 |
|
|
|
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intrawest not off the Rodeo boat...yet |
|
|
Thursday, 14 August 2008 |
|
By Stacey Powells
Mammoth Times Staff Writer
 Members of June Lake and the Citizens Advisory Committee listen to Darin Dinsmore's Intrawest presentation, bringing everyone up to date on the progress of the Rodeo Grounds Planning.PHOTO BY STACEY POWELLS
Work on the project started eight months ago for Intrawest. For the past six months they've supplied the community with plans and ideas. The developer has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, at no expense to the community of June Lake, and continues to move forward. “We want to gain the support of the June Lake CAC,” said Brianne Parham, Project Manager for the Rodeo Grounds. “That is our commitment. We've done our homework over the last eight years and have really tried to educate the community.”
Intrawest has held several meetings and workshops and at the September meeting they will present a model of the resort core to the community. The model will hopefully give the community a concept of the first draft recommendation that was presented at the meeting which was, “To reduce the scale and mass of the project to better fit the character of June Lake.”
“The actual architecture of the project won't be included since that has yet to be decided,” Parham said. “There will be no windows, deck railings or other details. We are just going to show how tall the building is, what the roof line is and how the roof will step down at the end regions. We will also show some concept of the trees and where we will be adding more of them to the project.”
It appeared the group lacked some direction for about the first hour after Darin Dinsmore, a consultant with Regional Planning Partners, Truckee, presented his PowerPoint, which was intended so everyone could make sure the project fits and meets the intent of the design guidelines.
The recommendation package Dinsmore came up with and presented at the meeting was a combination of the notes and comments Intrawest has been receiving over the past several months from community members. “We've gone through all the notes and have condensed it down to six recommendations,” said Dinsmore. “People want the best project possible for June Lake. We've heard that over and over again from all the comments and letters we've received.”
A brief overview of the recommendations by Intrawest:
—1. Reduce the scale and the mass of the project to better fit the character of June Lake. Design large buildings to look small. Buildings need to be articulated by using variety of materials. Prepare physical scaled model of entire project including surround valley
—2. Reduce grading and environmental impacts. Provide detailed grading concept, slope treatment and areas where existing trees will be maintained. Respect county's natural features with designs that accommodate/enhance their setting. Design homes to fit the natural topography.
—3. Provide public amenities and benefits early in the project. Work with trails committee to increase connectivity. Ensure public access over private roads. No gated communities. No property line fencing.
—4. Provide more diversity and detailed/quality design. Mix the unit types on the streets versus separated in enclaves. Limit garage dominated streetscape. Incorporate alternatives in design guidelines. Specify cladding and roofing materials that respect mountain village character in Specific Plan
—5. Logical and community benefiting phasing program. Approval should provide certainty that improvements will be made to June Mountain in a timely manner. Provide workforce housing mixed within each phase of neighborhood, following ordinance. commitments to workforce housing need to be upfront.
—6. Other items. CAC members did not make a final decision on recommending the removal of the duplexes from the resort core.
Committee member comments
—After the presentation, committee member Rob Morgan was concerned that Dinsmore was trying to impose his own opinions and thoughts into the thoughts of the community. He wants to move forward with the number of units and proposed density but will hold off on commenting on mass and scale until he sees the model.
—Jerry Allendorf asked why all the commercial entities were located in one spot and not spread out around the project. Also, he feels that the architect has to 'think outside the box' when coming up with a design that will work for the area.
—Jil Stark feels the scale and mass are too big for June Lake. She is also concerned about the workforce and how many people it is going to take to keep the Rodeo Grounds running, especially during the shoulder seasons. “My problem is building a project that I don't think will be vital for most of the year. How can it be sustained in this community?”
—Dean Rosnau reminded the committee that it was the committee itself that recommended to Intrawest that they do a model so the community can get a better handle on the visual and to ask Intrawest to do anything more right now would be unfair. “No matter what we build on the Rodeo Grounds, the property will change. We all have our unique idea of what that will be, but we are talking about a project that will make or break this town. We can get caught up in small disagreements, but we have to accept that it has to change in order for this town to survive. The Rodeo Grounds is a small, pristine area compared to the rest of June Lake. It's microscopic compared to what we have here in the June Lake area.”
—Chris Elam said the first two recommendations are weak and ambiguous. “We don't want to reduce the number of units, just the height.” So far what has been presented to him is acceptable. “Combining the economic engine of the mountain and supporting the vitality of the town is important.”
—“Lets see the model first and then decide,” said member Jerry Allendorf
—Dale Bromberger is not fond of the exterior facia in the drawings and wants to see alternatives. He is also concerned that the public has made it known what they don't want, but they should now be giving ideas about what they do want to see at the Rodeo Grounds.
Mono County Supervisor Vikki Magee Bauer reminded the committee that they had to get the recommendations down on paper so they can be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors.
Using her hometown of Carlsbad, Calif., as an example of what she felt was wrong with the project, second homeowner Pat Bleha spoke during public comment, stating that the Rodeo Grounds Project does not comply with the standards of the June Lake Plan. “Development does not pay for itself,” Bleha said. “Mammoth is constantly looking for money to support it. Do we really want this in June Lake? Ninety one percent of people surveyed don't want buildings higher than 35 feet.”
In a July 28, 2008 letter written to the Mono County Board of Supervisors, Regional Planning Partners, the Mono County Planning Commission and the June Lake Citizen Advisory Committee by June Lake Advocate President Al Heinrich, he states, “Considering the hundreds of letters documented to the Mono County Supervisors and Planning Commission and all of the height and density concerns documented during the Peer Reviews, one would believe that the CAC is morally obligated to support the community and insist that the Developer complies with the county's guidelines and plans which were approved by the Mono County Supervisors and Planning Commission.”
He further states in his letter that the Proposed Rodeo Grounds Design does not comply with the U.S. Forest Service/Mammoth Mountain land trade, the Mono County General Plan, the June Lake Design Guidelines, the June Lake 2010 Area Plan, the 60 foot maximum height requirements for commercial buildings and the 35 foot maximum heigh requirements for residential buildings, and that the design does not comply with the Mono County Board of Supervisors Resolution 89-08, the June Lake Plan.
June Mountain needs proof of development
In a letter to the June Lake CAC from Carl Williams, General Manager of June Mountain, he states, “I believe that our position on the issue of timing of improvements to the ski area has been consistent. It makes no sense for us to make contractual obligations with the landowner/developer until such time as there actually is a project of the size and scale that meets our threshold requirements for transient occupancy beds.” The Phase I improvements to June Mountain, namely replacing Chair 1 with a gondola and installing snowmaking equipment is directly tied with the Rodeo Grounds project moving forward.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 21 August 2008 )
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 2009 The Mammoth Times All Rights Reserved
|
|
