Hillside Project inches forward

Planning Commission approves five year extension, use permit amendments.

The long-gestating Hillside Project, which would develop the wooded land along Canyon Blvd. and Lake Mary Rd., took a small step toward future development at the Dec. 9 Planning and Economic Development Commission (PEDC) meeting.

According to Town Associate Planner Ruth Traxler, the tentative tract map for the original project was approved in 2006. At that time, the Hillside Project was proposed to be a two-phase development. Phase one would be a 325-bedroom condominium hotel with understructure parking for 259 vehicles, and would include a spa, pool, and patio with meeting facilities, restaurant and bar. Phase two was proposed as a town-home development with 107 bedrooms. The original applicant proposed an additional 36 bedrooms of affordable housing to be allocated in both phase one and phase two. By doing so, the project met the North Village Specific Plan (NVSP) requirement for affordable housing mitigation, and qualified for a 35 percent state density bonus.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Commissioners considered a time extension request for the project brought forth by applicant Dave Harvey, who began working on Hillside in 2010. The extension request would give the project another five years, or until January of 2021, to break ground.

Commissioners approved this request unanimously, although Town staff cautioned that should the project fail to come to fruition by 2021, the project’s application process would begin all over again.

Also on the table for consideration by Commissioners were several amendments to the project’s original use permits. Traxler explained that staff had determined the Town should no longer require the Hillside project to be a four- or five-star resort. Staff also determined that neither the Town nor NVSP require a pedestrian bridge from the Hillside project across Canyon Blvd. to the Gondola building and Village Plaza. The project can also now pay affordable housing mitigation in-lieu fees (agreed upon at $5.6 million in 2008) rather than provide on-site housing. Finally, staff concluded that Hillside and 80|50 must work out a private parking arrangement that would reserve 50 of the total Hillside parking spaces for 80|50’s use.

These changes were intended to remove “barriers to development and financing,” said Traxler.

Commissioners questioned the removal of the pedestrian bridge, which many see as a necessity for the Village. But according to Traxler, while the bridge was referenced in 2006 project documents, neither the Town nor NVSP ever required it as part of the project.

“I see that in the future it could be of great benefit to the community,” said Planning Commissioner Dawn Vereuck. “But hopefully in the future there may be some grant funding, and other parties in the Village will be able to kick in some money … I don’t think we should require [just] this developer to do that.”

Commissioners also wondered about the shift from on-site affordable housing to an in-lieu fee, and whether that was in the project’s best interest, considering the change resulted in a loss of the State density bonus.

“It’s an agreeable condition,” Harvey said of the change. He said that the project could—and likely would, as Commission Vice Chair Amy Grahek noted—come back with a NVSP Amendment or General Plan Amendment to allow for more density.

Perhaps the thorniest issue, as it can be in any Village development, was parking. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (MMSA) has an agreement with 80|50 to park in 50 spaces in the 80|50 underground parking structure. When the Hillside Project was proposed, 80|50 worked out a separate private arrangement with Hillside to use 50 Hillside parking spaces.

Traxler said that Town staff had determined, with the counsel of Town Attorney Andy Morris, that the Town cannot enforce but can only acknowledge this private agreement. However, staff added a requirement to the parking portion of the conditional use permit that MMSA and Hillside must come to an agreement regarding shared parking within the next 60 days. This raised alarm at MMSA.

“We want to protect our right to have access to park 50 cars [in the 80|50 lot],” said MMSA Vice President of Development Tom Hodges. His concern: if Hillside does not provide the spaces for 80|50, that could jeopardize MMSA’s use of 50 spaces in the 80|50 lot.

“We don’t want to be in a position where when the time is out, the conditions are forced down our throat,” Hodges said. “… I understand it [the parking agreement] is messy and people don’t like it.”

Hodges and Hillside project representatives were ultimately able to come to an agreement during a 15-minute recess. “We’re certainly supportive of the applicant’s project,” Hodges said. “Thank you guys for your willingness to work with us last minute.”

The Commission was also satisfied with the proposed amendments. Commissioners adopted the amendments, and the time extension request 5-0.