The developers behind a proposed unfranchised hotel on the corner of S.R. 35 and Spring Hollow Road are appealing the Francis City Council’s decision to deny the architectural plans for the building in Summit County’s Third District Court.
The project is one of two controversial hotel proposals in the City of Francis. The other — a Best Western on the corner of S.R. 35 and Lambert Lane — has already spurred its own lawsuit, and the Francis City Council is now considering a massive update to city code that would prohibit any further hotel developments if adopted. The Best Western and unfranchised hotel, now named The Stonewright, would be grandfathered in and exempt from the ban, however.
Earlier this year, the Francis City Council approved conditional use permits for both hotels, but councilors denied the architectural design of The Stonewright in April because of concerns regarding a supposed attic above the third floor.
Developers presented plans for a four-story building with commercial space for retail businesses and restaurants in addition to the actual hotel before the April meeting in the hopes that the City Council would approve an ordinance increasing the maximum allowed number of stories in the town center from three to four.
But the City Council was ultimately against the change and declined to adopt the ordinance in a 3-1 vote in March, a decision the hotel’s developers said would not affect their proposal because they had a backup plan for the design — a three-story building with the fourth story converted into an attic instead of another floor for hotel rooms.
However, when developers appeared before the City Council in April for final design approval, councilors said they were worried the building wasn’t a three-story structure. The updated plans showed balconies on the fourth floor, and the interior plan showed walls and doors, similar to the lower floors intended for hotel rooms. The City Council denied the design in a 3-2 vote and asked developers to return with new blueprints at a later date.
Rusty Webster, the project’s developers, then submitted a revision to the City Council last month. The updated plans removed the attic balconies and non-structural interior walls and added shutters over the attic windows. The developer’s legal counsel additionally sent a memo to the City Council outlining the definition of an attic and claiming the three-story limitation “does not apply to the attic” or the proposed rooftop deck.
The City Council was not convinced, though, and denied the architectural plans for a second time in another 3-2 vote. After the decision, Webster told the City Council he disagreed with their assessment and that he did not intend to change the design or height of the building for a third review.
Webster and his company, Kamas Valley Investment Group, subsequently filed an official appeal in Third District Court on July 9. The complaint primarily centers on the definition of an attic in the Francis City Code compared to the International Building Code, as well as the City Council’s seemingly subjective interpretation of the design.
“Despite the plan satisfying the requirements of Francis City Code and their own expert’s conclusion that the State Construction Code allowed the hotel to include an attic, the Francis City Council denied the architectural plans because three of the councilmembers believed the attic constituted a fourth story because it ‘looked like’ a fourth story and because they did not want to approve a concept, but rather a final set of plans that showed exactly how the hotel would look when completed,” the court filing said.
“In rejecting the second set of revised plans for the hotel, the Francis City Council did not cite or rely on any code provisions in the State Construction Code or the IBC (International Building Code) to justify its decision, and relied solely on the City’s three-story limitation in … the Francis City Code,” the complaint continued. “Additional comments by the Councilmembers further indicated that they relied upon public clamor in making their decision.”
The appeal also argued that the architectural review standards in the Francis City Code “do not include an enforceable articulated measurable standard and are too vague to be enforced.”
The petition then asked Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik to issue an order reversing the City Council’s decision, to “remand this matter to the City Council with instructions to issue a land use decision consistent with the Court’s determination” and to award Webster attorneys fees.
The City of Francis has not filed a response to the appeal as of Monday afternoon, and there are currently no hearings scheduled regarding the case.