The VOICE page is our public forum and Blog.  We welcome your comments and will also post comments sent to us by email.  We will do our best to answer any questions posted in this section and appreciate any feedback you have about how we can improve this site.

To add a new comment scroll to the bottom of this page and create a new reply.  Thanks!

 Join us on Facebook


31 responses to “Voice

  1. Arnie Rusten

    Sent to the Planning Commission on 7 June 2017:

    7 June 2017

    Park City Planning Commission

    Dear Commission Members:

    My name is Arnie Rusten and I live at 1058 Lowell Avenue in Park City. I had intended to speak at the June Planning Commission Meeting, but I will unfortunately not be able to attend. So I hope you will take time to consider my written comments on the Treasure Hill Project. This letter is long, my apologies. For brevity, I have included a brief summary at the end.

    I have some experience with development and the public process as I have practiced engineering as a licensed professional civil and structural engineer for over 40 years. My company has been involved in a lot of projects all over the world, many of them tied to land use planning and a public involvement process. A big part of the process was listening to the public and responding to public comments. Building consensus was always a big part of what we as consultants tried to do irrespective of which side of the table we were on.

    I need some help in understanding your process. A couple of months ago Mr. Sweeney was quoted in the newspaper referring to the process saying, and I quote: “That’s just a merry-go-round. If we want to move on we have to request a vote”. I find the merry-go-round comment strange, as that would imply that there has been a back and forth dialog resulting in changes to the proposed project. I have seen nothing of the kind over this nearly one year process here.

    Time after time, the public have made comments on the project and raised questions as to the types of structures, types of use, square footage, excavation, construction schedule and traffic to name a few. The attorneys speaking on behalf of THINC and individuals such as John Stafsholt and Kyra Parkhurst as well as others have questioned the project, citing codes and regulations and questioning findings on studies and associated assumptions. Planning Committee members have also asked questions on square footage calculations, adherence to neighborhood architecture, traffic and access to mention a few. At no time has there been any responses to these comments and questions by the applicant. They appear to ignore everything that is being brought up and take the position to just move ahead without addressing anything. A few meetings ago I heard Commission Chair Strachan say that the applicant is not required to answer any of the questions raised. I then ask you, why do we have these meetings? In all my previous professional experience with public hearings, we meticulously took notes and provided answers to questions so that the process could move forward. Project changes were often made to resolve conflicts and I always felt it important to resolve issues, make changes and then move ahead.

    Commenting on the traffic issues that we have talked about today, I would like to give you an example of what happened during an emergency response in late January of this year. This was after Sundance was over, when I witnessed a fire truck with lights and sirens responding to a chimney fire at a residence at the top of Lowell Avenue near the curve joining Empire Avenue. The fire truck was trying to make its way up Lowell from the ski resort while dodging cars, pedestrians and garbage cans. It was very difficult and took a long time, much longer than it should have; I would really have been concerned if lives were at stake when we all know that minutes count. When they finished up on their call, the fire truck attempted to go around the curve and return down Empire Avenue, but was not able to and ended up backing down Lowell Avenue all the way down to the Park City Mountain Resort. This is a real concern for us who live in the neighborhood, but it also should be a huge concern for the applicant. Treasure Hill may have a great fire protection access within the proposed complex, but they will also depend on getting emergency vehicles to the site. When emergency services do not get there or anywhere else in Old Town due to traffic problems, there will be lawsuits and I am certain that both Treasure Hill and Park City will be named and potentially held liable.

    Traffic counts have been provided. They show significant increases in volume, even with what I consider a very liberal percentage reduction due to Treasure Hill guests not using their cars or taxis/Uber when leaving the area. Statements have been made that streets are adequate. I challenge these findings as the engineer’s model appear to consider both Lowell and Empire as open two-way streets. Neither street functions that way, certainly not during the winter months resulting in significant congestion now with two way traffic on a one way street. Based on my experience the last ten years, there is no excess capacity of these streets. Add to that the element of foot traffic absent a sidewalks and you have a very dangerous situation, which with more traffic will lead to serious accidents.

    There has been little discussion on construction. I believe that the impact to the city and the neighborhood will be enormous. No construction duration has been mentioned. I believe the current proposed complex will take a minimum of seven years to build. The excavation is enormous; neat line volumes of nearly one million cubic yards will grow to 1.5 million cubic yards. It is proposed to spread that out on the mountain, a concept that I find difficult to believe is at all feasible. The result will be that the material will have to be transported off site by trucks. Thousands of truck trips will be required, a dump truck will hold 12 to 14 cubic yards. Assuming half the excavated material transported by truck, 62,500 trips. Continuous trucking with a truck every five minutes results in something like 625 days! That is with a five day work week nearly two and a half years of continuous trucking. Entirely not possible. Then there is the additional construction traffic; it simply does not add up.

    Rock excavation is a very noisy and disturbing process. It involves significant drilling, blasting, excavation, rock crushing and transport. All generating large amounts of noise and emissions with adverse impacts to the community for extended periods of time. It should not be permitted at the current scale.

    I am not anti development. I only ask that the project fit the community and that the impact to the community be within reason. Agreements made back in the mid-eighties are cited. That was thirty years ago. The community has changed and any development needs to fit with the community today. Please deny the current application and request the applicant to propose a suitable development, including significant infrastructure development.

    Thank you,

    Arnie Rusten

    Treasure Hill Summary
    Arnie Rusten
    7 June 2017

    I believe the Treasure Hill Development should be denied based on the following reasons:

    1. Construction activities will create unreasonable environmental impacts to the surrounding area and Park City as a whole, including adverse noise, air quality and traffic impacts.
    2. Construction in the area of the old mining site will likely disturb environmentally polluted sediments including heavy metals, resulting in significant health risk to the public.
    3. Project as proposed is not fitting with the surrounding architecture and existing development.
    4. Traffic increases on Empire and Lowell Avenues will result in impassable streets and significant safety risks to the neighborhood, especially pedestrians on these streets. Serious accidents, including fatalities, are likely to occur. This is a big liability issue for Park City.
    5. Citing agreements apparently made over thirty years ago is irrelevant. Significant community changes, especially growth, have occurred since then and the project must be evaluated in context with the current conditions in Park City.
    6. The applicant has not provided any details on the construction, particularly duration, noise and pollution mitigation, and construction traffic.

  2. greg mackay

    I attended the last Treasure HIll public hearing session and “walk about on the proposed building site.” September 14th. It would be my hope that, if Treasure Hill ever does reach any point in which they do achieve the rights to build on that site, that they be forced to develop a separate access road. Perhaps that road could be created above North Star and Lowell Ave. It will be the only way to save our neighborhood! The traffic congestion and safety issues created by building on that site without a separate access road will be dangerous and intolerable

    Greg Mackay

  3. thincpc

    For yard signs please call me at 435-901-1500. Thanks!

    brian sent from my iPhone


  4. Daniel Kirk

    I am interested in at least two of the yard signs. How do I go about obtaining them?

  5. Kyra Parkhurst

    You have received so many eloquent letters regarding the negative impact that Treasure Hill would have on our city.
    But – let’s keep this simple:

    Public records show that during the years of meetings regarding Treasure
    not one of the CUP’s could be mitigated or met.

    The Sweeney’s were fully aware of this as they pulled the project before the Planning Commission could vote, they knew it was going to be turned down.

    Then, hour upon hour was spent by the city trying to negotiate for a buy-out, or transfer of density – but again – no resolution – no movement – no compromise.

    So, now I feel as if I am in the movie “Groundhog Day” where we are doing everything all over again just like we did in the past. Is this seriously happening? What a waste of time, energy, resources, and quality of life for everyone involved.

    A settlement could have been made – but it is becoming very clear what is truly at the heart of this project – and it is not what is best for the city.

    I am frustrated for the total disregard for any of the concerns that were raised in the meetings over the years, total disregard for everyone’s time, and total disregard for the negative impact to the city.

    Keep this simple: Please look at the following representation:

    SPMP approval from 1985 – 400,000 square feet
    with CUP’s attached:


    *5,000 sq feet per square

    30 years later the project is submitted for 1,016,887 square feet
    And not one CUP has been met or mitigated.
    Approval should be denied – simple.


    Thank you for your consideration and time – I will be at the next meeting
    Kyra Parkhurst

  6. Stu Shaffer

    Why the Treasure Hill project continues to resurface makes little sense. All the arguments have been made over and over during the past thirty years. The reasons why Treasure Hill would be an irrevocable mistake are as clear today as they have always been, and the town’s growth has made it even more impossible. Isn’t it obvious that Treasure Hill would be destructive to Park City? Isn’t it obvious that the project is not feasible?

    The citizens of Park City have brought up unsolvable problems with the development: access through narrow streets, snow removal, reduced parking, the impact on the environment and the landscape, overcrowding, a compromised water supply, pollutants, and disruption of old mines. Construction would go on for years bringing noisy dump trucks, construction equipment, and dust through neighborhoods where children play and access to skiing is interrupted. Nevertheless, the Sweeney funded studies show there will be no such problems.

    Overcrowded conditions in Historic Old Town will be worse. There are times when local property owners find it almost impossible to find a place to park. During construction and forever after, parking will be even worse. Sidewalks, sometimes crowded, especially during Sundance, will be even more crowded. Nevertheless, the Sweeney funded studies show there will be no such problems.

    Why is it that “the little guy” must fit within the architectural guidelines for size, style, and roof lines while the proposed Treasure Hill project is a concrete and glass behemoth far out of character with Historic Old Town? Why are we even considering a million square feet when original proposal was for a development one-third the size? Treasure Hill would loom over Park City destroying its personality and disrupting neighborhoods while the Sweeneys sit conveniently on the other side of the hill they donated, never to be developed, their monstrosity comfortably out of their sight lines.

    This has gone on for nearly thirty years. It’s all been said before. Nothing has changed. Given the impossibility of the project and its negative impact, why can’t we just put it to rest for good?

    Stu Shaffer
    613 Main St. #40

  7. Steven A Swanson

    Sweeney Land

    Well – we are all on the edge of our seats, now that the Brothers Sweeney may or may not have landed the biggest fish of all – The Ritz Carlton, the ultimate ‘Big-Box Retailer’ of luxury resort hotels. Oh – Happy Day! Parkites, local business owners and workaday blue-collar types, for our economic future is now guaranteed.

    ‘Trickle-up’ economics will guide the negotiated destruction of Treasure Hill, extraction of enough of its priceless intrinsic value (read: historic context, watershed, habitat, location/ viewshed, and access to recreation and services) in order to gain approval and financing for a development that would make The Montage look like a quaint B&B in comparison. At some future date, and after being built with outside financing and workforce, on the backs of local residents and against their will, the hotel will open and the ‘Glitterati’ will soon flock here in droves, tossing tens and twenties to their valets, drivers and personal shoppers, and looking for ways to stimulate the local economy, without actually interacting with the public.

    Let’s get real, citizens, and understand that our town’s chapter of domination by extractive industries has come to a close, and our future truly lies in a balanced, vibrant economy based on green industries and good urban design.

  8. Carol Larson

    Ms. Cattan and Members of the Planning Commission,

    At an early 2005 Planning Commission meeting, during the first Treasure Hill review, CARD requested that the Commission require the Treasure developers to provide an environmental evaluation of the Creole mine tailings to determine the safety of moving them.

    I wrote to the Commission in September 2009 regarding this request, but to my knowledge this has not been done. Is there information available to the Commission that indicates it is unnecessary to do an environmental evaluation considering all the excavating and soil moving that are indicated in the plans for the Treasure development? As this project is in the midst of a residential neighborhood I still believe it is of paramount importance to determine the makeup of this mining residue and the safety of moving it to protect the residents of Old Town.


    Carol Larson

  9. thincpc

    The old “Revised Ordinance of Park City, Utah 1926.” reads as below:


    Sec. 341. Protection of timber. Whereas, the standing timber and brush on the easterly side or slope of the mountain immediately west of this city affords some protection to the inhabitants of this city against snowslides; therefore, it shall be unlawful for any person to cut standing timber, wood or brush from the easterly or northeasterly side of the mountain immediately west of Park City, commonly called “Treasure Hill.” Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine in any sum not exceeding $100.00 or by imprisonment in the city jail, at hard labor, not exceeding ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

  10. Stu Shaffer

    Dear Katie and Planning Commission members:

    On February tenth, once again the citizens of Park City flooded the Planning Commission meeting. Pat Sweeney stated that he expected a “broad range of responses.” Nevertheless, all but two spoke against the proposed Treasure Hill Project. The rest of the citizens see Treasure Hill as the end of what attracted them to our town in the first place.

    The only force driving this development is cash. Some Main Street merchants may see increased revenue. The Sweeneys could make a killing if the project is passed, but cowering below the Sweeneys’ concrete buildings, the rest of us will experience intolerable conditions, crowded sidewalks, traffic jams, and packed parking lots, all so that a few may line their pockets.

    I feel the model displayed at the Planning Commission meeting should not be put on public display. It is out of proportion. It is inaccurate; my building is not situated correctly. There are no spaces between my building and those beside me as indicated in the model. Worst of all, one looks down at the model while we would look up at the proposed development. I think the model is a public relations move to accustom people to the project. The Sweeneys say how expensive it was, but that has little to do with reality. The real buildings will have a real impact on Park City; the model is just “kinda cool.”

    The comments of the citizens opposed to the project are correct.
    Looming above quaint Historic Old Town, slick Treasure Hill will ruin the personality of the town below. At each meeting, residents state that they were required to follow rigid guidelines to build on or improve their property. Can it be that huge concrete and glass buildings will be accepted as reasonable while “the little guy” has to follow specific rules set down by the city?

    For safety, my building on Main Street is required have two exits.
    The plan for the Treasure Hill development calls for one. I find it hard to believe that the whole development isn’t required to have another way out in case of an emergency.

    During years of construction, the town will be disrupted. An endless convoy of noisy dump trucks will roll down narrow residential streets where children play. The landscape will be scarred. The water supply may be compromised. The personality of Park City will be changed. For several years, the Sweeneys’ promise of improved skiing will be worse, not better.

    It has been said that a vote may come as early as April 14, after the resort closes and the town thins out. The vote should not be rushed. All studies of the project have been financed by the Sweeneys. Anyone can see these reports are unrealistic. The city can’t allow this project to proceed without a complete, impartial, professional examination of the impact this project will have on the environment, the landscape, toxic substances, the water supply, traffic, safety, and parking throughout the area. It’s obvious that the project does not fit the personality of Old Town. No study is needed for that. A vote should not be taken until all facts are in. Given the facts, I cannot fathom it passing.

    I hope somehow the Sweeneys will stop trying to “fit a square peg into a round hole.” I hope a bond can be passed to buy Sweeneys out at a reasonable price. It would be graceful way out of an impossible situation and certainly better than dragging it on and on… and on… and on… and on….

    Who can convince the Sweeneys?

    Best wishes,

    Stu Shaffer

  11. Dear Editor,

    If you love Park City then you must attend tonights’ planning commission meeting on the proposed Treasure Hill development in Old Town! This one million plus square foot monstrosity has not been approved, only 400,000 was approved in the 1980s. Why is the city even discussing anything over that? I have children and if they kept coming back asking for more then what I had told them they could have there would be consequences. I would seriously suggest that the city start imposing consequences against the developer each meeting they waste the taxpayers dollars and the city staff’s time by continually bringing back plans that far exceed what was approved. Shoulder pads, Flock Of Seagulls, and Treasure Hill. All ugly reminders of the 1980’s. Send them back!

    Meeting starts at 5:30 at The Marsac Building and public input is taken after Planning Commision discussion with developer. Be there!

    Thank you very much,

  12. Paul Sirois

    Letter sent to the Mayor, Council and Planning Department Representatives,

    I am writing today to once again voice my opposition to the out-of scale, out of character proposed project that is ironically named “Treasure”. My wife and I have a condo on Lowell Ave just below the proposed project location and to say we would be impacted is an understatement. The increased traffic, where snow removal is currently a challenge, would result in gridlock and put pedestrians at risk. When we remodeled our kitchen a few years back we had to delay the delivery until the company could transfer the boxes to a smaller truck because they could not deliver to our place in a standard tractor trailer – and this was in summer! Adding in ten times the vehicle traffic to this small road plus endless delivery trucks would be a nightmare, not to mention the potential for delayed emergency vehicle response.

    What becomes of the businesses near the Town Lift when the lift is replaced by a Cabriolet to the new retail hotel plaza with its own ski lift? What becomes of “Historic Main St” when no matter where you stand you have a view of this giant sore thumb sticking out in the midst of colorful quaint historic miner’s homes? I have never questioned the right that the Sweeney’s have to develop on their own land, however, I do not believe this 1 million square foot behemoth with ten story high rise “boxes” was ever a part of the original vision – if it was – please produce the schematic drawings that back that “vision”. I hope that the architect who created the “3D” representation includes a representative slice of the existing homes in the display to see the difference in scale-I’m guessing they won’t. I also hope the engineering takes into consideration the load that this huge complex will put on this slope (above our property) in the middle of a relatively unknown labyrinth of mine tunnels that travel up to a mile below the surface.

    My advice is to re-bury this “Treasure” deep in one of those abandoned mine tunnels and replace it with a tasteful, scaled down resort that reflects the character of the community we all care about so much.

    Paul Sirois and Belinda Bencomo 906 Lowell Ave

  13. Steven A Swanson

    Treasure – a new campaign

    Sweeney’s proposed development of the Treasure Hill Project, though supposedly ‘pre-approved’, is by no means a sure thing. A cursory analysis of the environmental impacts and social costs of such a reckless building program shows it for what it is – a big loser for residents, visitors and businesses in Park City.

    We the members of Thinc can rise now with new focus and purpose to begin to drag the process to a halt and eventually put an end to this project. We should turn the attention away from Sweeney’s vision, to our own collection of maps and fact sheets, and even use the City’s own General Plan, Vision Statement and other documents to support our position. The goal is no longer to try to ‘fix’ the outrageous Sweeney plan, but rather to point out the many potential problems associated with it.

    It is right to be skeptical, and to question, the basic premise that development is good and right for the local economy. Developers always overstate the economic ‘benefits’ and minimize the downside risks. One risk to businesses – clear to me after reviewing the planning documents – that if built, Sweeney intends Treasure to replace Main Street as the new ‘town’ operations base for PCMR, intercepting skier traffic at their resort level from both directions – up and down. Where do you think the summer bike rental concession, shops and restaurants will be located? The ‘people mover’ can thus as easily move the tourist dollar up from Main Street, as to bring it down from the new development.

    I will be previewing more of my analysis in future posts.

  14. Steven A Swanson

    Buried Treasure

    Frank Lloyd Wright was once quoted as saying “A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.” After close inspection of the Treasure (Hill) Documents, in all their effulgent color-separated and photoshopped glory, it evident that the vines would take far too long to cover, and we all, including the team of specialists, should admit that despite our best efforts, the patient has died.

    Yes, the patient died, bloated and audacious, from a lack of good purpose and imagination, and was buried, just not yet deep enough. It was, from the start, disinvested in place, uninformed by history and who will sing at its Irish wake, a paean to its short and brilliant life of excess?

    Well the architect threw his bag of play-blocks at the hillside over and over until they finally stuck. If it weren’t so damned serious, It would be laughable. A twelve story building against 100 foot tall wall blasted out of solid rock still looks like a twelve story building.

    So what was the ‘big idea’ save for trying to find enough lipstick and tie-dye to get this pig into the prom?

    Was it inspired by South Beach, Santa Monica, Beirut? A Rio ‘favella’? From the parking opening in its ramparted plinth – toothless and grinning, hoovering in enough 4-wheeled carbon emitters to fill two Super Wal Marts, to ‘steerage’, housed in appropriately modest cellblocks with shear-wall punched windows, appropriately sealed . (There will be no heaving anything overboard) You can almost hear the shrieks of the steaming hordes down below, as i-phoned, helmet-cammed friends scrape past on rented gear (watch out for that big pipe and sno-cat thingy!).

    Then, finally on to the excrescent glass towers, rising like a wall street bonus- topped out with penthomes and gangways where the uber well-off will glide along and gaze at reflected vistas in 4-story window walls beyond which pampering will have reached new heights yet again.

    So what was it, save for a symbol- a monument to time-shared, debt serviced, Marriotized, themed, grottoed, ski-through, four season, cliff-side, fun park, with live-in childcare, valet service and in-room dining, and for the brave few that venture out, a ‘people mover’ will convey willing spenders, bobbing and yawing to another nameless plaza down & over there where Main Street used to be. “No, really – the original Main Street.”

    “Get to the ‘High West’ from here? You’ll need this here pedestrianization plan.”

    Ah that’s it- I can almost hear the soothing strains of “Danny Boy.”

  15. thincpc

    What is Park City? Park City is The Park Record, KPCW, the ski Resorts & Mountains, Main Street, and the people who live here. Park City is NOT the Sweeney’s proposed Treasure Hill development.

    More than ten years ago myself, Dana Williams, and group of citizens got together formed CARG (Citizens Allied for Responsible Growth) to oppose United Park City Mines proposed Flagstaff Development. Just like The Sweeney’s the mining company told us how much they had a right to build what they wanted. Just like the Sweeney’s they told us how much we needed their development. And just like the Sweeney’s they told us how much better Park City would be with their development. It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now!

    Eventually the mining company settled for less than half of what they wanted and huge pieces of beautiful open space are now permanently protected. They turned around and sold Flagstaff… and it was sold again… and it was sold again and each time a new owner came along they came back to the city and wanted more and more than was originally approved. Now we have Talisker’s Empire Pass to the horror of most us all. The Sweeney’s hope to do the same. They do not care about what happens to Park City they only care about making money.

    Park City’s historic District will be dwarfed and crushed by the Sweeney’s horrible Treasure Hill development proposal. The general plan specifically states “development should not have a negative impact on Park City’s historic district and character.” Everything about this proposed development has a negative impact on Park City’s historic district and character.

    This proposed development violates traffic and safety guidelines. It violates zoning guidelines with it’s massive excavation, height, and square footage excesses and abuses. It was reviewed from 2004-2006 and sent back to the developers for review and revision and they came back with an even bigger proposal, two and half times the MPD approval. They were approved for 400+ thousand square feet and they are now asking for 1.2 million!

    We the citizens of Park City, represented by City Hall, must send them back to review and revise. Send them back to scale down the size. Send them back to lower the heights. Send them back to reduce the excavation. Send them back to be in line with existing grade. Send them back to address traffic and safety issues. Send them back make it fit the MPD. Send them back so it does not have a negative impact on Historic Old Town Park City. Send them back to lower impacts on sensitive lands. Send them back to look at how beautiful Park City still is. Send them back so we the people can vote to keep it open space. Send them back to comply or go away.

    Thank you very much,
    Rich Wyman

  16. thincpc

    Letter to the Park City Planning Commission – 9/23/09

    Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight but I would like to submit the following letter to the Park City Planning Commission:

    Although we are now moving on to mass and scale, it is clear that significant traffic and safety issues remain unresolved making the proposed Treasure Hill development completely unfeasible on that basis alone. The applicant has failed to present any workable solution to mitigate the significant increase in traffic and safety issues (pedestrians, cars, trucks, emergency vehicle access, etc.) that would result from this project. Traffic and safety are existing issues that currently present significant challenges in the Old Town area. These issues will be dramatically compounded by the proposed Treasure development and would create a potentially lethal situation. As you know, these concerns have been voiced by many concerned citizens and commissioners for months with no resolution. The 1986 Treasure Hill MPD is clearly incompatible with the Park City of 2009 and beyond.

    Now the applicant is trying to justify more than a million square feet of development right in the heart of Old Town Park City (vs. the approximately 400,000 sq. ft. that was approved in 1986).

    The impact of this development would be devastating to all of Park City. If built, Treasure would dramatically impact the skyline of Park City. Yes, Park City would have a skyline if this development is approved with several proposed buildings over 10 stories high. Many year-round residents and families who make Old Town their home would be forced to move. Visiting downtown Park City would become practically dangerous as residents and tourists try to navigate the already narrow and congested Old Town roads to reach the shops and restaurants on Main Street. The massive scale of this project would dwarf Old Town and absolutely ruin the integrity of historic Park City.

    Do they really need over a million square feet of development? Is this what was agreed to back in 1986? Is this really the place for the largest convention center in Summit County? Do they really need over 200,000 square feet of parking space (more than a super Wal-Mart)? Do they really need all this commercial space and common area? Do they really need to blast the mountain side, clearing half the hillside of all trees and existing vegetation? Do ten-plus story buildings really belong in a neighborhood with a 3 story height restriction? Do they really need all these buildings, all these stories, and all this square footage?

    Building 1A – 3 stories (12,230 sq. ft.)
    Building 1B – 6 stories (60,816 sq. ft.)
    Building 1C – 3 stories (31,900 sq. ft.)
    Building 2 – 4 stories (12,831 sq. ft.)
    Building 3A – 3 stories (8,154 sq. ft.)
    Building 3B – 8 stories (45,083 sq. ft.)
    Building 3C – 3 stories (13,421 sq. ft.)
    Building 4A – 6 stories (98,964 sq. ft.)
    Building 4B – 13 stories (252,491 sq. ft.)
    Building 5A – 11 stories (60,272 sq. ft.)
    Building 5B – 4 stories (14,941 sq. ft.)
    Building 5C – 12 stories (81,124 sq. ft.)
    Building 5D – 7 stories (45,312 sq. ft.)

    Surprisingly, most Park City residents still remain unaware of just how big and just how much this one development would change Park City forever. However, the sheer outrage and shock is growing as more and more Park City residents are beginning to realize the true scale and impact of this proposed development. The City and the developer still need to better educate the residents of Park City so we all understand the potential impact.

    As requested previously, the developer should be required to create better renderings, streetscapes (to scale that show the entire building in relation to the existing neighborhood homes) and an actual physical 3-D model that truly shows the proposed development in relation to the rest of Main Street and Old Town. Some of the renderings in the packet do a better job of detailing just how massive the proposed Treasure Hill. These and others need to be more available and accessible to the general public.

    THINC (Treasure Hill Impact Neighborhood Coalition) is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. THINC’s collective mission is to raise public awareness and to help initiate action in order to preserve and protect Park City’s Historic Old Town. Founded by Brian Van Hecke and a few members of Park City’s residential community in response to the threat of the development of Treasure Hill, THINC now consists of over 400 concerned residents of Park City – not just Old Town residents but residents all over Park City.

    I agree with the staff’s findings that the current design of the project is both excessive and inefficient. The current design also clearly exceeds many of the limits set forth in the MPD.

    I appreciate your thoughts and wisdom to do the right thing.


    Brian Van Hecke

  17. Lisa Wilson

    A development could be approved 5/27/09, that could set precedent for Treasure Hill. It is in Deer Valley and most people don’t know about it. The size is around 260,0000 square feet. That is about the size of the Grand Summit Lodge and Walmart combined on the hillside adjacent to Treasure Hill.

    Although in Deer Valley the parcel is directly at the top of Main. St. The name is North Silver Lake Lodge. This is not the Silver Lake most people think about. The parcel is in the middle of a residential neighborhood about 1/2 way down the mountain from Silver Lake Village.

    The concerns of homeowners are similar to Treasure Hill, a huge project surrounded by a residential neighborhood. If approved, perhaps this development may set precedent and hurt those trying to get density reduced at Treasure Hill.

    Please attend the planning meeting Wed. May 27th, 6:30 at the Library Building (Rm 205) and learn more about the request for a Conditional Use Permit.

  18. Laura Suesser

    Letter to the Park City Planning Commission:

    I’ve read through the 4-22-09 Staff Report/Applicant’s Response on Treasure Hill and I’d like to share some comments and raise the following issues which I hope will be addressed on the record at the meeting tomorrow night:

    Item #1.
    a. Exact dimensions of Lowell with the proposed sidewalk and retaining wall were not provided. Despite the 4′ restriction in the Code, the Alta Engineer report references a retaining wall with a maximum height of 5’4″. Will a 4’ wall suffice? Can the applicant provide a visual of this wall from the street level?
    b. Cars park diagonally along Lowell (see photos) to create more parking; twice as many cars park on Lowell than the 40 spots applicant references (see photos).
    c. Applicant’s parking count numbers were taken on April 15, 2009 during a week when PCMR was scheduled to be closed (but then remained open); many of the seasonal employees were likely already gone and there were fewer tourists than normal renting homes on Lowell that week.
    d. The City should not be asked to mitigate the impacts of this development by mandating (and enforcing) no on-street parking on Lowell and Empire during certain hours. The developer alone is responsible for mitigating its impacts.
    e. Has the existing grade of the street, particularly at the intersection of Lowell and Manor, been provided? (Did staff address this omission in its analysis?)
    f. Is Empire going to be the developer’s required emergency/secondary access road?
    If Empire is the designated emergency access road, wouldn’t cars be prohibited from parking on Empire at ALL times?
    15-2.10-6. SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW (B) requires: A map showing Access routes, both existing and proposed, showing the Grade of public and private Rights-of-Way, widths, curve data, and similar information for evaluation of emergency vehicle Access.
    9-2-15. FIRE ACCESS WAYS. It shall be unlawful and a violation of this Title for any person to park a vehicle, or to permit others to park a vehicle in any marked fire lane, emergency access road, or vehicle thruway, which is designated and approved for fire access by the City Fire Marshall or his/her designee, whether on public or private property. (Amended by Ord. 03-30).
    g. The developer was required to submit a street plan and mitigate its impact on the intersection of Park x Empire. Developer hasn’t even agreed to contribute to mitigation costs.
    Item #2.
    a. The purpose of the 10th Street stairs is also to provide residents of Lowell a safe connection to Empire as Lowell pedestrians will no longer be safe walking to Main St or the Town Lift from Lowell.
    b. City Staff should also be concerned for pedestrian safety on Lowell as well as Empire. Cycling traffic and other recreating people like skiers, snowboarders, kids on sleds, dog walkers, and hikers should be all be included in the consideration of “pedestrian safety” – they are seen constantly on Lowell and Empire. How current residents use these roads is going need to dramatically change if the proposed use at TH is permitted.
    c. Unless Empire is blocked off, it is also unrealistic to think that vehicles servicing the project will not utilize both Empire and Lowell, particularly in bad weather, and with the sharp right turn (often a blind corner due to snow mounds) onto Manor (see photos), and congestion at Manor x Lowell due to the Lowell Hotel and Marriot Mountainside deliveries, guests and skiers. This fact needs to be acknowledged – Empire can’t be taken out of the equation.
    d. Signage alone will not prevent the use of Empire. What type of signage is applicant suggesting to prevent traffic going down Empire?
    e. Applicant did not address how pedestrians are going to connect to the Crescent staircase and sidewalk.

    Item #3.
    No comment.

    Item #4.
    a. The applicant’s reference to a “master condominium association with sub-condominium associations governing the different types of ownership” also leaves open possible fractional ownership which is not allowed in the Estate Zone.

    Item #5.
    a. Despite the MPD requirement that the development not attract customers from off-site, the restaurants, bars, and the huge spa (not to mention the mining museum, if approved) will likely attract customers, increase traffic and take business away from Main St. Is the developer suggesting that they will not advertise locally? Is use of conference space to be restricted to only those who are staying at the Hotel overnight?

    Item #6.
    a. The applicant’s statement that more parking is advantageous to the City misses the point that a reduction in their parking will reduce traffic.
    b. The PEC report tries to provide a parking reduction analysis in its April 2, 2009 letter. Applicant concludes that they have reduced traffic flow by increasing employee housing on-site, however they still don’t want to reduce their parking. Note applicant assumes 400 sf per employee which may be inconsistent with the requirement of varied employee housing. Applicant’s reasoning to use of 19,000 sf instead of 34,000 sf for land use trip generation numbers is convoluted – can applicant explain?
    c. Exactly how many vehicles related to the Project are anticipated to travel up & down Lowell during a typical day during construction? During operation? The numbers seem to range between 255 – 509.

    DELIVERY SERVICE VEHICLES: Has the applicant addressed how it will control delivery service vehicles, loading and unloading zones, and screening of trash areas? There are daily bottlenecks on Lowell caused by delivery service vehicles at the Marriot Mountainside and possibly by delivery service vehicles at The Lowell Hotel. Please note the location of these two (2) hotels at the very base of Lowell and the additional congestion that is likely to be caused by servicing all three (3) hotels from one roadway. It is hard to understand why Lowell is being presented as the answer to the traffic and pedestrian safety concerns surrounding TH. The impact of this proposed development on both Lowell nor Empire is unsustainable.

    Thank you for your close analysis and ongoing efforts with respect to this project,

    Laura Suesser
    1022 Lowell Ave.
    Park City, Utah 84060

  19. Mindy Wheeler

    As a member of the Summit County Weed Board, I am concerned about the noxious weeds in this area, particularly the spotted knapweed. If this project moves forward, the disturbed land will provide alot more habitat for spotted knapweed. This is the same species that the state of Montana has lost 20 million acres to (land is no longer usable in any manner). This weed is very difficult to control once it is established.

    If Park City moves forward with this, I would highly recommend the developer be required to post a noxious weed bond to assure the weeds get controlled in a timely and effective manner.

  20. laura suesser

    Know Standards and Direct Comments to Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law
    Don’t Be Adversarial- Address the Board or Commission; Not the Applicant
    Do Not Repeat
    Do Not Debate
    Never Threaten Litigation
    Have Bullet List Prepared
    Know Your Audience
    Know If Your Audience Knows You
    Use Lawyers at Own Risk – Technical, Persuasive Spokesperson,
    Problem Solver, Not Blustery Advocate in a Suit
    Respect the Difficulty of the Decision Maker Dealing with Competing
    Do Not Say What You Do Not Know
    Petitions Generally Only Relevant in Legislative Matter; Mob Rule No Effect; Clamor Rule No Effect
    Ask Questions if You Don’t Have Direct Evidence
    Be Aware of Time Taken
    Present Facts Not Fiction
    Civility Equals Power
    Do Not Allege Staff Conspiracy or That the Board or Commission Already Made Up Their Minds
    Use Children at Own Risk- most effective when show actual knowledge or interest; least effective when used for guilt or as political ploy 25
    If the Board or Commission Finds Against You, It Doesn’t Mean No One Listened To You. Reasonable People Can Disagree. You Should
    Be Given A Fair Opportunity and the Board or Commission Should Given the Respect For Their Service and Responsibility For Making
    Hard Decisions (absent evidence of improper conduct). Being Respectful Will Only Enhance Your Credibility.

  21. Maria McNulty

    As a parent to two small children and the neighbor to 10 other child within two blocks on my street in Old Town, I am deeply concerned about the safety of the children in Old Town. With no sidewalks, narrow streets, snow, etc…..the addition of hundreds of cars and trucks to our neighborhood, will pose an unacceptable risk to their safety. How does the city not see this as a huge liability issue? What happens when (God forbid) a child gets struck by a car due to all of the additional traffic that will be inflicted on our small city streets? Has anyone done the research to see what sort of duty the city has to protect its citizens via safe streets and what sort of liability they will incur should someone get injured due to unsafe conditions?

  22. J. Benear

    as I understand it, this was an open ended approval indefinite in nature and the revert to “inactive” power the planning commission has has never been used. I have lived here ten years and just left old town after three years. I am just understanding the “real” power levers in the community. People try hard in gov’t but there is too much money in such a small community to avoid at the very least tacit conflicts of interest. Anybody that thinks that the meeting Wednesday has any hope of stopping this project must be really naive. Legal action is the only but ugly way to go to get at the process itself as flawed. Could someone email me so I have an idea as to what dollars are needed and I can help fundraise?

  23. alice k. puleo

    I am puzzled by the front page article in the most recent Park Record. This Hamberger reporter is most confusing to follow and doesn’t give enuf info for a newbie like me to follow his stories. He never explained who Brian was….the founder of thincpc or really gave any info on the project. just pounded away on the unfortunate homeowners in Old Town. He almost sounded gleeful. Isn’t a paper just supposed to give the facts….not focus on confusing backstories???

    Also….Treasure Hill or Trash Hill is our reaction. NYC comes to PC

  24. Dennis Wilkinson

    Essentially the article was not all that critical towards yourself or any of the other people who bought in Old Town. I have a couple of friends who live there either full or part time who will be affected and I’m guessing they didn’t check either and frankly who would have thought that an approval on the books since 1980 would actually be valid today.

    My opinion on this is if the people in this town don’t like the law, change the law. A referendum should be placed on the ballot immediately for the citizens to vote as to the legal limitations on an approval. Get an approval and you better have the foundation in no less than 18 months after the approval. If not, you resubmit or apply for an extension, one extension permitted.

    Let the people here vote on this issue and let the people in this town determine their own destiny. If we want this town to look like a sprawling bustling town instead of a quiet place to raise a family, so be it, but the people in the town, not the developers and certainly not the planning commission should decide. If the planning commission allows this to go through, they along with the mayor and city council all should be impeached. Give the people in this town the opportunity to speak with the ballot.

  25. Rob Schumacher

    I thought I was reading the April Fools Day edition of the Park Record on Saturday!! We all know that the project has many more negative aspects than positive, but greed seems to have a way of prevailing. Coming up with solutions to the problems will go much furthur than voicing obvious concerns (but keep voicing as much as possible!) I have four suggestions to preserving Treasure Hill.
    1. The Sweenys do what the Swaners did to preserve what is left of open space and donate the land for all to enjoy. What a great legacy that would be. The Sweenys would always be remembered for preserving that beautiful hillside. Fat chance of that happening.
    2. Put a fair market value on the land and let the Park City citizens decide if they want to purchase it through another open space bond.
    3. Hire an attorney to fight to the bitter end. (ouch)
    4. My favorite suggestion is to get the Sweenys and Park City Mountain Resort together to build out the lower parking lots at Park City. I believe a build out is already planned. That would be great public relations for the Sweenys and Park City Mountain Resort. I feel the community would support a team effort that preserves Treasure Hill but still allows companies continued growth. What a disaster if both projects are completed.
    See you Wed. Rob Schumacher

  26. thincpc

    Here are some of the comments we have received from our JOIN section.

    -“NO to the Treasure Hill development….let’s keep the Park City we love, just the way it is!”

    -“This project is not only too big, it is the ugliest project I have ever seen. Surely Sweeneys can build something less dense and more in keeping with our mountain.”

    -“I hate the idea of this massive project being approved. I believe they have the right to develop and I hope the size can be brought WAY down. It seems like the traffic impact should be where progress is made.”

    -“Yesterday, I drove up through the local streets that would serve as access to this project. It is incomprehensible to me that city officials would allow this project to go forward.”

    -“We support this cause and will be doing some letter writing to all the persons and entities listed. It is deplorable that this project is even being considered.”

    Thank you to everyone for showing your support on our new site.

  27. Rob Schumacher

    With safety being such an important issue, what are the thoughts of the fire department and the police department in gaining access through the streets in question in an emergency situation?

  28. laura suesser

    All of the great events that bring people to Park City result in cars lining the streets of Old Town from Park Ave to Lowell. Last weekend’s Winter Fest was a perfect example of too many cars on the narrow streets of this parking challenged neighborhood. But the congestion on the streets of Old Town is a constant. On top of the snow and winter holiday traffic problems, there are always construction vehicles and workers’ trucks for home constructions/renovations which block the stairs and literally make the roads impassable for parts of the day. Water main breaks/repairs and fallen transmission lines – emergency service situations – cause similar traffic congestion, back-ups, and delays on Old Town streets. The only option for residents is often to turn around and go around the block. It is absurd to suggest that these streets, which regularly fail to meet the needs of current residents, can handle any increase in traffic let alone the volume of traffic involved in constructing and running a resort.

  29. John Vrabel

    I just wanted to weigh in on a strategy to consider in opposing this monster of a project. You may or may not know but the CITY has driven this project to where it is today. For 20 years the Sweeneys have been doing what the CITY has asked. If you read the history the city has even thought through the traffic problem by proposing to add 3″ of road base when they re-do the roads, Empire and Lowell. Again if you look at the history the majority of issues have been considered or thought-through by the city, and in the cities view, they (the city) has mitigated all of the major issues. There is one issue however that has NOT been mitigated and that is SAFETY! Arguments against traffic, density, and design etc., etc., have been dealt with by the city, meaning they have considered all of the above and in some way have dealt with each issue. That is true except for SAFETY. Other arguments will not carry much weight. Safety, has yet to be mitigated and is a viable argument against the project. Remember last winter and the amount of snow in old town. There was one very wet snowfall, which in my neighborhood, Upper Norfolk Avenue, severely impacted the “HISTORIC NARROW ROADS. That wet storm was 11” of cement and stayed on our road for 6 weeks before the city brought in their front-end loaders. Now consider Empire and Lowell Avenues in a big snow year (again like ’07-’08 ) and with the proposed 300 trips a day on those roads by construction vehicles (and cement trucks), THERE IS A LEGITIMATE SAFETY PROBLEM. This issue, unlike MOST other issues, has legitimate merit, and is one of the few tools we have.

    John Vrabel

  30. Larry Hardebeck

    I would like to encourage more people to write letters to the Park Record about their concerns about this massive project. It is hard to imagine that the existing roads could even come close in handling the enormous increase in traffic.

    Larry Hardebeck

  31. thincpc

    We want to hear you opinions on the planned Treasure Hill development. We will also try and answer any public forum questions you might have here. We want this forum to be as constructive as possible so keep that in mind when posting here, you can contact THINC privately at thincpc@gmail.com.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s