integrated across all topics, even clever in integrating the current PEG plan with the 1998 PCMR Base Area Master Plan rather then replacing it. I urge the Commission not to be pressured into an approval of a work in progress.
G. Efficiently and cost effectively extend and provide infrastructure: A 1,000 parking space shortage would be a significant negative in terms of overall infrastructure.
H. Provide opportunities for the appropriate redevelopment and reuse of existing structures/sites and maintain Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood: No structures are present or being re-used on the current parking lot. However, a set of buildings that are both taller than current code allows and have less setback than the current code allows are not at all compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Snow Flower, for example, was built in compliance with code. If I wanted to add two more floors on top of my current top floor units there, Park City would not permit that even with a great economic argument for my future living situation or rental income. Yet even with two additional floors on top of my Snow Flower units, the height would be much lower than the proposed buildings.
I. Protect residential uses and residential neighborhoods from the impacts of non- residential Uses using best practice methods and diligent code enforcement: The 1,000 parking space shortfall will have a significantly negative impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood, as up to 1,000 frustrated skiers per day who can’t find a day parking place leave their cars in the driveways, private roads and parking spaces and garages of nearby complexes, including Snow Flower.
Thanks again for the chance to comment, and for your consideration.