Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Uop Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission opens public hearing on Utah Olympic Park amendment, continues item after heavy public comment
Summary
The commission heard an extended public hearing on proposed amendments to the Utah Olympic Park development agreement (parcel reconfiguration, revised gross floor area, limits on density transfer). Residents pressed wildlife, ridgeline, gate use, and transparency concerns; the commission continued the item pending clearer comparative maps, wildlife overlays, and traffic analysis.
The planning commission held a lengthy public hearing on the Utah Olympic Park (UOP) proposed Amendment No. 4 to its development agreement. Staff summarized major changes — a new master conceptual plan, reversion/removal of Parcel 6 in this submittal, a revised land-use chart and a clarified maximum gross developed floor area presented as 568,832 square feet — and recommended the commission forward a recommendation to county council after addressing outstanding topics.
Applicant representatives (Colin Hilton and team) described outreach since the October session and said they had adjusted parcel locations, committed to limit density transfers to parcels 1–5, and proposed a UOP secondary-access policy for the Bear Hollow gate. Many residents and athletes spoke: neighbors raised concerns that proposed parcels overlap wildlife habitat and ridgeline-protected areas (citing a late DWR/DNR heat map and letter), argued the conceptual map differs from the prior approval, and asked for enforceable, written gate-use and construction-traffic agreements. Athletes and parents urged keeping the Spence Echols freestyle pool open during construction; applicant said the pool’s pump, filtration and change-room systems sit under the hotel footprint and that keeping the pool open would be possible only with complex sequencing and health-department sign-off. Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to produce clearer comparative maps (2011/2013 approved plan vs. proposed), a 3D volumetric density comparison, ridgeline and Chapter 5 wildlife overlays, and definitive traffic-study clarifications before deciding. The commission voted to continue the matter to a date uncertain.
