The rebirth of Bonanza Park: nearly 1 million square feet of new buildings

Key figures in district submit paperwork at City Hall for a massive redevelopment

by Jay Hamburger OF THE RECORD STAFF

The key figure in Bonanza Park on Monday filed an application at City Hall to redevelop a large swath of properties, a broad set of ideas that would involve demolishing the buildings now standing and replacing them with a project that would remake the district.

Mark J. Fischer, who controls large tracts of land in the district, and Park City Mountain Resort, which also has holdings in Bonanza Park, submitted a joint application to the Planning Department. The application covers three locales spreading through 11 acres:

For the rest of this article please visit www.parkrecord.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Treasure Hill News

Park City official’s land holdings lumped into talks about development shifts

Planning Commissioner not interested in putting Treasure rights on his property

by Jay Hamburger OF THE RECORD STAFF

The Park City Planning Commission spent three months discussing the merits of a program that would allow certain landowners to shift development rights from their land to another spot in the city, a way, supporters of such a program say, to preserve prized ground like the Sweeney family’s Treasure acreage.

In the middle of February, the panel was ready to make its recommendation to the Park City Council, deciding to endorse four places where development rights could be shifted from, with Treasure being the most important. They are known as sending zones. The recommendation also pinpoints two places where the rights could be shifted toward, known as receiving zones, with the Bonanza Park district being the crucial one.

For the rest of this article please visit www.parkrecord.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Treasure Hill News

Anonymous and angry: Parkites lit up Treasure blueprints

Comments collected by City Hall offer glimpse into the opposition’s thinking

by Jay Hamburger OF THE RECORD STAFF

There had already been meeting after meeting, hearing after hearing, about the Sweeney family’s blueprints for the Treasure development by the time City Hall and the family hosted two open houses last summer.

The testimony during Park City Planning Commission hearings had been overwhelmingly against Treasure, and Parkites in the last few years had been especially critical as it seemed a vote by the panel could be approaching.

The open houses were scheduled as negotiations continued between a City Hall team and the Sweeneys about the prospects of a conservation agreement for all or some of the Treasure land, situated on the slopes of Park City Mountain Resort and on a hillside overlooking Old Town.

For the rest of this article please visit www.parkrecord.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Treasure Hill News

Half — but not all — of Sweeneys’ Treasure rights appear in play if shifted

Proposed program would allow the square footage to be moved to Bonanza Park

by Jay Hamburger OF THE RECORD STAFF

City Hall staffers this week recommended half of the development rights attached to the Sweeney family’s Treasure land be put into play under a program that would allow the rights to be shifted to another location.

The recommendation comes as the Park City Planning Commission prepares for what could be a Wednesday vote on whether the municipal government should adopt a program allowing the shifts in development rights, a zoning tool that City Hall wants to create.

In asking that only 50 percent of the development rights be involved in a program, the recommendation will likely leave Treasure critics unhappy that all of the rights were not included. The Planning Commission is not bound by the staff-level recommendation, and any decision by the panel will later be considered by the Park City Council.

For the rest of this article please visit www.parkrecord.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Treasure Hill News

Letter from Brian Van Hecke to the Mayor and City Council

Greetings Mayor and City Council Members.

I am writing to you regarding the Treasure Hill press release, staff report, and draft Letter of Intent.

Unfortunately with such short notice, I am not in town and will not be able to attend the meeting tonight.  I’m afraid others will not be able to attend either with such short notice and this is unfortunate especially given the magnitude of this potential development project.

I am certainly concerned with the LOI and the $50 million number that is being considered as a basis.  I think even mentioning a number without the support of a meaningful and real appraisal is irresponsible.

I’m also concerned why the appraisal has not been made public.  This thought this was due back in July and but apparently is still not known.  How can any discussions or constructive negotiations be conducted without it?  Why has the City not received it or shared it with the public.

I think it’s important to remember a few key facts:

  • The town does not need another hotel.  Have you seen the occupancy rates?  Most/all the hotels in Park City and for that matter all over the Mountain West are struggling to say the least.
  • Regardless of the appraisal (whenever it is made public), the real value of the Treasure Hill property is very debatable.  With many/most of the resort properties in Park City struggling what is the real current market value to that property?  It has been argued by experts in the commercial/resort development industry, that “no one would build anything up there right now”.  Obviously there is value to the Treasure Hill property but one must consider real market values and real market conditions.
  • The current traffic and safety issues remain and will not be solved by simply reducing the size of the project.  These streets area already dangerous and cannot handle any more traffic as cars, trucks and pedestrians (including families, kids, pets, tourists and locals alike) struggle to “share the road”.
  • All the other existing CUP issues remain – even with a 50% reduction in the size of the project these issues have not and cannot be mitigated or resolved.
  • Potential EPA issues with significant mine tailings and contamination issues have yet to be addressed or resolved by the Planning Commission.
  • Potential water table contamination and related issues also were never addressed or resolved by the Planning Commission.
  • A convention center/meeting space is not compatible and was never an approved use.

I feel like the LOI is setting the stage for an ultimate compromise.  However, a 50% reduction in density is NOT a win win for everyone.  In fact, I believe very few will “win” in this scenario.

I believe that there is far more value to the City and the vast majority of our Residents to preserve the landmark Treasure Hill as 100% open space.  The costs of allowing this development to take place are immense, including:

  • Destroying a historic neighborhood
  • The years of construction
  • No guarantee it will ever get built/finished
  • The immense excavation and damage to the land
  • Increased pollution with trucks, excavation, etc.
  • Clear cutting of a entire hillside of trees
  • Numerous other environmental issues

All of this for the benefits of a few (The Sweeneys and ultimately an outside developer and perhaps PCMR).

The public value that this land would have if preserved also far outweigh any shortsighted tax benefits that the City might receive.

Please consider all the families and children living in Old Town (families and residents all over Old Town and surrounding neighborhoods will be impacted).  How are they going to survive if this project (in any size or shape) is built?

Another hotel is not going to solve our tax or revenue issues.  It’s only going to exacerbate a difficult situation for all the resort and hotel operators in Park City.

Another hotel is also not going to make doing business on Main Street better.  Consider all the lost business from displaced local Old Town residents that they will very likely lose?

If another hotel is somehow warranted, then it belongs at the base of PCMR.  Not on such vital land as Treasure Hill.

Also, consider that the Sweeneys would likely be entitled to significant tax benefits if they were to consider a 100% preservation of the signature hill of Park City.

Finally, how does this Letter of Intent protect the rights of our residents?  I’m still not clear in its current form or why it’s necessary?  It seems that it will only further diminish the City’s obligation to protect the rights of all citizens.

I trust that you will consider these comments and concerns.

Regards,

Brian Van Hecke

Leave a comment

Filed under From THINC

Images Show Massive Scarring with the Proposed Treasure Hill Development

The proposed Treasure Hill development would impact all Park City residents and would forever change the Old Town area.  All visitors would see massive excavation scars as well as a dramatic skyline of buildings on Treasure Hill – the signature mountain that lies just behind Main Street.  Here are a few of the newly released images (you can click on each image to enlarge it):

Proposed Excavation as seen from Deer Valley Drive

Proposed Buildings as seen from Deer Valley Drive

Excavation as seen from Main Street and Heber Ave.

Excavation as seen from the Roundabout

Note that the massive scars are still highly visible even after the proposed buildings are set into the pictures.

Also keep in mind that these renderings were created by the applicant – The Sweeneys.

You can also click on the link below to see more images of the proposed Treasure Hill project (I have posted a total of 9 renderings).  These renderings were done by the applicant and show just how massive the scarring will be if the proposed Treasure Hill development is approved:

The renderings include 3 views or vantage points:

  1. From Deer Valley Drive
  2. From Main Street
  3. From the Roundabout

Each vantage point shows 3 pictures:

  1. Current
  2. With Excavation
  3. With the Proposed Buildings

Here’s the link to all 9 images:   New Treasure Hill Renderings

To better view the images, right click on the first one and select Rotate Image.

2 Comments

Filed under Treasure Hill News

THINC’s Response on the Proposed Hearing Officer

THINC (Treasure Hill Impact Neighborhood Coalition) remains vigilant in our opposition to the proposed Treasure Hill development in historic old town Park City. City Hall is now fast tracking a change in the LMC (Land Management Code) to allow for a city appointed hearing officer to hear appeals of Planning Commission decisions. The hearing officer could hear these appeals in place of our elected city council. This procedure may give the city council some flexibility on some matters, but THINC questions whether it is appropriate in the matter of Treasure Hill.

Given the 20+ year history of the Treasure Hill project and the involvement of the city council over the years, is a hearing officer (possibly from outside Summit County) really in the best position to hear an appeal on this project? Will a hearing officer have a good understanding of the dramatic changes in the community since the project’s MPD was approved? Isn’t our elected city council, people who live in this town, hike on the trails, sit in the traffic, participate in this community, and understand the concerns of the people, in the best position to determine whether a project of this magnitude is appropriate for this town? While a hearing officer may insulate the city council from potential due process or conflict of interest challenges by the Sweeney’s, the community’s interests as a whole need to be represented and protected by those who we elected to serve our community.

THINC strongly encourages the City to involve the community in the negotiation of any modifications to the plans for Treasure and make the entire process as transparent as possible. We’ve all been living with the threat of this project for a long time and it would be unacceptable for the public to be cut out as this critical juncture.

THINC supports the concept of a hearing officer, but we want city council to carefully consider whether a hearing officer is really in the best position to evaluate the Treasure project and the process that has been going on for 20+ years. We remain concerned that city council may remove themselves from the largest decision they may ever be asked to make — before the process has fully played out before the planning commission and the issues to be appealed are even known!

Thank you very much,
THINC

Rich Wyman
John Stafsholt
Brian Van Hecke
Kyra Parkurst 
Steve Swanson

Leave a comment

Filed under From THINC

Pictures of the Treasure Model

Below are some pictures that I took of the new Treasure model.  Unfortunately it’s difficult to tell what’s what because they have not required the applicant to make the proposed Treasure buildings in a different color from the existing buildings.  Another thing that is not visible in these picutres are the huge  100+ foot excavations scars that will be visible from all over town.

I hope these help but I would still suggest that you stop by the Marsac building to see the model for yourself.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Open letter to the people of Park City from THINC

To all our neighbors and friends,

Thank you to our neighbors from all over Park City who attended the Planning Commission meeting on Feb 10th.  Thanks for speaking out and taking a stand against the proposed Treasure Hill project.  Thanks for asking the right questions and working positively toward keeping Park City a great place to live.
 
Treasure Hill could literally destroy Old Town as we know it and have devastating and irrevocable impacts on our town.   Some of these impacts include: intolerable traffic and safety impacts to narrow streets built prior to the automobile, potential loss of our national historic district designation, 10- 20 years of almost indescribably destructive construction, extremely negative impacts to property values for Old Town property owners, obvious and massive excavation 10 stories deep into the mountainside, environmental  habitat destruction, environmental damage from building atop a centuries-old mining complex, potential contamination of our main water source, and towering buildings over 100 feet tall up the mountainside directly adjoining Old Town and extremely visible from Main Street. 

Treasure Hill will permanently alter the landscape and beauty of Park City. Our town will lose infinitely more in esthetics, beauty, nature, and quality of life than we could ever gain financially through property taxes from this project.  Treasure Hill also violates our city’s building codes and stated goals in numerous ways.  Hundreds of local citizens agree and are working with us to stop this project.
 
This project is still moving forward.  The people of our town are speaking up, but this fight is not nearly over.  Citizens of Park City, we must stay committed and continue to fight to protect the town we love, our home.
 
Thank you,
THINC

Kyra Parkhurst
John Stafsholt
Steve Swanson 
Brian Van Hecke
Rich Wyman

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

John Stafsholt Speaking Notes – Treasure Hill Planning Commission Mtg 2/10/10

As always, I would like to reiterate that I believe the Sweeney’s to be very forthright, respectable people.  I appreciate their making so much information available to us for a thorough review of their proposed project.  My comments refer to the Treasure Hill proposed development and not to the Sweeney’s personally.

CUP Criteria 8: Building mass, bulk, and orientation, and the locations on the site; including orientation to buildings on adjoining lots.

December 18, 1985 planning commission approval addresses SCALE: A couple exerpts

“Located in the historic district, it is important for the project designed to be compatible with the scale already established.” 

“The focus or thrust of the review process has been to examine different ways of accommodating the development of the property while being mindful of and sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood.”  

While buildings 1A and 2 are possibly the most compatible in the project.  Their location and orientation present a road on top of an approximately 22 foot vertical wall.  The wall will be very pronounced in old town and it will not be a welcome design feature, nor is the exposed road.

Bldg 1B is 6 stories and quite massive for its location at the midstation site above Woodside Ave and could be broken up similar to 1A. 

Massing issues exist with most bldgs, but especially:

Bldg 5A: 11 stories 150’ tall & 60,000  sq ft w/ 39% circulation, common space, & accessory

Bldg 5C: 12 stories 145’ tall & 81,000  sq ft w/ 37% circulation, etc…

Bldg 4B: 13 stories 137’ tall & 252,000 sq ft w/37% circulation, etc…       

The over riding design features on the site are bldg positioning and orientation to allow for maximum heights through excavation of the existing hillsides. This excavation is proposed at unprecedented volumes.  This will be addressed with CUP criteria 15.

CUP Criteria 11: Physical design and compatibility with surrounding structures in mass, scale, style, design, and architectural detailing;

As discussed in the staff report and public input, mass and scale are not compatible with surrounding structures.

Style, design, and architectural detailing should be determined by the historic district design guidelines.  This is required by the original planning commission approval dated December 18, 1985:

“MPE Inc., its successors or assignees, shall be bound by and obligated for the performance of the following:”

III. Item 6: “At the time of project review and approval, all buildings shall be reviewed for conformance with the Historic District Design Guidelines and related architectural requirements.”

These Treasure Hill buildings have not passed review with the Historic District Design Guidelines.

CUP Criteria 15: Within and adjoining the site impacts on environmentally sensitive lands, slope retention, and appropriateness of the proposed structure to the topography of the site;

The topography of the site should be respected by the proposed development.  It is not.

Every tree, bush and blade of grass will be removed from the proposed site.  This will destabilize all the soil in the project above Old Town.   Mudslides and snow slides were known to happen at this site in the past.  There  was a 1926 law titled “PROTECTION OF STANDING TIMBER ON TREASURE HILL. DANGEROUS EXCAVATION”. Tree cutting on Treasure Hill was punishable by $100 fine or up to 90 days in jail.  There was also a deadly slide in Daly in 1948 and another large slide on the other side of Empire canyon in the late 1960’s.

The developers site plan from Alta Engineering calls for an estimated 960,000 cubic yards of excavation.  To give some scale to this, think of an average dump truck. It carries 12 cubic yards of dirt.  That is 80,000 single dump truck loads.

Another example for scale.  The Montage development in Empire Pass had approximately 780,000 sq ft and their estimated excavation from the site was 50,000 CY.

Treasure Hill plans to move almost 20 times as much dirt as the Montage planned to move. 

The developers are adamant that no dirt will be removed from the site, it will be relocated on the mountain.  How can this be guaranteed when there are 4 mining sites within close proximity to the proposed development.  3 of these sites have elevated levels of lead and arsenic.  The Creole Adit is within the proposed development and contains 11,000 PPM Lead which is 11 times the acceptable limit as required by the city.

These 4 mining sites have not been mapped in detail and full geologic and geotechnical data are not available as yet from the developers.  From the Alta Engineering document, it appears Treasure Hill Bldg 4A sits directly on top of the Creole Adit.  This horizontal shaft appears to run NW to the Creole Mine Shaft and beyond.  If this is the case, the largest hotel bldg 4b also sits directly on top of the Creole Adit.  Again, more data is needed to confirm this and understand the depth and extent of the mining activity.

Again as an example, The Montage had extensive geotechnical work done prior to development.  Only 4 mining operations were found to exist at the Montage site.  After excavation commenced, an additional 4 mining operations were found at the site.  This required the Montage developers to remove another unexpected 40,000 CY of dirt.  Nearly double the total excavation and removal of contaminated soils from mining activity to Richardson Flats.

There is no approved soil remediation plan in place as yet from the Treasure Hill developers.  Their plan was to take the contaminated Creole Adit soils up to the Creole mine shaft and dump them down into the shaft (which is also contaminated), then cap the shaft with semi permeable soils.  The city has rejected this plan.

PCMC’s letter dated August 28, 2006 states, “PCMC does not agree with the strategy of transporting a higher concentration mine waste (Creole Adit 11,000PPM lead) to a lower concentration site (Creole Mine Shaft 2,200 PPM lead) for permanent placement within a shaft.  In addition, the City would consider such placement within the Creole Mine Shaft as a potential “pollution source” for the Spiro Drinking Water protection Zone, which is prohibited per PCMC’s Drinking Water Source Protection Plan ordinance detailed in Section 13-1-28.”  Of the code. 

The Creole Mine Shaft is within the Spiro Drinking Water Source Protection Zone.

This is where much of the city’s drinking water comes from.  It must be protected.

The developers are planning unprecedented excavation and there is no guarantee that this is even near the final reality of how much soil will be moved or removed from the site.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized