The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.res.123.1991 j. .."��'-''. ' . -'ti�,�r'C . �+r�ire�. !1`'�Y t.� . � v { . _ 1 ��'� ��.s' �.n r �.ir �1�+�� , S r�. + s� �� .,�, �� . ' ` .'��'S��i+��, ; �l .'v .: . � .�.� h � � � �✓ � � r i � 1 �� rt` �� .. � � l,p,`. � �4- i�'� "M'r' •�7flf �•. (�7 : ' } '�x,.i wy. �� 4�: r . ,�d. � . .. •.i�A"!`�' l�..tlk' '1.:,�•tris•�f�:L�:E.J2v1'�.,r. ..,� ��{ , _��.:'�Ii?'y�� .�.�c�... � Y ..a's• u�'+..['A��»�.6_. . f .,kY'q, i�.. ,s� v.,,'. •�,. � i RESOLIITION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FORWARDING R$COMFiENDATIONB TO THB TOAN OF BNOWMA88 VILLAGE REGARDING TH8 PROPOBED • SNOpMA88 SRI AREA BXPANSION AND IMPRODEMENT APPLICATION Resolution No. 91-� _ Ahereas, on the 2nd day of August, 1984, the Town of i • Snowmass Village, hereinafter referred to as the ��Town", and the County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement, hereinafter • ._, referred to as the '�IGA"; and � Whezeas, the IGA set forth a joint review process between the parties for either the future development of the Burnt Mountain . portion of the Snowmass Ski area, or the approval of development proposals on the Baldy Mountain portion of the ski area which ;`r;�.; result in significant increases in skier capacity; and .�Y c4;y� Whereas, the IGA acknowledqed the need for coordinated � and cooperative planning and decision making with respect to such _. development between the County and the Town, as well as established evaluation, design and mitigatioh standards for both direct and indirect on-site and off-site impacts of such development; and .�r;�_. whereas, the Aspen Skiing Company has submitted an application to the Town which triggers joint zeview pursuant to the ., IGA; and . �.'t��,`.t; Whereas, the IGA set forth an agreement whereby the County is entitled to participate in the review of above described ,. � proposals to the same extent as the Town Council, as provided in the IGA, with the exception of voting powers on approval; • ':``'t'`�"� Nhel'eaS� the ZGA e , xpressly provides the County an :': " adequate opportunity to evaluate off-site impacts, to make findings ��;;.�� related to such impacts and submit to the Town a list of binding 1��?`�'3 conditions for miti ation of those im acts• and ;;aS ,:4 9 P . ;�f��,,y Ahereas, The Board of County Commissioners has - ,:<� participated in worksessions and public hearings on the application - jointly with the Town and has reviewed the application and evidence - ` ;� submitted regarding said application; and ` •5.�:�j _:.{ �,;::� Whareas, the Board understands that the improvements '�"�:�' ' proposed for the gondola, Upper Burnt Mountain and East Village .' ' (including a base facility, detachable quad li£t and parking lot) are being considered £or Conceptual Review only, under the _ = provisions of the Town's Land Use Code; and i '+,{:ti'.. ; ="'=%t` Whereas, the Conceptual Review process is for the _='==�,�..i purpose of determining in concept whether a project is appropriate ,:�,"': ..;"s:�� ;-xx�^'�� . r;�,s.� r�� .� �� . �. � , _. .I.`.'%'. . ,�.;,. .r., ., , ._:.: . . .. � . .. .. ,. ._ ..�, _ . . '. 4e#�l�•' 7; , . . :. . . ... . �: . . . .. . ... .. ...-�,� ,� ---- r r�� `' .. i �� . . . . . . ' . .. i .. y � � .. . - ' . `�c'�y�� . . ��"��.�� . ' . � 1 . . i"!�;- ' ��,�"�';;�` � _ � , �'�_ `. �r. �r,_�. � �¢',iia�..c:'.".;.,,, �f�,, . �� ,�g ' r('�p. :.*!..y. �..:�� `. � ! . . .. 'J. . � .. . . . .. � �s.J� 3 t ..� ..t t - . � 7F ��1 � �.� ij j��y.y`i 1:,k�M .. > � ;p� 4 ,. � � �� . v'�#'`{t�'�,��+r,C�' `�i�� t 0.i^r�.n��"y� '.��.r 7'�7��ki'F :. � .t ��fS��"�}'- wy� k tr �, t ��'�t��`�S��k " y�}�3kY,',� �y`�}{"�`+�� ..S'h�� "�F� e ��3�i l � V 1�� f�µf��(,�1�� ; �� .j� �.''� � .. . "w'�`�'4'��'��j8.y �� a !RS .�zt �f .: ,�..,,,F � a ��Ii��l l{�I�'t�` 9re+� :;,e1+�µ�.A: �.°r.`�x.'"`+n..'..i�k�`�"��'n ( �i ,�d f r�f 9 r. ya��, i:'. U�4�-:, k,�!'�!�'�� a �. �.� M�`.�.��t1�-�<,.-.^-',��, i. yL 1-' for the community, and if approved identifying issues of concern _. to be zeviewed in detail during the Final Review process; and ;.'.r , whereas, the improvements proposed within the existing �` ,�-�. developed area of Baldy Mountain are being considered an Amendment � �� to the existing SPA under the provisions of the Town's Land Use � Code, and therefore recommendations for binding mitigation measures � are appropriate at this time. � I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board � I . of County Commissioners: ; I. In regards to that portion of the application considered by the �;,; Town as an Amendment to the existing SPA, excluding the gondola, , the Board of County Commissioners adopts the following findings: A. The Amendment to the SPA, with appropriate mitigation, is consistent with the provisions of the County Land Use Code and the evaluation standards for County review as outlined in Section Four of the IGA. Specifically, the project will have ' minimal off-site impacts to the County's road system, housing � " inventory, surrounding County neighborhoods, parking availability, the existing mass transit system, the airport, - cosnmunity public service and the qoal of community balance. ' ' B. The Board hereby finds that the snowmaking aspect of the f. � proposed project has the poten�ial to adversely affect the quantity, quality, or accessibility of water resources; �� including the loss of minimum stream flows in Snowmass Creek, - and potentially destruction of fisheries. This is directly in conflict with the provisions of Section Three, paragraph � j 10 of the IGA. County Land Use policy 2-22 and standards for compliance with this policy, Section 5-107 of the Land Use i ' Code, also calls for the preservation and protection of water �: resources. Moreover, the 1978 Intergovernmental Agreement , between the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, the Snowmass Corporation, and Pitkin County recognized that the minimum stream flow for Snowmass Creek is 12 CFS, and that all , _ other sources of supply should be utilized whenever diversions �' would cause the flow of Snowmass Creek to fall below such • minimum stream flow. To implement County policy, the code " speciYically requires a finding that a project will not cause �'� a reduction in natural stream flows below the minimum , . acceptable flow (as determined by the Colorado Water ;� , � Conservation Board), nor a further reduction in the f2ow of f� a natural stream if the flow is already below the minimum acceptable flow. In order to approve this aspect of the ..'� , project, the Board finds that it is necessary to condition "� approval of the project such that minimum stream flows "� � (defined as 12 CFS) are not jeopardized. � 2 i''. 1 .. .F.'. f � �� x��,., , �.k'�3.. �.:�<.. . " ' . :4';�'3'.�'ti:� , . �PL.. i�:�%^ . .��'� '�F�{'e . . . � -�9��'��t. . . 3. � •:��: .��iZ:. ' �€f�1 w�"� , �. � �� 4„�. i�NR'• �, �� ?'�-`� , . . -. � � . . .t,: . . . . , . . . � . . ... �-. . ` . � : - ! �i��LL �t� r `�6�� q�>x b�. � x1l.4p �`v r �.. +Z.� �:;f i �r� �y 'c��_'S�Q� � ar r x'�`.�s�_.ic"S ^{,�. ' i�`1`�'t!�'�`f f.." ,�;��'' 4! � f.t w s�uw;: �i� t - ; .:1� Qi i �y!. � t�� 4 + �.. ��'"' > . . .s �v� -( u��..w ti`a r - � . .'�`��h?n« *l3�d�:��19��,.'�',r. .e:..' ,. �`` � a..�"�,- •�t� ; ...�FEA'��+�Y",'�"'r�;-F";� l:�e�.,ti' f . . b .� • • ' � - . . �� :.. - II. Tn regards to all remaininq elements of the Aspen Skiing " - Company application, the Board adopts the following findings: :•Y•�° A. The gondola and Upper Burnt Mountain ski trails may not, in concept, present obvious conflicts with the policies of the ��{` � Land Use Code or provisions of the IGA. These improvements, however, do raise concerns including but not necessarily limited to z.=r-«�,r employee housing impacts, traffic and + impacts to area roadways (including Brush Creek, Owl Creek and Highway 82), impacts on long and short term parking and day skier access, impacts on Mass Transit services and wildlife. ' Through further analysis and presentation on project details � t which address these issue areas, the County will better be ! able to assess consistency with the provisions of the IGA, and �:�. ! identify potential off-site impacts and appropriate mitigation ` measures to addrass these concerns. The Board believes that � Construction of a gondola at Base Village may provide the most appropriate location of a second major portal to the ski area, and is consistent with maintaining development within existing areas. ,� B. The Board finds that, in concept, the East Village base area, ' ��: parking lot, ski lift and trail system are uriacceptable and inconsistent with the provisions of the IGA. These aspects 1 of the project proposal present obvious conflicts with !�+ � . ., policies of the Land Use Code. Specifically, the Board finds, � relative to this aspect of the proposal, as follows: �i � 1. County Land Use Code Section 5-404.2(c) states, "Calving � , areas shall be left in their present natural state without further development." Construction of a ski lift and major '' vegetation removal for trail construction has been defined ! '�, as development by the County pursuant to the Land Use Code. N ;j Proposed improvements clearly fall within identified calving ( areas as mapped by the Division of Wildlife. Moreover, �` = examination of impacts and appropriate mitigation measures '� ; regarding nearby e1k and deer migration corridors must be � ' + examined. � �. 2. Section Four paragraph a. of the IGA requires the County �" ; to evaluate the development in relationship to other proposed developments within the County, including without limitation �+: East Village. Moreover, the Town Land Use Code calls for the comprehensive planninq of the East Village parcels as a ' Planned Unit Development. The off-site impacts to Pitkin ,i � � County from this proposal can only be fully understood upon r �� _� examination of the East Village PUD. The level of commercial ,� and/or residential development surrounding the ski area base t and lift system will critically aPfect transportation patterns - and wildlife impacts. The development of a ski area base � ,� facility in conjunction with a new residential/commercial core �� ' ::� 3 i-�. �: i+ � � —�� ...�,�.::. �.,-�..� :-.. � .......� � � �� - .. .. . . � � . .. . . . . . . . � � � � . i��:��,''` - • aSks'{'.i�� - ' � . ,��; t :'�'��s3-�.-'✓ .6y°�'��6�_.l`.'. i ,,k��. ��:. . ,-�1..�,�� ' � x �, , �;:,� • �. rV�->;. :r�:•,::. _ �_. �.. .��.�...�..m. .., ..�....�.....�. .: �'�"'� � �. :.~,�'� ° .4 ��IFr ..h ,+ + .. -. �. .i, v pa y � v• � J r'i.. . t�� !�"Li)'.1y�.. � ..� �.�.i '�� ,.� �1�7 .-��,' '� v4�.1( f ..� � � � �. -y a s„f �c , � ,Yl{. i � f��a v�'':�Y �� i:;- �9��i��l r, ,.w ��,;,� [_ � .��u�,. ' ��e'�:��. � 1;�r t ° ��f�i . . . � _. . . �. ... .-.�� i� . .. . _ . . .. . .. . '.�� .. '9 . are intricately linked. In order for the County to fulfill . its obliqation of forwarding conditions related to off-site . impacts, the County finds that the Burnt Mountain/East Village - base proposal must be examined concurrently with the entire - East Village PUD. This is consistent with the TOSV Land Use • Code. This is the only means to ensure that the ski area related impacts are accurately examined and mitigated. �' • 3. The proposal fails to address or include any mass transit � component, or other means of alternative transportation to the automobile. The concept of promoting and facilitating - additional traffic on roadways, as proposed by this development, is in direct conflict with County goals and . philosophy. The County concurs with the Roaring Fork Transit Authority that all new development of the Snowmass Ski Area _ ;s�, should be 100� transit dependent. Construction of a major parking facility at the gateway of the Owl Creek corridor will ,,�.'� present undesirable and unacceptable pressures on this ,�,,, sensitive rural corridor. 4. In addition to the above findings, the project presents potential impacts to the following areas: �'` * Employee Housing: If the project is mitigated pursuant , ':'� to the Town's Land Use Code, 36& mitigation of employee � generation will be required. Therefore, increased " demands for affordable housing will occur in the County. � '`-a"= ' Full mitigation (100�) of employee generation is the , �'`�;� policy of the County Land Use Code. ' �� * Development, use and access to pristine and presently undeveloped areas will occur as a result of the project. Y...,,� Disturbance, including vegetation removal, to high alpine r�;�.;vr�.p environments should be mitigated by a wildlife/habitat � '�•=`'�� mitigation program. Such a program must carefully ��}:.. .r y examine year-round usage and management techniques to avoid disturbance and degradation of wildlife areas. �� , r 'K'r��.� . .. Based on the above findings, the Board hereby recommends: _.-1 1. The Town approve the improvements to Baldy Mountain, � �� .r considered by the Town as an Amendment to the SPA, excluding the gondola, subject to the following bindinq condition: .n-,�Y�� "In order to protect minimum stream flows, snowmaking shall ��"::�, be prohibited during any period whereby, withdrawals through the Snowmass Creek pipeline to serve snowmaking demands would result in a reduction of the stream flow in Snowmass Creek !� '�J' ' below 12 Cubic Feet per Second.° . _ -"`�'s� . ,;si:_;'�,� 2. A determination of the appropriateness of the gondola and the Upper portion of Burnt Mountain, and its potential consistency y��5� s.�t":�" 4 . ,,•�;�; �,� . 4� _�`s I R'�� . ,.. __.. �p _ 4 .. � , i. . �' . . . . . - � . . . . . - .. . . . . .. .. .. .�-r�* . . . • �ti��5 r`�� . . , . . . 1��x:,�`. . � . . . .. � �� , av�'xf�,� - ' ,��a , ��: � � � ��;� • � ;�;.�: .:;.. �... [J;3 y'yx',�j • •�,�y v �-��`" t{•t a 3yc . � .,�n. - -+, � . .tj ' � .. � . . . 4N��h i J .,', _... ,.u / � . . ' � t ( S" z 0 � ,a,t}!:� h i y�t .� p ,� i�! 1;:.' ,.y . >d t� � ! �,, �_�xs �:. �a�,M/�',�{ �� t � y�`l� r ��:.:�. �,.:� .��. t� �Y �. '�: 1 "�T4��vk tki: 7 •"E`� ' kt,, ` „ , .. ' i Y „ 2� . y . . _ t' . . , � � wv��.-.... �:�i:� .�.1QL�7^m.._,�,,� ��. .... . . �t�. ....w��-.:..�,5)�: �, i�L�t:' . . r , 4 � with the specific Evaluation, Design and Mitigation Standards provided in the IGA; cannot be made based on the lack of information provided to date. It is possible that this aspect . of the project, in concept, may be acceptable to the comraunity if the project addresses and mitigates issues including but � not neoessarily limited to traffic, employee housing, and wildlife impacts as described above. � 3. The Town find that as proposed, the East Village base j facility, parking lot, ski lift and ski trails are ; unacceptable and Conceptual Review should be denied. • , � ;..,i,' I APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on September 24, 199L _ .;�iY��;.;;.�. . ' ' ri'`Firt ,.K�� :is:�� '�, .':�.�� u�k,�.i::� 1 � ^ t � BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONSRS �:_5 OF PITRIN COONTY� COLORADO '>� . ��l $p � ' . . ;+ �, Ra e thridqe, h i an -, - :.:-�'` i Date / .. s.:,. . '�:.".;,;� :i A EBT: -. 'i� � ..�� `F �° . �`�`°�`� eaaette Jone :�,.;.;.,,. • :��'�'':.�; � Deputy Count Clerk . ;:;"�S?�S;,�s;.'� �`�� ` APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROYED AS TO CONTENT: ' �,�,;�a,�,; �, t / �//�J �� .�r..-� y�' �'o . l� `�/'/ �--'��`' k Timoth . Whitsitt, Am . Marga � , � '�`•"f• � count Attorney Pl ninq Dir c or , , �''`;;Nx�:-�� ` • '.aw,'�;.. :;:-.t�''>i ;: F:, '�',:ti"`., ( � :p�,.;"-" � Chairtnan Wayne Ethridge voting � �• ;r•n Comm+ssioner Ross vo4ng � �. J�. ; �x:J� ' Commissioner True voting Q"� n� � �...�,,�^ Commissioner Tuite voting ''^�? � Commissioner Crowley voting �n' . �,.. � `:.��,. 5 }��.•'�Y . . �,��t ��r� � --- �r� 4 ,. ,.. , .-:'.Y.v�Y r.:'i—.:. ....�r s.�,. . . .. r„ ....:.,, :..:... �. ;..:.... .,'1.-._ - � . : � �.:. ..:. ..- .. �::-. '..':..� -•- . :.,.. . . ..:: ._,� .. . '♦�. . �,. . ... �. . ' .. l.'i�1 '§�. . . . • , �' . . � . . . 3 .�r{:� ` • . � . . . . . , . . ::� � � . . . . . . Er' �;Y. . . .. . , . ,�� ..:;+� ._ ,� '