The Summit County Council delayed making a decision on a series of proposed amendments to the Utah Olympic Park’s development agreement after Sun Peak residents voiced concerns about the scope of the project during a lengthy public hearing on Wednesday. The original development agreement was c reated in 2011, with the intent that the document would be revisited throughout the years as the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation refined its vision for the park. The agreement outlined allowable uses on the property, such as a hotel, employee and athlete lodging, maintenance facilities and ski runs. Foundation CEO Colin Hilton has repeatedly said the amendments don’t change the heart of the agreement, but they instead serve to make development more efficient for both the county and the nonprofit. Dozens of Summit County residents have opposed the move, however. They expressed frustrations with ongoing construction and traffic in the Snyderville Basin, which they said would only be exacerbated by affordable housing on the park’s property, as well as specific concerns regarding the scope of the development as a whole and its effect on wildlife in the area. The conflict spurred a handful of open houses with Utah Olympic Park staff to discuss the proposed changes with Summit County residents, especially those living in the Sun Peak neighborhood, which borders the park. “We’ve had, in our opinion, progress on a number of fronts there,” Hilton told the County Council. “I don’t think we have solved everybody’s concerns, but I believe we will show you a pattern of having listened and adapting our plans as a result of the last six months of going through this process.” The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission unanimously forwarded the development agreement amendments to the County Council with a positive recommendation earlier this month. The County Council then held its own public hearing on the topic on Wednesday, and while many speakers said they supported the Utah Olympic Park’s mission, they said they felt the park’s team still wasn’t being transparent or fully considering the community’s needs. “Cooperation is not just holding a meeting,” said Meta Haley, the president of the Sun Peak Master Homeowners Association. “It is listening to the outcome and working together to find a solution.” Many Sun Peak residents were specifically worried about access to the park through its back gate on Bear Hollow Drive. They said the road is already unsafe, and homeowners already deal with speeding drivers and illegally parked cars as visitors often use the neighborhood to reach nearby trailheads. Hilton had previously committed to including a back-gate usage policy in the amended agreement, which outlined the park’s intent to use the gate in case of an emergency, during special events or for residents living in employee or athlete housing on the property. But Haley and other Sun Peak homeowners said the policy was too vague and didn’t assuage any of their fears. “We’ve tried to engage with the UOP to come to a written agreement that is mutually beneficial to both parties,” said James Duckworth, another Sun Peak resident who lives a few hundred feet from the back gate. “To date, nothing has come of these efforts. In contrast, in the most recent staff report that we received just prior to this meeting, there was a definitive statement that basically says the UOP has claimed that they already have resolved this issue and that they have a right to use the road.” The pool was another major concern for most speakers Wednesday night. Hilton had previously told the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission that he had revised his plans to allow the pool to remain open for half of the summer rather than shutting it down entirely for construction. However, residents appeared mixed on the decision, with some thanking Utah Olympic Park staff for modifying their plans while others pushed for construction to happen during the off-season to prevent a closure at all. “Closing the freestyle pool for an extended period of time, especially this close to the Olympics we’re hosting, doesn’t feel like it matches the reasons why the park was made,” said Brooks Voorhees, a 12-year-old athlete who addressed the County Council. “Even one season of closure is a whole year we can’t get back. There isn’t another place like this for us. Kids would fall behind, and some kids might stop altogether.” Chris Haslock, a former Olympian and current action sports director for Park City Ski and Snowboard, disagreed with the idea that closing the pool would detrimentally affect young athletes preparing for the 2034 Winter Olympics. He pointed out it’s common for an athlete to experience an injury or a setback that removes them from training or the competitive season entirely, and they’re often able to bounce back, even with taking a season off. “This is what the park was designed for,” Haslock said. “These guys are professionals. They know exactly what they’re doing, and the reason why they’ve chosen to try and do it in the summer is because a post-Olympic year is the best year to try and make any alteration like this. … The longer we wait, the more likely it is to have a much more major impact.” The County Council ultimately held off on making any decisions regarding the amendment development agreement, with multiple councilors citing a desire to dive deeper into the issue brought forth by residents. County Councilor Tonja Hanson specifically said she was interested in exploring the economic pieces of the Utah Olympic Park proposal while County Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong said he needed more details on the site’s planned affordable housing developments. “We have a lot of hotel product available at any given time, and adding another hotel provides revenue to you, I get that, but it will result in a lot of unused rooms,” Armstrong added. “There are environmental impacts of heating unused rooms, the staff necessary to maintain a hotel facility that’s not at full capacity. … It’s my least favorite idea of a product that we need in the Snyderville Basin right now and in Park City.” The amended development agreement outlined new ski runs on the eastern side of the property, as well as the location and size of parcels intended for future developments, including a hotel, storage facilities, office space and employee housing. It also requested the county grant low-impact permits for the park’s construction rather than attach a conditional use permit to each development. Low-impact permits still require oversight from the Planning Commission, but the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation would not need to hold a public hearing. However, the county’s legal counsel on Wednesday said the Planning Commission is able to require public input and revert to the typical permitting process if there are too many questions about the project. The County Council said it plans to hold a work session with Utah Olympic Park staff to further discuss the details of the amendments, but no meeting has been scheduled as of Friday morning. The post Summit County Council declines to vote on amended Utah Olympic Park agreement in favor of future work session appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less