5.D) Park City Mountain Resort Base Parking Lots - MPD Modification - Replace Expired Exhibit D of the DA, the 1998 PCMR Base Area Master Plan Study Concept Master Plan, With a New Master Plan, Known as the Park City Base Area Lot Redevelopment Master Plan Study. This Hearing Will Focus on Transit and Pedestrian Connectivity, Traffic, Parking and Circulation. PL-20-04475.
*Public Input will be taken via e-comments*
(A) Public Hearing, No Action Will Be Taken
I oppose any plan in the PEG development proposal that includes diverting resort traffic onto Three Kings Drive and other small residential streets. There is precedent set in Park City to protect mostly residential neighborhoods from the extreme influx of outside traffic. On Westbound HWY 248/a.k.a. Kearns Blvd. Left-hand turns into the Prospector Square neighborhoods have been prohibited for years. Old Town residential areas have restricted access and parking. These restrictions have been successfully enforced by PC Police.Three Kings Drive, Thaynes Canyon Drive, Pay Day Drive, Iron Canyon Drive, and Aspen Springs Drive are primarily Residential.Park City Municipal has done a lot to protect Old Town Residential areas and Prospector Square Residential areas. Please ensure equal protection for the Thaynes Canyon Residential areas.
To: Park City Planning Commission, Attention Alexandra Ananth
From: Sherie C. Harding, Three Kings Drive, sherieharding@gmail.com
Subject: Park City Base Area Lot Redevelopment Master Plan Study
Date: Sept. 23, 2020
In midsummer, PEG replaced the old master plan with the “NEW” master plan. The name changed, but not much else changed. An opportunity was missed to update the old plan, and to offer 21st Century alternatives.
Thank you to the Planning Commission staff for their comprehensive Staff Report (dated Sept 23). From it, I gleaned significant alternatives to the old/new PEG plan. I look forward to PEG’s response and their genuine NEW Redevelopment Master Plan that follows Staff Report recommendations.
Example Alternative:
Prioritize safe walk ability and bike ability, “transit first.” Effective transit requires dedicated, uncongested transit routes. A slow bus in traffic is completely ineffective. Drop the antiquated “car focused” approach. I know we love our personal auto, but too many cars is the basis of all problems. If you build all the proposed parking stalls, “They Will Come.” With car focus comes:
1. Increased traffic congestion on 224 and 248
2. Gridlock at the resort
3. Increased CO2 emissions
4. Contribution to planet warming
5. Failed sustainability goals
6. Decreased snow pack
To: The Park City Planning Department and Planning Commissioners
A properly executed development at the Park City Mountain Resort would establish it as a more highly regarded world class destination and benefit all associated interests. Since this project will remain for lifetimes, it is vital that any significant deficiencies and issues be resolved in this planning process. As evident by the recent staff report for the Planning Commission meeting on September 23rd, 2020, there are numerous problems PEG’s plan pertaining to Transit and Pedestrian Connectivity, Traffic, Parking and Circulation. There are many other issues as well.
It should be relatively obvious at this point that to adequately resolve these issues, it is simply not realistic for PEG to make the needed changes to their plans and have them approved within three months from now. There are also consequences of beginning construction on March 1, before the season is over, which have not been carefully considered. The Commissioners and Planning Department are encouraged not to feel pressured into approving this development plan on PEG’s time frame. Making rushed judgements will not only cause problems in the foreseeable future, but for generations to come. With the opening of our resorts and the holidays fast approaching, the Planning Department and Planning Commissioners should consider modifying their calendar and extending the planning process for this project into 2021. Instead of having the construction begin in just five months, it should begin no sooner than in 2022 in order to allow the necessary time to provide more community and professional input to truly solve the major problems that confront the current plans. Let’s take the time needed for Park City to be proud of this project.
Sincerely,
L. R. Schott
Managing Principal, Silver Mill LLC.
We own a unit in the Snowflower that will be significantly impacted by Building E, as our unit faces it. It is appropriate to appreciate that many of us bought our units when the Area Master Plan had expired, so that, in our due diligence we had no reason to expect than any plan was in existence. We had no reason to believe any such development rights were current. Therefore any developer should have to start anew with no vested rights, and with input of neighboring owners. Owners such as we are opposed to this project being considered an “amendment” to an old and unattended plan. After all, how far back in history should a buyer/owner have to assume an expired plan would be picked up years later and treated as current? Also, an “amendment” to an agreement should mean that there is a “new” agreement, thus open for negotiating the new terms.
Pardon my previous comments in the wrong spot. Sending ski resort traffic on Three Kings Drive and Thaynes Canyon area is an ill advised Idea. Three Kings Drive is winding, narrow ( especially with snow) and has many pedestrians and no sidewalks. The recent loss of the Blue bus route will add even more foot traffic. This is a dangerous proposition. Please rethink.
I oppose any plan in the PEG development proposal that includes diverting resort traffic onto Three Kings Drive and other small residential streets. There is precedent set in Park City to protect mostly residential neighborhoods from the extreme influx of outside traffic. On Westbound HWY 248/a.k.a. Kearns Blvd. Left-hand turns into the Prospector Square neighborhoods have been prohibited for years. Old Town residential areas have restricted access and parking. These restrictions have been successfully enforced by PC Police.Three Kings Drive, Thaynes Canyon Drive, Pay Day Drive, Iron Canyon Drive, and Aspen Springs Drive are primarily Residential.Park City Municipal has done a lot to protect Old Town Residential areas and Prospector Square Residential areas. Please ensure equal protection for the Thaynes Canyon Residential areas.
Please read my email during the public input portion of the meeting. It was sent to Alexandra Anuth at 5:11pm this afternoon. Thank you.
To: Park City Planning Commission, Attention Alexandra Ananth
From: Sherie C. Harding, Three Kings Drive, sherieharding@gmail.com
Subject: Park City Base Area Lot Redevelopment Master Plan Study
Date: Sept. 23, 2020
In midsummer, PEG replaced the old master plan with the “NEW” master plan. The name changed, but not much else changed. An opportunity was missed to update the old plan, and to offer 21st Century alternatives.
Thank you to the Planning Commission staff for their comprehensive Staff Report (dated Sept 23). From it, I gleaned significant alternatives to the old/new PEG plan. I look forward to PEG’s response and their genuine NEW Redevelopment Master Plan that follows Staff Report recommendations.
Example Alternative:
Prioritize safe walk ability and bike ability, “transit first.” Effective transit requires dedicated, uncongested transit routes. A slow bus in traffic is completely ineffective. Drop the antiquated “car focused” approach. I know we love our personal auto, but too many cars is the basis of all problems. If you build all the proposed parking stalls, “They Will Come.” With car focus comes:
1. Increased traffic congestion on 224 and 248
2. Gridlock at the resort
3. Increased CO2 emissions
4. Contribution to planet warming
5. Failed sustainability goals
6. Decreased snow pack
To: The Park City Planning Department and Planning Commissioners
A properly executed development at the Park City Mountain Resort would establish it as a more highly regarded world class destination and benefit all associated interests. Since this project will remain for lifetimes, it is vital that any significant deficiencies and issues be resolved in this planning process. As evident by the recent staff report for the Planning Commission meeting on September 23rd, 2020, there are numerous problems PEG’s plan pertaining to Transit and Pedestrian Connectivity, Traffic, Parking and Circulation. There are many other issues as well.
It should be relatively obvious at this point that to adequately resolve these issues, it is simply not realistic for PEG to make the needed changes to their plans and have them approved within three months from now. There are also consequences of beginning construction on March 1, before the season is over, which have not been carefully considered. The Commissioners and Planning Department are encouraged not to feel pressured into approving this development plan on PEG’s time frame. Making rushed judgements will not only cause problems in the foreseeable future, but for generations to come. With the opening of our resorts and the holidays fast approaching, the Planning Department and Planning Commissioners should consider modifying their calendar and extending the planning process for this project into 2021. Instead of having the construction begin in just five months, it should begin no sooner than in 2022 in order to allow the necessary time to provide more community and professional input to truly solve the major problems that confront the current plans. Let’s take the time needed for Park City to be proud of this project.
Sincerely,
L. R. Schott
Managing Principal, Silver Mill LLC.
We own a unit in the Snowflower that will be significantly impacted by Building E, as our unit faces it. It is appropriate to appreciate that many of us bought our units when the Area Master Plan had expired, so that, in our due diligence we had no reason to expect than any plan was in existence. We had no reason to believe any such development rights were current. Therefore any developer should have to start anew with no vested rights, and with input of neighboring owners. Owners such as we are opposed to this project being considered an “amendment” to an old and unattended plan. After all, how far back in history should a buyer/owner have to assume an expired plan would be picked up years later and treated as current? Also, an “amendment” to an agreement should mean that there is a “new” agreement, thus open for negotiating the new terms.
Pardon my previous comments in the wrong spot. Sending ski resort traffic on Three Kings Drive and Thaynes Canyon area is an ill advised Idea. Three Kings Drive is winding, narrow ( especially with snow) and has many pedestrians and no sidewalks. The recent loss of the Blue bus route will add even more foot traffic. This is a dangerous proposition. Please rethink.