Council affirms PEDC approval of Mountainside project
Courchevel Condominiums unit owners Ronald and Joan Plander challenged the Planning and Economic Development Commission (PEDC) May 13 approval of the Mountainside project to no avail at Wednesday’s Mammoth Town Council meeting.
The proposed project will sit on Rainbow Lane across from Canyon Lodge, and includes 16 townhomes, two of them freestanding and the rest duplexes. The townhomes will be whole ownership units open to nightly rentals. Each will be three bedroom, three bathroom, with a two-car garage.
Developer John Hooper requested several variances for the project, including a setback variance from 25 to 16 feet on Rainbow Lane, and from 20 to 10 feet on the east property line, as well as a height variance from 35 to 43.9 feet to accommodate the project’s larger garages, and therefore greater building width and height.
Neighboring buildings 1849 and Snowbird Condominium are 60 and 40 feet high, respectively, although both were built before Mammoth Lakes became an incorporated community.
Residents living near the Mountainside property expressed concern over the requested variances, submitting about two dozen letters to the Planning Commission in opposition to the project. However, the Commission approved the variances, and the project itself, unanimously in May.
The Commission did approve the project with the stipulation that Hooper must move a dumpster from the east to the west side of the complex, and make several changes to the street side building’s façade, including the addition of gables to make the building less of an imposing wall.
But at Wednesday’s Council meeting, Ronald Plander maintained that Mountainside failed to give adequate notice to neighboring condominium residents to allow time for their input, that the Planning Commission’s granting of variances was improper, and that the Town inadequately considered the cumulative impacts from the project on the area, such as shade and snow storage issues.
Plander wondered why Hooper might not have stuck to one to two-bedroom units, like the surrounding condo complexes, to keep the size of the project smaller. He also pointed out that likening Mountainside’s height to 1849 and Snowbird was not a valid comparison, considering both buildings were constructed according to County, not Town codes.
“The [Town] code was probably written to prevent these,” he said. “If you grant these variances, you might be setting a standard going forward.” (Perhaps Plander was unaware that, time and again, the Town has set new standards by granting variances to developments like Hooper’s, the most recent example being 80|50’s Building “C.”)
As for Hooper’s changes to the building façade, Plander said the street view for pedestrians using Rainbow Lane to walk from their condos to Canyon Lodge in the winter would remain unfriendly. “They’re going to see the big backside of those buildings,” he said.
But Hooper argued that Plander’s claims in his appeal were incorrect. “[The project] was designed to code,” Hooper said. He asserted that steep lots like the Mountainside project’s are “routinely accorded height and setback variances.”
Council member John Wentworth did wonder whether Hooper might consider adjusting the design so that the project could be lighter to match the surrounding condo complexes.
“The point you’re making is to make them [Mountainside’s buildings] as unattractive as Courchevel and Val D’Isere and all those other condos are,” Hooper said. “… This will look far better than any other building in that area.”
Hooper suggested Councilmembers look at the Grayfox buildings across from the Westin Monache as an example of the Mountainside project’s color combination.
As for Plander’s question about Hooper’s desire to build three bedroom units instead of one or two bedroom units, “Why would I build another 15 to 20 two-bedroom units when the majority of the units up there are two bedroom units?” Hooper asked. “I’d kind of like to sell these … There are no three bedroom, three bathroom, two car garage town homes in the area, and it needs them.”
Unsurprisingly, given the Town Council meeting opened with a discussion of the Town’s current lack of development, Councilmembers were largely in support of the project.
“I believe what’s proposed fits in pretty well,” said Council member Shields Richardson. “I think the height it not an issue, compared to what I see around that area.” Richardson asserted that the color of the building, which will stand out in contrast from the surrounding buildings, “is a personal issue.”
“We clearly needed a project in that area,” said Mayor Pro-Tem Michael Raimondo. “… I’m more excited to keep people working; in this economy, nobody’s working.”
“I don’t know that I’ve seen some sort of project that didn’t have some sort of variance request,” said Council member Colin Fernie, although this too is unsurprising, given how frequently the Planning Commission grants those variance requests. “For me, looking at these variances, I don’t find them unreasonable … I’m comfortable with standing behind the Planning Commission’s decision,” Fernie said.
Council affirmed the PEDC approval of the Mountainside project and denied Planders’ appeal 5-0.
