The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission postponed its decision on a series of amendments to the Utah Olympic Park’s development agreement after commissioners said they were uneasy about the lack of specifics in the proposal.
The original development agreement was created in 2011, with the intent that the document would be revisited throughout the years as the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation refined its vision for the park. The agreement outlined allowable uses on the property, such as a hotel, employee and athlete lodging, maintenance facilities and ski runs.
Foundation CEO Colin Hilton in October told the Planning Commission that the amendments didn’t change the heart of the agreement and only served to make further development more efficient for both the county and nonprofit.
Multiple residents opposed the proposal last month, however. They expressed frustrations with ongoing construction and traffic in the Snyderville Basin, which they said would only be exacerbated by affordable housing on the park’s property, as well as specific concerns regarding the scope of the development and its effect on wildlife.
Community members also decried the temporary closure of the pool, which is used by many organizations and clubs to train athletes during the summer months.
But the county’s legal counsel on Tuesday informed the Planning Commission that certain aspects of park operations — including the nonprofit’s financial information, potential pool closure and access to Bear Hollow Drive via the gate at the top of the hill — were not within commissioners’ purview to consider in making a decision.
Hilton still addressed those issues, though, saying he and the foundation had received a plethora of feedback from the public during two open houses earlier this month. As a result, the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation now plans to add language to the development agreement restricting gate access to Bear Hollow Drive in perpetuity.
“My commitment is, no matter what the process, we are going to communicate with the Sun Peak (Homeowners Association) about exactly what we propose to do,” Hilton added.
Summit County residents were also worried about the location of Parcel 6 near the ridgeline, which is tentatively earmarked for “attainable housing” for athletes and coaches. “Attainable housing,” Hilton explained, is housing at a lower cost than market rate that may not necessarily be deed-restricted like a traditional affordable housing complex.
The map shown to the Planning Commission last month showed Parcel 6 had combined Parcels 13 and 14 from the 2011 development agreement and shifted its location to the northeast. Community members were not in favor of building 10 single-family homes on Parcel 6, as outlined in the proposal, because of its proximity to the ridgeline, suggested building height and potential impacts on roaming wildlife in the area.
Hilton on Tuesday said the foundation understood residents’ concerns, adding that the 10 homes would not be built for at least another six years. Because of the opposition, however, he said the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation would not focus on developing Parcel 6 for now.
Instead, he said the nonprofit will refine its strategy and return to the Planning Commission when there is more information on how the homes will be purchased and lived in by athletes and coaches, including the creation of an “attainable housing” definition, which does not currently exist within Summit County code.
Hilton said he had worked with county staff to restrict density changes on Parcels 6, 7 and 8, giving the park the flexibility to modify its developments toward the base of the hill while preventing the foundation or future operators from increasing density on the lots closer to the ridgeline and the Sun Peak neighborhood.
Despite the foundation’s clarification on key concerns from the October meeting, Summit County residents still largely opposed the development during Tuesday’s public hearing.
They claimed the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation hadn’t done enough to demonstrate that the development would not harm wildlife, with two residents specifically claiming Parcels 6, 7 and 8 were within the county’s protected wildlife habitat.
However, the county staff report on the proposed amendments said, “The current proposal does not impact any wildlife habitat or migration areas as defined in the Snyderville Basin General Plan and the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources.”
Hilton said the Utah Department of Natural Resources is working on a “fuller” wildlife report, which will be brought to the Summit County Council at a later date.
Other public comments focused on a perceived lack of details in the development agreement, as well as the closure of the pool, despite the county’s legal counsel telling the Planning Commission the pool could not be considered.
Both parents and athletes spoke in favor of keeping the pool open, telling park staff that even a temporary closure would negatively affect kids’ training schedules and potentially disrupt their chances of competing in World Cups and the 2034 Winter Olympics.
One parent pointed out the rebuild of the pool in 2014-15, which was finished in the winter months before the summer training season began. Residents questioned why it wouldn’t be possible to do something similar with this proposal, but Hilton said the process is more complicated because large pieces of underground equipment will need to be removed and installed on a different site.
“The idea, much like we did in 2015, is perhaps we can find a way to not (demolish) the whole building, isolate the filtration system, do some work that we have to do for new road access and try to keep the pool open as long as possible until it gets unsafe to properly have kids coming and going to the pool,” Hilton said. “We will commit to looking at it, but we will not ever put kids in unsafe conditions.”
Hilton said he understood the inconvenience of a potential pool closure, but he called the 2026 season the best time to undergo the project. The construction would affect fewer athletes than if the development were postponed because many skiers will have lighter training schedules after the Winter Olympics in February, he said.
Planning commissioners said they weren’t necessarily opposed to the amended development agreement by the end of Tuesday’s meeting, but they expressed similar concerns as residents regarding the lack of details and confusion around how the proposal differs from the 2011 agreement.
“Inside me are two wolves, and one of them is so proud of our community, and the other is a stickler for documentation,” joked Planning Commissioner Heather Peteroy.
Utah Olympic Park staff said they were sympathetic to the Planning Commission’s and community’s frustrations, but they also said they expected most of the details to be ironed out with the Summit County Council as the process progresses.
The Planning Commission ultimately decided to delay making a recommendation and asked Hilton to return in December with 3D maps showing the differences between the foundation’s proposals, as well as a comprehensive packet containing information from the nonprofit’s previous work sessions with the county.
Hilton said he was committed to sending the requested details to the Planning Commission “by the middle of next week,” with the hope that the amendments are placed on the commission’s Dec. 9 agenda.