![](03-07-02%20sun%20villas%201.jpg)
A proposal to build a 105-unit
condominium complex along Village Way in Elkhorn was revived last week by
the Sun Valley City Council, after the city Planning and Zoning Commission had
rejected the design and recommended denial of an associated subdivision
application. The project is called Sun Villas. A computer-generated image of the
original proposal, above, shows the potential view of the project from Village
Way. However, the project will now be redesigned before it is reconsidered by
the city. Architects rendering by Michael Doty Associates
Sun Villas project
given second chance
Successful appeal to council
sends plan back to P&Z
"The problem is that on the west and
south sides of the project, it’s just too close to be that big."
— LATHAM WILLIAMS, Sun Valley City
Council president
By GREGORY FOLEY
Express Staff Writer
The developers of a proposed 105-unit
condominium project in Elkhorn Village saw their plans revived last week, after
an appeal to the Sun Valley City Council succeeded in getting their previously
denied application sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Before an audience abundant with project
opponents, council members Tuesday, June 24, voted 4-0 to remand the Sun Villas
development proposal back to the P&Z so the plans could be modified and
reconsidered.
The settlement came during an appeal by
Sun Villas representatives of an April decision by the P&Z to deny a design
review application to build four residential structures on the 4.26-acre
"Sunshine Parcel," located immediately north of the former Elkhorn Resort.
The compromise of sorts delighted a
contingent of Sun Villas associates but drew strong disapproval from a crowd of
opponents, many of whom reside in developments surrounding the Sunshine Parcel.
Several of the opponents spoke out at the
onset of the four-hour council meeting.
Barry Luboviski, an attorney representing
the homeowners association of Sunburst condominiums, argued that the proposed
project demonstrated a "lack of sensitivity" to neighboring properties. He added
that he believes the application for four tall residential structures "totally
ignores" the intention of the Commercial Center zoning district.
Merrill Hayes, a resident of the Indian
Springs development, located immediately west of the Sunshine Parcel, agreed
with Luboviski. "I don’t think that it’s that they didn’t consider their
neighbors, but it’s that they just didn’t care," she said.
Michael Doty, architect of the proposed
project, gave a lengthy presentation of the plans that were denied by the P&Z in
April. The P&Z reviewed the application at five different meetings over a
six-month period.
Doty said developers Elkhorn Resort LLC
and Black Diamond Development tried to be sensitive to residents of adjacent
condominium developments while establishing their plans.
He noted that the design was reconfigured
earlier this year, after the P&Z said its height and overall size would have too
great of an impact on other residential developments.
The four buildings were proposed to reach
heights of approximately 60 feet, ranging in size from approximately 87,000
square feet to 94,000 square feet.
Doty argued that the design was drafted in
a way that reduced the project’s overall mass and imposition on surrounding
properties. "Nowhere have we put the taller portions of these projects next to
the property lines," he said. "Every project is going to have an impact on the
neighbors. What we’re trying to do is truly mitigate that."
Attorney for the appellants, J. Evan
Robertson, had filed the appeal on eight separate counts, including one that
alleged the P&Z denial of the project was "tantamount to a de facto, illegal
downzone" of the Sunshine Parcel property.
Robertson told council members that the
developers spent almost $200,000 to redesign the project to please the P&Z, only
to see it denied in an abbreviated hearing on April 22.
He said the proposal complied with the
existing regulations for the CC zoning district, but could be reworked if the
applicants were given a second chance to make a proposal to the P&Z. "Is it
different than the surrounding properties?" he hypothetically asked. "Of course
it is, it’s in a different zone."
Councilwoman Ann Agnew acknowledged
Robertson’s argument in her comments on the matter. "I think the problem is we
have a CC tongue embedded in a residential zone," she said.
Council President Latham Williams said he
thinks the project does need to be redesigned again before it could be
reconsidered by the city. "The problem is that on the west and south sides of
the project, it’s just too close to be that big."
After the majority of the council said
they think the matter could be resolved by the P&Z, Councilman Lud Renick issued
a motion to remand the application back to the six-member planning panel, with
specific instructions that attention be paid to the west and south sides of the
development.
The motion passed by a 4-0 vote, prompting
a handful of disapproving comments from the audience.