Mark Stemler’s comments were some of the most extensive, and pointed, public statements to date in opposition to a $48 million City Hall ballot measure that would provide the bulk of the funding for the acquisition of Treasure as well as provide a contribution of up to $3 million for an unrelated conservation agreement in Thaynes Canyon known as Snow Ranch Pasture.

Stemler is an Old Town resident and covered a range of topics in his testimony to the elected officials. The mayor and City Council on Thursday took input about the planned acquisition but were not scheduled to make decisions. The elected officials did not respond in any detail. Stemler indicated he opposes the Treasure development proposal even as he questions the ballot measure that would fund an agreement to block the project.

“Can we afford it? Let’s assume we can afford it. I don’t think it’s a question of affordability. If we so choose, we’re a wealthy community, sure, we can afford it. The question I ask: should we afford it?” Stemler said.

He said he supported earlier City Hall conservation deals like those involving the McPolin Farm and Bonanza Flat. Stemler, though, mentioned people have labeled the Treasure land an “iconic hill” when, he argued, other hillsides in Park City were seen similarly in the past and have since been built upon.

“When I came here in 1980, April Mountain was an iconic hill. Deer Valley was an iconic hill . . . we can live with development,” he said.

Stemler worried about the $64 million price tag, which would be, by a wide margin, the most expensive conservation acquisition in the history of City Hall’s lauded open space program. He said the dollar figure is “excessive and indulgent” and predicted there will be additional conservation deals that will interest City Hall later. He asked, “Don’t we have something better to do with our money than this?”

“It’s so expensive. It’s crazy. We could use our money more effectively. … Everyone says these, oh these, are the last two great pieces. Forget that nonsense. That’s not going to happen. There’s going to be other projects that we could buy down the density,” he also said.

Stemler, meanwhile, addressed the affordability of Park City in the context of the ballot measure should it be successful. City Hall is pressing the overarching ideal of social equity in the community, something that involves the cost of living. Stemler said the tax increase if the ballot measure is successful will lead to higher expenses, such as rent increases and higher priced goods as property owners recoup the higher taxes they pay.

“It goes contrary to the diversification that you guys are trying to do here,” Stemler said, adding, “If you want those people to be able to afford to live here, we have to keep things more affordable. Reducing taxes is a big part of that.”

Stemler argued there are different priorities in the community that could be funded, mentioning a range of possibilities like transportation upgrades.

“We have other needs. Perhaps we want to put a gondola up to Deer Valley, perhaps we want to put tunnels under our roads. Or, perhaps, if our goal really is to make town more affordable, we don’t blow this much money,” he said.

He also wondered about a deal that he would consider to be more reasonable, perhaps one that would involve limited development on the Treasure land. He contended the Treasure partnership would provide more time for negotiations with City Hall about a reworked agreement. Stemler also noted the City Hall budget maneuvers as officials considered options to reduce the dollar figure attached to the ballot measure. He wondered why municipal staff reductions were not made as part of the maneuvers.

The post Park City man rips Treasure deal as ‘excessive and indulgent’ appeared first on Park Record.

The roads close to the proposed site of Treasure can adequately carry project-related traffic in combination with a series of steps the project intends to take to reduce the number of trips in vehicles, a pivotal study conducted on behalf of the development partnership has found, a determination that will embolden the developer but will almost certainly be rejected eventually by project critics.

The various sides in the Treasure debate have awaited the results of the study since a consulting team over the busy Presidents Day weekend counted vehicles at key intersections expected to be impacted by project-related traffic. The study will be a crucial document as the Park City Planning Commission continues to discuss the difficult issue of Treasure-related traffic. The panel is expected to listen to a presentation about the study at a meeting on Wednesday, but more detailed talks are expected at later meetings.

The report detailing the study, drafted by a Treasure-hired firm called Triton Engineering, includes an important finding that “the roadway network can facilitate the traffic needs” of the existing cars on the road and the traffic that Treasure is anticipated to generate. Planned road improvements, such as at the intersection of Empire Avenue and Silver King Drive, “will allow the intersections and roadways in the study area, even with the Treasure Hill development, to operate at an acceptable level of service in the future,” the report says.

The Treasure side, which has long argued the roads and intersections will be able to adequately carry project traffic when coupled with a broader transportation plan, is pleased with the results of the study. The Treasure partnership involves the Sweeney family, which is the historic owner of the land, and a firm called Park City II. LLC. The land is located on a hillside overlooking Old Town along the route of the Town Lift.

“Using our property will not adversely affect the level of service on city streets. That’s the most important thing,” said Pat Sweeney, who represents his family in the Treasure discussions.

The Treasure blueprints include a series of steps meant to reduce traffic, one of the top concerns of the opposition. The opponents argues streets like Lowell Avenue and Empire Avenue cannot accommodate the project traffic even if the partnership takes steps to reduce vehicle trips. Sweeney said important traffic-reducing steps that would be taken include a people mover known as a cabriolet linking Treasure and Main Street, skiing access to the project and the inclusion of commercial space in Treasure that would cut the need for people staying at Treasure to travel off the property in vehicles.

“You can reliably reduce the number of trips,” Sweeney said.

The traffic study in February was the first of its kind conducted regarding Treasure since one was undertaken in 2005, during an earlier round of the long-running talks about the project. The study in 2005 was also conducted during Presidents Day weekend at most of the same locations.

The study in February found the number of vehicles at the intersections in the morning and afternoon increased in most cases over the 12 years, in some instances significantly. Increases were anticipated since Park City and the tourism industry have grown over that time. Some examples included:

• the intersection of Empire Avenue and Silver King Drive, where 314 cars were counted in the morning in 2005 while 438 were counted in the afternoon that year. In the study in February, the numbers jumped to 1,545 in the morning and 1,418 in the afternoon.
• the intersection of Empire Avenue and Shadow Ridge Road, where 188 cars were tallied in the morning in 2005 and 303 cars were counted in the afternoon. The counts increased sharply in February, to 927 cars in the morning and 937 cars in the afternoon.
• the intersection of Park Avenue and Deer Valley Drive, where 2,302 cars were tallied in the morning in 2005 and 3,503 were counted in the afternoon. The count in February showed the number in the morning increased to 2,438 while the afternoon figure dropped to 3,069.The report, meanwhile, provides a projection of the number of cars Treasure will contribute to the overall numbers once the traffic-reducing steps are taken. The study found that Treasure will add 109 vehicles in the morning peak and 160 in the afternoon peak. A hotel at Treasure would generate the most traffic in the morning – 49 cars at the peak hour – while commercial space would generate the most during the peak hour in the afternoon with 61 cars.Various parties early in the week were reviewing the traffic numbers, but they declined to discuss them in any depth.Francisco Astorga, the City Hall planner assigned to Treasure, said an internal meeting is anticipated this week with the Park City engineer and the municipal government’s transportation planning manager about the data. Staffers were also slated to meet with the Treasure partnership about the traffic report this week. Astorga said it was too early to determine whether City Hall staffers agree with the findings.The Treasure Hill Impact Neighborhood Coalition, an opposition group, had not reviewed the report by Monday afternoon. Brian Van Hecke, the group’s leader, though, said worries about traffic remain.

  “Traffic and safety are a significant concern of ours regardless of the report they provided,” Van Hecke said.

  The meeting on Wednesday is scheduled to start at 5:30 p.m. at the Marsac Building. An agenda for the meeting indicates questions from the public will be allowed.

The post Roads adequate for Treasure traffic, developer’s study finds appeared first on Park Record.

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 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.