7.A) Park City Mountain Resort Base Parking Lots - MPD Modification Work Session- 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. The Commission Will Discuss Off-Site Parking and Transportation, Draft Findings of Fact, Draft Conditions of Approval and Other Issues Raised in the Staff Report. PL-20-04475.
*Public Input will be taken via e-comments and Zoom*
(A) Work Session, No Action Will Be Taken
Dear Commissioners, I wish to discuss Parcel C. Originally, in 1998 DA, Parcel C was to be "residential/learning center," not a hotel. The problem of no skier services or no learning center is becoming painfully clear. For example, ski instructors meeting toddlers and parents in underground parking garages is complicated. I support the Commissioners that asked, "Why the hotel?" The proposed hotel on Parcel C presents numerous problems: Loss of the learning center, no convenient accessible location for ski school drop off, excessive height, no benefit for locals or visitors interested in a learning center, and probably increased traffic, although no satisfactory traffic study was done. In 1998 a hotel was mentioned as maybe a desirable option. But, a hotel was not part of the 1998 design. Hotel was mentioned as a singular option. Parcel A got the hotel. Again, I support the Commissioners who question the benefit of a hotel.
Dear Commissioners, I wish to discuss Parcel C. Originally, in 1998 DA, Parcel C was to be "residential/learning center," not a hotel. The problem of no skier services or no learning center is becoming painfully clear. For example, ski instructors meeting toddlers and parents in underground parking garages is complicated. I support the Commissioners that asked, "Why the hotel?" The proposed hotel on Parcel C presents numerous problems: Loss of the learning center, no convenient accessible location for ski school drop off, excessive height, no benefit for locals or visitors interested in a learning center, and probably increased traffic, although no satisfactory traffic study was done. In 1998 a hotel was mentioned as maybe a desirable option. But, a hotel was not part of the 1998 design. Hotel was mentioned as a singular option. Parcel A got the hotel. Again, I support the Commissioners who question the benefit of a hotel.