Perhaps I Was Too Excited About The Mountain Accord Tunnel Being Scrapped
Yesterday I wrote that a Mountain Accord meeting on Monday indicated that the tunnel between Brighton and PCMR was dead. Let’s just say that I may have been wrong … or perhaps more precisely that the nails aren’t quite in the coffin yet.
I have received feedback from the community indicating where the potential for the tunnel, to come back to life, exists. Let’s look at some of those:
- A meeting of many of the parties associated with the Accord on Monday agreed to remove the tunnel from the “proposed actions” for the environmental phase (NEPA) of the Mountain Accord. Yet, this removal still needs to be voted on. Between now and that point lies a Mountain Accord retreat which could alter perspectives, and votes, of Accord members. So, removing the tunnel may not become reality… or more likely language will be constructed to make it appear that the tunnel is dead … but in reality it will be like one of those zombie movies where it will show its ugly head once again.
- Imminent domain could still put the tunnel in play. Imminent domain is the right of the state or federal government to do what they want for the “general good.” The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) could still decide they want a tunnel and theoretically nothing could stop it.
- If you look at the proposed language that is said to be added to the Mountain Accord Blueprint, it basically says “nothing can be done to someone” and that supposedly protects us from the Mountain Accord building a tunnel if we don’t want it. Yet, you have to ask who is “we”. Not to get all Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton on you, but the definition of “we” is important. In this case the “we” is the Park City City Council. The Park City Council actually represents a small portion of people in the area, compared to Summit County whose Summit County Council encompasses all the Snyderville Basin residents. Because of this, you have to account for the fact that Park City council people could be coopted into supporting a tunnel and there is nothing that most of us could do about it.
- Throughout the process, there have been allegations of conflicts of interest with regard to members of the Mountain Accord Executive Committee. Some of these alleged conflicts are with people at the highest levels of government. Since there has formally been nothing agreed upon, Mountain Accord representatives would tell you that there are no conflicts. That may be true and you should believe what you want, but what you should be concerned with is the process that this whole proposal will follow. If I’ve learned anything from following local government, is that there is usually an agenda. If there wasn’t, most actions wouldn’t be started. And the motto, “if at first you don’t succeed, try try again” is at the fore-front of my mind. The people running Mountain Accord are at least 3 steps ahead of the rest of us. If somone who is really important demands a tunnel to Park City, this minor setback won’t stop them. And in a process as complicated as this, there are plenty of places to re-insert that little hole through the mountain.
If you speak with those people in the know about the death of the tunnel, you’d likely describe them as cautiously optimistic. That said, I’m sure each of them would also advise constant vigilance.
Given quite a few discussions over the last 24 hours, I’d recommend that too.
in Development
My How Park City has Changed
An anonymous person sent a link to one of the greatest visualizations of Park City growth since 1984. This is one of those must sees.
Watch below or click here for a bigger view.
h/t to the person who sent this
in Schools
Live Blogging the School Board Master Planning Meeting
The Park City School Board Master Planning Committee is meeting tonight. This is the final, of 3 meeting regarding building needs in the district. I am live blogging the meeting.
Park City Citizens Have Made a Difference With Regard to Mountain Accord
Park City and Snyderville Basin residents… We salute you.
On Monday, the Mountain Accord Executive Committee met to discuss comments they have received over the last few months. One of the outcomes of the meeting, according to local leader and activist Rich Wyman, who attended the session, is that the tunnel between Brighton and Park City has been scrapped from the proposed actions for the NEPA process. According to Mr. Wyman, Park City City Council member Andy Beerman and Summit County Council Member Chris Robinson told the Mountain Accord Executive Committee that their constituents were not in support of a tunnel connection to Park City. The Executive Committee evidently listened to our representatives and will likely remove the tunnel option from the Mountain Accord proposed actions.
In addition, it was stated that the following language would be added to the Mountain Accord Blueprint:
“Mountain Accord decisions are consensus based and do not supersede federal, state, and local jurisdictions’ authority. Local jurisdictions that have consented in the consensus based process shall seek to implement agreed-up scenarios or actions within their jurisdiction through zoning, general plan, and other tools available. Local jurisdictions are not obligated to implement actions with which they are not in agreement.”
This language was likely added because of Roger Armstrong, and other Summit County Council members, who demanded that the citizens of Summit County would not be forced, against our will, into allowing actions decided on by the Mountain Accord representatives.
While we still need to wait for the final language to be added to the next iteration of the Mountain Accord Blueprint, this appears to be a victory for the people of Park City and the Snyderville Basin. It proves that by getting involved, showing up at public meetings (like the Mountain Accord Meeting at the high school), and writing emails, that we can all make a difference. Without the people voicing their concerns, activists like Mr. Wyman raising awareness, and certain elected representatives willing to take a stand, the outcome likely would have been different. The Mountain Accord would probably have submitted a proposal to the government that included a tunnel to Park City and that tunnel probably would have turned into reality.
For at least now, that concern seems to be abated. In the future we may need to fight again to prevent a tunnel to Park City but today we can now concentrate on the good parts of the Mountain Accord — the environmental aspects.
It’s a good day to be part of a democratic republic. It’s a good day to know that your opinion actually counts and makes a difference.
Park City and Basin residents, if I could throw you a party I would.
You done good.
Update: I heard from Rich Wyman with regard to this article. He thought it was important to point out that the train was likely being scrapped from the proposed actions for the NEPA process. While he is optimistic that this is a great step towards ensuring that the train isn’t part of The mountain accord, nothing is definite yet. He said that additional conversations and votes had to happen to make this become a reality. Therefore, I have updated the story to reflect that as best as possible. Thanks to Rich for pointing this out.
in Schools
Students are Learning That They Need Constant Vigilance Too
In some twist of irony it’s a little amusing that students are upset over the high school’s media center being repurposed as a location for PC CAPS. The purpose of PC CAPS is to give students real world experience. Yet, these students who are complaining about the school board making a decision look like they need to understand how the real world works. As one student put it, “They didn’t ask us. They should have, because we are the people who are going to be negatively impacted by this out-of-the-blue decision.”
I know I sound a bit condescending, and when I was in high school I would have been complaining too, just like these students. I probably wouldn’t have even been as good as these kids … I wouldn’t have even considered writing a letter to the paper. Yet that doesn’t change the fact that the school board did tell students, parents, and the community that they were considering making this change. It was announced on a School Board Meeting agenda. It was discussed on the radio. It was all available online. I believe there is even a student council representative “on” the School Board.
What these students are learning is the same thing I’ve been learning since I started Park Rag. Civic involvement isn’t a part time job. You have to be constantly aware of what is happening with local government. You have to voice your concerns ahead of time. If you don’t, all you can do is complain and that doesn’t go very far.
If you are a student and are interested in becoming more involved, I’d love to have you write with us at the Park Rag. English doesn’t even have to be your forte’ (it obviously isn’t mine). What we have to offer is a passion for local government and Park City. We provide a reason for following what’s happening in Park City and an outlet for your voice. What we try to do is cover the school board, Park City City Council, the Summit County Council, and events that impact Park City like Mountain Accord. We want to let as many people as possible know about what’s going on and provide a perspective that may not be found elsewhere.
While perhaps the Park Rag doesn’t have the cachet that PC CAPS has, we provide many of the same things. We offer the chance to work in the real world, an opportunity to hone your critical reasoning skills, and a good story to tell colleges. You also get to help make Park City a better place.
I hope you’ll consider making a difference in both your life and Park City. If you’re interested, please email .
in Schools
Will Student Backlash Against The Library Conversion for PC CAPS Cause the School Board to Re-Consider a PC CAPS Building?
In today’s Park there are two letters to the editor and a full article on students who oppose converting the high school library’s media center into an area for PC CAPS. The students are complaining that they weren’t consulted about the decision.
What should be interesting is whether this causes the School Board, and its Master Planning Committee, to reconsider building a full PC CAPS building as part of it plans to renovate the Kearns campus. Last October, amid public concern, the district decided not to build a $5 million PC CAPS building.
If there is enough push back from students, it would be easy to see them tacking the CAPS building onto their renovation plans.
It should be interesting to watch.
Summit County Needs to Treat the New Whole Foods as More Than a Grocer
This week, the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission will hear public comment on the Canyons’s Corner development, which is the parking lot across from Ruby Tuesday’s, near Walmart. The developer wants to put a new Whole Foods grocery and additional retail space on the property.
The Planning Commission will be hearing from the public and potentially deciding on whether this development should be built as proposed (or not). Personally, I love the idea of the greater selection a larger Whole Foods would offer. I also love the idea of their beer and wine offerings. According to Whole Foods press release (announced of course before this has even been approved… by accident I’m sure):
“This store will be the first Whole Foods Market in Utah to feature its own taproom with local beer and wine on tap, as well as a world-class resort pub menu with separate fast casual dining and pub seating inside the store.”
Yet there-in lies the problem. Is this a grocery store or a grocery store with a bar and restaurant inside it? There seems to be a lot of publicity from Whole Foods around a “taproom”, if it’s just a regular grocery store.
Why do I care? There are certain requirements that a bar has to have per our development code. First, if this store is really a bar, it has to have a conditional use permit issued by the County. This allows people to state their opinion on this specific piece. Let’s say you loved Whole Foods but were anti-alcohol, you could show up to the Planning Commission and debate the alcohol piece. There are some details that make the question of whether this requires a Conditional Use permit a little murky (i.e. was the original development agreement a specially planned area and does that somehow supercede zoning) but the average person would say that adding a bar should follow our zoning laws and a Conditional Use Permit would be required for their tap room. That would give the public a chance to voice any concerns about this portion of the business.
The second I reason I care is based on affordable housing requirements. It is likely that this agreement will require either affordable housing to be built or the developer will have to pay fees in lieu of building affordable housing. For bars and restaurants, one of the key components in calculating the amount of affordable housing required is almost 2 times as big for bars and restaurants versus commercial/retail. Our County Planning office is currently treating this as a pure commercial facility, which means that the level of affordable housing required is understated. The County calculates the number of affordable housing units (or fees) required based on the square feet. In this case, the question is what percentage of space will be used for a restaurant, bar, taproom, chairs, storage, food prep, etc. versus the general grocery. Whatever that restaurant/bar space is should be “charged” at twice the Affordable Housing rate (per code).
While I still have questions about traffic and what moving Whole Foods will mean to traffic along the frontage road, I support it. The company obviously thinks there is a need and are willing to expand their operations and hire more people. That’s good for the Snyderville Basin. That said, they should be forced to follow the same rules as everyone else and account for their affordable housing like what they really are. In this case that’s a bar, restaurant, and grocery.
in Environment
3.0 Earthquake Strikes Snyderville Basin
At 11:45 AM Saturday morning a 3.0 magnitude earthquake struck our area. The US Geological Survey says the epicenter was 7 miles north of Summit Park. Many residents reported feeling the quake with one saying “that her house shook violently” and another “It was so jarring that I first thought a truck had hit the building and then I wondered, earthquake?”
I hope this is an isolated event and not just a trimmer before something larger. As always, it’s a good time to get yourself prepared.
Update: People at Basin Rec Fieldhouse reported hearing two large booms around that time…perhaps weights falling.
General Plan Should Keep Language About No New Entitlements
On Wednesday, the Summit County Council held its first public hearing regarding the Snyderville Basin General Plan. The General Plan defines what the citizens of Summit County want to see with regard to development around the Basin. One of the hot-button items in the new plan is section 2.3 which states “Do not approve any new entitlements beyond base zoning until such time that existing entitlements are significantly exhausted.”
Each piece of land, be it your house, the land that Wal-mart sits on, or the land where Canyons is located has rules around what can be built there. At its most general, zoning defines how closely buildings can be built next to each other and the type of structures that can be built. You’ll often hear terms like 1 per 20 thrown around. This means that Summit County allows 1 unit of housing per 20 acres on that land. Typically most land in Summit County is 1 per 20 or 1 per 40 (acres). Then those rules are modified for areas like Kimball Junction, the Canyons, etc. through various concepts like different zoning (i.e. Town Centers like Kimball Junction), Specially Planned Areas (SPAs), etc.
Section 2.3 of the new General Plan basically says that the citizens of Summit County generally do not want additional development beyond what has already been promised. If you were to look at the amount of development that is already approved around the County (but unbuilt), you’d find that it is enormous. That previously approved development will already likely change the face of the Snyderville Basin in the coming years. This section of the General Plan attempts to say, “let’s use that up before we add to our problems.”
Opponents of section 2.3 bring up some valid arguments. They’ll say that land owners have a right to develop on their property and that some good things come out of adding entitlements (i.e., allowing someone to build more on a piece of land) in some some cases.
I completely agree that land owners have the right to build on their land, but I would caveat that it has to be within existing regulations. In some cases land has been owned for a hundred years, but in most cases land was bought with zoning already in place. It would be like me wanting to convert my house in Jeremy Ranch into an In and Out Burger. I bought the land knowing the zoning. While I may wish I could put a burger joint up, I have no right to do so. I, just like most everyone else who owns property here, have bought into a set of rules.
With regard to good things coming out of “up-zoning,” the Park Record’s article on the topic summarizes that argument well. Bill Coleman, a real-estate executive says, “The problem that exists in 2.3 is it’s indicating there will be no increase over-base zoning in spite of what might be a very good opportunity to develop something not unlike Silver Creek Village which is something that is actually solving more problems with lower price housing in the community.”
There-in lies the rub. If you are a real-estate exec, Silver Creek’s 1000 extra units (that can be sold and bought) are a good deal (just think of the commissions!). Mr Coleman is also right that less expensive housing will probably bring more buyers, and more people to the Basin, and I see why he likes it . My question is, will the people across Highway 40 in Silver Summit like it? If I were a home buyer, should I buy a new home for $450,000 in the new Silver Creek Village or should I buy a 15 year old home for $500,000 in Silver Summit? You won’t have to worry long because those homes in Silver Summit will come down in price to some happy medium that makes sense (probably less than the new homes).
Then if you look at the new 1000 + home in Silver Creek, you as a taxpayer are going to hate it. Another exit, or change to the traffic pattern, is going to have to happen there. From most reports, the roundabout built by Home Depot, that was built specifically because of this project, probably won’t handle the traffic. So we tax payers are going to be on the hook for a couple more million dollars to fix the traffic problem.
Then let’s not forget about the schools. Silver Creek Village, the area Mr Coleman is talking about above, is in the South Summit School District. Yet, I bet most of those parents are not going to want to drive to Kamas and Heber to take their kids to school. Why drive 25 minutes when Trailside Elementary is a stone’s throw and Park City High is a 5 minute drive away. So those kids will apply to Park City schools for open enrollment where we spend even more money on them, without being reimbursed by the state in proportion to costs, which just ends up hurting our kids.
So, if the best reason Mr Coleman can come up with is Silver Creek Village, his argument doesn’t appear to hold much weight. The problem with increased development, generally, is that it is complicated. It is fraught with unexpected consequences and no one really knows what will happen down the road. When you put development on hold (within existing rights) you are pretty sure what will happen.
That’s why I support leaving section 2.3 in the General Plan. I believe limiting additional entitlements for a while supports the views of most people in the Snyderville Basin. Of course, I could be wrong. County Council member Roger Armstrong is right that we should continue the discussion to make sure. That said, I would be shocked if most people were for allowing me to build an In and Out Burger on my 1/2 acre in Jeremy Ranch or other large scale development around the Basin that isn’t already approved.
The one change I would make is to the timing of this limit. Basin resident Pete Gillwald was worried about how long this limit would go on (3 years … 5 years?). I agree with that — mostly because things can change. In section 2.3 it says limits will continue “until such time that existing entitlements are significantly exhausted.” I’m not sure what that really means. I would advocate that this, along with other sections of the General Plan (like receiving areas and transfer of density rights) be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission. That way should opinions change or other significant events occur, we as citizens can make sure we are still Ok with a limit on adding entitlements to land.
That said, for right now, I fully support limiting increased entitlements. Between Silver Creek Village, East Creek Ranch, Park City Heights, expansion of Quinn’s Junction (Peace House building, National Ability Center expanding, and potentially another ice rink), the Movie Studio opening, and a Hyatt being built on 224, the Snyderville Basin is going to be very different in two years. Why not wait a bit before we add more variables? Why not wait and make sure we understand the game we are playing?
Leaving Section 2.3 in the General Plan, and limiting increased entitlements, allows us to do that. I hope that our County Council will work to make sure this concept stays in the plan.
Hey Whole Foods, You’re High… I Mean Too High
Next Tuesday, the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission will be looking at a project called Canyon Corners. This is development that was approved a while ago. If you are driving by Walmart towards Ecker Hill Middle School, it’s the parking lot on your right.
The developer has changed their plans from a few years ago and now wants to put in two merchants in the space. Earlier plans hinted that one of those merchants was Whole Foods. The developer had originally asked for more square footage than originally allowed but has backed off that and now the square footage is equal to the original plan (61,000 square feet).
What I don’t understand about developers is that they have access to the same documents as we citizens do. In this case I am referring to the Snyderville Basin Development Code. Within the code it sets a maximum height of 32 feet for a building. If you recall from a few years back, there was a lot of hubbub about the Visitor’s Center on Highway 224 being taller than it should be. It looks like this building has the same issue.
According to the Summit County Community Development Department report, the developer wants a building height of 36.6 feet. So the proposed development is almost 5 feet too tall and doesn’t meet code. Why do you care? In this case it could block view of the mountain ridges. It’s also a slippery slope. If this development can be too tall, why not every development.
I don’t get why developers try to slip things past our planning commission. It just ends up wasting everyone’s time. Hopefully our planning commission will strike this plan down and make the developer come back to the table with a plan that doesn’t violate code.
I believe the idea of Whole Foods moving there is an Ok one, if they can also figure out the traffic issues, but not if it blatantly violates code.
Parkrag
We believe in citizen journalism. We believe there are stories to tell that can help to shape our community for the better. We believe tomorrow's Park City can be better than today's.