My thoughts are extensive. Here are the highlights.
1) Re. massing revisions, “Massing steps with the topography, with the tallest element at the southern corner,” per PEG. Check this. It appears tallest buildings are proposed to the north at the topographic low.
2) The overall site plan inherently affects traffic and parking.
3) Site plan shows PARCEL E housing 45% of all parking, which enters/exits on Silver King Drive. Never in > 50 years was this a parking access.
4) See PARCEL E perspective view. A car weaves from underground parking onto Silver King Drive, then WEST where the only option is through the Three Kings Drive neighborhoods.
5) Deliveries and dumpsters are proposed on Silver King Drive, thus the impact of 5am beep beep (that exceeds Park City decibel limit).
6) Neighborhoods to the north will experience extraordinary negative impact. Rather than divide the neighborhoods into fragments, propose a larger neighborhood meeting.
Sherie C. Harding, 1420 Three Kings Dr.

Dear Planning Commission Members,

Thank you in advance for your efforts reviewing PEG's application. My name is Justin Keys and I represent Three Kings Condominium Association. I attended tonight's hearing and appreciate the efforts that have been put in by all parties, including PEG and City. As an adjoining neighbor, Three Kings is very interested in the development of the PCMR base area. Three Kings understands that this is an entitled development and supports PEG's right to develop. But it does have concerns regarding the current proposal. In particular, we're concerned that there have been several different numbers proposed as to the height of Building E. If the height is truly 87 feet, this will practically obscure the Mountain View from our property. Before providing a final public opinion on this issue, we would like to know the actual height and setback of the building.

Most of Three Kings' concerns relate directly to the proposed parking and traffic circulation. We're very concerned that the parking under Building E and the proposed dock and loading area will impede reasonable access to the Three Kings development. Of course, those are an issue for another day. We will provide a more formal comment in advance of the Planning Commission meeting on traffic related issues.

We would like to let the Planning Commission know that PEG has made itself available to meet with us onsite to discuss our concerns. We very much appreciate their efforts. Hopefully our traffic-related concerns can be addressed.

Thanks in advance for your time,

Justin Keys

PEG states they’ll have over 1500 parking stalls after starting B in 2021-22 ready for ski season but yet state they only need 1200. Is it possible to build parking on D & E first to in 21-22 and still meet that number?
Why does the hotel on Parcel C have to go 2nd? I believe your slide doesn’t include those stalls in 22-23 but does in 23-24 after hotel opens.
Majority of slides/photos are deceiving and not actually from ground level looking at the structure. The view corridor originates inside the home at the corner of 14th & Empire not from the street – this is based on your slide.
Have you been to a Farmer’s Market? It will not fit on the open space on Parcel D and will tear up your soft landscaping.
How is Parcel B being labeled a village? There’s no pedestrian walkway.
Parcel E shows 543 underground stalls built in one March – December; but it can’t be done on Parcel B in the same timeframe?
Are sidewalks still only 6-10 feet instead of recommended 15 feet? You mention stairs as an issue yet your “hardscaped” plaza is full of them. Why is it a problem elsewhere?
You mention the community has habits and won’t use transit/off site parking, yet you are willing to change habits to walk around Parcel B. Do only some habits need to be changed? You actually reference people will "j-walk" in your response to a question submitted in the agenda packet.
Is there any Open Space on Parcel B?

In reviewing the packet for Wednesday’s meeting there seems to be a tremendous amount of information and topics to be discussed. I have quite a few questions and comments but am hoping they will be addressed during the meeting. If at the end of the meeting the community or commissioners still have additional questions or comments please confirm that these topics will be rolled over to future meetings to continue the discussions. Thanks.

In the proposed calendar for this project is looks like traffic will be addressed at a future Planning Commissioners meeting, tentatively September 23rd. At that meeting a 3rd party analysis of PEG's proposed one-way traffic plan will be presented. I am assuming
that this 3rd party is not only reviewing the one-way proposed traffic plan but is also considering alternatives such as two-way traffic or other solutions. I am also assuming during their review they are considering not only the ski resort traffic but the additional local traffic, utility vehicles, work trucks, dump trucks, trash pick up trucks, and emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles needed in the local old town streets that would be channeled thru the resort with PEG's proposed plan. If those assumptions are not correct can you please let me know? Also, will the 3rd party's report be making any recommendations or will they simple give their analysis of the proposed plan with out recommendations ? Thank you.