Garfield County's Got Sunlight All Wrong

September 24th, 2008 at 11:33pm Mitch Mulhall 171

[A letter to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission]

24 September 2008

Dear Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission,

Tonight I attended the Commission meeting and listened as Garfield County Staff recommended against rezoning privately owned land at Sunlight Mountain Resort’s base area. Currently, there are two zoning classifications on these lands: Low Density Residential (LDR), and Recreation. Choosing not to rezone LDR parcels as Recreation effectively kills Sunlight’s base area development plans and permanently limits what base area development can be.

In my opinion, you need to approve Sunlight’s rezoning request for several reasons:

First, as Sunlight attorney Larry Green pointed out, we cannot know the rationale behind the Commission’s original decision to zone privately held parcels as LDR. Mr. Green theorized simply that these parcels were designated LDR for no other reason than they were privately owned, a theory that is certainly supported by the fact that every residential development in the Four Mile Creek drainage is functionally LDR. Because no public records exist to illuminate the Commission’s rationale behind zoning Sunlight’s privately owned base area parcels LDR, you cannot conclude that the Commission intended to limit base area development to LDR.

Second, Sunlight existed before the current zoning designations were applied, and so did the vision of a base area. As Mr. Jankowski pointed out, base area development has always been a part of the vision for Sunlight, even if the reality of ski area revenues made this vision a bit of a pipe dream. Keeping the LDR zoning limits what base area development can mean, even to the exclusion of thoughtful, practical, and well-conceived base area plans. To refuse this rezoning request is to unfairly penalize Sunlight now for a designation that didn’t exist in 1966. Moreover, refusing this request retroactively punishes Sunlight for not having a clearly defined base area plan when the Commission first proposed LDR zoning.

Third, the Commission is not an elected body. Let me stipulate that attending tonight’s meeting gave me a new appreciation for the time and personal sacrifice it must take to be an effective public servant. I commend you for the courtesy and professionalism I observed tonight. That said, I implore you to effect this rezoning immediately. The decision of whether to affirm or deny this proposal properly rests with the Garfield County Commissioners, not the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Fourth and finally, the one thing that is abundantly clear from tonight’s meeting is that no one in the County has a clear idea of what the Recreation designation means. I heard this lack of understanding used several times to impugn the motives behind Sunlight’s rezoning request. Be crystal clear about one thing: the truth of the matter is that Sunlight is seriously committed to keeping Alpine and Nordic winter sports a central choice in our community’s recreation options. As beneficiaries of Sunlight’s presence in this community, we need explore this base area proposal, not reject it out-of-hand.

Respectfully,

Mitchell Edward Mulhall
Glenwood Springs

Entry Filed under: Skiing, Aspen, Garfield County