We are homeowners in Mountain Village and have been closely following the proposed Six Senses hotel development on Lot 109R. As covered in March 14 Daily Planet article, the Mountain Village Town Council had previously moved to consider a resolution to deny the pending application for the Major PUD Amendment for the Lot 109R project because the applicant failed to address the numerous issues raised by the town. The applicant was granted a final opportunity to address those issues prior to the vote on Thursday, March 16, and again failed to address the concerns and again was granted one more bite at the apple.
The issue is not whether it would be nice to have a Six Senses hotel in Mountain Village, a building which would be built out to the lot lines and would be significantly taller than any other building in Mountain Village. The issue is whether the applicant has satisfied the criteria to approve a Major PUD Amendment, and the town has consistently found that the applicant has not. Here are three issues important to residents and visitors to the area:
Parking: The project would eliminate the parking lot by the Westermere breezeway, as well as the Wells Fargo parking lot, which currently have about 36 spaces. The original 2010 PUD provided for 48 public parking spaces, which would have been a net increase of 12 spaces. The applicant is asking to amend this to 17-22 spaces, which is a net loss of 26-31 spaces. The applicant has also failed to address how the parking needs of businesses and homeowners, including deliveries, electricians, plumbers, snow removal, etc. would be met.
Traffic Circulation: The current Wells Fargo parking lot would be the hotel’s back-of-house with a loading dock for a semi-truck. That lot would also remain the turnaround area for the bus and ingress/egress for two private garages, as well as the location of the very busy Mountain Village trash transfer station. And it is also supposed to be an access lane for emergency vehicles for that area of Mountain Village.
Employee housing: Employee housing is a real and important issue. The applicant’s proposal includes housing for 56 employees, and while we applaud this effort, the applicant is less forthcoming with the number of employees that the hotel will ultimately have, but does concede it is likely twice that number.
The Town Council has given the applicant another opportunity to address these and the other numerous concerns raised by the town; however, these are issues that have been raised since 2021, and the fact that they are still not resolved means that the applicant is either unwilling or unable to provide solutions.
Jackie and Alan Kadin
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.