Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19751202 Jack Jenkins moved that the Little Annie Ski Basin be moved to the beginning of the meetinc and waived the approval of any minutes. Item four was moved to Item two, upon general con- sensus. Bill Kane, of the Planning Office, had requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission meet with City Council so that they could hear the presentation on the proposed Little Annie Ski Basin. Obviously, the area is not in the City Limits, so it was explained how the City was involved in the project. October 15, 1975, the initial application was made by the Little Annie Ski corporation, Dave Farney representing. The review process was laid out as to procedures by Tom Evans and Tom Bell at a meeting on October 30, 1975, the District Rangers of the Forest Service. November 13, 1975, a memorandum was sent out with an outline 6f the pints duscussed at that meeting. This memo further outlined the meeting: requested by the State and the Forest Service. The general requirment laid out by the For~ st Service in the way of City and County review of hte proposal, stated that they would not give the application consideration until they had in their hands, a Resolution on the part of the City and the County supporting the ski area, at least in the preliminary stage. This is to assure adequate citizen input on behalf of the ski area. There is nothing contained in either of the zoning codes as to the City and County criteria for subjects of this nature. This is a pretty tough political decision. Is what you are going to see essentially with your goals and objectives? The purpose of the aforementioned memo was to defer any rumors and misunderstandings regarding the standpoint of the planning and zoning, and what the proposals were in regard to the ski area. This was circulated prior to this meeting so that questions could be reasonably formed in advance, with a little understanding of the exact proposal. Presentation Dave Farney began the presentation by showing the members the maps of the proposed ski are~ in relation to the already existing ski areas and the expert runs as compared to those on the other Aspen area mountains. Snow Engineering had done a preliminary report on behalf of the proposed ski area, which looked good on a five year pay off basis, and if it was on a ten year basis, would look even better. The feasibility of building the lifts in this area was discussed, Tony Sauter who is the president of Ribett Tramway Company has walked over the total mountain with his son, taking notes, and there has been a great deal of study on this aspect. The reasons for even considering the Little'Annie Ski Basin were listed by Dave Farney as being 1. An alternative to other proposed ski area expansions, 2. Betterment of the overloaded west moving transportation problems of the City, 3. Some responsible competition for the existing Ski Corporations, 4. Way of taking care of the over-building of the accomodations and residential homes in this area that exists at this point, 5. Opportunity ~o open high altitude crosscrountry skiing and access to ths tops of mountains for non skiers by use of the gondola system, 6. To open an area close tq town for the whole family, expert and beginner, 7. For summer use, taking some of the pressure off the Maroon Bells wilderness area, allowing people to go hiking during the day and the type of summer destination resort that does not require auto transportation. The proposed plan is for ~wo gondolas, no parking, some employee housing at the ski area for the winter and summer employees. Little Annie could help set the presedence for other ski area development, enclosing voluntary tax and lift revenues to help the City and County with transportation problems, ski season would be longer and better, without the need to ski to the bottom. Little Annie could help distribute the skiers over a wider and longer period of time rather than have a rash and overcrowding at Christmas time. The prospects are limitless and carry on through the summer season. For the summer tourists there would be bike trails, hiking, etc. The fact that Little Annie will be able to expand at the time when Aspen grows ~o meet that need was pointed out by Dave Farney. The growth of the city was evaluated as being tremendous and Mr. Farney feels that Little Annie will help Aspen mee~ the growth requirments. Dave Farney further went on to show the slides of proposed Little Annie Ski Area. He stated that a snow cat would be available up there this winter and asked interested parties to come up and see what the area is all about. The similarity to the back bowls of Vail was pointed out, with the exception that if an accident happens on this back side, First Aid vehicles will be down below on the radio system. The injured person can be brought all the way down the road right down the Castle Creek road to the hospital. On the other side, the accident can be treated at the top and the victim brought all the way down in the gondola, which is better than coming down in the toboggan down Ajax. Dave Farney further pointed out the advantages of the lighting on Little Annie as compared to Ajax. Riding down from the Little Annie side in the gondola eliminates the problem of coming down to the base in the poor light at the end of the day. The village site was pointed out, with the access from the tow, and the accessability of the Little Annie ski side from the village. This is completley protected by trees. Ron Shore has inspected this area for testing solar heating sources as there is little wind problem. Once this area is used for skiing, this land cannot be touched for sale by the Willoughbys and mining interests. The nature conservacy is highly pointed out as being very protected and kept free of any subdivisions and housing being built on this area. Jim Smith did the background on the base area. The gondola buildings would be behind the spruce trees and not visable from the highway. The ski area would not interfere with the elk calving area, which is one ridge over, which is substantiated by the Forest Service. The staging area at the base is pointed out, for transportation access to the mountain. Mayor Standley, on behalf of Snow Engineering, continued the presentation. Snow Engineerin~ was consulted due to the facts that 1. They had done a master plan a number of years ago on the Little Annie Basin plan 2. The support of the people is needed, and the Mayor's ~L public position was felt ~o give a view of both sides of the plan. Snow Engineering has basically worked for the prospect of ski area development on a very objective basis. Mayor' Standley stated that back in June, ~wo members of their office and himself spent a week walking around Little Annie area, both sides from top to bottom looking for 1. General grading of the slopes to find out how much each slope contains, consistency in grading 2. Whether lift lines could be engineered that would serve the areas without a lot of short inter-tie lifts and complicated catwalks. All these factors came out positive. Then the topographic map was consulted to lay out a preliminary lay-out, which took into account the basic skier profile which is a bell shape curve. Based on the other ski areas in this area, this scheme comes up with the most closely balanced and complimentary terrain developed in the valley. The unusual geological strains were then considered. This came up negative in the respect of ground water, unstable soil or ledglng and various other geologic problems. A1 Whitaker was taken over the area to inspect the impact of this area on the wildlife, such as elk calving grounds, to which he reported negatively. There appears to be no intereference in that respect. The capital cost analysis of the project was then done by the Snow Engineering group. The lift lay out was sent to Lift Engineers that would send in the bid on installing the lifts. Two bids appeared to have the greates liability, from those the remaining of the capital cost was deduced. The Phase I capital cost was in an excess of 8 million dollars, including utilities, as well as snow groom equ±pment, the lodge up on top, the access road and all those ±tems, w±th the except±on of the employee hous±ng ±n terms of buT±rig lodg±ng ±n town, nor extending the ra±lroad if this were a viable system These are things that can be added at a future date to the original plan. The area does have viability, it would be a marginal to an unacceptable ski area from the economic point of view if it weren't established in an established ski corridor such as Pitkin County. It wouldn't work in Telluride or Rifle, or Alamosa, because of the extreme cost. This also takes into account the ability to run the area in the summer such as Vail or Jackson Hole. There is quite a bit that can accrue during the summer if it is run properly. The gondola obviously is a good idea and major attraction which 1. Lets you extend your season both earlier and later, 2. Lets you operate a longer day, because you can start your lifts at 8 or 8:30 in the morning and get people up the mountain, so that you can assure poeple having access to the mountain. The over- crowding is not a problem on Little Annie, it is a problem on Aspen Mountain, and the Ski Corp. will tell you it is over-lifted. They have too much dynamic capacity and not enough static capacity, skier per acre density. Dynamic capacity is the uphill lift capacity, which means they have too much lift capacity and not enough terrain. Little Annie has jus the opposite problem. All the static capacity it would want, it coudl accomodate 15,000 skiers comfortably up on that ridge, the problem is that you can't get 15,000 skiers up there based on lift figurations, and based on economic sense to justify this. Therefore, if you run your lifts earlier, you can get the locals up early, say from 8-9:30 and then have them not be able to ride until 11:00 in terms of the gondQla This way your season pass skier could be moved up there when he is not competing with the tourast skier to get up on the mountaan. The reason for the double gondola is so that there is redundancy in the system. The area is designed not ~o be able to ski down below the mid point. From there down you have to take the gondola. You can transport 3,100 people an 3½ hours of operation. There would also be two sources of power in the system. In reference to break down, Vail has, an their entire operation, had the longest break down of twenty five minutes. The Little Annie side is additionally designed as a single, double chair dealing with basically intermediate and expert sking on that side. At some point the expansion could be achieved by putting in a double, double chair or another set of hangers on the same power using a different source and add another 1,200 capaclty to the mountain. There is enough terrain to accomodate 3 chair lifts, but is deisgned for only 1 chair lift. Based on this design and the economic and market analysis, Snow Enganeering came up with a guarded recommend of a successful operation being run here, depending on what type of financing was put together and the need the community felt for the area. The growth factor and skier beds to skier capacity is not out o~ line. Mayor Stacy went on to point out the advantages of the area in reference to the mass trans~ system and the subject of the traffic, and how this area would not add to the problem. This is one of the positive points of the proposed site. The area is not a site specific growth inducer, it is a general area growth inducer, the difference being, with no development being allowed at the bottom of the area, Dave Farney as working on some way to insure that growth will not take place on the North Star Ranch. This should be one pre- requisite ~o the development of the area, that that land be tied up so that development dews not make it a Destination Resort or contribute to the reason for its existence. Mayo~ Standley stated that anyone with more specific questions should check out a copy of the report on which this presentation was based. Jack Jenkins presented a questaon regarding the double lift going up, and felt it was a Questions maDor objection by Bill Kane in his original presentation about getting off the mountain. Bill did state that he had raised several questions about accessability and one was regarding McFarlin Gulch, won'5 there be certain skiers that will want to use McFarlin Gulch ~o get down at night. This was answered that there would be rocks too large to permit this. The question of avalanche control was brought up and was answered that the Ski Patrol would be responsible for the control of that part on the mountain. The questio of what happens when the gondolas break down was proposed. This was answered with the Fact that there is bakc up sources of power. The engines running the gondolas are huge diesel engines. The question further went on regarding the assurance by the company regarding a Season Pass. If this was included as a condition, then of course there would have to be some type of contractual assurance. The idea was discussed, and this would have to be contractual obligation by the Developer in his proposal. Sandy Stuller, City Attorney felt that the Developer would have a very difficult time assurang this. Dave Farney did not feel it would be impossible. He did agree to the suggestion of the City Council member and the County Commissioner being on the board. The question was asked by Councilman DeGregorio, of the 268,000 skier visits, has any study been given to the per centage of those skiers who will already be local people, or how many people will be coming to town. Mayor Standley stated that the figures were based on the 7% growth rate, showing how many additional skier visits are projected at 7% skier visit growth rate. The general breakdown of local skiers to tourist skiers in destination ski areas is about 80-20. Nina Johnston asked what percentage of the people were on a package deal. Nina included that people who came here on a package deal usually had a pass through the Ski Corp. Dave answered that Highlands and the Corp. did not have a package, and the way the Highlands got around this was they gave a five day pass good only on their mountain. It was interjected by Pete DeGregorio that the statistic they were trying to reach was what percentage of people would be coming here basically because of the Little Annie ski area? There was not way to tell this. There was the concern that this would create more over-crowding and the little bed capacity zoned in the area would be further endangered. The concern over theorigan of the water and utilities whether it will come from the City and what type of pressure will this put on service to the residents. It doesn't, was the reply from Dave Farney. The water is onsite and the electric would come from the line that goes up to the Iron Mine. Holy Cross was consulted about providing the electric service, and it can be provided from this line where it crosses the Little Annie road. The water plants would also be onsite. The fact that there is a lack of parking was the concern of Mr. Jenkins, because if the tourist or skisr is not able to park at that mountain, do they take up all the available parking in town? The reply from Farney was that if the only access to the mountain is mass transit, then the tourist, hopefully, will not be usang his car. Every bus that travels to the West in the morning is full and back to the East is empty. So, there is a whole fleet of empty buses that are accessible and convenient for the use of the Little Annie Skier. This was not readily accepted by the Council Members. The primary concern of most of the Council Members was the growth rate and the impact on the area by the new ski area, encouragang more people that they feel we really could not handle comfortably. The downzoning eliminated to a great degree the pressure from the tourist bed situation, but has not eliminated the problem entirely. The fact that there could be no argument about the growth rate was generally accepted, but the fact that we may be starting our growth level to the East rather than Centrally, some level of growth is inevitable was indicated by Councilman De Gregorio. Farney further used the Airport Master Plan as comparison, projections being: 1980, 13,353 skiers per average day, with 21,000 residential population and: 1985, 24,700 skiers per average day, 28,100 resident population: 1990, 30,035 skiers per average day, and 37,600 resident population: 1995, 36,561 skiers per average day and 50,300 resident oppulation. Farney further pointed out that the transportation system must be improved to the point that it can be relied on to transport and help with the tourist overflow. City Manager Mahoney questioned whether they had an adjusted set of figures as to what and how quickly growth in this area will occur. Jack Jenkins further voiced his concern as to when the building would occur. If the administration is directed in a momentum toward curbing the growth rate while trying to develop rail systems and transportation systems and sewage plants, and bring them up together, and if not tightly controlled, it becomes a hodgepodge rather than a conducive plan. In the present zoning we are dealing with 14,000 permanent population, and Farney questioned what the population would be if it was currently built to the full zoning capacity. He was asking what the capacity is and how many skiers that would produce. Bill Kane pointed out that at the time, as pointed out in Mayor Standley's report, we have an excessive number of beds rightnow, 20,000 tourist beds in the Aspen tourist complex and 9,500 permanent resident bed spaces for a total sleeping capacity of 29,000; whereas the total mountain capacity is now around 20,500; 9,500 at Snowmass, 4,000 at Highlands, and 3,000 at Ajax. During the peak season all possible bed spaces are.occupied. What the concern is that what if 2,00 or 4.000 additional skier capacity mountain is introduced into the system whether that doesn't present ample opportunity for someone to push for zoning changes and invest more money in legal zoning suits such as in Snowmass and build a 2,000 tourist dwelling to accommodate the new ski area. He anticipates at least a 20% increase an zoning based on undeveloped lots around the Aspen area. Farney countered this with the statement that actually there are 33,000 beds avaialble. He did not feel that I the area would introuduce more people than could actually be handled. Mike Otte questionedi the policy of ski areas, that to open a new ski area, shouldn't the existing areas be fully developed. Highlands is barely passed the halfway mark in the development, Snowmass still has a long way to go into their development and building capacity. The entire Owl Creek area has not been completed. Farney stated that the Forest Service does not have a definite restriction on this basis, the Ski Corp has siad that they will only build as they get an expansion bid, so to get expansions you have to get a bid. It was brought up that there is currently a request from Highlands for a 3 to 4,~00 skier day increase capacity with a series of dead end lifts from the Castle Creek side to the top, and in addition to that, it is understood from the Forest Service that another 5,000 skier day capacity increase as already permitted for Snowmass. They already have substantial expansions permitted under their permits. Highlands is arguing that lifts up the Castle Creek as far as the T-Lazy 7 was part of their initial applicataon. This application is currently resting in the Planning and Zoning office as stated by Bill Kane. A citizen stated ~hat in reference to the excess bed capacity, whereas 20% of the people that come into town come to ski, 20% of the bed capacity in here still does not accommodate the full tourist influx. He stated that working lI~ a Hotelr he can see the pressure, the ARI has announced that a~ of two months a~o they were 60% ahead of last year. So there is no excess bed capacity. The question was further presented by this citizen as to the sewage, and Farney answered that this would also be onsite. The citizen further argued about the Airport~and H~spital, as to the fact that everyone here either voted for or gave a stand against the brand new Airport and the Hospital. These things were needed to accommodate the already overflowing tourist business. They were not necessarily designed to handle an influx of people brought in by a new ski area, and wouldn't this make them obsolete sooner? The buildout figures had no consideration for the new area was incom- plete he felt. Jack Jenkins stated that there are enough latent one unit per lot to meet the requirements for the airport and hospital that has been built. The fact that the subdivided land with one house on it will create this kind of growth. Nina interjected into this conversation a question regarding the economic feasibility of this plan and Larry Simmons was asked about this aspect of the plan. He stated that he was out of town when the initial proposal was made, and the conomic feasibility report was obtained for the. purposes of research. He stated that what was happening in that report was that there was an element of debt that was apparently being assumed to be covered by depreciation. This would release half a million or more each year for paying off this debt. Potentially, there will be four million dollars in debt that will not be covered. That has now come out on the Associated Press, for which he extended his apologies. This was an error. Yet, ~ to a certain extent the whole concept started out with two strikes against them. He prese-! nted some suggestions for making the proposal a little more attractive to the people and possibly obtain more support. Ultimately, the economic feasibility will be one of the consideratIons. Nina further asked if Mike Otte felt it looked economically feasible from the City's standpoint. Larry continued with his presentation and his concern with the major development and the control of the economical interest. Outside interests purchasing the area and the outside capital idea was presented as a risk. From the balancing stand- point, it will blance the bed capacity. It also stated it would tend to balance the relationship between local skiers and tourist skiers and thereby allow for the season pass. The inbalance comes with the housing for the locals. There is an inbalance for the locals living downvalley and commute, the summer winter differential is also out of balance. This occurs each time a new ski area takes place. If Little Ann~es is allowed to develop, will it push us further away from equilibrum? To what extent as it a growth generator. In regard to this, the Mall, the Rio Grande, are also growth generators, but there ~s a difference an an active and a reactive growth generator. There is also a difference in the short run and long run growth factor. The five year growth percentage will oppose the ten year growth factor. Local zoning will be built out unless we have some other element. We would run into some problems trying to build housing to accommodate the additional people and the considerations should also include~the fact that with the traffic problems, mabye Little Annies would eliminate more traffic than it would create, we really don't know, but it has to be considered. There are changes happening here that include the various people in the outside business world functioning here and living elsewhere. The use of the land and the whole impact on the land must be considered i.e, there were none of us here in May, whereas now we have a very large local population and the whole pressur is for local facilities, markets transportation systems Jack Jenkins reiterated the difference in the demands placed upon the area between the locals and the tourists. Michael Behrendt stated that he had read the Little Annie report' at the request of Michael Kinsley, County Commissioner, and he wanted a very annalitical answer as to whether it is bad or good. There is obviously some trade offs that will have to be made. Everyone wants skiing, the skiing up there is really good but the growth implications you are going to ge5 from the skiing and the attraction of more locals with the guarantee of a locals pass policy. He agreed with Jack that there are a great deal of changes within the local community that must be taken into consideration, such as more poeple livng in Basalt and working in Aspen. He percives higher rents without government intervention and possibly even with it. When and if this proposal does get the "go" sign, it had better be per- fected enough to hold up to some pretty strong opposition, not just a "break even" situation. At the time that Dave goes to the capital markets he will undergo some pretty close scrutinity. They will want specafic cash flow projections and it will be helpful to have that information fo~ us, at least an a preliminary sense. As a P & Z member, I wnat to know if they will be able to come back to us in the future requesting ~ourist facilities either on this mountain or on Castle treek to encourage the flow of people? Mayor Standley answered that there was no way to expect the developers to front $50,000 on the projected cash flow they want, and there is no assurance or interest on the par~ oJ the local community of having his pro~ect materialized. Asking Dave Farney to develop that type of information for an additional $40,000 is not feasible. Snow Engineering does that, and if you want that type of information you could get it ~rom them. Bill Kane answered to the question of the concern over the preliminary "go" to the ski area proposal.. The indfvidual proposing the action must come back and the whole thing is a 13 step process. The City County reviews are numerous and the technical reviews are also numerous and then joint findings would be issued by the Fores~ Service. The permit applications are ~lso numerous. Jenifer asked what money markets were mentioned before and what they were. She wanted to know if public shares in the 10 million dollars would be issued. Dave Farney stated lift companies will finance 80%. Tkey would like to sell stock and keep it locally owned. If they can come up with 1.5 million, the tramway company will finance 80%. The construction costs of 2 million will be handled the same way. Brian Goodheim felt that one problem was that the ski area would not pay for the 4.7 million needed to put in the lifts, and that there would be a request for more touris~ beds, and then a chain reaction problem from there. Michael Behrendt asked what the pled~ was to Dave in terms of putting in the public transportation. Dave replied that he told the County Commissioners last spring tha~ if they would allo us to put in the mile and a quarter test drive, we would put in a~ our expense, the road back and they could run the ~rain all winter, but they didn't take me up on this. Michael asked if he was correct that the Little Annie developers w~udl hold the cost Of putting in the train from the Eas~ terminal access, after initial capitalization. If this ski area failed, would the public sector then be responsible for putting inthe transportation. Dave replied that there was no reason the transportation couldn't be built even before the ski area goes up. The train as economical for running people back and forth, it makes sense. If we can't use the train, we'll use the bus. Mike Otte replied to the whole train of questions that at this point what they were looki] at was something very general. Jenifer interjected tha~ She would like to have mere information on the capitalization aspect, as she did not feel this had adequately been covered. Michael stated that his prime concern was the growth. Just because they don't let Dave have his project they aren't going to stop growth. There is a growing part of our economy that is not based on tourists. That part of the economy tends to increase also, the number of local skiers are increasing. Mayor Standley commented at this point ~he sesponse within the city was the concept of a 3,100 ski area on the East are, is it distainful, or is it acceptable under certain conditions, and if so, what are those conditions. Find out what those conditions are and let Dave respond from there. Jack Jenkins asked if it was possible ~o go around the table to each member and find the~ opinion, so that they could have some indication before going into a study session. Bill Kane stated that he felt the P & Z in a separate action, possibly in resolution form, reccommend that City Council take action on that. t~is was agreed upon. Bill Kane asked if there were any questions, whether they should conduct further research, and Jack state~ this could be done at the next meeting. Brian Goodheim stated that he wanted Dave to understand that he was not in an adversary position with Dave, but needs more definitive information on the employee housing and in regard to the cash flow projection. Dave replied that he felt that enough people had already expressed an interes~ in buying stock that this was a very good prospect. The meeting then proceeded to the next item on the Agenda. The tame was 7:10 p.m.