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.

The Summit County Council unanimously approved the redevelopment of Junction Commons into a residential and commercial hub on Tuesday, which marks the first use of the Snyderville Basin’s neighborhood mixed-use zone since its creation more than five years ago.

“We’re really happy and impressed that you’re able to use that NMU zone,” County Council Chair Canice Harte told the developers after the vote. “We’re excited to see what this brings. The blend of residential mixed with the enhanced commercial experience is something that I think the community will benefit from.”

Singerman Real Estate purchased the outlet mall in 2018, three years before the County Council created the neighborhood mixed-use zone. The neighborhood mixed-use zone accommodates projects with at least three land uses, such as commercial, residential and recreational areas. It also requires at least 50% of the development’s housing units be earmarked as affordable.

The approval this week authorized a rezone of the Junction Commons property from the town center zone to the neighborhood mixed-use zone. The County Council also voted in favor of a master plan development document, which will be further refined as the county government and Singerman Real Estate work to draft a legally binding development agreement before construction begins.

The proposal to redevelop the outlet mall outlines plans for 370 residential units, 220 of which will be earmarked as affordable housing. Of those affordable units, 188 will be priced around the 80% area median income, or AMI, mark. The remaining 32 units will be priced around the 60% AMI mark.

The developers said they plan to use a system that averages the AMIs of the affordable units, allowing for more flexibility. For example, if a resident in an affordable unit receives a pay raise, their AMI would increase, and the rent payment would rise in proportion to their new salary. This permits the developer to lease the next affordable unit at a lower AMI, according to Singerman Real Estate representatives.

The project also reduces existing commercial space on the property by approximately 56,000 square feet. The residential units, which are a mix of townhomes and apartment buildings, will be integrated into commercial spaces.

The site plan for the Junction Commons redevelopment has been downsized since it was first presented to the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission. The original proposal included 433 residential units, with 205 units set aside as affordable housing.

However, the County Council expressed concerns about the project’s density and traffic impacts, especially in combination with other Snyderville Basin developments, such as Altus Park City or the Utah Olympic Park expansion.

The reduction in units amounted to a 14% decrease from the original proposal.

The post Junction Commons redevelopment marks first use of Snyderville Basin’s mixed-use zone appeared first on Park Record.

Developers in the Snyderville Basin now have a new process to obtain a rezone after the Summit County Council narrowly passed an ordinance removing the requirement that “construction-level drawings” must be included alongside an application.

The Snyderville Basin is largely zoned for low-density neighborhoods, which means developers need to request permission to build apartment complexes, mixed-use buildings or other large-scale projects.

But Community Development Director Peter Barnes has repeatedly said the requirement to include engineered plans in an application prevents the public from learning about a project early enough to provide meaningful input. He speculated that developers are less likely to change site plans based on community feedback when they’ve already spent time and money consulting with engineers and architects.

The requirement to include construction-level drawings also burdens county staff, who need to review and sign off on pieces of the project each time the County Council or Planning Department requests a modification, Barnes said.

The ordinance, which the County Council passed on Wednesday, changes the process and mandates developers submit a “concept development plan” along with a rezone application. Barnes explained that the plan includes information on density, land use, open space and traffic but without engineering schematics.

“The object of this exercise is to adjust the order of events in which information is provided in a rezoning application,” he said. “All the information that will be required prior to receiving any kind of development permit, building permit, before anything happens, before a shovel goes in the ground, all the normal and usual information will be provided.”

In addition to easing the burden on county staff and developers, Barnes said he hoped the process would increase transparency and offer residents a chance to get involved in projects earlier, which is more effective in encouraging changes in a proposal.

“It makes for a more predictable, more efficient methodology for all concerned,” he said. “That’s the sole reason why we’re here.”

The Planning Department initially suggested a “pre-application public hearing” to give community members an opportunity to hear about a project and submit comments before the request is officially sent to the county.

However, Chief Civil Deputy David Thomas said the county can’t require a public hearing before an application is submitted. He said the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission could hold a work session and invite public input, but the county could not force developers to engage in a hearing without a valid application.

County Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong questioned the ordinance’s benefits without the ability to hold pre-application hearings. He said he was under the impression that expanding the public’s opportunities to comment on a proposed project was the legislation’s key selling point.

“Zoning is, and should be, one of the hardest things we do,” Armstrong said. “It is the vision of what this community should look like based on the people who elected us to be here. … Disturbing that should be a robust and very difficult process.”

Armstrong said he opposed the ordinance because he was concerned it would reduce the County Council’s oversight of rezone requests. Specifically, details like negotiations over community benefits and affordable housing are often left until the end of the development process, and Armstrong worried the County Council would not have the same level of involvement in ironing out those details if the ordinance were adopted.

“The time-saving pieces of this are some of the pieces that could affect traffic. It could affect a variety of other things that we’re not seeing,” Armstrong said. “We’re not necessarily getting the bigger picture. … This is an incomplete data set for us to make the decision.”

But County Councilor Chris Robinson said the County Council could still include granular details in a development agreement, which would be required for any property seeking a rezone. He also pushed back against Armstrong’s statements questioning whether the ordinance would create “unintended consequences” for Summit County, such as unwanted state involvement in local land use matters.

“(The current process) leaves (developers) hanging, and it exposes us, I think, to unintended consequences where reputationally and otherwise we get a bad rap for being impossible to deal with and that we’re not straightforward,” Robinson said.

Robinson, whose company owns and manages more than 1 million acres in the Mountain West, added that other counties in Utah already have a similar process to the proposed ordinance.

He made a motion to approve the new rezone process, which passed in a 3-2 vote. Robinson and county councilors Tonja Hanson and Megan McKenna voted in favor of the ordinance, while Armstrong and County Council Chair Canice Harte opposed it.

The post New ordinance changes rezone process in Snyderville Basin appeared first on Park Record.

Two new facilities with lap and recreation pools, indoor courts and turf fields, top rope and bouldering walls, and fitness and weight rooms could be built in the Snyderville Basin — if voters are willing to pay for them.

The Snyderville Basin Special Recreation District announced its intent to pursue a general obligation bond to fund the construction of two new facilities, located in Silver Creek Village and Jeremy Ranch, on the November ballot. 

The Silver Creek Village project would be larger and aquatics-focused, while the East Canyon complex on the Cline Dahle parcel would be courts and climbing-centered. District leaders said the goal is to alleviate crowding at the existing Fieldhouse, prepare for population growth and expand fitness offerings to provide a full-package experience.

Basin Recreation had considered a bond to build another facility for a decade but never formally pursued one because residents might not back it. However, Executive Director Robert Parrish told the Summit County Council on Wednesday that feedback collected earlier this year shows there could finally be enough support for voters to approve the funding. 

Parrish wasn’t ready to disclose how much the bond would be worth or how much it would increase residents’ property taxes, though he anticipated those numbers would be ready next month. Parrish said district officials are looking at structuring its current bond debt so the impact of the new bond would not go on top of the existing debt.

He noted the key question for voters will be how much more they are willing to spend for what they’re gaining in return. 

“We asked (survey takers) about whether they would see … a $75 to $150 a year increase as reasonable, or $150 to $200 to $300,” Parrish said. “There were quite a few respondents that say that there was value if we could do both these facilities. There’s value in that higher, higher range.”

In May, Basin Recreation conducted open houses and an online survey, which garnered about 1,400 responses, indicating there’s “suppressed demand” with the existing Fieldhouse. 

About 61% of respondents said they avoid The Fieldhouse due to crowding, and 51% of people who have never actually been said they avoid it for the same reason. The survey also found 29% of people use the facility less often than they want, with 25% choosing somewhere else because of The Fieldhouse’s capacity.

Parrish said an upcoming impact fee facility plan also shows the building will reach capacity next year, while residents already feel it’s packed in practice. He noted the number of new housing developments, including those at Cline Dahle and near Silver Creek, and said the demand for recreation will outpace Basin Recreation’s current capacity unless new facilities are built.

Public input appears to have inspired Basin Recreation to expand its plans for the facilities.

The Silver Creek Village recreation center was initially proposed at 76,000 square feet — smaller than the 84,000 square foot Fieldhouse — but residents said that was too small. Parrish said the building would be increased to 120,000 square feet.

Silver Creek was also the favored site for aquatic activities. Community feedback favored a family recreation pool with slides, similar to the South Summit Aquatic & Fitness Center, and noted more than four lanes would be needed for a lap pool.

“The community shows … don’t go small,” Parrish said. “Don’t make it too small from the beginning. Go the right size.”

Other amenities could include an indoor turf, larger than the current field and sized for 9-v-9 soccer, as well as the ability to divide the field so two teams can practice. Parrish said the intent is to relieve pressure on indoor and outdoor fields and allow earlier-season practices. There would also be a track and more space for strength, cardio and fitness training, as well as specialized practices like yoga and Pilates.

The East Canyon complex in Jeremy Ranch was also too small for residents at 42,000 square feet. Parrish said the working plan is to expand the building to 64,000 square feet, which will still fit on the property despite wetland constraints.

The larger complex will allow Basin Recreation to implement a “full spec” climbing facility, which was a strong desire among residents. Parrish envisioned 40-foot climbing walls for top rope and space for bouldering, something to serve as a replacement for The Mine, which was a former bouldering gym in Kimball Junction. There would be three additional indoor courts for basketball, volleyball, racket sports and multi-use programming, too. 

Parrish said public feedback also favored a wellness identity at the East Canyon location. This could include a sauna and cold plunge, essentially pairing fitness and recovery spaces to create a “total wellness” experience.

The ultimate goal is for the two new facilities to be differentiated but complementary to The Fieldhouse. Basin Recreation also wants to target niche fitness communities such as climbers or pickleballers, who would travel to use the facilities.

Parrish said the three facilities would be spread across key neighborhoods in the Snyderville Basin, providing residents with diverse fitness options closer to home and allowing them to avoid overcrowding. One Basin Recreation membership would provide access to all three facilities. 

The district also plans to present a new fee structure before the next budget cycle, which will clearly state what a Snyderville Basin resident pays versus a nonresident. 

“I think that’ll go a long way to showing our residents that … we’re charging them appropriately, but the nonresidents that are coming in, they’re going to be charged completely different rate, and it’ll be visible and viable,” Parrish said. “Then those fees come right back into the programs and help support the facilities.”

He added that property taxes may also trend down as more people move into the district and contribute to paying off the bond.

Parrish said the bond is passable, but there’s a trust that must be built. Around 58% of people surveyed in 2023 said the district does a good job, but less than 24% said the district uses tax money wisely. Initial support for the bond three years ago was just under 49%, which was below the passage threshold.

“We know we have some gaps to overcome,” Parrish said.

Public outreach and messaging will be key for Basin Recreation over the next few months. A second round of public sessions is planned for July 8 and Parrish will return to the County Council on July 15 with another update, including the proposed bond structure and refined costs.

County councilors were largely in support of the two-facility strategy rather than a phased approach separated by years because of construction costs. They advised Basin Recreation to develop clear, simple messaging about why the facilities are being built, why they’re needed now and how property tax bills will be affected.

The post Basin Recreation prepares for November bond measure appeared first on Park Record.

After five years of debate, public fatigue appears to have set in.

A little more than a baker’s dozen residents attended Thursday’s Park City Tech incorporation hearing, a noticeable shift from the packed rooms that previously defined discussions surrounding Dakota Pacific Real Estate.

There were only a handful of public comments during the meeting, but everyone who spoke highlighted concerns about transparency, representation and long-term liabilities. 

Consultants with Zions Public Finance Inc. presented the results of the feasibility study, declaring the proposed preliminary municipality financially feasible with a 24% revenue margin. 

The key takeaway from the feasibility study is that net revenues in Park City Tech over the first five years would be positive and exceed the 5% threshold for incorporation. The estimated population is projected to be 1,680 people spread across 725 households on less than 1 square mile, and Summit County is expected to benefit from the increased property and sales taxes.

Staff from the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office, which oversees incorporations in the state, explained the legal and procedural framework regarding the project that would give Dakota Pacific “all the powers and duties” of a town, including planning, zoning and development agreements, but not the ability to tax. 

The Park City Tech proposal is similar to the mixed-use development approved by Summit County in December 2024, but does not include the elements of the public-private partnership, such as a new transit center and 160 units of county-owned affordable housing. 

In July, Summit County approved an administrative development agreement for an 885-unit development as required by Senate Bill 26. The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission is considering the architecture guidelines of the project, with a follow-up meeting scheduled for Nov. 25. 

Representatives from Dakota Pacific and Summit County have indicated their focus is on the administrative development agreement rather than Park City Tech. However, the development firm has not withdrawn its application for the new town because it’s seen as an alternative way to ensure the project happens.

Community members repeatedly noted the absence of county officials and representatives from the development firm. Attendees also appeared frustrated about the scope of questions the consultants and the state could answer, limited to the feasibility study itself or the incorporation process.

Steve Borup, Dakota Pacific’s director of commercial development, was in the audience but did not identify himself. Neither Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth nor Park City Tech sponsor Scott Swallow, the director of acquisitions and development for Dakota Pacific Real Estate Partners, returned a request for comment by the time of publication.

Summit County Manager Shayne Scott was unaware of anyone from the county who attended the meeting. 

“I have told staff I don’t want to spend any staff time on that option that is not required by law. I am hopeful that as we go forward with the administrative (development agreement) option that this option will officially be withdrawn,” he said. 

Pinebrook resident Shawn Stinson said he expected a lack of representation from Dakota Pacific, but not from Summit County. Stinson also raised concerns about the developer changing the zoning, height and density of the area and then abandoning the project, saddling the county with the burden.

Snyderville Basin resident Robert Phillips said it was “despicable” that county staff were not present. Phillips added that he wants to vote out the Summit County Council and Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson for whatever “went on behind the scenes” regarding the failed referendum effort.

“There’s an old Southern phrase about putting lipstick on a pig, but you can’t get rid of the smell. This project smells bad,” he said.

Dakota Pacific submitted an application for the Park City Tech feasibility study in January, and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office determined the following month that it complied with state statute regarding preliminary municipalities. The feasibility study was commissioned in May, with the final draft released in September.

The Lieutenant Governor’s Office paid for the $27,500 feasibility study. However, the sponsors are required to pay for the feasibility study as part of their petition for incorporation if the process continues. 

Following the public hearing, Park City Tech sponsors have one year to submit a petition for incorporation. However, state law does not require a vote on the incorporation because it’s a preliminary municipality. 

Once the petition is filed, Dakota Pacific would designate three board members and Summit County selects the fourth. An election, run by the Summit County Clerk’s Office, would take place after the preliminary municipality transitions.

Park City Tech would be required to file to incorporate as a town once the population exceeds 100 people. The state would also dissolve Park City Tech if Dakota Pacific does not file a petition to shift to a municipality within six years or if the area has not transitioned within four years after the first record sold certificate has been issued. 

If dissolution occurs, the area, including roads and infrastructure, reverts to the jurisdiction of Summit County. Dakota Pacific would also be liable for damages caused to the county.

The post Park City Tech hearing draws sparse crowd 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.

The Snyderville Basin Special Recreation District is proposing a 15% property tax increase to generate $1.3 million annually that would be used for ongoing maintenance, new projects and employee salaries. If approved, it would be the district’s third tax increase since 2019.

The change would increase property taxes by $3.35 for every $100,000 of a property’s taxable value, according to outgoing Basin Recreation Director Dana Jones. She presented the district’s proposal to the Summit County Council last week. However, Jones emphasized that Basin Rec doesn’t rely solely on property taxes from the Snyderville Basin for its operations.

“Inevitably, whenever we go in front of the public and ask for these things, what we hear from the public is, ‘We want you to make the people who are using your services pay more,’” Jones said. “We’d like to assure the public that we are certainly increasing our charges for services.”

Jones said the money the district generates from its service charges, such as memberships or day passes, has increased by 22% over the past two years. The rise is attributable to the growing number of people using the facilities and programs that Basin Recreation offers, not necessarily because of an increase in pricing.

“Property tax is just one of the ways that we generate revenue, but it really is an important one,” Jones said.

In addition to funding ongoing maintenance and new projects, Jones said the money from the tax increase would go toward increasing part-time staffing and creating five new full-time positions, including a recreation coordinator. The four other jobs would focus on marketing, accounting, planning and capital projects.

“For a growing userbase, this means more programs, more facilities, additional properties, so it also means we’re going to need additional staffing to help take care of that,” Jones said. “It is amazing how many invoices we process every month, hundreds of invoices every month. Every time we grow, the need for those administrative services grows.”

Jones said the money is also needed to pay for specialized contracts related to specific projects, such as pool maintenance, trail development and resurfacing, and upkeep efforts for facilities and equipment. The district is likewise planning on an expansion of the Trailside Park skating area in the future, which will require a funding source, she said.

“The cost of property and liability insurance just continues to rise,” Jones added. “Ours has increased by about 200% over the last year or two, actually, and these costs have exceeded inflation in all areas. … It’s something we have to keep because things happen and people get out there and get injured.”

Summit County residents have “high expectations” for Basin Recreation, and Jones said boosting the district’s tax revenue will allow the district to meet those demands while still planning for future growth.

Jones previously addressed concerns regarding Basin Recreation’s reliance on property taxes, alluding to the controversial 19.9% increase, or $8.20 for every 100,000 of taxable value, in 2022 that many Snyderville Basin residents opposed at the time. The 2019 increase equaled about $14.50 per $100,000 of taxable value on a primary home. 

Past increases were also used to fund new positions, as well as maintenance and the development of new trails and facilities.

“If we’re going to build at Silver Creek Village, if we’re going to build at Cline Dahle, we need to be able to keep up with these things now and not end up behind the curve,” she said.

Basin Recreation will hold a public hearing on the proposed tax increase on Dec. 3 before the Summit County Council meeting. The County Council is expected to vote on the district’s 2026 budget the same night, with two different options available — one with the property tax increase and one without — depending on community feedback and the County Council’s decision.

The post Basin Recreation proposes new positions, capital projects with 15% tax increase appeared first on Park Record.

Silver Creek residents and cyclists traveling through the community will now have an easier time connecting to the rest of the Snyderville Basin area with the opening of a new paved trail.

The Snyderville Basin Special Recreation District on Wednesday held a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Bitner Ranch commuter pathway, a 2.08-mile paved trail designed to create safer, more accessible connections to other routes on the West Side.

“It opens up some opportunities, such as retail access to entertainment, healthier lifestyle, even an alternative mode to better transportation, so we’re super excited to help in this,” said Phares Gines, trails and open space manager at Basin Recreation.

The objective of the Bitner Ranch commuter pathway is to help connect the outlying community to a main hub for retail and commercial activity. Gines emphasized the new pathway was only made possible through a partnership with Summit County Public Works and the county’s active transportation planning team. 

Basin Recreation impact fees funded the pathway.

The recreation organization was established in 1986, and Gines said the commuter pathway idea has been decades in the making. The project began in earnest around 2016, in coordination with Summit County’s long-range transportation plan. Construction started in fall 2022.

The first Active Transportation Plan was adopted in 2019. It involves planning for new bicycle and walking routes as well as improving existing ones. 

Several trails in the Park City area connect to Promontory or Summit Park, and the newly paved trail helps fill in the gaps in another location. Gines said the ideal goal is for everything to be connected, essentially forming a loop. 

Trail markers will be put out so Basin Recreation can track the usage of the new paved trail.

The Silver Creek park-and-ride is also just a few yards away, making it ideal for people to drop off their vehicles before heading into town. Basin Recreation agreed to plow the parking lot in exchange for storing its equipment.

“One of Basin Recreation’s guiding directives is to provide equitable access to our trail systems and amenities, supporting alternative transportation options that make it easier and safer for the community to reach key locations,” the organization said in a statement.

The post New paved trail connects Silver Creek to the Snyderville Basin area appeared first on Park Record.

A proposal to build a Maverik gas station in Quinn’s Junction received the green light from the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission last week.

Planning commissioners voted 4-3 on Oct. 22 to allow a fueling station with an almost 6,000 square foot convenience store, 16 gas pumps with the possibility of increasing the total number to 38, 30 parking stalls and a possible connection to the Rail Trail to be constructed at the corner of Old Highway 40 and Atkinson Road.

The decision comes after months of deliberation. Maverik first proposed building a gas station at the northeast corner of Quinn’s Junction in early March, but the project was stalled after back-and-forth about parking concerns and the need to improve accessibility in the area.

Commissioners Makenna Hawley, Megan Recher and Thomas Cooke voted against the project. 

Hawley and Recher cited the number of parking spots as a concern. The original proposal called for 37 parking spots, but it was reconfigured and reduced to about 30 after some discussion. Transportation Planning Director Carl Miller said there could be a safety hazard if there isn’t adequate parking capacity on the property.

Cooke was worried about the impact the gas station would have on the area and wanted to re-review the application if Maverik decides to add its additional fuel stations.  

“Once it’s built we’ll have a much better idea of what those impacts actually are instead of looking into the crystal ball or relying on modeling. And so it seems reasonable to take something from 16 stalls to 32 that it comes in and gets re-reviewed based on the impacts that are actually created by the 16,” Cooke said.

However, that will be up to the Summit County community development director when the time comes.

Determining the potential traffic impact of the gas station has been a key issue for the Planning Commission and the community. The intersection is one of the busiest in Summit County, and transportation staff have been working on a new configuration to pull the intersections away from each other and spread the traffic out, which they say will make it safer overall.

Traffic would be able to enter the gas station from Atkinson Road or Old Highway 40. However, cars could only leave from the frontage road.

Hawley and Cooke have also been proponents of implementing an active transportation component in the project to reach hikers and bikers on the Rail Trail. Maverik is committed to doing its best to make that happen.

Commissioners Bruce Carmichael, Matt Nagie, Tyann Mooney and Chris Conabee voted in favor of Maverik. They saw a need for a fueling station for motorists traveling between Park City and Kamas because there’s no existing service station on S.R. 248. Maverik could help divert traffic and stop people from coming into town for gas.

Maverik only plans to develop a portion of the 7.6-acre lot. Around 3 acres are in a wetland area that would remain untouched, meeting the 60% open space requirement in the area.

The Summit County Council amended the code to allow gas stations to exist in the area under the current service commercial zone in the spring.

The post Maverik gas station earns approval to build in Quinn’s Junction appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County officials are pushing back the deadline to issue a request for proposals for the Cline Dahle site in Jeremy Ranch until they can convene a small group of community stakeholders to assess the feasibility of their vision for the property.

The draft document is largely focused on addressing the pressing need for workforce housing in the community. Yet Summit County Council members expressed a range of ideas for the land, suggesting the request for proposals wasn’t quite in line with what they wanted to see in the future. Officials struggled with how much to define what they want at this stage or leave for later negotiations.

Economic Development and Housing Director Jeff Jones presented specific details about elements of the proposal to the County Council on Wednesday, including allowing a project density of up to 210 units, not including accessory rental units that can be built above detached garages, and the distribution of deed-restricted units.

Jones proposed that around 10% of the project site be single-family detached housing, 19% be single-family attached housing, and 71% be multi-family for rent. 

About half of the units would be deed-restricted and the rest would be market rate. Most residences would be set aside for households making between 30% and 60% of the area median income, which is no more than $91,800 for a family of four. Around a quarter of the units would be reserved for the 61%-80% and the 81%-100% AMI ranges. Less than 10% could be deed-restricted for the 101%-107% range, 6% for the 121%-150% range and 1% for households earning under 30%.

The majority of the units would be for two- or three-plus-person households. Jones said there’s been a loss of families with children in Summit County largely because of the affordability challenges in the market. 

A housing project on Cline Dahle could help address the decline while providing ownership opportunities for the county’s workforce, who is the primary target resident. However, there are additional challenges with larger units because they take longer to sell.

But that could all change.

“I think that the council has an opportunity to negotiate that once you select the development plan that you think serves our community the best design wise, I think through that exclusive right to negotiate period, that gives the council a unique opportunity to say ‘We want more of this.’ or ‘Less of this,’” Jones said.

Most of the County Council found the number to be too high. Members suggested refining the request for proposals to better reflect the goals officials hope to accomplish — though each member slightly differed in how to achieve that.

County Councilors Canice Harte and Roger Armstrong had no appetite to see 210 units built on the 17 acres of developable land. They wanted to see the request done right.

Harte interpreted the draft document to say the land should be filled in with as much housing as possible, and questioned whether that’s what the county wants. He pushed for a more innovative project that better combined a mix of commercial, civic and residential uses.

“The way I would read this right now, I really see it as ‘Oh, they’re just trying to pack a lot of units in on this property,’ and all I’m going to see from a proposal, I’m expecting, is a giant rectangular box full of apartments with these various mixes,” he said. “I’m not looking for quantity. I’m looking for quality.”

The total number was less of a problem for County Councilor Chris Robinson, though he had pictured more single-family homes on the property rather than multi-family units because he thought it was unrealistic for the county to build a large number of apartments and try to rent them. 

“I like the idea of having an ‘up to’ number. I don’t personally think, when I think of it and breaking it down, 20 detached homes, 38 or 39 townhomes, and the rest multi-family, it doesn’t make me throw up,” Robinson said. “I’m not saying we have to do this right now. We have enough to do with the DPRE project. We don’t have to do this now. I do think this is very consistent with the moderate-income housing plan. I don’t think we can keep sending the staff back to chase their tail and say, ‘You don’t have it right.’”

Robinson noted some of the elements incorporated in the request for proposal may have no position in economic reality, which would likely be reflected in the submissions the county receives.

County Council Chair Malena Stevens said she didn’t want to invest a lot of taxpayer money into the project.

The Planning Department started collecting feedback on the Cline Dahle project earlier this year with the goal of crafting a request for proposals to find a developer to partner with on the project. Council members have since disagreed on whether the draft clearly articulates the county’s goals, directing staff to modify the document.

Jones told the council members they needed to get clear on what they really want out of the site. Then staff can conduct a value check to determine what is and isn’t possible. He wondered whether the county was putting “the cart before the horse.”

“It’s really difficult to take all of these pieces and say we want something great, but we can’t define it in this room, but we somehow want someone else to define it,” Jones said.

Rather than modify the draft request that staff spent months crafting, officials settled on plans to host a work session intended to determine the economic viability of what they’re asking for. 

Summit County Manager Shayne Scott indicated it could be a small meeting with Planning Department staff and up to two county councilors or a work session with the entire County Council depending on scheduling. People with experience in development, construction or design would be invited to attend. If that fails, they could consider a design competition.

The Cline Dahle property would likely be changed to a neighborhood mixed-use zone once a project is selected. Jones said the County Council could also create a new zoning district that’s more supportive of the product they want on the property. Officials are expected to form a “creative alliance” with the chosen development team to implement the preferred plan.

Jones revised the timeline to postpone the proposal deadline until Dec. 18. A project could be awarded by January 2025 with project implementation next May.

The post Summit County Council calls for re-evaluation of Cline Dahle proposal appeared first on Park Record.