I found no opportunity to ecomment regarding the Park City Base Area proposed development.
Please add this comment to that agenda item.
SETBACKS, “draft FOFs?”
#30 FOF – Minimum setbacks shall be 25 feet per LMC. Clearly an acceptable FOF.
I address here some of the unacceptable findings under SETBACKS.
#31 FOF – Any decrease allowed in setbacks must exhibit architectural interest and variation per LMC. This is an arbitrary FOF, which many locals interpret as stepping away from the road and the neighbors. Building B has no cascading rooflines on any side. Building walls jut in and out and even overhang. It is a sad example of “architectural interest.” It is not Old Town.
#34 FOF – The applicant is therefore seeking less (fewer) Setback exceptions than the 1997 approved plan. Recall that Exhibit D has expired, thus this is legally irrelevant and not worth listing.
#35 FOF – In connection with the applicant’s request, the applicant has presented, and the Planning Commission has considered multiple configurations and architectural approaches for Parcel B. Sadly, this is true, but the applicant still is NOT in line with our codes.
#36 FOF – The limited areas of 20-foot setback requested for Parcel B provide both vertical and horizontal architectural articulation while maintaining an overall average site perimeter setback of approximately 30 feet. AVERAGE setback is legally irrelevant!
#37 FOF. The Planning Commission hereby approves the limited setback reductions … Dear Commissioners, please don’t approve any reductions in setbacks for any reason. Every parcel is seeking building height exceptions; thus, NO parcel is allowed any setback reduction.
#39 FOF – Dear Commissioners please don’t accept any above grade parking.
Sherie C. Harding
I found no opportunity to ecomment regarding the Park City Base Area proposed development.
Please add this comment to that agenda item.
SETBACKS, “draft FOFs?”
#30 FOF – Minimum setbacks shall be 25 feet per LMC. Clearly an acceptable FOF.
I address here some of the unacceptable findings under SETBACKS.
#31 FOF – Any decrease allowed in setbacks must exhibit architectural interest and variation per LMC. This is an arbitrary FOF, which many locals interpret as stepping away from the road and the neighbors. Building B has no cascading rooflines on any side. Building walls jut in and out and even overhang. It is a sad example of “architectural interest.” It is not Old Town.
#34 FOF – The applicant is therefore seeking less (fewer) Setback exceptions than the 1997 approved plan. Recall that Exhibit D has expired, thus this is legally irrelevant and not worth listing.
#35 FOF – In connection with the applicant’s request, the applicant has presented, and the Planning Commission has considered multiple configurations and architectural approaches for Parcel B. Sadly, this is true, but the applicant still is NOT in line with our codes.
#36 FOF – The limited areas of 20-foot setback requested for Parcel B provide both vertical and horizontal architectural articulation while maintaining an overall average site perimeter setback of approximately 30 feet. AVERAGE setback is legally irrelevant!
#37 FOF. The Planning Commission hereby approves the limited setback reductions … Dear Commissioners, please don’t approve any reductions in setbacks for any reason. Every parcel is seeking building height exceptions; thus, NO parcel is allowed any setback reduction.
#39 FOF – Dear Commissioners please don’t accept any above grade parking.
Sherie C. Harding