Seasonal Lockers at Snowshed

[Bubba]

Is it just me, or does this whole deal with a ski village at snowshed need a major re-think.....???

The commercial core of the village should be built on the golf course, down near KVRE and Inn of the Six Mountains so it ties the village into the access road community. Add condos/time shares and hotels down there as well. The Town gets a town center, something it really needs, and the long term plan of building a performing arts center of some kind fits well into that kind of layout. Build ski in/out properties slopeside and bring people out of the village to the mountain via a two stage gondola that stops at Snowshed and continues on to KBL. Tear down Snowshed and Ramshead base lodges as planned and build one large building that straddles the road, just as they want to now. This plan gives the town what it needs, doesn't disrupt the mountain, eliminates a great deal of the we/they attitude seen right now and can make properties that surround the golf course into ski in/out, at least some of them anyway. The idea makes too much sense - nobody here will go for it.

Yikes....a rethink, yes, but not at the hands of Bubba.

You've been pushing this Village on the golf course thing for over a year now, and IMHO it makes very little sense. There's probably a reason why it was discussed may years ago and droped....

- The location is at the far end of all the existing residences on the access road, and only close to a few. It would not be a "town center". The only people it would be convinent for would be those living in condos there. People would still have to drive to it.

- The distance from your proposed location to the bottom of Snowshed would be around 4,000ft, with a vertical rise of 300ft. A two stage gondola to KBL would be around 7,500ft and 600 ft vert. You're talking about a loooong flat slog home to ski down there, and a $10M gondi. Riiight.

- You lose part of the golf course.

- Why would Killington or their partner want to build a village 4,000ft away from their ski area, or 7,500ft (1.5 miles!) from the base of any real skiing? Makes no sense!

- Why would Killington or their partner want to build a "town center" focused on the access road?

You're right, it's not that close to most of the current residences, but it is close to the existing businesses and makes the access road business community and the new commercial core somewhat more integrated than they will be with the ski village at Snowshed. It takes away the "we/they" aspect of the discussion to a great extent. Add in the fact that there will be residential units above the commercial space, plus hotels and more condos, etc. and there's a good deal of additional people close to the access road, within walking distance to some and good bus service to the rest.

Losing the golf course is not that big a deal. There are two golf courses in town and they both struggle. Eliminate the resort course and the town's course does much better. A winner for the town. Maybe there's enough room for a shorter 9 hole course left over? I have no idea.

Running a gondola out of there, for whatever the cost, may be cheaper than the amount of money KSRP will need to spend to upgrade the course in future years. Getting faster approval for the village and reducing the cost of holding vacant land over a longer period of time plus the avoided cost of golf course improvements pays a good chunk of the cost of the gondola. Not having to disrupt the mountain, regrade Snowshed and Ramshead, move the access road, etc. pays for the rest. A Winner for KSRP.

Even if you can't ski down to the village and have to take a gondola ride back, so what? Provide enough day services at KBL and Snowshed, improve the quality of on-mountain restaurants, and people won't want to ski home in the middle of the day. There will still be plenty of ski in/out properties along the sides of Snowshed, Ramshead and up the mountain toward KBL that those who truly want ski in/out will have that.

As for a village located at KBL, while I personally like the idea, I see potential issues there too. First is elevation - if it's above 2,500', they have a lot of additional issues to go through with permitting. Second, a village located at KBL ignores the beginner and novice that wants and needs Snowshed. Of course, the other side of that is that the KBL based skier will never go to Snowshed. Ain't gonna happen. So, somebody needs to do some economic analysis of the trade off of one skier vs. the other in yield. I bet the family/novice/beginner market yields more than the KBL skier but I might be wrong.

By the way, I attended the Planning Commission meeting tonight where there was a second "workshop" on the village plan put on by SP Land. The longer range plan for KBL is to eliminate the current access road above Snowshed, use the Vail road (upgraded of course) for access to KBL lots, and convert the current access road into a new trail from KBL down to Snowshed.

[Stormchaser]

Development of the hill above the golf course (shagback mtn?) would permit at least intemediate level skiing into a village in the golf course area... In fact one short lift up that hill would get you into needles via a pretty short ride and make everything on east mtn road to high ridge ski in/out...

[Geoff]

Is it just me, or does this whole deal with a ski village at snowshed need a major re-think.....???

The commercial core of the village should be built on the golf course, down near KVRE and Inn of the Six Mountains so it ties the village into the access road community. Add condos/time shares and hotels down there as well. The Town gets a town center, something it really needs, and the long term plan of building a performing arts center of some kind fits well into that kind of layout. Build ski in/out properties slopeside and bring people out of the village to the mountain via a two stage gondola that stops at Snowshed and continues on to KBL. Tear down Snowshed and Ramshead base lodges as planned and build one large building that straddles the road, just as they want to now. This plan gives the town what it needs, doesn't disrupt the mountain, eliminates a great deal of the we/they attitude seen right now and can make properties that surround the golf course into ski in/out, at least some of them anyway. The idea makes too much sense - nobody here will go for it.

Yikes....a rethink, yes, but not at the hands of Bubba.

You've been pushing this Village on the golf course thing for over a year now, and IMHO it makes very little sense. There's probably a reason why it was discussed may years ago and droped....

- The location is at the far end of all the existing residences on the access road, and only close to a few. It would not be a "town center". The only people it would be convinent for would be those living in condos there. People would still have to drive to it.

- The distance from your proposed location to the bottom of Snowshed would be around 4,000ft, with a vertical rise of 300ft. A two stage gondola to KBL would be around 7,500ft and 600 ft vert. You're talking about a loooong flat slog home to ski down there, and a $10M gondi. Riiight.

- You lose part of the golf course.

- Why would Killington or their partner want to build a village 4,000ft away from their ski area, or 7,500ft (1.5 miles!) from the base of any real skiing? Makes no sense!

- Why would Killington or their partner want to build a "town center" focused on the access road?

You're right, it's not that close to most of the current residences, but it is close to the existing businesses and makes the access road business community and the new commercial core somewhat more integrated than they will be with the ski village at Snowshed. It takes away the "we/they" aspect of the discussion to a great extent. Add in the fact that there will be residential units above the commercial space, plus hotels and more condos, etc. and there's a good deal of additional people close to the access road, within walking distance to some and good bus service to the rest.

Losing the golf course is not that big a deal. There are two golf courses in town and they both struggle. Eliminate the resort course and the town's course does much better. A winner for the town. Maybe there's enough room for a shorter 9 hole course left over? I have no idea.

Running a gondola out of there, for whatever the cost, may be cheaper than the amount of money KSRP will need to spend to upgrade the course in future years. Getting faster approval for the village and reducing the cost of holding vacant land over a longer period of time plus the avoided cost of golf course improvements pays a good chunk of the cost of the gondola. Not having to disrupt the mountain, regrade Snowshed and Ramshead, move the access road, etc. pays for the rest. A Winner for KSRP.

Even if you can't ski down to the village and have to take a gondola ride back, so what? Provide enough day services at KBL and Snowshed, improve the quality of on-mountain restaurants, and people won't want to ski home in the middle of the day. There will still be plenty of ski in/out properties along the sides of Snowshed, Ramshead and up the mountain toward KBL that those who truly want ski in/out will have that.

As for a village located at KBL, while I personally like the idea, I see potential issues there too. First is elevation - if it's above 2,500', they have a lot of additional issues to go through with permitting. Second, a village located at KBL ignores the beginner and novice that wants and needs Snowshed. Of course, the other side of that is that the KBL based skier will never go to Snowshed. Ain't gonna happen. So, somebody needs to do some economic analysis of the trade off of one skier vs. the other in yield. I bet the family/novice/beginner market yields more than the KBL skier but I might be wrong.

By the way, I attended the Planning Commission meeting tonight where there was a second "workshop" on the village plan put on by SP Land. The longer range plan for KBL is to eliminate the current access road above Snowshed, use the Vail road (upgraded of course) for access to KBL lots, and convert the current access road into a new trail from KBL down to Snowshed.

The problem with developing at KBL beyond the obvious Act 250 issues at that elevation is that SP Land does not own that property.

They own land just below the Superstar Quad and I think the development belongs on both sides of Snowshed leaving the road and parking lots pretty much intact. You'd have something along the lines of Snowmass and Fanny Hill with condos lining the bunny slope. The commercial space would be on short spurs between the access road and Snowshed near where the compressors live now. I'd put the anchor hotel as close as possible to the Superstar Quad. I'd pour my money into tearing down the KBL and constructing a facility appropriate to the anchor hotel immediately below Superstar. That will always be the center of the resort so that is the first base lodge that needs replacing. In a second phase of development after you used up Snowshed, you would put hotels and condos around the Snowdon Quad. In the mean time, they can blow in roads and toss up single family trophy homes between Snowdon and Rams Head where they own the land. That keeps the high density stuff concentrated around the Snowshed trail with lower density sprawl fairly invisible.

[spanky]

For reference for the conversation...


(Click for larger image)

[Geoff]

For reference for the conversation...


(Click for larger image)

Referencing that map, I'd put my dense condos and commercial space in what they're showing as single family homes between the Superstar quad and where they are proposing to construct a concrete deck over the access road for a snow beach'. The housing would be on the Snowshed slope. The commercial space would be behind it. The main anchor hotel would be where they are showing single family homes closest to the Superstar lift. You'd have no disruption of the existing parking lots. You wouldn't need to shrink any of the parking lots. I'd probably put the 'village square' where they were originally planning to relocate the Snowshed parking lot where the ski school has always assembled their classes between the Snowshed doubles and the Access Road. Basically, you'd have your main commercial space right above the snow beach. You can build everything like Whistler mandates so the buildings are built on concrete decks with parking under.

[SnoBrdr]

The locker thing seems kinda weird to me, but then I think I spent about the same money for a parking pass that only works weekends and holidays.

I also never thought of Snowshed as "the" place to start your day.

We use Snowshed all the time as that's where the shuttle drops us off.

Bit of a pain at times but much better than having to drive anywhere.

[4-mile]

As for a village located at KBL, while I personally like the idea, I see potential issues there too. First is elevation - if it's above 2,500', they have a lot of additional issues to go through with permitting. Second, a village located at KBL ignores the beginner and novice that wants and needs Snowshed. Of course, the other side of that is that the KBL based skier will never go to Snowshed. Ain't gonna happen. So, somebody needs to do some economic analysis of the trade off of one skier vs. the other in yield. I bet the family/novice/beginner market yields more than the KBL skier but I might be wrong.

The elevation and permitting issues would definitely hinder this location, but with proper planning I don't think it would be disconnected from the beginner skier's needs. If the village were to wrap from the current KBL location around the Superstar lift it would abut the Highlander / Idler / Learning Slope route integral to Snowshed. Obviously Highlander would need to be wider and emphasized more in this instance, but I believe it could work to meet the needs of both beginner and advanced skiers.

[sLoPeS]

We use Snowshed all the time as that's where the shuttle drops us off.

Bit of a pain at times but much better than having to drive anywhere.

thanks for helping spread out the crowds!