Loading...
02-01-10 Town Council Packets cqr L I utici SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 1, 2010 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON AGENDA ITEMS (5- minute time limit) Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Item No. 4: RESOLUTION NO. 13, SERIES OF 2010 APPROVING EOTC BUDGET (Time: 15 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny Resolution No. 13, Series of 2010 approving the EOTC Budget -David Peckler Page 1 (TAB A) Item No. 5: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO ASPEN SKIING COMPANY CONCERNING OPERATION OF THE GONDOLA AS PER THE SKI RESORT OPERATOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Time: 60 Minutes) -Russ Forrest Page 6 (TAB B Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 07 SERIES OF 2010 RECOVERY EXPENSES FOR NATURAL DISASTER DAMAGE IN DEED RESTRICTED FOR SALES HOUSING (Time: 45 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council will decide if any of the construction costs to repair the two homes damaged by flooding will be recoverable. The homes are located in the Crossings. -Joe Coffey Page 46 (TAB C) Item No. 7: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT OF MODIFICATION TO THE HOUSING GUIDELINES FOR RODEO PLACE (Time: 15 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify or deny proposed amendments to Housing Guidelines -Joe Coffey Page 51 TAB D) 02 -01 -10 TC Page 2 of 2 Item No. 8: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 2, SERIES OF 2010 MINOR PUD AMENDMENT: PARCEL D, EAST VILLAGE PUD (Time: 45 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify or deny First reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010 --Chris Conrad ...........................Page 53 (TAB E Item No. 9: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 8, SERIES OF 201 O-SNOWMASS CLUB CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT (Time: 50 Minutes) A REZONING TO "MULTI-FAMILY" (MF), AND REVISED MINOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENT REGARDING THE PROPSED SNOWMASS CLUB CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INVOLVING A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify, or deny or continue Resolution 8, Series of 2010. --Jim Wahistrom Page 69 (TAB F Item No. 10: MANAGER'S REPORT (Time: 10 minutes) --Russell Forrest ...........................Page 168 (TAB G) Item No. 11: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 173 (TAB H) Item No. 12: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19 2010: Page 176 (TAB I Item No. 13: COUNCIL COMMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS/CALENDARS Page 186 (TAB J Item No. 14: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approx 4 hours (excluding items 1-3 and 10 —14) ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923-3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. MEMORANDUM TO:. Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: David Peckler Transportation Director DATE: February 1, 2010 SUBJECT: Resolution #13 Series of 2010 EOTC Initial 2010 and Revised 2009 Sales and Use Tax Budget I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council's approval of Resolution 13, Series of 2010 to appropriate for the projects in the 2009 and 2010 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) budgets for the Pitkin County %2 Cent Sales and Use Tax. II. BACKGROUND NEED FOR COMP PLAN UPDATE Attached are a revised EOTC budget for 2009 and the initial budget for 2010. EOTC Budget Summary See attached 2009 -10 Budget and Multi-year Plan for details. Total 2009 Revenues $4,149,000 Total 2009 Expenditures $4,335,374 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (186,374 Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) $8,778,047 Total 2010 Revenues $4,139,800 Total 2010 Expenditures $3,246,602 Annual Surplus (Deficit) 893,198 Cumulative Surplus (Deficit) $9,671,245 The most significant changes to the 2009 budget are a reduction in the sales tax revenue estimate and the extension of no -fare Aspen Snowmass bus service through year -end. The major projects included in the 2010 budget are as follows: 1. $50,000 contribution for transportation associated with X -Games 2. RFTA contribution (81.04% of Cent Sales Tax) 3. No -fare Aspen Snowmass and Woody Creek bus service through April 11, 2010 The resolution approving the budgets also includes the designation of at least two thirds of each year's EOTC net bondable revenue to fund the Entrance -to -Aspen capital project. "Net bondable revenue" is defined as the sum of the annual proceeds from the %2% transit sales and use tax minus the 81.04% of the sales tax that is contributed to RFTA.) This annual dedication to the Entrance -to -Aspen was a 6th EOTC meeting and begins in 2010. pproved at the August The remaining annual EOTC revenue is available to fund operations and discretionary projects. After funding no -fare Aspen Snowmass bus service through this winter season, there is only $10,551 remaining discretionary funding in the 2010 budget. Thus, i there is a need to find additional revenue sources to continue Aspen Snowmass bus service beyond the winter season. Any undesignated surplus fund balance at the end of 2009 and future years will also be dedicated to fund the Entrance -to- Aspen. The only fund balance at the end of 2009 that was previously designated for future use is $6,430,165 for Snowmass Village transit improvements. The 2010 budget shows an ending fund balance of $3,230,529 designated for the Entrance -to- Aspen. III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The approval by all three jurisdictions that comprise the EOTC is necessary for appropriation of the Pitkin County' /2 Cent Sales and Use Tax. IV. DISCUSION ITEMS NEXT STEPS NA V. NEXT STEPS MAJOR MILESTONES NA VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Approve the Resolution. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 13 SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, APPROVING THE INITIAL 2010 BUDGET AND A REVISED 2009 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX WHEREAS, the Town Council of Snowmass Village, the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (the "Parties have previously identified general elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan which are eligible for funding from the Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, by intergovernmental agreement dated September 14, 1993, the Parties agreed: a. To conduct regular public meetings to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complimentary to the Plan; and b. That all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County -wide one -half cent transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced by a resolution adopted by the governing body of each party; and WHEREAS, at the EOTC meeting held on October 15, 2009, the Parties considered and approved the attached initial 2010 budget for the Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, at EOTC meetings held on April 6, August 6, and October 15, 2009, the Parties considered and approved the attached revised 2009 budget for the Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax which extends funding through the end of 2009 for no -fare Aspen Snowmass bus service; and WHEREAS, at the EOTC meeting held on August 6, 2009, the Parties decided to designate at least two- thirds of each year's net bondable revenue to fund the Entrance -to- Aspen capital project with the remainder available to fund operations and discretionary projects; and WHEREAS, the Town of Snowmass Village Council desires to ratify the approvals given at the EOTC meetings by adoption of this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, that the attached initial 2010 budget and revised 2009 budget for the one -half cent transit sales and use tax are hereby approved as summarized below: Total 2009 Revenues $4,149,000 Total 2009 Expenditures $4,335,374 Total 2010 Revenues $4,139,800 Total 2010 Expenditures $3,246,602 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that at least two- thirds of each year's net bondable revenue be designated to fund the Entrance -to -Aspen capital project. "Net bondable revenue" is defined as the sum of the annual proceeds from the Y2% transit sales and use tax minus the 81.04% of the %2% sales tax that is contributed to RFTA. This annual dedication to the Entrance -to -Aspen shall begin in 2010. The remaining annual revenue shall be available to fund operations and discretionary projects. Any undesignated surplus fund balance at the end of 2009 and future years shall also be designated to fund the Entrance -to- Aspen. READ, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 1 st of February, 2010 upon a motion made by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Bill Boineau, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM John Dresser, Town Attorney ATTEST: Rhonda Coxan, Town Clerk N X N Ol V m U H OOOO V' OON O o 0 o NC3 'T OON oO N(CO�!' W o 0_ 0 0 0 0 00 O L N O.. O to V' O O OD O O O r- N O O :O o Lp r O r` O M N O 00 oO (D, 1` U O LO O r (D N 0. O O M M M O V' N CO 00 V' r^ O O tp, O t0 M oo O i^^ O 4 N O co cc O c}- r O O LQ O oc O O O. O co LO (D N 0) CD T >ti M O O O O ('D (N V' N LO O (D 0 0 o O (D O0 0). O O a7 (D O o) OOOO O W OO N N C) CD O. LO 00 (D MN O CD CD I- Lb;O?O OOccO V'OM O CD c^ uj u'i T O(�i N OO000) N O O (T V' V' V' M N N c6 oo M V' O O O M to (D N n W O M 15 (D (D W N M t- O O (3) M (D r- 2 O d. N O r (D a) r W C-) chi Lf) O t7 O r- c0 V' CF) lT M V' N M e= V' CO (A M N T nr O O O O O N O O O lT O o 0 o O O O O O 0 C) O O O O N O) W O V' M tl0 L(? O o (D p0 C) O O O (N W co O a N O O O Oococ OO O W N O. O LO V O fal O OOap O L{} m T O (0) LO V' M 1` N O 1` O N N O Cl N tt� O. O m LO M N •N O d N W) LO M M r O N (Y) (D O IT M V cO (D O O O V %C0'(D M V' N c r ci (D 41 6 M N 0 0 0 0 (DNaDO O O (D O o 0 o O M N O O O O cl) O O O O t\ OMO O to O N u?Ow� O M(D O O O O OM O OO ccOnO O O �(D O)'. LO C14 O O OOO V O T 0)NU P- MM�M N T (D h O TN u) C M V r-: .Lq O M' M 'ct u) m N O O 'O O D. N M r N M 1` O M O' V_ m e M�� M U) M.. V' M V' N M r `St M N r ca T 0000 toNO Cl O O r O Nc0 iQ. o e o N tier T O O O On.ODr L- O O O O It O O O O M N T O t q* 0 0 0 to -0 N O O M h V' oA O m d O O O W W r Lq O O O h O (O l,"" N 0 0 r r (D 47 W 0 0 O T tD tp O O) lA T to to It M r O LO o N V• N N tD M V' rt O N O O to T It M N M O tD O M N T L r 00 0) 1\ M c0 M e- 'd' c0 T N co "M r M t0 T r r f` N N tp' t0 It c0 N M to h M co '00 It N M O# tD M M N T C C .0000 cOM00 O OO 'T (N OMOO V' h o 0 o O qy OOOO r X 00 O MO V' (D V'OM ri+" V' 00 cl� O co C w O O O O W 1\ O O O O n� O M M OI;r co 0 O'. Lam. u) f4 d to (D V' cr M N O O (D V V' (D V 00 O Ln (d c6 ch O 'ZZ N M O ti V' c- co O co o) W V n N M pp' r M V' 7 V M m m c 06 (o N m O CV E (o 0 o 0 0 _o o U o 0 O 0 c v o Z o M g E cl U C'_ c (O rn d' T N 0 0 LO U M 0 0 0 c N (O �N N M Ln 00 Q N. c O c- Z N Cl ic (9 CL .U. G N Q (U to to N LL �cu`°i 0c°)i��(oic0io m Q v, m Qcs�c a) z H o Q n o E o E� .Z C1 5 p. o V L a) N c a) a) N a) N a) Vic.. Lt. to 0) W 'O c c O (9 co (h co to to O O E a c c E c n o m U 3 c m m o c 6 C L (i o (n N (n (n (n m W U Z o W w c c W U}. O a �ob xx u) oM@MMM� w o m(n rn sEEEEE 4' m Q `o cfl c x c In N (n c ot3 0 E Z .Q 0) 0) cc) (a 3 3 3 3 3 a) tr m z 0- o oo 'D .o tL' G C U o_ c c c '0 0 0 0 0 0 x a o o a) c 0) E N.- Y o c c c c c c c _t N rn c m co E 0 g E cu 0 (n (nv�v�tnv W c) �c m L) o a).2 U o,r;� L U U C 0 Q Q= lY C C C C C W e .i (O N O c N O) m .Q 0 m O 0 N Q Q 'O to O glo c c p m aYi o n c a Q o t/y a W (n m c o s w o 7 O c O a) U N N c Y N U U to Co J tf O c U -0 CO Z Y o O z C. U A 0 0 0 U '6 L2 (n O Z N Q Q Q Q Q� l O N N c U U E c w o U E U E a) a) a) o Q c T r o a Q O c 'O .0 N N O p w u�. v N Z �.O N N J 7 c p C c Q a) 7 Y c a) u) c E c W c o 0 0 0 0 o a) z a) a) a) Q cu c m 0 0 c 0 0 c H E LV c 0 0 Q U m w> m m c 'm o 0 o W a C U o �a W -^�0 co U n Q .o Q tZ m ipUU� (0 O U N r" w.0 E! H j 7 N Y-, w N o O CI Q'. (0 U U F- I- W W LL L( LL tY u d Z 0 0 N N N TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: RUSS FORREST, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY SUMMER OPERATIONS DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2010 1. PURPOSE Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) has sent the Town an email requesting that the Town determine whether they would like to initiate summer operations using the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola as per the 2004 Ski Resort Operator Agreement (See Attachment 1). Council is requested to choose whether they would like to initiate the three year commitment for the Aspen Ski Company to run the Elk Camp Gondola with a written notice to ASC or continue to run and pay for summer operations as the Town has historically done with the Burlingame lift. Staff has also attached the Ski Operator Agreement (Attachment 2) for reference. 2. BACKGROUND At the December 21, 2009 Council meeting, Steve Sewell and Victor Gerdin of the Aspen Skiing Company presented a proposed operational plan for summer 2010 and beyond (Attachment 3). The primary component of ASC's summer planning was taking steps to begin a summer program at the top of the Elk Camp Gondola. This operation as presented would include: Summer operation of the Elk Camp Gondola Weekend operation of the Elk Camp Lift to the top of the ridge Summer Operation of Cafe Suzanne Summer Activities at the top of the Elk Camp Gondola, and New hiking and biking trails This presentation was well received by the Town Council. At the December 21 meeting, the Council also discussed the "Ski Resort Operator Agreement" dated November 4, 2004. The Council did not have a copy of the agreement at the meeting and asked to schedule an item on a future agenda to consider whether to provide written notice to the Aspen Skiing Company to initiate summer operation of the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola as per Section 2.4 of that agreement. The Town has operated the Burlingame lift for seven years in the summer. The operational cost has varied from about $55,000 to $70,000 except in summer of 2009 when the number of days was reduced and net expense to the Town was $30,000 (total net was $34,000 and ASC covered the $4,000 above the Town's $30,000 max commitment. In addition, the Town has paid for approximately $50,000 from the RETT fund for summer trail rangers and trail maintenance and construction on Snowmass Mountain. In the approved 2010 budget there are no (0) funds budgeted for mountain operations or summer trail maintenance. In the summer of 2009, the Town hosted several meetings with the business community and one of the primary requests from our merchants was for the Aspen Skiing Company to initiate an aggressive summer operations plan on the Mountain to create another attraction in Snowmass Village. Another consideration for the timing is that the Town has the right to send written notification to the Aspen Skiing Company to initiate a three -year operation for the Elk Camp Gondola after a certificate of occupancy for 13A (Viceroy) and before a certificate of occupancy for Building 11. At the time the agreement was executed in 2004 it was envisioned that at the time of a certificate of occupancy for 13A there would be significant completion of Base Village. At build out of Base Village approximately 610 units would be created and at this time there are 243 units (plus 7 employee housing units). The agreement also contemplates that the Skiing Company would remove the Burlingame lift in 2010. Another consideration for a summer mountain operations is the operation of the Skittles Lift that connect the West Village and Base Village. At the time the GID Board approved the 2010 budget a limited operations for the Skittles lift was contemplated. The Aspen Skiing Company has recently reduced their costs for the Skittles lift by finding additional efficiencies in their operation. It may now be possible for the GID to afford to operate the Skittles Lift with a comparable schedule to 2009. 3. OPTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION The Skiing Company has essentially provided two choices for the Town: 1) Send a letter to the Aspen Skiing Company initiating a three -year summer operation of the Elk Camp Lift. This is an offer by the Skiing Company to operate the Elk Camp Lift in 2010 and to develop amenities and new trails for the summer. This option allows the Town to fund other summer programs since it would not need to fund summer lift operations. Marketing for a new summer lift operation would begin immediately. This would be helpful from a budgetary standpoint this year and provide a needed economic boost (in a difficult economic year) for this summer by providing a new amenity on Snowmass Mountain. The other side of the argument is that base village is not significantly complete. The anticipated bed base as envisioned in 2004 is not available in 2010. This will be a difficult year from a financial standpoint, and one can reasonably expect a larger financial loss in a summer operational program. The Company will need 2 -3 years to implement its trails system and work through the U.S. Forest Service process to build new trails and a new restaurant at the top of the Elk Camp Gondola. The Ski Company has clarified that if there was an operational loss as per the Agreement, they believe the Town would only be responsible for a net loss on lift operations. A reasonable question is what might be a worst -case scenario for a net loss in year 4 of operation of the Elk Camp Gondola, if the Town chooses to pay for a net loss in subsequent years of operation. Or 2) Status Qua: TOSV continues summer lift operations of the Burlingame. The Aspen Skiing Company has stated that if the Town is not comfortable with sending a written notice to initiate a three -year summer operation of the Gondola then they would allow the Town to run the Burlingame at our cost. The primary issue with this option is that the Town would need to find funds in both the Marketing and Special Events fund and the Rett fund to pay for summer mountain operations as it has historically budgeted. In 2009 the net expense was $34,000 for lift operations and $25,000 for trail maintenance. Given the Town's financial situation, other actives in these funds would have to be cut to find resources for a summer lift operation. This also would not create a new amenity for the summer of 2010. The other side of this option is that waiting another year to create amenities on the Mountain and gain USFS approval for trails and a new restaurant increases the likelihood that the lift operation would be financially viable. The Espresso trail proposed by the Aspen Skiing Company will not be available until 2011 (assuming USFS approval) and this trail provides a valuable connection to the trails system below Sam's Knob. In addition, the Company is planning to begin construction (subject to appropriate approvals) a new restaurant in 2011 or 2012. Attachment 1: Email from Aspen Skiing Company Attachment 2: Ski Resort Operator Agreement Attachment 3: ASC PowerPoint Presentation from December 21, 2009 TASnowmass Projects\Aspen Ski Company \SkiCosummerop020110.doc ATTACHMENT 1 FOR ITEM NO. 5 EMAIL FROM ASPEN SKIING COMPANY Russell Forrest To: Perry, David Cc: Kaplan, Mike; Burkley, Richard E.; Schuster, Don; Corbin, David; Sewell, Steve E.; davidallanperry @comcast.net Subject: RE: Summer Operations 2010 Original Message---- From: Perry, David mailto :DPerry @aspensnowmass.com] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 10:48 AM To: Russell Forrest Cc: Kaplan, Mike; Burkley, Richard E.; Schuster, Don; Corbin, David; Sewell, Steve E.; davidallanperry @comcast.net Subject: Summer Operations 2010 Dear Russ, Thank you for the followup discussions regarding ASC proposed summer operations for 2010. Further to your discussions with Mike Kaplan (who is out of town at the moment), please allow me to summarize our proposed alternatives for summer 2010 Snowmass Mountain operations in order to assist you in speaking to TOSV Council on this matter. Aspen Skiing Company is prepared to operate the Elk Camp Gondola and Elk Camp Chairlift, per the plan presented to the Town Council on January 4, 2010 by Steve Sewell and Victor Gerdin, if the Town provides written notice requesting that we begin our three year operational commitment to operate the Elk Camp Gondola. If the Town feels it is too early to begin the three year operational period and would prefer to wait another year, we will prepare to operate the Burlingame lift (and special events) at the Town's expense. In this scenario, we would undertake the trail and facility preparatory work in the Elk Camp area as presented January 4th and begin the Forest Service process to gain approval for the new trails and facilities as we have discussed. In order to ensure that we can adequately promote and market summer operations (in conjunction with the Town), we would appreciate a definitive decision from the Town by February 2, 2010, or sooner if possible. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, David David Perry SVP Mountain Division Aspen Skiing Company 1 ATTACHMENT 2 FOR ITEM NO. 5 SKI RESORT OPERATOR AGREEMENT SNOWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK ASPEN C S N a W M A S S. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY April 26, 2006 Town of Snowmass Village Attn: Jon Dresser P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Ski Resort Operator Agreement Dear Rhonda: Enclosed is the signed agreement from Dave Bellack. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Michelle Dunn Executive Assistant to Senior Vice President/General Counsel Aspen Skiing Company Direct- 970 -300 -7151 Fax 970 300 -7154 mdunn(@v,aspensnowmass.com P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, 00 81 612 -1248 970. 925 -1220 www.aspensnowmass.com pm= or, Recycled Paper. SKI RESORT OPERATOR AGREEMENT THIS SKI RESORT OPERATOR AGREEMENT (this "Agreement dated as of November 4, 2004 is between Aspen Skiing Company, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company "SldCo and the Town of Snowmass Village, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation (the "Town RECITALS A. WHEREAS Intrawest /Brush Creek Development Company LLC "IBC intends to develop that real property situated in the Town commonly known as Lots 1 -9, Base Village Planned Unit Development (the "Property as depicted on the Final Plat for Base Village P. U.D.; B. WHEREAS the Town Council of the Town granted approval of the development of the Property (the "Project by enacting Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2004 (the "Ordinance C. WHEREAS SkiCo has agreed to undertake certain obligations in connection with the Project; D. WHEREAS the Ordinance contemplates SkiCo and the Town entering into this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1.1 Definitions As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings given to them in this Section 1.1, unless the contest clearly requires otherwise. (a) "Agreement" has the meaning given to that term in the introductory paragraph above. (b) "Burlingame Lift" has the meaning given to that term in Section 2.2(a) below. (c) "Cure Period" has the meaning given to that term in Section 3.2 below. (d) "Event of Default" has the meaning given to that term in Section 3.1 below. (e) "IBC" has the meaning given to that term in Recital .A above. {00158162.DOC 6} T "Intrawest" means Intrawest Corporation, a corporation continued under the Canada Business Corporations Act. (g) "Mall" has the meaning given to that term in Section 2.1(a) below. (h) "Notice of Default" has the meaning given to that term in Section 3.2 below. (i) "Ordinance" has the meaning given to that term in Recital B above. 0) "Project" has the meaning given to that term in Recital B above. (k) "Property" has the meaning given to that term in Recital A above. 0) "Pulse Gondola" has the meaning given to that term in Section 2.1(a) below. (m) "RFTA" has the meaning given to that term in Section 2.4(3) below. (n) "SkiCo" has the meaning given to that term in the introductory paragraph above. (o) "Ski Season" means the period of the year during which the Snowmass Ski Area is open to the public. (p) "Town" has the meaning given to that term in the introductory paragraph above. 1.2 Interpretation Unless the context of this Agreement clearly requires otherwise: (a) terms defined in the singular may be used in the plural, and terms defined in the plural may be used in the singular; (b) "including" and "such as" are not limited; (c) "or" has the inclusive meaning represented by the phrase "and /or (d) the words "hereof," "herein," "hereby," "hereunder" and similar terms in this Agreement refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement; (e) Article, Section, clause, paragraph and Exhibit references are to this Agreement unless otherwise specified; and {00158162.DOC 6) 2 T references to any agreement (including this Agreement), document or instrument means such agreement, document or instrument as amended or modified and in effect from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof and, if applicable, the terms hereof. ARTICLE II SKICO OBLIGATIONS 2.1. Pulse Gondola to Mall (a) IBC has proposed to construct a "pulse gondola" aerial connector on the Property which will travel between the Property and the Snowmass Village Mall (the "Mall as part of the Project (the "Pulse Gondola By separate agreement, I13C has agreed to convey the Pulse Gondola to the Town, or its assignee, upon completion of construction of the Pulse Gondola and SkiCo hereby agrees to operate and maintain the Pulse Gondola on behalf of the Town subject to the conditions set forth below. (b) SkiCo shall be solely responsible for all costs of operating the Pulse Gondola daily during the Ski Season from 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM, determined in the manner set forth in Section 2.1(c) below, and at such other times during the year as it may determine in its sole and absolute discretion. (c) SkiCo shall operate the Pulse Gondola at times other than those set forth in Section 2.1(b) above as requested by the Town, at the Town's sole cost and expense. The cost paid by the Town to SkiCo for the operation of the Pulse Gondola pursuant to this Section 2.1(c) shall be all actual costs incurred or accrued by the 'Town and SkiCo for such operation, which actual and accrued costs shall be calculated to include, without limitation, the items of cost listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The Town and SkiCo shall pay their pro rata share of all actual and accrued costs due to each other within 30 days after rece-ving an invoice therefor from the party incurring or accruing such costs during the period covered by said invoice. (d) SkiCo shall at all times operate the Pulse Gondola in compliance with the applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, codes and rules of all local, state and federal governmental bodies having jurisdiction. (e) The Town may assign its rights and obligations under this Section 2.1 to a general improvement district formed within the Town without the prior consent of Skico. 2.2. Burlingame Lift (a) SkiCo currently operates a ski lift between the Mall and the lower Sam's Knob area of Snowmass Ski Area known as the Burlingame Lift (the "Burlingame Lift and shall continue to do so at least through the end of the 2010 Ski Season. Not later than FebruarN 1, 2007, SkiCo shall construct a new upper terminal near the Spider Sabich Race Arena, reconfigure the maze at the lower terminal of the lift and install improved Chairs. Through the end of the 2010 Ski Season, SkiCo shall operate the Burlingame Lift at such 100158162.DOC 61 3 times and during such hours as is consistent with the historic operation of the Burlingame Lift. (b) SkiCo shall operate the Burlingame Lift during the non -Ski Season as requested by the Town, at the Town's sole cost and expense. The cost paid by the Town to SkiCo for the operation of the Burlingame Lift pursuant to this Section 2.2(b) shall be the actual costs incurred by SkiCo in operating the Burlingame Lift during such times, which actual costs shall be calculated in a manner consistent with the sample cost categories attached hereto as Exhibit "A The Town shall pay such sums due to SkiCo under this Section 2.2(b) within 30 days after receiving an invoice therefor from SkiCo, which invoice shall describe in reasonable detail the invoiced expenses incurred by SkiCo in operating the Burlingame Lift during such times. (c) Following the 2010 Ski Season, SkiCo may elect to remove or permanently discontinue use of the Burlingame Lift. At least 90 days prior to removing the Burlingame Lift or permanently discontinuing Ski Season operation thereof, SkiCo shall notify the Town of such intent to remove or discontinue use and shall provide the Town with its reasons for such decision, which may include, but not be limited to, lack of skier demand and functional or economic obsolescence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Section 2.2(c) shall be interpreted to require Town consent to such removal or discontinuation of use of the Burlingame Lift. (d) If SkiCo elects to discontinue operation of the Burlingame Lift as provided in Section 2.2(c) above, the Town may, in its sole discretion, require that SkiCo continue to operate the Burlingame Lift at such times as the Town may determine, at the Town's sole cost and expense, by providing written notice thereof to SkiCo within 90 days after SkiCo delivers to the 'Town the notice described in Section 2.2(c) above. 2.3. Bus and Shuttle Operation (a) SkiCo currently contracts with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority "RFTA') for the provision of day -skier bus transportation during the Ski Season. As part of the Project, IBC has proposed to construct a "Transit Center" on the Property designed, in part, for the transportation of day skiers. SkiCo shall direct and require that all RFTA day -skier buses making stops at either the Mall or the Property stop first at the Mall before continuing to the Transit Center located on the Property. At any time SkiCo shall have the right to request the 'Town to modify this requirement based upon demonstrated RFTA rider preferences. (b) At such times as may be reasonably requested, SkiCo shall cause to. be provided transit alternatives for owners and guests staying at the Property (i) to and from commercial locations within the Town not routinely serviced by the Town public transportation systems or IU'TA, (it) to and from the grocery store located within the Snowmass Center, and (iii) to and from the airport, at no cost to the 'Town. Such service shall be managed and coordinated by SkiCo in SkiCo's reasonable discretion for so long as SkiCo manages a majority of the residential rental units on the Property and is reimbursed therefor by either owners of residential units on the Property or the master homeowners' association for the Property. 00158I62.DOC 6} 4 2.4. Summer Operation of Elk Camp Meadows Gondola (a) After receiving written notice from the Town Council and following the later to occur of (1) completion of construction of the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola, or (it) the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for "Building 13A" on the Property, SkiCo shall operate the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola during the summer at such times as it determines in its sole discretion, provided, however, such hours of operation will be not less than the 2004 summer hours of operation of the Burlingame Lift. In the event that the Town Council has not delivered to SkiCo the written notice described above in this Section 2.4(a) prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Building 11 on the Property, SkiCo shall be released from all further obligations under this Section 2.4. (b) SkiCo shall continue the surnmer operation of the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola as described in Section 2.4(a) above for a period of not less than three consecutive years to determine the profitability of summer "on- mountain activities" and to verify the actual cost to SkiCo for such surarner operation of the Talk Camp Meadows Gondola. If, at the end of such three year period, the summer "on- mountain activities" show a financial loss to SkiCo on operations, then SkiCo may discontinue such summer operation of the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola and will be released from all further obligations under this Section 2.4. (c) Notwithstanding Section 2.4(b) above, in the event that after three years of summer operation of the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola, SkiCo shows a financial loss on operations, the Town may require that SkiCo continue to operate the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola as described in Section 2.4(a) above on the condition that the Town reimburse SkiCo, on an annual basis, an amount equal to SkiCo's financial loss incurred in connection with such operation of the Elk Camp Meadows Gondola. 2.5 Open Space Dedications On or before June 30, 2005, SkiCo shall transfer or cause to be transferred to the Town, at no cost to the Town, fee title to the following properties located within the Town: (a) Ridge East Parcel #34 consisting of approximately 7.797 acres, (b) Creek Valley Parcel #16 consisting of approximately 34 acres; anal, (c) Wildcat Slope Parcel #11 consisting of approximately 148.5 acres (all hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Open Space Parcels The parties acknowledge that the Open Space Parcels are currently subject to existing conservation easements and shall be used by the Town as open space subject to the terms thereof. Copies of said conservation easements with accompanying legal descriptions are attached hereto as Exhibit B. At the time of conveyance by SkiCo, Skico shall provide a commitment for a policy of title insurance for each Open Space Parcel having a coverage amount of not less than $50,000, and SkiCo shall pay the premium thereon at that time. 2.6 Fanny Hill Event Easement. On or before June 30, 2005, SkiCo shall convey or cause to be conveyed to the Town, at no cost to the Town, a non exclusive easement granting the Town certain rights to use a portion of the area known as Fanny Hill, below the Silvertree Hotel, for special events (including concerts, theatrical performances, and cultural events) in periods outside the operating season of the Ski Area. Said easement shall include the following listed terms: (00158162.DOC 6; 5 (a) The easment rights may be exercised only outside the operating season of the Ski Area. (b) The easement rights shall be subservient to the use of the subject area for skiing and snowboarding, SkiCo maintenance activities, and construction of Ski Area related improvements by SkiCo. (c) The easement shall require the Town to indemnify, defend and hold harmless SkiCo, its owners and and employees, to the fullest extent allowed by law, from and against all claims brought against SkiCo and in any way arising out of or related to the use of the easement area by the Town. (d) The easement shall require the Town to repair all damage to the easement area caused by the Town's use of the easement area and after each such use is complete, to restore the condition of the easement area to that which existed prior to such use. (e) The easement shall be permanent except in the event of a default by the Town which remains uncured after reasonable written notice thereof to the Town. ARTICLE_; III DEFAULT 3.1. Event of Default The failure by either party to observe or perform, in any .material respect, any material provision of this Agreement to be observed by such party shall constitute an event of default ("Event of Default 3.2. Notice of Default Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the non defaulting party shall provide the defaulting party with a written notice of such default ("Notice of Default The defaulting party shall have 20 days after receipt of the Notice of Default (the "Cure Period to cure the breach specified in the Notice of Default. During the Cure Period, SkiCo and the Town shall seek diligently and in good faith to negotiate a settlement of any dispute set forth in the Notice of Default, using the services of a neutral mediator if either party so requests. The conduct of such negotiations, or the failure of such negotiations to achieve a settlement, shall not affect the other rights and remedies of the parties under this Agreement. 3.3 Remedies Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, in the event an Event of Default has not been cured by the defaulting partly as of the expiration of the Cure period, the non defaulting shall have all rights available to it at la -,v or in equity, specifically including the right to injunctive relief or damages. {00158162.AOC 61 ARTICLE IV ASSIGNMENT 4.1 Assignment by SkiCo (a) Except as set forth in Section 4.1(b), SkiCo may not assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Town. (b) SkiCo may assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement, or any portion thereof, without the Town's consent by a written recorded instrument expressly assigning such rights and powers to any of the following entities: (a) any affiliate of SkiCo; (ii) IBC; (iii) Intrawest or any of its affiliates; (iv) any entity which is assigned or sold the United States Forest Service permit issued for the Snowmass Ski Area currently held by SkiCo; (1) solely with respect to its obligations under Section 2.3(b) above, any entity which is assigned or sold the lodging operations in the Town owned by SkiCo as of the date hereof; or (vi) solely with respect to its obligations under Section 2.3(b) above, any entity which manages residential rental units located on the Property; (vii) a metropolitan district organized under 'Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and located in the Town which owns any portion of the Property. (c) Upon an assignment by SkiCo of any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement to an entity listed in Section 4.1(b) above, and an assumption of those rights or obligations by such assignee, SkiCo shall be released of all liabilities arising under this Agreement with respect to such rights or obligations. 4.2 Assignment by the Town. Except as set forth in Section 2.1(e) above, the To may not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of SkiCo, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 100158162DOC 6} 7 ARTICLE V MISCELI. kNEOUS 5.1. Binding Effect 'Ibis Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and shall inure to the benefit of each party's successors and assigns, as designated by a written assignment recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 5.2. Governing haw This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 53. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal, void or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of this Agreement or any other provision hereof, and a court shall enforce this Agreement to the maximum extent legally possible to give effect as nearly as possible to the original intent of the Town and SkiCo as expressed in this .Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is .invalid, illegal, void or unenforceable not in its entirety but as applied to a particular act, thing or circumstance, such provision shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of this Agreement or any provision hereof as applied to any other act, thing or circumstance, and a court shall apply such provision and enforce this Agreement to the maximum extent legally possible to give effect as nearly as possible to the original intent of the Town and SkiCo as expressed in this Agreement. 5.4. Termination; Amendment, This Agreement may not be terminated, modified or amended, nor may waivers hereunder be granted, except in writing and only with the consent and approval of SkiCo and the Town. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if IBC loses its right to develop the Property as described in the Ordinance for any reason other than a failure of IBC to meet its obligations under the Ordinance or any agreements entered into in connection therewith, then SkiCo shall immediately be relieved of all obligations hereunder and the parties shall execute a written termination of this Agreement. 5.5. Notices Any notice to be given to SkiCo or the Town under this Agreement shall be given by registered or certified mail, overnight courier, telecopy, telegram or hand delivered to the address of the part= to whom notice is being given. Any notice sent by registered or certified mail will be deemed to have been received three business days following the date of mailing. Any notice sent by overnight courier will be deemed to have been received one business day following the date of delivery to the overnight courier. Either party may change its address for notice by advising the other party in writing of such change, and until the other party is so advised, it will be entitled to continue sending notices to the last address it is advised of in writing 100158162.DOC 61 8 If to the Town: Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010 0016 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Attention: Town Manager Telephone: (970) 923 -3777 Facsimile: (970) 923 -6083 If to SkiCo: aspen Skiing Company, LLC 117 AABC P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 Attn. David Bellack Telephone: (970) 300 -7150 Facsimile: (970) 300 -7154 with a copy to: Intrawest /Brush Creek Development Company, LLC P.O. Box 6565 5131 Owl Creek Road Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Attention: Nike O'Connor Telephone: (970) 922 -0556 Facsimile: (970) 922 -0561 and Kevin H. Kelley, Esq. Jacobs Chase Frick Kleinkopf Kelley I,1,C 1050 17th Street, Suite 1500 Denver, CO 80265 Telephone: 303 685 -4800 Facsimile: 303 685 -4869 5.6. Recording SkiCo and the Town each shall have the right to record this agreement in the records of the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. 5.7. Captions and Titles All captions and titles of headings of .Articles and Sections in this Agreement are for the purpose of reference and convenience and are not to be deemed to limit, modif T or othenvise affect any of the provisions hereof or to be used in determining the intent or context thereof. ;00158162.noc 6, 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed as of the date written above. 'T'OWN: TOWN OF SNOWNIASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation By: D. Michael Segrest, Town Manager SKICO: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, LLC, a Colorado limited hab liq compan Ta 1 Bellack Senior Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORT: John C. Dresser, Jr., Town 5 o ey 100158162.noc s} 10 Exhibit "A" Sample Cost Categories SkiCo lift operations and supervisory labor including wages, payroll taxes, benefits and burden allocations SkiCo Lift Maintenance labor including wages, payroll taxes, benefits and burden allocations Electricity Costs of parts and supplies Reserve for depreciation Taxes, if any Pro rata share of the cost of non routine repairs and replacements SkiCo overhead at the rate of 12.50 /hour of operation for the costs incurred in connection with CPTSB inspection and compliance activities, standby evacuation personnel, supervisory and management time. This list is not intended to be exclusive and as additional items of cost are identified or incurred by the Town and SkiCo, those costs shall be eligible for reimbursement based upon the pro rata allocation of operating hours set forth in Section 2.1 or Section 2.2, as applicable. {00158162.DOC 6} ATTACHMENT 3 FOR ITEM NO 5 ASC POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FROM DEC 21, 2009 rn n� O Vn- -UP C005 o C07 rMIL UL CL LO j c" CN s- O cn m -a m ED W v� M O c� cv a' _O a m v. CL O O V E O L tZ O Q CL v Q O Q �o 0 A A A A Lit- M= LiL ME N N LAJ CL co E M o CU U) O s LM V O ti 4(D C: Ca CU mm E N o U E o E 4 0 m 2- (1) Cl (n N O J CL O Q Q N N U U O o o C6 CU cu too LM 0 0) A A A A A A A Cn CL 0 JA LL- Of CL E 'U CAI C: L E 4-a Im cu A E N N U Q N i U r 0 Q O N Q N U t fn O� CV o l fj a L A A A CL LL- c tj m_ Q co CCS o Xl- cu N Q) cc V o o o W v o M E AW m co Q) C V N O LIZ Co O ca Cu r- O W a) CO N tCs a� ca A �a LM V A I— A A Q W y 0 coo c C co co LiL La N cu o 4, Z Cl) z z m cu 0 m z N to O CN LM A A A A A O CL U- Y Q4 1 3 CK F O M O Co a E O C6 m t�5 tn Ca f C: U) N O N -0_ N •tn O O O N E N E E L N -F-a O X N N� M F O +a N V N O N .E -c: U u) -C c (D -c O m O O N O O cn O U U U 0 r F- A A A A COO CL UL 0 m CL Cl) o uu E E i 0 0 LO sv 3 V C N N V I S M cn CL O Rt .0 O 0 V low W v t� v zm ft Aw i i 4 aa s tl tom; "T e r x =t» s s� r Al x i 'fix o- n t ax LU L- p 0- Co uj CL O Ca toD 0 o ho J N a) u) C6 ,c: N W Q O Z 4 e 6 ry ME r qw' T 1 1 5 0 s. c' 4 a; e I z z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e i x t t i a« v iv I s a r l_!_ MCN r L Ca c- E a) i Jc c� a) CY) 00 `s N a) _0 H 4 M a) CO N LAJ 0 0 C/) 4_j U �X CX to cu L Cl) -a N N CD x O O CON I UP e w' k Y r spy Mod P a 1 ANT Nfit- �T f O� ti° a i�F th g t9 n O W, ZIA 2 WWO k! 1, 0 RL M m ama A t F a.. IR All 1 to 1 4 s e 2 w rt ii LU m to cn Cu Cn I--- Cu CU CL 0 Lu 0) (D o W z W o 4" m 0 0 W Z U W ,.r z J m W C U C� L1J W W Q q LIJ V N Cn CD C fW J 00 4 0 D OpW� V CU 4u s y IF Woo vj EDMI w r xv Act! 1 091 ywwwh� mm I Nov a gi g O AK; 5* e+ w d 1 t s n i■ ry z U UJ It Of CL n US i e t a.� c 4< 4 �u. li o-� (n ea 77 1p 0 co n (D CY)� IL t ^g N W T ANA E I le O V H s CL`�_ N �0 M 0 V J O CL zo o.� c0 C) a 0 C) LM C)) o Q U) Q,�-' off- (D� O Q� aim W E �vi oi st 3 7 t w ju LU r 1 M k rY +q v Y T. t w t r„ „x N CL 0 c ZFE La CL CL E LU p COO CD C p p rte, c: (D 4— U 1.•� 4— U W cn Q (n W E .�.r N O O c to N N p p pp L N O o 4- E O =a) `-jp n L. co a) Co m A A o A a CL Q O a) N N 0)N Q U :3 0m U cn o a) LM c6 c6 N 1.L.1 a 0 tom%) O N O cn LM 0 (n CO W CD 0 E 06 WW 7 �X v Am r s E MMI Or 7 0 x O =^3 f s g y- c O Cc Lail (CS n CO N N Q t6 C6 U+= �O 0 .0 0) 0 N 1 O N LL L L_ 0) cn p C= Co- tQ O INO CD U N H N M Q 03 cal- +r 7.r Lk�� Q plo n ra �"1D� 'i!„ 1 I WE SPA ISO tz"MW Own 2 D y Ts h wK TOO �E 1 1 x a WL LA, La CL 'X t C', I- c: s 0 N 0 N 0 N �N 2m cp CO�E COD C d cn 0 M cc5 co N 0 0 DL-a C: C6 0 0 C: 0 WM to 0 C6 F lgj a t r Y� Z= L16 E 0 CL N O m CI) F_ W O E 0 LO N y x 4) 0 Ma cn CL Lm k E U O F_ p 0 F CD 0 S I Z s All u Tl­ is -4 r g $qs i r b .r "P S a -g a ■�t °s mow" P s r Wig, ar "i s r. .x h 4 fir nw! Ax W� r x .g` .Y s LA- LiL CO CD CL E E U) o 0 w U) Co W a' Q CO U) .p w AMA 0 L° E cu a� L, cu ca O O N c co LM E cu z co C: O C/) W m z LZI Zi CL U. A A A 0 LIL LL €3, U) rL E 11 0 _0 cu C: CZ M co cu c� ;Z: V o N c O cy) 0 0 N C: to cn O c cu O E t� c U) -d CU o a. CU 0 U N �CO o0 0 (V CO A A A A Q O o 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Joe Coffey, Housing Director DATE: February 1, 2010 SUBJECT: Resolution #7, Series of 2010: Recovery of Deed Restricted Homeowner Expenses due to a Natural Event I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council at the December 7, 2009 meeting requested further discussion with staff to determine if deed restricted employee homeowners expenses incurred due to a Natural Event should be recoverable. Attached to this memo is a resolution Council directed staff to provide. Council was not specific on the parameters for recovery so staff has provided an approach to consider recovery. The current housing guidelines are very specific and do not allow the homeowner to recover any type of repair expenses. The discussion is related to the debris flow event which created flooding at two Crossings residences on July 3, 2006 and the repair expenses incurred by the homeowners. II. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2006 a high intensity rain event in Snowmass resulted in a debris flow above the Crossing's neighborhood which clogged the storm water system and caused flooding in two residences located at 146 Rodeo Road and 184 Rodeo Road. Immediately following this natural event the Town's engineer Dean Gordon visited the site on July 5, 2006 to review the site drainage and assess the site to determine if the drainage system in place was adequate for a major event. The Town Engineer stated in his report dated July 5, 2006 that the drainage system was adequate to handle both a 10 year and a 100 year flood hydraulic event. Dean Gordon determined that this event created a debris flow which came down from the hillsides above the crossings and the debris then clogged the culvert inlet and then water overflowed the road and then flowed down to two homes below. The original geotechnical /geological report prepared by Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical Inc. for the Crossings subdivision did not identify this area as being a natural hazard area.Council should also note that these two homes did not have positive drainage in place around the home foundations to divert the water away from these homes. After a thorough investigation it was determined by SGM that the Town of Snowmass Village was not responsible or at fault for the flooding from this natural event and the debris flow that ultimately clogged the culvert The 24 "drainage culverts in place would have taken care of the water flow if the debris was not washed into the culvert inlet.After this event the Town of Snowmass Village constructed a large detention pond above the crossing subdivision to assist in collecting any debris that may come down from the hillsides in future events. Insurance claims were filed against the Town and CIRSA; the Town's Insurance carrier found that the incident was an "act of god The claims were denied by CIRSA. The Town was not found to be negligent or responsible in any other insurance or legal claim. The Housing Director met with both parties to review the flood expenses and discuss the flood event. Both of these homeowners explained how this event created an extreme financial hardship for their families. The repair expenses vary significantly on these homes due to the different home designs. The Podolak's home was completely flooded on the bottom floor (half of their home) and Casebeer's home had a substantial amount of flood damage in their finished basement. Charley Podolak has submitted invoices for $46.919 of which $40,139 are true construction expenses. Doug Casebeer has submitted invoices for $18,355 of which $14,660 was spent on construction repairs. Both of these homeowners did not have flood insurance so these were out of pocket home repair expenses. Allowing substantial repairs from Natural Events to be recovered by increasing the resale price could have significant impacts on the future affordability of the deed restricted homes III. OPTIONS Council has several options to consider: 1. Determine that the construction repair expenses are homeowner expenses and are not recoverable. 2. Allow full recovery of the construction repair expenses to be added to the resale price of these homes. 3. Determine a percentage of the construction repair expenses will be added to the resale price of these homes. 4. Determine that the homeowners expended funds in the spirit of maintaining and rehabilitating these homes and they will receive 20% of their construction expenses with a cash reimbursement from the Housing Excise Tax Fund and the remaining 20% of their construction expenses shall be added to the resale price of these homes. The following amounts are calculated using the approved construction expenses submitted and the 20% percent ratio listed above. Lot 17, 146 Rodeo Road Cash reimbursement $8,028 Home resale price increase $6,422 Lot 20, 184 Rodeo Road Cash reimbursement 2,932 Home resale price increase $3,518 The use of funds to rehabilitate public housing is a permitted use of the Floor Area Excise Tax or "aka" The Housing Excise Tax Fund. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends option #1 due to the following reasons: The Town was not responsible for the damage caused on July 3, 2006. Keeping affordable housing affordable is a difficult task. Paying for compensation of damages may create expectations that the Town will pay for future damages impacting deed restricted homes. All repair expenses added to the resale price will impact future home buyers forever. All homeowners must assume the risk of home ownership expenses and unexpected expenses affect every homeowner. If Council believes a percentage of the repair expenses should be recoverable then staff recommends that Council consider option 4 mentioned above and included in Resolution 7 Series of 2010. This option splits the approved construction expenses with a 20% cash reimbursement and adds 20% of the remaining expenses onto the resale price. This option provides the homeowners with an instant reimbursement which has been requested and only increases the home resale price a small amount for future homebuyers. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 07 SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION ALLLOWING A PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION REPAIR EXPENSES RELATED TO THE REPAIR AND REHABILITATION OF THE CROSSINGS HOMES LOCATED ON LOT #17,146 RODEO ROAD LOT #20,184 RODEO ROAD TO BE PAID FROM THE FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX FUND AND ALLOWING A PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION REPAIR EXPENSES TO BE ADDED TO THE RESALE PRICE OF THE HOMES AS SUCH CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES WERE INCURRED DUE TO THE NATURAL DEBRIS FLOW EVENT THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 3, 2006 WHEREAS, the Town Council directed staff to prepare this Resolution after reviewing this matter during the December 7 2009 council meeting; and WHEREAS, Lot 17,146 Rodeo Road and Lot 20,184 Rodeo Road, have submitted construction repair invoices to document the repair expenses made to their homes from the July 3, 2006 debris flow event; and WHEREAS, The Council has recognized the extreme financial hardship these unexpected construction expenses have created for the homeowners; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. WHEREAS, the Town Council has directed the Housing Director to calculate the total construction repair expenses and reimburse the homeowners 20% of these expenses from the Floor Area Excise Tax Fund and allow 20% percent of the expenses to be added to the resale price of these homes. The 20% of the construction expenses added to the resale price of these homes will added as an improvement and this amount will not earn interest or be added to the CPI resale calculation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, as follows: FINDINGS ON RESOLUTION. The Town Council finds as follows: 1. In an effort to rehabilitate and keep the Crossings homes affordable for future buyers the Council is authorizing a one- time disbursement of funds to reimburse the homeowners for a portion of their construction repairs. 2. Splitting the reimbursement funds with a cash distribution and adding a small amount on to the resale price will assist in keeping the resale price of these homes lower and more affordable for future buyers. 3. Accordingly, Town Council has directed the Housing Director to calculate the total construction repair expenses and reimburse the homeowners TC Reso. 7 -10 Page 2 of 2 20% of these expenses from the Floor Area Excise Tax Fund and allow 20% percent of the total construction repair expenses to be added to the resale price of these homes. The 20% of the construction expenses added to the resale price of these homes will added as an improvement and this amount will not earn interest or be added to the CPI resale calculation. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on the 1 st of February, 2010 upon a motion made by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Bill Boineau, Mayor ATTEST: Donna J. Garcia_ Spaulding, CMC Deputy Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Dresser, Town Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Joe Coffey, Housing Department DATE: February 1, 2010 SUBJECT: Request to amend the Housing Guidelines to restrict the construction of a private or secondary entrance to all deed restricted units. I. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approval of an amendment to the Housing Guidelines to restrict the construction of additional private entrances or secondary entrances to deed restricted housing units. II. BACKGROUND Private entrances or secondary entrances to homes have been restricted in deed restricted housing starting with the Crossing Homes. The Town Council seated at the time of the Crossings development restricted private entrances to these homes in an effort to reduce the possibility of home business entrances and the possible conversion of a basement area to a grandmother type apartment. The Town Council discussed private entrances briefly in the early phase of the Rodeo Place development application and private entrances were never considered for these homes. The finished basement area designed by Coburn Development does not have private entrances for any of these homes. Currently some homeowners are electing to finish their basements themselves with a different basement design and a restriction is needed to prevent private entrances. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends Council approve the attached amendment to restrict private or secondary entrances to all deed restricted units. This restriction will reduce the possibility of neighborhood impacts from home business operations and, deter the conversion of basement space into a separate basement apartment with a private entrance. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE HOUSING RULES AND REGULATIONS Section 17.7.2 shall be revised to read as follows: With written notice to the Housing Manager, the owner of a housing unit of not less than two (2) bedrooms may rent up to one (1) bedroom within the housing unit to a maximum of two (2) people and at least one (1) of those people must be a qualified employee. Provided, however, the owner of the housing unit must: a) maintain residency in the housing unit at all times by occupying a bedroom in the housing unit; and b) receive prior written approval for the rental of the bedroom within the housing unit from the homeowners association in which the housing unit is located; and c) not construct, maintain or otherwise utilize any private or additional entrance to the housing unit which includes both multi family and single family housing units. This restriction applies to all Town of Snowmass Village deed restricted employee housing units. MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department MTG DATE: February 1, 2010 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 2 SERIES OF 2010 MINOR PUD AMENDMENT: PARCEL D, EAST VILLAGE PUD Applicant: CLA Snowmass Office Company, LLC Planner: Chris Conrad, Planning Director 1. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: CLA Snowmass Office Company, LLC "Applicant is requesting Minor PUD Amendment approval to amend the East Village PUD for Parcel D. Discussion occurred regarding this item during the December 21, 2009 and January 4, 2010 Town Council meetings. This item was continued to February 1 in order to provide for proper public notification of the Public Hearing and for council to receive more specific design guidelines from the Applicant. Action Requested: To review the supplemental information provided by the Applicant (See Attachment 1) and modified PUD Guide (Attached as Exhibit "A" of Ordinance included as Attachment 3). Conduct the Public Hearing and then approve, modify or deny first reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010. BACKGROUND: Various topics were discussed during the January 4 meeting and responses have been provided by the Applicant included as Attachment 1. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at their October 7, 2009 meeting. Their resolution was included as part of the December 21 packet. 3. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. The proposal is being processed as a Minor Amendment of a Final PUD Application in accordance with Section 16A- 5- 390(1)b., Minor amendment, of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. Review Standards that apply to this application include: 1) Section 16A -5- 390(3) Review standards 2) Section 16A- 5- 300(c) General Restrictions 3) Section 16A -5 -310 Review standards 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS: Items for discussion may include: 1 a. Modifying the Existing Structure. A portion of the January 4 discussion concerned what the existing structure could look like if permitted to remain at 7,925 square feet in size within the existing footprint. One issue was that there was not enough specificity defining how the basement of existing structure could be modified to create habitable space. Please refer to the Attachment 1 paragraph titled "Building Program" which generally discusses their proposal for converting the existing structure for residential use. Exhibit "A" of the Ordinance (PUD Guide) includes exhibits delineating the proposed building envelope and clarifying what work could occur to convert the basement into habitable space. Provided the council determines that the proposed residential use of this parcel is appropriate at this location, it is essential that the PUD Guide clearly describe what modifications to the existing structure could occur in sufficient detail to fully understand what the modified structure could potentially look like. The East Village PUD limited single family residences to a twenty -eight (28) foot height limit and allowed them to be 5,500 sq. ft. in size with the exception of one (1) lot in Two Creeks and four (4) lots in the Pines that were permitted up to 8,500 sq. ft. in size. All design guidelines were to be reviewed and approved pursuant to the provisions of the Snowmass Architectural Design Committee. The proposed PUD Guide would permit the conversion of the existing building in a manner that would involve utilizing the existing 4,447 sq. ft. of above grade space and permit the existing 3,478 sq. ft. of basement to be converted to residential use, thereby creating a 7,925 sq. ft. residence located within the existing footprint. Any new residence extending beyond the footprint would be limited to 5,500 sq. ft. with no more than 4,447 sq. ft. of habitable space permitted above grade. Clearly there exists an incentive to modify the existing structure. The proposed height limitation is the same as Two Creeks and the Pines. One of the diagrams now included within the PUD Guide is intended to show what areas surrounding the building could be modified (with respect to grade) to better utilize the basement for residential (habitable space) purposes. This would primarily affect the south, or back, side of the building. Staff Recommendation: The Applicant has provided more design specific information or diagrams for council consideration (See Exhibit "A Further refinements could be provided for second reading of the Ordinance. b. Land Use. The Applicant proposes converting the parcel to residential use representing that the use of the current building is no longer viable for office use. In addition, it is requested that the parcel may continue to be used for professional offices until such time as a property owner wishes to convert the use to residential. An application for a minor amendment to a final PUD needs to demonstrate that: 1) the proposed amendment will be consistent with, or an enhancement of, the original PUD approval; 2) the proposed amendment will not have a substantially adverse effect on the neighborhood surrounding the land where the amendment is proposed, or have a substantially adverse impact on the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street from the subject property; and 3) the proposed amendment will not change the basic character of the PUD or surrounding areas. 2 Staff Recommendation: The PUD Guide provides residential zoning parameters that will be applied and the Ordinance states that the professional office use is null and void upon issuance of a single family residence permit for the lot. While it would be preferred that the parcel remain for professional office use, the Applicant has stated that a change of circumstances exists that renders the property no longer viable for that use. c. Floor Area: It should be noted that the existing structure is actually 7,925 square feet in size but the East Village PUD specifies a 4,250 square foot limit for the office building. As stated previously, generally an office building basement is not considered calculable floor area. The Applicant has agreed that the existing basement modifications will be limited to enable residential conversion but that day lighting the foundation should be limited. Approximately 25% of the Two Creeks single family residential lots and 37% of the Pines lots are smaller in size than the subject parcel (0.997 Acres). The proposal would limit the above grade floor area of the residence to 4,447 sq. ft. where 5,500 sq. ft. is permitted within East Village. d. Setbacks: The Applicant initially proposed a building envelope being fifteen (15) feet from all property lines. Staff Recommendation: The Applicant has agreed with the setbacks recommended by staff (See Exhibit "A" of the Ordinance). e. Floor Area Excise Tax (FAET): The Town Council should decide whether this lot should be eligible for FAET (up to 550 square feet) at such time it is converted to residential use. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended that FAET only apply if the existing building is demolished and a new residence is constructed with an approved floor area (FAR) of 5,500 square feet and that the maximum FAET floor area of 550 square feet must be contained in the lower below grade level. Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation but did not add the below grade provision to Condition 3 of the Ordinance. f. Accessory Units: Should Accessory Units be allowed for this particular property? Accessory Caretaker Units (ACU) are 350 -750 square feet and utilize the maximum allowable floor area unless additional area is obtained under the floor area excise tax; ACUs may be rented to qualified employees for a minimum term of six (6) months and short -term or vacation -type rentals are not permitted. Accessory Employee Units (AEU) may be 350 -1,000 square feet in size. Since they involve allowing "bonus" or additional floor area that exceeds the maximum allowable floor area, the AEU must be occupied by a qualified employee for a minimum of eight (8) months each calendar year. 3 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended allowing an Accessory Caretaker Unit (ACU), that is considered calculable floor area subject to limitation, and prohibit an Accessory Employee Unit (AEU). Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation. g. Design Review: The Applicant has agreed that any single family residence be reviewed by the Snowmass Homeowner's Design Review Committee "Design Committee Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1) Supplemental Information dated January 20, 2010. 2) East Village Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Parameters. 3) Town Council Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010. 4 Januar 20, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 Town of Snowmass Village, Mayor and Town Council Chris Conrad, Planning Director Town of Snowmass Village PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: East Village Parcel D Supplemental Information Dear Mayor, Town Council Members, and Planning Director, This memo provides additional information regarding our proposed PUD Amendment in response to comments during the December 21, 2009 Town Council discussion. Building Occupancy A question was raised on the current occupancy of the building. The building is nearly vacant as the anchor tenant (a law firm) relocated at the end of the year to a space in Aspen. We believe this is an important point as it illustrates the difficulty of leasing the building as an office, and the preference of tenants to be within walking distance of other services. The building was originally conceived as an "on site" development office, and as the Town has evolved the office use is no longer viable. The Town's Comprehensive Plan states that "a major objective for the community will be to minimize increases in single occupant vehicle (SOV) use and to increase the use of transit, pedestrian, and other non -SOV modes of travel in the town." In the case of Parcel D the tenants appear to embrace this evolution and are "voting with their feet." Design Review Process Councilman Mordkin questioned the review process for the design of any new construction and whether the Town would retain sufficient control over the current and /or future owner's design. To be clear, what we are proposing is a single family residence that would be subject to the same design review process as any other single family residence in Snowmass Village. This process includes review by the Design Review Board of the site plan, floor plans, exterior elevations, exterior lighting, exterior colors, landscaping including view planes from the roadway, grading, and roofs and height. The Town Council typically does not review the design of single family residences, even for PUD's. Our preferred process would be to define clear development guidelines that update the existing PUD Guide and that are recorded with the ordinance, making any future review by the council unnecessary. To that end, we have worked with Town staff to prepare an updated PUD Guide that includes the concepts recommended by the Planning Commission along with two new Exhibits: 1) a Building Envelope and Setback Map that delineates a building envelope for any future structures on the property regardless of size, and 2) a Diagram that designates areas on the south side of the basement where grading and daylighting will be permitted if the existing foundation footprint is not modified and the existing below grade floor area is maintained. Although our existing structure has an unusually large below grade floor area, the proposed above grade floor area of approximately 4,400 square feet is smaller than the above grade floor area of other residences in the neighborhood, so we do not believe the project will appear unusually large. The proposed height limit of 28 feet is consistent with nearby residential zoning. Applicability of New Codes Councilman Wilkinson asked whether the property would be subject to the latest building and energy codes, and the answer is yes. Building Program Mayor Boineau asked for additional detail on the building program and in particular the program for the basement. Any residence developed on Parcel D might contain the following areas: living room, dining room, no more than one kitchen (no more than two kitchens if an approved AEU is provided), dens, offices, family rooms, libraries, game rooms, media rooms, no more than six bedrooms, wine rooms, up to a 3 car garage, mud /ski room and other customarily associated spaces. For the basement space we have considered bedrooms and bathrooms, a family room, a wine cellar, laundry, a workshop, and mechanical space. In order to accommodate residential spaces, portions of the basement floor may be excavated to provide additional ceiling height. Portions of the basement may be open to the floor above in order to provide solar heat and light. In addition, the below grade foundation walls may be altered by the installation of doors, windows, light wells and the like. On the north side of any structure, any light well can be no larger than that required for light and egress by the applicable building code. On all other sides, the foundation wall can be exposed to create below grade terraces and courtyards. In addition, the below grade foundation walls may be altered by the installation of decks or overhangs above the foundation; provided that if the installation of any such deck or overhang results in additional floor area, there will be a corresponding reduction in the existing below grade space area. ATTACHMENT 2 Parcel G Parcel C �Lo i4 It 1.94 A z4.1 tics 33 btAe cr 0 1 P.1 4A r Lot3 1163 J,. t Parcel "r. w ►C y 1928A r 4L 4z lcs sstA= Pa 1 S,i 37.34 A— L I 3 3.5 out Parcel I}: Parcel t 2 V' 41K Acre i Final Land Use Plan 3 East Village Planned Unit Developmen Ft Village PUD Snowmass Village, Colorado t AAHOD1t/r1WW r1AMD,R AHD /'1VILEMINFFJl5: 1llIl�FTGIYFa31a. LaND5Caf1ARCftRKTr Sa4araaNaaa1C4119r11y O131GNNt�{fCVKP.M UT-rtl8ancll Cha1Ha11m I!3 II �I.CIOtklalrmo4( ISaEwWMSwn 41441- 112arlYi,Iq 114 !ROW-134 C tr +uri Vil (e. COWs441bI3 AMtr. G1MaN 11011 OeJdn. CulWSJr WWI Gh.001 St+up CdaMMI4H .I, /Z,�p IHZ1123iI34 IVI11M2�717A ISU11'HS)(Si tiYr. 1 4011 D O raw U East Village Planned Unit Development Land Use Plan Map Approved as part of the Final Land Use Plan by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1994, Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. East Village Planted Unit Development (PUD) includes all of the real property known as the Parcel A through H, inclusive, East Village P.U.D. according to the plat therefore recorded in Plat Hook at Page is the records of the Clerk and Recorder, Pitkin County, Colorado. containing 369 acres more or less. PmmsLA. Easy Village P.U.D.: PiasLH Two Creeks. East Village P.U.D.: Parcel C East Village P.U.D.: Parcel Q East Village P.U.D.: PiaxtH, East Village P -U.D.; Parcel F East Village P.U.D.; Parcel 0 The Pines, East Village P.U.D.: Pauxl H East Village P.U.D.. g 1 2 1 2 1 2 Be s 8 a m ci U b O O '1 O ?S I r 11 F t u s 1 a 6- E g z g T PPPGGGrrr fi Lim 4 SEE I t at ATTACHMENT 3 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 ORDINANCE No. 2 5 SERIES OF 2010 6 7 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) 8 AMENDMENT FOR PARCEL D, EAST VILLAGE PUD. 9 10 WHEREAS, CLA Snowmass Office Company, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability 11 Company, "Applicant submitted an application for a Minor Amendment of a Final Planned 12 Unit Development (PUD) to the Snowmass Village Planning Department on August 5, 2009; 13 and 14 15 WHEREAS, the proposal involves a change the use of the existing one -story building 16 (formerly the Snowmass Land Company offices) to permit the use of the parcel for single 17 family residential use 18 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Department deemed the application complete for review 20 purposes pursuant to Section 16A -5 -50 to Snowmass Village Municipal Code "Municipal 21 Code and 22 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application on July 1, 2009, and on 24 October 7, 2009 passed Resolution No. 15, Series of 2009, making its recommendations to 25 the Town Council; and 26 27 WHEREAS, the Town Council commenced review of the application on December 21, 28 2009 and further discussed the item on January 4, 2010; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the public hearing notice was published in the Snowmass Sun on January 31 13, 2010 for the Town Council meeting on February 1, 2010 to hear a presentation of the 32 proposal by the Applicant, consider Town staff and Planning Commission recommendations 33 and public comments along with the application review; and 34 35 WHEREAS, the application was reviewed and processed in accordance with the 36 provisions outlined in Sections 16A -5 -390 of the Municipal Code. 37 38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of 39 Snowmass Village, as follows: 40 41 Section One Findings and Recommendations. The Town Council hereby finds that: 42 43 General Findings 44 45 1) The submission requirements for the application were adequately provided pursuant to 46 Sections 16A -5 -40 and 390 of the Municipal Code and included written and graphic 47 materials in sufficient detail to deem the application complete for review. 48 TC Ord 10 -02 Page 2 of 3 49 2) The proposed application qualifies as a `Minor Amendment' pursuant to Code Section 50 16A- 5- 390(1)b, meaning a one -step review before the Planning Commission and the 51 Town Council, and the amendment satisfactorily complies with the review standards 52 outlined below per Section 16A -5- 390(3) as follows: 53 54 a) The proposed amendment is consistent with, or an enhancement of, the original 55 PUD approval; 56 57 b) The proposed amendment does not have a substantially adverse effect on the 58 neighborhood surrounding the land where the amendment is proposed, nor has a 59 substantially adverse impact on the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the 60 street from the subject property; 61 62 c) The proposed amendment would not change the basic character of the PUD or 63 surrounding areas; and 64 65 d) The proposed amendment acceptably complies with the other applicable standards 66 of this Division 3, Planned Unit Development, including but not limited to Section 67 16A- 5- 300(c), General Restrictions and Section 16A -5 -310, Review Standards 68 69 Specific Findings 70 71 1) It is acceptable to permit the current professional office building use to remain until 72 such time as a property owner applies for and receives approval to permit the 73 modification of the existing building or construction of a new building for single family 74 use. 75 76 2) The zoning parameters that are attached as Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance provide for 77 the conversion of the existing structure or construction of a new structure for single 78 family use consistent with the current provisions for single family residences within Two 79 Creeks and The Pines. 80 81 3) The Floor Area Excise Tax (FAST) provisions of the Municipal Code should be 82 amended to enable additional floor area to be acquired for a new single family 83 residence on this parcel. 84 85 4) Neither the existing structure or any new residential structure should be permitted to 86 include an Accessory Employee Unit (AEU) unit within the lot. 87 88 5) The Applicant has offered to submit to the Snowmass Homeowners Architectural 89 Design Committee Guidelines and review for any modification of the existing structure 90 or construction of a new single family residence. 91 92 Section Two Action. The Town Council hereby grants the approval of the Minor PUD 93 Amendment, subject to the compliance with the Amended PUD Guide attached as Exhibit "A and 94 the conditions set forth in Section Three of this ordinance. 95 96 Section Three: Conditions. The Town Council makes the following conditions for the 97 Applicant to comply with or implement: TC Ord 10 -02 Page 3 of 3 98 99 1) Based upon the Applicant's offer for this parcel to submit to the Snowmass 100 Homeowners Architectural Design Committee Guidelines and review for any 101 modification of the existing structure or construction of a new single family residence, 102 written verification from the Snowmass Homeowners Association shall be provided to 103 the Town Planning Director prior to receiving a building permit for residential use of the 104 property or within sixty (60) days on the effective date of this Ordinance, whichever 105 occurs first. 106 107 2) This Ordinance shall be recorded, at Applicant's expense, in the records of the Pitkin 108 County Clerk and Recorder. 109 110 3) At such time as any building permit is issued to convert the land use for this parcel from 111 professional offices to residential, the use and all land use /zoning parameters set forth 112 for this parcel in the East Village Land Use Plan as approved by Ordinance No. 6, 113 Series of 1994, which included "Professional Offices shall be considered null and void 114 and the parcel will thereafter be subject to the Amended PUD Guide attached as 115 Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance. 116 117 Section Four Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any 118 person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or 119 application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or 120 application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. 121 122 Section Five Enforcement. Obligations herein this Ordinance shall be binding on the 123 Applicant, its affiliates, successors and assigns. 124 125 INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED on First Reading by the Town Council of the 126 Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on this 1 st day of February, 2010, upon a motion made 127 by Council Member and the second by Council Member upon a 128 vote of in favor and opposed. 129 130 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on Second Reading by the Town Council of the 131 Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on this 16'" day of February, 2010, upon a motion made 132 by Council Member and the second by Council Member upon a 133 vote of in favor and opposed. 134 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 135 136 137 138 ATTEST: Bill Boineau, Mayor 139 140 141 Rhonda Coxon, Town Clerk 142 143 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 144 145 146 John C. Dresser, Jr., Town Attorney Exhibit "A" TC Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2010 (Page 1 of 4) Parcel D, East Village PUD [Amended PUD Guide] Parcel Acreage: .997 Acres The use and all land use /zoning parameters set forth for this parcel in the East Village Land Use Plan shall remain as approved by Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1994, which included "Professional Offices until the parcel is intended to be used for residential purposes pursuant to Ordinance No.2, Series of 2010. At such time as any building permit is issued to convert the land use from professional offices to residential the following limitations and parameters shall apply: Permitted Uses by Right: One (1) single family residence with appurtenant driveway, parking, utilities and accessory structures. Accessory Caretaker Unit (ACU). With the exception of underground utilities and driveway, setbacks and the building envelope shall be as shown on the attached Building Envelope and Setback Map and regulated pursuant to Section 16A- 3- 200(b) of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code "Municipal Code Maximum Building Height: 28 feet for the principal residential structure and 18 feet for accessory structures. Building height shall be regulated pursuant to Section 16A- 3- 210(a) of the Municipal Code. Parking: Minimum one (1) parking space per bedroom. Maximum Building Square Footage (allowable FAR). Measuring floor area (FAR) shall be regulated pursuant to Section 16A- 3- 210(b) of the Municipal Code. The limitations for this lot shall be: 1. If the footprint of the existing foundation is maintained in its present configuration, the maximum above -grade floor area is 4,447 sq. ft. and the maximum below -grade floor area is 3,478 sq. ft. The below -grade floor area may be habitable if it satisfies applicable Building Code requirements related to light and access. The foundation may be altered by the installation of doors, windows, light wells and the like in areas where the foundation is exposed and by the installation of decks or overhangs above the foundation; provided that: a. Along the walls of the existing basement defined by the bubble on Diagram 1, only light wells may be permitted as necessary to provide required light and egress as minimally required by the Town building code. With the exception of light wells, the current finished grade along the north side shall not be modified by more than thirty six (36 inches) from its present condition as shown on Diagram 1. b. On the south side of the existing basement, grading and daylighting of the basement area shall be permitted in a way that is consistent, with the attached Diagram 1. Exhibit "A" TC Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2010 (Page 2 of 4) c. With the exception of any basement window well casements, no structural modifications to the basement habitable space or below -grade foundation wall may extend beyond the existing footprint of the building. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing does not prohibit patios or rear yard grading on the south side of the existing basement. d. If the installation of any such decks or overhangs results in additional floor area, there will be a corresponding reduction in the existing below -grade floor area. e. The ceiling height within the basement may be increased provided the current finished grade topography within the front yard setback remains except as provided in Paragraph 1(a) above. 2. If the footprint of the existing foundation is altered, except for the installation of doors, windows, light wells and the like, or the installation of decks and overhangs above the foundation, the habitable floor area shall be limited to 5,500 sq. ft., with no more than 4,447 sq. ft. of habitable floor area on or above grade. Additional subgrade floor area may be allowed pursuant to the Floor Area Excise Tax provisions of the Municipal Code. 3. The first 700 sq. ft. of garage space shall be exempt from the above floor area calculations. If the existing building is demolished and a new single family residence is constructed, the property shall be eligible for additional floor area through the provisions of the Floor Area Excise Tax. 4. The property is not eligible to create an Accessory Employee Unit (AEU). 5. The property shall be subject to the Snowmass Design Committee guidelines and architectural design review requirements if and when it is converted to residential use. Notice to Owners and Occupants of Parcel D Parcel D is adjacent to an active ski area and a commercial area. As such, Parcel D will be impacted by ski area operations and commercial activities associated with those operations, including, but not limited to, snowmaking, snow grooming, lift operations, the maintenance, repair, replacement or re- grading of skiing areas and facilities, patrons skiing near Parcel D, permitted commercial activities, and public and private transportation and parking. i i i i i j i r J eat J-- -j J /yj i '!i L!J \lJ t l I `X r i ''l l fF !r✓ i i l yam'''! I I I d19 tc ~v/ °o'��! r o> �R f r r CA C 1 1 1 I G m F m Zi r 'I�I I Z j Z I q M g4 i i Z C m' m r CD NORTH o m CD m n N N W Q- CL 0 X CD =r n m C m W emp. cp N v N N O n O o 0 Q a U) n` r o r l •i D D D r D D U) 7Q m 00 cn ma I l II D o D m C)> xr€�sw�A�'v'"� C/) r fTl htrr I v I r 1 �r Frd�'4.�•w_.d ^��S'w &�ak,`=,*�.'s",���t.'7 a R�3{i Mu"? t`ra'�'�, r �'`s3n .k R'1 t�f..rr+ Ar I I I Mur oi OMB On— D/ '4`4�� in 1 I I I D I Z C I m Z r r ":ia�i �r "r. 4''��Udkv Ls.. 1 I r-. I I I A Inc t t�?ra -s k s I 7 r I I co c m W• 15'.0. f m II 00 I ��I I II j o I Io O f L7 m D n m y p m 1 Cn C) 1 1 O m 0 Y I f' 0 0 j I I I 70m n m r 0 n 50 <a 11 Z I O .Z7 l' r7 0 Z C lb DDgfTI 0 Qg! �r 1 D D 1 t -ir �1� m ooDD �D3> C-) C 1 l =U)U) m om� mm� z v�� 1 �1 mr D 11 I I .00 <pP -s F m 02 OT x rt�i 1R -m W _SOl °23'] 4 "W 143.49' I I n O I 0 X (o NORTH rr n O 1rt 0 CD a �m 0 M CA N O O d CL O C1 O 0 O q O O r U N VV rn O i 3 U) LLJ L M C z X cv W m 0 W N O H18ON I W 1 z F W r W I 1 L5�1N it �LJ I �/F I' L 1 I I' �j W I a il r, W o ,•�w/ V CL ui I fit I /1 i 1, rly� i f Six I s t �Wt 1 ym ao f I /i.i• i \g's a Qd x''41~ /�b i f i -mod i i. ,r •"i- i Ii' may_" i j /i i /j yam �7V. i i v 3 E C d J co C G MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: February 1, 2010 meeting SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 08 SERIES OF 2010 A re- zoning to `Multi Family' (MF), and a revised Minor Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Amendment regarding the proposed Snowmass Club Circle development project, involving a two family dwelling. Applicant: Bear Realty, Inc., represented by: Stan Clausen /Patrick Rawley, Stan Clausen Associates, Inc. Owner: Snowmass Club Associates, LLC Planner: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner I. PURPOSES AND ACTION REQUESTED: The purposes of the meeting would be to: a) Allow staff to introduce the item and present pertinent information; b) Assess applicant's request for reconsideration of the current proposal pursuant to the attached letter received dated January 5, 2010 (see Attachment A); c) Open the continued public hearing and receive comments (see Attachment B for the recent public comments received since the meeting on December 7th and Attachment 2 of Attachment C of this report for the previously received written public comments; also reference Exhibit "C" of the attached Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010 [Attachment D of this report] for the review comments from Town departments and referral agencies, one including updated comments dated January 12 and 13 2010 from the Town's Natural Resource consultant clarifying their position and previous comments concerning wetland replacement mitigation); d) Permit the applicant to respond to public comments made, as well as allow staff to respond to public or applicant comments or responses made; e) Continue to consider the findings and recommendations made by the Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 17, Series of 2008 (see Attachment 1 of Attachment C of this report), together with the staff findings and recommendations in the staff report to Town Council dated December 7, 2009 (again, Attachment C of this report); f) Review and consider action on the affirmatively drafted Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010 (Resolution 8) [see Attachment D of this report], as requested per the applicant's letter dated January 5, 2010 (Attachment A). Note: Since resolutions are not typically written until Council has reviewed the core issues of the proposal in depth, in order to determine the consensus of the proper findings and conditions, staff in this case has prepared the affirmatively drafted resolution similar to the Planning Commission resolution findings and recommendations, which may be amended by Council at the meeting. 1 JPage II. OTHER HEADINGS RELATED TO THE TOPICS Attachments A. Letter from Applicant representative dated January 5, 2010; B. Recent public comments dated January 25, 2010 received from Country Club Townhomes Corporation that references their previous correspondence dated December 16, 2009 C. For public record purposes, and because the previous review occurred almost two months ago, please refer to as needed the previous staff report dated December 7, 2009 with its referenced attachments that include: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009, with its referenced exhibits that include the review comments from the Town departments and referral agencies (Note: The same referenced Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" have been transferred to the back of draft Town Council Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010 see Attachment D of this report); and 2. Public comments received on the two family dwelling proposal; and D. Draft Town Council Resolution No. 8, Series of 2010, with referenced Exhibits 'A," "B" and "C," that include the same exhibits that were referenced behind Planning Commission Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009, with the exception of the latest comments inserted from the Town's natural resource consultant dated January 12 and 13 2010. Separate Handouts previously issued at the December 7. 2009 hearing Comparison analysis prepared by the Planning Department of the proposed building elevations mirrored or overlaid onto the on adjacent properties' building elevations and vice versa at the same 1/8" 1' scale, provided for reference and evaluation purposes. Application booklet dated August 17, 2009 which was received by the Planning Department on August 21, 2009. III. NEXT STEPS If Resolution 8 is acted upon Close the public hearing, unless an alternative Resolution should be written and acted upon If Resolution 8 is not acted upon Schedule a site visit, if desired; and Continue the public hearing to the next meeting to consider a possible amendment, or to further review core issues of the current proposal, and /or to consider modifications to Resolution 8. 21Page ATTACHMENT A TC Report 02 -01 -10 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESIuc ltn4stape archiletitrre,planrotng.resort design 7 412 N00h *11 5lreet Moen, Colorado Bib» 1.9.7019-2S-2323 r.9701920 -1628 Inlo0sc4plarmngtom www.scapiannlng,com 5 January 2010 Mr. Chris Conrad Planning RECEIVED Planning Director Town of Snowmass Village 130 Kearns Road JAN 6 2010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 1 ovrv(lld'56 Viifage RE: 300 Snowmass Club Circle Preparation of Ordinance Oftmunity DevefOpment Dear Chris: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. represents Bear Realty in connection with its Preliminary Plan Application for a Planned Unit Development of property located at 300 Snowmass Club Circle. On behalf of Bear Realty, we respectfully request that the an ordinance and staff memo be prepared for the Town Council to take affirmative action upon the Preliminary Plan Application to provide for the construction of a residential duplex, as recommended by the Town of Snowmass Village Planning Commission. No additional materials will be submitted at this time. Some history is in order here. After reducing the proposed development from four to three units, the applicant came before the Town Council on 18 May 2009. Council directed the applicant to continue to further reduce the overall size and scale of the project. Based on comment from the Town Council, the applicant engaged in a complete redesign of the project, reducing the number of units to two residences and considerably reducing the scale of the project. This redesigned project was brought before the Town Council on 20 July 2009. Council was generally favorable to the amended project, but wanted it to be reviewed again by the Planning Commission prior to granting preliminary approval. On 7 October 2009, the applicant came before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted a favorable review of the project. However, because staff had not prepared a resolution, the applicant needed to appear once more before the Planning Commission on 4 November 2009. The Planning Commission resolution clearly reflects a recommendation for approval of the proposed development and notes its compatibility with the existing neighborhood. However, in our meeting with the Town Council on 7 December, we do not believe that the staff memo fully reflected this sentiment of the Planning Commission. Moreover, some members of the town council were absent or unable to attend the initial portion of our presentation. Town of Snowmass Village Chris Conrad, Planning Director 5 January 2010 Page 2 We would appreciate the Town Council reviewing once again the application as submitted and recommended by the Planning Commission, which we believe has been very responsive to the initial concerns of both the Town Council and the Planning Commission. This is not a case where the developer initially proposed an outrageously scaled project in the hope that any scaling down would be accepted. The initial density was consistent with existing residential densities of adjacent developments, and the revised project represents a considerable reduction. The process, with which the developer has been compliant at every instance, has been expensive and protracted for a relatively small development. At the prior meeting, there were concerns expressed by a Council member with respect to architectural design. Modifications to the architectural design can certainly be made prior to the Final PUD application based on guidance from the Planning Commission and town Council. However, at this point it remains more appropriate to review the essential parameters of the development, which we believe have been revised and a responsive and appropriate way. In conformance with concerns of the Town Council, Bear Realty engaged in a complete redesign of the development. This redesign: Reduced Building Mass, Footprint, and Height The redesigned development represents less mass and fewer units, responds to the neighboring properties in a more sensitive manner, and creates a transitional development between the Club Villas and Country Club Townhomes. Eliminated Requests for Variances The applicant has resolved the issues that necessitated variances. The redesigned development: Reduces the number of proposed bedrooms to a total of eight, which allows the eight (8) required parking spaces to be comfortably accommodated entirely on site; The proposed development has been moved to the south, meeting the Town's 25- foot setback requirement in connection with the reconstructed water feature on the north side of the site. The neighborhood water feature is still proposed to meet the 1:1 replacement goal and will be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing community purpose. Because a residential use had not been contemplated for the site when the Comprehensive Plan Buildout Chart was created, the Applicant would necessarily require a variance in connection with the residential buildout. This request is to amend the table from zero (0) units to two (2) units. The unit equivalency (UE) is, reduced from 18 UE in the previous design to 1 1 Town of Snowmass Village Chris Conrad, Planning Director 5 January 2010 Page 3 UE in the current design. It should be noted that the Buildout Chart could not have anticipated the Aspen Skiing Company request for a new and enlarged Golf Clubhouse or the obsolescence of the current building. Zoning Classification The Planning Commission recommended re- zoning of the property to "Multi- Family" (MF). This zone district is consistent and compatible with adjacent residential zoning. It has zoning parameters that are consistent with adjacent residential structures. After putting considerable design thought into this project, which replaces a non conforming and incompatible use with a compatible residential use, we believe that this is a project that will confer benefit to adjacent residential uses and to the community at- large. Much time has been devoted to making this project responsive to the Town Council, Planning Commission, and adjacent residential abutters. However, in terms of the overall scope of the project, after careful investigation, no further reduction of the basic project scope is possible. We would appreciate a reconsideration of this previously submitted project by the Town Council at their meeting of 19 January 2010. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Cc: S.R. Mills, Bear Realty ATTA CHMENT B COUNTRY CLUB TOWNHOMES CORPORA.TI TC Report 02-01 -10 Rill P. O. Bog 6159 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 RECEIWD 970 923 -4944 JAN 2 5 2010 To: TOSV Town Council Members �bnovalanvRo From: Howard P. Foley, Pres. CCTH� Date: Jan. 25, 2010 Subject: Feb. 1, 2010 Town Council meeting Proposal to develop the 0.4 acre golf pro -shop site, currently zoned as "Recreational" on the Snowmass golf course (Parcel 10, Filing No. 1, Lot 1 of Snowmass Club Subdivision) Now that the developer Bear Realty, Inc. has decided to: (1) Not respond in a positive or sensitive manner to the very clear direction they received from Town Council Members Bill Boineau, Arnie Mordkin and John Wilkinson at the public hearing on Dec. 7, 2009, (See Attachment 1, my email sent to the Town Council on Dec. 16, 2010) and; (2) Not respond to any of the seven very important concerns enumerated in the Overall Staff Recommendations on the bottom of page 60 and the top of page 61 of that meeting's Town Council information packet, (See Attachment 2, the Recommendations); We therefore recommend a "NO" vote on the proposed development project before you and respectfully request that the Town Council not grant permission to the applicant to proceed with the submission of a Final PUD application. The "bottom line" conclusion from the Dec. 7 meeting for those of us who were there was that this proposal STILL HAS TOO MUCH "height "scale "mass, "density" with a "cantilevered" structure, stuffed into the 0.4 of an acre at this particular location. We are still concerned that if this project is approved as a Multi Family zone district, which allows a 38 foot high structure with no limit on the amount of floor area and for some reason the project is not implemented; the new Multi-Family zone district would still remain. As you know, there is a small single story structure on this site with about 1,200 square feet zoned "Recreational However, if this small parcel of land were zoned as a "Duplex Residential" district which would limit it to a 28 foot high structure with 4,500 square feet of floor area, we would have some assurance that possible future development proposals would likely be more 1 transitional in nature and more compatible with its neighbors 10 feet to the west, The Country Club Townhomes. This duplex proposal with NO CHANGES to what was presented to you at the Dec. 7, 2010 Town Council meeting is being presented to you for the second time at this Feb. 1, 2010 meeting after you granted the developer's request for a continuance at the Jan. 19, 2010 Town Council meeting which I attended. This proposal would be far more acceptable if the two units WERE CHANGED and were sized more like what is called for in Duplex Residential districts. Again, we urge you to vote "NO" on this Multi- Family zone district development proposal and respectfully request that the Town Council not grant permission to the applicant to proceed with the submission of a Final PUD application. Thank you again for all the work you and your staff have put in analyzing this proposed development project and for your thoughtful consideration of our views on this important matter. ATTACHMENTS: #1 my email to Town Council, Dec. 16, 2010 #2 Planning Staff recommendations, Dec. 7, 2010 -end 2 r arc l vi i Howard Foley From: "Howard Foley" <hpfoley @msn.com> To: "Howard Foley" <hpfoley @msn.com> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 2:21 PM Subject: Re: former Snowmass Club golf pro- shop /proposed development/ hearing Dec. 7th Original Message From: Howard Foley To: Bill Boineau butiermarkyCcDaol.com John Wilkinson mordkin(cDrof.net snowmassreed@gmail.com Cc: Jim Wahistrom Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:28 PM Subject: former Snowmass Club golf pro -shop /proposed development/ hearing Dec. 7th Mr. Mayor and Members of the Town Council, On behalf of all the owners at the Country Club Townhomes I wish to thank you for the sensitivity shown by the Council to our concerns and those of others about the proposed development which was Item No. 10 on the Dec. 7th Regular Meeting Agenda. Bill raised the issues of Multi Family, (`MF') vs. Duplex (`DU') and what is most appropriate for what is being proposed and that he did not favor a "third story on either unit John listed the "fatal flaws" he saw with the proposal and that if anything was approved it would have to more accurately reflect the size limitations of duplex units in the Municipal Code. Arnie agreed with Bill and John and added that the proposal as presented was "just too much in too small a space" and that the developer's arguments that the project had been greatly reduced in size and that if it were reduced any further it might not be economically viable were not concerns of the Council. We agree with all the above points as well as the seven (7) points enumerated on the top of page 61 in the Planning Commission staff memorandum contained in your meeting material. We hope if and when the developer comes back to Town Council in January with a revised proposal, that what is presented to you reflects what was clearly the direction they were given by the Council. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you on this issue during the public comment period during the hearing and thank you all again for your thoughtful review of this project. Howard P. Foley, Pres., Country Club Townhomes 1/24/2010 (per the plan) and serve to direct drainage through the area. The applicant proposes to maintain a 14 foot wide area along the trail for Nordic ski operations. Staff comment recommendation In the Construction Management Plan (CMP), the applicant should propose where a temporary trail connection would occur while the site and replacement hail are being constructed. This may require coordination with the adjacent property owner for a temporary construction easement. The operational requirements of the Nordic Council including the design of the trail still need to be resolved between the applicant and the Nordic Council. An easement grant would likely be needed. Planning Commission findings recommendation Pursuant to the review comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit 'V of the resolution, it is recommended that the general feasibility involving the CMP and the re- design and usage of the trail along on the east side of the site be addressed at a preliminary review by the Town Council and that the technical aspects of the CMP be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. Energy conservation. The applicant's energy conservation proposal is identified behind Tab 16 of the application. Staff_ comment/ recommendation The application again seems non- committal in the usage of the proposed energy conservation methods by using language such as, "considered," "may be utilized," and "may include." Planning Commission findings recommendations The application appears to have satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed units would: a) be oriented toward the south for maximum solar heat gain, b) provide high efficient condensing boiler for the snowmelt system that would also lessen the impact of snow storage along Snowmass Club Circle, c) provide fluorescent lighting, and d) use Energy Star appliances. Block Model. Staff has not seen a revised block model for the two-family dwelling proposal. Staff previously recommended that the appficanrs block model illustrate or ghost -in the property lines for reference purposes next time it is brought to a meeting to better understand the buffering treatment proposed and the impacts upon adjacent properties. Again, staff would recommend greater building setbacks than 10 to 12 feet from the current property lines for the three -story, two-family dwelling up to 36 feet in height. Overall Staff Recommendation After a third attempt by the applicant to submit or modify their proposal, staff would prefer not to typically recommend against an application. However, per the findings above, it appears that the application does not quite yet meet the review criteria, even though the two family dwelling usage itself may be acceptable, and staff is compelled to recommend that the Town Council not grant permission to proceed to a Final PUD, for the following reasons: woo 161PaI 1. The revision for a two family dwelling usage appears acceptable, but does not appear to meet the Municipal Code's intent for the proposed UP zone district; 2. As the proposed two- family dwelling is akin to a townhome type product, the structure's mass and scale should relate more to the adjacent townhomes rather than the adjoining condominium development; 3. The proposed building setbacks of 10 to 12 feet, especially along the west property lime, remain too shallow for the proposed structure up to 36 feet in height; 4. The shallow setbacks and accompanying utilities do not allow for the adequate on- site placement of landscape buffering or year round screening of the project; 5. The applicant should not rely upon adjacent property's setbacks, existing landscape areas and /or the relocation of trees off-site to justify the proposal, without first obtaining consent or an agreement from the affected owners; 6. The existing wetland pond and vegetation do not appear to have been fully mitigated; and 7. The applicant has not attempted to at minimum respond to all of the review comments. VI. OTHER HEADINGS RELATED TO THE TOPICS Attac hments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009, with its referenced exhibits that include Exhibit "C" outlining the review comments from the Town departments and referral agencies; and 2. Public comments received on the two family dwelling proposal. Separate Handouts Comparison analysis prepared by the Planning Department of the proposed building elevations mirrored or overlaid onto the on adjacent properties' building elevations and vice versa at the same 1/8" =1' scale, provided for reference and evaluation purposes. Reference the application booklet August 17, 2009 which was received by the Planning Department on August 21, 2009. VII. NEXT STEPS Next Steps include: Continue the public hearing to the next meeting; and/or Schedule a site visit, if desired; and/or Continue review of the application or core issues; and/or Direct that staff to draft an ordinance for consideration. 17 1- a a e ATACHMENT C TC Report 02 -01 -10 STAFF REPORT FROM TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 7, 2009 WITH REFERENCED: ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009 (Note: the referenced exhibits were transferred to back of TC Resolution 10 -08 see Attachment D of this report) ATTACHMENT 2 Previous Public Comments Received MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: December 7, 2009 meeting SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION A re- zoning to `Multi Family' (MF), and a revised Minor Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Amendment regarding the proposed Snowmass Club Circle development project, this time involving a two family dwelling. The application involves a proposed redevelopment of Parcel 10, Filing No. 1, Lot 1, of the Snowmass Club Subdivision (the previous golf clubhouse building site) involving 0.4 acre located on the south side of Snowmass Club Circle across from the Snowmass Club. Applicant: Bear Realty, Inc., represented by: Stan Clausen /Patrick Rawley, Stan Clausen Associates, Inc. Owner: Snowmass Club Associates, LLC Planner: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner I. PURPOSES AND ACTION REQUESTED: The purposes of the meeting would be to: a) Allow staff to introduce and present pertinent information concerning the application; b) Hear a presentation by the applicant of the revised Preliminary Plan and Amendment application as revised August 17 received August 21, 2009; c) Open the public hearing and receive comments (see Attachment 2 for the written public comments received; also reference Exhibit "C" of the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009 [Attachment 1 for the review comments from Town departments and referral agencies); d) Permit the applicant to respond to public comments made, as well as allow staff to respond to public or applicant comments /responses made; e) Time permitting, begin review of the application in accordance with the procedures outlined in Municipal Code Section 16A -5 -340, Preliminary plan considering the recommendations of Town staff in this report and the recommendations from the Planning Commission in attached Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009 (see Attachment 1); and f) Provide directives to staff in preparing a subsequent ordinance with findings and recommendations for consideration. II. SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. Reference the application materials dated August 17, 2009 and received August 21, 2009 that were distributed as a separate handout for the meeting. In summary, the application involves the requests for: 1 JPage 1. Re- zoning the property to "Multi- Family (`MF'); Be advised that the `MF -PUD' zone district noted for the most part in the application is no longer permitted by the Municipal Code. 2. Amending the existing PUD, which initially involves a Preliminary Plan proposing a two family dwelling with condominium ownership, a two -car garage for each unit, and four surface parking spaces; 3. A buildout variation to allow a residential buildout increase from zero (0) to two (2) actual units with a maximum unit equivalency of 11.0 UE (actually calculated at 10.75 UE); 4. Developing into the Town's 25 -foot wetland setback requirement for the existing pond. The proposed two family dwelling appears to meet the 25 foot setback for the intended replacement wetland vegetation or pond area if the size is acceptable. Note: The approval of the buildout variation and any encroachment into the 25 -foot wetland setback requirement would require approval by at least three quarters (3/4) of the members of the Town Council present and voting. Comparison against previous proposal Overall, the applicant is now proposing a two family dwelling in lieu of a three family dwelling on the property with the same Multi Family (`MF') zone district. According to the development parameters noted in the comparison table of the applicant's amended application, the following changes are noted from the previous proposal: The proposed unit mix would change from three (3) units with a total of 13 bedrooms to two (2) units with a total of eight (8) bedrooms; The total square footage or floor area proposed would reduce from 12,168 to 7,987 square feet; The average unit size would decrease from approximately 4,056 to 3,994 square feet in the proposed PUD; The unit equivalents would decrease from 18.0 to 10.75; A buildout variation is proposed from the current designation of zero (0) units to two (2) actual units. The density would decrease from 7.5 to 5.0 units per acre with the PUD, but there is no residential density on the site now; The maximum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) would decrease from 0.69:1 to 0.46:1 with the PUD; The building setback dimensions increase more substantially along the street and nominally increase along the west, east and south sides of the site with the PUD proposal; and The parking requirement of eight (8) spaces at the rate of one space per bedroom would be met with two double -car garages and four surface spots. III. BACKGROUND How the amended application process developed for a two family dwelling proposal February 17, 2009 The previously revised application for a three family dwelling was presented to the Town Council. At that time, there were public and Town Council comments that indicated an unfavorable reaction to the proposal. In the end, the applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to May 18, 2009 to consider a redesign of the proposal. The hearing was continued again to July 20, 2009. 21Page June 29, 2009 The applicant submitted a request to amendment the application for a two family dwelling proposal. July 20, 2009 The Town Council accepted via Resolution No. 18, Series of 2009, the two family dwelling proposal subject to updating the application comprehensively, referring the application, and having the Planning Commission review and make recommendations on the proposal. August 21, 2009 The applicant submitted an updated application in response to staff completion review comments on August 19, 2009 for the initial comprehensive application submission on August 14, 2009. August 25, 2009 The comprehensive update of amended application determined complete for referral and review purposes. August 27, 2009 The application distributed to Planning Commission members, Town Departments and referral agencies for review. October 7, 2009 The first public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to commence review of the amended application for a two family dwelling. The hearing was continued to October 18 and to November 4, 2009. November 4, 2009 The Planning Commission passed Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009, providing their findings and recommendations to the Town Council. IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Public Hearing notification The public hearing notice was coordinated in advance of the Planning Commission action and published in the Snowmass Sun on November 4, 2009 for the scheduled Town Council meeting on December 7, 2009. Pursuant to Code Section 16A -5 -60, the Applicant must to submit signed affidavits for the required mailing and posting of the public hearing notices. As of the writing of this report the affidavits have not yet been submitted, but staff requested the affidavits by December 1 st and should be delivered no later than the date of the hearing. Why and how did the Preliminary Plan application inception process start Pursuant to the Municipal Code criteria in Section 16A -5 -390, Amendment of Final PUD the proposal is considered a "Major Amendment" to the original or previous PUD, and in accordance with Section 16A -5 -300, PUD Purpose, overview and general restrictions the amendment proposal qualifies as a "Minor PUD" triggering the need for Preliminary and Final PUD review, because: a. it contains no more than four (4) dwelling /hotel /lodge or other residential units; b. it contains no more than 4,000 square feet of nonresidential space. For a Minor PUD, a Sketch Plan application is not required and the review process may begin with a Preliminary Plan application. Review standards /criteria The applicable Municipal Code that regulates this proposal includes Sections 16A -5- 390, Amendment of Final PUD 16A -5 -220, Amendments to the Official Zone District Map 16A- 5- 340(b), Preliminary Plan Review Intent and Issues 16A- 5- 300(c), General Restrictions and 16A -5 -310, Review Standards The `burden of proof' is on the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the Code criteria for the application being proposed. The Applicant has attempted to do so pursuant to Tab 1 and its sub -tabs of their application notebook and other drawings or plans along with supporting documentation such as supplemental reports and studies. 31Page The Town Council must be satisfied that such review criteria have been met and state as such via findings in a subsequent ordinance. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 390(1)c, the review standards for a `Major Amendment' to a Final PUD `shall be considered,' but `not be bound by' such criteria, which in summary are: 1. Consistency with the original PUD; 2. No substantially adverse impact; 3. Not change character; and 4. Comply with other applicable standards. Staff advises that draft findings addressing these criteria could be stated in a subsequent ordinance for consideration at a later meeting, once directed as such by the Town Council. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS TOGETHER WITH SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of core issues The decision makers need to have a comfort level that the proposed re- zoning to `MF' and the accompanying Preliminary Plan satisfy the affected Code review criteria, as to be demonstrated by the Applicant, and that the proposal is compatible with the nature and character of the immediately surrounding or adjacent areas. The following questions should be answered when analyzing the core issues: a. Does the proposed amendment to the zone district map meet the Code criteria? b. Does the proposal meet the intent of the MF zone district? c. Is the project's orientation, building setbacks, mass, scale, density, intensity and volume compatible with or an enhancement of the character of the community in the immediate vicinity and the prevailing scale, form and proportion of the surrounding buildings adjacent to the site? d. Are views from the surrounding properties substantially or adversely affected? e. Are the landscape buffers on the development site adequate? f. Has the proposal acceptably preserved or mitigated existing water features and plant material? g. Is the access and circulation to and from the site, driveway, parking and garage spaces acceptable? h. Has the Applicant adequately justified the proposed buildout variation? i. Do the proposed community purposes seem adequate, and if so, would the community purposes be achieved as a result of granting the variation? After Town Council has reviewed and evaluated the proposed rezoning, the Preliminary Plan and the core issues, along with the staff and Planning Commission recommendations, staff could prepare a draft ordinance for consideration, as to be determined or directed by the Town Council. Specific core issues The Planning Department staff has conducted a review of many sections within the amended application and provided their observations and comments below for consideration during the public meetings. While the proposal may be moving in the proper direction for a development that might be compatible for the neighborhood, staff has identified remaining issues pertaining to the proposed re- 41Page zoning, the related development parameters, the floor area proposed and its affects upon the bulk, mass and scale of the building and its resulting impacts upon and the relationship to the property lines and adjacent developments that could pose remaining concerns. Rezoning to `Multi Family' (MF): In the application, the proposal asks for re- zoning to `MF' and in most cases `MF -PUD,' but the Municipal Code no longer recognizes the 'MF -PUD' zone as a district that can be applied for with a development application. Also, it needs to be pointed out that there are no applicant entitlements or rights to the development parameters listed in the proposed 'MF zone district or any other residential zone district for that matter if proposed. Under the previous three family dwelling proposal, it was understood that the applicant needed to apply for a `MF zone district. However, with the current two family dwelling proposal, it was questioned why the applicant chooses not to propose a `Duplex' (DU) zone district. In any event, the Municipal Code requires that the rezoning be accompanied by a development proposal or PUD. Decision makers should be satisfied that the proposed PUD is of an acceptable design that meets related Code criteria before accepting a proposed rezoning of the property. Decision makers should also determine whether they can entrust the Town's PUD review or amendment process in the future if the property is zoned to `MF rather than to `DU,' as the `MF district allows considerably more leeway in building height and floor area which could eventually lead to increased mass, scale and density per the comparison table below. Based upon the current PUD' zoning, the existing plat, the proposed rezoning to 'MF,' and the proposed PUD, below is a comparison table of the differences in the development parameters or requirements when compared to a 'DU' zone district. COMPARISON TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS Category Per existing Per proposed Per aTwo- family dwelling buildout chart, `MF' zone with (DU') zone `PUD' zone, or plat Amended with the Amended Prel PUD Prel Plan Minimum Lot Area 0.4 acre, or 9,000 SF minimum 30,000 SF minimum 17,424 SF (Note: requires less than (existing site is 17,424 SF); 'DU' zone district Note: Variation require Minimum Lot Width Set by adopted plat or Set by adopted plat 50 feet PUD or PUD (existing is 125.4 feet) 125.4 feet existing) same frontage proposed Minimum Building Set by adopted plat or Set by adopted plat Set by adopted plat Setback PUD or PUD or PUD Maximum Building None noted 38 feet per'MF zone 28 feet per'DU' zone Height (38 feet presumed) (36.4 feet proposed) (36.4 feet proposed); Note: Variation required Minimum Open Space 25% 25% No requirement; (Note: controlled by FAR Maximum Floor Area or 20% approximately 0.75:1 per'MF' zone 4,500 SF per'DU' zone, F.A.R. (per existing building or 13,068 SF; which assumes average or coverage) (7,987 SF proposed) maximum 2,250 SF per unit (7,987 SF proposed); Note: Variation required Residential buildout 0 2 actual units proposed 2 actual units proposed (11.0 unit equivalents); (11.0 unit equivalents); Note: Variation required Note: Variation required Residential density 0 No requirement No requirement in 'MF' zone in 'DU' zone (7.5 DU /ac. proposed) (5.0 DU /ac. proposed) 51Page Staff comments recommendations regarding zone district designation If the property were zoned `DU,' since the accompanying PUD now proposes a two family dwelling in lieu of a three family dwelling that would require a `MF' zone, it may provide the Town and neighborhood assurances that future development or PUD amendments might be more compatible with the neighborhood. It is possible that the current PUD for a two family dwelling may not implemented or that the PUD could be proposed for modification in the future. On the other hand, a two family dwelling is also an allowed usage in the proposed `MF' zone district. If the property were zoned `DU,' then the proposed PUD development would be required to apply for additional variations from: a) the minimum lot area of 30,000 square feet, b) the maximum height standard of 28 feet, and c) the maximum floor area of 4,500 square feet or 2,250 SF per unit, in addition to d) the buildout variation. Previous Planning Commission finding recommendation Planning Commission finds that relying on the Town's PUD review or amendment process would provide adequate control for the development, even if the property were zoned MF. See the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009, for further details (Attachment 1). Unit sizes and density. Since the previous proposal, the Code's calculable floor area of the units have decreased from approximately 12,168 to 7,987 square feet since the previous proposal (a 34% reduction), not including the 700 square feet of exempt garage space for the proposed two family dwelling on the single lot. The unit numbers from 3 to 2 have decreased by 33 which is the same percentage reduction for the calculated density from 7.5 DU /ac to 5.0 DU /ac. The average unit size from the proposal has been reduced from approximately 4,056 to 3,994 square feet. Staff comments recommendations The floor area in the two family dwelling proposal appears to add to the mass, scale and intensity of the development for the small existing lot. If the floor area or unit sizes were reduced in size, greater building setbacks might be able to be achieved and /or perhaps a third story could be avoided. For the purposes of evaluating for compatibility, the main issue with the applicant's comparison chart in their application is that the proposal, and its density, unit sizes, et cetera, should be compared with other townhouse or two family dwelling -like projects versus condominium projects that have stacked units with typically more density. As a result of the comparison analysis, it would appear that limitations on unit sizes ought to be considered for the proposed PUD, as previously recommended by staff in earlier reports. Such reductions might assist in lessening the mass, scale and intensity of the proposal on the small lot. Planning Commission finding recommendation For a third attempt, the Planning Commission found that the applicant has satisfactorily modified the proposal to fit in with the neighborhood, subject to addressing the review agency comments. Variation changes. Considering the proposed `MF' zone district, the number of variations for the accompanying PUD has been reduced from two to one with the modified application dated August 17, 2009, because a parking variance is no longer 61Page proposed. A buildout variation is only being sought at this time, as further explained below. Maximum height and floor area ratios fall within the limits in the proposed `MF' zone district, which has a height limit of 38 feet and an F.A.R. maximum of 0.75:1 or 13,068 square feet in this case. The revised proposal for a two family dwelling with its height of over 36 feet is near the 38 foot height limit in the proposed `MF' zone district. The proposed FAR for the two family dwelling is now 0.46:1 considering the small existing lot size. See the related Staff and Planning Commission findings recommendations below under the `minimum lot size,' `floor area ratio and plans' and the `Building heights massing' sections of this report. Minimum lot size: The applicant indicates that the minimum lot size would be 7,000 SF. However, the minimum lot size for the revised redevelopment proposal, if zoned `MF,' would be is 9,000 square feet (i.e., 3000 SF base rate 1,500 SF for each of the 2 units, 500 SF for each of the remaining 6 bedrooms). The current lot size is 0.4 acre or 17,424 square feet. Staff comments recommendations If the two family dwelling proposal cannot even met the minimum lot size of a `DU' zone district, because of the small existing lot size, this appears to provide a reason why the site planned for a two family dwelling should be considered for'DU' zoning rather than `MF' zoning to meet the intent of the proposal, albeit with a requested lot size variation. Planning Commission findings recommendations The proposed application would meet the minimum area of the lot for the proposed development, provided the proposed 'MF' zone district is subsequently accepted and approved. Floor Area Ratio. The proposed `MF' zone district has a maximum 0.75:1 F.A.R. or 13,068 square feet for the subject lot. Total floor area proposed that includes the two livable units and the exempt garage space of 700 square feet for the lot as well as the exempt deck areas (i.e., falling under the 12% rule) or the patios areas at finished grade provided they are not enclosed, totals 7,987 square feet or a 0.46:1 F.A.R. for the site. Staff comments recommendations If the two family dwelling development proposal is eventually considered to be compatible with the neighborhood, then the proposal should be able to meet the development parameters for the Town's 'DU' zone district, with the exception of the minimum lot size. Additionally, the applicant would have the option of applying for a variation from the maximum unit size, if the case, provided that it would not unreasonable affect the bulk, mass and scale of the building in its relationship to adjacent developments. Planning_ Commission findings recommendations The applicant should address the staff comments and work with them to finalize the square footage and floor area ratio (F.A.R.) figures for the units pursuant to the methods for calculating floor area and F.A.R. in the Municipal Code prior to or during the Town Council preliminary review. Also see the related Staff and Planning 7 1Pagc Commission recommendations under the `minimum lot size,' and the `Building heights massing' sections of this report. (Note: Staff met recently with an applicant representation to review the Code's method of calculating floor area, but has not received updated floor plans and square footage figures as of the writing of this report). Building heights massing. The building heights represented in the modified application appear to fall within the maximum 38 -foot limit per the proposed `MF' zone district measured from both existing and proposed finished grades. Staff comments recommendations The building height proposed appears to be a transitional height between the adjacent existing developments. However, the heights may not be as much of an issue as the bulk, mass and overall scale of the building and its close proximity to the side property lines, especially along the west property line. As previously stated, it appears that the proposed floor area, even though falling under the proposed `MF standards, adds to the mass, bulk and scale of the building, which may not be as transitional to adjacent developments. If a two family dwelling is proposed, which is similar to a townhome style product, it should be designed more compatibly or sensitively to the existing adjacent townhomes rather than the adjacent stacked condominiums. See the enclosed comparison analysis provided by staff of the proposed and adjacent development building elevations with the overlaid outlines of each provided at the same 1/8" 1' scale to assist Town Council in evaluating and determining the compatibility of the proposal. As far as the building architecture is concerned, staff recommends different door designs other than glass sliding doors, wider or heavier trim details or mullions, multi paned windows, single garage doors versus double -wide doors, and similar detailing to add visual interest from the street view at minimum, unless the applicant is trying to emulate the past styles on adjacent properties. Horizontal versus vertical siding is also recommended as it may lessen the perceived height of the building, plus it would be similar to the design treatment on the Country Club Townhomes. Planning Commission findings recommendations The proposed application would not require a height variation and would currently meet the 38 -foot height limitation, provided the proposed `MF zone district is subsequently accepted and approved. The building's mass, scale and height of the two family dwelling development proposed for the PUD appears consistent with the Code standards and seems compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area, which creates the impression that it would not adversely affect the development in the surrounding area. View impacts visual imagery. The visual imagery in the application represents the massing of adjacent buildings as three -story buildings with no representation of offsets or setbacks of the upper levels, as currently exists on these sites, especially on the adjacent Country Club Townhomes site. Staff comments recommendations Again, please reference the separate handout that shows the proposed two family dwelling building elevations and the building elevations for the structures on the adjacent properties provided by staff. They have all been converted to 1/8" 1' -0" 81Page scale for comparison purposes. The two family dwelling elevations show the overlay outline of the affected adjacent building elevations in efforts to compare the building massing. Likewise, the adjacent structure elevations were overlaid with the outline of the two family dwelling building at the same scale. If a two family dwelling is proposed, similar to a townhome style product, it should be designed with massing that is more compatible or sensitive to the existing adjacent townhomes rather than the adjacent stacked condominiums. At minimum, perhaps the third level on the west Unit B could be relocated to the east Unit A, or perhaps the units could be split more equally is size plan- view -wise in efforts to avoid a third level. On the other hand, the third level has been stepped back for the most part from the perimeter lower two level exterior walls as previously recommended. Planning Commission findings recommendations The proposed building appears to create the impression that it could be satisfactorily oriented to take advantage of views and view corridors, and to frame views and enclose open space, as it would appear, being positioned farther away from public roadway (as modified since the initial application) and positioned at one of the lowest points in the immediate area, to potentially convey the preservation of important sight lines, overlooks and landmarks as viewed from Snowmass Club Circle and other public spaces, and as viewed from neighboring developments. In addition, upon a previous site visit by the Planning Commission on December 3, 2008 to consider the previous three family dwelling proposal in relatively the same location as the proposed two family dwelling building, the mountain views, in particular of the ski mountain and Mount Daly, from the two nearest adjacent units would appear not to be substantially or adversely impacted by the proposed development. Buildout variation request. A residential buildout variation is proposed. The Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Chart references no residential buildout for the subject site, and the proposed two family dwelling, with the large units assigned to the 'Multi Family IV' classification per the Code, individually calculate to a total of 10.75 unit equivalents (UE). If calculated in combination, the unit equivalency totals 10.97 UE. The applicant requests a rounded up unit equivalency buildout of 11.0 UE. The buildout variation request would eventually require super- majority vote by Town Council via an ordinance per the Code. Staff comments recommendations Since there are no current residential entitlements on the property, and because a buildout variation is proposed in addition to a rezoning request, the Applicant should work diligently with the Town and adjacent owners to achieve an acceptably designed project, including the appropriate zoning category for the site. Because the proposal exceeds 65% and 100% of the designated residential buildout, `unique and exceptional' circumstances also need to be demonstrated by the application in addition to a community purpose item, including whether the Applicant has demonstrated that the proposal exceeds the PUD review criteria standards. Further justification seems to be in order for the proposed buildout variation, such as what the Applicant believes are the 'unique and exceptional circumstances' per the Code to warrant the buildout variation in addition to a required and satisfactory community purpose that is achieved as a result of the granting of the variation. 91Page Planning Commission findinq recommendation See the findings and recommendations below under the `Community Purpose' section. Community Purposes. Other than the community purposes of `encourage sustainable development' and `encourage better design' offered in the application, an optional community purpose for a proposed buildout variation could be proposed. Staff comments recommendations Currently, the applicant seems to describe the design of the two family dwelling PUD proposal itself as meeting the Code's Community Purpose criteria. There should also be consideration whether `sustainable development' is achieved by proposing large unit sizes and whether a `better design' is achieved. It could be argued conversely that the older, existing, smaller, lower- profile building is more sustainable as it employees people in a mixed use area or achieves a better design for the neighborhood since lower profile with less visual impact. Planning Commission findings /recommendations The Applicant's offered community purpose(s), such as replacing an office use, replacing the pond and wetlands, and to open the parking along Snowmass Club Circle for public usage, may be considered by Town Council in support of the proposed buildout variation from zero to the two (2) units, which equate to approximately 11.0 unit equivalents calculated in combination for the two units. The Planning Commission declines to render an opinion on the community purposes, believing that is the province of the Town Council. Employee Housing. The proposed development receives a redevelopment credit per the Code, and such calculation reveals that no employee housing square footage would be required as the proposed residential two family dwelling generates fewer jobs than the current non residential use. Staff comment recommendation Employee housing provided above any mitigation requirement (even if zero), assuming it is offered by the applicant, could be considered a community purpose for the granting of the buildout variation request. Planning Commission finding recommendation The proposed development generates fewer employees than the existing use and receives a redevelopment credit per the Code, and such calculation reveals that no employee housing square footage would be required. Landscape plan tree mitigation. The plant material legend on the landscape plan Sheet LA1 should reference the quantities and sizes of the materials to correspond to the illustrative drawing. Without the information, it is difficult to determine the adequacy of the proposed buffering treatment. There are also no coniferous trees proposed on the site to provide year -round screening of the proposed project, probably due to the shallow building setbacks proposed. Concerning tree mitigation, the Municipal Code requires mitigation of trees 14 inches or greater in caliper. The application proposes to relocate the existing on -site trees, which mostly fall under 14 inches in caliper, off -site onto adjacent properties. 101Page However, the Applicant did not obtain written, signed consent or an agreement from the affected adjacent owner(s). Staff comments /recommendations The minimum 10 -12 foot building setbacks would likely not provide enough growing space for coniferous trees. Coniferous trees would provide additional year -round screening or buffering of the proposed building if there were room on site to plant such trees. In addition, staff questions whether most of the proposed new trees could be planted, because they are being located directly over gas, electrical, transformer, private drainage lines and proposed boulder placements. The applicant would likely need special clearance from utility companies to plant trees directly over or near a transformer, gas, and /or electrical lines. It would be helpful to show the utility lines or easements on the landscape plan in efforts to design accordingly around the constraints. Lastly, if the applicant proposes to utilize off -site landscape space as a means to justify the proposal in addition to relocating the trees on their property off -site onto adjacent property that they do not own, then Town decision makers ought to have consent to such proposal from the affected adjacent owner at this Preliminary Plan stage as well as an formal agreement for such tree relocations at the time of a Final PUD application. An agreement between the adjacent owner(s) and the applicant concerning the relocation of on -site trees off -site might assist in demonstrating adequate buffering of the proposed development. In essence, the landscape mitigation plan for the existing trees on -site to be relocated off -site is incomplete. Without it though, including consent or agreement from the adjacent owner, Town Council should not rely on such a proposed buffering arrangement using another adjacent property owner's property and open space, not under the control of the applicant, as a means to justify the buffering or screening of the proposal. If it is not feasible with the adjoining neighbors, then the applicant should not necessarily promote the off -site buffering idea to try to justify what might be considered inappropriate or incompatible design. Instead, staff would recommend greater building setbacks than 10 to 12 feet from the current property lines for the proposed three -story two- family dwelling up to 36 feet in height. See attached Planning Department review comments for further details concerning the proposed landscape plan design (Exhibit "C" of the Planning Commission Resolution in Attachment 1). Planning Commission findings recommendations The proposed landscaping on the two family dwelling site should be embellished by relocating existing trees and /or adding new deciduous and /or coniferous trees near the front portion of the site and between the development site and adjacent neighbors, together with the proper arrangement of maintenance and irrigation. A final landscape plan with the Final PUD application should include the offer for relocating trees off -site together with an agreement with the adjacent property owners. In addition, the applicant should illustrate the existing and proposed utility lines and easements on the landscape plan as well as on the other site plans to determine the appropriateness of the planting plan at the time of the Final PUD application. 111Page Open space. It appears evident that the proposal meets the 25% open space requirement under the proposed `MF zone district. Staff comment recommendation As a matter of contrast, there is no open space requirement in a 'DU' zone district if subsequently proposed, but it is understood that the other more restrictive development parameters would naturally permit landscape areas and open space to occur on the site. Planning Commission findings recommendation The proposed application would not require a height variation and would currently meet the 38 -foot height limitation, the minimum 25 percent open space on the site, and the minimum area of the lot for the proposed development, provided the proposed `MF' zone district is subsequently accepted and approved. Brush Creek, riparian and wetland impacts. The proposed development is not within 25 feet of the Brush Creek stream corridor. However, the proposed redevelopment is within 25 feet of an existing wetland or pond area. The application proposes to replace wetland vegetation area of approximately 850 square feet at a 1:1 ratio. It is not clear, however, that it proposes to replace the existing drainage and wetland pond on the site. The application states that a restoration plan was provided as part of the landscape plan, but it is not very design specific. Also, water quality control features were added to the civil drainage plan since the previous reviews. See attached review comments from the Town's Natural Resource consultant and other related comments from the Town Engineer and the Town's Environmental consultant (see attached Exhibit "C" of the Planning Commission Resolution in Attachment 1). The recommendation for this particular site development is that the wetland pond replacement be equivalent in size at minimum. Also, as the proposal is currently designed, it appears that the drainage impacts are greater with this proposal than what currently exists on the site today. The Town Council may authorize other types of development within the setback area by a super- majority vote subject to reasons explaining why the proposal is unable to avoid the setback area. Staff comments recommendations It appears that the proposed new buildings might be able to accommodate a replacement detention pond and vegetation area, currently proposed at approximately 850 square feet, but if the existing water pond also needs to be mitigated at 1:1, as recommended by the Town's natural resource consultant (see attached Exhibit "C" of the Planning Commission Resolution in Attachment 1), then a larger area for a replacement pond and revegetation area of approximately 2,000 to 2,500 square feet, according to the wetland delineation map in the application, might be in order. Such a replacement pond may not be able to meet the Town required 25 foot setback from the new two family dwelling proposed or vice versa. The plans do not clearly illustrate or describe in specific detail of the recommended 1:1 replacement especially if the Army Corps believes the disturbed wetland area is 0.02 acres or about 870 square feet, based upon what the applicant provided to the Army Corps according to the Army Corp letter in the application. Staff then questions what the applicant provided to Army Corp. In the end, it appears that the applicant is only attempting to mitigate the wetland vegetation in the area, but it appears that they 121Page should also mitigate the surface area of the pond which is also considered a jurisdictional wetland. The current proposal to encroach upon and replace the existing wetlands area requires super- majority vote of the Town Council by ordinance per Code, subject to reasons explaining why the proposal is unable to avoid the setback area. Planning Commission findings recommendations The site is located within the `Multi Family /Golf Course Development' Impact Zone and the `Brush Creek Impact Zone' per the `Environmental Sensitively Map' in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to the review comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C" of the Planning Commission resolution, it is recommended that the general feasibility involving the drainage and wetland impacts be addressed at preliminary review by the Town Council and that the technical aspects of the drainage and wetland impacts be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. The plan as submitted does not encroach on the Town's 25 -foot setback requirement for the proposed replacement wetland /riparian /pond area. However, this was discussed by the Planning Commission which found that a replacement pond within the Town's 25 -foot setback for the existing wetland /pond area, seems acceptable. The Planning Commission would prefer to see an enhanced replacement of existing pond /wetland area and recommends that Town Council consider allowing a setback reduction if needed for purposes of allowing better design without creating a negative impact on the riparian or wetland habitat. Further, if the Army Corp of Engineers is no longer interested in how the water pond /wetland area is mitigated other than mitigating 870 square feet of wetland vegetation, then the Town should not be as concerned about how mitigation is achieved. Flexibility should be exhibited when considering a possible reduction from the Town's 25 -foot setback requirement between the replacement pond and the proposed new building. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Town Council may grant an exception to this standard for other types of development by super- majority vote via an ordinance, identifying the reasons why the proposed development is unable to avoid the setback area. Traffic impact study and air quality analysis. Due to the size of the proposal, the Applicant has again requested a waiver of these submission requirements administratively, which appears permissible per the Municipal Code standards. According to the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may waive the traffic report requirement "for proposed development that contains less than five (5) dwelling units, or less than two thousand (2,000) square feet of non residential space." The application has made a request to have the traffic impact report and air quality analysis waived. Staff comment recommendation With the original submission for a four -plex, staff referred the application to the Town's Traffic Engineer consultant who responded that there would be "no need for the applicant to submit a traffic study per the code cited in the application letter." It also 131Page assumed there would no need for a TIA with the currently proposed two family dwelling. Planning Commission finding recommendation A TIA does not appear needed pursuant to the trip generation findings above and because the proposal meets the Code thresholds for not requiring a TIA. Traffic impacts, and questions on new unit trip generation and its impacts, including how traffic in and out of the garages might or might not interfere with individualized trips: Staff earlier requested with the previous three family dwelling proposal that the Applicant should further respond in justifying the proposed design and potential trip impacts or conflicts related to entering and exiting the parking driveway and garage areas on the subject site for the proposed development, as this was also an earlier Planning Commission concern. Staff comments recommendation Per the Code, a two family unit would generate 8.0 trips per dwelling, or in this case 16 daily trips. This amount would calculate to slightly over one trip per hour on average during the daytime, assuming all the units are occupied, which would seem to have a negligible impact. However, the large units and bedroom counts could potentially generate additional traffic or vehicle trips. Planning Commission findings recommendation The project is estimated to generate approximately 10 to 16 vehicle trips per day, or an average of one to two trips per hour during the daytime. The vehicular traffic impacts from proposed project upon ingress and egress movements from the garages, the proposed parking area and upon Snowmass Club Circle appear minimal. Parking. The application proposes eight on -site parking spaces (4 surface and 4 garages spaces) with no tandem parking arrangement to adequately meet the code required parking of eight spaces for the proposed eight bedrooms. Staff comments recommendations Staff believes the plan has moved in the right direction as far as the applicant meeting the on -site parking space requirements per the Municipal Code. However, staff has a few design related recommendations: 1) With the plan view layout for a two family dwelling, it appears that the southern- most surface parking space interferes with the cusp of the pedestrian route to Unit A's entrance. This might cause some inconvenience for residents or guests. Such a design arrangement also appears unaesthetic by having a parking stall placed directly in front of the unit with no significant landscape area in between. The current plan shows no trees and shrubs in this area. 2) Additionally, there is currently no designed back out space provided for the above noted parking stall and the southern -most garage space for Unit B. Vehicles in these spaces would need to back out a lengthy distance (roughly 30 to 40 feet) in order to make the turn to exit the site. The proposed curbing near the northwest portion of the auto court may need to be cut back farther in order to avoid three point turns for the vehicles backing out of the garage space for Unit B in particular. 141Page 3) Additional coniferous plant material should be provided around the surface parking area and within the north and northwest portions of the site for year -round screening and buffering purposes, considering the views into the site and the auto court area from Snowmass Club Circle and from adjacent properties. Planning Commission findings recommendations The application proposes eight (8) on -site parking spaces (four [4] surface and four [4] garages spaces), with no tandem parking arrangements, to adequately meet the code required parking of eight (8) spaces for the proposed eight (8) bedrooms within the two family dwelling structure. Fire protection issues. If the golf cart path is to be moved to the east, narrowed from 12 to 10 feet (per the plans) and continued for usage as a drainage spillway, it might be more difficult for fire protection equipment to maneuver and access the nearest fire hydrant on the east side of the site or access around the proposed two family dwelling structure, especially during the winter season. There is another fire hydrant nearby off of Snowmass Club Circle. Staff comments /recommendations The revised application was referred to the Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District for review (see attached comments dated September 18, 2009 in Exhibit "C" of Attachment 1). The application's written description does not make mention of a fire sprinkler system, but the utility report makes reference to a two -inch water service line feeding a fire sprinkler system for the two units and for the entire two family dwelling structure. The SWFPD has requested in the past confirmation from the applicant that a fire sprinkler system would indeed be installed. Planninq Commission findings recommendations The applicant must satisfy the requirements by the Fire District and the Town's Building Department in a manner consistent with Building and Code requirements at the time of Building Permit submittal. Additionally, Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council require the entire building to have a fire sprinkler system in order to address concerns regarding access issues, especially during winter, for fire protection services around the structure. Shadow impacts. The applicant's solar impact studies are provided in their application behind Tab 10. Staff comments recommendation According to the shadow study provided by the Applicant, the proposed two family dwelling and height would not cast a shadow on Snowmass Club Circle directly to the north of the site on December 21 st Planning Commission findings recommendation The solar and shadow analysis appears to represent limited or insubstantial impacts upon Snowmass Club Circle and upon the adjacent buildings on the adjoining properties. Trail cart path. The application was referred to the Nordic Council. See the attached review comments in Exhibit "C" of Attachment 1. The application proposes to retain the existing trail for usage, albeit it would be narrowed from 12 feet to 10 feet 151Page (per the plan) and serve to direct drainage through the area. The applicant proposes to maintain a 14 -foot wide area along the trail for Nordic ski operations. Staff comment recommendation In the Construction Management Plan (CMP), the applicant should propose where a temporary trail connection would occur while the site and replacement trail are being constructed. This may require coordination with the adjacent property owner for a temporary construction easement. The operational requirements of the Nordic Council including the design of the trail still need to be resolved between the applicant and the Nordic Council. An easement grant would likely be needed. Planning Commission findings recommendation Pursuant to the review comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C" of the resolution, it is recommended that the general feasibility involving the CMP and the re- design and usage of the trail along on the east side of the site be addressed at a preliminary review by the Town Council and that the technical aspects of the CMP be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. Energy conservation. The applicant's energy conservation proposal is identified behind Tab 16 of the application. Staff comment recommendation The application again seems non committal in the usage of the proposed energy conservation methods by using language such as, "considered," "may be utilized," and "may include." Planning Commission findings recommendations The application appears to have satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed units would: a) be oriented toward the south for maximum solar heat gain, b) provide high efficient condensing boiler for the snowmelt system that would also lessen the impact of snow storage along Snowmass Club Circle, c) provide fluorescent lighting, and d) use Energy Star appliances. Block Model. Staff has not seen a revised block model for the two family dwelling proposal. Staff previously recommended that the applicant's block model illustrate or ghost -in the property lines for reference purposes next time it is brought to a meeting to better understand the buffering treatment proposed and the impacts upon adjacent properties. Again, staff would recommend greater building setbacks than 10 to 12 feet from the current property lines for the three -story, two family dwelling up to 36 feet in height. Overall Staff Recommendation After a third attempt by the applicant to submit or modify their proposal, staff would prefer not to typically recommend against an application. However, per the findings above, it appears that the application does not quite yet meet the review criteria, even though the two family dwelling usage itself may be acceptable, and staff is compelled to recommend that the Town Council not grant permission to proceed to a Final PUD, for the following reasons: 161Page 1. The revision for a two- family dwelling usage appears acceptable, but does not appear to meet the Municipal Code's intent for the proposed `MF zone district; 2. As the proposed two family dwelling is akin to a townhome type product, the structure's mass and scale should relate more to the adjacent townhomes rather than the adjoining condominium development; 3. The proposed building setbacks of 10 to 12 feet, especially along the west property line, remain too shallow for the proposed structure up to 36 feet in height; 4. The shallow setbacks and accompanying utilities do not allow for the adequate on- site placement of landscape buffering or year round screening of the project; 5. The applicant should not rely upon adjacent property's setbacks, existing landscape areas and /or the relocation of trees off -site to justify the proposal, without first obtaining consent or an agreement from the affected owners; 6. The existing wetland pond and vegetation do not appear to have been fully mitigated; and 7. The applicant has not attempted to at minimum respond to all of the review comments. VI. OTHER HEADINGS RELATED TO THE TOPICS Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17, Series of 2009, with its referenced exhibits that include Exhibit "C" outlining the review comments from the Town departments and referral agencies; and 2. Public comments received on the two family dwelling proposal. Separate Handouts Comparison analysis prepared by the Planning Department of the proposed building elevations mirrored or overlaid onto the on adjacent properties' building elevations and vice versa at the same 1/8" 1' scale, provided for reference and evaluation purposes. Reference the application booklet dated August 17, 2009 which was received by the Planning Department on August 21, 2009. VII. NEXT STEPS Next Steps include: Continue the public hearing to the next meeting; and /or Schedule a site visit, if desired; and /or Continue review of the application or core issues; and /or Direct that staff to draft an ordinance for consideration. 171Pagc ATTACHMENT 1 TC Report 12 -07 -09 Snowmass Club Circle PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 17, SERIES OF 2009 INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Preliminary PUD Guide Exhibit B: Project information and selected drawings plans Exhibit C: Town Department and Referral Agency Review Comments TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 17 SERIES OF 2009 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY (`MF RE- ZONING AND THE ACCOMPANYING SNOWMASS CLUB CIRCLE TWO FAMILY DWELLING MINOR PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PUD AMENDMENT. WHEREAS, the previously revised Preliminary Plan application for a three family dwelling was presented to the Town Council on February 17, 2009, and at that time, there were public and Town Council comments that indicated an unfavorable reaction to the proposal for a three family dwelling; and WHEREAS, Bear Realty, Inc. "Applicant submitted on June 29, 2009 an amendment proposal for the Preliminary Plan application involving a two- family dwelling in lieu of a three- family dwelling; and WHEREAS, via Resolution No. 18, Series of 2009, the Town Council accepted the two family dwelling amendment on July 20, 2009 during the continued public hearing and authorized subsequent referral, review, analysis and consideration of the entire updated application as a whole by the Planning Commission for its recommendations to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2009, the Applicant submitted an updated application in response to staff completion review comments on August 19, 2009 for the initial comprehensive application submission on August 14, 2009, and on August 25, 2009, the comprehensive update of amended application determined complete for referral and review purposes together with a consent by the Snowmass Club Associates, LLC "Owner"); and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2009, the application was distributed to Planning Commission members, Town Departments and referral agencies for review, and on September 2, 2009 a public hearing notice was published in the Snowmass Sun for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled on October 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2009, the first public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission to hear and presentation by the applicant of the amendment for a two family dwelling and to commence review of the application; and PC Reso 09-17 Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued to October 21, 2009 and then to November 4, 2009, when the Planning Commission considered and acted upon this resolution; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed and processed in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 16A -5 -340 of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: Section One Findings and Recommendations. The Planning Commission generally finds and recommends the following: General Findings and Recommendations 1) The Applicant submitted the initial and revised Preliminary PUD application for the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The Preliminary PUD application provided the `Minimum Contents' required pursuant to Section 16A- 5- 340(c), except those submission items that were requested for administrative waiver, and included written and graphic materials in sufficient detail to deem the application complete for review. 2) The Applicant has submitted supplemental replies, information or plans during the review process to present changes or updates to the application for the primary purpose of responding to the directions provided by Town Council, Planning Commission and Town Staff requests, comments, and concerns. 3) All public notification requirements, as specified within Section 16A -5- 60(b) of the Municipal Code, have been satisfied, including submittal of the affidavits from the Applicant regarding mailing and posting of the public hearing notices. 4) By this resolution, the Planning Commission reviewed the application pursuant to the previous Town Council directives in Resolutions No. 22, Series of 2008. Findings and Recommendations related to the proposed rezoning to Multi Familv `MF' zone district 1) The Applicant has submitted concurrently with the Minor Preliminary Plan a proposed Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for rezoning of the property to MF. As the concurrent rezoning request is not officially PC Reso 0917 Page 3 of 10 acted upon by ordinance until the submission of an accompanying Final PUD, the Planning Commission finds, for a preliminary plan level of review, that the proposed rezoning to MF can be considered at this time and further finds that the rezoning request: a) Could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the proposed usage for a two- family dwelling considering that a two- family dwelling is an allowed usage in the proposed `MF' zone district and that the predominant usages on adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood contains existing multi- family development and similar densities within the existing PUDs, with the understanding that the site is also designated for 'Recreation' on the Future Land Use Map, which seems to suggest that the golf /winter trail connection ought to be retained at minimum; b) Seems to be generally consistent with the purpose of the proposed `MF' zone district to which the property could be designated, and the Town would retain its authority to review and consider future proposed development parameter changes in the accompanying PUD via the Municipal Code's land use review process and that the buildout proposed would have control over the density of the project, unless amended in the future; c) Is compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood character and would likely result in a logical and orderly development pattern within the overall community at this time, considering that a PUD is required with the submission of the rezoning request and that the accompanying proposed PUD development for a two- family dwelling with a free market density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre (DU /ac) appears to be designed with sensitive massing and transitional intensity in relation to existing adjacent developments considering that adjoining Snowmass Villas has a density of approximately 7.7 DU /ac and that the adjacent Country Club Townhomes has a density of approximately 3.4 DU /ac; and d) The Applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel and the surrounding neighborhood that justify the proposed zoning amendment. Findings and Recommendations related to the proposed amendment to a Final PUD 1) As the Minor Preliminary Plan application was a result of the Applicant proposing an amendment to the current Final PUD, the Planning Commission also finds, subject to addressing the recommendations, that: PC Reso 09-17 Page 4 of 10 a) The Minor Preliminary Plan as currently designed for a two- family dwelling may be considered an enhancement to the current PUD; b) The amendment, as currently proposed for a two family dwelling, would appear to have an insubstantially adverse impact or effect on the neighborhood surrounding the land where the amendment is proposed; and c) The proposed amendment for a two- family dwelling does not appear to change the basic character of the PUD or surrounding area, if the design, massing and intensity remain the same as currently proposed. Findings and Recommendations related to the proposed Minor Preliminary PUD Plan 1) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -30, Brush Creek Impact Area and Section 16A -4 -40, Floodplain and wetland areas under the Development Evaluation Standards the site is located within the 'Multi Family /Golf Course Development' Impact Zone and the `Brush Creek Impact Zone' per the `Environmental Sensitively Map' in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant submitted a Brush Creek Impact Report that was referred together with the application's civil, grading, drainage and erosion control plans and other related information to the Army Corps of Engineers, the Town's Natural Resource and Environmental consultants as well as the Town Engineer for review and comment. Pursuant to the review comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is recommended that the general feasibility involving the drainage and wetland impacts be addressed at preliminary review by the Town Council and that the technical aspects of the drainage and wetland impacts be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. The plan as submitted does not encroach on the Town's 25 -foot setback requirement for the proposed replacement wetland /riparian/pond area. However, this was discussed by the Planning Commission which found that a replacement pond within the Town's 25 -foot setback for the existing wetland /pond area, seems acceptable. The Planning Commission would prefer to see an enhanced replacement of existing pond /wetland area and recommends that Town Council consider allowing a setback reduction if needed for purposes of allowing better design without creating a negative impact on the riparian or wetland habitat. Further, if the Army Corp of Engineers is no longer interested in how the water pond /wetland area is mitigated other than mitigating 870 square feet of wetland vegetation, then the Town should not be as concerned about how mitigation is achieved. Flexibility should be exhibited when PC Reso 09-17 Page 5of10 considering a possible reduction from the Town's 25 -foot setback requirement between replacement pond and the proposed new building. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Town Council may grant an exception to this standard for other types of development by super majority vote via an ordinance, identifying the reasons why the proposed development is unable to avoid the setback area. 2) The previously amended Municipal Code provisions in Section 16A -4- 50(f), Ridgeline Protection Areas under the Development Evaluation Standards do not apply, as the site is not within a defined ridgeline protection area that is visible from Brush Creek Road, Owl Creek Road or the Town Community Park and is not at the crest or highest elevation of a ridge or hillside, or within fifty (50) feet of elevation, measured vertically, from the crest of a ridge or hillside. 3) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -210, Streets and related improvements, the project is estimated to generate approximately 10 to 16 vehicle trips per day, or an average of one to two trips per hour during the daytime, pursuant to trip generation figures provided in the Municipal Code for two family and multi family dwellings. The vehicular traffic impacts from proposed project upon ingress and egress movements from the garages, the proposed parking area and upon Snowmass Club Circle appear minimal. The Applicant has requested an administrative waiver of the traffic impact analysis (TIA), and such TIA does not appear needed pursuant to the trip generation findings above and because the proposal meets the Code thresholds for not requiring a TIA. 4) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -210, Fire protection the applicant must satisfy the requirements by the Fire District and the Town's Building Department in a manner consistent with Building and Code requirements at the time of Building Permit submittal. Additionally, Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council require the entire building to have a fire sprinkler system in order to address concerns regarding access issues, especially during winter, for fire protection services around the structure. 5) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -220, Public trails and as represented by the applicant, a permanent combination trail and drainage easement would be provided for the modified cart path. In addition, the applicant should provide a temporary trail and construction easement as may be needed while the project is under construction. PC Reso 09-17 Page 6 of 10 6) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 4- 310(7), Off- Street Parking Standards the application proposes eight (8) on -site parking spaces (four [4] surface and four [4] garages spaces), with no tandem parking arrangements, to adequately meet the code required parking of eight (8) spaces for the proposed eight (8) bedrooms within the two- family dwelling structure. 7) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -320, Landscaping, grading and other design standards the proposed landscaping on the two family dwelling site should be embellished by relocating existing trees and /or adding new deciduous and/or coniferous trees near the front portion of the y site and between the development site and adjacent neighbors, together with the proper arrangement of maintenance and irrigation. A final landscape plan with the Final PUD application should include the offer for relocating trees off -site together with an agreement with the adjacent property owners. In addition, the applicant should illustrate the existing and proposed utility lines and easements on the landscape plan as well as the other site plans to determine the appropriateness of the planting plan at the time of the Final PUD application. 8) Pursuant to Section 16A -4 -330, Energy Conservation the solar and shadow analysis appears to represent limited or insubstantial impacts upon Snowmass Club Circle and upon the adjacent buildings on the adjoining properties. In addition, the application appears to have satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed units would: a) be oriented toward the south for maximum solar heat gain, b) provide high efficient condensing boiler for the snowmelt system that would also lessen the impact of snow storage along Snowmass Club Circle, c) provide fluorescent lighting, and d) use Energy Star appliances. 9) Pursuant to Section 16A -5- 310(2), Preservation of community character under the Review Standards the building's mass, scale and height of the two- family dwelling development proposed for the PUD appears consistent with the standards of Section 16A -4 -340, Building Design Guidelines to Preserve Community Character under the Development Evaluation Standards and seems compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area, which creates the impression that it would not adversely affect the development in the surrounding area, because of the following findings: a) Pursuant to Section 16A- 4- 340(c)(1), Site integration of the Municipal Code, the proposed two- family dwelling structure may acceptably incorporate a plan design that avoids overwhelming the surrounding mountain or surrounding neighborhood environment Pc Reso 09-17 Page 7 of 10 because the new building, in particular the massing of the building, appears to be designed to be set appropriately on the site considering the transitioning slopes and proximity to Snowmass Club Circle. b) Pursuant to Section 16A- 4- 340(c)(2), Scale and mass the applicant has been responsive in revising the proposal from three family dwelling to a two- family dwelling and the proposed design of the building appears to satisfactorily convey the perception that the building is not monumental in scale, including its relationship to the scale of surrounding adjacent buildings, particularly because: the two story portion along the trail on the east side of the site appears to create an appropriate human -scale transition more so than the three -story portion that is currently planned next to existing evergreen trees along the west property line that are higher Laving the affect of visually screening the three -story element. 10) Pursuant to Section 16A- 4- 340(c)(5), Views the proposed building appears to create the impression that it could be satisfactorily oriented to take advantage of views and view corridors, and to frame views and enclose open space, as it would appear, being positioned farther away from the public roadway (as modified since the previous application) and positioned at one of the lowest points in the immediate area, to potentially convey the preservation of important sight lines, overlooks and landmarks as viewed from Snowmass Club Circle and other public spaces, and as viewed from neighboring developments. In addition, upon a previous site visit by the Planning Commission on December 3, 2008 to consider the previous three family dwelling proposal in relatively the same location as the proposed two family dwelling building, the mountain views, in particular of the ski mountain and Mount Daly, from the two nearest adjacent units would appear not to be substantially or adversely impacted by the proposed development. 11) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -410, Restricted housing requirements the proposed development generates fewer employees than the existing use and receives a redevelopment credit per the Code, and such calculation reveals that no employee housing square footage would be required. 12) Pursuant to Municipal" Code Section 16A- 5- 300(c)(5) and (7), Dimensional limitations and Standards for granting variations under the General Restrictions the proposed application for a two- family dwelling would not require a height variation and would currently meet the 38 -foot height limitation, the minimum 25 percent open space on the site, PC Reso 09 -17 Page 8 of 10 and the minimum area of the lot for the proposed development, provided the proposed MF zone district is subsequently accepted and approved. 13) The applicant represented that the floor area for the proposal was reduced from 12,168 to 7,987 square feet by the reduction of one unit, and the average size of the units was reduced slightly from 4058 to 3994 square feet. The applicant should address the staff comments and work with them to finalize the square footage and floor area ratio (F.A.R.) figures for the units pursuant to the methods for calculating floor area and F.A.R. in 'the Municipal Code prior to or during the Town Council preliminary review. 14) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 300(c)(5 -7), Dimensional limitations Community purposes for PUDs and Standards for granting variations under the General Restrictions the Applicant's offered community purpose(s), such as replacing an office use, replacing the pond and wetlands, and to open the parking along Snowmass Club Circle for public usage, may be considered by Town Council in support of the proposed buildout variation from zero to the two (2) units, which calculate to approximately 11.0 unit equivalents calculated in combination for the two units.,. The Planning Commission declines to render an opinion on the community purposes, believing that is the province of the Town Council. 15) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -5- 310(7), Adequate facilities the application proposes to relocate and reduce in width the golf /winter trail on the east side of the site from 12 to 10 feet. Pursuant to the review comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is recommended that the general feasibility involving the re- design and usage of the trail along on the east side of the site be addressed at a preliminary review by the Town Council and that the technical aspects of such trail be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. 16) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 340(b)(15), Construction management plan (CMP) and pursuant to the review comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is recommended that the general feasibility involving the CMP be addressed at a preliminary review by the Town Council and that the technical aspects of the CMP be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. 17) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 340(b)(12), Fiscal impact the fiscal impact report as presented in the application appears acceptable, and due to the small scale impact of the proposed, no fiscal related mitigation seems necessary at this time. PC Reso 09 -17 Page 9 of 10 18) Pursuant to the findings and recommendations above, the proposed Minor Preliminary Plan application seems to have adequately addressed, for a preliminary level of review, the other review and approval criteria in Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 300(c), General Restrictions and Section 16A -5 -310, Review Standards 19) Pursuant to the findings and recommendations above, the proposed application adequately addresses, for a preliminary level of review, the Purpose and the Review and intent issues or questions outlined in Municipal Code Section 16A -5 -340. 20) Pursuant to the review comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is recommended that the general feasibility involving the affected issues and concerns be addressed at a preliminary review by the Town Council and that the technical aspects of such issues and concerns be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. Section Two Action. Subject to the findings and recommendations in Section One of this Resolution, which is based upon the current PUD application as revised by the Applicant for a two family dwelling structure, the Planning Commission recommends to the Town Council that the applicant be granted permission to proceed to the submission of a Final PUD application. Section Three Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED, as amended, b the Planning Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village on November 4 h 2009, upon a motion by Planning Commission Member Gustafson, the second of Planning Commission Member Aiken, and upon a vote of 6 in favor and 0 against (Planning Commission Chairman Purvis absent). TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION Don Crouch, Vice Chairman PC Reso 09 -17 Page 10 of 10 ATTEST: r Kristi Holliday, Planning Wnmission Secretary Referenced Exhibits attached: Exhibit "A" Preliminary PUD Guide Exhibit "B" Project information and selected drawings /plans Exhibit "C" Town Departments and Referral Agency review comments ATTACHMENT 2 TC Report 12 -07 -09 Snowmass Club Circle PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SNOWMASS CLUB CIRCLE DUPLEX PROPOSAL COUNTRY CLUB TOWNHOMES CORPORATION P. O. Box 6159 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 970 923 -4944 To: TOSV Town Council and Planning Commission Members From: Howard P. Foley, Pres. CCTH Date: Aug. 21, 2009 Subject: TOSV RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2009, proposal to amend the development plan for the 0.4 acre golf -pro shop site on the Snowmass golf course (Parcel 10, Filing No. 1, Lot I of the Snowmass Club Subdivision) Now that the developer Bear Realty, Inc. has proposed a duplex in lieu of a triplex on this small parcel on the current recreationally zoned golf course land it seems to us that the appropriate zoning should be Duplex (`DU') rather than Multi Family (`MF'). This would more accurately reflect what is being proposed. We are concerned that if the new plan is approved as a Multi- Family zone and for some reason the project is not implemented, the new Multi- Family zone would still remain. However, if this small parcel of land were zoned a "Duplex Residential" zone district, we would have some assurance that possible future development proposals would likely be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Town planner Jim Wahlstrom's July 20, 2009 memorandum to the Town Council pointed out and I quote: "Per the Code, `the intent of a Duplex Residential' (`DU') zone district is to provide areas of sufficient lot size to accommodate two family dwelling units within the Town; Further it is the intent of this district to allow a range of compatible uses, either allowed or by special review, necessary to produce a viable residential neighborhood." The time that the staff and Planning Commission members spent gathering and doing the detailed analysis of the pertinent information led to a 5 -0 vote against the triplex redevelopment plan that was originally proposed. The duplex proposal before you is a step in the right direction but Duplex Residential zoning seems far more appropriate for this sma110.4 acre piece of land at the entry to our Country Club Townhome community. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our views on this important matter. From: Howard Foley [hpfoley @msn.com) Country Club Townhomes Sent: Saturday, August 22, 20091:04 PM To: Howard Foley; Ed Abrahamian; Bob Dyche; Fleur L. Strand (E- mail); Elaine LeBuhn; Chuck Buhsmer; Marcia Donnell; Ken Petke Cc: John Flynn; Kastan, Bradley (Exchange); bobloubier; John R. Donnell, Jr.; Greg Rulon; Jim Wahistrom Subject: golf pro- shop /why duplex Team, I may have mentioned this to some of you. The reason I'm suggesting consideration of Duplex zoning beyond what I mentioned in my Aug. 21st, 2009 memo to the Council and Planning Commission members is: (1) A "Duplex" district has a height limit of 28 feet vs. 38 feet for "Multi- Family (2) A "Duplex" district has a maximum floor area of 4,500 sq. ft. vs. 13,o68 sq. ft. for "Multi- Family" for this small site. Two units, in one building 28 feet in height and averaging 2,250 sq. ft. in size, about the size of one of our smaller end units, would certainly more compatible with our CCTH community. Howard From: John Donnell Urdonnell @gmail.comj Owner of CCTH unit Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:48 PM To: Jim Wahlstrom Cc: Howard Foley Subject: TOSV Resolution No 18 re Golf Pro Shop To: Jim Wahlstrom (Please copy this message to Town Council and Planning Commission Members) I am the owner and resident of Country Club Townhome #6, in the building immediately adjacent to the old golf pro shop proposed for development by Bear Realty. The developer's revised proposal now calls for a duplex. Therefore, it seems appropriate that if the property is rezoned from recreational to residential, the proper zoning should be Duplex (DU) rather than Multi- Family (MF). Duplex Residential would seem to fit what is currently proposed on the small 0.4 acre parcel and would give neighbors some assurance that a much larger inappropriate development, such as originally proposed by Bear Realty, would not eventually materialize. Thank you for your consideration. John Donnell, CCTH #6 From: Kastan, Bradley (Exchange) [BKastan bear. com] Owner of CCTH unit Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 6:44 AM To: Jim Wahistrom Cc: Kastan, Holly; Howard Foley; Greg Rulon Subject: Parcel 10, Filing No. 1, Lot 1 of the Snowmass Club Subdivision Subject: TOSV RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2009, proposal to amend the development plan for the 0.4 acre golf -pro shop site on the Snowmass golf course Mr. Wahistrom; 1 wish to submit this letter to you in an effort to communicate to the Council members and Planning Commission my thoughts on the above proposal. By way of introduction, my family is the owner of Country Club Townhome unit number 1 (immediately adjacent to the proposed development). We have been second home owners in Snowmass Village for over 20 years and have committed enormous capital to the remodel of our town home. When we purchased and remodeled our unit we assumed that at some point the former pro shop would be developed in a responsible manner that would enhance the entire Country Club Townhome and Villas community. Now that the developer Bear Realty, Inc. has proposed a duplex in lieu of a triplex on this small parcel on the current recreationally zoned golf course land it seems to me that the appropriate zoning should be Duplex (`DU') rather than Multi- Family ('MF'). This would more accurately reflect what is being proposed. As Howard Foley and the Country Club Townhomes Board has already communicated, I am concerned that if the new plan is approved as a Multi Family zone and for some reason the project is not implemented, the new Multi Family zone could still remain. However, if this small parcel of land were zoned a "Duplex Residential" zone district, we would have some assurance that possible future development proposals would likely be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As the Country Club Townhome Board stated, the Bear Realty proposal before you is a step in the right direction but Duplex Residential zoning seems far more appropriate for this small 0.4 acre piece of land at the entry to our Country Club Townhome community. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our views on this important matter. Bradley R. Kastan Managing Director Bear Stearns, a division of J.P. Morgan 4100 Regent Street I Suite D Columbus, OH 43219 From: John Flynn JFlynn @HealthcareSearchExperts.com] Owner of CCTH unit Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:21 AM To: Jim Wahlstrom Cc: Howard Foley Subject: golf pro shop proposal Jim You forwarded the latest proposal regarding the golf pro shop development and asked for comments for the planning commission. In looking at the request I am struck by the fact that it is in fact a duplex but is asking for development under the multifamily category! I presume the reason for this is the more generous square footage allowed in this category but frankly feel that this approach is playing a game with the rules. The townhomes, where I live, have a range of square footage in them but none are close to those proposed by the developer which raises the question of the appropriateness of this proposal. I know of no unit in the villas either that approach the square footage of what is being proposed! If in fact this is a duplex does it not make sense to apply the duplex conditions rather than multifamily conditions for this development and not play games with the rules? One must question the wisdom of dropping in the proposed development between the villas and the townhomes as it is so different in its approach to either. Please share my concerns with the planning commission and thank you for continuing to keep us informed. John Flynn CCTH 22 From: Linda Gerdenich [aspenlinda@gmail.com] Owner of S'mass Villas unit Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:14 PM To: Jim Wahistrom Cc: Chris Conrad; Stan Clauson; HDDR @aol.com; Rhonda Coxon Subject: Support for 300 SMCC Hi Jim et all, Please enter my support for the Bear Realty project scheduled before you on Wed. Oct. 7. 1 will be out of town unable to attend the meeting. Please advise if any additional info is needed to show my support. I live at 294 SMCC #1210. L Linda Gerdenich 970 274 -2478 AspenLinda @gmail.com �.a mot. t. MURRAY $j MUD. Y fo:� ..v- .ri..... way. t. x..._.... r.aicaraa- .m.✓.cw.a... m c ...v..:.n..r, a .c�..'.......: s EXPERIENCED TRIAL LAWYERS r r T RECEIVED SEP 15 2049 Snowmass Village Community Development September 10, 2009 a Snowmass Village Planning Department P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village CO 81615 Attn: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Partner Re: Redevelopment of Parcel 10, Filing No. 1, Lot 1 of the Snowmass Club Subdivision (the previous golf clubhouse site) Dear Sirs: Our family objects to any structure being built in the area of the previous golf clubhouse site that exceeds the scale of the golf clubhouse. The information contained in this notice, of course, does not contain detail as to the scope of the proposed development but prior proposals were unacceptable. Very truly yours, Michael and Tami Murra #2 Country Club Townhome MTM:dkp Enclosure mom= Snowmass Village Planning Department P. O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Attention: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Concerning the proposed development next to the Villas at the Snowmass Club: 1. The impermeable area will be very large. Is there sufficient drainage planned for a heavy run off if there is a huge snowmelt brought on by a sudden warming pattern in the early spring? Would the planned drainage assure that nearby properties will not be flooded? If there is overflow, is there a plan in place to alleviate the problems to adjoining properties of possible subsequent freezing and thawing? 2. Where is the storage area for the snow that will have to be removed from the parking areas, roads, etc.? Will the snow removal and storage be undertaken by present Snowmass Club personnel? If not, how will the proper and adequate storage of snow be administered? 3. Is there a restriction as to the use of the duplexes, whether they are each solely for use by one family. Does the possibility exist that each unit could be used as a multiple family or multiple person unit? If so, the number of vehicles and the amount of traffic generated would be increased. 4. Will the surface parking spaces be restricted to short-term, intermittent use, rather than permanent, long -term use? How will this be enforced? 5. Are the building syles and building materials the same as or compatible with the existing villas buildings? Thank you for including these observations and comments in the staff report for the October 7, 2009 hearing before the Snowmass Village Planning Commission. Janis L. Dybdahl ecf4t d?ll- CC Villas 1301 970- 923 -2788 ECEIVED SEP 2 2 2009 -Zino'Wria -6s village Community Development From: Howard Foley [mailto:hpfoley@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:11 PM To: lmo @okglaw.com; Greg Rulon; Mike Hoffman; Kastan, Bradley (Exchange); John Flynn; jrdonnell @gmail.com; Jim Wahlstrom Subject: Re: Snowmass Club Circle Duplex PC public hearing 10/7/09 Jim, Thank you for all the work you and your colleagues have put into analyzing this project application and for the Overall Staff Recommendation detailed on page 17 of your Planning Staff memorandum. We agree with your findings and support your recommendations. As I will not be in Snowmass on Oct. 7th please send me a short email if possible and let me know what the Planning Commission decided. Thanks again for all your hard work on the many versions of this application. Howard Foley, Pres. CCTH LAW OFFICES OF GATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ KELLY, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533E HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO, 81611 RICHARD A NEZ KNEZ EVICH TELEPHONE(970)920 -1700 R TED D. GARDENSWARTZ FACSIMILE (970) 920 -1121 DAVID S. KELLY M M ORROW OF COUNSE L: JOHN T KELLY Imo@okgfaw.com STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNE MARfE McPHEE WENDYC FOSTVEDT SARAH M GATES" LICENSE TO PRACTICE IN CO AND WY PENDIN0 October 7, 2009 Town of Snowmass Village VIA E -MAIL Planning Zoning Commission c/o Chris Conrad, Town Planner Jim Wahlstrom, Staff Planner P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81515 Re: Bear Realty Inc. Proposal for Duplex at Snowmass Club Circle Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is written as the position of the owners of the adjacent unit immediately to the east of the proposed development, i.e., Grant Simmons, Allison Simmons Prouty and Leslie Simmons Lee, owners of Unit 1101, Club Villas, Phase I, a/k/a Unit 101. In connection with the October 7, 2009 Planning Zoning Commission meeting, we have received and reviewed the Staff Memorandum, together with the Comparison Analysis of Two Adjacent Properties, the Villas included. Our clients agree with the Staff recommendation with the exception of the following: 1. We believe that no development right whatsoever should be granted in connection with this property given that it represents a change of zoning without any demonstration of changed circumstances which would permit a change of zoning as required by Colorado law and the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use Code. 2. If the Planning Zoning Commission should proceed with a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the applicant's proposal, my clients would request on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated that (1) the height of the proposed development be significantly lowered, (2) the project setback along the common boundary with the Villas be increased in order to create a larger side yard setback and to allow the planting of screening landscape on the developers' property and not on that of the neighbors, and (3) that the front yard setback along Snowmass Club Circle be reduced in order to preserve views from the Villas. With regard to the last point, the proposed structure would be site fourteen further Macintosh HD. LMOASST- Datc Clients LMO:Lee, Charles =Ltr to TOSV 10.7.09v2doc GATES, KNEZEVCCN, GARDENSWARTZ KELLY P.C. Town of Snowmass Village Planning Zoning Commission October 7, 2009 Page 2 south than the current structure, which would interfere my clients' views of Mt. Daly, among other things. 3. Finally, we note with great concern the observation by Staff that if the developer receives a zoning change to MF instead of Duplex, it would be in a position to abandon the current proposal and seek much greater density "as of right," and consistent with its prior application. Accordingly, we strongly support the suggestion that any zoning change be limited to a Duplex designation. Except for the above, the applicants are generally in agreement with the recommendations of staff that the proposal not be permitted to proceed and that such recommendations be forwarded to the Town Council. Please circulate this letter at the October 7" meeting and include it in the record. Sorry to be late getting this in, but I have been out the last few weeks. Respectfully submitted. Very Truly Yours, I DATES, KNEZEVICH, GmwENSWARTZ KELLY, P.C. i By are-& I Leonard M. Oates cc: Charles Lee, Esq. LMO/bab 4 r I i f i LAW OFFICES OF DATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ Ss KELLY, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611 AR A GATES TELEPHONE (970) 920 -1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH TED GARDENSW ARTZ FACSIMILE (970) 920 -1121 OENSW DAVID B KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL Imo@okglaw.wm JOHN T KELLY STEPHEN R.CONNOR ANNE MARIE MCPHEE WENDY C FOSTVEDT SARA14 M OATES November 4, 2009 VIA E -MAIL Planning Zoning Commission Town of Snowmass Village Attn: Jim Wahlstrom, Staff Planner P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: P &Z Resolution for Duplex Proposal made by Bear Realty, Inc. on Snowmass Club Circle Dear Members of the Commission: We represent the owners of Unit 1101, a/k/a Unit 101, Club Villas ("Unit 101"). Unit 101 is the closest Club Villa Unit to Bear Realty, Inc. proposed duplex. In connection with the above matter we have reviewed the Resolution to be presented for final approval to the Planning Zoning Commission at its November 4, 2009 meeting with those edits made by the Applicant, Bear Realty, Inc. which was accepted by Planning Staff. In connection with the Resolution presented we have the following comments: 1. On line 135 of Section 1) General Findin and Recommendations, the proposed Resolution concludes that the Amendment to the Snowmass Club PUD would appear to have an insubstantially adverse effect upon the neighborhood surrounding the Iand where the development is proposed. Our clients disagree with this conclusion and believe that the proposal, if approved, constitutes infilling of the only open space parcel in the area with a much denser use than had ever been contemplated or shown when people bought their units within the Snowmass Club PUD. 2. On Iine 233 of Section 7) Landscapinj 'Grad6 and Other Design Standards that section requires that there be a final landscape plan with the final PUD* Application, including the offer for relocating trees off -site together with an agreement with the adjacent property owners. Our clients do not concur that landscaping issues to accommodate this development should be solved on the adjacent property owner's land. The eastern elevation which faces Macintosh HD- LMOASST- DxttCilenb LMO.Lee, Chti(es:Ltr to P&Z t1.3 09 doe OA FES, KNEZEVICFi, GARDENSWARTZ KELLY P.C. Planning Zoning Commission Town of Snowmass Village November 4, 2009 Page 2 Unit 1101 Club Villas Phase I, a/k/a Unit 101 has virtually no buffering landscaping at all and a likely cause of this is the cart path being pushed right up to the boundary and almost to the edge of the proposed building. There is no provision to screen this elevation from our client's property. Looking at the East Elevation as contained as Exhibit of Sheet A5 of the Elevations in the Guide, please note that such elevation contains a number of flat surfaces going straight up to 29 feet seven inches or (nearly 30 ft.) especially on the southern Projection labeled `B." This is very insensitive to the Club Villas properties lying to the east, including Unit 101. 3. There is really no support for the conclusions in Section 10 of the proposed Resolution relating to views, lines 291 -297, Section 10) Views The Commission personally inspected this property using the prior proposal, not this one. The present approval would appear to be pushed further south on the lot and is differently configured. It will block the views of Mt. Daly from several of the rooms in Unit 101 running from north to south in that Unit. Particularly that of Projection B which sticks right into the sightline of Unit 101. Clearly, if the project were to move some twelve to fourteen feet to the north this would greatly assist in mitigating this issue. 4. Lastly our clients concur with the conclusion of the Planning Zoning Commission in the proposed Resolution that there is no demonstrated Community Purpose which accompanies the Application and Bear Realty, Inc. is required to demonstrate. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Very Truly Yours, OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ KELLY, P.C. BY Leonard M. Oates cc: Charles Lee LMO/bab I i SNOWMASS CIPCLE ,ar.�cM isiEre�c� I i I i I rx ,a.a• i f zrc rrr. i i 1 t x,�- i 3: O i f kA 27 OCTOBER 2008 SNOWMASS TOWNHOUSES 0,732 Email 11 -17 -09 Linda Gerdenich RE: Snowmass Club Circle Duplex Hi Jim, This email is in support of the Mon. 12/7 public hearing for 300 SMCC by Bear Realty. Please advise if any other information is needed. I hope this applicant is approved and this project can move forward. L Linda Gerdenich 970 274 -2478 AspenLinda@gmail.com December 1, 2009 Snowmass Village Planning Department P. O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Attention: Jim Wahistrom, Senior Planner Re: Redevelopment of Parcel 10, Filing 1, Lot 1 of Snowmass Club PUD Subdivision Planners: Please consider the following concerns at your December 7, 2009 meeting regarding an application by Bear Realty concerning re- zoning and PUD at the proposed Snowmass Club Circle development project 1. Sufficient storage for snow plowed from existing and proposed surface areas to assure that existing and proposed driveways, parking areas and street are maintained in clear and passable condition. 2. Adequate provision for runoff of snowmelt and heavy rain accumulations. 3. Provision for irrigation drainage away from existing roads and driveways and parking areas. 4. Provision for child -safe playing areas so use of streets, driveways and parking areas will not be necessary for playground areas. 5. Restrictions on number of vehicles allowed so that vehicles can be garaged rather than being parked long -term in outside parking spaces. 6. Are regulations in place to control noise and clutter created by multi- family usage? 7. Is there provision for maintaining the trail /path that is now utilized between the existing and proposed developments? 8. Will there be adequate traffic signage to control the additional number of vehicles entering and leaving the development area? Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing issues as you weigh the ramifications of further burdening a small, compact area with such a heavy footprint. Sincerely, Janis L. Dybdahi, CC Villas 1301 Rhonda Coxon From: Jim Wahlstrom Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:21 AM To: Rhonda Coxon; Donna Garcia; Barb Peckler Subject: FW: 300 Snowmass Circle Application before Town Council Below is yet another email response from an owner at the Villas at the Snowmass Club re: the proposed Snowmass Club Circle project scheduled for the TC 12/7 meeting that should also be inserted behind Attachment 2 of the report for the public comments received. Again, if the report has been already printed and distributed, please forward to the TC members. Thank you, Jim PS There might be more coming in throughout the week. From: Barry Schwartz mailto: barry@schwartzenterprisesinc.com] Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 12 ;08 PM To: Jim Wahlstrom Cc: Ilene Grossbard; patrick @scaplanning.com; bwoodin @silvertreehotel.com Subject: 300 Snowmass Circle Application before Town Council Jim My wife and I are owners of unit 1631 in the Villas at the Snowmass Club. Please accept this email as our support for the revised application submitted for the property- 300 Snowmass Club Circle by Bear Realty that we understand is coming before the Town Council in early December. We feel that the revised plan is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will be an asset to the community. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, Barry H. Schwartz Owner- Villas at the Snowmass Club, Unit 1631 Barry H. Schwartz Schwartz Enterprises, Inc. BarryQSchwartzEnterpriseslnc. com 703 868 -2224 office 703 -620 -4909 fax i Jim Wahlstrom From: Jim Wahlstrom Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:45 PM To: Rhonda Coxon; Donna Garcia; Barb Peckler Cc: Chris Conrad Subject: RE: 300 Snowmass Club Circle Project The email below from Ilene Grossbard, President HOA of the Villas at the Snowmass Club was noticed as note being included in the Town Council packet. Please make certain that her message is forwarded to the Town Council members. From: Jim Wahlstrom Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:10 AM To: Rhonda Coxon; Donna Garcia; Barb Peckler Subject: FW: 300 Snowmass Club Circle Project Below is a neighbor response re: the proposed Snowmass Club Circle project scheduled for the TC meeting 12/7. Could you please insert behind Attachment 2 (toward back of report) prior to printing? If already printed and distributed, please forward to the TC members. Thanks, Jim From: hddr @aol.com [mailto:hddr @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:05 PM To: Jim Wahlstrom Cc: patrick @scaplanning.com Subject: 300 Snowmass Club Circle Project Dear Jim, As the current President of the Villas at Snowmass Club HOA I want to once again express the villas board support for this project. We feel that the group has listened to our concerns and come up with a project that fits the property both in scope and design. I will be in Snowmass on December the 7th and will attend the meeting but wanted you to have a written statement from our board prior to the meeting. Thank -you Ilene Grossbard, President HOA 1 ATTACHMENT J D TC Report 02 -01 TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8, SERIES OF 2010 WITH REFERENCED: EXHIBIT "A Preliminary PUD Guide Exhibit "B Selected Drawings Plans Exhibit "C Town Departments Referral Agencies Review Comments, including latest comments dated January 12 13 2010 from the Town's Natural Resource Consultant re: clarification of position and past comments on wetland replacement mitigation I TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 RESOLUTION No. 08 5 SERIES OF 2010 6 7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE PROPOSED MULTI 8 FAMILY (`MF') RE- ZONING AND THE ACCOMPANYING SNOWMASS CLUB 9 CIRCLE TWO- FAMILY DWELLING MINOR PRELIMINARY PLAN AND PUD 10 AMENDMENT. 11 12 WHEREAS, the previously revised Preliminary, Plan application for a 13 three family dwelling, modified from the original four -plex dwelling, with the same 14 proposed `MF' zone district was presented to the Town Council on February 17, 15 2009, and at that time, there were public and Town Council comments that 16 indicated an unfavorable reaction to the proposal for a three family dwelling; and 17 18 WHEREAS, Bear Realty, Inc. "Applicant submitted on June 29, 2009 an 19 amendment proposal for the Preliminary Plan application involving a two family 20 dwelling in lieu of a three family dwelling with the same proposed `MF' zone 21 district, as subsequently completed or updated and preliminarily described or 22 illustrated in attached Exhibits "A" and "B" incorporated herein; and 23 24 WHEREAS, via Resolution No. 18, Series of 2009, the Town Council 25 accepted for evaluation purposes the two family dwelling amendment on July 20, 26 2009 during the continued public hearing and authorized subsequent referral, 27 review, analysis and consideration of the entire updated application as a whole 28 by the Planning Commission for its recommendations to the Town Council; and 29 30 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2009 the first public hearing was scheduled 31 before the Planning Commission to hear a presentation by the applicant of the 32 amendment proposal, to consider comments from the public and 33 recommendations from Town staff, and to begin reviewing the application; and, 34 on November 4, 2009, the Planning Commission acted upon Resolution No. 17, 35 Series of 2009, providing their findings and recommendations to the Town 36 Council; and 37 38 WHEREAS, on December 7, 2009 the first public hearing was scheduled 39 before the Town Council to hear a presentation by the applicant of the 40 amendment proposal, to consider comments or recommendations from the public 41 and Town staff, and to begin reviewing the application, after which the hearing 42 was continued to January 19, 2010 at which time the hearing was continued 43 again to February 1, 2010; and 44 45 WHEREAS, the application was reviewed and processed in accordance 46 with the provisions outlined in Section 16A -5 -340 of the Municipal Code. 47 TC Reso 10 -08 Page 2 of 10 48 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of 49 Snowmass Village, as follows: 50 51 Section One Findings. The Town Council finds for a preliminary plan level of 52 review that: 53 54 General Findings 55 56 1) The Applicant submitted the initial and revised Preliminary PUD 57 application for the Project in accordance with the provisions of the 58 Municipal Code. The Preliminary PUD application provided the `Minimum 59 Contents' required pursuant to Section 16A- 5- 340(c), except those 60 submission items that were requested for administrative waiver, and 61 included written and graphic materials in sufficient detail to deem the 62 application complete for review. 63 64 2) The Applicant has submitted supplemental replies, information or plans 65 during the review process to present changes or updates to the 66 application for the primary purpose of responding to the directions 67 provided by Town Council, Planning Commission and Town Staff 68 requests, comments, and concerns. 69 70 3) All public notification requirements, as specified within Section 16A -5- 71 60(b) of the Municipal Code, have been satisfied, including submittal of 72 the executed affidavits from the Applicant regarding mailing and posting of 73 the public hearing notices. 74 75 Findings related to the proposed rezoning to Multi Family (`MF') zone district 76 77 1) The Applicant has submitted concurrently with the Minor Preliminary Plan 78 a proposed Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for rezoning of 79 the property to MF. As the concurrent rezoning request is not officially 80 acted upon by ordinance until the submission of an accompanying Final 81 PUD, the Town Council finds, for a preliminary plan level of review, that 82 the proposed rezoning to MF can be considered at this time and further 83 finds that the rezoning request: 84 85 a) Could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the 86 proposed usage for a two family dwelling considering that a two family 87 dwelling is an allowed usage in the proposed 'MF' zone district and 88 that the predominant usages on adjacent properties or the surrounding 89 neighborhood contains existing multi family development and similar 90 densities within the existing PUDs, with the understanding that the site 91 is also designated for `Recreation' on the Future Land Use Map, which TC Reso 10 -08 Page 3 of 10 92 seems to suggest that the golf /winter trail connection ought to be 93 retained at minimum; 94 b) Seems to be generally consistent with the purpose of the proposed 95 `MF' zone district to which the property could be designated, and the 96 Town would retain its authority to review and consider future proposed 97 development parameter changes in the accompanying PUD via the 98 Municipal Code's land use review process and that the buildout 99 proposed would have control over the density of the project, unless 100 amended in the future; 101 c) Is compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses and 102 neighborhood character and would likely result in a logical and orderly 103 development pattern within the overall community at this time, 104 considering that a PUD is required with the submission of the rezoning 105 request and that the accompanying proposed PUD development for a 106 two- family dwelling with a free market density of 5.0 dwelling units per 107 acre (DU /ac) appears to be designed with sensitive massing and 108 transitional intensity in relation to existing adjacent developments 109 considering that adjoining Snowmass Villas has a density of 110 approximately 7.7 DU /ac and that the adjacent Country Club 111 Townhomes has a density of approximately 3.4 DU /ac; and 112 d) The Applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town 113 Council that there have been changed conditions affecting the subject 114 parcel and the surrounding neighborhood that justify the proposed 115 zoning amendment. 116 117 Findings related to the proposed amendment to a Final PUD 118 119 1) As the Minor Preliminary Plan application was a result of the Applicant 120 proposing an amendment to the current Final PUD, the Town Council also 121 finds for a preliminary plan level of review, subject to addressing the 122 conditions in Section Three of this resolution, that: 123 124 a) The Minor Preliminary Plan as currently designed for a two family 125 dwelling may be considered an enhancement to the current PUD; 126 b) The amendment, as currently proposed for a two family dwelling, 127 would appear to have an insubstantially adverse impact or effect on 128 the neighborhood surrounding the land where the amendment is 129 proposed; and 130 c) The proposed amendment for a two family dwelling does not appear to 131 change the basic character of the PUD or surrounding area, if the 132 design, massing and intensity remain the same as currently proposed. 133 134 135 TC Reso 10 -08 Page 4 of 10 136 Findings related to the proposed Minor Preliminary PUD Plan 137 138 1) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -30, Brush Creek Impact 139 Area and Section 16A -4 -40, Floodplain and wetland areas under the 140 Development Evaluation Standards the site is located within the 'Multi 141 Family /Golf Course Development' Impact Zone and the `Brush Creek 142 Impact Zone' per the 'Environmental Sensitively Map' in the Town's 143 Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant submitted a Brush Creek Impact 144 Report that was referred together with the application's civil, grading, 145 drainage and erosion control plans and other related information to the 146 Army Corps of Engineers, the Town's Natural Resource and 147 Environmental consultants as well as the Town Engineer for review and 148 comment, as per the correspondence provided in attached Exhibit "C" 149 incorporated herein. 150 151 The plan as submitted does not encroach on the Town's 25 -foot setback 152 requirement for the proposed replacement wetland /riparian /pond area. It 153 was found that a replacement pond within the Town's 25 -foot setback for 154 the existing wetland /pond area seems acceptable. The preference would 155 be to see an enhanced replacement of existing pond /wetland area and 156 recommends that Town Council consider allowing a setback reduction if 157 needed for purposes of allowing better design without creating a negative 158 impact on the riparian or wetland habitat. 159 160 Further, if the Army Corp of Engineers is no longer interested in how the 161 water pond /wetland area is mitigated other than mitigating 870 square feet 162 of wetland vegetation, then the Town should not be as concerned about 163 how mitigation is achieved. Flexibility should be exhibited, at the time of 164 Final PUD review, when considering a possible reduction from the Town's 165 25 -foot setback requirement between replacement pond and the proposed 166 new building. 167 168 Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Town Council may grant, at the time 169 of Final PUD review, an exception to this standard for other types of 170 development by super- majority vote via an ordinance, identifying the 171 reasons why the proposed development is unable to avoid the setback 172 area. 173 174 2) The previously amended Municipal Code provisions in Section 16A -4- 175 50(f), Ridgeline Protection Areas under the Development Evaluation 176 Standards do not apply, as the site is not within a defined ridgeline 177 protection area that is visible from Brush Creek Road, Owl Creek Road or 178 the Town Community Park and is not at the crest or highest elevation of a TC Reso 10 -08 Page 5 of 10 179 ridge or hillside, or within fifty (50) feet of elevation, measured vertically, 180 from the crest of a ridge or hillside. 181 182 3) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -210, Streets and related 183 improvements, the project is estimated to generate approximately 10 to 184 16 vehicle trips per day, or an average of one to two trips per hour during 185 the daytime, pursuant to trip generation figures provided in the Municipal 186 Code for two family and multi family dwellings. The vehicular traffic 187 impacts from proposed project upon ingress and egress movements from 188 the garages, the proposed parking area and upon Snowmass Club Circle 189 appear minimal. The Applicant has requested an administrative waiver of 190 the traffic impact analysis (TIA), and such TIA does not appear needed 191 pursuant to the trip generation findings above and because the proposal 192 meets the Code thresholds for not requiring a TIA. 193 194 4) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -210, Fire protection the 195 applicant must address concerns regarding access issues, especially 196 during winter, for fire protection services around the structure. 197 198 5) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -220, Public trails and as 199 represented by the applicant, a permanent combination trail and drainage 200 easement would be provided for the modified cart path, which appears 201 satisfactory. 202 203 6) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4- 310(7), Off- Street Parking 204 Standards the application proposes eight (8) on -site parking spaces (four 205 [4] surface and four [4] garages spaces), with no tandem parking 206 arrangements, to adequately meet the code required parking of eight (8) 207 spaces for the proposed eight (8) bedrooms within the two- family dwelling 208 structure. 209 210 7) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -320, Landscaping, grading 211 and other design standards there are concerns about the proposed 212 landscape buffering on the site and its location or relationship to proposed 213 utility lines or easements and adjacent properties. 214 215 8) Pursuant to Section 16A -4 -330, Energy Conservation the solar and 216 shadow analysis appears to represent limited or insubstantial impacts 217 upon Snowmass Club Circle and upon the adjacent buildings on the 218 adjoining properties. In addition, the application appears to have 219 satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed units would: a) be oriented 220 toward the south for maximum solar heat gain, b) provide high efficient 221 condensing boiler for the snowmelt system that would also lessen the TC Reso 10 -08 Page 6 of 10 222 impact of snow storage along Snowmass Club Circle, c) provide 223 fluorescent lighting, and d) use Energy Star appliances. 224 225 9) Pursuant to Section 16A -5- 310(2), Preservation of community character 226 under the Review Standards the building's mass, scale and height of the 227 two family dwelling development proposed for the PUD appears 228 consistent with the standards of Section 16A -4 -340, Building Design 229 Guidelines to Preserve Community Character under the Development 230 Evaluation Standards and seems compatible with the character of 231 existing land uses in the area, which creates the impression that it would 232 not adversely affect the development in the surrounding area, because of 233 the following findings: 234 235 a) Pursuant to Section 16A- 4- 340(c)(1), Site integration of the 236 Municipal Code, the proposed two family dwelling structure may 237 acceptably incorporate a plan design that avoids overwhelming the 238 surrounding mountain or surrounding neighborhood environment 239 because the new building, in particular the massing of the building, 240 appears to be designed to be set appropriately on the site considering 241 the transitioning slopes and proximity to Snowmass Club Circle. 242 243 b) Pursuant to Section 16A- 4- 340(c)(2), Scale and mass the applicant 244 has been responsive in revising the proposal from three family dwelling 245 to a two family dwelling and the proposed design of the building 246 appears to satisfactorily convey the perception that the building is not 247 monumental in scale, including its relationship to the scale of 248 surrounding adjacent buildings, particularly because: the two story 249 portion along the trail on the east side of the site appears to create an 250 appropriate human -scale transition more so than the three -story 251 portion that is currently planned next to existing evergreen trees along 252 the west property line that are higher having the affect of visually 253 screening the three -story element. 254 255 10) Pursuant to Section 16A- 4- 340(c)(5), Views the proposed building 256 appears to create the impression that it could be satisfactorily oriented to 257 take advantage of views and view corridors, and to frame views and 258 enclose open space, as it would appear, being positioned farther away 259 from the public roadway (as modified since the previous application) and 260 positioned at one of the lowest points in the immediate area, to potentially 261 convey the preservation of important sight lines, overlooks and landmarks 262 as viewed from Snowmass Club Circle and other public spaces, and as 263 viewed from neighboring developments. 264 TC Reso 10 -08 Page 7 of 10 265 In addition, upon a documented previous site visit by the Planning 266 Commission on December 3, 2008 to consider the previous three family 267 dwelling proposal in relatively the same location as the proposed two 268 family dwelling building, Town Council also finds that the mountain views, 269 in particular of the ski mountain and Mount Daly, from the two nearest 270 adjacent units would appear not to be substantially or adversely impacted 271 by the proposed development. 272 273 11) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -4 -410, Restricted housing 274 requirements the proposed development generates fewer employees 275 than the existing use and receives a redevelopment credit per the Code, 276 and such calculation reveals that no employee housing square footage 277 would be required. 278 279 12) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 300(c)(5) and (7), 280 Dimensional limitations and Standards for granting variations under 281 the General Restrictions the proposed application for a two family 282 dwelling would not require a height variation and would currently meet the 283 38 -foot height limitation, the minimum 25 percent open space on the site, 284 and the minimum area of the lot for the proposed development, provided 285 the proposed MF zone district is subsequently accepted and approved by 286 ordinance following the Final PUD review. 287 288 13) The applicant represented that the floor area for the proposal was reduced 289 from approximately 12,168 to 7,987 square feet by the reduction of one 290 unit, and the average size of the units was reduced slightly from 291 approximately 4056 to 3994 square feet, which appears acceptable 292 provided that the floor area calculations be refined per the Municipal Code 293 standards during the Final PUD review. 294 295 14) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 300(c)(5 -7), Dimensional 296 limitations Community purposes for PUDs and Standards for granting 297 variations under the General Restrictions the Applicant's offered 298 community purpose(s), such as replacing an office use, replacing the pond 299 and wetlands, and to open the parking along Snowmass Club Circle for 300 public usage, are acceptable in support of the proposed buildout variation 301 from zero to the two (2) units, which calculate to approximately 11.0 unit 302 equivalents calculated in combination for the two units. 303 304 15) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -5- 310(7), Adequate facilities 305 the application proposes to relocate and reduce in width the golf /winter 306 trail on the east side of the site from 12 to 10 feet that appears acceptable 307 for a preliminary plan level of review provided review agency comments in 308 attached Exhibit "C" are satisfactorily addressed. TC Reso 10 -08 Page 8 of 10 309 310 16) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 340(b)(15), Construction 311 management plan (CMP) there are referral agency comments in 312 attached Exhibit "C" that should be addressed in regard to the CMP. 313 314 17) Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 340(b)(12), Fiscal impact the 315 fiscal impact report as presented in the application appears acceptable, 316 and due to the small scale impact of the proposed, no fiscal related 317 mitigation seems necessary at this time. 318 319 18) Pursuant to the findings and recommendations above, the proposed Minor 320 Preliminary Plan application seems to have adequately addressed, for a 321 preliminary level of review, the other review and approval criteria in 322 Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 300(c), General Restrictions and Section 323 16A -5 -310, Review Standards 324 325 19) Pursuant to the findings and recommendations above, the proposed 326 application adequately addresses, for a preliminary level of review, the 327 Purpose and the Review and intent issues or questions outlined in 328 Municipal Code Section 16A -5 -340. 329 330 Section Two Action. Subject to the findings in Section One of this Resolution, 331 which is based upon the current PUD application as revised by the Applicant for 332 a two family dwelling structure, the Town Council grants the applicant permission 333 to proceed to the submission of a Final PUD application. 334 335 Section Three Conditions. The permission granted to continue to the Final 336 PUD stage is conditioned upon satisfaction of the following requirements: 337 338 1) Drainage and wetlands. Pursuant to the review comments received from 339 the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is recommended that the 340 general feasibility involving the drainage and wetland impacts be 341 addressed by the applicant and that the technical aspects of the drainage 342 and wetland impacts be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD review. 343 344 2) Fire protection. The applicant must satisfy the requirements by the Fire 345 District and the Town's Building Department in a manner consistent with 346 Building and Code requirements at the time of Building Permit submittal. 347 Additionally, the Town Council requires that the entire building incorporate 348 a fire sprinkler system, as represented by the applicant, in order to 349 address concerns regarding access issues, especially during winter, for 350 fire protection services around the structure. 351 TC Reso 10 -08 Page 9 of 10 352 3) Trial and easements. A permanent combination trail and drainage 353 easement shall be provided for the modified cart path. In addition, the 354 applicant shall provide a temporary trail and construction easement as 355 may be needed while the project is under construction. 356 357 4) Trail design and usage. Pursuant to the review comments received from 358 the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is recommended that the 359 general feasibility involving the re- design and usage of the trail along on 360 the east side of the site be addressed by the applicant and that the 361 technical aspects of such trail be resolved prior to or with the Final PUD 362 review. 363 364 5) Landscaping and buffering. The proposed landscaping on the two 365 family dwelling site should be embellished by relocating existing trees 366 and /or adding new deciduous and /or coniferous trees near the front 367 portion of the site and between the development site and adjacent 368 neighbors, together with the proper arrangement of maintenance and 369 irrigation. A final landscape plan with the Final PUD application should 370 include the offer for relocating trees off -site together with an agreement 371 with the adjacent property owners. In addition, the applicant should 372 illustrate the existing and proposed utility lines and easements on the 373 landscape plan as well as the other site plans to determine the 374 appropriateness of the planting plan at the time of the Final PUD 375 application. 376 377 6) Unit floor area F.A.R. calculations. The applicant shall address the 378 staff comments and work with them to finalize the square footage and floor 379 area ratio (F.A.R.) figures for the units pursuant to the methods for 380 calculating floor area and F.A.R. in the Municipal Code prior to submission 381 of the Final PUD. 382 383 7) Construction Management Plan (CMP). Pursuant to the review 384 comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is 385 recommended that the general feasibility involving the CMP be addressed 386 by the applicant and that the technical aspects of the CMP be resolved 387 prior to or with the Final PUD review. 388 389 8) Outstanding Referral Agency Comments. Pursuant to the review 390 comments received from the referral agencies in attached Exhibit "C," it is 391 recommended that the general feasibility involving the affected issues and 392 concerns be addressed at a preliminary review by the applicant and that 393 the technical aspects of such issues and concerns be resolved prior to or 394 with the Final PUD review. 395 TC Reso 10 -08 Page 10 of 10 396 Section Four Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application 397 hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect 398 any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect 399 without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this 400 Resolution are severable. 401 402 INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED, by the Town Council of the Town of 403 Snowmass Village on February 1 2010, upon a motion by Town Council 404 Member the second by Town Council Member and 405 upon a vote of in favor and against. 406 407 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 408 409 410 411 Bill Boineau, Mayor 412 413 ATTEST: 414 415 416 417 Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk 418 419 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 420 421 422 423 John C. Dresser, Jr., Town Attorney 424 425 426 Referenced Exhibits attached: 427 Exhibit "A" Preliminary PUD Guide 428 Exhibit "B" Project information and selected drawings /plans 429 Exhibit "C Town Departments and Referral Agencies review comments 430 431 432 433 Exhibit "A" Town Council Resolution No. 08, Series of 2010 Page 1 of 1 Preliminary PUD Guide Snowmass Club Circle Two Family Dwelling Parcel 10, Filing 1, Lot 1 Snowmass Club P.U.D. Subdivision Development standards Lot Size: 0.4 acre or 17,424 square feet Permitted Uses: Two Family Dwelling, and continued use of the pedestrian trail as a golf cart path and for Nordic operations and winter recreation, four (4) surface parking spaces, shared driveway and auto -court area, landscaping and open space. Number of Units: 2 Number of Bedrooms: 8 Maximum Density: Maximum 5.0 DU /acre Maximum Floor Area: 8,000 square feet for the two family structure that includes a 700 SF garage exemption for the lot (13,068 square feet in the proposed MF zone district if the PUD is amended) Maximum F.A.R.: 0.46:1 for the two family structure (0.75:1 in the proposed MF zone district if the PUD is amended) Maximum Height: 36.5 feet for the two- family structure (maximum 38 feet in the proposed MF zone district if the PUD is amended) Maximum Building Coverage: 25% or 4,360 square feet more or less Minimum Building Measured from property line: Setbacks: North: 40 feet West: 10 feet South: 10 feet Southeast: 15 feet East: 30 feet Minimum Open Space: 75% or 13,060 square feet more or less Required Parking: 8 (one space per bedroom for each free market condominium unit) Parking Provided: 8 (4 surface spaces and two double -car garages) Exhibit "B" Town Council Resolution No. 08, Series of 2010 Project information and selected drawings plans Snowmass Club Circle Two Family Dwelling and Re- Zoning to `MF' Snowmass Club Circle zz ,f may' �a�� wiP 7 U III t J� �J• Woo& r- Cn 6fi a hh o z �f J �f r, o g SNOWMA SS CLUB a CIRCLE el r 1 I O D 4 Y t 41 T W Z ��i383S z 4 Wl G) FACK Tr u�NE {M.) 8 8 S 8 p 4� m r Ar z A NC ��z 2�� 4 X STAN GLAIfS�N AISSI]CIATESI .Ne 300 Snowmass Club Circle SNOWMASS, COLORADO Stfigel srwcuusarr�s soc u�s.lac2eos VILArms. COCeuassrewnarARCHTECTS I 28 36 27'-10' I I 28' -0" I I s I t I co co rr` 2 I I —I 1 I I b c gg e rn- eN i T rn rn im rn c O z I� 0 Z i 28' -9' W 26' -0" e 3 r o A vmoems i a m g 119 Il l R 7 r WEST ELEVAr1[N cl Fn m STAN CLAIiSON ASSOCIATESIN( P, 300 Snowmass Club Circle i� SNOWMASS 081t; ,,r srANUAUSOttrssocuTesn+canos i IA 36' -5" I s za KM Y Z_ o I i W rnn ;b D I 3: {p 1 m 03 I Im m Co r` o I D I I I u I 28' -0" 27'-10" 29' -7" i 28' -9" 36-5" GD s 0 U) T wEar CD aEwTiON z X ,.STAN GLAUSON ASSOCIATESIBO n 300 Snowmass Club Circle �fINV• +nl 4i)N)� b+e N 9NOWMASS, COLORADO 816WI4 sTAN mAusm Asamw Es, me zDm K cooaiNs-mwARTAnarrEcTs i 3rd Level 300 Snauvmass Club Clrcle I COVERED b 6NOWMAgg, COLORA0091Bwfo ti DO D ANiRY Ofr14y¢, 2nd l UNIT -B QOM O LWIN(� COVEREDP ROOM KITCHEN BE ROOM 6 WETBAR UNIT -A To 1 st Level UNIT -B COVERED P B ROOM B OM B DROOM E�D DEN DIME R WEfBAR BEDROOM r u GARAGE i UNIT -A ENTRY PORCH ENTRY PORCH ENTRY PARKING GARAGE UNIT-B PARKING PARKING PARKING Exhibit "C" Town Council Resolution No. 08, Series of 2010 Town Departments and .Referral Agencies Review Comments Snowmass Club Circle Two Family Dwelling and Re- Zoning to `MF' DUNLOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Environmental and Public Health Planning for the Future Thomas S. Dunlop President August 30, 2009 ffi _A._. Town of Snowmass Village Jim Wahlstrom, Sr Planner AUG 3 1 2009 130 Kearns Rd. snowmass Village PO Box 1050 Community Development Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Snowmass Club Circle Minor Preliminary PUD and Amendment (Revised); and Re- zoning to Multi Family C'MF Amendment. Dear Mr. Wahlstrom: The above mentioned PUD application for 300 Snowmass Club Circle has been reviewed by Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. (DEC) at your request. This review is to determine completeness of the application regarding air and water quality and compliance with minimum requirements for a Construction Management Plan (CMP). As per your instruction this review is to focus on the applicant's response to previous review comments submitted by DEC on November 24, 2008, The 2008 review was based on the applicant's desire to construct a triplex. This review is based on the applicant's desire to construct a duplex on the same property. Downsizing of the application will not significantly impact findings made by DEC. Air Quality: Previous comments made by DEC have been adequately addressed in the application dated August 17, 2009. Water Quality: Previous comments made by DEC have been adequately addressed in the application dated August 17, 2009. Specifically, there was a conflict between a determination by the applicant that a preconstruction notification to the Corps of Engineers Nationwide 29 wetlands permit was not needed, but the actual permit stated otherwise. In a letter dated January 26, 2009 from the Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers to the applicant there is an authorization for the work under the Nationwide 29 permit. 1 Post Office Box 6289 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 USA Office and Pax (970) 923 -4820 0 printed on recycled paper The current application mentions that. some of the water discharging into the water features /wetlands comes from within the existing structure, Aspen Skiing Company Planning Department offices. It is suggested the applicant offer clarity as to the origin of this water. There is a statement in the application that; "The wetlands on the property are primarily associated with the basin area and-are solely supported by inputs from the watershed above and those generated inside the building. Section 21, 2nd page titled: Hydrology from NatureTech Consultant Services Corp.). A lingering question is where dues the water come from inside the building and what was the origin of the water? If the water was used for domestic purposes it should discharge to the municipal sewage collection system, not as surface discharge. Clarification of this point is recommended. Construction Management Plan: ave been adequately addressed in the application dated Previous comments made by DEC h August 17, 2009. This concludes findings of this review. Sincerely, Thomas S. Dunlop, MPH, REHS C:TOSV.300 Smass Club Circle 8.30.09 2 From: Dunlopenv@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:12 PM To: stars @scaplanning.com; Jim Wahlstrom Cc: patrick @scaplanning.com; smills @BearRealty.com Subject: Re: Dunlop Environmental Consulting referral comments Jim, This explanation from Stan is adequate and satisfies the question I raised in my August 30, 2009 review of the project at 300 Snowmass Club Circle. The question was specific to the origin of the discharge water that was represented as coming from inside the existing building and feeding the old pond exterior to the building. Thank you, Tom Dunlop Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. Thomas S. Dunlop, MPH, REHS PO Box 6289 73 Sinclair Ln Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Phone /Fax (970) 923 -4820 Cell Phone (970) 379 -4028 Dunlopenv@aol.com In a message dated 9/2/2009 11:36:08 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, stan @scaplanning.com writes: Tom and Jim— In response to the comments offered by Dunlop Environmental Consulting, I am writing to offer a clarification to Mike Villa's statement that the pond was "supported by inputs from the watershed above and those generated inside the building." Mike Villa's wording in this respect is perhaps a bit confusing, as the pond was actually fed by an irrigation pipe using the municipal water supply. This source is presently controlled by an valve located in an irrigation control box adjacent to the building. This irrigation line was presumably used to replenish the water available to a water feature associated with the pond that has been abandoned. Any implication that the pond was fed by greywater or other wastewater sources from within the building is incorrect and not intended. Thank you for the opportunity to offer this clarification. Stan Clauson 1 Email 09 -23 -09 Environmental RE: Snowmass Club Circle Duplex Jim, do not feel I need to modify my comments based on those of other consultants to this application. I agree with Bill Johnson's concerns about preservation of waters receiving discharge from the project. Design of the wetlands and supporting features is critical to maintaining water quality. The need for a construction site dewatering permit is valid given the shallow depth to ground water. As can be seen from the applicant's reply to my questions about sources of discharge water from the property, I accepted their explanation that the discharge pipe from the existing structure was served from potable water and is no longer an issue. Thank you, Tom Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. Thomas S. Dunlop, MPH, REHS PO Box 6289 73 Sinclair Ln Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Phone /Fax (970) 923 -4820 Cell Phone (970) 379-4028 Dunlopenv@aol.com SIGIM RXEEMD MEMORANDUM SEP 21 2009 Snowmass village TO: Jim Wahistrom, Senior Planner Community Development FROM: Debbie Duley CC: Dean Gordon DATE: September 21, 2009 SUBJECT: Snowmass Club Circle PUD Minor Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Snowmass Club PUD Parcel 10, Filing 1, Lot 1 to construct a two unit residential development. I have reviewed the drawing package, dated August 14, 2009 and the Application notebook, dated August 17, 2009 which were received by the Town of Snowmass Community Development Department on August 21, 2009 and provided to our office for review. My comments relate primarily to Sheet C2, Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Sheets C3, C4 and C5, Utility Design, Sheet C6, Drainage Details and C7, Erosion Control Details. General: The plans as presented are generally clear and legible and present the intent of the design as required by a Preliminary Plan submittal. The full size drawing set is missing Sheet 1 of 1 ALTA/ACSM Survey Plat, although small copies are included in the application notebook. It should be noted that many of these comments have previously been made on two separate reviews of the previous applications for this site. The applicant has failed to address the concerns raised during previous reviews. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 1. A drainage plan is included in the application, however is does not include anticipated discharge volumes as required by Section 16A -4 -250. Note No. 2 indicates that the developed storm water conditions are based on a drainage study prepared by Enartech dated November 1, 2001. Please provide a copy of that report and the associated drainage calculations showing how historical drainage systems are being maintained. Verify that 300 Snowmass Club Circle Town homes Preliminary Plan Review Page 2 the assumptions in the 2001 report are consistent with the level of development proposed. 2. A) The application, on Page 8 under Sec. 16A-4 -250 Storm Drainage, states "The integrity of existing and natural drainage patterns will be preserved Explain the basis for the application statement. B) However, it appears the drainage channel that flows across the property from the southwest and into the existing pond will be removed. A small drainage swale, with 12 -inch inlets is being created along the southwest side of the property. Provide calculations showing the volume of off -site flow and the capacity of the drainage Swale to handle both off -site and on -site flows. Provide vertical and horizontal data at Final Plat to allow construction from the drawings. 3. The drainage swale includes a number of shallow 24 -inch depth drains. It is likely that this drainage system may be frozen during some periods of the year, allowing water to pond within five feet of the building foundation. 4. Sheet LAi and Sheet LA4 of the Landscape Plans indicates extensive planting, including several large trees are planned in areas of the site that also include drainage swales, drainage piping and shallow utilities. I suggest that the landscape plan be overlaid on the utility and drainage plan so that potential conflicts may be identified and resolved. Given the proximity of the building to the property line on the west and the cart path on the north, it will be difficult to accommodate drainage, utilities and landscaping in such a constricted area. 5. Sheet C2 is titled Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan; however, the erosion control measures and their location are not shown on the plan. Sheet C7 includes a detail for a vehicle tracking pad, but there is no notation on the Erosion Control Plan that one is required. 6. The soils report by Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. indicates the presence of groundwater at a depth of 4 to 5 feet below the surface. Under slab drainage systems including sumps and pumps are recommended. There is no indication on the plan of where these systems are located and where the outlet might be. 7. Universal Building Code requirements are that the elevation of the soil next to the building should be a minimum of 6- inches below the top of foundation, or 6- inches below the bottom of wood siding, whichever is greater. In addition, the soils report recommends the site be graded to slope six inches away from the buildings in the first ten feet. Final grading should be designed to meet those criteria. 8. The grading for the proposed driveway indicates the driveway will drain onto Snowmass Club Circle. Private driveways are not permitted to drain onto public roads in the Town of Snowmass. In addition, the driveway surface is indicated as being snow melted. An icing hazard will exist at the interface between the snowmelt surface and the adjacent cold surface. The driveway must be graded to drain away from Snowmass Club Circle, and towards an 118 w. 6" Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon mayor, Inc. (970)945 -1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945 -5948 FAX 300 Snowmass Club Circle Town homes Preliminary Plan Review Page 3 area where the water will be collected or will flow into a landscape area so as not to create an icing hazard. 9. Legend Note #17 refers to an 8 -foot wide cart path w16 -inch curbing. The path is dimensioned as ten feet wide. The language in the application similarly refers to the cart path as being both eight feet and ten feet wide. Please clarify the intended width. 10. The existing concrete golf cart path is being re- routed around the building and constructed as a drainage channel to convey overflow water from the upstream pond around the building. However, the grading indicates that the storm water will flow into Snowmass Club Circle. The grading must be modified so that the storm water is intercepted and diverted into the drainage system rather than draining onto Snowmass Club Circle. 11. A 1500 gallon sand and debris interceptor is shown under the eastern side of the parking area. Roof drains and landscape drains are piped into the interceptor, but drainage from the parking area is directed away from it. Recommend re- grading the parking area so interceptor will serve to collect sediment and chemicals from the driveway and parking area surface. 12. There is no indication of the invert elevations for the storm drain piping. Verify the 1500 gallon capacity would be below the pipe inverts. Given the shallow depth to groundwater in this area, what measures will be taken to prevent the tank from floating? Will the depth of the tank be in excess of the suction head for the pumping equipment available to remove the sediment? 13. Storm drain piping is indicated as being six -inch pipe that drains into four inch pipe as it gets closer to the sand and debris interceptor. Is it intended for the pipe sizes to get smaller near the outlet, or is the labeling incorrect? 14. The invert indicated for the 18 -inch culvert under the driveway is too high to meet minimum coverage requirements over the pipe. 15. Because of the small size of the site, a CDPHE storm water permit is not required. However, a construction dewatering permit will be required before the contractor may discharge ground water encountered during construction. Utilities 1. Sheet C4 Water and Sewer Plan indicates a new 8 -inch water line extension to the project. The symbol in the legend indicates the three 8 -inch gate valves in connection CES #1 to be existing gate valves. The symbol should be changed to indicate new gate valves. 2. A new sanitary sewer manhole is to be installed over an existing line in Snowmass Club Circle. In plan view, the line is indicated as being an 8 -inch line. In profile, invert elevations are given for two 12 -inch lines. Please correct to indicate correct line size. 118 W. 6 Street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)946 -1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945 -6948 FAX 300 Snowmass Club Circle Town homes Preliminary Plan Review Page 4 3. There appear to be two new sewer service lines to Unit "B" and none to Unit 4. A note on the existing water line indicates both an "8" X 6" saddle tap" and an 8" X 8" Tee. It appears that the intended connection is the 8" X 8" Tee. The note referencing the "8" X 6" saddle tap" should be removed. 6. Right of way and road cut pen must be obtained from the Town of Snowmass Public Works Department prior to any utility or grading work within the right of way of Snowmass Club Circle. At Final Plat, provide details for road cuts and restoration. Miscellaneous 1. The Wetlands Delineation Report prepared by NatureTech Consultant Services Corp. indicates the wetlands were delineated on June 17, 2007. However, no mapping of that wetlands delineation was included in the application. A wetlands delineation map done by Drexel, Barrell Co in 2001 is included, but it is not clear how this mapping relates to the subject site. Provide current mapping showing existing wetlands area as well as proposed wetlands mitigation plan. 2. There is intermittent flow in the roadside ditch and periods of no flow. Explain the wetlands operating plan to maintain an aquatic environment. It should be noted that these comments are based on review of preliminary drawings only. Prior to final approval, the applicant must submit detailed construction plans and specifications for review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. 118 W. 6 street, Suite 200 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945 -1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945 -5948 FAX Earth Resource Investigations, Inc. Surface and Groundwater Hydrology, Wetland Delineation and Mitigation, Waterfowl and Fish Habitat Improvements, Water Mgh ts, Mtfigafron Banking 2009 _J� Jim Wahlstrom Senior Planner Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear Jim: I have reviewed the revised Snowmass Club Circle PUD. While they have incorporated many of the previous recommendations I do not feel they are adequately protecting water quality. The site is within the Brush Creek Impact Area. The Erosion Control and Drainage Plans do not adequately show the temporary and permanent erosion control features. There are typical drawings but they do not show the location of the drainage and erosion control features on the plans. It appears that the drainage from the site will go into the wetland feature. If this is the case is there adequate capacity for sediment discharged Into the ponds and can they be easily dredged if necessary. There is a 1,500 gallon sediment trap, which may not have adequate capacity to treat runoff from the site before it is discharged into the wetland or Brush Creek. The proposed mitigation is 1:1 for the 850 square feet of wetland impacted as required by the Brush Creek impact Report. The proposed water feature and wetland has a surface area of water which does not meet the mitigation requirement for wetlands. Is the surface area of the ponds included in the 850 square feet of wetland mitigation? if it is, additional wetlands must be created to offset the surface area of the ponds. Sincerely, Ri 2 si=p 2009 William N. Johnson, CPESC -I- Professional Hydrologist Community Development 2195 Overlook Court Grand Junction, Colorado 81507 970.314.9804 Fax 970.433.7906 Email 09 -22 -09 RE; 5nowmass Club Circle Duplex Natural Resources —follow up It sounds like we need to reevaluate how much area of wetland is actually being impacted. The existing pond is 100% Jurisdictional Wetland and thus should be mitigated. The Corps typically asks for a 1:1 mitigation ratio. I feel this is appropriate since this area is in the Brush Creek Impact area. The proposed pond water surface area should not count for mitigation since it is not Jurisdictional. I agree that the boundary of the wetland should be overlaid on the development plan. Bill Johnson Natural Resource Consultant Comments 3 4 From: Bill Johnson [mailto:hydro @sopris.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:45 PM To: Jim Wahlstrom Subject: RE: S'mass Club Circle duplex Hi all: Wetland mitigation requires that new wetlands be created to replace the old ones. Ponds as in surface area of water do not count for wetland creation as per Corps of Engineers criteria. Bill From: Bill Johnson [mailto:hydro @sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:55 AM To: Jim Wahlstrom Subject: RE: S'mass Club Circle duplex Jim I went back and looked at my photos of the site. The entire pond is wetland vegetation and would be considered jurisdictional wetlands. I would think that if the Corps looked at this project on the ground, they would require mitigation for all the wetlands being impacted. If the Corps is ok with the 850 Square feet of mitigation then we need to make sure they created that area of wetlands. In their proposal they are calling the pond they are creating mitigation. Ponds do not count for wetland mitigation. Let me know if I can be of help Bill Nordic Council Trails City of Aspen September 21, 2009 RE: Snowmass Club Circle Duplex proposal Hi Jim, Thanks for your phone call last week. Overall, our concerns regarding the new proposal are essentially the same as for the last proposal. The cart path is the main area of concern and especially the proposed curbs and width of the corridor. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan illustrates an 8' wide cart path with a 6" curb. These 6' curbs will present a serious problem for us and could prevent grooming of the trail in low snow periods. Our suggestion is to change that design to a rounded 4' curb that has been used with success elsewhere on the golf course and has not been a problem for the snowcat to groom over. The 8' width of the proposed cart path is not an issue but the snowcat does requires a 14' wide corridor. In the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (item 23) is an area of concern regarding boulder walls. It looks like this will constrict the width of the cart path corridor and could present a significant obstacle. This plan does not illustrate what is located on the east side of the cart path or the proposed grading but as mentioned earlier, the snowcat requires a clear and flat 14' width. Items 14 21 of the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan are of similar concern as the curbs and boulder walls. They will present difficulties for the snowat. As mentioned in our earlier comments we still have concerns regarding snow removal during the winter months. We just want to make sure that there is no snow pushed onto the Nordic trail from the snow removal operation on the parking lot. Thanks again for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposal and let me know if you require any additional information. Regards, Austin Austin Weiss Trails Coordinator, City of Aspen 970 429 -2023 Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District September 18, 2009 RE: Snowmass Club Circle Duplex proposal Jim, The Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District cannot provide adequate fire protection to the building now being proposed for the Snowmass Club Circle project. We believe that fire and life safety issues exist without further commitments from the Developer. Therefore we cannot support the rezoning of this property at this time. Under the Applicant's previous proposal, as a triplex, the building codes would have required that automatic fire suppression be installed throughout the occupancies. The Utility Report (tab 18) of their submitted documents indicates that this was in fact their original intent. However, the currently proposed PUD Amendment before you proposes a future structure that is basically a duplex with condominium ownership. This would leave the size, location and footprint of the building the same but exempt it from fire sprinklers should it be classified as an R3 structure. Fire access for firefighting and rescue is extremely limited around this building site, especially during the winter months. This is also not a discussion we want to leave for debate just prior to the issuance of a building permit. We feel that the proposed location of this structure does not adhere to TOSV Municipal code 16A- 4 -240 which provides for Unusual fire hazards, Location and Fire Access requirements that are further addressed in the TOSV adopted fire codes. Recent phone conversations with the Applicant's representative indicate a willingness to possibly protect the structure with automatic fire suppression. However, we would like a firm commitment that such fire protection measures would be included for this project. We remain available to further discuss this issue with the Planning Department and the Applicant. John T. Mele Fire Marshal /Deputy Chief Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District Economic Resources September 18, 2009 RE: Snowmass Club circle Duplex proposal Comments regarding the Fiscal Impact Analysis: Proposed Development Section 1. The "2000 Comp Plan Chapter Six, Table 6.1' is cited as the basis for the assumption of 2.5 Residents /Unit. The correct reference would actually be to 'Table 6.11. That said, the 2.5 person per unit factor is based upon "Permanent Occupancy". If the units are more likely to be used as seasonal rental property, the "Peak Occupancy" factor of 3.5 Residents /Unit (as noted in Table 6.11) is probably more appropriate. 2. 1 have not examined the FIA with respect to School District impacts. It is unclear whether the application has been referred to the School District for comment. Assessed Value Section 1. Citing 'comps of real estate in area' (without backup data), a Residential Assessed Value of "$3.5 .Million Per Unit" is indicated in the FIA. It is questionable whether that is an appropriate assumption in today's market. 2. Assessed Value would provide a basis for property tax revenues and RETT. RETI' is not addressed in the analysis. Estimated Expenditures 1. The 'Town of Snowmass Village 2001 Revised Budget' is Cited as the basis for these figures. The Town's Finance Dept. should be consulted to determine the appropriate multipliers, Lased upon the '2009 Revised Budget' figures. Estimated Expenditures For Development 1. This section should be amended to reflect updated multipliers per comments above (i.e., Residents Per Unit and Expenditure Estimates). Estimated Revenues 1. It is unclear what 'Footnote 8' is referring to. This should be clarified. 2. Sources should be cited as basis for revenue estimates. These should be verified with the Town's Finance Dept. per 2009 revised budget and EPS's 2003 Snowmass Resort Economic Model. Estimated Revenue For Development 1. This section should be amended to reflect updated multipliers per comments above (i.e., Residents Per Unit and Revenue Estimates). Estimated Fiscal Impact of Developmen 1. Revise to reflect changes suggested above. Jason Haber Economic Resource Director Town of Snowmass Village 130 Kearns Rd. PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 p. 970.923.3777 f. 970.923.6083 r MEMORANDUM FROM: Planning Department RE: Planning, Zoning, Site Plan, Floor Plan, Building Elevations, Landscape Plan Referral Comments Snowmass Club Circle Minor Preliminary PUD Amendment for a Duplex project DATE: September 28, 2009 Development application text. Re- Zoninc 1. The Municipal Code no longer recognizes `MF -PUD' as a zone district that can be applied for with a development application. The proper 'MF' zone district should be applied for by the applicant on the application form and in the text description. 2. In reference to pages 1 22, Section 1, be advised that the Aspen Skiing Company operations in the former pro shop were previously considered `office' space. The interpretation earlier was that the `usage' rather than the `operator' determined whether the Skico could utilize the space. 3. On page 36, Section 1, why is it noted that the former pro shop structure became 'obsolete'? That term seems contrary in that the building is still being utilized. Also, in the same paragraph, further explain why 'the property needs revitalization and reinvestment'? 4. On page 26 30, Section 1, the minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet was calculated incorrectly. It is the base rate of '3,000 SF plus' rather than `3,000 SF or.' 5. On page 26 30, Section 1, the proposed building setback requirements noted in the text are different than what is shown on the development plans. Clarify what is actually proposed for preparation of a PUD Guide. Preliminary PUD description 1. On pages 9 31, Section 1, explain how residents or guests will be encouraged to use the shuttle service as an alternative to private automobile usage. 2. On page 12, Section 1, it makes reference recreational equipment and that, 'no additional fenced outdoor storage is proposed,' and the next sentence states that 'outdoor storage of materials, equipment, and vehicles will conform to TOSV regulations.' By these statements, where is the fenced outdoor storage would be located or clarify where the outdoor storage areas are planned, including the screen method. 3. Under the `Energy Conservation' subsection on pages 14, 15, 39 Section 1, the proposed conservation methods seem non committal by 1 usage of language such as, `considered,' 'may be utilized,', and `may include.' 4. On page 18, Section 1, what is the proposed 'patterned hardscape treatment' material? It needs to be labeled on the site and civil plans. Variations 1. On page 25, Section 1, it seems that justifying compliance with community purposes by demonstrating that the PUD meets the review and design criteria is not the proper approach per the Code criteria. Unique and exception circumstances also need to be demonstrated beyond any proposed community purposes for the buildout variation. 2. On page 28, Section 1, further explain why'replacing an older structure with a modem building' and 'adding additional variety to the stock of multifamily condominiums, townhouses, and single- family residences in the immediate vicinity' are considered to encourage better design. Floor Plans. 1. On pages 1 41, Section 1, Staff cannot evaluate the unit floor area based upon Pitkin County Assessor methodology, because the site is located with the Town of Snowmass Village jurisdiction. 2. Label all proposed covered and uncovered patios and deck spaces. 3. It appears per the table provided in the description, in Section 1, that the front second deck level was not included in the floor area calculations. This would modify the figures by 100 SF. Please revise to make certain that this deck addition would still fall under the 12% ,rule. 4. If the roof overhang for the upper deck is 4 feet or more, then the deck area must be included in the floor area. Dimension and /or re- calculate accordingly. 5. Clarify for Unit A if the 2,195 SF on the main level includes the covered front porch area. Covered porch or patio areas count as calculable floor area. 6. Clarify for Unit B if the 2,151 SF on the main level includes the covered back patio area. 7. Show and label the locations of the proposed hot tubs identified in the utility report. Building Elevations. 1. On page 17, Section 1, what is meant by the proposed building being 'organic'? A synthetic roof with recycled tires and a building with stone cladding do not appear 'organic.' 2. The notes on the building elevation make reference to 'natural siding.' What is considered to be 'natural siding'? Or, is the siding a manufactured product? 2 3. Actual exterior finish and color samples will likely be required for the Planning Commission and Town Council reviews. This may further clarify what is meant by `authentic' on page 18, Section 1. 4. Label the Mean Sea Level elevations of the proposed finished grade the roof pitches on all the building elevations in order to further verify the heights. 5. Show the front upper deck on the east elevation, 6. Call out the materials planned for the railings on patios and decks. 7. Other door and window designs are recommended other than large window panes and sliding glass doors, such as heavier trim or mullion details, multi -paned windows, single- garage doors versus double -wide doors, unless the applicant is trying to emulate the style on adjacent properties. 8. Horizontal versus vertical siding is recommended as it may lessen the perceived height of the building, plus it would be similar to the exterior finish treatment on Country Club Townhomes. 9. According to the Brush Creek Impact Report, level style door handles should be avoided on the exterior of the building. The building elevations should show and label accordingly the types of door handles proposed. Landscaping site plan open space. Outlined below are the initial observations and comments concerning the landscape plans for the proposed duplex at 300 Snowmass Club Circle: A. Existing Conditions -Sheet LA5 1. As drawn, it is difficult to clearly identify the existing coniferous and deciduous trees, unless noted by typical symbol and or plant symbol in the legend. 2. The Tree Type Chart appears to be incomplete, as per the above comment; it also needs to identify the trees to be retained, removed or transplanted. There is a general area noted off -site for tree replantings, but it is unspecific as to the specifics trees that would be relocated and where. A consent or agreement from the adjacent owners is needed at this time if such a proposal is intended to be utilized as a buffer treatment to justify the proposal. B. Open Space Map -Sheet LA4 1. The total site area needs to also be identified in acres/square feet to verify or reference the percentages represented. 2. The total area represented appears incorrect as it duplicates the landscape area of 9,051 SF, and such figure does not appear to represent the noted 75% of lot area; or, is the landscape area, pedestrian area and /or hardscape area represented incorrectly? Please correct. C. Structures Within 300 Feet- Sheet LA3 1. All adjacent properties should be labeled. Only one adjacent property is currently labeled. 3 D. Preliminary Development plan -Sheet LA2 1. The driveway should be a minimum of 20 -feet in width to accommodate possible two -way traffic movements; otherwise, vehicles making turns into the site may impede traffic in Snowmass Club Circle if such encounters occur. 2. Label Units A and B for reference purposes. 3. The southern -most surface parking space #4 and the south garage space for Unit B would appear to require a lengthy back -out maneuver in order to exit the site as the result of no back out space provision. The curbing for the auto court area may need to be out back in order to avoid three -point back -out turning maneuvers, especially for large SUVs, especially from the southern -most garage space in Unit B. If the curbing arrangement is modified, this would affect changes to the landscaping and open space plans. 4. Surface parking space #4 is placed unattractively and directly in front of the pedestrian entrance to Unit A. It also would appear to impede or inconvenience residents or guests trying to access the unit. A larger or wider landscape buffer is recommended in front of Unit A for aesthetic reasons in lieu of the narrow five -foot strip with no trees and shrubs. 5. The application materials states that patterned hardscape will be used for the auto court area, but the type is not noted. Label the surface treatment proposed and the type of patterned treatment envisioned. 6. Due to the problems with black bears in residential areas, make certain that the proposed solid waste plan for individual receptacles is approved by the Public Works Department and the Police Department; otherwise, a separate trash facility should be provided. According to the Brush Creek Impact Report, all refuse containers should meet or exceed Town standards. 7. If the current cart path is proposed to be relocated and narrowed from 12 to 8 feet (or 10 feet per the plans), a new easement needs to be provided, shown and labeled on the affected site plans. A civil engineer needs to provide written verification that the narrower cart path will continue to function as a 100 -year floodplain spillway (see Application -page 6). Separate easement agreement grants or a new re -plat would be required with the Final PUD. 8. Any proposed retaining walls and patios should be illustrated and labeled. E. Landscape Plan- Sheet .LA 1 1. On page 33, Section 1, the `offering' of existing trees to adjoining neighbors is not their `burden' to use for screening; rather it is the applicant's burden to coordinate such screening if proposed to be utilized as buffering to justify the duplex proposal. 2. Label Units A and B for reference purposes. 3. The landscape plan legend needs to label the quantities and sizes of the plant material proposed, otherwise it is difficult to determine the adequacy of the plan design or the buffering proposed. 4 4. There are plant symbols shown the landscape plan that are not referenced in the landscape legend. 5. It appears that a majority of the perimeter trees are proposed for installation would be located directly over a transformer, electrical lines, gas lines and private foundation and site drainage lines, as well as boulder placements when referencing the civil plans. Utility information should be placed on the landscape plan to understand the constraints prior to designing a landscape plan for a site. Modification appears needed, unless written clearance from utility companies is granted. Otherwise, the Town or neighbors cannot rely on the plant material proposed for screening or buffering purposes. 5. Due to the utility lines proposed, it would appear that the plant material buffer would be non- existent or at least minimal with no room to plant the trees proposed or to install year -round plantings such as coniferous trees in the narrow perimeter setback area. 7. There is a general area noted off -site for "proposed location for relocated vegetation," but it is unspecific as to the identified trees, types and sizes that would be installed. A consent or agreement from the adjacent owner is needed at this time if such a proposal is intended to be utilized as a buffer treatment to justify the proposal. If it is not feasible with the neighbors, then why should the applicant use this buffer idea to justify the proposal? 8. Aspen trees are not typically planted as single tree locations, and it is preferable that they be clustered and planted in groups around the site. 9. The deciduous trees shown with shrubs are not adequate to screen or buffer the site. A good mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs should be proposed for consistency with the Municipal Code. 10. Further year -round screening of the auto court and of the vehicles in the surface parking area is recommended as viewed from west -bound and east -bound traffic along Snowmass Club Circle and from adjacent residential properties. 11. If a trash facility is needed, there needs to be foundation plantings around the base of it. 12. The driveway bulkheads and cart path curbs need to be at -grade if within 10' of the roadway as they may interfere with snowplowing operations if placed higher. 13.1s there any exterior lighting proposed? Geotechnical /Solls Report: 1. This report should be updated to reference the current proposal. The report indicates a proposal for a four -plex with parking below the building. Brush Creek impacts: 1. On page 3 of the text, it states that the redevelopment of property will not affect any wildlife habitats, but in the paragraph below states that 5 minimal wildlife habitat occurs on the property. Explain or describe the `minimal wildlife habitat' that actually occurs on the property. 2. On page 28, Section 1, the description indicates that the proposal would 'restore a deteriorated wetland area.' Other sections in the application state that the wetland area would be replaced. Please clarify what is actually being proposed. 3. As generally shown on the landscape plan, is there a specific restoration planned for the replacement ponds? By Code, one is required. 4. According to the Town's natural resource consultant, the pond area since it is jurisdictional wetland, also needs to be mitigated 1:1 as well as the proposed landscape revegetation area of 850 SF. Construction Management Plan: y 1. According to BMP item #4, it states that wash racks will be installed on -site to prevent mud from being tracked onto Snowmass Club Circle and Highline Road. However, BMP item #8 appears to be in conflict if mud on road would be removed in four hours. Please clarify the intent. 2. Under the Traffic Control section, a trail relocation needs to be proposed at this time. An alternative trail alignment needs to be in place prior to construction of the site and replacement trail. Provide consent, agreements and proposed construction easement for such temporary trail at this time. Also show on the CMP map. 3. Under the Manpower /Employee Parking section, item 1, show and label precisely the area on the CMP where construction related vehicles will be parked on the north side of the proposed building's auto court area and next to the adjacent construction fence boarder. If parking is proposed within the public right -of -way, the applicant needs to obtain clearance from the Public Works Department. 4. Also in item 1, why would parking areas for construction vehicles need to be designated by RFTA or the City of Aspen? In addition, monthly reports should only need to be provided to the Town of Snowmass Village, not the City of Aspen. Re- clarify this paragraph. 5. In the Final Cleanup /Grading /Revegetation section, the application's landscape plan states that trees would be relocated off -site rather than removed or replaced as stated in the CMP. Please re- clarify the proposal. 6. In the same section above, the required seeding also needs to take place if construction ceases or is interrupted. 6 TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: RUSS FORREST, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2010 Sellers Agent for TOSV sale of Country Club Town Home Units On January 22, 2010, staff interviewed three perspective real- estate agents to sell units 25 and 26 at the Country Club Town homes. The Town Council has authorized that these units be sold on the free market. After reviewing proposals and listening to interviews the staff has selected Rick Griffin as the Towns agent to sell units #25 and #26. This selection was based on commission rate and experience in selling both deed restricted and free market housing in Snowmass Village. Daly Lane Snowmelt Replacement Last fall the Road Division discovered that several pipes in the Snowmelt section of Daly Lane and Carriageway Road opposite Lot 6 were damaged and leaking (see attached). For your information, this section of snowmelt was not replaced in 1997 when Lower Carriageway from Lot 6 to the Lower Willows was replaced because it was anticipated that a Transit Center was going to be constructed in this location in 2000. Since we did not have time to replace this section of Snowmelt in the fall, we budgeted $350,000 in the Road Fund to replace it this spring. Staff was very happy with the quality of work and the performance of Concrete Works who constructed the "gap" section of Lower Carriageway between the Tamarack and Lichenhearth in 2008. We negotiated a competitive price with Concrete Works ($266,000 vs. an engineering estimate of $317,716), and they will begin work on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, three days after the ski season ends. Access to Daly Lane will be impacted and Public Works will be meeting with property owners along Daly Lane to develop a construction plan to keep impacts to a minimum. Once we have a specific construction schedule we will review it with the Town Council, publicize it, and notify the affected mall area businesses. Barring any unforeseen circumstances the job will be complete by the first week of June. Pitkin County feedback on the Comprehensive Plan We are expecting to receive comments on the Comprehensive Plan from the County Commissioners either January 28 or 29 this is tentative given the tight deadline. If received, we will share those comments on February 1 st to determine if Council would like staff to makes changes prior to 2 Reading on the 16tH Pending Strategic Actions Last Updated January 22, 2010 Staff Action Status Date to follow -up w/ Contact Council Land Use Comp. Plan Comprehensive Comp Plan approved in first reading. The February 16 2010 Team Plan Update Pitkin County Commissioners are currently reviewing it and will have comments to us within the next few weeks. Second reading moved to February 16 John Dresser Demolition Council asked that an ordinance be prepared To be scheduled to provide a period of time to review after anticipated demolition permits before demolition of a adoption of the building occurred. Comprehensive Plan Schedule to be Council agreed that staff should develop provided to Council language for future PUDs to identify critical on February 16 integral components of a PUD that must 2010. continue to exist over time. In addition, John Wilkinson requested that staff bring back a landmark ordinance for discussion in the future. Other Land Use Other Land Use Code Improvements should To be scheduled Code Issues also be considered with the completion of the after anticipated Comprehensive Plan. Staff would recommend adoption of the having a work session with Council to review Comprehensive Plan potential code changes. Schedule to be provided to Council on February 16, 2010. Housing Housing Draw Site /Land On February 17 th the Town Council asked that Revisit in Summer of Department Inventory a Land Inventory to identify potential housing 2010 sites be completed after the Town completes its budget process for 2010. On November 2, 2009 the Council directed staff to take no action on this topic other than to continue identifying sites that should be further investigated. Council asked that this project be revisited in the summer of 2010. Housing Housing Policy The consultant has completed a rational To be scheduled Department nexus study and can begin to work with the after anticipated Town on a new housing policy. The Planning adoption of the Commission is also reviewing housing goals Comprehensive Plan as part of the Comp. Plan review. Staff will Schedule to be schedule two agenda items based on the input provided to Council from Council on October 6 these could be on on February 16, the same dates) which would be 1) policy 2010. discussion to modify the current land use code related to affordable housing; and 2) a review of deed restriction policy. Housing Excise Tax Schedule a work session to discuss the March 1, 2010 Excise Tax and its application Joe C Natural Disasters On 11/3/08 Council asked that staff further Follow up with a (Terri and Cost evaluate criteria for allowing some costs from resolution on Everest) Recovery in Deed property damage incurred by natural disasters February 1, 2010 to Restricted For in deed restricted homes to be recovered provide an allowance Sale Housing upon the resale of the home. Examples of upon resale for a criteria discussed included: cap on recovery of the cost of based on a (percent) value of the home and repairing the units. requirements for comprehensive insurance. Finance Marianne Credit Card Provide options and implications for allowing March 1, 2010 Usage customers to use credit cards for all TOSV functions. Marianne Financial Update Provide a financial update on the winter March 1, 2010 season. Marianne FAB FAB will be brining requested additional duties March 1, 2010 to Council and Council would like to discuss whether FAB should look at how to fund unfunded Road projects. Marianne GID Mil Levy Discuss option to increase the GID mil levy for March 1, 2010 Base Village with the GID Advisory Committee and return back to the GID with options. Other Russ and Negotiate access Direction has been provided to staff to John easement for negotiate for an easement. Skittles Mark Kittle Remodels Council asked on 11/16 for the Chief Building March 2010 triggering Official to bring back options for requiring the sprinkling sprinkling of buildings with a remodel. Staff Shake Shingles was asked to research options and what other communities have done on this issue. This came up with the Building Code update. In addition, Council asked on December 7, 2009 to come back with a discussion on banning shake shingles. Staff was also asked to bring back an ordinance on shake shingles. Lesley and Investigate Determine the steps for developing a sister March 1, 2010 Susan process for city relationship creating a Sister City Relationshi Hunt, David, Pedestrian Staff should evaluate how to improve February 16, 2010 and Art Crossing at Mt. pedestrian crossings on Brush Creek beside View on Brush Mt. View Creek John and Urban Renewal Bring back the URA topic for discussion of the February 16, 2010 Russ Authority Council Susan Marketing, Follow -up on specific form and frequency for March 1, 2010 Hamley Special Events& communication between Council and Board. Group Sales May require code change. Board Lesley Holy Cross Determine if this fund could be used for a March 1, 2010 TM Compagnone Community community picnic and how much per year do Report Enhancement we receive from this fund. Fund Hunt and Art Hunting on TOSV Staff will investigate whether there have been April 5, 2010 land any other issues with Hunting on TOSV land PAMANAGERAMManagers Report 10 \02- 01- 10.doc 9 A 0 �a m p A� °a 4 1, j o� m Aar stio Al `cam A r r� A A O a t� 4 �n A i b O 'l�l r 6" DRAFT SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON AGENDA ITEMS (5- minute time limit) Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Item No. 4: RESOLUTION NO. 9 SERIES OF 2010 APPRECIATION FOR LINDA GERDENICH (Time: 5 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny Resolution No. 9, Series of 2010 Rhonda Coxon Item No. 5: RESOLUTION NO. 10 SERIES OF 2010 APPRECIATION FOR MOLLY DONNELLY (Time: 5 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny Resolution No. 10, Series of 2010 Rhonda Coxon Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 11 SEREIS OF 2010 FINANCIAL BOARD APPOINTMENT (Time: 5 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny Resolution No. 11, Series of 2010 Rhonda Coxon Item No. 7: FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 4 SEREIS OF 2010 NAME CHANGE FOR ARTS ADVISORY BOARD (Time: 5 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2010. Rhonda B. Coxon Item No. 8: SNOWMASS WESTERN HERITAGE LEASE AGREEMENT 02 -16 -10 TC Page 2 of 3 (Time: 15 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Receive report and comment -Greg Rulon ...........................Page 1 (TAB A) Item No. 9: SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AN ORDINANCE REVISING AND RESTATING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (Time: 45 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify or deny Second reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2010 Comp Plan Team (Russ Forrest, Chris Conrad, Lesley Compagnone, David Peckler ........................Page 58 (TAB F) Item No. 10: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOTS 47 48 MELTON RANCH I (Time: 25 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: -Chris Conrad ...........................Page (TAB--) Item No. 11: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO 2, SERIES OF 2010 MINOR PUD AMENDMENT: PARCEL D, EAST VILLAGE PUD (Time: 45 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify or deny second reading of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2010 -Chris Conrad ...........................Page 72 (TAB H) Item No. 12: URBAN RENEWAL (Time: 1 hour) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss and provide direction to staff -Russ Forrest/John ...........................Page (TAB Item No. 13: MANAGER'S REPORT (Time: 10 minutes) Russell Forrest ...........................Page (TAB Item No. 14: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ..............................P g (AB Page T Item No. 15: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR: ..............................P g A Page (TAB Item No. 16: COUNCIL COMMENTS /COMMITTEE REPORTS /CALENDARS ...........................Page (TAB 02-16-10 TC Page 3 of 3 Item No. 17: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approx 4 hours 25 minutes (excluding items 1-3 and 10 —12) ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923-3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. SNOWMASS VILLAGE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2010 Mayor Bill Boineau called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on January 19, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, and COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Markey Butler. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Members Lewis and Mordkin were absent STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest, Town Manager, Hunt Walker, Public Works Director, John Dresser, Town Attorney, Nick Reitter, Building Maintenance Engineer; Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; and Donna J. Garcia Spaulding, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Greg Rulon, Tom Yocum, Chris Kelly, Diane Teague, Howard Foley, Ted Guy, Howard Foley, Steve Sanzone, and others interested in today's Agenda items Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON AGENDA ITEMS Representatives from the Aspen Hall of Fame Banquet and Induction 2010 announced that they will be mailing out invitations for the banquet being held in Aspen at the Hotel Jerome at 6:00 p.m. on January 23, 2010 and reservations will be taken until Thursday, January 21 st. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Butler, the Representatives reported that there is a $100 fee, which is tax deductible. Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Aspen Baseball Team Mayor Boineau announced that the Aspen Baseball Team is conducting a fundraiser through this Friday and is selling pies; interested ones can contact Daniel Munger 923- 0776. 01- 19 -10tc Page 2 of 10 Donations for Haitian Orphanage Mayor Boineau announced that donations for a Haitian orphanage are being collected at the Town Hall through Friday, January 22, 2010 and for more information log onto the Town web site at www.tosv.com contact the Town Public Relations Officer Lesley Compagnone at 923 -3777 or Janine Cuthbertson's web site at janine_c @comcast.net. Viceroy Haitian Fundraiser Mayor Boineau announced that the Viceroy Hotel is having a fund raiser with a stand up comedy routine this Thursday, January 21 st from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. Haitian School of Nursing Council Member Butler announced that the School of Nursing in Layamon, Haiti got their first medical team from Japan got involved on Sunday, January 17, 2010 and another group arrived from the Dominican Republic that evening, the students took charge; have already done mass graves for over 5,000 people and the students have treated more than 6,000 people of Layamon. If anyone is interested in helping the Haitian School of Nursing organization please lot onto their web site at haitinursing.org charity; they have to rebuild a whole school, which is one of the few buildings that stayed standing and was build with USA monies according to United State's standards. They are not asking for supplies or material donations at this time due to the difficulty of getting such donations into Haiti. Butler thanked everyone who has enquired about what is happening in Haiti and reported that Sky TV's web site is a very informative source for keeping up with what is happening with the school. Lastly, Butler stated that we need to continue keeping the Haitians in our prayers and thoughts. Town's $50.00 Rebate Council Member Wilkinson announced that the $50.00 Marketing Tax Rebate is now available for full -time residents of Snowmass to pick up at the Town Hall and is due by March 15, 2010; it is a $50.00 rebate per each family member living within the household. Transportation Committee Council Member Wilkinson reminded the community that RFTA is offering a subsidized free service between Aspen and Snowmass and reported that this issue is coming up for debate soon through the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (E.O.T.C.) and encouraged everyone to keep in tune with what is going on because he would like to see it remain free fare, since it does take cars off the highway, which is what this tax funding was intended to do through the E.O.T.C. tax funding. Item No. 4: YEAR END RODEO REPORT SNOWMASS WESTERN HERITAGE ASSOCIATION 01- 19 -10tc Page 3 of 10 Snowmass Western Heritage Association (SWHA) Representatives Greg Rulon, Chris Kelly, Tom Yocum, and new Executive Director Diane Teague provided Council with an update on their year -end report. Diane Teague provided Council with her background and stated that she has been in the Valley since 1979 having moved here from New York, her passion for many years has been rodeo, starting as chute help at the Snowmass Rodeo in 1979, later competing as a barrel racer, and she is excited to be on the Rodeo Board as it is an asset to Snowmass Village that gets better every year. Greg Rulon reported that SWHA has received that annual bill in the amount of $10, 000 and stated that the SWHA is respectfully requesting that the Town Council waive the rent fee for the use of the Rodeo Grounds in consideration of the following: 1)their net profit from the 2009 season is less than $7,000, 2)their balance sheet shows cash assets of only $27,000 which is a small reserve on which to build next year's rodeo season, SWHA spent $13,000 to complete grounds improvements summer of 2009. In addition, SWHA has on its own transformed the grounds into an ice skating rink for use by residents and visitors alike for the 2009 -2010 winter season and will continue to maintain and operate the rink for the entire season and hopes to do so in future winters. SWHA President Tom Yocum reported that the rodeo had many volunteers and donations in getting the ice skating rink up and running and publically thanked Harbert Lumber Company for their donation of the plastics and liner; Ron Wolf donated his skid loader; Related West Pac donated labor and lumber along with PCL to build the boards around the rink; and Jack Rafferty and Alex Calis donated paint and labor to level out the rink. Yocum thanked the Town of Snowmass Village for providing signs and lighting. The activity he is seeing is approximately 40 people on and off daily, with hockey practice going and seems to be gaining momentum. Lastly, he reported that SWHA had an anonymous monetary donor as well. Council Member Butler and Chris Kelly discussed how SWHA keeps track of the number of attendees and determined that tickets sales were higher this year than in previous years, with approximately 12,000 shy of years when SWHA was having two rodeos per week; this year totals were over 10,000 with a couple of nights that 14,000 and 15,000 and with the new set -up more of the seating gets used. The Town Manager Russ Forrest shared with Council the staff perspective and stated that it was a fantastic event and very well received within the community. He acknowledged that the Town did book $1 OK as a revenue source and did 40,000 plus hours of staff time, which will be confirmed and available soon and John Baker will be providing this number, which is significant. 01- 19 -10tc Page 4 of 10 Town Council requested that staff investigate costs associated with having a full -time attendant with CIRSA at the skating rink location. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Butler, Forrest stated that a good point to bear in mind is that with any event the Marketing Department has to create a metric between what they are doing and the value of what the event generates; a simple start would be getting a count on how many are attending the Rodeo. Council Member Butler and Yocum discussed the rent/lease, which is currently $1.00 per year; the Rodeo makes $10,000 per year. Council Member Wilkinson stated that summer usage for the Rodeo is a $300,000 operation, with 3% going to rental for the lease and that money was paid by the voters of this community and we have not asked for that money in the past two years and the Town needs reimbursement now. SWHA Representative Greg Rulon stated that this makes sense and that they can come up with some kind of number that might work somewhere between 1 and 3% if that would be acceptable to Council. Council consensus was that the Town needs a more reasonable rent that we can count on and requested further discussion with numbers that is a win -win for everyone involved and requested that the Applicant provide Council with an up -date during the February 16th Town Council meeting. Markey Butler moved to waive the $10,000 owed from this year. Mayor Boineau called the question and the vote failed with a vote of 1 in favor and 2 opposed. Council Member Wilkinson and Mayor Boineau were opposed. Voting Aye: Markey Butler. Voting Naye: Mayor Bill Boineau and John Wilkinson After further discussion, Town Council requested that the Applicant return to Council with a proposal renegotiating an amendment to the lease that will allow the Rodeo to continue and with a different method of calculating. Item No. 5: RESOLUTION NO. 12 SERIES OF 2010 FACILITY AUDIT IMPLEMENTATION The Public Works Director Hunt Walker introduced the Building Maintenance Superintendant Nick Reitter, who was present to answer any questions Town Council might have regarding the Holy Cross Community Enhancement Fund Request. 01- 19 -10tc Page 5 of 10 Walker explained that staff is requesting the Town Council support a proposal to use up to $220,000 of the Holy Cross Community Enhancement Fund to improve the energy efficiency of various Town facilities. Holy Cross, for the benefit of the Town, funds the Community Enhancement Fund and it can be used for energy conservation or community beatification projects. The Facilities Maintenance Division hired SGM to perform an energy audit on all of the Town's facilities. The energy audit identified numerous energy efficiency solutions the Town could implement at the Town Shop, Recreation Center, Town Hall, and the Parcel C bus garage. From these reports the Facility Maintenance staff has identified the most beneficial implementations with the best Return on Investments (ROI). Walker referred Town Council to packet page 12, attachment Executive Summaries for each facility. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Butler, Walker stated concerning the $500,000 available our community is the only one this amount includes. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Wilkinson, the Town Manager Russ Forrest stated that he understands the $500,000 could be considered for approval by Council and then Holy Cross for two major projects including community beautification projects, with a focus on sustainability. Forrest read from a section in the Colorado Municipal Code book, section 5 -82, relating to categories /projects this money could be applied to including beautification; energy conservations projects; equipment technology upgrades for schools; scholarship funds; acquisition of open space and /or public lands and development thereof; sponsorship of special community events; and undergrounding of overhead electric and other utilities. Walker stated that the Sustainability Committee supports this use. Council Member Butler inquired of staff if the public art piece that Council just approved could be considered community beautification? In response, Forrest stated this was a question staff specifically ask and the response given was that would be consider to be in the grey zone and that Holy Cross discouraged us from pursuing project like this. There being no further discussion, Council Member John Wilkinson made the motion to approve Resolution No. 12, Series of 2010, Mayor Bill Boineau seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Members Lewis and Mordkin were absent. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. 01- 19 -10tc Page 6 of 10 Council Member Wilkinson and staff discussed improvements listed on packet page 12, Parcel C and determined that all the improvements are for the function of the air handler system and the heating and cooling. Council Member Butler stated that she loves these types of projects and stated concern that we are talking about using half of the money for energy enhancement, which does make some sense and she would like to find a way to lower that a little bit to leave some cash available for some of the other significant uses such as community events "That's a summer picnic waiting to happen." The Town Manager acknowledged Nick Reitter as having the knowledge and ability to make significant energy savings by managing our systems in the Town and saving us over $100,000, which saves tax payers money over time and do something good for the environment. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Butler, Reitter explained that at the Recreation Center we have a building automation system that has outside air constantly refreshing into the space and maintains a certain temperature and unfortunately everything within that building was slightly undersized for efficiency purposes. Reitter explained that the fans are the best solution to this problem because when we open the windows this causes the entire system to get out of balance, with the heat pump pulling heat out of that facility and puts it into the lap pool, which means that we end up over heating the lap pool and over working the heat pump so the window cranks were taken off to mitigate that problem. Reitter reported that one of the items listed is to disconnect switches on the air handler units. Item No. 6: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING- SNOWMASS CLUB CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT The Town Senior Planner Jim Wahlstrom provided Council with a brief summary description of the project and stated that this project was presented to Council on December 7th, there were public comments taken and Council had certain comments and it was decided to continue the Public Hearing to today's January 19, 2010 meeting. Since that time the applicant has requested a continuation of the Public Hearing to February 1 st so that Town Council can reconsider the application with all five Town Council Members present. Mayor Boineau opened the Public Hearing at 5:20 p.m. Howard Foley, President of the County Club Townhomes Association asked a question relative to what was discussed during the December 7th Town Council 01- 19 -10tc Page 7 of 10 meeting. He heard Council express strong concerns about the proposal that was made and I believe council asked the Developer to come back with something that was more appropriate to the site. He asked if the project has in fact been scaled down. In response, the Town Attorney clarified that Council had an applicant that specifically asked for the full Town Council to be present to make a decision on this matter and advised Council to take public comment and continue further discussion during a meeting when a full Council can be present. There being no further comment from the Public the Mayor continued the Public Hearing discussion of Snowmass Club Circle Development to the February 1, 2010 Town Council meeting. Item No. 7: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING -ORDINANCE NO. 11, SERIES OF 2009 STONEBRIDGE CONDOS Steve Sanzone stated when they first submitted this application they showed the Benedict Trail /Base Village connection as being snow melted, then the Town instituted the fee for that small section of sidewalk cost is approximately $60,000. Sanzone stated that there is a possibility that the Town could waive some or all of that because this project is a public benefit extending to Benedict Trail to Base Village and have this added as an amendment to the resolution. The Planning Director stated that staff can put those amounts in as a Finding but until he has specifics regarding exactly what is being waived and area to be snow melted Council needs to review these kinds of facts during a subsequent meeting. Sanzone further stated concern with the timing of the potential pool house improvement to be built within the next three years keeping in mind proper advance notice to people booked in advance for hospitality purposes. The Planning Director Chris Conrad stated that on December 1, 2009 First Reading was granted. The purpose and actions requested of Council was for the Public Hearing and Second Reading to be continued from the January 4th Town Council meeting in order to confirm whether all requisite public notifications had occurred. Attachment 1 of this packet contains the Affidavits of mailing and posting certifying that both occurred on Dec. 17, 2009. The legal notice was published in the Snowmass Sun Newspaper on December 9, 2009. All public notification requirements were satisfied in accordance with Section 16A -5 -60 of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. On December 7, 2009 staff was directed to amend condition NO. 2 of the Ordinance to require that three (3) parking spaces be dedicated for use by occupants of the new employee units. A copy of the January 4, Town Council packet information [which includes Ordinance No. 11] has been reprinted as Attachment 2 of this packet. In addition, a trail exhibit has been 01- 19 -10tc Page 8 of 10 included as Attachment 3 showing the approximate proposed trail alignment from Stonebridge condominiums through the Lichen hearth property to Base Village. There being no further discussion, Mayor Boineau continued Second Reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2009 to the February 1, 2010 Town Council meeting. Item No. 8: MANAGER'S REPORT Aspen Ski Company Summer Operations The Town Manager Russ Forrest reported that during the December 21, 2009 Council meeting Steve Sewell and Victor Gerdin of the Aspen Ski Company (ASC) presented a proposed operational plan for summer 2010 and beyond on Snowmass Mountain. The primary component of the ASC's summer planning was taking steps to begin a summer program at the top of the Elk Camp Gondola; during the January 4th Council meeting Council discussed the "Ski Resort Operator Agreement" dated November 4, 2004; Forrest reported that further discussions are scheduled for the February 1 st Council meeting. He stated that he received an e -mail from them, since we requested that they clarify their position in writing. Special Council Meeting Forrest reported that a Special Council retreat meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 25, 2010 at the Stonebridge Inn from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. He stated that this meeting is to touch base on anything Council would like to accomplish between now and November 2010; this is intended to be an opened meeting. Council Member Butler requested that staff properly post this meeting. Forrest reported that the Town has communicated with the County and passed the plan on to them; they are busily reviewing it and he would like to get a sense of whether they have any significant issues and then forward that information to Council. Item No. 9: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING The Town Manager reported that the Applicant Don Schuster has asked that Item No. 7 be moved from the February 1 st Agenda to an Agenda in the near future is that he can communicate formally with the Planning Commission; staff will confirm a meeting Agenda date with him. Forrest reported that he and the Town Attorney have discussed pushing Item no. 9, Urban Renewal and feel that the timing would better serve the purpose of that report from the February 1 st meeting; Council agreed to move this item of discussion to the February 16th Town Council meeting due to President's Day. 01- 19 -10tc Page 9 of 10 Item No. 10: COUNCIL COMMENTS /COMMITTEE REPORTS /CALENDARS E.O.T.C. Task Force Council Member Butler requested assistance from her colleagues to serve on this Task Force and reported that there are counterparts who want to serve on the Task Force including Transportation Director David Peckler and RFTA Director Dan Blankenship. Councilman John Wilkinson stated that he would be happy to be the E.O.T.C. Task Force Liaison. Hunting Incident Council Member Wilkinson commented that apparently there is no prohibition from hunting on Town of Snowmass public lands and inquired of staff if this is true. The Town Manager Russ Forrest reported that there were a group of individuals who had a hunting permit for private land and it has not been determined whether they had permission to be hunting there. However, the Division of Wildlife (DOW) discovered that these individuals had killed two animals on Town land and this became a DOW enforcement issue at that point. After further discussion, Town Council requested that staff investigate whether there have been other fire arms issues, what the current policy is and what the timing of the trail closures is and report findings to Council during a meeting in the near future. Marijuana Investigation Big Burn Chairlift In response to an inquiry by Council Member Wilkinson, Forrest reported that two law enforcement officers were making a standard visit to the mountain, when they observed two minors involved in suspicious activity and an investigation ensued without an arrest. Mayor Boineau announced that the Town Council would now be meeting in an Executive Session, which the Town Attorney was just confronted with. The Executive Session is pursuant to C.R.S. 24- 6- 402(4) and Snowmass Village Municipal Code Section 2 -45(c) to specifically discuss two items: a) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, instructing negotiators pursuant to C.R.S. 24- 6- 402(4)(e) and Snowmass Village Municipal Code Section 2- 45(c)(5); and b) Conferences with an attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions pursuant to C.R.S. 24- 6- 402(4)(c) and Snowmass Village Municipal Code Section 2- 45(c)(2); 01- 19 -10tc Page 10 of 10 Provided, there is an affirmative vote of two- thirds of the quorum present at this meeting to hold an Executive Session and for the sole purpose of considering items (a) and (b) above. Provided further, that no adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, regulation, or formal action shall occur at this Executive Session. At 6:15 p.m. John Wilkinson made the motion to move into Executive Session, Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Members Lewis and Mordkin were absent. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 11: ADJOURNMENT At 7:01 p.m. John Wilkinson made the motion to adjourn the Regular Town Council meeting, Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Members Lewis and Mordkin were absent. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. Respectfully Submitted By: Donna J. Garcia Spaulding, CMC Deputy Town Clerk Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Town Groundhog Day Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Lincoln's Birthday 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Valentine's Day President's Day Town Ash Wednesday Council Town Offices Meeting Closed 4:00 p.m. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Washington's Birthday 28 1 s Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Daylight Town Savings Council Time Begins Meeting 4:00 p.m. St Patrick's Day 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 Elk Camp Summer Operation ,74 cM //D Available 201 7C --11 EC Gondola operation 7 days /week EC Chairlift operation 3 days /week Food Beverage Cafe Suzanne Banquet opportunities Family Activities Children's Play Area near Cafe Suzanne (USFS approval expected 6/1/10) Climbing Wall at EC Meadows (USFS approval expected 6/1/10) Disc Golf from top to bottom of Gondola (USFS approval expected 6/1/10) Fishing in Rayburn's Pond Camp Aspen /Snowmass activities Children's mountain bike lessons Mountainboarding on existing roads Supervised fishing Gondola /Lift served HIKING Rabbit Run 4 loop around EC Meadows Vista Trail Dedicated descent trail from Gondola Top Terminal Sierra Loop 3.5 mile dedicated hiking loop in upper Elk Camp Summit Trail Dedicated trail to Elk Camp Summit Access to Government Trail and all other existing trails Gondola served BICYCLING Beginner Loop Short practice loop around EC Meadow (Final USFS approval expected June 1, 2010) Fanny Hill Skills Loop Practice loop between SM Mal and BV with small features (Pending TOSV approval) 2010 Gondola served BICYCLING (continued) Adam's Avenue Trail Intermediate descent trail to SM Mall primarily using Adam's Avenue Lower Connector Trails connects Adam's Avenue to Tom Blake Trail near base of Alpine Springs Lift 6overnment Trail Connection Access to all existing trails on East Side including: GOVERNMENT, POWERLINE, SEQUAL, STARK'S, BLAKE, ANAEROBIC NIGHTMARE, OWL CREEK Cross Mountain Trail Connection Access to all existing trails on West Side via the Cross Mountain Trail including: VILLAGE BOUND, LUGE, K.A.R., SCORCH, BURLINGAME, BEAR, CONNECTOR Elk Camp Summer Operations Avai/ab /e 2011 Funne /Sing /e Track Additional trail descending and traversing Funnel Trail (pending USFS approval) Sandy Park Single Track New trai I winds down and traverses Sandy Park from EC Summit (approved, will be constructed in 2010) Es resso Sing /e Track New trail connects upper EC Meadows to Cross Mountain and all West Side trails (pending USFS approval) FUNNEL FREE -RIDE TRAIL T his advanced trail, designed by Whistler's Gravity Logic Inc., will offer repeat downhill free style riding from the Gondola with bermed corners, table top features, and other structured features. (This trail will be designed in 2010 and, because of the wide tread and manmade features, will require a USFS environmental review.) a January 27, 2010 Town Council c/o Jim Wahlstrom Qwahlstrom @tosv,com) Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010 130 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, CO 81615 RE: 300 Snowmass Club Circle Application for Preliminary PUD Greetings: I am writing to you today to express my support for Bear Realty's application for a two unit development at 300 Snowmass Club Circle, also known as the Clubhouse Parcel. It is my hope that the unanimous recommendation for preliminary PUD approval rendered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4th 2009 be considered during the Town Council's deliberations of the applicant's proposal. As a neighbor, I feel that the height of the proposed structure (36'5 is an appropriate transitional height for the development. Additionally, I feel that the proposed two unit development adequately addresses earlier concerns of bulk and massing and that the individual unit sizes (3,595 SF) will complement the existing developments in the neighborhood. The replacement of the old golf course club house is necessary due to the poor condition of the structure and the fact that the office use housed by the structure is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighborhood. A residential use will generate less vehicle traffic and free up additional parking along Snowmass Club Circle which will be useful to the neighborhood. as a whole. The applicant has responded to the various concerns voiced earlier in the process and has designed the development in a sensitive and appropriate way. By providing a redesigned wetland to replace the existing water feature and agreeing to provide an easement for the cart /Nordic path, valuable scenic and recreational amenities will be protected. I also believe that rezoning the parcel 'Multi Family' is appropriate and conforms to the zoning of neighboring developments, Finally, I understand that additional development reviews will be required should Bear Realty not develop the site as is currently proposed and that an approval for this project would not allow another different project to be built. Please permit the applicant to continue to Final PUD review. Very truly yours, Barry H. Schwartz Owner, Villas at the Snowmass Club, Unit 1631 703 -868 -2224 BarryHSchwartz @gmail.com Greetings: 60 VO I/ck-- 40(_ 1 am writing to you today to express my support for Bear Rea y application development at 300 Snowmass Club Circle, also known as the Clubhouse Pa If is my hope that the unanimous recommendation for preliminary PUD apprc the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4ffi 2009 be considered d Council's deliberations of the applicant's proposal. I As a neighbor, I feel that the height of the proposed structure (36'5") is an ap transitional height for the development, Additionally, I feel that the proposec development adequately addresses earlier concerns of bulk and massing an individual unit sizes (3,595 SF) will complement the existing developments in tl­ The replacement of the old golf course club house is necessary due to the pc structure and the fact that the office use housed by the structure is incompai residential nature of the neighborhood. A residential use will generate less ve free up additional parking along Snowmass Club Circle which will be useful tc as a whole. The applicant has responded to the various concerns voiced earlier in the pr( designed the development in a sensitive and appropriate way. By providing wetland to replace the existing water feature and agreeing to provide an ea cart/Nordic path, valuable scenic and recreational amenities will be protect( that rezoning the parcel 'Multi-Family' is appropriate and conforms to the zor developments. Finally, I understand that additional development reviews will Bear Realty not develop the site as is currently proposed and that an approve would not allow, another different project to be built. Please permit the applicant to continue to Final PUD review. Very truly yours, �O Id ri Name Address 4Z/ C Ile) Original Message---- From: aspenlinda @gmail.com [mailto:aspenlinda @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:41 PM To: Jim Wahlstrom Subject: Support for 300 SMCC Out of town but support 300 SMCC. Please tell concil to move fwd on this approve. Linda Gerdenich Villas #1210 ownr Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry TO: Snowmass Village Town Council CC: Russell Forest, Snowmass Village Town Manager Chris Conrad, Snowmass Village Planning Director FROM: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 26, 2010 RE: Comments Regarding Draft TOSV Comprehensive Plan Pitkin County appreciates the willingness of the Town Manager and Town Council to delay 2 nd reading for adoption of the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan to provide sufficient time for the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to review and comment on the Plan. Based on feedback from County Staff, the BOCC reviewed and endorsed the following comments at a worksession on January 26', 2010. Comments reflect general Pitkin County policy direction and discussion generated at the last joint meeting of the BOCC and Town Council. COMMENTS Intergovernmental Agreement Objectives and Policies within the Built Environment, Workforce Housing and Transportation chapters of the Plan allude to a need for local and regional cooperation and collaboration to achieve desired end goals with respect to preserving rural character in defined influence areas, providing housing, and providing needed transit and parking solutions, (all outside of Town boundaries.) The following statement in the Plan suggests the need to establish an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County. Such an agreement could provide the framework and standards for addressing cross jurisdictional issues, and specific concerns of both the City and the County. The following statement is included within the Built Environment chapter, under the heading of, Annexation Policy: `Existing and future land use in the influence area could have significant impacts on Snowmass Village. Governing jurisdictions should evaluate land use decisions and mitigate their impacts in away that is consistent with this plan. The goal is to establish a cooperative process for review of future land uses in the Influence Areas. To implement this, and other related direction in the Plan, we recommend that an Action and Implementation item be added to Chapter 10, providing direction to the Planning Department to work with Pitkin County within the next year to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement for consideration by respective elected officials. The following identified Comprehensive Plan issues could be addressed within the IGA: Land Use Referral Standards Procedures Annexation Policies Preservation of Rural Character, Scenic Natural Resources within Influence Areas Parking Transit at the Highway 82 /Brush Creek Intercept Lot Affordable Housing Collaboration Preservation of Stream Water Quality Quantity Assessment of and Mitigation for Development Related Traffic Impacts on Brush Creek Owl Creek Roads Intercept Lot In Chapter 10, Actions and Implementation, item number "9," under the sub heading of Transportation states the following: "Develop comprehensive subarea plans for the rodeo grounds and for the Highway 82 intercept lot that address parking, information, bus transfer, employee housing, baggage transfer, bus types, etc. The intercept lot at Brush Creek Road and Highway 82 is included as part of Pitkin County's "Brush Creek" Area Master Plan, adopted in 2003, and is identified as a "Public" use on the Future Land Use Map. Given the importance of this inter -modal transit location, it may well be appropriate to update the Brush Creek Master Plan as a collaborative effort between RFTA, CDOT, TOSV and Pitkin County, to address current and foreseeable needs, including needs associated with development mitigation. However, Pitkin County has historically considered this location to be more rural than urban in nature, and not an appropriate location for employee housing or commercial development. Water Chapter 6, (Environmental Resources) We recommend that Chapter 6, (Environmental Resources) and Chapter 10, (Actions Implementation) include policies and implementation items respectively, that ensure that the Town will address and contribute to the protection and enhancement of minimum stream flows and water quality for Blush Creek and Snowmass Creek; and to ensure that existing and future development will not contribute to degradation of water quality and/or depleted flows in Brush Creek. We recommend that storm water runoff from existing and future development be monitored and addressed as part of overall stream water quality protection. Open Space Trails Chapter 5 (Community Services, Facilities Amenities) Recognizing that the TOSV trail system connects to other trail systems in the Valley, we recommend that Chapter 5 (Community Services, Facilities Amenities) and Chapter 10 (Actions Implementation) be amended to include policies and action items to the following effect: Coordinate with Pitkin County OST, USFS and other appropriate entities to ensure that trail connectivity between TOSV and surrounding communities and public lands are maintained and managed to provide a seamless, coordinated trail system. In order to accommodate future opportunities for acquisition of open space properties and interests, explore new open space funding opportunities which may 2 include collaborative efforts and initiatives for bonding or other funding mechanisms. Chapter 6, (Environmental Resources) We recommend that Chapter 6, (Environmental Resources) and Chapter 10, (Actions Implementation) include policies and implementation items that direct coordinated management of adjacent TOSV and Pitkin County open space and conservation lands. The end -goal of coordinated management is to manage the land as a contiguous landscape for wildlife habitat; to protect and enhance wildlife habitat, scenic open space, and where appropriate, public recreation. Recent developments indicate a need to cooperatively develop and /or enforce hunting regulations on contiguous open space parcels. Chapter 10, (Actions Implementation) We support inclusion of an action item to support the stated goal of completing an inventory of the Town's open space holdings, and their legal restrictions; and obtaining perpetual protection for any key open space parcel (including Horse Ranch) that is not adequately protected from future development. Map 6.6 Brush Creek Impact Zones This map depicts an "Agricultural Uses" circle on the County owned Seven Star property and private land that is under a conservation easement to the County. Lands in the area covered by that circle are being restored to native vegetation. We recommend that the circle be relabeled "Habitat Restoration" or "Natural Habitat Map 6.11 and 6.12 Trails and Open Space We recommend the following modifications to these maps: Add Brush Creek Trail (paved bike path from Hwy 82 to just below roundabout); Add the Hwy 82 underpass to illustrate connectivity of the TOSV trail system to the valley floor It is not clear what the "Other Route" symbol represents. If "other routes" are not open to the public, then we recommend that they be removed to eliminate confusion as to where the public may or may not gain access to trails and other public lands. There are several locations where these routes are mapped across OST managed County open spaces, where there is no maintained public trail. Please coordinate with the Pitkin County Open Space Department before finally publishing the map to ensure that information depicted is accurate. Map 6.13 Environmental Sensitivity We recommend that the following additions be made to the map to represent environmentally sensitive wildlife areas: Elk production areas, including the elk migration corridors in the Wildcat /Cougar Canyon subdivision; All of the Mule Deer Migration Corridor at the Glendale Divide area. Transportation Chapter 8, (Transportation) Future construction of Base Village, along with any additional development and redevelopment will continue to increase the load to Brush Creek and Owl Creek Roads. Pitkin County does not have the funding available to 3 implement a pavement management program that would keep up with the damage to these roads. Consequently, we recommend that a policy and implementation item be added to Chapter 8, (Transportation) and Chapter 10 (Actions and Implementation) to acknowledge the need for the Town of Snowmass Village to monitor and mitigate for impacts of existing and future construction on Brush Creek and Owl Creek Roads. Cost sharing for maintenance should be explored as a mechanism for maintaining the function of these roads at an optimum level of service. Furthermore, we recommend that the Plan recommend the adoption of a transportation impact fee to offset the impacts of new development on Roads. 4 i..(�! 71 "---Page 1 of 1 cow as Russell Forrest hj v- 0 To: Joe Coffey; John Dresser Subject: FW: Request to be put on agenda for council meeting Attachments: Easterling Town Council Letter.docx Th i From: John Wilkinson [mailto:johnwilk @bikerider.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:22 PM To: Russell Forrest Subject: Fwd: Request to be put on agenda for council meeting Original Message Subject:Request to be put on agenda for council meeting Date:Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:51:32 -0700 From: Susan Markwood <smarkwooacwrmhc.org> To:Arnold Mordkin <mordkin(i,rof.net John Wilkenson <iohnwilkabikerider.com Markey Butler <butlermrky@aol.com Mayor Bill Boineu <billbarof.net "Reed Lewis" <snowmassreeda,gmail. com> CC:' andrewaa aspendailynews.com <andrew@ spendailynews.com scondonaaspentimes.com <scondona,aspentimes.com info(a,grassrootstv.com <info(a»grassrootstv.com> Dear Council Members and Members of the Press, Please read the attached letter. I am hoping to get resolution of this matter on or prior to going before council February 16 If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via email. Thank you, Susan Markwood Confidentiality Statement: Privileged and /or confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient of this electronic message, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of this document is strictly prohibited. If you receive this information in error, please notify the sender immediately and arrange for the destruction of this document. 2/1/2010 In January of 2003 we purchased Daly Town Home #9 from the Town of Snowmass Village. We were shown by Joe Coffee, employee housing manager for TOSV, that the property included a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom Town Home, a detached one car garage and two detached car ports. In October of 2008 Donna Davis the secretary /treasurer of the Daly Town Home (DTH) Association pulled a copy of the architectural drawings of the property because the DTH were in need of some roof repairs. Donna noticed and shared with my husband Lund and I that the architectural drawings proved that the detached storage closet next to our garage actually belonged to us. This closet was being used by the owner of DTH unit #12, Mark Chapdelaine. Upon further investigation, we also discovered that the Platte for our property filed at the Pitkin County Courthouse also proved that the closet belonged to unit 9. We shared this information with Mark Chapdelaine and asked him to vacate his belongings; he adamantly refused stating that Joe Coffee had given him that closet. At or around this same time Mark was in the process of selling his DTH and the TOSV acting as the listing agent for the property listed Mark's DTH for sale including the storage closet. The property description was posted in the Snowmass Sun newspaper. The property sold to John Coulter. John Coulter moved into unit 12 in March 2009. When we saw him begin to move his belongings into the storage closet we showed him the architectural drawings and the copy of the Platte we had obtained. John gave us the key to the closet. He was upset over the fact that the unit he purchased was listed for sale with a storage closet and he was told by TOSV and Mark Chapdelaine that that closet belonged to unit 12. In effect this property while owned by us had been advertised for sale and sold by the TOSV to another party. We began trying to negotiate a settlement with the TOSV for our loss of use of property in June 2009. The TOSV admitted wrong doing and offered to hire a mediator to work out a fair settlement. After many meetings and email correspondence, on August 28, 2009 the TOSV, through Larry Dragon their mediator, offered us about half of what we thought was fair. The amount was $5415.34. Although Lund and I thought this amount to be low and unfair, out of frustration and the hopes that accepting this offer we would put this matter to rest we decided to accept the offer. When I contacted Russ Forrest, Town Manager for Snowmass Village with our decision to accept, I was informed that that offer was now "off the table The amount he was able to offer us on the directive of Town Council was now $1000. As a 25 year resident and taxpayer in Snowmass Village I am appalled that our elected officials would act in such a manner. By offering us such an absurdly low dollar amount to settle what is really a real estate fraud case is insulting. I am also very deeply concerned by the amount that Town Council and the Town Manager for Snowmass Village are minimizing the illegal actions that are taking place in the Employee Housing office of Snowmass Village. I am forwarding this information to members of the Town Council as well as to members of the press in the hopes that we can all get together at a Town Council Meeting and get to the bottom of what really happened, how we can stop it from happening again, and how the Town of Snowmass Village plans on making this situation right. I will be at the February 16, 2009 Town Council Meeting and will ask to be put on the next available Town Council Meeting agenda. Susan Markwood