The City is working on an application for two ski lift projects at PCMR. One is the new 8-pack to replace Silverlode. The other replaces Eagle with a new high-speed quad that will take skiers from the base to the top of the King Con Ridge. The new alignment of Eagle will make it an efficient way up the mountain in the morning. From the re-located top station, skiers have the option of skiing the King Con area or going to Silverlode, which can spread them over the mountain. It all makes sense.
After the goat rodeo we saw on holidays and weekends at PCMR, it’s clear that they either need to upgrade lift capacity or limit the number of skiers at peak demand. The crowding we saw this winter has done irreparable damage to the reputation of the ski experience the town has spent 60 years building. The lifts need to be built.
But . . .
The Land Management Code bases the ski area parking on the rated lift capacity. It requires one parking space for every 4 people of “maximum rated capacity.” That term is not well defined. It’s more complicated than counting the number of seats in a theater, for example, because the seats are moving. But there are industry standards that would define it.
The proposed upgrade of the Eagle lift is without question an increase in the capacity. That’s the whole purpose. It’s arguable that Silverlode is distributing skier traffic that is already on the mountain, not increasing it. Eagle is specifically intended to move people from the base area up the mountain. If that increase is 1,000 people, the code requires an additional 250 on-site parking spaces. So where are they?
It’s inescapable that the addition of capacity needs to result in an increase in parking under the City’s code. It’s also clear that PCMR does not have adequate parking for current operations. Somehow, the upgrades of Payday and Crescent, years ago, slipped through without adding any additional parking. The “maximum rated capacity” needs to be determined, and the parking required by that rating needs to be provided to bring it up to code.
The City Code says “if any land, Structure, or Use is changed to create more Off-Street parking demand, the Owner must provide such additional Off-Street parking and required Electric Vehicle Charging Station Infrastructure and installation for the new Use.” When you expand the use on the property, you need to expand the parking to go with it. That expansion could be new lifts at the base, but also would include expanded terrain. For example, a new lift on Pinecone Ridge would be an expansion of operations that would require more parking.
That leads to the more troubling issue of the severance of the air rights over the parking lots from the resort operation. Once that is completed, whether with the PEG project or some successor, Vail Resorts no longer has anyplace to expand parking on-site.
The code says, “Required parking must be on-Site unless the Planning Commission allows such parking on adjacent or nearby deed restricted Lots.” So the whole discussion about the parking for the hotel proposal providing parking at Ecker Hill or some remote lot somewhere else doesn’t seem to fit. There aren’t any “adjacent or nearby lots” other than Fresh Market’s. They might have something to say about that. With no “adjacent or nearby Lots” and no ability to stack parking on land they no longer own, it seems we’re in a bit of a bind.
The self-inflicted inability to provide code-required parking precludes future improvements at the resort. That’s not a desirable outcome. The City could amend the code to address satellite lots, but as a practical matter, there’s no place for a satellite lot within the City limits. Imagine the politics of trying to pave 10 acres of the McPolin farm, or converting the golf course into a parking lot. Can’t happen.
Some of this will have been addressed back in the 1990’s when the initial approval for the hotel project was granted. The agreement may supersede some or all of the code, though just waiving it doesn’t seem reasonable. Times change, and the 1990’s agreement didn’t anticipate 2 million Epic Passes. Lots full at sunrise are a problem that needs to be solved, no matter what the 30-year old agreement says.
The future will require off-site, satellite parking lots and shuttle buses. From somewhere. Nobody seems to be able to figure out where “somewhere” is (Richardson Flat). How does a day skier, or worker, from Salt Lake get from home to the ski resort? Somebody needs to map that out. Telling people to park in “some lot” located “somewhere” isn’t useful. They will leave home in Salt Lake in a car because there isn’t an alternative. Where do they park that car to switch to the shuttle? How do shuttles to the base of the resort work? Who pays for all of it? The City’s inability to bring the Richardson Flat lot on line after more than a decade demonstrates the complexity of it. It’s a system, not a single parking lot or a single shuttle bus. And most of the system is outside the City’s jurisdiction. It is a major shift in the way things have functioned for 60 years, and convincing people to make that change won’t be easy. It will be impossible if it isn’t fully functional from the front door of somebody’s house to the lift maze at Payday or Eagle.
It would be great to have Eagle upgraded for next winter. But not without figuring out how this all works for the next 30 years.