And less than a month later, people in Park City themselves will cast a momentous vote as they decide who holds the mayor’s office and two seats on the Park City Council.

Treasure, indeed, may have already become the October surprise of Campaign 2017, three months before the election season officially begins.

The Treasure development partnership indicated at a Planning Commission meeting earlier in March it wants the panel to cast a vote in October after more than a decade of on-and-off discussions about the project. It was an unexpected statement by the Treasure side and one that will likely add urgency to the debate about the project as the summer arrives and the middle of fall begins to loom.

The Treasure partnership, consisting of the Sweeney family and a firm known as Park City II, LLC, invoked a section in state code as it outlined the desire for a vote in October. The code section allows a landowner to request a vote and requires a governmental body like the Planning Commission to make the decision within 45 days of the request. It is extraordinarily rare for the section of code to be invoked locally.

The October timeline outlined by the Treasure side would put a Planning Commission vote in the final weeks of the election, something that will almost certainly add intrigue to the City Hall campaign even if none of the members of the Planning Commission is running for the mayor’s office or a spot on the City Council.

The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month, putting the October meetings on Oct. 11 and Oct. 25. The first meeting of October is scheduled less than a month before Election Day, which is Nov. 7, while the second meeting of the month is slated less than two weeks before voters head to the polls.

Treasure is the most controversial development proposal in Park City since the 1990s-era discussions about the project that would later be built as Empire Pass. The Treasure side holds development rights on the land, located on a hillside overlooking Old Town along the route of the Town Lift, dating to the 1980s and needs another permit to move forward with the project. Critics, especially those on Old Town streets like Lowell Avenue and Empire Avenue, argue the Treasure designs do not fit with the historic district and traffic headed to and from the project would overwhelm neighborhood streets. The proposal involves upward of 1 million square feet.

Growth and development have been crucial campaign issues in Park City for decades as candidates outlined platforms involving slowing growth, responsible growth and related planks. It would be highly unusual, though, for voters in Park City to head to the polls just weeks after a major development decision is made.

Treasure has been politicized during City Hall campaigns over the years, most notably during the hotly contested 2009 election. The mayoral race that year between two-term incumbent Dana Williams and Brad Olch, who served three terms in the city’s highest office immediately preceding Williams, was especially pointed as the challenger seized on the dispute about Treasure.

The candidates in 2017 for the mayor’s office and the two City Council seats on the ballot, it seems, would be made to address Treasure if it appears that a Planning Commission vote is nearing in October. It probably would not matter that the terms of the winners do not start until January, nearly three months after a potential Treasure vote. The campaign chatter about Treasure would also be expected even though the mayor and City Council will not have a role in the dispute about the project. An earlier slate of elected officials removed themselves and future City Councils as the appeal body on an expected appeal of the Planning Commission’s vote on Treasure as they unsuccessfully sought a conservation deal for the land. The incumbents and, certainly, challengers would not be blocked from speaking freely about Treasure based on concern about ensuring they appear impartial in the dispute. There would be added intrigue if a member of the Planning Commission, long a springboard to elected office in Park City, mounts a campaign.

The campaign has not yet started. Mayor Jack Thomas has not publicized whether he will seek re-election. One of the two City Councilors whose term is expiring, Tim Henney, has said he will most likely run for re-election while the other, Cindy Matsumoto, has not made a public statement.

The filing window opens on June 1 and lasts through June 7, four months before the election could turn on an October surprise that surfaced in March.

The post Treasure may already be October surprise of Park City’s election appeared first on Park Record.

The Treasure partnership on Wednesday indicated it intends to essentially force a Park City Planning Commission vote on the project in October, an unexpected statement that presses even more drama into the long-running talks about one of the most polarizing development proposals in the city’s modern era.

Pat Sweeney, who represents his family in the partnership, delivered the comments to the Planning Commission. He said the request for a vote will be made in August. The request in the summer will trigger a timeline that, according to the Treasure side, will lead to a vote in October.

The Planning Commission did not respond to the statement in any depth. A request for an October vote, though, could add urgency to the Treasure discussions in a broad sense as the Planning Commission, the Treasure partnership and the opposition move forward.

The Sweeney family in the 1980s secured development rights on the Treasure hillside, overlooking Old Town along the route of the Town Lift, and nearby parcels of land. Treasure is now under the ownership of a partnership involving the Sweeney family and a firm called Park City II, LLC. The discussions about the current Treasure proposal, involving upward of 1 million square feet, started in 2004 and have stopped and restarted several times over the past 13 years. The round of talks now underway began nearly a year ago.

The Treasure partnership last April outlined a timeline that called for a vote in late September of 2016. The Planning Commission was not bound by the timeline and has instead spent significant time on topics like the square footage and, more recently, traffic. The panel does not appear to be nearly ready to cast a vote as it has not started discussions about other topics. Treasure is on the Planning Commission agenda once a month. The next meeting about the project is scheduled on April 12.

In an interview after the meeting on Wednesday, Pat Sweeney, who represents his family in the Treasure discussions, said City Hall staffers, members of the Planning Commission and people who live in Old Town desire more talks about the project while the partnership is prepared for a panel vote. He said a formal request for a vote is “our only exit door out of this process.”

“That’s just a merry-go-round. If we want to move on, we have to request a vote,” Sweeney said, adding about the Planning Commission, “I don’t think they’ll ever be ready for a vote . . . We’re ready for a vote.”

The Planning Commission roster has changed significantly over the years of the Treasure discussions. Only one member, Adam Strachan, was on the seven-person panel when the talks were last halted. The changes to the roster likely extended the talks over the past 11 months as the new members learned the details of the proposal.

A Planning Commission vote is expected to trigger an appeal regardless of the decision. If the panel approves the project, the opposition will almost certainly file an appeal. Should the Planning Commission cast a ‘Nay’ vote, the partnership would mount a challenge.

An appeal of a vote such as the one that will be made on Treasure would normally be put to the Park City Council. A past City Council, though, removed itself as the appeal body to engage in what were ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with the Treasure partnership for a conservation deal. It would have been a conflict of interest if the City Council negotiated for a conservation deal as well as serving as the appeal body. A Treasure appeal would be put to a three-member panel appointed by the City Council.

The Planning Commission on Wednesday, meanwhile, continued to forge ahead on its review of Treasure, talking about issues like parking and transportation. The panel also heard from project critics. The testimony has been weighted heavily toward the opposition over the years.

The Treasure side described measures it will take as part of the design to reduce the amount of traffic headed to and from the site. The Town Lift will be replaced with a high-speed, four-person lift coupled with a people mover called a cabriolet that will carry passengers from Main Street. The developers will also improve stairs at 6th Street and 8th Street to make it easier for pedestrians to travel between the Treasure site and Main Street. The Treasure team said hiking and bicycling trails as well as easier skiing terrain accessing the site are part of the plan.

“If people are willing, they can use their feet,” Sweeney told the Planning Commission about the routes between Treasure and Main Street.

He said the cabriolet would operate from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. daily with later hours possible on weekends. Sweeney said the cabriolet perhaps could run all night during the Sundance Film Festival.

Strachan questioned the number of trips by vehicles the cabriolet would eliminate. Sweeney said a Treasure traffic consultant would provide the information at a later meeting. Steve Joyce, another Planning Commissioner, mentioned that commercial spaces and meeting space at Treasure need to be addressed in the discussions about traffic and parking.

The City Hall planner assigned to Treasure, Francisco Astorga, told the panel there is concern in the Planning Department about how the parking at Treasure is managed. He said more details are needed about whether drivers not staying at Treasure will be attracted to the parking there, a scenario that is worrisome to officials.

The Planning Commission received a little more than 30 minutes of testimony from six speakers who covered issues like parking, pedestrian safety and the cabriolet proposal.

Kyra Parkhurst, an Empire Avenue resident and critic of Treasure, worried about parking on Lowell Avenue and Empire Avenue and questioned how Treasure parking restrictions will be monitored. She said the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and skiers is important.

“It’s not just cars and trucks going up there,” Parkhurst said.

John Stafsholt, who lives on Woodside Avenue and is another opponent, told the Planning Commission the cabriolet will be “detrimental to the neighborhood.” He said it would be a benefit for the developers.

“What about noise . . . What about light pollution,” he said.

The post Treasure developers, dramatically, intend to force a vote appeared first on Park Record.

The Treasure partnership and critics of the development proposal are expected to park themselves at the Marsac Building on Wednesday.

The Park City Planning Commission is scheduled to continue the long-running talks about the project with a discussion that will include parking and related topics like vehicle circulation within the project boundaries.

Parking will likely be of great interest to Planning Commissioners and people who live on nearby roads like Lowell Avenue and Empire Avenue. Treasure critics are concerned about the traffic the project will attract. Parking will be a complementary topic to the difficult discussions about traffic.

A City Hall report drafted in anticipation of the meeting on Thursday indicates the developers want to build 424 parking spots between the two Treasure development locations, known as Creole Gulch and the Mid-Station site. Most of the parking – 371 spots – would be built at Creole Gulch while 53 spots would be put at the Mid-Station location, the report says. The parking spots would be built underneath the development itself. The garage would cover a little more than 262,000 square feet, according to the report.

The Treasure partnership, involving the Sweeney family and a firm known as Park City II, LLC, has designed Treasure in a fashion that will allow the developers to prohibit project parking on nearby streets, including Lowell Avenue and Empire Avenue. As a result of the prohibition, the large garage is needed on the Treasure site itself, said Pat Sweeney, who represents the Sweeney family in the Treasure discussions. The 424 spots are needed “if you want that ban to be effective,” Sweeney said.

“We want to have ample parking,” he said.

But it is almost certain Treasure critics will question the vastness of the parking square footage. They could contend that the capacity of the garage will attract more drivers to Treasure than the developers anticipate. Treasure-related traffic has been a key concern for critics. Sweeney acknowledged the Treasure opposition will challenge the capacity of the garage.

Sweeney also said the prohibition of street parking by Treasure will be beneficial for snow-removal operations and allow designs of loading docks that are off the street.

The meeting on Wednesday could also address topics like access by emergency vehicles, deliveries, zones for loading and unloading as well as screening for the places where trash will be picked up.

Parking has for years been one of the divisive issues in Park City as leaders and residents, particularly those in Old Town, struggle with crowds descending on the community in vehicles. Street parking is regulated by permits in a swath of tightly packed Old Town while parking lots sometimes overflow onto streets elsewhere on busy ski days.

The Treasure partnership is seeking an approval for approximately 1 million square feet of development on a hillside overlooking Old Town along the route of the Town Lift. The Sweeney family in the 1980s secured an overall permit for development on the Treasure land and nearby parcels before selling a stake in the project to form the partnership. The Planning Commission talks about the current Treasure proposal have extended for longer than a decade with various starts, stops and restarts.

The results of an important traffic study conducted by the partnership on the Saturday of the three-day Presidents Day weekend, traditionally one of the busiest days of the year in Park City, will not be available at the meeting on Wednesday. The Treasure side plans to forward the results of the traffic study, conducted at key intersections, to City Hall in anticipation of a Planning Commission meeting that will be held in April.

The Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. in the Park City Council chambers at the Marsac Building. A hearing is planned.

The post Treasure developers craft argument for vast garage appeared first on Park Record.