Meeting Time: July 08, 2020 at 5:30pm MDT

Agenda Item

6.A) Park City Mountain Resort Base Parking Lots - Determination of Significant Modification - Determination on whether or not the applicant’s submittal meets the definition of a substantive modification as defined under LMC Section 15-6-4(I), MPD Modifications, which states that “Changes in a Master Planned Development, which constitute a change in concept, Density, unit type or configuration of any portion or phase of the MPD will justify review of the entire master plan and DA by the Planning Commission, unless otherwise specified in the DA.” PL-20-04475. *Public Input will be taken via e-comments* (A) Hearing (B) Determination

2000 of 2000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Deborah Rentfrow 3 months ago

    If this is a duplicate, my apologies. I received a server error upon submission.

    We oppose the development plans by PEG. The 35 foot height restriction on Parcel B wouldn't be an issue if the parking was underground. In addition, the original MPD did not have the majority of the parking on Parcel B. PEG has made the decision to move it. Finally, we do not have to accept PEG's plan; we can wait for the right plan and right company to do it right.

  • Default_avatar
    Jennifer Adler 3 months ago

    I participated in today's tour of the proposed development of the PCMR lots. I am opposed to the development as it currently stands and believe it needs to be reevaluated. In partiuclar:
    * The heights and density of the proposed buildings are astounding and would be detrimental to the immediate area, and to the town generally. The proposed development would totally dwarf the surrounding area and block the current open views up the mountain
    * The traffic impact on the residential neighborhood of Thaynes Canyon will be significant. Skiers already use Three Kings Drive as a back route to the PCMR lots. We already have issues with the volume of cars, the speed of cars and the consequent safety of residents who walk along the road at all times of day (last week a dog was run over, drivers routinely give residents "the finger" when asked to slow down due to safety concerns). This becomes worse in winter due to the higher traffic volumes and narrowing of the road due to snow. Even adding a second bus route was an big issue for residents last winter (and we hope will not be repeated). Encouraging even more traffic on Three Kings Drive due to the placement of parking lots and lot entrances/exits adjacent to the health clinic on Silver King Drive would make our safety and quality of life concerns even greater.
    * There needs to be more work done to reduce, not increase, the volume of traffic coming in to the PCMR base and the current development would only increase traffic. We need solutions such as rapid bus transit with dedicated lanes during peak times so that visitors park and ride, rather than driving up to the base. Obviously, this is a challenge right now due to coronavirus, but the town can't keep encouraging yet more traffic, it is not a sustainable long-term solution.

  • Default_avatar
    Sherie Harding 3 months ago

    Currently there is no truck traffic or skier traffic entering the lower (Noirth) parking lot from Silver King Drive. The current driveway is only used for Ambulances to the clinic, skier parking access is expressly forbidden and the driveway is too steep for trucks. PEG proposes that all vehicles will enter under Parcels C and D from Silver King Drive beyond the intersection (West of) Lowell and Silver King. This is a dramatic shift from historical precedent. It cannot be allowed. Traffic to Resort parking is currently directed onto Lowell (southbound) from Silver King, without disturbing a residential neighborhood further along Silver King to the intersection of 3 Kings. That residential neighborhood should be respected and maintained.

  • Default_avatar
    Jon Horwitz 3 months ago

    My understanding is that the proposal involves creating a one-way loop at the resort base involving Empire Ave, Lowell Ave and Manor Way. Could the commission please consider the impact this will have on residents of Upper Lowell and Upper Empire Avenues? It would seem, depending on the direction of the loop, that either leaving or returning home would be fully involved in resort traffic to an extent that does not exist today. This does not serve the greater good. A solution that preserves two-way access for residents of upper Lowell & Empire should be developed. Perhaps it involves using land that is part of the existing lots to widen the road where necessary. I also wanted to confirm that there is no plan to convert upper Lowell & Empire to one-way streets as that involves further inconvenience and safety concerns as a one-way street might invite even more speeding than exists today. Thank-you

  • Default_avatar
    Clayton Stuard 3 months ago

    For all of the reasons stated in the Staff Report Dated July 8, 2020, I concur with the staff finding that the submitted application is substantively different than the 1997 Large Scale Master Plan and 1998 DA, and therefore justifies review of the entire master plan and DA by the Planning Commission.

    The modifications that PEG has proposed are solely to enhance their return on investment or to justify the amount of money they have agreed to pay Vail Corp for the acquisition rights...neither of which provide ANY benefit to the community. The proposed plan is a HUGE deviation from the massing and architectural character of the buildings approved in the DA. To my knowledge, PEG has no experience developing ski resort properties. I don't understand WHY they were selected as the purchaser by Vail Corp...other than a willingness to pay the highest price for the acquisition rights.

  • Default_avatar
    Nancy Lazenby 3 months ago

    The proposed new development plan from PEG is so significantly different from the plan in the 90's I don't see how they could possible think its a simple amendment rather than a new project. In this new proposal PEG is now proposing some of the buildings heights to be as tall as 80', they have eliminated the elevated walkways for pedestrian safely from the old plan, they have eliminated underground parking and are now proposing an above ground parking garage, and they are proposing one-way traffic on Lowell Ave and Empire Ave! These are just a few of the significant changes they are proposing from the original 1998 plan. These proposed changes, along with all the other changes in our community since 1998, makes it seem impossible and irresponsible to me to simple modify a plan that is that old.