A proposal for a mixed-use neighborhood intended for residents 55 and older is moving to the Summit County Council for final approval after the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation on Tuesday.

The 8-acre Silver Creek property is slightly southeast of Silver Creek Village. It is currently zoned as community commercial, but Bridgwater Consulting Group, which is helping develop the project alongside the property’s owners, requested a change to the neighborhood mixed-use zone to accommodate the project’s residential units.

The proposal includes plans for 74 residential units, with 30 of those earmarked as affordable housing. All units would be for sale rather than for rent, and the market rate units would be priced “consistent” with the Summit County and Park City area, according to the Bridgwater Consulting Group.

The consulting firm did not cite a specific price point for the affordable units, but the development team emphasized the community intends to serve residents 55 or older. 

The developers said they couldn’t legally restrict who moves in based on an applicant’s age, but the development’s marketing materials would target an older demographic. Bridgwater Consulting Group representatives said the neighborhood will provide older adults with an opportunity to downsize and stay in Summit County as they age.

In addition to housing, the proposal includes 6,300 square feet of commercial space and 5,600 square feet for indoor amenities. The development team is also coordinating with the county and High Valley Transit to install a transit hub to encourage residents to use public transportation, and trail connections would allow pedestrians and bikers to travel to Kimball Junction without a car.

The market rate units would have subterranean parking, while the affordable units would have surface parking. The developers said the difference in parking is due to the site’s layout and that expanding the underground garage would be too expensive and likely inconvenient for the affordable housing residents because of its location.

Developers also plan to build a park and amphitheater on the property, as well as a geothermal system underneath parking lots and walkways to melt snow in the winter and prevent residents from needing to shovel.

County planner Amir Caus said the county already contacted the Utah Department of Transportation about the development’s potential traffic impacts.

“We personally took UDOT on the tour of the entire Basin, but more particularly that entire neighborhood,” Caus said. “They’re taking into consideration resolving the current traffic issues, which we know are great, but also future projects as well, including this project.”

Planning Commissioner Spencer Young praised the developers’ decision to offer for sale affordable housing. Young said he supported a residential development in an area of the county dominated by commercial businesses, which was a concern Planning Commissioner Heather Peteroy raised.

“I actually think bringing a little bit of diversity to that area of the Basin isn’t a bad thing,” Young said. “It’s actually a healthy thing, so I don’t have a problem with that. The focus on mass transportation and active transportation seems really well thought out, and it is going to be helpful to the residents that live there, especially the residents they’re targeting. … I think the positives by far outweigh any negatives that would bring.”

The County Council will decide whether to rezone the property and approve the master plan development document, but a discussion had not been scheduled as of Thursday afternoon. If the County Council supports the project, staff will work with the development team to draft a legally binding development agreement.

The post Mixed-use neighborhood for residents 55+ heads to Summit County Council for final decision appeared first on Park Record.

Developers with projects in the Snyderville Basin may soon be required to submit a traffic impact study if the proposal is expected to generate more than 25 trips during peak hours.

The code amendment, which the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission forwarded to the Summit County Council with a unanimous recommendation, would mandate that developers provide a traffic impact study if the project will generate enough “trip ends” during peak hours.

Peak hours are typically from 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., but planning commissioners requested a change to 7 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 6 p.m. They cited ski traffic and the county’s large commuter population as reasons to expand the window.

The county uses the trip end metric to determine the impact of a project and how much a developer will need to pay in impact fees. Trip ends refer to a driver’s final destination, not any ancillary stops. For example, if a driver leaves their home, stops at a gas station and then goes to a retail store, the trip end is the retail store, not the gas station.

Developers with large projects in the Basin typically submit a traffic impact study, but county planner Ray Milliner said those submissions have been a courtesy, not a requirement.

“Currently, there’s nothing in our code that requires them to do a traffic study, so if a developer were to say, ‘I just don’t want to do it,’ we don’t have any teeth in our code to make them do it,” he said. “Generally, they just do it because they feel like, ‘Well, it’s probably in our best interest,’ but what we’d like to do is say, ‘OK, this is required at this level, and it’s in the code, and you have to do it,’ and off we go.”

Summit County Transportation Planning Deputy Director Eva de Laurentiis said the proposed code amendment would require developers to hire a third-party engineering consultant and prepare a traffic impact study if the project is estimated to generate 25 or more trip ends during peak hours. The developer would be responsible for funding the study in addition to hiring an engineer.

“Our goal with this is then to put a form on the website that outlines what is expected out of an impact study and creates clear guidelines for that so that we have some uniformity in the studies,” de Laurentiis said.

If a traffic impact study determines the development needs mitigation because of the amount of traffic, the developer would be responsible for funding and constructing that infrastructure, such as installing a new traffic light or building a roundabout.

De Laurentiis said 25 trips may sound small, but it’s a standard in the transportation industry and the same benchmark Park City Municipal uses. She added that the county didn’t want to mandate a study for fewer than 25 trips to help local businesses, as traffic impact studies often cost between $20,000 and $40,000 to conduct.

“We’re not going to require that small businesses or even mid-sized businesses or retailers do these (traffic impact studies) for the most part unless they’re going to a large space,” de Laurentiis said. “It’s really for the larger developments that are going to have an immediate transportation infrastructure impact to our community. … We don’t want to be a barrier to entry for them to expand their businesses.”

Developers would also need to include information on traffic changes throughout each phase of a project to give county officials an idea of how infrastructure will be affected as construction progresses.

The Planning Commission immediately expressed support for the change, with Planning Commissioner Tyann Mooney saying the board has “been begging for this for a while.”

The County Council will have the final say in whether the code amendment passes, but a vote has not yet been scheduled as of Thursday afternoon.

The post Developers may be required to submit traffic impact studies for large Snyderville Basin projects appeared first on Park Record.

A proposal to build a mixed-use neighborhood with 90 residential units in Silver Creek is heading to the County Council for approval after years of negotiations with the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission.

Columbus Pacific Development first submitted plans for Crossroads at Silver Creek in 2023, but planning commissioners expressed concerns about the project’s scope given its location on a small 13-acre parcel near the Interstate 80 and Highway 40 interchange. The development team revived the proposal last summer with reduced density.

Tony Tyler, a Columbus Pacific Development partner and Silver Creek resident, brought the latest iteration of the project to the Planning Commission on Tuesday to showcase an updated design and request a recommendation for the project to advance to the County Council.

“This current plan in front of you today is the least dense plan we have ever presented to anyone, so there has not been a plan on this site where we have presented less density overall,” Tyler said. “In fact, if you go back to what we had originally, we had about double the square footage on the site.”

The proposal includes 90 residential units, 20 of which would be affordable, leased apartments without ownership options. The remaining 70 units would be sold or rented at market rate. Specifically, 66 of the market rate units would be townhomes, while the remaining four are listed as apartments.

The site’s 32,000 square feet of commercial space would be spread throughout seven buildings, and an additional 2,500 square feet would be earmarked for a clubhouse and pool. Another 4,000 square feet would be dedicated for “institutional use,” which Tyler said would most likely be a PC Tots expansion and childcare center.

“For me, this is less about a community benefit for this project and more about a personal passion,” said Tyler, who serves on the PC Tots board. “I think that we should be doing everything that we can do to solve the childcare gap in our community, and when I have an opportunity to do something like this, I take it.”

The potential development area is marked on the Snyderville Basin General Plan as a location for future mixed-use development despite its current zoning as rural residential. The rural residential zone allows one residential unit per 20 acres, meaning Columbus Pacific is requesting a rezone to community commercial to comply with the county code and increase the allowed density.

However, Tyler emphasized his desire to build a walkable community center instead of “reinventing Kimball Junction” in Silver Creek. He said structures would be lower than 32 feet, with two-story residential buildings and one-story commercial buildings.

“This one’s personal to me because it’s literally in my backyard,” Tyler said. “It’s pretty rare to be able to work on projects that can have a day-to-day impact on my personal life, so I’ve put a lot of thought, a lot of interest, a lot of effort coming up with what we thought would be the most appropriate development for this corner.”

Tyler said the townhomes were designed to resemble single-family residences to enhance the community’s visual appeal and green space around each building. There would be a public park with multi-use courts, pavilions and playgrounds. The neighborhood was specifically designed to attract younger families, Tyler said, which is why there are multiple amenities for kids and a focus on two-bedroom units.

“The townhomes, even though they’re market rate, are really attainable housing because they’re going to be priced at a point where they won’t have a lot of competition in the marketplace otherwise,” Tyler said, adding that he estimated the townhomes would sell for $700,000 to $1 million. Townhomes or condos in the Park City area typically range between $1 million and $3 million.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal before deciding whether to recommend the project to the County Council. A handful of residents said they liked the development in theory but thought Silver Creek was the wrong location for a mixed-use neighborhood and that it would change the rural nature of the area.

“I bought there for less traffic, less retail, less people, less development,” said Elaine Minihan, who has lived in Silver Creek since 2004. “I think it’s a very special and unique neighborhood, and it’s the last place in Summit County that is not a junction.”

David Overberg told the Planning Commission he bought his home in the early 2000s after looking at a Summit County zoning map. He said he chose Silver Creek because it was zoned as rural residential, which meant he wouldn’t see large commercial buildings in his backyard as the area developed.

Terry Underwood, who has lived in Silver Creek for 20 years, said she thought the project “looked great for a high density development” but told planning commissioners they were making a “serious mistake” if they approved it.

“If it goes through, I’ll probably move,” Underwood said.

However, others said they were pleased with the proposal and thanked the development team for the care put into the design.

“From my seat, this man owns dirt, and he’s entitled to develop it,” said Scott Witkin, who also works in real estate. “You’ve put more time into affordable housing than I have in looking at thousands of units. … The biggest dilemma is how you can accommodate everyone, and from what I’ve seen, this is as thorough and detailed of a job in terms of trying to address that than any proposal I’ve seen in any capacity.”

Witkin encouraged his fellow Silver Creek residents to support the project because another developer could enter the conversation in the future if the application were denied.

“It could be so much worse, and that’s my fear,” he said. “Hearing how conscientious the approach has been to this plan is very different than monetizing dirt as a fiduciary to investors.”

Resident Kayla Pelegrin said she understood her neighbors’ concerns about traffic and growth, but added that she’s excited to have commercial businesses in the area because she wouldn’t need to drive to Kimball Junction as frequently.

“I get what you’re saying. You’ve lived here a long time,” Pelegrin said. “Unfortunately, we’ve had a ton of change in this town. If change is going to happen in my backyard, who better to do it than the person who actually lives there and is going to be impacted by it directly?”

Tyler responded to concerns about how the development would affect the rural character of Silver Creek after the public hearing, telling the Planning Commission that the project would bring community benefits to the entire area and that large swaths of “open space” in Silver Creek are typically “supporting” lots for wealthy property owners with second homes.

“Does a 13-acre parcel that’s completely surrounded by development, which includes a truck stop and a Bells gas station … qualify as rural in nature?” Tyler said. “It’s not more dense than the commercial area right next door to it. … In a location like this where it’s completely surrounded by existing development, including the freeway interchange, I don’t think it necessarily negatively impacts the rural nature of Silver Creek.”

Planning Commissioner Spencer Young said his only issue with the proposal is the lack of ownership opportunities for residents who qualify for affordable housing, which Tyler said he could consider adding if it would be economically viable for the company.

Otherwise, the Planning Commission was generally in favor of the new design.

“I think it’s by far the best plan,” said Tyann Mooney, the only planning commissioner who was on the panel when the project was first proposed in 2023. “I think it’s thoughtful. I think it’s not too high. I know that it’s more dense than people want in Silver Creek. However, I do believe that there’s a lot of density already in that area. … I’m hopeful that this will give a better opening impression to entering Silver Creek, especially now with the roundabout.”

The Planning Commission unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation to the County Council regarding the rezone request and master plan development document. Commissioners also approved a conditional use permit allowing slight modifications to certain setbacks, which will only take effect if the County Council approves the project.

If the County Council votes in favor of the rezone and master plan, the Planning Commission will review the proposal for a second time to create an official development agreement and review a final site plan.

The post Crossroads at Silver Creek proposal moves to Summit County Council for approval appeared first on Park Record.

The redevelopment of Junction Commons into a mixed-use residential and commercial area is one step closer to reality now that the project is set to appear before the Summit County Council for final approval.

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the County Council on Tuesday after more than a year of discussion between commissioners and the development team. The project aims to revamp the existing shopping outlet to have housing units on the northwest corner, with commercial and retail spaces slated for the central area of the property.

Some residential units would also be located above the commercial storefronts, and the developers stressed their desire to create a walkable, pedestrian-friendly area in addition to installing bus stops for an expanded High Valley Transit route.

Overall, the redevelopment would have 19 mixed-use buildings and 433 residential units, of which 205 would be designated as affordable housing. Around 40 of the residential units would be for-sale townhomes, with three specifically earmarked as attainable housing to be sold around the 120% area median income mark.

The project also reduces the amount of commercial space on the property by approximately 100,000 square feet.

“I want to emphasize the complexity of undertaking the redevelopment while operating an open, active shopping center,” said Adam Greenebaum, senior vice president of Singerman Real Estate, the company that owns the property. “We’ve been surgically working on this for years in terms of how we’ve handled leasing and other aspects of the shopping center. We are positioned to start this redevelopment.”

Greenebaum said his company has invested more than $20 million into the Junction Commons transformation so far through its rebranding efforts, facility upgrades and attempts to attract family-friendly businesses and restaurants. The goal, he said, is to tweak the property into a hub for locals rather than focusing on its previous use as a “highway outlet center.”

Planning commissioners on Tuesday were mostly in favor of the project, but there were lingering concerns about the redevelopment’s effect on traffic congestion in Kimball Junction.

Specifically, Planning Commissioner Eric Sagerman said he was nervous that developers and the county were only considering Junction Commons, the Dakota Pacific Real Estate development and the Utah Olympic Park expansion as standalone applications rather than three major builds hoping to come online at the same time.

“I think that’s a failed way of looking at it,” Sagerman said. “You have to look at it in conjunction with the others. That’s the reality of it. … Otherwise, we’ll continue with the same issue, and we’ll continue with the same answers, which will be a failed state.”

The development team said they didn’t envision the project adding a significant amount of traffic beyond what already exists because the shopping outlet is already functioning as a commercial area. Summit County planners agreed, according to information included in a staff report.

“As with all development in Summit County, traffic impacts are always a concern,” the staff report said. “This is true during construction phases, after occupancy and into the future. The applicant’s traffic study demonstrates that its proposal will not increase the failure of any intersection in the area beyond background failures occurring as a result of existing conditions.”

Planning Commissioner Matthew Nagie said he didn’t want to focus too much on how the Junction Commons redevelopment would affect traffic in Kimball Junction because it’s something that needs to be viewed holistically, not put on the shoulders of one developer.

“I do think that there is a palpable discomfort that I have and others have with how much is being loaded onto this area before we have a plan,” added Planning Commissioner Heather Peteroy. “I’m not saying that’s on you guys. I am saying that if we don’t put pressure on (the County Council) to make it a priority, whether that’s the partnership with UDOT or with our own resources on the roads that we own, then I don’t think it’s going to get prioritized.”

The Planning Commission ultimately couldn’t impose any conditions of approval related to Kimball Junction at large because they had to stay within the scope of the developers’ application. However, they mandated a traffic mitigation plan to be included and followed for each phase of construction.

Commissioners voted 6-1 to forward a positive recommendation on the proposed rezoning and master plan development to the County Council, with Tim Jeffery as the lone dissenting voice. 

Jeffery said he voted against because he was uncomfortable with the size of the project and its potential effect on traffic congestion in the Snyderville Basin.

The post Junction Commons redevelopment project forwarded to Summit County Council appeared first on Park Record.

The Summit County Council will soon decide whether to finalize a series of amendments to the Utah Olympic Park’s development agreement after a monthslong conversation between the park’s operators and the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission.

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 the nonprofit.

However, multiple residents opposed the initial proposal. 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.

But the county’s legal counsel has since directed the Planning Commission to disregard some of those concerns, saying commissioners are only able to consider the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation’s application when making a decision. As a result, traffic congestion in the Snyderville Basin, access to Bear Hollow Drive via the park’s back gate, and the nonprofit’s financial information were not allowed to factor into the commissioners’ recommendation to the County Council.

Hilton still addressed a few of the more controversial points surrounding the proposed amendments last week, though. He said the new development agreement, if approved, would include a provision limiting the use of the gate on Bear Hollow Drive as a general entrance for the public.

However, the provision allows Utah Olympic Park staff to use the gate in certain situations, including operational and maintenance access, emergency access, construction access on a case-by-case basis, pedestrian access and residential access. The road also serves as an emergency exit route for the Sun Peak neighborhood in case of a wildfire.

Legacy Foundation staff additionally brought maps and renderings of the proposed future developments on the Utah Olympic Park property. The renderings were from the perspective of major intersections in Kimball Junction and intended to show the Planning Commission that the buildings slated for construction won’t prominently alter or obscure the skyline.

The map is similarly meant to assuage concerns about wildlife by detailing where the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources’ protected wildlife habitats are in comparison to the park’s property. The wildlife habitat specifically overlapped with two parcels earmarked for affordable and attainable employee housing, but Hilton said the Foundation has already committed to working with the Division of Wildlife Resources to comply with mitigation requirements.

The partnership with the Division of Wildlife Resources was also added to the amended development agreement as a condition of approval.

Hilton also said parcel 6-A and parcel 6-B, which were both located near the ridgeline bordering the Sun Peak community, were moved back to their original spot further down the mountain based on neighbors’ concerns. The two parcels will likely become affordable housing for employees and athletes in the future, but Hilton said the park is holding off on solidifying plans for those parcels for now.

Around 257,000 square feet of the property is slated for commercial development, with the largest piece earmarked for Parcel 3, which is where the 190,000-square-foot hotel will be built. The rest of the commercial space will go toward offices for Legacy Foundation staff and partnering sports organizations.

The Utah Olympic Park’s master plan also includes 96,980 square feet for affordable housing and 75,000 square feet for “attainable housing,” or housing that does not meet the definition of affordable housing but is still sold or rented at a lower market rate.

Another 139,850 square feet will be dedicated to operational support buildings to house equipment.

“We’ve reduced the amount of commercial and added affordable and attainable housing because it’s what we feel is the best use for what we’d like to develop there,” Hilton said.

One of the major amendments to the development agreement was a request that the county issue low impact permits for the park’s construction rather than attaching a conditional use permit to each development. Low impact permits still require oversight from the Planning Commission, but the Legacy Foundation would not need to hold a public hearing, expediting the process for both the nonprofit and county staff.

The Planning Commission unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation to the County Council regarding the amended development agreement. The County Council is set to discuss the document and hold another public hearing at 6 p.m. on Jan. 28 at the County Courthouse in Coalville.

The post Utah Olympic Park’s amended development agreement heads to Summit County Council appeared first on Park Record.

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.

The post Utah Olympic Park development delayed after lingering questions from Planning Commission, residents appeared first on Park Record.

“Mountain Modern” might be the chosen aesthetic for Kimball Junction’s newest neighborhood, according to draft building plans presented by Dakota Pacific Real Estate.

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission met with the developer on Tuesday to review the proposed architectural design standards for the 885-unit mixed-use project near the Park City Tech Center that was approved this summer. Now, officials want to ensure there are clear standards and a shared vision for the future of the development, including the residential portion and the public-private partnership — an area that would include mixed-use commercial space and a civic green space — before it’s finalized.

“We’re at the administrative development agreement stage. The development agreement itself actually contains all the normal uses, vested rights … things that have gone into this project already delineated by law,” explained Summit County Community Development Director Peter Barnes. “But what’s missing is the vision, the color, the character, what we expect to see in this project.”

Summit County was forced to adopt the administrative development agreement under Senate Bill 26, enacted during the general session, which shifted the approval process from legislative to administrative. County Manager Shayne Scott then adopted the “state-imposed entitlement” because the law prohibited creating any impediments to Dakota Pacific’s project. The development mirrors what the Summit County Council approved in a 4-1 vote in December.

However, the development agreement does not provide specific architectural standards or designs. So Dakota Pacific has to go through the Planning Commission to review the plans. Commissioners have 45 days to complete their assessment and form a recommendation. That’s sent to Scott, who has final authority to approve the guidelines or request changes.

Dakota Pacific partnered with AO, which is characterized as a “full service architectural, master planning and design firm specializing in retail, residential and mixed-use projects,” to create a narrative for the project area. 

Technical details such as building heights, setbacks and land use have clear requirements under county code, while features such as style do not. Dakota Pacific and AO opted for a “mountain modern” feel with clean, modern elements that also have a distinctive sense of place because of its location at a major gateway to Park City.

Dakota Pacific’s 59-acre project is intended to prioritize people and places in alignment with the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan. The design principles include making the area walkable and connected with space for community gatherings and events, creating people-oriented streets and paths while integrating transit and considering future connections, consolidating parking, offering varied housing choices and an adaptable built environment.

Tech Center Drive, which could be renamed, and other supporting roads would have greenery, street furniture, lighting, public art and signage. Streets would also be complemented by off-street paths acting as a pedestrian trail system that connects the residential neighborhoods to the west of the project with the public-private partnership site and pedestrian bridge across S.R. 224. There would also be a new transit station and bus stops as well as e-bikes and electric vehicle charging. 

The public-private partnership area would have mixed-use residential and commercial buildings, civic green space looking at Utah Olympic Park, a parking structure and reserved space for a future civic building. The plan also imagines a future gondola “to support long-term mobility.”

Meanwhile, the residential neighborhoods would include workforce housing, multifamily apartments, senior-living facilities, townhomes and market-rate housing. About half of the total 885 units are designated affordable or attainable. The area will emphasize “livability” by incorporating pocket parks, open spaces, a trail network and accessible streets.

“The main talking point … is connectivity, the opportunities for a very walkable site, whether it’s jogging, walking, bikes. The perfect community is one that can be interconnected between uses, where you don’t have to get in your car just to go down to the commercial area,” said AO design partner Richard Clarke.

However, planning commissioners weren’t convinced. 

Members voiced a desire for more walkable, human-scaled neighborhoods and questioned whether the current guidelines emphasize pedestrian and cyclist connectivity. The Planning Commission also emphasized the value of thoughtful approaches to street and bridge designs so that walking routes become an interesting experience that encourages people to use them.

Planning Commissioner Matt Nagie asked to see more details about how the project would be accessible for different populations, such as a mom with a stroller, a jogger or someone using a wheelchair.

“Seeing bog-standard ADA compliance that, just like, has so much room for improvement. I would love to see specifics here. It’s 2025 — it’s not the ’70s anymore — we know how to design pedestrian accessibility,” he said.

Other suggestions included a trolley or shuttle service to reduce car traffic and creating engaging streetscapes that blend commercial and residential spaces.

Planning commissioners also pointed out that the architecture needs to feel authentic to the region. They said they wanted future buildings to reflect the unique spirit and history of the Park City area rather than have a generic, bland look.

“The question is, how do we create something that looks good in 100 years? Because that’s really what we’re doing. We’re not creating an old Park City,” said Planning Commissioner Eric Sagerman. “This is a new place, and how do we make it accessible, interesting, so that people want to walk, has variations and looks great in 100 years?”

Participants similarly discussed practical matters such as how to ensure the development functions smoothly for residents and visitors and how to keep it attractive and accessible year-round. They also talked about snow removal and storage, EV charging, transit and parking.

They planned further refinements to details such as connectivity diagrams, signage policies and the narrative describing local influences on design. A follow-up meeting is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 25.

If the Planning Commission finalizes its recommendation by December, Scott could potentially approve the design guidelines before the year ends. Dakota Pacific plans to build the project in several phases over about five years.

The Dakota Pacific project has been controversial since it was proposed more than five years ago, facing scrutiny from community members and local leaders. Proponents advocate for workforce housing opportunities and neighborhood improvements, while those opposed are concerned about worsening traffic and density.

The post Summit County considers architecture guidelines for Dakota Pacific development appeared first on Park Record.

The Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation plans to hold at least one open house concerning plans to build a hotel and attainable housing for employees at the Utah Olympic Park following community backlash.

Residents complained at a Snyderville Basin Planning Commission meeting last week about proposed amendments to the park’s development agreement to allow for the construction.

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. It also included a provision allowing the foundation to change which parcels are used for which developments at any time, as long as the developments were classified as an allowable use.

Foundation CEO Colin Hilton said the amendments don’t change the heart of the established development agreement and only serve to make the process more efficient for the county and the nonprofit. 

Residents who attended the meeting disagreed, though. They staunchly opposed the changes, saying further development would create more traffic congestion, disturb wildlife and harm the mission of the organization.

Because of a misunderstanding between county staff and the foundation regarding how the size of the buildings is measured, the proposal initially indicated that developers would build more than 1.4 million square feet of office space on the property.

However, Hilton clarified that the plan is to install roughly 230,000 square feet of commercial space, most of which will belong to the hotel. The rest of the square footage will be dedicated to offices for sports teams and the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation.

Overall, Hilton said the total planned square footage of park facilities, including buildings already on the property, is around 690,000 square feet — less than originally anticipated in 2011.

In 2011, for example, the master plan included 40,000 square feet for medical offices, but the updated 2025 plan bumped that number down to 15,400 square feet. Instead of setting aside 103,710 square feet for general office space, the new master plan accounts for 50,900 square feet, about a 50% decrease.

The updated conceptual master plan for the Utah Olympic Park shows eight developable parcels, significantly less than the 14 parcels mapped in 2011. Most of the development projects, including the hotel, are centered near the base of the hill. Only the sixth parcel, which is currently earmarked for single-family residences, is elevated and near the ridgeline.

The amendments encompass a request to approve the updated master plan, designate the site as a major sporting event venue to earn more tax revenue, issue a low impact permit for the ski lifts and hotel construction, update the affordable housing calculations, update building height limitations, and clarify parcel and building pad locations.

However, residents overwhelmingly opposed the amendments during a public hearing, expressing concerns over the park’s financial status and questioning the motive behind having a hotel on site. They compared the situation to the controversial approval of Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s project in Kimball Junction and said they felt blindsided by the plan to further develop the Utah Olympic Park property.

Community members speaking said they were worried about the effect construction would have on wildlife in the area, namely breeding moose that tend to populate the hills where the single-family residences are proposed. They also bemoaned the possibility of drivers using the park’s back gate near the Sun Peak neighborhood to bypass Kimball Junction traffic during the winter if the gate were to open for residential access to the ten single-family housing units.

There were questions about the housing aspect of the project, too, with many residents asking about who would rent the units and if the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation intended to turn the park into a “year-round real estate venture.”

Hilton clarified after the public hearing that he does not plan on ever having the back gate open to the public because of the detrimental effects it would have on the Sun Peak neighborhood. 

“When I hear about worries of ski traffic coming off Kimball Junction through the UOP and out our back gate, I’m blown away,” he said. “How would anybody ever think we would allow that to happen? We have control gates at both locations. The internal road is just for staff vehicles. No, we’re never going to have the public use it as a thoroughfare through the UOP. Not in my lifetime.”

Hilton also said the single-family homes would be owned by national governing bodies, such as U.S. Ski & Snowboard, which would be responsible for rotating athletes, coaches and their families into and out of the homes based on training schedules, eligibility and other factors.

He added that the hotel is intended to serve athletes’ families, not the public, and is a key component in making the park a self-sustaining facility. The housing units are also limited to athletes, coaches and foundation employees, although around 10% will be listed at market value to help earn more revenue.

“We’re four times busier today in use of the facilities like the Olympic Park than we were right after ’02,” Hilton said. “There are kids and visiting teams and athletes wearing down our facilities faster than we can maintain them. Do we need more facilities to support them? Absolutely. The demand is every day. We feel it, and we’re trying to fill that need and pay for that need without having it be paid for by local tax dollars.”

The Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation plans outsource management of the hotel to a hospitality company, with a portion of the proceeds going toward the foundation. If the hotel doesn’t generate money, Hilton said the responsibility will fall back on the developer and operator, not the park or greater Summit County community.

“We have a whole variety of other board members with lots of business experience who have grilled (the developers) about the viability of a hotel,” Hilton said. “We did a hotel study and had them report on the results of that to the revenue committee of our board, so do know we take revenue generation very seriously. We have a lot of resources to access, but we run a nonprofit. We run a mission-based organization, and our metrics are more about the participation of young people in our programs than it is about profitability.”

Hilton said during a Park City/Chamber Bureau event in late summer that the improvements are part of early preparations for the 2029 Bobsleigh World Championships, but will be spanned out over the next 20 years or so. The goal is to move from an “Olympic training site” to an official “Olympic Training Center.” The focus is on supporting athletes, coaches and the community.

Summit County Community Development Director Peter Barnes said county staff and the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation are generally in agreement on the amendments, but he urged against forwarding a recommendation to the Summit County Council if the Planning Commission still had questions, especially since the County Council likely won’t have time to hear the proposal until January as members work through the 2026 budgeting process.

The Planning Commission unanimously decided to hold off on a recommendation until Nov. 25, giving the foundation time to gather answers to residents’ questions and hold the open house to engage further with community members.

No date for the open house had been set as of Thursday afternoon.

The post Utah Olympic Park to hold open house on proposed development after community backlash appeared first on Park Record.

Developers looking to build in the Snyderville Basin must now include electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking in their plans under a new ordinance approved by the Summit County Council last week.

The requirement, which was developed in conjunction with Utah Clean Energy, applies to all new commercial and multifamily developments. Approximately 5% of parking spaces are required to have an electronic vehicle charging station while another 5% must be EV-ready, meaning the conduit and wiring are ready for use but the charging equipment has not been installed.

An additional 10% of parking spaces are required to be EV-capable, defined as when the conduit is installed without the necessary wiring to connect to a charging station. New single-family homes built in the Snyderville Basin must also be built with an EV-capable parking space.

“Research provided by County Sustainability staff and Utah Clean Energy indicate that EV use will continue to grow, and, therefore, requiring infrastructure at the time of construction is much more economical than installing it after construction has been completed,” said a staff report on the ordinance.

There is one exemption, however.

Developers specifically working on affordable housing projects have the opportunity to ask the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission for an exception if they demonstrate that EV parking will be a “financial burden.”

The mandated number of bicycle parking spaces, meanwhile, is determined by the type of development under construction. The ordinance additionally differentiates between a short-term bicycle space, such as a traditional bike rack, and long-term bicycle space, such as a weather-protected locker.

For example, a retail store or restaurant is required to have at least two short-term spaces and one long-term space. The additional number of necessary spaces is then determined by the size of the development, with another short-term space added for every 2,000 square feet and another long-term space added for every 10,000 square feet.

In contrast, a hotel needs to have a minimum of five short-term spaces with an additional space for every 20 guest rooms. There’s a minimum requirement of four long-term spaces, with one additional space per 10 employees.

The ordinance also touches on solar power, establishing solar energy systems as an allowed use across all Snyderville Basin zoning districts and creating a set of standards for building-integrated, roof-mounted and ground-mounded solar panels.

The county code prior to the ordinance’s adoption did not include any information on solar energy systems, meaning they were prohibited by default despite the county’s goals related to sustainability and environmental stewardship, according to the staff report.

“Creation of these rules will legitimize solar structures and help prevent any issues with enforcement of the Code,” the staff report said. “Creation of the rules will enable property owners to reduce electric bills, receive tax credits and reduce pressure on the electric grid in a simple and efficient way.”

The County Council unanimously voted to adopt the ordinance.

The post Summit County adopts EV charging, bicycle parking requirements in Snyderville Basin appeared first on Park Record.

The developer of a proposed mixed-use neighborhood in Silver Creek is working with the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission to accommodate a new design that doesn’t necessarily meet requirements outlined in the county’s development code.

Columbus Pacific Development is requesting setback exceptions for a subdivision, commercial area and childcare center tied to the Crossroads at Silver Creek, an exception the developers say will allow them to build a better, more coherent design than the previous proposal first brought before the Planning Commission in 2023.

Setback requirements refer to the mandatory minimum distance between a building and the property line, often intended to guide aesthetics and provide privacy in residential neighborhoods in addition to ensuring emergency vehicles can access the area safely.

The Crossroads at Silver Creek development includes 72 multifamily residences, 24 affordable housing units and approximately 32,000 square feet of commercial space. However, the property is currently zoned for rural residential use, which means Columbus Pacific’s vision for the development will require a zoning change.

Tony Tyler, a Columbus Pacific partner and Silver Creek resident, in 2023 originally suggested the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission rezone the area to a neighborhood mixed-use district, more commonly referred to as an NMU. The developers then put their application on pause, opting to explore other zoning possibilities that would be a better fit for the project.

In a workshop with the Planning Commission last week, Tyler said he was now seeking a rezone to a community commercial zone instead.

He explained the reason for the change primarily involves building heights because an NMU allows building heights of up to 45 feet, which Tyler said was unnecessary for the proposed development.

As for the setbacks, Tyler told the Planning Commission he was asking for exceptions for three specific areas: the residential units toward the bottom of the development on both sides of the road and a unit on the northern end bordering the commercial spaces. He said the exceptions would help Columbus Pacific implement its latest design, which connects to the existing roundabout before transitioning into a densely populated, Swedish-inspired neighborhood.

The commercial space sits on the southern side of the roundabout with a connecting residential road to the west, which heads farther south toward the interstate and is dotted with townhomes and affordable housing units on each side.

The exceptions, Tyler said, should not have a meaningful impact on the residents of the development nor any neighbors because there are no adjacent buildings. Moreover, the exceptions would be on less than 2% of the property overall.

Tyler added the Utah Department of Transportation has one independent setback requirement for easement access that would only affect one of the buildings, but UDOT officials are already amenable to amending their easement access and entering into an agreement allowing an exception for the developers.

The Planning Commission also asked about the possibility of a grocery store in the commercial center, an idea floated during previous workshops with Columbus Pacific. However, Tyler said he’s spoken with most major grocery chains and that they’re not interested in opening a new location in the development because the population isn’t dense enough.

He said he’s still hoping to bring a market of some kind to the project, even though the business wouldn’t be a traditional grocer.

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission didn’t make any decisions regarding the Crossroads at Silver Creek development last week, but commissioners were generally supportive of granting the exception, with Planning Commission Chair Tyann Mooney calling the proposal a “very thoughtful design.”

The Planning Commission is expected to discuss the development further at its next meeting.

The post Columbus Pacific Development submits new design for Crossroads at Silver Creek project appeared first on Park Record.