Park City details greatly scaled back Treasure proposal
City Hall on Wednesday provided details comparing the existing Treasure development proposal to a reimagined project that would be pursued should the municipal government acquire a 50 percent stake in Treasure.
Details like those provided on Wednesday had been sought for several weeks by the various sides in the Treasure talks as they weighed a tentative agreement calling for City Hall to acquire the one-half stake in Treasure for $30 million. Of the total, $24 million would need to be raised through a ballot measure. There have been concerns that details of a reimagined project had not been outlined.
The Treasure land is located on a hillside overlooking Old Town along the route of the Town Lift. The Sweeney family in the 1980s secured an overall development approval involving the Treasure land and nearby parcels. The land is now under the ownership of a partnership consisting of the Sweeney family and a firm called Park City II, LLC. City Hall would acquire the Sweeney family’s stake in Treasure if the deal is finalized. Park City II, LLC would then pursue a reimagined, reduced project.
A key chart presented on Wednesday showed a reimagined project would entail 383,200 square feet of development, down from the 948,730 contemplated in the Treasure proposal itself. A reimagined project would include a boutique hotel of 266,200 square feet. Eighteen houses would account for a combined 117,000 square feet.
Park City officials said a consultant found a reimagined project could reduce the number of vehicle trips attributed to Treasure by 56 percent in the morning and 75 percent in the afternoon. Traffic headed to and from Treasure has long been one of the key concerns of project critics and Treasure critics.
The Planning Commission received a little less than 30 minutes of testimony as speakers questioned the timeline of the talks and expressed at least initial support for the reduced square footage.
Kyra Parkhurst, an Empire Avenue resident and longtime critic of the Treasure proposal as envisioned prior to the talks about the reimagined project, said she prefers the scaled-back numbers but added more details are needed about issues like the excavation. She also said perhaps the required work force housing at Treasure could be shifted to the Park City Mountain Resort base. Ed Parigian, a Norfolk Avenue resident who is also concerned with Treasure, said the process “seems rushed.”
Rich Wyman, another Treasure critic, said information is needed about the proposed height of a boutique hotel, wondered whether there are renderings of the reimagined project and said the amount of meeting space within the project has not been fully addressed.
Wyman, meanwhile, also questioned what he considers to be a condensed timeline for the talks about the reimagined project and a ballot measure. He wanted information about the combined debt Park City voters previously approved through ballot measures, such as the $25 million authorized to partially fund the acquisition of Bonanza Flat for conservation purposes.
“How many bonds are out there?” Wyman said.
Another important point at the Planning Commission meeting was City Hall outlining that Treasure and the municipal government are not considering shifting the development rights attached to the land to another location. Project opponents have long argued the development rights would be better suited at a location closer to the PCMR base.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
The Park City Council primary election is slated for Aug. 13, but the ballots in the vote-by-mail contest were scheduled to be sent on Tuesday. The Summit County Clerk’s Office anticipates the ballots will arrive in mailboxes and post-office boxes on Friday or Saturday.