Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19801204 IIAAOF"orlD PUDLl!olllNG CO., D~N"'lI':n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ASPEN & PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSIONS Special Joint Meeting December 4, 1980 Public Hearing on Little Annie Ski Area Note: These are summary minutes of the special joint meeting of the Aspen and Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissions' public hearing on the Little Annie Ski Area. A complete transcript of the meeting can be obtained from tapes held in the County Clerk's vault. The meeting was conti nued to December 5, 1 980. A )comp 1 ete transcri pt of that conti nuati on can be obtained from tapes held by the City Clerk. Present: County P&Z members Chairman Peter Guy, Dottie Fox, Murray Pope, JR McCarthy, Richie Cummins and Mike Otte; City P&Z members Roger Hunt, Olaf Hedstrom, Perry Harvey, Lee Pardee, Jasmine Tygre and alternate Al Blomquist. Planning Director Karen Smith opened the meeting and explained its purpose to review Little Annie for ski area expansion and gather local input on that expansion. Little Annie is in the site specific stage of the Colorado Joint Review Process which is an attempt to coordinate the issuance of permits at various levels of government. She explained the format of the meeting and commented on the range of issues. She told the members of the public present that there would be an additional thirty days for comment. Planning Staff member Joe Wells recited the documents for entry in the public record: the Land Use Code, various master plans, the site specific agreement of April 3, 1979, PUD and subdivision requirements in City Council minutes of 2/26/80, the Planning Office memo regarding conceptual approval, Resolution 83 of City Council dated 8/26/80, Resolution 84 of City Council dated 2/26/80, City Council minutes of 4/14/80, City Ordinance 12-80, documents prepared under the site specific agreement of March 1980, documents prepared by Wallace, Roberts, and Todd dated August 1980, the final report of the Fish & Widlife service of July 1980, notice of the public hearing dated 11/4/80, copy of a letter from the Planning Office to adjacent property owners dated 11/4/80, and other referral comments and letters expressing support and concern for the ski expansion; All documents are held by the Planning Office. Joe said that the application currently under consideration was filed in response to the work program which began in April 1979 following conceptual approval. The Forest Service asked Aspen City and Pitkin County to work with the necessary land use applications prior to a draft EIS. He explained why independent consultants were chosen and that Wallace, Roberts and Todd was the unanimous choice of all parties involved. The proponent presentation followed and was given by Mike Peters representing Little Annies. Mike described the history of the application and process to date. He said that Little Annie had hired consultants to study such areas as road engineering, financial analysis, etc. and had given their materials to Wallace, Roberts and Todd. He then described the project itself in terms of location and activites. Karen Smith introduced Don Brackenbush and Li z Beamus of Hall ace, Roberts and Todd. Don told the audience about the additional consul ants his firm used to speci fi ca lly analyze transportati on, mounta in capaci ty and economi cs. He pre- sented the conclusions of all their studies and noted four key issues: the need for additional skiing, transportation, economic feasibility and impacts, and environmental impacts. Regarding the issue of the need for more skiing, their analysis showed that the Aspen area is near capacity now. If;~ is to keep pace and match growth with skiier capacity, there will be a shortfall of 10,000 to 11,000 ski ers in 1990. The question then becomes where to develop and the transportation issue comes into the picture. Their conclusion was that due to Little Annie's location and auto-free concepts, it would be the best BRAOFORD rUbl.lSHING co.. DENVt:R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen & Pitkin County P&Z Commissions Special Joint Meeting - Public Hearing December 4, 1 980 Page 2 of the alternatives (l.ittle Annie or Burnt Mountain). Regarding the economic issue, the consultants' reports indicate that there would be a positive cash flow in terms of regional economics and that Little Annie would be a sound investment assuming a conservative utilization figure. Liz Beamus addressed the environmental issues.in some detail, discussing not only wildlife, air quality, water quality and other specifically environmental questions and possible mitigations but also public facility and services impacts as well. She said that existing information supports the conclusion that either there would be no significant effects from the ski area or that any effects could be mitigated with current technology. She said there are some unresolved areas of concern which are the gondola alignment and geologic hazards, soils losses due to roads, avalanche hazards, elk migrations and calving locations, increased emissions on Ute Avenue, adequate well yields, peak energy demands, and the like. Little Annie proponents are amenable to engineering and design solutions for any problems; she listed mitigations that had been discussed with Little Annies. Smith adjourned the meeting for a ten minute break. Following the break, the Planning Office gave their comments in response to the consultants' reports. Wells noted that the gondola building as conceived would be above the existing height limitation allowed and would constitute an eight foot penetration into the view plane of Independence Pass from Glory Hole Park. The proposed employee housing building would also exceed height limitations as well as current density requirements. Wells said the potential for pedestrian- vehicular conflict in the area is considerable and that the Planning Office is also concerned with impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Wells commented on the need for additional skiing, socio-economic impacts and financial questions also. See attached memo for Planning Office comments and concerns. The meeting was then turned over to the Planning and Zoning Commissions with Peter Guy chairing. Fox asked what the summer use would be. Peters thought the gondola might be in operation but beyond that, there had been no discussion. Mike Otte asked whether or not any consideration had been given to any increase in day skiiers related to energy development on the western slope and its consequent growth. Brackenbush thought perhaps an additional 10% would be added but thought they would be intercepted by the ski areas father down valley. Otte commented that day skiiers would strain services, especially transportation. Blomquist thought the east-west traffic divider should be put at the airport rather than at the Castle Creek bridge (as the consultants did) and then their numbers would be reversed and the picture would not look as good in terms of transportation. Brackenbush pointed to a chart that used such a divider which indicated that a balance in east-west traffic would be be seen. Perry Harvey questioned the parking and congestion situation in terms of the employee housing proposed. Transportation consultant Steve Lockwood talked about the parking sticker program and said that would relieve .congestion and parking problems once residents learned the program. Harvey asked if any other sites for employee housing were looked at. Peters said the site porposed appears to be the most economical. JR McCarthy asked Brackenbush about mode splits which Brackenbush explained. Pardee asked about the $18,000,000 capitol outlay for transportation solutions tied to the application and a lengthy discussion followed. Lockwood maintained that the application is not tied to a busway or any capitol improvements relating to transportation while P&Z members expressed concern tthat Little Annie pay for hidden development costs. Brackenbush said that transportation costs are more closely linked to overall growth than to Little Annie. Guy opened the meeting for public comment. Peters read a letter from Roland Parker expressing the Aspen Lodging Associations unanimous support for the ski area. Harry Truscott questioned the consultants figures and presented some of his own which indicated that the need for additional skiier capacity may not exist. Julie Hane read a letter from the Aspen Wilderness Workshop which expressed concern for wildlife, water rights, stream flows and the like. Hane added that the inevitable result of approval of the application would be an increase in de- mands for services and that local governments, due to amendments passed by the voters November 4, 1980, do not have the tax money to provi de more servi ces. BRAOFOIID PUlll.ISUlNG CO., OENVII':R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen & Pitkin County P&Z Commissions Special Joint Meeting - Public Hearing December 4, 1980 Page 3 Dave Farny responded to the Workshop letter saying that no water rights or stream flows would be affected in the Castle or Maroon Creek areas as the Workshop feared. Peters said he would specifically respond to each point in their letter. JR McCarthy asked that Truscott's information be. made a part of the record. Jon Busch recommended that his trolley cars be used to serve the ski area since they are non-polluting, have less turnaround time and longer life expectancy than buses and are a distinctive form of transportation that will encourage people to use it. Mark Skrotzki asked how new services would be paid for and what the quality of the ski experience will be like, whether the area would become a destination area or day skiier use area. Tom Wells spoke for his client Sheldon Gordon who owns property across from the proposed employee housing site. He opposed the density of the project, thought the impact on the river environment would be disastrous and added that approval of the project would set the zoning back drastically. Suzanne Resnick, resident of Waters Avenue, said that congestion is already a problem there and that in winter she can't park close to her house day or night. Farny said the parking permit program would solve that problem. Murray Pope read a letter from the Sierra Club which was entered for the record. It was a plea for more rational evaluation of ski expansion in general especially in a physically limited and ecologically sensitive valley. It proposed an advanced reservation system as a partial solution for the skiing demand problem. Peters said there are legal problems with reservation systems on public lands. Guy summarized a letter from Jerry Hewey of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association which expressed concern for congestion, security, air and noise pollution, and the number of parking spaces for employee housing, but generally thought the ski area would be good for Aspen. Nick McGrath, attorney for the Gant, commented on the security problem the area would bring the neighborhood, the poor lighting, transportation impacts and visual impacts. He asked for more detail on vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows, hours of operation, and thought the height of the gondola building excessive. Peters said that discussions with the Gant were initiated by Little Annie over a year ago and the problems are getting handled. Steve Brackett said he thought the application incomplete in many areas and listed those; they included reliance on the Rio Grande for parking, a water augu- mentation plan, plans for a discount season pass, impacts on contiguous land ownership, mineral vs. surface rights implications, and the like. He said he realized all the prOblems could be mitigated but asked what are the financial impacts to Little Annie or the taxpayers if the development proves to be a white elephant. Karen Smith said that time was up for the evening and continued the meeting to 9:00) AM December 5, 1980 in City Council Chambers. Respectfully, ~)11.&~ Ann M. Coble Chief Deputy Clerk Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder