Loading...
03-15-10 Town Council Packets 4 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCI REGULAR MEETING AGENDA MARCH 15, 2010 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 5:00 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: FAB RECOMMENDATIONS ON CAPITAL PROJECTS RESOLUTION (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discussion on creating a resolution to adopt the FAB's recommendation on capital projects -Fred Kucker ...........................Page 1 (TAB A) Item No. 5: DISCUSSION OF FAB RESPONSIBILITIES (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and comment on draft modification. -Rick Griffin /David Rachofsky Page 3 (TAB B) Item No. 6: PRESENTATION ON CREDIT CARD ACCEPTANCE BY THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review staff information and provide direction. Marianne Rakowski ...........................Page 7 (TAB C) Item No. 7: PRESENTATION BY SUSAN MARKWOOD REGARDING DALY TOWNHOME DISPUTE (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation -Susan Markwood ...........................Page 12 (TAB D) Item No. 8: SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. 7 SERIES OF 2010 DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES GREATER THAN THIRTY PERCENT (30 WITHIN LOT 1, RODEO PLACE SUBDIVISION (Time: 5 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 -Chris Conrad ...........................Page 24 (TAB E) 03 -15 -10 TC Page 2 of 2 Item No. 9: PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 15 SEREIS OF 2010 RODEO PLACE MINOR SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT (Time: 60 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny Resolution No. 15, Series of 2010 -Chris Conrad ...........................Page 38 (TAB F) Item No. 10 RECREATION CENTER SUBSIDY (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Receive staff report and provide direction to staff regarding fee increases -Hunt Walker /Andy Worline ...........................Page 56 (TAB G) Item No. 11: SNOWMELT ROAD CMP (Time: 20 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Receive staff report and provide comments to staff. -Hunt Walker ...........................Page 61 (TAB H Item No, 12: EOTC DISCUSSION (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council discussion -Russ Forrest ...........................Page 66 (TAB I Item No. 13: MANAGER'S REPORT (Time: 10 minutes) Russell Forrest ...........................Page 92 (TAB J) Item No. 14: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ...........................Page 95 (TAB K) Item No. 15: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR: January 4, 2010 Page 97 (TAB L) Item No. 16: COUNCIL COMMENTS /COMMITTEE REPORTS /CALENDARS Page 106 (TAB M) Item No. 17: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approx 5 hours (excluding items 1 -3 and 14 —17) 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. PLEASE JOIN TOWN COUNCIL FOR A SOCIAL AT TASTER'S AFTER TONIGHT'S MEETING. (If the Meeting ends before 9:00 p.m.) MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Russ Forrest, Town Manager DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Financial Advisory Board (FAB) Recommendation on Capital Projects I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Fred Kucker, Chairperson of the Financial Advisory Board will be at this meeting to discuss the Financial Advisory Boards recommendations on Capital Projects that were previously presented to the Town Council, Action Requested: Town Council to hear the recommendations of the sub committee and to decide on what actions (if any) the Town Council wishes to take. II. DISCUSSION ISSUES Town Council requested that a sub committee be formed to review the recommendations for future capital projects that the Financial Advisory Board presented to the Town Council on August 3, 2010. The sub committee consisted of Mayor Bill Boineau, Councilmember Markey Butler, Town Manager Russ Forrest and Financial Advisory Boardmembers Rick Griffin and David Rachofsky. Attached are the FAB recommendations. Staff is developing an internal management policy based on the FAB recommendations and intends to implement the recommendations as appropriate. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS Discuss the findings of the Sub- committee and give staff directions as to the implementation of the Council's directive. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD CAPITAL PROJECTS RECOMMENDATIONS Based on its review of the Town Hall, Entryway, Rec Center and Rodeo Place Housing projects, the FAB makes the following recommendations on how the Town may better manage the costs of its capital improvement projects and thus insure that the public has confidence in the Town's ability to manage its projects. While many of these suggestions are obvious, the FAB has found that they were not followed in conducting the reviewed projects. 1. The Town needs a process for planning and evaluating capital improvement projects that permits costs to be realistically and reliably estimated and allows the actual costs of the projects to be readily measured against both original and revised budgets. This process should be transparent and available to the public. 2. In estimating the costs of a project the value of the underlying land being devoted to the project should be taken into account. 3. Preliminary budgets and cost estimates should be identified as placeholders (the Town did begin to identify the basis for estimating items in its CIP budget, at the recommendation of the FAB, in 2006). 4. A reliable cost estimate should be prepared before deciding to proceed with a project, including deciding whether to seek voter approval of financing for a CIP proj ect. 5. A reliable cost estimate usually requires that a substantial part of the design drawings for a project be complete, that a professional estimator prepare the estimate, and that the estimate include all furnishings and equipment. A reliable estimate also requires realistic contingences for infrastructure, design costs and construction. 6. Projects should be bid only after the rights (either ownership or an option) to all real property underlying the project are secured. 7. Projects should be bid only after all design is complete, and construction begun only after the construction contract is executed. Changing the scope of the project while construction is ongoing should be avoided. 8. If a material change is proposed in the scope or costs of a project, Staff and Council should review the entire budgetary history of the project, its actual costs to date, and estimated project cost to completion, as well as impact on estimated ongoing operational costs and estimated subsidy in order to determine that the project is being managed in a cost effective manner. 1 9. The budgeting and recording of actual costs of the elements of a CIP project should be done on a consistent basis from the beginning to the conclusion of a project, whenever possible. If the accounting must be changed for any reason, there should be a careful reconciliation of the old and new accounting treatment so that the Town Government is able to evaluate and control the cost of the items comprising the project. 10. In hiring a general contractor for a CIP project, the Town should not merely choose the low bidder; instead it should weigh cost with experience and other factors indicating ability to perform competently, on time and within estimated cost. 11. Effective supervision of a project's contractor requires that the contractor provide weekly updates for the Town on both progress and budgetary issues. 12. The Town should consider developing model contracts for construction and professional services (architects, etc.) and using these contracts as the basis for soliciting bids on projects in order to be sure that each bid can be evaluated on a consistent basis. The architect should be made responsible for the work of the other design professionals. 13. Planning of projects should be based on how much the Town concludes it should spend rather than being based on including everything the Town or the community would like to have. 14. Staff and Council should verify at the inception of a project that adequate qualified personnel are available to staff the project and will be able to devote adequate time to the project. If there is any doubt about the qualification or availability of the Town's personnel to handle a project, the Town should hire an owner's representative to oversee the project. 15. Instead of staffing each capital project in the Town Department for which the project is intended (e.g. development of employee housing in the Housing Department), Council and the Town Manager should consider establishing a capital project development team to handle all capital development projects. The Finance Department should be included in any capital project development team and involved in all phases of the project. 16. In evaluating the scope of a project, it is important to accurately forecast the operating costs of a project since failure to do so will burden the Town's budget on an ongoing basis which may result in eliminating other essential services (e.g. the unanticipated and increasing operating deficit of the Rec Center will burden the ongoing RETT budget and may effectively reverse the priority of projects specified in the RETT ordinance). Operating cost estimates should include an allowance for depreciation or a reserve for capital replacements. 2 Financial Advisory Board Rick Griffin, Chair Teddy Farrell Gary Hartman Fred Kucker Carolyn Purvis Dave Rachofsky Scott Stenman July 27, 2009 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Russ Forrest, Town Manager DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Discussion of Financial Advisory Board (FAB) Responsibilities I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Rick Griffin and David Rachofsky, Boardmembers of the Financial Advisory Board will be at this meeting to discuss the Financial Advisory Boards recommendation regarding changes to the Towns Municipal Code on the duties and responsibilities of the FAB. Action Requested: Town Council to hear the recommended changes to the Municipal Code and to decide on what actions (if any) the Town Council wishes to take. II. DISCUSSION ISSUES After several discussions in the FAB meetings, the FAB proposes the attached changes to the Towns Municipal Code under Administration and Personnel, Article X, Section 2- 235. Staff doesn't have any concerns regarding the ability /opportunities for the FAB to ask Council to do work or research on special projects and believe that under the current language, they have the ability to do that. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS Discuss the proposed attached changes and give staff direction if necessary. FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD Article X Section 2 -235 Current: The Financial Advisory Board shall have the following duties and responsibilities: (1) To make recommendations, as requested, to the Town Council prior to the adoption of the budget and capital program for the Town. (2) To render such other recommendations or advice as the Town Council may from time to time request. Proposed: The Financial Advisory Board shall have the following duties and responsibilities: (1) To make recommendations to the Town Council prior to the adoption or material revision of the budget and capital program for the Town. (2) To review and provide recommendations to the Town Council, as part of the annual budget process, on the financial implications of major Town projects. (3) To review and provide recommendations to the Town Council on a. Required financial impact assessments (prepared for private development projects and b. The Town's issuance of bonds, certificates of participation or other obligations. (4) To recommend to the Town Council or Town Manager projects, studies, evaluations or analyses of financial or capital matters for the Financial Advisory Board to undertake. (5) To render such other recommendations or advice as the Town Council may from time to time request. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Marianne Rakowski, Finance Director Brandi Lindt, Assistant Finance Director DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: PRESENTATION ON CREDIT CARD ACCEPTANCE BY THE TOWN I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council requested a presentation by staff on the feasibility of accepting credit cards by the Town of Snowmass Village. Action Requested: Direct staff to: Implement credit card acceptance by the Town Do not implement credit card acceptance at this time II. DISCUSSION ISSUES Staff looked at three systems in which to accept credit cards by the Town. We met either in person or over the phone with two banks, Sungard (our gov't financial software vendor) and Muncipay (a third -party credit card company). We eliminated Sungard because the cost for the software licensing fees and installation to integrate the credit card transactions directly into the financial software is cost prohibitive at this time. So, our evaluation is based on using the banking system (banks) and Municipay. If we move forward with credit card acceptance, we propose to allow for credit card transactions to occur both in person and over the internet. We are not proposing to accept phone transactions at this time, but possibly in the future. Over the phone charges increase the opportunity for errors, staff time and costs more per transaction under the banking system only. After discussions with staff, we determined we would like to have five locations for credit card acceptance: Clerks Department Planning and Building Departments Transportation Department Police Department Housing Department The reason there are three locations within Town Hall is to make it convenient for the public to do business in those locations without having to go from one location to discuss the transaction/payment and to a separate location to pay the bill. Each site will require its own card swipe machine. Under the bank system, it does cost more for the additional card swipes. Under the Municipay system, all card swipes are free regardless of how many. We did research the Town's ability to charge convenience fees to cover /offset the costs to the Town for accepting credit cards. We have attached an estimated schedule of fees for the bank option and for the Municipay option. Many of the credit card companies have recently moved to allow government type agencies to charge a convenience fee to the customer to offset the credit card fees and bank charges. The main reason the credit card companies are allowing convenience fees is because unlike retail businesses, governments are not selling goods and services (where the fees can be built in), but rather they are providing a service to the consumer. Using credit cards for government services is seen as a "convenience" to the consumer and not to the government since these services would need to be paid for regardless and if not paid, governments can impose other sanctions to insure payment. Visa has the most stringent rules regarding convenience fees and it has been difficult trying to come up with a solution that works. Under Visa rules, they do not allow convenience fees to be charged for face -to -face transactions. They also only allow a flat fee convenience fee to be charged, which doesn't allow for governments to offset their costs. Mastercard, Discover and American Express all allow for a percentage based or a flat fee charge to be added as a separate distinct charge for convenience fees whether the transaction is done in person or over the internet. It is required that convenience fees be consistent across all transactions, regardless of card type, so as to not discriminate against any particular card type. Because of this, staff is recommending that we don't accept Visa until they change their regulations. We are awaiting additional verification on Visa's regulations. Since the majority of the costs are based on a percentage fee system, the Towns ability to recoup our costs is best served by using a percentage based fee system, since it will roughly cover the majority of the costs whether the transaction is for $10 or $10,000. Based on historical information from credit card use at the Recreation Center, on average, the Town incurs charges equal to 3% of the credit card transactions. This means that in order to recoup our costs under the banking system, the Town would need to assess a 3% convenience fee. Under Municipay, they will charge a 2.45% convenience fee. The Town will be completely insulated from the convenience fee collection. Municipay will be responsible for collecting the fees and paying for all of the credit card charges, thereby saving the Town from dealing with the administrative work that comes with collecting credit cards. In addition, they bear the burden for the security of the storage and transmission of cardholder data. Whether the Town uses the banking system or the Municipay system, Finance Department staff will have access to the transaction information and have the ability to set up the internet collections to allow for account numbers and description information. A few other incidental costs may occur with credit card acceptance including an additional file cabinet for credit card files (must keep originals for two years) and there are special audit requirements when an entity accepts credit cards (may add a slight increase in fees) although it is less of an issue using Municipay (because they are the administrators, not the Town). Housing Manager Joe Coffey acknowledges that it may be a convenience to some of his tenants to be able to use a credit card, but is very concerned about his ability to cover the costs of accepting credit cards as it may require an increase in rents if no convenience fees are charged. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS Staff recommends contracting with Municipay for acceptance of credit cards due to the simplicity of the setup, very minimal staff time to reconcile monthly accounts since there are no fees to the Town involved, involves absolutely no costs to the Town and achieves the goal to accept credit cards whether in- person or over the internet. Credit Card.Fees Fees to Town Bank (High /Low) Municipay Application Fee $100/$0 $0 Set -up Fee $75 $0 Equipment Fee (per terminal) $250/$130 $0 Monthly Fee $35/$9.95 $0 Transaction Percentage Rate 3.99%/1.80% 0% Per Item Fee $.15/$.10 $0 Chargeback Fee $25/$15 $0 Convenience Fee to Customer Municipay) 1 $0 2.45% IRS General Fund Assumptions: *50% of General Fund (selected Revenue sources) are paid with a Credit Card *The fee estimate is 3% based on Recreation Center bank charges Annual estimated credit card payments $1,718,946.48 Transaction Fee 3% Total Estimated Annual Fees $51,568.39 Housing, Mountain View Mountain View II Assumptions: *50% of Rental Revenues *The fee estimate is 3% based on Recreation Center bank charges Annual estimated credit card payments $1,214,846.55 Transaction Fees 3% Total Estimated Annual Fees $36,445.40 Type of Charge Amount Convenience Fee Parking Ticket $30.00 $1.50 Business License $85.00 $2.08 Homeowner Trash $428.12 $10.49 Rent $650.00 $15.93 Building Permit $1,156.00 $28.32 Visa Debit Charges Any Amount $3.95 r INh�at is a convenience feet �x Answer. M 'r alo C edit Card Assoctat�on rules now allow /V,pOI►W/d® PHyi»®IIt SO►t/t/OnS 44444 Government entities to a "ssess a convenience fee" on transac tions paid via credit card The Card Associations require the convenience fee amount to be processed as a eparate What is the advantage of using MuniciPAY7 transaction so the fee amount`is clearly identified cardholder.`Once the fee amount is disclosed,ahe cardholder" Answer has the o ption to decline the fee and use `amalternatp, pr i of; 1. The municipality is completely insulated from convenience payment (cash or check). fee collection: NPS handles tfie: collection of the d convenience fee and auto mafes the payment of CL /1 Are there any processing fees to the municipality transact(ons 2. NPS is a registered Merchant Service Provider (MSP) and Municipality? Third Party Processor (TPP) that processes more than 3 Answer: No. All convenience fees are paid by the individual billion dollars in electronic payment transactions per year. consumer who chooses to use their credit card for payment. 3. Multiple Payment Item Deposit Account Capabilities. 4. Increased, expedited cash flow. Funds are deposited There are no set -up fees, monthly fees or processing fees directly to municipality's account(s) on 2nd business day assessed to the municipality. after transaction date. 5. Detailed Transaction Reporting. Q Who is eligible to participate in this program? 6. Municipality is able to offer more payment options Answer: to their citizens. Local, state and federal courts of law that administer and process court fees, alimony and child support payments How long does it take to receive funds? Government entities that administer and process local, state and federal fines Answer. Funds will be deposited into the municipality Local, state and federal entities that engage in financial account(s) within 2 business days and can be automated administration and taxation to include multiple depository accounts for various Local Government Services Auto (DMV), PropertyTaxes, departments. Utilities, Parks Recreation, Fish Game, Court Bond Fees, and more State elementary and secondary schools for tuition, related Q What type of reporting is available? fees and school- maintained room and board State colleges and universities, professional schools, junior Answer: ilies are a P offers real-time, detailed reporting. colleges for tuition, related fees and school- maintained Municipalities a able to view reports separated by user, room and board. departments, payment items, and daily settlement reconcilia- tion. MuniciPAY can also handle cash and check reporting options, and can be integrated with the municipality's current What cards can be accepted for payment? accounting software Answer: Discover, American Express and MasterCard may be accepted for all government transactions. Currently, VISA may How long does it take to implement MuniciPAY1 only be accepted for tax payments.The Card Associations continually update their regulations and should VISA expand Answer. Depending on the individual needs of the municipality, their government program, they will automatically be the number of depository accounts, and complexity of their included. NPS will notify our existing municipalities when inventory list and /or fee schedule, this time frame may vary." changes like this occur. NPS is committed to completing implementation as quickly as' possible.Typical implementation takes 1 -2 weeks. Is this a secure solution? For. More Information Contact AnswerYesl NPS is a ce t�f�ed Level,? PCI DSS Service Provider .NaUOnwide Payment Solutions and MuniciPAY meet Danielle McGill uddy S #acy Peny all PCI DSS (PaymentCaro'/nriustry Data SecurityStandardsJ t� 877 290 1975 x5447 $7 290 1975 x5214 gu�del►nes and re gwrements This prog arnielimmates any ;;�dmcgillicuddyC�getnatfonwide coin sperryi�gemationwide corn exposure to muhidipality from the storage and /ortransmission of cardholder data wwvuMuniciPAYCom r. XIMA 0 11, MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: John Dresser DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Daly Townhome #9 I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Former owners of Daly Townhome #9 have requested to speak with Town Council regarding the loss of use of a storage unit during the period of January 2003 to April 2009. Council has allotted time on the March 15, 2010 agenda for discussion. Council is requested to determine a course of action for TOSV regarding the claim of the former owners. II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT See the attached timeline. III. BACKGROUND Former owners allege that they were intentionally deprived of the use of a storage unit assigned to the Daly Townhome unit they purchased from TOSV in January 2003. They allege that because it was intentional that in addition to the claimed loss of use, TOSV has a corrupt official in violation of the RICO Act. They further allege that TOSV discriminated against them by reason of national origin in violation of USC Section 1983 and the Fair Housing Act. TOSV has acknowledged that a mistake was made when the keys to the storage unit were given to another unit owner at Daly Townhomes. TOSV was unaware of any mistake until claimants brought it to TOSV attention some 6 years later. Negotiations to settle the claim, including mediation, have been on -going since the claim was made to TOSV. They have been unsuccessful to date. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS See timeline. It is worthwhile to note that despite discovering the use of the storage unit by others in October 2008, the claimants did not inform TOSV until after the closing of the Rodeo Place purchase in April 2009. Claimants also did not incur any damages as they did not acquire, by rent or purchase, any storage space. They did not incur any damages to drive to and from such a storage space despite claiming they are entitled to such speculative damages. Claimants base their claim upon the price a for profit commercial storage rental operation charges. This obviously includes the operations profit. TOSV has attempted an analysis that approximates the cost to claimants. If one accepts that the acts complained of were not intentional but rather a mistake the claims arising from an intentional act do not follow. (This means the RICO and Discrimination claims would not be actionable) The mistake would then be considered negligence and in an analysis of negligence the fault of both parties is weighed to determine comparative negligence. This requires an analysis of the percentage each party is found to be at fault. It is important in this case because had the claimant exercised due diligence when purchasing the property, the publicly recorded Condominium Map would have disclosed to them the existence of the storage unit and no claimed loss would have ensued. This amounts to negligence on the claimant's part to be compared to the negligence of giving the keys to the storage unit to another owner. A determination of the relative percentages of fault for each party lead to an assignment of damages for the respective negligence of each party, which are then offset against each other. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS Staff with the advice of Council has tried to resolve this dispute without litigation without success. While TOSV has acknowledged some mistake, claimant insists "no- fault Analysis of the value of the claim is therefore difficult in the comparative sense described above. The value of the damages claimed are also speculative. Staff recommendation is to reinstate the final offer of settlement in the amount of $1000.00. Daly Town Home 9 Timeline Susan Markwood and Lund Easterling (hereinafter "Buyer Town of Snowmass Village "TOSV Daly Town Homes "DTH January 2003- Buyer closes on Daly Townhome Unit #9. Buyer is provided with title insurance. Purchase Contract provides time for inspection of premises and review of title documents. Included in title documents is Condominium Map of DTH. Buyer not provided with key to storage unit. May 2007 Buyer is selected to contract for Lot 9, Rodeo Place. June 2008- Buyer inquires about bi- annual requalification process for Rodeo Place. October 2008 Buyer discovers that storage unit is supposed to be used by Unit #9 and requests the user, the Owner of DTH #12 move items. Owner of DTH #12 is moving to Rodeo Place Lot 7 and closing is October 10, 2008 and refuses to move items. December 2008 Buyer moves into Rodeo Place Lot 9 pursuant to lease agreement with TOSV as DTH #9 had yet to close. March 2009- Buyer tells buyer of DTH #12 that storage unit is theirs and not to use the unit. April 2009 Buyer closes on Rodeo Place Lot 9 and informs TOSV of claim for loss of use for storage unit immediately after closing. May 2009 Buyer describes course of action it desires to follow to TOSV. Claims include loss of use of storage, allegations that such loss was intentional, that a TOSV official is corrupt official in violation of RICO Act, and that TOSV has discriminated against Buyer on grounds of national origin. June 2009 Discussions with TOSV regarding claims begins. Buyer submits claim for $8775.00 by letter on June 18, 2009 for loss of use. Letter claims "no- fault" of Buyer. Discussions continue to no avail. July 2009 —TOSV and Buyer agree to mediation. Larry Dragon conducts mediation by shuttle diplomacy. No face to face meeting occurs during mediation and scheduling of meetings is slow. August 2009 VIA mediator TOSV rejects the claim of $8775.00. VIA mediator TOSV offers to settle claim for $5415.00. VIA mediator Buyer rejects TOSV offer of $5415.00 and counteroffers $10,000.00 to settle claim. VIA mediator TOSV asks Buyer to justify the increase. By letter of August 27, 2009, Buyer explains rationale for increase. TOSV rejects $10,000.00 offer and renews $5415.00 offer. September 2009 Buyer rejects TOSV offer. By E -mail to TOSV and Buyer on 9/3/09, Mediator declares impasse and concludes mediation. October 2009- Buyer purports to accept TOSV offer of $5415.00 and is informed that offer was rejected and mediation concluded. TOSV offers $1000.00 to settle claim. Buyer rejects offer. January 2010 Buyer asks for reconsideration by Town Council and issues statement to media outlets. February 2010 Buyer asks for and receives Town Council agenda time for March 15, 2010.6 Thursday, June 18, 2009 Russ Forrest, Town Manager Town of Snowmass Village PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear Russ, This settlement letter is in follow up to our phone conversation of 6/18/09. Thank you and the other members of the Town of Snowmass Village staff for their time and attention to this matter. Below are quotes from three different storage unit facilities for the size storage unit that is closest to that of unit #9, Daly Town Homes in Snowmass Village. Aspen Secure Storage Aspen Airport Business Center 1Oft x IOft with a 6 1/2 ft ceiling $145 /month Aspen Self Storage Aspen Airport Business Center 9ft x 4ft Bin with a 9 1/2 ft ceiling $113 month All Hours Storage Basalt 5ft x loft with a 8 ft ceiling $95 /month I have taken an average of the three facility's monthly charges and have rounded out the number to $117 /month. We purchased the Daly Town Home in January, 2003 and sold it in April, 2009. We owned it for 6 years and 3 months, or a total of 75 months. 75 months of payments at $117 per month equals $8,775.00. We certainly hope the Town of Snowmass Village understands the hardship we endured, both by the loss of a property that legally belonged to us but also by the strained relationships that this situation has created among neighbors, and community members. This situation was brought on by no fault of our own, but by the actions of the Town of Snowmass Village. We hope to have closure on this matter by month's end, so a quick response would be appreciated. Susan Markwood Lund Easterling Value of Storage Space at Daly Town Homes Monthly Value based on Mortgage Amount for Daly Town Home Unit (Assume this includes insurance and taxes) 1,765.00 Square Footage of Daly Town Home Unit 1430 Monthly Value per square foot 1.234 Months in unit 75 Square footage of Closet in question 58.5 Value of 58.5 square foot closet for 75 months at $1.23 per sq. foot 5415.34 Thursday, August 27, 2009 Russ Forrest Town of Snowmass Village I have been asked by Larry Dragon to justify the requested settlement amount of $10,000 for the Town's sake one more time. I thought I had made justification for this amount previously but will try to clarify. In a letter to the town dated 6/18/09 I summarized the cost to secure a storage unit in the Roaring Fork Valley. In the email of the same date I requested a speedy resolution to this situation. I will summarize that letter. After averaging out fees for units of comparable sizes I arrived at a more than fair amount of $8,775. This figure is for storage units that were off site of the Daly Town Home Property. To lease a space in one of these facilities we would have to give a security deposit and then there would be the added expense of driving and time to access these units over the period of 75 months. I had not previously included these expenses in the estimate stated but obviously this would be quite costly, well over $1,225.00. The $10,000 requested settlement is more than fair. Lund and I have repeatedly been asked to justify why we think we are deserving of a settlement from the Town. As victims in this situation I believe we are being treated unfairly. This has been a very time consuming process and anything but speedy as I had requested. I think it is time for the Town to realize that a settlement needs to be reached without any more stalling. The settlement amount of $10,000 is justified by cost to secure an off site storage unit and the inconvenience of this entire ordeal. I am sure all parties involved would like to resolve this situation. Sincerely, Susan Markwood John Dresser From: Larry Dragon [ldragon @mediate.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:52 AM To: Russell Forrest Subject: Fwd: RE: TOSV Calculations Hi Russ Below is Susan's response after reviewing your calculations. As she clearly states, the method used does not meet their needs. I urge you to consider meeting their figure, or, at the least, offering something close, to put this problem to rest. Though the actual cost in dollars may not be as high in resolving this is court, I do fear the consequences will be greater for all involved if this is NOT settled now. Maybe we can chat briefly today... Larry >From: Susan Markwood <smarkwoo @cwrmhc.org> >To: 'Larry Dragon' <ldragon @mediate.com> >Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:55:36 -0600 Subject: RE: TOSV Calculations >Hi Larry, >Thanks for the time and effort you have put into this mediation. >Unfortunately the Town is not taking into consideration anything other >than square footage and that is not acceptable to us as I stated in my >last email. The numbers that the Town has come up with are for space we >were denied access to only, my figures are for space and time and >inconvenience which all need to be taken into consideration to make >this right. We do not feel a compromise is warranted and will pursue >this in a different venue if the Town cannot see this matter as more >than a minor inconvenience to us. >Thanks again, Susan 1 John Dresser From: Larry Dragon [ldragon @mediate.com] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:13 PM To: Susan Markwood; Russell Forrest Subject: Mediation Susan and Russ, There is a significant difference between the amounts that you each have proposed for a possible settlement to this dispute. And, since neither side has made any further proposals toward the middle, it appears that you are at an impasse and the mediation is concluded. I hope you will remain open to the idea that this could still be settled in the future. If either of you wish to make an offer in hopes of avoiding more adversarial activities, please do so directly or feel free to contact me. Thanks for the opportunity to work with you, and I wish you well down the road. Larry Larry Dragon, 9th Judicial District Mediator Garfield Combined Courts 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 970 379 -9889 or 970-947-3855 Idraeon(cDmediate. com www. mediate. coin/dragon 1 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 John Dresser From: Mel D Blumenthal [melpaul1 @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 1:53 PM To: Russell Forrest Cc: Bill Boineau; John Wilkinson; Arnie Mordkin; Reed Lewis; Markey Butler; John Dresser; Madeleine Osberger Subject: Susan Markwood Daly Town Home #9 Russ, I'm including below a further email from Susan Markwood giving information from her point of view regarding this unfortunate situation. Although I remember some of the details of this matter from hearing the discussion at the TC mtg during which the TC made a decision to make a "counter offer" of $1,000 following the Town's initial offer of $5,000 I don't remember ever hearing that the Town engaged a mediator nor do I remember a number of other details she alleges. Perhaps they were discussed in the Executive session to which I was not invited. Perhaps you can clarify for me what if anything in her emails is not factually correct. Regards, Mel B. From: Susan Markwood [mailto:smarkwoo @cwrmhc.org] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:51 AM To: 'Mel D. Blumenthal' Subject: RE: Request to be put on agenda for council meeting Hi Mel, Thanks for taking the time to respond to my email. We originally asked the Town for a $10,000 settlement and that is when they hired a mediator. The only offer they made to us was the $5,000+ offer. The mediator alluded to us that the town may come up on their offer, maybe even meet us in the middle, but they would not go up to $10,000. We were hoping for more than their $5,000 offer, but after thinking it over a short period we decided that it would be in everyone's best interest to accept the offer and put this matter to rest. When we advised Russ Forrest of this decision he said the Town could not justify making a restitution for that amount out of tax payer funds (this comes just weeks after they had offered it to us). He then went on to say that Town Council did not want to have to admit on Grassroots TV why they were using taxpayer money to pay an individual citizen that amount of money. That is when the offer dropped to $1 ,000. We specifically want the town to pay us the amount of money they originally offered us. Why did they even offer it to us if they had no intentions of paying it to us? Why should we be punished with a $1000 offer, have we done something wrong? This was at minimum a mistake that the Town made, they have admitted to making it but are just screwing us around and dragging this out unnecessarily. They admitted to making the mistake, they came up with a dollar figure that they thought was fair, they should honor their offer. Dealing with the housing department is frustrating on every level. From entering the housing lottery to purchasing a home, to making it safe and livable, to making improvements, to selling the property. I personally have been involved with all of the above steps. There are not clear guidelines in place that you can rely on to follow. Every encounter that you have with the housing office you brace yourself for the arbitrary and capricious 1 decisions that ensue. When the lottery for the Rodeo Place homes took place I submitted my application, qualified and won a home. Over the next few months I was told by Joe Coffee I did not qualify, then yes I did qualify, 3 different times! What an emotional rollercoaster. This is all supposed to be determined prior to the lottery taking place. Where are the rules? The housing office has been approached by realtors that have offered to broker the sale of the employee units. For a nominal fee the realtor would facilitate the contract between buyer and seller, making sure a legal transaction took place. If the Town had used a real estate agent in my situation I am sure that the fact that my property came with a storage unit would not have been missed. The responsibilities of the housing department have grown astronomically since Joe Coffee started in that position. Maybe the position has outgrown him or perhaps he just needs another person in that office with him to oversee all the important details that job requires. In any event, a town employee missed a very important detail in a real estate transaction and now the Town should be held responsible. Sincerely, Susan Markwood From: Susan Markwood Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:04 AM To: 'secondview @earthlink.net.' Subject: FW: Request to be put on agenda for council meeting Mr. Blumenthal, I am forwarding this letter I wrote to the Town Council and other members of the press to you in hopes that you would be interested in helping get to the bottom of what is going on over at the employee housing dept. of Snowmass Village. My letter clearly explains what has happened to my family (and yes I have emails from the TOSV and the mediator they hired to back up all of my facts). As I have been talking with friends and other Snowmass Village residents about this, it has become apparent that I am not alone with complaints regarding Joe Coffee and the housing department. The mistakes that have been made in the Rodeo Place homes and how Mr. Coffee deals with the requests for repairs is appalling. I am hoping that by bringing my case in front of Council it will create cause enough to start looking more closely at how that department runs lotteries, chooses winners, lists, sells, and deals with the employees who purchase these properties. By including members of the press and someone who is held in such high regard as you are, I am hoping to bring attention to this very frustrating ordeal. Please feel free to contact me, I would welcome your comments on my situation. Everyone knows that the pen is mightier than the sword! Sincerely, Susan Markwood Day phone 970 920 -5555 Eve phone 970- 923 -6059 smarl<woo @cwrmhc.org 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Second Reading Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010: An ordinance concerning development on slopes greater than thirty percent (30 within Lot 1, Rodeo Place Subdivision. Applicant: Dan Rotner, Coburn Development. Inc. Planner: Chris Conrad, Planning Director I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting approval to permit the construction of two (2) duplex buildings on Lot 1, Rodeo Place Subdivision involving development within areas containing thirty percent (30 slopes. First reading was approved at the March 1, 2010 Town Council meeting. Action Requested: Approve, Modify or Deny second reading of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010. Second Reading approval requires an affirmative vote of at least three quarters 3 of the Town Council members present and voting II. SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTION PROJECT: The Applicant has proposed two (2) duplex units within Lot 1 that will require development within areas containing thirty percent (30 slopes. The lot was originally proposed for the construction of a tri -plex unit. III. BACKGROUND: The Town Council approved Resolution No. 39, Series of 2006 "Resolution 39), authorizing the Rodeo Place Subdivision. Said approval allowed Lot 1 to contain a tri -plex unit but specified that "...it shall remain undeveloped at this time or until more site specific geotechnical and architectural plans are submitted and approved by Town Council." Town Council Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2006 "Ordinance 14 dealt with permitting development on thirty percent (30 slopes within the subdivision but required that "future residential development on Lot 1, Rodeo Place Subdivision shall require Town Council, by an affirmative vote of at least three quarters of its members present and voting, to approve the development proposal." On February 2, 2009, the Town Council directed that the Applicant proceed with planning and designing Phase 2 of the Rodeo Place development. An Minor Subdivision Amendment application has been submitted to amend Resolution 39 to permit the construction of the two (2) duplex units within Lot 1 instead of the originally proposed tri -plex unit. The Minor Subdivision Amendment will be considered during the March 15 Town Council meeting. IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The Town enacted Section 16A -4 -50, Geologic hazard areas, steep slopes and ridgeline protection areas of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code "Municipal Code to ensure that development does not occur on slopes that are excessively steep, unstable or hazardous. However, there is a provision, Section 16A -4- 50(d)(4), Other circumstances, in which Town Council may authorize development on slopes greater than thirty percent (30 in certain circumstances if at least three quarters (3/4) of the Town Council members present and voting approve an ordinance finding that: a. The development is unable to avoid the steep slopes, and the reasons therefore; and b. On the basis of competent engineering or geologic reports and data and testimony received, the design and /or construction techniques that will be incorporated within the development will satisfactorily mitigate the risk of potential harm to the public health, safety or welfare. For the Town to allow development under any circumstances, the applicant shall provide an opinion from a professional geotechnical engineer licensed in the State stating that: a. The slope is not prone to instability or failure; or b. The proposed development will not cause greater slope instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that therefore, there will be no significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction. A report from Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (Job No. 108 037D) was provided as part of the application. The Planning Department requested that the geotechnical engineer submit a supplemental letter responding more specifically to the above findings. A supplemental slope stability letter has been included as Attachment 1. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS: Avoid Steep Slopes. It is incumbent upon the Applicant to provide satisfactory reasons why thirty percent (30 slopes cannot be avoided. The geotechnical engineer report states that: "the existing slope is not prone to instability or failure and the proposed development on Lot I should be feasible based on the geologic and subsurface conditions" and that with "proper cut slope support, the proposed development should not increase the potential for slope instability or risk of slope failure and damage to the adjacent properties." Tri -plex vs. Duplexes. The Applicant has submitted a request to amend Resolution 39 to permit two (2) duplexes rather than one (1) tri -plex within Lot 1. Staff tends to agree that the area of disturbance involving thirty percent (30 slopes would be roughly the same. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that Town Council authorize the proposed development within areas of thirty percent (30 slopes on Lots 1 and approve second reading of the Ordinance. A super- majority vote is required for second reading approval. The recommendation by staff is subject to the Applicant sufficiently demonstrating why the thirty percent (30 slopes cannot be avoided and consideration of any public comments submitted at this meeting when the subdivision amendment is considered. VII. NEXT STEPS: The enclosed Ordinance requires that the Applicant submit a soils report and specific engineered site and building design proposal with their Building Permit Application, including an opinion from a professional geotechnical engineer licensed in Colorado stating that: a) the slope is not prone to instability or failure; or b) that the proposed development will not cause greater slope instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that therefore, there will be no significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction. Attachment: HP Geotech Slope Stability Assessment dated March 5, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 HP GEOTECH SUPPLEMENTAL G490 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT HEPWORTH- PAWLAK OEOTLCHNICAL hx:117'- 945 -';4;, June 8, 2009 Revised March 5, 2010 Coburn Attn: Dan Rotner 1811 Pearl Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Job No. 108 037D Subject: Slope Stability Assessment, Proposed Duplex, Lot 1, Rodeo Place Phase 2, Stallion Circle, Snowmass Village, Colorado. Dear Mr. Rotner: As requested, we have assessed the slope stability conditions on Lot 1 with regard to the proposed construction. We have been provided the site plan and building section for the lot. We previously conducted a subsoil study for the proposed housing project, report dated June 22, 2005, and reviewed the steep slope condition, and conducted subsurface exploration for the buildings on Lots 2 and 3, reports dated July 27, 2006 and August 21, 2006, Job No. 105 280 -1. The proposed development on Lot 1 will be a duplex building similar to those constructed on Lots 2 and 3. The building will be cut into the steep slope between about 16 to 21 feet deep with the cut face either retained with a soil nail wall or sloped back to a stable grade for construction. The two units will be separated by a narrow strip of about 7'/2 feet for surface drainage. If development plans change significantly from those described above, we should be contacted for review and additional analysis as needed. Lot 1 is located on the south side of a knob of Mancos Shale bedrock that crops out on the Brush Creek valley floor in the project area. The bedding in the Mancos Shale strikes at about 20° to 30° northwest and dips at about 20° down to the northeast in the project area. The natural slopes on the lot are up to 50% to 60% in the steepest areas of the hillside. There are no indications of seepage or shallow groundwater on the hillside. The subsurface conditions of the hillside at the proposed building area were evaluated by drilling one boring near the back, nearly common corner of the duplex units as shown on Figure 1. A log of the subsurface profile encountered at the boring is shown on Figure 2. The profile consists of a relatively shallow topsoil depth and about 8 feet of sandy clay with shale fragments overlying hard to very hard and relatively dry claystone bedrock to the drilled depth of 18%2 feet. Parker 303 -8=11 -7119 Colorado Springs 719- 633 -5562 Sili-erthorne 970 -468 -1959 Coburn June 8, 2009 Revised March 5, 2010 Page 2 The site plan and section provided and the exploratory boring profile indicate that the uphill building cut will be into formation rock. The orientation of the bedding in the Mancos Shale in the area of the lot appears to be roughly orthogonal to the rear cut wall of the proposed excavation. The Town requires the geoteclulical engineer to state: a) The slope is not prone to instability or failure; or b) The proposed development will not cause greater slope instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that therefore, there will be no significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction. In our opinion, we concur with items a) and b) above provided the development is constructed as shown in the proposed development plans for Lot 1. A representative of Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical should review the cut slope conditions at the time of construction to confirm the subsurface profile and for additional slope stability information. The uphill building walls should have adequate height to achieve positive slope away from the building for at least 5 feet. A foundation drain should be provided to protect the lower level from potential groundwater. The excavation at the final cut depth should be evaluated for foundation bearing conditions by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH PAWLAK G CHNICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak P V'- 15222 y SLP /kac attachments: Figure I Location of Exploratory Boring Figure 2- Log of Exploratory Boring Figure 3- Legend and Notes Job No. 108 037D G( cgtech 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 ORDINANCE NO. 7 5 SERIES OF 2010 6 7 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES GREATER THAN THIRTY 8 PERCENT (30 WITHIN LOT 1, RODEO PLACE SUBDIVISION. 9 10 WHEREAS, Town Council Resolution No. 39, Series of 2006 "Resolution 39 granted 11 approval for the Rodeo Place Subdivision for the purpose of creating affordable housing units 12 on approximately 8.5 acres within Tract A of the Entryway Subdivision; and 13 14 WHEREAS, Lot 1, Rodeo Place Subdivision "Lot 1 was permitted to be platted as part of 15 the overall subdivision but was to remain undeveloped until more site specific geotechnical and 16 architectural plans were submitted and approved by Town Council; and 17 18 WHEREAS, Town Council Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2006 "Ordinance 14 granted 19 conditional approval for development to occur involving thirty percent (30 slope areas within 20 Rodeo Place Subdivision; and 21 22 WHEREAS, said Ordinance specified that future residential development on Lot 1 would 23 require that the Town Council, by an affirmative vote of at least three quarters 3 of its 24 members present and voting, approve the development proposal; and 25 26 WHEREAS, Coburn Development, Inc., on behalf of the Town, has submitted a 27 development proposal to construct two (2) duplex units within Lot 1; and 28 29 WHEREAS, said proposal will involve development within thirty percent (30 slope 30 areas; and 31 32 WHEREAS, Section 16A- 4- 50(d)(4) of the current Municipal Code enables Town Council 33 to authorize development on slopes greater than thirty percent (30 in circumstances such as 34 those presented by the topographic information and development proposal if at least three 35 quarters 3 of the members of Town Council present and voting approve an ordinance finding 36 that: a) the development is unable to avoid the steep slopes, and the reasons therefore; and b) 37 on the basis of competent engineering or geologic reports and data and testimony received, the 38 design and /or construction techniques that will be incorporated within the development will 39 satisfactorily mitigate the risk of potential harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and 40 41 WHEREAS, Town Council has considered the Applicant's written responses to Section 42 16A- 4 -50(a) and the site /slope stability analysis from Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (Job 43 No. 108 037D); and 44 45 WHEREAS, Town Council finds that the procedure and requirements set forth in Section 46 16A- 4- 50(d)(4) of the Municipal Code have been satisfied regarding development in those areas 47 containing slopes greater than thirty percent (30 within Lot 1, in that: 48 49 1. The duplex residential buildings are unable to avoid the steep slopes for the reasons 50 stated within Exhibit "B and 51 TC Ord 10 -07 Page 2 52 2. The design and construction techniques that will be incorporated within the development 53 will satisfactorily mitigate the risk of potential harm to the public health, safety or welfare; 54 and 55 56 WHEREAS, Town Council further finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary 57 for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. 58 59 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by Town Council of the Town of Snowmass 60 Village, as follows: 61 62 1. Authorization. Town Council, by an affirmative vote of at least three quarters 3 of its 63 members present and voting, hereby authorize development on Lot 1, as shown on Exhibit "A 64 subject to the Applicant submitting with their Building Permit Application a soils report and 65 specific engineered site and building design proposal, including an opinion from a professional 66 geotechnical engineer licensed in Colorado stating that: a) the slope is not prone to instability or 67 failure; or b) that the proposed development will not cause greater slope instability or increase 68 the potential for slope failure, and that therefore, there will be no significant risk that damage to 69 adjacent property will result from the proposed construction. 70 71 2. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or 72 circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of 73 this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this 74 end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. 75 76 INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED by Town Council of the Town of Snowmass 77 Village at First Reading on March 1, 2010 upon a motion by Council Member Mordkin, the 78 second of Council Member Wilkinson, and upon a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. 79 80 READ, AMENDED AND ADOPTED by Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village 81 at Second Reading on March 15, 2010 upon a motion by Council Member 82 the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and 83 against. 84 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 85 86 87 88 Bill Boineau, Mayor 89 ATTEST: 90 91 92 Rhonda B. Coxon, 93 Town Clerk 94 95 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 96 97 98 John C. Dresser, Jr., Town Attorney Exhibit "A" TC Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 (Page 1 of 3) Y o Q> o W Z r p a w V Y C u w 0'�oo n p V w� t� qm .Y' m R Noom <u i r Ila !till 1 Filet 1i iVi!1 Exhibit cc s: TC Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 (Page 2 of 3) tz 0 1, C 0 A I '14 14— IFPi T 'f T T fr 44 6/ 11 1 1 1 Z i j j Exhibit "A" TC Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 (Page 3 of 3) C I 1 e 7I 'm q 2 H w v J 5 h' 2 o W cP k k �6� j \'ems. al I 1 mss$ y fry +e `.r l:':: q k Exhibit "B" TC Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 (Page 1 of 4) Written Description: Rodeo Place Lot 1, Application for Town Council Authorization to Develop in a Geologic Hazard Zone, Slopes Greaterthan 30% Grade This is an application for Town Council approval to develop in areas of Lot 1 of the Rodeo Place Subdivision that have topography with slopes greater than 30% grade. This platted lot was included as part of the Final Plat approved by Town Council Resolution 39, Series 2006. The following language was included in the Resolution: "Lot 1 may be platted as part of the overall subdivision, yet it shall remain undeveloped at this time or until more site- specific geotechnical and architectural plans are submitted and approved by Town Council." This application contains the architectural plans and geotechnical reports intended to define the development intent for this lot and the Geotechnical Engineer's assessment that the site is suitable for development, Per section 16A -4 -50 (d) 4. of the Land Use Code, we are requesting that permission be granted due to "Other Circumstances as follows: The development of Lot 1 is necessary for the Owner (The Town of Snowmass Village) to attain the highest and best use of the site considering the overall objectives of the approved subdivision and the conditions included in the in the approval Resolution. The development potential of this site is a critical and limited resource in the Town's policy objective to deliver affordable housing to the community. The subdivision was approved for 29 units which can only be achieved if Lot 1 is developed to the fullest extent possible. Development located on Lot 1 cannot avoid areas with greater than 30% slope due to the fact that approximately 60% of the lot area and 42% of the approved building envelope area of the lot are comprised of land with slopes of greater than 30 There is not adequate space on the lot to avoid development on land areas with greater than 30% slopes. Primary reasons for the development of Lot 1 are as follows: a. The overall development potential of the Rodeo Place Subdivision was already significantly reduced during the subdivision review and approval process with reductions in the permitted FAR and height limits allowed in the MF zone district, These restrictions were imposed in an effort to mitigate adverse impacts to the neighboring community. b. Lot 1 was platted for development because its location is such that its development will minimize impact on the surrounding area. It is an ideal location to add density within the subdivision as it does not add traffic load to the internal road structure of Rodeo Place because it is located at the entrance to the subdivision. c. Lot 1 is shielded from the surrounding neighbor's view corridors by the existing topography. Coburn Development, Inc 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Application for Authorization to Develop in a Geologic Hazard Area 303- 442 -3351 www coburndev com Rodeo Place Stbdivision Last edd 9/15120094 Exhibit "B" TC Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 (Page 2 of 4) d. Prior to the platting of Lot 1 an existing dwelling unit was located on this property. This structure was demolished at the time of infrastructure construction in anticipation of the development of this parcel. e. The access infrastructure for this lot is already in place. The Applicant acknowledges the purpose of Sec. 16A -450. Geologic hazard areas, steep slopes and ridgeline protection areas. This application requests that the following mitigating circumstances and measures be considered during review: The conclusions of the Geotechnical Engineer's Slope Stability Assessment indicate that the site is suitable for development. The anticipated construction techniques utilized in the construction of the Lot 1 development have been selected to be appropriate for steep slope development and are as follows: a. The majority of the earth retaining required to construct on this lot will be accomplished by the foundations of the proposed buildings. This method will provide a similar result to the construction on Lot 2 of rodeo place where minimal retaining walls are visible in the finished result (see below) E Existing development on Lot 2 of Rodeo Place is built into the hillside b. The anticipated cut required for the foundation excavation will be a maximum of 21' deep as illustrated in the Excavation Study on Drawing GPI. There are two methods being considered to facilitate the excavation and provide for life safety during construction: Option 1: Soil nailed retaining wall placed at the vertical cut of the excavation. This is the method used on Lot 2. It is the more costly option and results in the minimum amount of disruption of native plants on the site. This would require a Coburn Development. Inc. 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Appricatlon for Authorization to Develop in a Geologic Hazard Area 303- 442 -3351 www oobumdev com Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit 9/150095 Exhibit "B" TC Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 (Page 3 of 4) less substantial concrete foundation as retaining is accomplished by the soil nailing. This is the default approach given our current understanding of conditions at the site. Option 2: Excavation with over -dig to avoid slope failure during construction. The existing sub -grade has proven to be very stable on this site and if the geotechnical engineer observes suitable conditions on site this may be an option. This is significantly less expensive than the soil nailing option. However, this increases the amount of disruption of natural vegetation. This also requires a more substantial foundation system as all retaining is accomplished by the foundation system. The applicant is requesting permission to utilize this method if it proves to be the more cost effective option The proposed approach to compliance with Section 16A-4 -320 (a) Landscaping Standards, shall be as follows a. To comply with paragraph (1) existing vegetation will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. However, some existing trees will need to be removed within the building envelope. The applicant is also requesting permission to remove an existing 18" dia, evergreen tree in the right of way, While this tree does not obstruct development of the site, planting of a new tree in this location would be prohibited due to its proximity to the travelled way and it is a potential obstacle for maintenance of the right of way. All trees proposed to be removed are located outside of the 30% slope areas of the parcel. b. To comply with paragraph (2) all landscaped areas of the site, with the exception of the limited sod areas in front of the individual dwelling units, will be replanted with native grass mixes to provide slope stability. New trees will be planted at the lower portion of the site to replace those removed to facilitate construction. The native plants on the sloped portion of the site consist of mixture of native grasses, sagebrush and other small shrubs. The grade on the uphill portion of the site has an eroded surface with little or no topsoil. Excerpts from the Project Manual for Rodeo Place Housing, Phase 2, detailing the requirements for installation of landscaping have been attached to this application. Secured jute netting will be provided at all steep slope areas as specified to prevent erosion. With the exception of the limited sod areas, no permanent irrigation is required for this landscape design. c. To comply with paragraph (3) all areas of the site will either be left undisturbed or replanted per the requirements of the landscape plans and specifications. The proposed approach to compliance with Section 16A -4 -320 (b) Grading Standards, shall be as follows: a. Regarding paragraph (1) mass grading is not anticipated. All site grading shall be accomplished within the scope of work required for the excavation of the foundation and utilities. Coburn Development Inc 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Application for Authorization to Develop in a Geologic Hazard Area 303442 -3351 www.00burndev com Rodeo Place SLbdivision Last edit: 9/15/20096 Exhibit "B" TC Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010 (Page 4 of 4) b. Regarding paragraph (2), Limitations on site disturbance, the applicant is proposing the following approach. The platted building envelope is constrained to the anticipated building form to limit the bulk of any potential development at the site. Some disturbance of the site outside of the building envelope will be needed to excavate for the foundation and install the required underground foundation drain utility on the outside of the foundation walls. Re- grading of the site will be limited to these areas of excavation as detailed on the attached grading plan. In general, changes to the existing topography will be limited to areas behind the building and to the areas on either side of the building as required to facilitate drainage, c. To comply with paragraph (3) the building envelope will be marked during construction d. To comply with paragraph (4) all disturbed areas will be restored. e. To comply with paragraph (5) the design shall fit into the existing topography as described in the preceding sections of this. Concurrent to this application, the Owner is also applying for a Minor Amendment to the Final Plat of the Rodeo Place subdivision that will allow for the construction of two duplex buildings on Lot 1 in place of the triplex building anticipated in the approved Final Plat of Rodeo Place. This change has been requested for the following reasons: a. The subdivision was approved for 29 units. Dwelling units were deleted from other areas of the site to improve the view from neighboring subdivisions. The addition of this unit to Lot 1 allows for the development of the approved number of units in the subdivision. The location and topography of Lot 1 accomplishes this goal with minimal impact to the neighbors. b. Providing two smaller structures on Lot 1 simplifies the site drainage design and reduces the amount of site disturbance required to complete the development. c. The reduced scale of two smaller structures reduces the visual impact of development on this parcel. Coburn Development Inc 1811 Pearl Street. Boulder, CO 80302 Application for Authorization to Develop in a Geologic Hazard Area 303- 442 -3351 www coburndev com Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit 9115/20097 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 15 SERIES OF 2010 RODEO PLACE MINOR SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT Applicant: Dan Rotner, Coburn Development. Inc. Planner: Chris Conrad, Planning Director 1. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting approval to amend the Rodeo Subdivision plat, specifically involving Lots 1, 4 and "Open Space A" and to amend Town Council Resolution No. 39, Series of 2006 (Resolution 39 which approved and specified development parameters for the Rodeo Place Subdivision. Action Requested: Conduct the Public Hearing and then approve, modify or deny Resolution No. 15, Series of 2010. II. SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTION PROJECT: The Applicant has proposed the development of two (2) duplex units within Lot 1. The Rodeo Place subdivision plat and Resolution 39 need to be amended as they currently designate Lot 1 as a "Triplex Lot Resolution 39 specified that Lot 4 should be "utilized as a neighborhood park/tot lot or other approved use." The Applicant is requesting that approval be given to permit the lot to be used for the placement of a single family residence. In addition, the application involves re- platting Lot 4 to include a portion of "Open Space A" by extending the parcel boundary into a ditch easement (part of "Open Space A running through the subdivision. This will increase the lot size from 3,323 square feet to 5,051 square feet and permit the construction of a two (2) bedroom single family residence The Rodeo Place Subdivision was originally approved for twenty -five (25) lots. Following approval, the Town Council eliminated one of the northerly lots and the plat was recorded with twenty -four (24) lots. The lot numbering for the subdivision was then inconsistent with the numbering within Resolution 39. The application requests approval to clarify the discrepancies between the recorded plat and Resolution 39.The application also involves amending certain provisions within Resolution 39 regarding solid waste removal, parking, floor area and parking. Please refer to the application placed in the council boxes for further detail. A copy of the application is also available for public viewing at the Town Planning Department. The amendments to Resolution 39 are stated within the enclosed resolution and a red -line of Resolution 39 has been enclosed as Attachment 1. III. BACKGROUND: On February 2, 2009, the Town Council directed that the Applicant proceed with planning and designing Phase 2 of the Rodeo Place development which includes Lots 1 and 4. As directed at that time, the Applicant has now submitted this application to amend the original subdivision approval to permit the construction of two (2) duplex units within Lot 1 instead of the originally proposed tri -plex unit. The development proposal for Lot 1 involves encroaching into thirty percent (30 slopes and second reading of an ordinance to permit the encroachment is scheduled for consideration in conjunction with this Minor Subdivision Amendment. IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The proposed application qualifies as a `Minor Subdivision Amendment' pursuant to Code Section 16A- 5- 450(1)(b) of the Municipal Code. The applicable review standards may be found at Section 16A -5- 450(3) of the Municipal Code V. DISCUSSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS: Lot 1. The Town Council approved Resolution No. 39 authorizing a tri -plex unit on the large lot but specified that "...it shall remain undeveloped at this time or until more site specific geotechnical and architectural plans are submitted and approved by Town Council." The Applicant is now requesting approval to construct two (2) duplex buildings within the building envelope platted in 2006. Although the duplex units will extend into thirty percent slope areas, Staff finds that the area of disturbance involving thirty percent (30 slopes would be roughly the same for either the tri -plex contemplated in 2006 or the duplexes proposed now. Staff Recommendation: Staff has no objection provided the geotechnical considerations be addressed. Lot 4. The lot is currently 3,323 square feet in size. A lot this size would not permit construction of a single family residence. Being able to include a portion of the drainage easement would increase the size to 5,051 square feet and provide sufficient lot area to permit the construction of a two (2) bedroom single family residence. The subdivision has seven (7) lots that abut a fifty (50) foot wide drainage easement that is part of a historical drainage system running from the Horse Ranch Subdivision to Brush Creek. The initial Rodeo Place Subdivision included portions of the easement area within the abutting lots. Resolution 39 states that the Town Council felt that including the easement area within the lots "could interfere with storm flows" and directed that the lots, including Lot 4, be reconfigured so the lot lines do not go to the centerline of the drainage easement. Resolution 39 stated that Lot 4 could be "utilized as a neighborhood park/tot lot or other approved use." A single family residence would be permitted within the MF zone district provided it satisfies the minimum lot area requirement (5,000 sq. ft. for a two bedroom residence). Staff Recommendation: The Town is currently the owner of Lot 4 as well as the drainage easement area (Identified as "Open Space" on the subdivision plat) and is developing plans to restrict the drainage as mitigation wetlands with the Army Corps of Engineers. Should Lot 4 be reconfigured to include any of the easement, that area must be restricted to prohibit the placement of any improvements within it by the owner of Lot 4. Solid Waste Collection. The original approval called for the construction of a central trash /recycling shed within the subdivision. Its location was not established at that time and Public Works has now determined that it would be preferred to implement curb side pick -up. The proposed amendment to Resolution 39 calls for curb side pick -up. Off street Parking. The proposed amendment clarifies the current parking standards to be consistent with the Land Use Code. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that Town Council authorize the proposed amendments. VII. NEXT STEPS: None required. Attachments: 1) Redline of Resolution No. 39, Series of 2006 2) Rodeo Place Subdivision [Excerpt] as recorded 3) Resolution No. 15, Series of 2010 Handout: Application Packet (In council boxes) ATTACHMENT 1 REDLINE OF RESOLUTON NO. 39 SERIES OF 2006 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 39, 5 SERIES OF 2006 N 6 7 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE RODEO PLACE 8 SUBDIVISION, BEING A TWENTY -FIVE (25) LOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING 9 SUBDIVISION, WITHIN TRACT A OF THE ENTRYWAY SUBDIVISION. 10 11 WHEREAS, the Housing Department on behalf of the Town of Snowmass 12 Village, Applicant, submitted a land use application for the Rodeo Place 13 Subdivision on July 14, 2006 that contained twenty -five (25) lots with twenty -nine 14 (29) affordable housing units on approximately 8.5 acres within Tract A of the 15 Entryway Subdivision; and 16 17 WHEREAS, Town Council Ordinance No. 04, Series of 2006 "Ordinance 18 4 granted approval to rezone Tract A from Mixed -Use PUD (MU /PUD) to Multi 19 Family Residential (MF); and 20 21 WHEREAS, Town Council Resolution No. 28, Series of 2006 "Resolution 22 28 granted approval for the Entryway Subdivision thereby authorizing the 23 platting of six (6) lots and one (1) tract of land. 24 25 WHEREAS, the re- subdivision of Tract A as "Rodeo Place" Subdivision 26 contains twenty -fiv�- (2- lots within the 8.552 acre tract; and 27 28 WHEREAS, to achieve the purposes of the Entryway Master Plan, the 29 application addressed the land use requirements for Subdivision as set forth in 30 Snowmass Village Municipal Code "Municipal Code Section 16A -5 -400; and 31 32 WHEREAS, Planning Department deemed the application complete for 33 review purposes pursuant to Municipal Code, Section 16A -5 -50; and 34 35 WHEREAS, Planning Department staff prepared a Memorandum outlining 36 the scope of the project, review process, Municipal Code requirements and Core 37 Issues that was distributed to Planning Commission members on July 28, 2006 38 and Town Council on August 18, 2006; and 39 40 WHEREAS, Planning Commission reviewed the land use application, 41 considered direction by Town staff and received public comment at a regular 42 meeting on August 2, 2006; and continued the public meeting to include a site visit 43 on ,August 9, 2006; and held another public meeting on August 16, 2006 to finalize 44 their recommendations to Town Council by Planning Commission Resolution 45 No. 16, Series of 2006 "PC Resolution 16 and 46 47 WHEREAS, Town Council Ordinance No. 14, Series 2006 "Ordinance 14 48 authorized development on greater than thirty percent (30 slopes within certain TC Reso 06 -39 Page 2 49 areas of Tract A of the Entryway Subdivision. 50 51 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town 52 of Snowmass Village, as follows: 53 54 Section One: General Findings Snowmass Village Town Council finds that: 55 56 1) Submission: Applicant submitted "Rodeo Place," a subdivision land use 57 application, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article V, Division 4 of 58 the Code. 59 60 2) Content: The application contained the Minimum Contents as required by the 61 Code and included written and graphic materials of sufficient detail that the 62 application was deemed complete for review. 63 64 3) Comprehensive Plan: "Rodeo Place" Subdivision was determined to be 65 consistent with Chapter 6, Future Land Use Plan, Preferred Plan for the Rodeo 66 Grounds /Entryway, Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan- January 2000. 67 68 4) Code Requirements: Subject to the Conditions in Section Three of this 69 Resolution, it was found that the land use application conformed with Section 16A- 70 3- 40(6)(a) Rodeo Grounds /Entryway Comprehensively Planned Area (CPA); 71 Subdivision, Section 16A -5 -440, Review Standards; Division 2, Improvement 72 Standards, Section 16A -4 -210, Streets and related improvements; Section 16A -4- 73 220, Public trails; Section 16A -4 -230, Water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste 74 disposal and utilities; Section 16A -4 -240, Fire protection; Section 16A -4 -250, 75 Storm drainage; Section 16A -4 -260, Easement characteristics; and Section 16A -4- 76 270, Survey monuments; Division 3, Site Design Standards, Section 16A -4 -310, 77 Off street parking standards; Section 16A -4 -320, Landscaping, grading and other 78 design standards; Section 16A -4 -330, Energy conservation; and Section 16A -4- 79 340, Building design guidelines to preserve community character; and Division 4, 80 Standards for Restricted Housing. 81 82 5) Rodeo Place Subdivision Plat: The Subdivision Plat creates twenty four 83 (25 lots that contain one (1) tri u nit +w ur (24) duplexes; and twenty -two 84 one (22 single family homes for a total of twenty -nine (29) affordable 85 residences on 8.55 acres (see Exhibit A). At buildout, "Rodeo Place" has the 86 potential for an maximum density of 3.4 units /acre. 87 88 Section Two: Action In accordance with the findings stated in Section One of 89 this Resolution, Town Council approves, as per Municipal Code, the Subdivision 90 Land Use Application for Rodeo Place, subject to the conditions outlined in 91 Section Three below. 92 93 Section Three: Conditions Town Council approves the Rodeo Place TC Reso 06 -39 Page 3 94 Subdivision with the following Conditions: 95 96 A. Authorization: As Conditions of approval, the following agreements shall 97 be provided: 98 99 1. An Access Easement Agreement with Horse Ranch Homeowner's 100 Association regarding roadway access through Parcels E and P of the 101 Horse Ranch PUD. 102 2. An Access Easement Agreement identifying the access drive into Lot 2 103 of the Seven Star Subdivision. 104 3. A Letter of Authorization from the Horse Ranch Homeowner's 105 Association allowing the road crossings, culverts and cul -de -sac to 106 encroach into the existing drainage easement. 107 B. Rodeo Place Zoning and Dimensional Limitations: Though zoned 108 Multi Family (MF), the subdivision is comprised largely of detached, single 109 family homes and therefore, the residences shall adhere to these 110 dimensional limitations: 111 112 1. Maximum Height: 28 feet (Lots 1 -3) from existing or finished grade 113 whichever is most restrictive. 114 28 feet (Lots 4- 4-312; and Lots 2425 3 -24 from 115 existing or finished grade whichever is most 116 restrictive. 117 28 feet (Lots 44- 23 -22 from finished grade 118 due to fill conditions. 119 120 2. Maximum FAR: Lots 1 -20: 121 3,000 square feet /unit total (0.75 Not Applicable) 122 2,100 square feet (above grade) 123 1,250 square feet (below grade) 124 125 Lots 21 -24: 126 3,000 square feet /unit total (0.75 Not Applicable) 127 Buildings limited to 2 levels including basements 128 129 3. Setbacks: Per Plat (to encourage clustering /view corridors) 130 131 4. Parking Ratio: 1 car /bedroom (4 car /single family lot maximum) 132 133 C. Subdivision Layout: The overall subdivision layout that includes the 134 roads, alleys and residential lots shall be as follows: 135 136 1. The subdivision shall contain a maximum of twenty -five- (2524) lots. TC Reso 06 -39 Page 4 137 138 2. Lot 1 may be platted as part of the overall subdivision, yet it shall remain 139 undeveloped at this time or until more site specific geotechnical and 140 architectural plans are submitted and approved by Town Council. 141 142 3. Lot 4 may hall be platted as a lot and utilized as a neighbeFheed park/tot 143 lot or other approved usesingle family residential lot 144 145 4. Lots 3,4,5,13,14,23,24 and 25 could interfere with storm flows and 146 therefore, they shall be reconfigured so the lot lines do not go to the 147 centerline of the drainage easement. Lot 4 shall be reconfigured with the 148 lot line extending to the centerline of the drainage easement through the 149 Minor Subdivision Amendment process. However, specific restrictive 150 language shall be added to the Minor Amendment Plat defining the final 151 lot configuration and restricting the placement of any improvements by 152 the lot owner in the drainage easement of record. 153 154 5. Lots 24- and 2- shall be reoriented in an east/west direction so the 155 garages are accessed via the rear alley and not the public street. 156 157 D. Code Requirements: 158 159 1. Section 16A -4 -20, Sensitive wildlife habitat areas: Though the site is not 160 within the mapped critical wildlife areas, the development should strive 161 to comply with all relevant procedures, standards and Department of 162 Wildlife (DOW) recommendations: removal of any existing fencing; 163 maintaining a large setback from the wetlands and installation of silt 164 fencing during construction; maintaining the native vegetation on the 165 knoll; maintaining native vegetation within the width of the drainage 166 easement and not allowing encroachment of residential yards or 167 landscaping into this area; dogs should not be allowed on -site during 168 construction; trash /garbage should be kept in bear -proof containers 169 withiR a— eentral— trash enclosure utilization of "rounded" outside 170 doorknobs and no planting of nut, fruit or berry producing trees or 171 shrubs to minimize bear conflicts. 172 173 2. Section 16A -4 -50, Geologic hazard areas, steep slope and ridgeline 174 protection areas: based on the information presented and the site visit, 175 Lots 2 and 3 shall be developed as duplex lots. Lot 1 shall be platted 176 but it will not and may be developed as a triplex unit at this time due to 177 inSUffiGient site plans and 178 aFGhiteGtural two (2) duplex units subject to the terms and 179 conditions of Ordinance No. 7 Series of 2010. 180 181 3. Section 16A -4 -220, Public trails: Final Subdivision Plat shall include TC Reso 06 -39 Page 5 182 easement areas or locations intended for pedestrian /bicycle /equestrian 183 trails. 184 185 4. Section 16A -4 -230, Water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal 186 and utilities: The shall be a Gentr^' as e shed 10Gated wit 187 the neighborhood as approved by the Town's PubliG Works and Po!iE;e 188 Departments. The shed shall be bear proof, 189 and GORst-rueted of ruStiG, durable material °.Trash collection shall be curb 190 side at each individual residence. 191 192 5. Section 16A -4 -250, Storm drainage: The drainage easement shall be 193 maintained to accommodate the historical drainage system. There shall 194 also be adequate structure and /or detention facilities as per this section 195 of the Municipal Code. 196 197 6. Section 16A -4 -310, Off street parking standards: Since the subdivision 198 contains mostly single family lots, the Multi- Family (MF) zone district 199 requirement shall be reduced to a ratio of 1 car /bedroom with a 200 minimum of 2 spaces /lot and a maximum of 4 spaces /lot. In addition, 201 during certain times, guest parking may be allowed along the public 202 streets provided a clear, through travel /fire lane is maintained. Required 203 off street parking shall be permitted in front yard setbacks in driveway 204 areas in front of garage doors as long as the entirety of the parking 205 space is contained within the boundary of the property and a minimum 206 10' separation is maintained between the back of curb at the right of way 207 and the parking space. Required off- street parking shall be permitted in 208 rear yard setbacks with the following restrictions: 209 210 Nose in spaces: provide a minimum 4' separation to the rear property 211 line 212 Parallel spaces: the entire space shall be contained within the property 213 line 214 215 7. Section 16A -4 -320, Landscaping, grading and other design standards: a 216 basic landscape and irrigation plan shall be provided and installed for 217 the entire development prior to issuance of any Certificates of 218 Occupancy. Due to bears being in the area, nut, fruit or berry producing 219 trees or shrubs shall not be planted within the neighborhood. All cut /fill 220 slopes shall be regraded and revegetated. The location of the proposed 221 construction staging and material storage areas needs to be addressed 222 and approved by the Planning Director or designee. 223 224 9. Section 16A -4 -340, Building design guidelines to preserve community 225 character: All buildings and structures will have a western heritage 226 ranching theme with rustic, durable materials. Houses on Lots 5 -48- -9 TC Reso 06 -39 Page 6 227 shall generally be one -story in height with the dominant ridgelines 228 running in a north /south direction; garages shall be oriented to the street 229 and setback behind the front facade of the home to minimize their 230 impacts on The Crossings. Two -story houses are appropriate on Lots 231 11 -25. 232 233 10. Section 16A -4 -410, Restricted housing requirements: This project will 234 meet or exceed the deed restricted mitigation housing requirements for 235 the Transit and Visitor Centers within the previously approved Entryway 236 project. 237 238 11. Section 16A -4 -500 510 Sign Standards of the Code: A 239 comprehensive signage plan for the neighborhood should be submitted 240 and approved by the Planning Director or designee. The project entry 241 and street signage shall have a western heritage theme and be 242 strategically located, concise, clearly legible, graphic and attractive. 243 244 245 E. Building Recommendations: 246 247 1. Section 16A -4 -330 Energy conservation: The residential units shall be 248 sited with regards to solar orientation, shading and incorporation of 249 passive solar techniques. 250 251 2. The height, mass and scale of all residential buildings shall be compatible 252 with the site, the intended use and other single family subdivisions within 253 Snowmass Village. 254 255 F. Recordation of Final Plat: 256 257 1. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval, 258 two (2) mylar originals of the Rodeo Place Final Subdivision Plat, 259 suitable for recording in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and 260 Recorder. The Final Plat shall be recorded at Applicant's expense prior 261 to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the residences. 262 263 2. Applicant shall provide further study of Lots 5 -10 and if there is a 264 reduction in the total number of residential lots, it shall be processed as 265 a Minor Amendment of the Final Plat pursuant to Section 16A -5- 450(2) 266 of the Municipal Code. 267 268 Section Four: Severability If any provision of this Resolution or application 269 hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect 270 any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect 271 without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this 272 Resolution are severable. C) p mm o zc I m' CD M O V 1O I 9 I X 11 r o I CD o O s I I I I I I I I I I p _o I r El ti ti Z C 0 c w ti C CO c I I my m M m I I o� m i m �a o a i i N CD H I I 1 0 A p T �m 3 I m cr I "m 5• gc�no.+�v3 .c N3av b V a l CD p IM Ra J a a m rT i 1 "p O �a�a^�?'yay O -,o E Q /65L.L6'S< ._•r"' 1 '1 I o w v. a o. Pn o a o. 90 0. z CD m 1 1 1 t a p m x a p x ID C> V/ �r ✓l po oQcs �Ao co m ti I m 3 m -ua iu 9 d wC/) m N 3 I I� mM my o I `m II CD m m m OF W oU I m o c x 00 o s i z o N W c rF oo�o�., .ate aaa s ro M n N 5 s. 9 a_ A N O a3 gY,y 6. 2 AL° N O N, 0 C 5- o u� o a n F I 3 Mid 8 oS� o •g o.r�rr y s oo� 001C e t� 4D�RAkOy� ®Q Y �C:O ENO C X00 O. �y a J `G a 1 e�A� �l'ND°nn C CHI. w, a a o w il f j 1m,�`y pii g3'• no �4 M o E� �na �O �nN�O� Ny�� D 4 o$N B ti o�a�aa 2q 1 n n3N a q o w� a i N a pp ti '►I� 1 S i. u �ui N b q W H� •.4 O 41) 0 b q W A y 8ti #g0�"WWbb pax pg� �D O C rt rn Boa O w� 0 N 0 0 \iNG \ANDS 2 g ,'89 81 5 0 LQT sa. {t �i 98 31 8,•39'38 E g EGiN N N N� z 5 00 56' 15.00' G2 3y. z LOT a ft. W 1 p, 368 �v� h� L o co w 8 c® z I g oN J/ L2 �6 578-22 1 s56j L sQ ft S66725221- G� 0 0 3 32 N L6 578 z29 3 7 C¢ L6 zo K O pFgSE O 33 3 j E ¢0 9GE p =2 /EA5E PAGE 6yr 65. 1¢' v m A NC N h/ry T 3 {t. 8 00. co �a L�5 Sq. DoT) 6 o A T 0 R PN� ti�h� s N 6 E LQT fT) so h�j k q 5Q p lb 'O N D5 8 82 EX r. P (oU h 1 OP �3� P s ft rye. h 0 L OT ft 5 a. 5 Sy3 3 s��• h h�° ti��� C53 �0 SF s y S g• 5 o o '500, I LOT sQ ft r� L p 5 Q f QT 2 531 SOT) C% 11, SEX h�0. I IN cT G�ti c 21� o O o y 6� o 0 0 D m m C G5 0 v M O <Z o 0 CA a N ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 15 SERIES OF 2010 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 15, 5 SERIES OF 2010 6 7 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 39, SERIES OF 2006, CONCERNING 8 THE RODEO PLACE SUBDIVISION. 9 10 WHEREAS, the Housing Department on behalf of the Town of Snowmass Village 11 "Applicant submitted a land use application for the Rodeo Place Subdivision on July 14, 12 2006 that contained twenty -five (25) lots with twenty -nine (29) affordable housing units on 13 approximately 8.5 acres within Tract A of the Entryway Subdivision; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Rodeo Place Subdivision was approved by Town Council 16 Resolution No. 39, Series of 2006 (Resolution 39 and 17 18 WHEREAS, the recorded subdivision plat created twenty -four (24) lots of which Lots 19 2 and 3 were duplex lots and Lot 1 was identified as a triplex lot; and 20 21 WHEREAS, Lots 5 -24 were intended for single family residences and Lot 4 was 22 approved to be platted as a lot and "utilized as a neighborhood park/tot lot or other 23 approved use and 24 25 WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting approval to amend Resolution 39 to enable 26 Lot 1 to contain two (2) duplexes and for Lot 4 to be re- platted include a portion of "Open 27 Space A" so as to be increased in size from 3,323 square feet to 5,051 square feet and 28 permitted for the construction of a two (2) bedroom single family residence; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the Applicant further requests approval to: 1) correct inconsistencies 31 in lot numbering between Resolution 39 and the recorded plat; 2) remove the requirement 32 for a central trash facility; 3) modify the maximum floor area limits for Lots 21 -24; and 4; 33 permit limited off street parking within the setback areas, as specifically set forth below; 34 and 35 36 WHEREAS, to achieve the purposes of the Entryway Master Plan, the application 37 addressed the land use requirements for Subdivision as set forth in Snowmass Village 38 Municipal Code "Municipal Code Section 16A -5 -400; and 39 40 WHEREAS, the public hearing notice was published in the Snowmass Sun on 41 February 10, 2010 for the Town Council meeting on March 15, 2010 to hear a 42 presentation of the proposal by the Applicant, consider Town staff recommendations and 43 receive public comments as part of the application review; and 44 45 WHEREAS, the application was reviewed and processed in accordance with the 46 provisions outlined in Sections 16A -5 -450 of the Municipal Code. 47 48 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of 49 Snowmass Village, as follows: 50 51 Section One General Findings. Snowmass Village Town Council finds that: TC Reso 10 -15 Page 2 52 53 1) The submission requirements for the application were adequately provided 54 pursuant to Sections 16A -5 -40 and 16A- 5- 450(2)(b) of the Municipal Code and 55 included written and graphic materials in sufficient detail to deem the application 56 complete for review. 57 58 2) The proposed application qualifies as a `Minor Amendment' pursuant to Code 59 Section 16A- 5- 450(1)(b) of the Municipal Code and the amendment satisfactorily 60 complies with the review standards outlined below per Section 16A -5- 450(3) of the 61 Municipal Code as follows: 62 63 a) The proposed amendment is consistent with, or an enhancement of, the 64 original PUD approval; 65 66 b) The proposed amendment does not have a substantially adverse effect on the 67 neighborhood surrounding the land where the amendment is proposed, nor 68 has a substantially adverse impact on the enjoyment of land abutting upon or 69 across the street from the subject property; 70 71 c) The proposed amendment would not change the basic character of the PUD or 72 surrounding areas; and 73 74 d) The proposed amendment acceptably complies with the other applicable stan- 75 dards for review of a subdivision application as specified above. 76 77 Section Two Amending Resolution No. 39. The Town Council hereby approves the 78 following clarifications and /or amendments to Town Council Resolution No. 39, Series of 79 2006, as follows: 80 81 1. The Rodeo Place Subdivision, as recorded, contained twenty -four (24) lots. 82 83 2. Section Three, Paragraph B(1), Maximum Height, is hereby amended to read 84 as follows: 85 86 1. Maximum Height: 28 feet (Lots 1 -3) from existing or finished grade 87 whichever is most restrictive. 88 28 feet (Lots 4 -12; and Lots 23 -24) from existing or 89 finished grade whichever is most restrictive. 90 28 feet (Lots 13 -22) from finished grade due to fill 91 conditions. 92 93 3. Section Three, Paragraph B(2), Maximum FAR, is hereby amended to read as 94 follows: 95 96 2. Maximum FAR: Lots 1 -20: 97 3,000 square feet/unit total (0.75 Not Applicable) 98 2,100 square feet (above grade) 99 1,250 square feet (below grade) TC Reso 10 -15 Page 3 100 101 Lots 21 -24: 102 3,000 square feet/unit total (0.75 Not Applicable) 103 Buildings limited to 2 levels including basements 104 105 4. Section Three, Paragraph C, Subdivision Layout, is hereby amended to read 106 as follows: 107 108 C. Subdivision Layout: The overall subdivision layout that includes the 109 roads, alleys and residential lots shall be as follows: 110 111 1. The subdivision shall contain a maximum of twenty -four (24) lots. 112 113 2. Lot 1 may be platted as part of the overall subdivision, yet it shall remain 114 undeveloped at this time or until more site specific geotechnical and architectural 115 plans are submitted and approved by Town Council. 116 117 3. Lot 4 shall be platted as a lot and utilized as a single family residential lot. 118 119 4. Lots 3,5,13,14, 23, 24 and 25 could interfere with storm flows and therefore, they 120 shall be reconfigured so the lot lines do not go to the centerline of the drainage 121 easement. Lot 4 shall be reconfigured with the lot line extending to the 122 centerline of the drainage easement through the Minor Subdivision 123 Amendment process. However, specific restrictive language shall be added to 124 the Minor Amendment Plat defining the final lot configuration and restricting the 125 placement of any improvements by the lot owner in the drainage easement of 126 record. 127 128 5. Lots 23 and 24 shall be reoriented in an east/west direction so the garages are 129 accessed via the rear alley and not the public street. 130 131 5. Section Three, Paragraph D(1) is hereby amended to delete the phrase: 132 "within a central trash enclosure 133 134 6. Section Three, Paragraph D(2), Geologic Hazard Areas, is hereby amended 135 to read as follows: 136 137 2. Section 16A -4 -50, Geologic hazard areas, steep slope and ridgeline protection 138 areas: based on the information presented and the site visit, Lots 2 and 3 shall 139 be developed as duplex lots. Lot 1 shall be platted and may be developed as 140 two (2) duplex units subject to the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. 7, 141 Series of 2010. 142 143 7. Section Three, Paragraph D(4), Water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste 144 disposal and utilities, is hereby amended to read as follows: 145 146 4. Section 16A -4 -230, Water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal and 147 utilities: Trash collection shall be curb side at each individual residence. TC Reso 10 -15 Page 4 148 149 8. Section Three, Paragraph 1)(6), Off street parking standards, is hereby 150 amended to add the following: 151 152 Required off street parking shall be permitted in front yard setbacks in 153 driveway areas in front of garage doors as long as the entirety of the 154 parking space is contained within the boundary of the property and a 155 minimum 10' separation is maintained between the back of curb at the 156 right of way and the parking space. Required off street parking shall be 157 permitted in rear yard setbacks with the following restrictions: 158 159 Nose in spaces: provide a minimum 4' separation to the rear property 160 line 161 Parallel spaces: the entire space shall be contained within the property 162 line 163 164 9. Section Three, Paragraph 1)(9), Building design guidelines, is hereby 165 amended to read as follows: 166 167 9. Section 16A -4 -340, Building design guidelines to preserve community 168 character: All buildings and structures will have a western heritage ranching 169 theme with rustic, durable materials. Houses on Lots 5 -9 shall generally be 170 one -story in height with the dominant ridgelines running in a north /south 171 direction; garages shall be oriented to the street and setback behind the front 172 fagade of the home to minimize their impacts on The Crossings. Two -story 173 houses are appropriate on Lots 11 -25. 174 175 Section Three Amending Rodeo Place Subdivision Plat. The Town Council hereby 176 approves the following amendments to the Rodeo Place Subdivision, as recorded on 177 August 1, 2007 in Plat Book 84 at Page 70 as Reception No. 540522 in the records of the 178 Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, as follows: 179 180 1. Lot 1 shall be re- designated from "TRIPLEX LOT" to "FOURPLEX LOT 181 182 2. Lot 4 may be re- platted, as shown on Exhibit "A to contain a portion of "Open 183 Space A" thereby increasing the lot size from 3,323 square feet to 5,051 square feet 184 and permitted for the construction of a two (2) bedroom single family residence. 185 186 Section Four Conditions. Town Council approves the amendments subject to the 187 following conditions: 188 189 1. The Applicant shall complete, before the subject "Minor Amendment Plat for Lots 190 1, 4 and Open Space A, Rodeo Place" is placed of record, all actions or matters 191 that in the opinion of the Town Planning Director or Town Attorney are necessary 192 to satisfy or dispense with the requirements of the Municipal Code. Should 193 problems arise that cannot properly be resolved at the administrative level, they 194 will be presented to Town Council for direction. TC Reso 10 -15 Page 5 195 196 2. Upon resolution of the outstanding technical comments, three executed mylars for 197 the subdivision exemption shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 198 thirty (30) days of the date of administrative approval of the plat. 199 200 3. The Planning Director shall review the plat to ensure it complies with the terms and 201 conditions of approval and obtain signatures for all of the applicable plat 202 certificates. 203 204 4. The Applicant shall thereafter cause the plat to be recorded, at the Applicant's 205 expense, in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 206 207 Section Four: Severability If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to 208 any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other 209 provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid 210 provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. 211 212 INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED on the motion of Council Member 213 and the second of Council Member by a vote of in 214 favor and opposed, on this 15 day of March, 2010. 215 216 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 217 TOWN COUNCIL 218 219 220 221 222 Bill Boineau, Mayor 223 ATTEST: 224 225 226 227 228 Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk 229 230 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 231 232 233 234 235 John Dresser, Town Attorney 236 237 MINOR SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT RODEO PLACE SUBDIVISION AN APPLICATION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 39, SERIES OF 2006, CONCERNING THE RODEO PLACE SUBDIVISION 3/1 September 2, 2009 COBURN Bob Nevins creating great places' Senior Planner Town of Snowmass Village 130 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Rodeo Place Lots 1, 4 Open Space A, application for Minor Amendment of Final Plat. Dear Mr. Nevins, Attached are the application materials for a Minor Amendment of Final Plat for the Rodeo Place Subdivision Lots 1, 4 Open Space A. This application package contains the following materials: Minimum Contents: Rodeo Place Lots 1, 4 Open Space A, application for Minor Amendment to Final Plat (1 page) Written Description: Rodeo Place Lots 1, 4 Open Space A, application for Minor Amendment to Final Plat (4 pages) Draft Minor Amendment Plat: Lots 1, 4 and Open Space A, Rodeo Place, Town of Snowmass Village, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (1 2436 sheet) Draft Improvement Survey Minor Amendment Plat: Lots 1, 4 and Open Space A, Rodeo Place, Town of Snowmass Village, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (1 2436 sheet) Draft amendment of Resolution 39, Series 2006 (7 pages) R£FFR 1 o' t N T*)4=- Proposed Lot 1 architectural site plan, floor plans and elevations (1 2436 sheet) MAQ40 I -'TOO W Proposed Lot 4 architectural site plan, floor plans and elevations (1 2436 sheet) 'rA C4e'v 1 Included are 3 copies of the entire application in 11x17 format and 2 copies each of the Plat, Improvement Survey and Architectural Plans. Please accept this application for a Determination of Completeness as defined in Section 16A -5 -50. Sincerely, 7 1 -7 Daniel R. Rotner, AIA Senior Architect, Coburn Development, Inc. Coburn Development, Inc. 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Minor Amendment to Final Plat 303 -442 -3351 www.coburndev.00m Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit: 9/2/20091 Minimum Contents Rodeo Place Lots 1, 4 Open Space A, application for Minor Amendment to Final Plat 1. For all applications per Sec. 16A-5-40 1.1 Applicant's contact information: Daniel R. Rotner, AIA Senior Architect Coburn Development, Inc 1811 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80302 P.303- 442 -3351 F. 303 447 -3933 drotner ()coburndev.com See attached copy of e -mail dated 05/28/09 from Russell Forrest, Town Manager, authorizing Coburn as the applicant for this project. 1.2 Legal Description: The legal description is included on the Subdivision Plat Minor Amendment document 1.3 Disclosure of Ownership: The affected parcel of land is owned by the Town of Snowmass Village. 1.4 Written Description: See the following Written Description: Rodeo Place Lots 1, 4 Open Space A, application for Minor Amendment of Final Plat. 1.5 Vicinity Map: A vicinity map is included on the Subdivision Plat Minor Amendment document 1.6 Other maps: Additional drawings have been provided per the minimum contents required for the application for Minor Amendment of Final Plat as listed below. 1.7 Base Fee: Fees have been waived for this application for development approval on Town owned property. See attached copy of e -mail dated 05128/09 from Russell Forrest, Town Manager, waiving fees for this application. 2. For a Minor Amendment of Final Plat per Sec. 16A-5-540(2) 2.1 Minimum Contents for any application as listed above. 2.2 Written Description: See the following Written Description: Rodeo Place Lots 1, 4 Open Space A, application for Minor Amendment of Final Plat. 2.3 Other Information: a. Draft Minor Amendment Plat: Lots 1, 4 and Open Space A, Rodeo Place, Town of Snowmass Village, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado b. Draft Improvement Survey, Minor Amendment Plat: Lots 1, 4 and Open Space A, Rodeo Place, Town of Snowmass Village, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado c. Draft amendment of Resolution 39 Series 2006 with proposed revisions to language of the adopting resolution of the Rodeo Place Subdivision Plat with changes tracked and highlighted d. Proposed Lot 1 architectural site plan, floor plans and elevations e. Proposed Lot 4 architectural site plan, floor plans and elevations Coburn Development, Inc. 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Minor Amendment to Final Plat 303442 -3351 www.coburndev.com Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit: 9/2/20092 Written Description: Rodeo Place Lots 1, 4 Open Space A, application for Minor Amendment to Final Plat This application for Minor Amendment to Final Plat has three primary objectives: 1. Adjustment of the lot line boundary between Lot 4 and Open Space A 2. Revision of Lot 1 from a triplex to a fourplex lot. 3. Revisions to Resolution 39, Series 2006 which are intended to resolve inconsistencies between the resolution and the recorded Final Plat and clarify language of the resolution with respect to the conditions for approval of the subdivision. Lot 4 and Open Space A lot line adjustment The purpose of the lot line adjustment between Lot 4 and Open Space A is to allow Lot 4 to be a conforming lot for development of a residential dwelling unit consistent with the original subdivision application. a. The recorded plat allocates 3,323 s.f. of land area to Lot 4 which complies with the minimum lot area of 3,000 in the MF zone district but is below the minimum lot area required for development of a residential dwelling unit. b. The proposed amended plat defines a lot line revision between Lot 4 and Open Space A that creates a lot with a land area of 5,051 s.f., adequate for development of a 2 bedroom single family residence consistent with the original subdivision application. c. No change is proposed to the platted drainage easement running over the property. d. No change is proposed to the building envelope. e. No change is proposed to the maximum floor area allowed on the lot. f. No change is proposed to the existing utilities serving this lot. Water and sewer connections have been provided as a part of the approved utility plan and subsequent infrastructure installation. Lot 1 revision from Triplex Lot to Fourpex Lot The purpose of the revision to the plat language on Lot 1 from to "Fourplex Lot" is to allow for the development of one additional unit on this lot without an increase in allowable floor area on the lot a. The recorded plat includes the designation "Triplex Lot" on Lot 1 b. The proposed Minor Amendment revises this designation to "Fourplex Lot" c. The resolution adopting the subdivision defines the maximum floor area on a per unit basis as 3,000 s.f.(defining the MF standard FAR of 0.75 as Not Applicable) for a total maximum floor area of 9,000 s.f. for a Triplex Lot. If the MF standard FAR of .75 is applied to lot 1 it would yield a maximum floor area of 8,648 s.f. The proposed design has a total floor area of 5,624 including attached garages. d. No change is proposed to the maximum allowed floor area on this lot e. No change is proposed to the building envelope f. No change is proposed to the existing utilities serving this lot Coburn Development, Inc. 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Minor Amendment to Final Plat 303- 442 -3351 www.coburndev.com Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit: 9/2/20093 Proposed condominium ownership of the Lot 1 residential dwelling units The proposed development of Lot 1 is to be organized as 2 duplex units under common ownership. a. All structural and exterior elements of the buildings shall be commonly owned and maintained b. Exterior decks, driveways, walks and the landscaping between the front of each individual unit and the right of way line shall be limited common elements c. All other exterior land areas shall be general common elements d. A common on site sewer main shall provide connection between all units and the existing sewer tap. This shall be a general common element of the condominium association. e. A common on site water main shall provide connection between all units and the existing water tap. This shall be a general common element of the condominium association. f. All water and sewer fees shall be paid by the condominium association for the common water and sewer service g. All other elements of the condominium documents shall be similar to those already recorded for the duplex units on Lots 2 3 of the Rodeo Place subdivision. Revisions to Resolution 39 Series 2006 The proposed changes to the language affect multiple areas of the resolution and are intended to address the following issues: a. Inconsistency between the lot numbering in the resolution and the lot numbering in the recorded Final Plat. Per the Council's direction, the lot configuration along the north property line was reviewed and one lot was eliminated. This resulted in a renumbering of the lots and a resulting inconsistency with the language in the Resolution. There are multiple references to the number of lots in the subdivision and specific restrictions by lot which have been corrected to account for this change. b. Refinement of the language in Section Three: Conditions, Paragraph B. Rodeo Place Zoning and Dimensional Limitations, Item 2. Maximum FAR clarifying the FAR limits for specific lots. The language in the Resolution places restrictions on the floor area above and below grade. However, the topography of a number of lots favors a "walk out' configuration to reduce bulk while making the best use of the site. The proposed revisions leave the current restrictions unchanged for lots 1 -20 while revising the restrictions on Lots 21 -24 to allow for a combined maximum of 3000 total, with buildings limited to 2 levels, including any basements. c. Revisions to the language in Section Three: Conditions, Paragraph C. Subdivision Layout, Items 3 4 specifically allowing for the construction of a single family home on lot 4 and provision of a conforming lot area to avoid a non conforming condition. The d. Revisions to Section Three: Conditions, Paragraph D. Code Requirements, Items 1. 4. Removing the requirement for a central trash collection facility. e. Revisions to Section Three: Conditions, Paragraph D. Code Requirements, Item 2. Changing the description of the proposed development of Lot 1 from 1 triplex unit to 2 duplex units. Coburn Development, Inc. 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Minor Amendment to Final Plat 303- 442 -3351 www.coburndev.com Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit: 9/2/20094 f. Additional language in Section Three: Conditions, Paragraph D. Code Requirements, Item 6. Permitting limited off street parking in setback areas as anticipated in the original Subdivision Plat application. Analysis of compliance with the Review Standards for a Minor Amendment of Final Plat a. Consistent with subdivision: The proposed plans are consistent with the single family home and duplex character of the existing subdivision. No changes are proposed to the building envelopes established on the original plat. The adopted Resolution 39, Series 2006 approved a subdivision with 25 lots and 29 units. This minor amendment would result in a subdivision with 24 lots and 29 units. The proposed revisions to the Lot 1 building form from 1 triplex to 2 duplexes will result in smaller building mass while allowing for the original approved unit count to be retained. The proposed revisions to the Lot 4 lot lines allow for this to be a conforming single family home lot. Again, the goal is to allow for the construction of 29 units as approved for the original subdivision. The changes to the off street parking requirements are intended to permit the parking arrangements defined in the original subdivision application and allow for adequate parking given the street and alley configuration of the project. b. No adverse impacts: The proposed changes are consistent with the original subdivision application and no adverse impacts are created. The revisions to the plat were necessitated by the results of an effort to mitigate concerns about the density of the project at its north property line adjacency with the Crossings neighborhood by elimination of one of the lots at that location. The relocation of the unit eliminated along the north property line to Lot 1 location will maintain the total unit count of the subdivision while providing reduced overall mass and relocating density to a portion of the site where it will have less impact on the neighboring subdivisions Relocation of the lot line on Lot 4 to the centerline of the drainage easement allows this to be a conforming lot. The function of the drainage easement is protected by restrictive language on the Minor Amendment Plat and the building envelope is not changed from the recorded plat to avoid adverse impacts c. Not change character: The proposed revisions are consistent with the original approved Subdivision plan. The single family home on Lot 4 was anticipated in the original subdivision plan application. This will be the smallest single family home in Rodeo Place The original subdivision plan application anticipated a triplex building on Lot 1. By converting Lot 1 to 2 duplex units the building character on that lot is more Coburn Development, Inc. 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Minor Amendment to Final Plat 303- 442 -3351 www.coburndev.com Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit: 9/2/20095 consistent with the existing development than the larger triplex structure originally proposed d. Comply with other applicable standards: The proposed revisions are consistent with the original subdivision application and resolution. The findings of contained in the resolution confirmed compliance with the applicable subdivision standards. No nonconforming conditions are adjusted to increase the non conformity of any lots or structures Coburn Development, Inc. 1811 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Minor Amendment to Final Plat 303- 442 -3351 www.coburndev.com Rodeo Place Subdivision Last edit: 9/2/20096 Dan Rotner From: Russell Forrest [rforrest @tosv.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:51 AM To: Dan Rotner Subject: FW: Authorization for Coburn and Rudd to move forward with applications on the next phase of Rodeo Place Done From: Bob Nevins Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:12 AM To: Russell Forrest Subject: RE: Authorization for Coburn and Rudd to move forward with applications on the next phase of Rodeo Place Russ, Thanks for providing the authorization for Coburn /Rudd. I am continuing to work with Dan with regards to Lot 1 (30% slopes) and Lot 4 (Variance for minimum lot area). Bob From: Russell Forrest Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:37 AM To: Bob Nevins; Dan Rotner Cc: Joe Coffey Subject: Authorization for Coburn and Rudd to move forward with applications on the next phase of Rodeo Place Bob Please accept this as authorization for Coburn to submit plans on the Town's behalf for the next phases of Rodeo Place. Phase 2 includes three sub phases referred to as phase 2A, 2B, and 2C. The two lots that require further entitlement work are in phase 2C (lots 4 and 1). Also please waive fees for this application in that it is a Town Project. Thanks you! Russell W. Forrest Town Manager Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, Co 81615 970 923 -3777 x 606 rforrestC@tosv.com www.tosv.com i L'�KCV�C,oj oer�sraw- EMRr�tOrr -pu.e y So d.' mu, 16 ✓w 2009 11,15pn v 11-.' Wed, 02 Sep ?pOD 2,20pm kxi(san vt y S'3 oaT e oO �a.�o 3 aS�n h IS S �v C) M,ot.g O.YtN y ,y4• M O N S D N p 0 m o t? 0 L N �m�n Ly6�ZO.tfAt b I-- O I D OZ�(Tj a3 R 5 �333� ai 3 �•�`aB g' 3P a o4 cNh O A GII'l l oa g u lg :a�w QL� ICI 14 �Vp V O X�c 33ga »a� „aQZ¢ ig AN 0oNO ?ro u' \a� t�y y A DTs ags s ul CD O y b �4`" (z) Cry t a Hwy ,uv�nva R ti ro :i ;;W::• NO GN}X�O, w ,c�noPnww Y p .;::�yo y :i tt�� 8w8 °��o��� 'fix. l O 1 g 2 2 A V m i C 't �O cT�Ty^� I "1 Qu o` oa� N 4 5� h a O qm�o� Sc 0 O O NJ CD O n k •C JDg Dy�o a5"4Px n 2 Y R C O O R 2 g I Z D F ry 1^e 4 q p y 1 0 0 4 y 3ry �0 T rt 2 •b. A O� o c �M P09t J �D OR.,, N` 2 J a� O O F R 0 4) R 2 J O In 0 r O' y O' .p O 'n 2 4 0 n J O I 4 O y j.•+ C 341 Y R `4 D 4 O J y r. O �,D S l f p m O O' y ry y M2 o �o O J.n e c I on� 1. yn J T D I t o I a q c m Y J, o F�.3 S' g,.2 O la 3 4 a,DOCO 0' F I y J qy OJ Jj'J- .jOna O� 1 0 p J wq JJP q I l o a`cPyQ N O 0 O <a�m rt 4y4 N m^Z I� m rt I l 4 I o y qo J a o "no m m J 0. �F y 0j'h I SU I I UyJ 4 A OF t O aOMDO�'j'O� 000 (T y Nm PO J�b� 0;9 O 0py n I y ,p F I �.J InO Oq',y0�40 RR RI'1 4 YI I ��O aP0 Oq p�Y N I V x o� 4F o F I I yF q I m m`ck o 3 oy q�4q oo cy y o J OY, OJ J J I QJO Q I UJC F �C O Om I F �Jm� OI I J2J J 1 i J'.. �•O�yyJ \ti3 [:O Oft 041 I I J'�4, bCj m I Qm n I .•I I oH'J`2'.D4o� y 4� oo 2 I .q I m'g 3• sl I n °b 21 �o I I op'pc X04 ao a 4 I I •v:y •..o n J I q' I m I F A` 1 mJ' O ry 0 Q 14 O J 040 Co S� O� m I go•`,�1.R t3 I I Dc `c o F I �'Q ".�ap� q o rto �1 O �kRO Oy) I Y �2 I OQ�D'q C I hi I o Q�;O�q C� OyO�ny n 40 p.l m y•.3 oml aA f q I I �,P 3a aaI yyq 1 o`c 4 f o�m rt4 S3rtO Ro o� mo y' O� l o I 4 omyo In Oyo•.. J I O nrt O'Y `Oy�n 1 J J I I I o� y oo II �JI N I I O\ y I m I O A o 4 I Ob m rt mo Y p� o`�cJ jT 3� j• �j.? Q 00'. D J 4 p O 4I g400q' OD�JO I I F O J I N q ti r• ap JI p I t•�.... a1� y y yor I m y pp 2ti 0V0?/ OY m g t o q �2 "n4, JI' I 3N17N0 CI O J 4y m e9 A t� O� I I I° I V ny� q I 1 a g H I I I I crnrawxr rw�.sc.t mc. I L' XSMW- ENTRYI[OT1- WP.dw9 S Mkd 02 S, 2009 2:04p Pbf(vo1 Nbd. 02 Sap 2009 224a kwlWa 3 k m n e �u �a °i tt z N st v 8 n M.0 90 111 11 N m 6yt O N C m G) p 0 b m 0 O n m 3 0� L6 o ob ya m oZ m zo,t w c o Ao0>C N .0 (D o O Z�fTI b° A O V~ O O Z a c Op si I 1`, NOI L M C N il y O u l��AbO gg N 2 2 b q to N N V a y: w i0 t'n W N 6 m %N a `y p "�ovo�gv�� Via, O 1 `c7 N ti #woW� �a �Og Wc,� R v Q�mm ak�y�om�m �m.� s »R y o °nb 04t°J)p.ry O C p 7J' 2 S� O O 2 M 4 S F. N' o N n O cc 2' �.'>'S COQ X02?.$ doom o aJm�ao^ oo °ma'ooS2IH n �n�c� "�c3y�oo °F�p yy� y 8�0 °o-0'o-�4� °o R l o`p Mc Qtr�R 2J•�j J O ma V3 Q om4 -1 "4'?. +J� o a �'C J'o ��4n 4' o'ya o �o o'i��: µon° al a3 °y?,m o 4O I�Finam�o °J' c ��o'�ac'�ioo w° jSOn Ja•b° sz ti r 4 aJ yD F O R u m Q t 4 n o O:'pb °C ry�COJ 3Nl7HDlN oa y o o J4o j.Ja 4 I go 8888 Q. C�omj_j o oI ONO" L m�b4 a4 N n b° 0I g 6 �"r► za y.l� "T.a�' }�1•�I \i t r ->O l� p j c o air I 1 Y. o. w y Q c. 9 a O 1 ..rt` •r\� 1 'I I i 'i i n a o r 4) 1 6:�L �6'SC .r7 t•• \-�t` i i i I o 0o m t� c o ie p o. M hf 1 l 1 0 0, '1 1 l i i i i i G p ay t 00 -I �.1 I 1 t v n' d I--, d '*i .•ter I ``1 t `i I `t 'O m "9 p b'ti m H 1 10 m l o N sP �`f �l I CO I m �S cn m i I I i I i i i v u. a `m I+ SU v ij 6 a i N T W IEII SE c T N g I I Cl) Q I y D C C) G II C D II w O O a) 0 Q. O m o© m a 3 r m 3 W .co CD n m 0 St y 5L CD A o �a3ga�aQOOgo�a2�9 N b ac��w N O ?0 dog °3uc�o A O y o z v n 1 a I" i1 1 I t J•� Y co CD I17� H G A x M r CD I p D CD m 11 r-1 I i I O 01 I V Nn I I I I I I m n P v U I I I I w I y A _Z3 O I (D I O y C m m El m El m °00 0� om a(D w o El 0 o I I I o 1 o L pp 5•�A I I I I I I u F•' m 52 9 N T S2. CD tp x gg J o Y 'o Qi G�n q�� o MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Hunt Walker /Andy Worline DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Recreation Center Subsidy I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: To brief the Council on the annual subsidy for the Recreation Center and request that the Council support a new fee structure to respond to a subsidy that is increasing to just under $500,000. II. BACKGROUND During the 2010 Budget work session last fall Council asked staff to compare the actual subsidy with the projected subsidy produced before the Recreation Center was built, and to also research ways to reduce the subsidy. The original projected subsidy was $139,972 for the pool and fitness portion of the Recreation Center, which did not include the gym. In 2007, the first full year of operation, the subsidy was $291,577 (see the attached spreadsheet) for the Recreation Center. Note: revenues exceeded projections in 2007, but expenses were significantly higher. In 2009, the first full year with the gym open, the actual subsidy was $418,288 and staff expects it to level off below $500,000 for the foreseeable future. Since the current annual subsidy is greater then we would like and since it is putting a strain on the Rett Fund's ability to pay for Transportation's Capital purchases, Park's and Trail's maintenance, and completion of the Entryway Plan and other projects, staff has been researching different ways to reduce the subsidy. After surveying various Recreation Facilities on the western slope, we found that Western Eagle County Recreation District's WECMRD) Recreation Center in Gypsum was the only one whose operational expenses were not subsidized. In fact they had a surplus of $500,000 in 2009. Intrigued staff visited the facility and interviewed staff. Although the Town of Gypsum and WECMRD jointly funded the construction of the $12,000,000 facility, they wanted to make sure that memberships covered the annual operating costs. The only way to attract the number of members they needed to break even was to develop a rate structure that was the same for everybody regardless of whether they lived within the WECMR District or not. WECMR introduced a rate structure that attracted 4,000 memberships (of all types), and more then broke even. 25% of their membership is out of district and 10% is from Glenwood. WECMR applied the same approach when they recently purchased the Cotton Ranch golf course. Initially citizens said it wasn't fair to allow non residents of the District play at the course for the same greens fees as residents. When it was pointed out that Residents would not likely play the 20,000 rounds of golf needed to break even, residents agreed to charge everybody the same greens fees in order to avoid having to subsidize the golf course. Although the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) opened their facility with a three tier rate structure, recently they changed to a one -fee system. A resident of Snowmass can join the ARC for the same fee as an Aspen resident. Although the City of Aspen's General Fund subsidizes the ARC, they instituted the one rate plan in an attempt to increase memberships, and reduce their subsidy. When the Town opened the Recreation Center in 2006, it introduced a two -tier rate system; one rate for residents and one for non residents. Although the Town was influenced by the industry standard of setting a multi- tiered rate plan, the main reason the Town created a non resident rate was to insure the facility didn't exceed capacity. After operating the facility for 3.5 years, staff has found there is excess capacity at the facility. Currently there are 1300 resident memberships of some kind. That represents approximately 79% of the Snowmass Village population. It is unlikely that resident memberships will increase significantly, and certainly not enough to substantially reduce the subsidy. Staff feels that we should follow the lead of the WECMR District and the ARC, and create one fee structure by eliminating the non resident rate. By eliminating the non resident rate we feel memberships could increase by at least 10% and maybe as high as 20 The additional members will come from Brush Creek Village, Woody Creek, Aspen, Aspen Village, Basalt, and Carbondale. Most of these new memberships will come from non resident employees who already work in the town. In addition, especially in the summer, non resident families will join our facility because of our salt -water pool. A Recreation Center is a public amenity, just like a performing arts center, a stadium, a park, or a meeting room. Governments typically don't charge separate rates for the use of these services /facilities. Why do we do it for recreation centers? Staff proposes creating a single fee structure by eliminating the Non- resident rate and allowing anybody to buy a membership at the same rate regardless of where they live (see attached rate sheet). A 10% increase in members could generate approximately an additional $30,000, and a 20% increase in members could bring in another $60,000. Although it is difficult to estimate, new members will generate additional class, Rec program, and concession income. III. OPTIONS 1. Approve the single rate fee structure. 2. Modify the single rate fee structure. 3. Deny the single rate fee structure. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed rate plan contained on the second attachment. This approach is certainly something new and different in our industry, but difficult economic times challenge us to be creative in our thinking and daring in our implementation. The single fee system will accomplish several things: 1. Decrease the subsidy to the Recreation Center 2. Attract more users. 3. Defer a rate increase for at least a year. N C`7 d' 0 'mot Lf) x m rl- N 0 00 N 0 r` M O C' U) C i o, OV- N" M i N N'. 63 64 H} 64 63 M V a C U) tZ It O U') 0 M' d d ti 00 It 0 (0 CO U) i m C'. d: O d: C N N y p d 00 CO V LO �i 00 2' G v N CO N N y 6'3 6 6 6c)- v 0000 N C14 0 C) 0 0 0 r o '(f L6 LLB N N LO C`') N m Cl) 09 O 04 C) Rf ��d:0 N O V MO�LC) O 0 N Q LM ER 64 O 0000 rl- to O O c d p O OD 't Cfl N N p O p N N 69 64 M 0 LC) M to LO Q C) co O N E 00 O 00 Lo co r— co O V U') O N d� ti N Q CY) 6p, 60s 't 0 EF} A fn LC) LO d' LO N ti rn n O r-- N 00 LO L O 0 CO LO cj 0) N Q co 64 64 co O N NOMO 00 N C LO co It r- CO 0 w CO CO N N Ln N d N V r- 63 0 t� U') Q El? 63 M 63 N 64 d O co 0 N w r 00 r` O LC r r O 0 E O (fl O 0 N U N J� 6p> co 64 O E E, O cm co 0 Oi m L 5, L L� 0 O a) M Q to L 0 N N 0 O co E L Q L Q) o (n 0 m U Q cn (n r 0 SO O W E m N M M U a.+ i U to d A U U U U O waaaaC) 0 v E N c: W d CO CO r- co m C) o d N O O x 0 0 0 O O 0 0 o N �u.Ui— W Cl) Z NNNNNN CO rre Daily Drop -In I Daily Drop -In Resident Non Resident Youth (2 -17) $6.00 $10.00 Youth (2 17) $10.00 Adults (18 $8.50 $15.00 Adults (18 $15.00 20 VISIT PUNCH CARD 20 Visit Punch Card fQ i Resident Non Resident Youth 2 17 yrs $160 Youth 2 -17 yrs $105 $160 Adult 18+ $220 Adult 18+ $140 $220 �a 7 3 MONTH INDIVIDUAL PASS Youth Memberships (2 17 yrs) Resident Non Resident 4 Month Youth $320 Youth 2 -17 yrs $225 $360 01 Adult 18+ $300 $475 1 Year Youth $450 3 MONTH FAMILY PASS Adult Memberships *Family of 2 or more (max 4) $50 each additional 4 Month Adult $415 Resident Non- Resident y $560 $850 1 Year Adult $600 $50 per month available on 1 year membership. INDIVIDUAL ANNUAL PASS Resident Non Resident Family Memberships Youth 2 -17 yrs $450 $720 4 Month Family $650 Adult 18+ $600 $950 *Family of 2 or more (max 4) $50 each additional F5 In t f; 0 FAMILY ANNUAL PASS 1 Year Family $1120 *Family of 2 or more (max 4) $100 each additional *Family of 2 or more (max 4) $100 each additional Resident Non- Resident 1 $100 per month available on 1 year membership. $1120 $1700 BUSINESS MEMBERSHIPS AVAILABLE Please call for more information 3.:1°_.. -33 S ✓__.,r'"3;� 3 L' G! i^S;v:'w-�."�YL'£Y�,�"`�:"uL'�� VS .�12:9� MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Hunt Walker DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Carriageway/ Daly Lane Snowmelt Project CMP I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: To review the CMP with Council. No action requested. II. BACKGROUND Late last summer Town staff discovered leaks in the Snowmelt piping on both Daly Lane and Carriageway Roads in the vicinity of Lot 6. Two snowmelt- piping loops failed, and they have been turned off all winter. We were concerned that additional sections of road would fail during this winter causing a major disruption in access to Mall area businesses, but luckily we haven't had another failure so far. We couldn't schedule the replacement project last fall, but we have scheduled it this spring from April 13th to June 1, 2010 when it will have the least impact on the Mall. As we have in the past Carriageway Snowmelt Projects in 1997 and 2002, we will do the best we can to minimize impact to access on Daly Lane and the Mall. The attached Construction Management Plan contains all the details of the project. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION NA i I Town of Snowmass Village Construction Management Plan PROJECT: Carriageway and Daly Lane Snowmelt Replacement DATE: March 2, 2010 OWNER: CONTACT INFO: R. Hunt Walker 923 -5110, ext. 300 John Baker 923 -5110, ext 301 Nick Reitter 923 -5110, ext. 309 Ed Fuller 923 -5110, ext. 302 CONTRACTOR: CONTACT INFO: Gary Coffey, Concrete Works of Colorado 303- 419 -0682 ENGINEER: CONTACT INFO: Richard Goulding, Engineer 945 -1004 Dave Shepard, Construction Coordinator, SGM 379 -9556 or 945 -1004 TRAFFIC CONTROL: A -1 Traffic Control 876 -0738 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: April 13 to June 1, 2010, 7 days per week, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. PROJECT LOCATION: Intersection of Daly Lane and Carriageway Roads. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Town of Snowmass Village will be reconstructing the snow melted section of the concrete on Daly Lane between the Pokolodi Lodge and the Gateway building. The Town will also replace the snowmelt concrete on Carriageway Road between Daly Lane and the RFTA depot. (See attached construction drawings.) CONSTRUCTION STAGING: Upper Lot 6 will be used to store materials and equipment. Lower Lot 6 will be available for short-term public parking. ACCESS/TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: When the Carriageway snowmelt concrete is being replaced, this section of road will be closed. The Lower Village can be accessed from Wood and Lower Carriageway Roads, and the Upper Village can be accessed from upper Brush Creek Rd. Deliveries at the mall level can occur from the RFTA Depot. Except for limited times, only one lane will be closed to traffic on Daly Lane at one time. When the eastbound lane is under construction, access to the Gateway garage will be blocked. Deliveries can occur either from Daly Lane, the RFTA Depot, or Elbert Lane. Lower Lot 6 will be available for short-term parking. (See traffic control plan for details.) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Town staff, through newspaper ads, Town Web site and roadway signs, will inform the public about the project. Weekly construction updates will be emailed to the affected properties and anybody else who wants to be on the email list. Our initial public meeting will be held at 11 am, Wednesday, March 10, 2010. H Y f b O O V O V b N a W6 r 5' P l /fc/ Al 52 r a Oh O ti .r S w. 2 U h h w W W O °Q z oar a t 2 :p CA OL- Eli c w z I Li ICY A Y g g p E ii {r ee y pp y {Y o PH H� 3 o Ina a 080 Win a a tk 8 s p ¢yy is in pg q Y7 Fit$ I cc a g} 11 a 1 t J i ll o a N It nz once U ENO w Lo z a a MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: David Peckler Transportation Director DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Review Materials on Fare Subsidized Bus Service for EOTC Meeting I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: This is a discussion item and no action is necessary at this time. The materials for the next EOTC meeting regarding the fare subsidized bus are provided for your review. I have also included a report on the history of the EOTC expenditures since 1994. II. BACKGROUND: At the EOTC Retreat in August those present discussed the future use of EOTC funding and the reservation of 2/3 of those funds for the Entrance to Aspen (ETA) project. The three Snowmass Village representatives at the retreat voted 2 to 1 to agree with the proposal. At the last EOTC meeting the topic of discontinuing the fare subsidized bus service between Snowmass Village and Aspen was discussed. There not being a quorum for Snowmass Village there was no formal vote taken on the issue. In the subsequent EOTC budget resolutions approved by Pitkin County and the City of Aspen there is shown funding for the fare subsidized bus service to the end of the winter season and the 2/3 reservation for the ETA. The Town Council voted to approve only the revenues and expenditures proposed in the budget but not the 2/3 reservation for the ETA. Town Council wanted to revisit funding for the fare subsidized bus service and the amount dedicated for the ETA. III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The county' /2 cent sales and use taxes will only be spent on those transportation projects or services as agreed upon by all three jurisdictions. IV. DISCUSION ITEMS NEXT STEPS The following items have been provided for your review. A. A history of the EOTC expenditures since 1994 is included. Staff has made a rough attempt to assign expenditures to the three jurisdictions. Direct expenditures in a jurisdiction where assigned accordingly. Regional projects were assigned to the jurisdictions base on a RFTA origin and destination study of passengers from the Basalt Park and Ride to Rubey Park and Snowmass Village. B. The Final Draft of the EOTC memorandum has been includes as well as the attachments referenced therein. V. NEXT STEPS MAJOR MILESTONES Attend EOTC meeting on Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 4:00 pm in the Aspen City Council Chambers. VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Discussion Item only. ATTACHMENTS: Council Communique History of EOTC Funding 1994 to 2014 Draft EOTC Communique: Attachment A RFTA 2008/2009 YEAR -END RIDERSHIP COMPARISON REPORT Attachment B 2010 FREE AS -SM FREE SERVICE COST ESTIMATE Attachment C EOTC Transit Project Funding Warner Slide Presentation EOTC EOTC Transit Project Funding History 2005 -2009 BUDGET DETAIL Total Actual Actual Actual Actual Revised Proposed ACCUMULATIVE 1994 -2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL EOTC SOURCES: a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 47,277,881 3,349,000 3,349,000 3,399,000 3,450,000 3,502,000 3,555,000 67,881,881 b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 7,313,094 626,000 689,000 723,000 759,000 797,000 837,000 11,744,094 c) Grants 7,103,498 7,103,498 d) Investment income mist. 4,287,135 174,000 101,800 247,800 418,800 565,800 621,800 6,417,135 e) RFTA Loan Payment Relmbursement of expenditures 139 139 Total EOTC Sources 66,120 4 4 139 800 4 4 627 800 4,864,800 5 013 800 93,285,621 EOTC USES: 1) RTA Expand Service 1994 -2000 5,736,237 10% 5,736,237 6.6% 2) RTA Contribution 2001-04=48.04% then 81.04% 18,328,430 32% 2,714,030 2,714,030 2,754,550 2,795,880 2,838,021 2,880,972 35,025,913 40.5% 2) Use tax collection costs Pi kin 682,417 1% 113,878 126,549 132,876 139,520 146,496 153,821 1,495,557 1.7% 3) Project design, mgmt, admin Pitkin 1,241,324 2% 32,773 34,192 35,902 37,697 39,582 41,561 1,463,031 1.7% 4) Bus stop safe tyimprvs /cob ride in -lieu Aspen 85,831 0% 10,500 11,500 11,788 1Z, 082 12,384 12,694 156,779 0.2% 5) Federal funding consultant RTA 152,000 0% 152,000 0.2% 6) RFTA operating shortfall RTA 939,000 2% 939,000 1.1% 7) RFTA capital contributions: RTA 4 hybrid -electric buses 1,620,000 3% 1,620,000 1.9% Aspen BMF roof replacement other maintenance 225,000 0% 225,000 0.3% -Aspen BMF Sewer Hookup 165,000 0% 165,000 0.2% Bus grant match 250,000 0% 250,000 0.3% 8) X -Games transit subsidy All 190,000 0% 50,000 50,000, 50,000 50,000 390,000 0.5% 9) Garfield County regional traffic pattern study All 30,000 0% 30,000 0.0% New Century Trans. Foundation All 282,000 282,000 0.3% 9) SHIT Water Bus Stop -Aspen 0.0% 10) Maroon Creek Bridge engineering Aspen 1,368,417 2% 1,368,417 L6% 11) Buttermilk Roundabout Design 659,843 659,843 0.8% Buttermilk Roundabout Construction 7 ,385,358 934,799 8,320,157 9.6% 12) Main Street Transit Lanes 104,489 104,489 0.1% 13) Brush Creek Parking Design All 182,375 0% 182,375 0.2% Brush Creek Parking Construct. I II All 927,568 2% 927,568 1.1% Brush Creek Parking Annual Opera ting Cost -Aspen 54,132 0% 30,000 25,000 26,000 27,040 28,122 29,246 219,540 03% 14) 5 RFTA buses (debt service '94-00 then by RFTA) 944,361 2% 944,361 1.1% 15) Loan to RFTA for Purchase of 10 buses 0.0% 15) Expanded RFTA bus service to Snowmass DV 0% 0.0% RFTA Efficiency Study 36,500 36,500 0.0% RFTA BRT Implementation Plan 200,000 200,000 0.2% 16) Snowmass Transit Center Design Snowmass 581,644 1% 6,430,165 7,011,809 8.1% 17) Brush Creek Study Pitkin 135,428 0% 135,428 0.2% 18) No-Fare Aspen- Snowmass Study 20,000 20,000 0.0% No-Fare Aspen Snowmass Service 227,397 428,964 583,866 613,080 643,734 675,921 709,717 3,882,699 4.5% 19) No-Fare Woody Creek 430 2,610 2,741 2,878 3,021 3,172 14,852 0.0% 20 Airport intercept lot construction Aspen 798,063 1% 798,063 09% 21) Airport intercept lot shuttle service '95 -98 Aspen 782,885 1% 782,885 0.9% 22) Intercept lot maintenance Aspen 50,026 0% 50,026 0.1% 23) Entrance -to -Aspen design /engineering Aspen 319,585 1% 319,585 0.4% Reevaluation ETA FEIS 197,890 197890 0.2% Public Process ETA 87,932 87,932 0.1% 24) Aspen reimbursements -Aspen 113,824 0% 113,824 0.1% 25) Aspen roundabout Aspen 90,802 0% 90,802 0.1% 25) ROWpre- acquisition coats -RFRHA 400,240 1% 400,240 0.5% 27) ROW acquisition EOTC 56% share -RFRHA 1,624,000 3% 1,624,000 1.9% 28) ROW acquisition grants RFRHA 5,593,075 10% 5,593,075 6.5% 29) RFRHA budget share 1,552,801 3% 1,552,801 1.8% 30) RFRHA CIS 6 enhanced public process contrib. 700,504 1% 700,504 0.8% 31) RFRHA/RTA CIS grant exp 1,984,822 3% 1,984,822 2.3% 32) Regional Transit Authority formation RTA 125,000 0% 125,000 0.1% 33) RFRHA CIS advance RFRHA 0.0% Total EOTC Uses 57,156 1 84 4 335 374 3,547,767 3 626 937 3,708,831 3 743 547 10 261,348 86 100% 86 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) 186,374 592,033 742,863 918,969 1,121,253 (5,247,548) EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUSI DEFICI 8,964,421 8,778,047 9,370,080 10 112,943 11,031,912 12,153,165 6,905,617 RFTA SUPPORT RTA 28,721,528 50% 2,714,030 2,714,030 2,754,550 2,795,880 2,838,021 2,680,972 45,419,012 53% RFRHA -RTA 11,855,442 21% 11,855,442 14% ASPEN 12,099,077 21% 975,299 36,500 37,788 39,122 40,506 41,940 13,270,232 15% PITKIN COUNTY COLLECTION MAINT. 2,059,169 4% 146,651 160,741 168,778 177,217 186,078 195,382 3,108,868 4% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 581,644 1% 6,430,165 7,011,809 8% REGIONAL PROJECTS All (X- Games, Brush CRK 1,839,340 3% 499,394 636,496 665,821 696,612 678,942 712,889 5,714,642 7% Parking, New Century Garfield Traffic Study No-Fare Aspe- Snowmass) TOTAL EOTC USES 57,156,200 100% 4,335,374 3,547,767 3,626,937 3,708,831 3,743,547 10,261,348 86,380,005 100% 86,380,005 ALLOCATION OF RFTA, RFRHA AND REGIONAL TO JURISDICITONS BASED ON MARCH 2004 RFTA RIDERSHIP ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY JURISDICTION'S DIRECT BENEFIT. RFTA RIDERSHIP ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY BY JURISDICTION ASPEN 43.0% WITHOUT INTERCEPT LOT ASPEN 45.4% PITKIN COUNTY 38.2% PITKIN COUNTY 34.8% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 18.8% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 19.9% 1994 -2008 2009 2010 2011 ASPEN 30,338,090 53.1% 2,357,071 54.4% 1,477,226 41.6% 1,508,548 41.6% PITKIN COUNTY COLLECTION MAINT. 18,262,199 32.0% 1,374,179 31.7% 1,440,642 40.6% 1,475,360 40.7% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 8555,910 15.0% 604,124 13.9% 629,899 17.8% 643,030 17.7% Cross Check 57,156,200 100.0% 4,335,374 100.0% 3,547,767 100.0% 3,626,937 100.0% ACCUMULATIVE Continued 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL ASPEN 1,540,894 41.5% 1,552,800 41.5% 1,587,300 15.5% 40,355,543 46.7% PITKIN COUNTY COLLECTION MAINT. 1,511,349 40.8% 1,529,558 40.9% 1,568,237 15.3% 27,170,703 31.5% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 656,588 17.7% 661,189 17.7% 7,105,811 69.2% 18,853,759 21.8% Cross Check 3,708,831 100.0% 3,743,547 100.0% 10,261,348 100.0% 86,360,005 100.0% 3/8/2010 1994 to 2014 EOTC Funding Allocation.xls DRAFT MEMORANDUM DRAFT TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: David Peckler Transportation Director DATE: March 18, 2010 SUBJECT: Reconsider Funding the Fare Subsidized Service Connecting Aspen Snowmass Village I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town of Snowmass Village (Town) respectfully requests that the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) reconsider the decision to discontinue financial support for the replacement of fare revenues and increased operating costs of RFTA in providing fare subsidized transit service (FS Service) between Aspen and Snowmass Village. The Town is making this request based on the latest ridership data from RFTA. To continue the FS Service through the rest of 2010 requires an appropriation of $296,040 from the projected $893,198 surplus in 2010. The Town Council supports the major portion of the surplus being designated for the Entrance to Aspen (ETA) project in the future consistent with the August 2009 retreat. After reviewing the budget with annual surplus figures the Town sees the opportunity to both reserve for the Entrance to Aspen (ETA) and fund the FS Service with a modified cost allocation in the next three years and reaching a 2/3 allocation in 2013 for the ETA. II. BACKGROUND: The FS Service is currently financed through April 11, 2010. The Town Council makes this request based on the success of the FS Service as noted in the 2008 to 2009 RFTA ridership comparison (see Attachment A). The comparison shows that ridership on the Snowmass Village -to -Aspen direct service increased by a staggering 51.5% compared to a decline in the Highway 82 Corridor of 17.7 RFTA projected the 2010 annual fare subsidy would cost $578,761. This projection includes the fare increase that RFTA has instituted and $80,000 to cover increased service hours /miles for backup at the Intercept Lot for potential overloading (see Attachment B). This annual cost projection is now the baseline for FS Service into the future. At the EOTC retreat held in August the factor of 2/3 of the available funding was proposed to be reserved for the remaining portion of the ETA ($11.26 million for this project has been spent year -to- date). The Town would like to propose alternative factors that would preserve both the FS Service into the future as well as making contributions to the ETA (see Attachment C). The benefits that the Town sees to the region from the FS Service are presented below. IIII. DISCUSION ITEMS: The ridership trends in the RFTA comparison show that the FS Service has performed as projected in the Warner Report presented to the EOTC (see Warner Presentation Slides). The success of the FS Service in the worst of economic times demonstrates the public's positive perception and potential to support the traffic management goals in both the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Snowmass Village (SV) Comprehensive Plan. The Town Council believes there are many benefits that FS Service provides to the EOTC jurisdictions outside of traffic reduction: Preliminary comparison of 2008/2009 RFTA ridership shows a 51.5% increase in the SM -Aspen Direct service, a 17.8% decline in the Valley Service, and a 11.7% decline in the RFTA service overall (some of the decline may be in response to the RFTA fare increase). Ridership between SV, the Intercept lot and Aspen increased 4.07% overall. This confirms the potential ridership growth projected in the Warner Report. The increase in transit ridership between SV and Aspen projected in the regression analysis in the Warner Report points to environmental benefits for SV and Aspen. If only 40% of the increased ridership (overall percent with access to a car) ride the bus rather then drive between SV and Aspen, then 5.3 tons of CO2 emissions can be avoided in the winter season. 40% of the ridership that could move by car would represent an additional 65 cars searching for parking. Development of structured parking for 65 cars at today's costs would be $3,250,000 not including the land costs. The success of the Free Skier Shuttle and free local services has created an environment where 71 of our visitors and 53% of our residents chose not to have a car. Integrating FS Service into the equation enhances our image as an auto free community and makes the alternatives in our vision statements more of a reality. The free movement between the communities enhances their market appeal. The "Power of Four" marketing plan of the Aspen Skiing Company uses the ski areas as a whole to be more competitive. Free and seamless transit service between the communities can strengthen their appeal as well. The FS Service benefits both communities. The Warner Report observed that "broad based funding seems suitable." It was speculated that "people stay in Snowmass a couple of extra hours after the lift closes." However, the survey data is more accurate: "The biggest users during the non -ski hour period are people staying in Snowmass (Village) who dine out or shop in Aspen." An economic study by SV confirms the data as well: "Most expenditures by Snowmass Village residents and guests occur in Aspen." This can be as high as 60 cents of every dollar going to Aspen. Providing FS Service ensures the reduction of drunk drivers in both communities. Comparison of Average Daily Traffic volume (ADT) data for 2008 and 2009 shows a 2.9% reduction in ADT. The 5.7% ridership reduction on Aspen city routes and 17.7% decline in Highway 82 Corridor ridership appear to have had a minimal impact on the general traffic volume. This suggests that efforts need to be made in changing the behavior of people who have a vehicle at their disposal, particularly in the upper valley. Residents of deed restricted housing in both communities are key beneficiaries of the FS service. Their work and recreational mobility is greatly increase by FS service, and they are the users that can least afford the TDM pricing or fare increases. V. NEXT STEPS MAJOR MILESTONES FS Service is only funded until April 11, 2010. Agreement on continuing the service and the fraction to designate for the Entrance to Aspen must be made at this meeting. VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF EOTC The Town is proposing a modified budget that provides an adequate surplus to fund the fare subsidized bus service and the Entrance to Aspen project with a 7/16, 1/2, 5/8 allocation to the Entrance to Aspen project in the years 2010 to 2012. Beginning in the year 2013 the allocation can be set at the 2/3 with adequate reserve for the fare subsidized bus service. ATTACHMENT A RFTA 2008/2009 YEAR -END RIDERSHIP COMPARISON REPORT 2008 DAYS WITH LEAP YEAR 366 2008 DAYS WINTER W LEAP YEAR 139 2009 DAYS 365 2009 DAYS WINTER 138 2008 2009 AVERAGEAVERAGE I. CITY OF ASPEN 2008 2009 VARI DAILY DAILY VARI YEAR ROUND ASPEN 957,182 902,293 -5.73% 2,615 2,472 -5.48% SEASONAL ASPEN 238,529 192,077 19.47% TOTAL CITY OF ASPEN 1,195,711 1,094,370 8.48% 3,267 2,998 -8.22% DAILY DAILY II. VALLEY SERVICE ONLY 2008 2009 VARI 2,008 2,009 VARI HWY 82 CORRIDOR 1,824,622 1,500,874 17.74% 4,985 4,112 17.52% SM -DV 65,036 52,019 20.02% 178 143 19.80% WOODY CREEK 8,199 6,636 19.06% 22 18 18.84% TOTAL VALLEY ONLY 1,897,857 1,559,529 17.83% 5,185 4,273 17.60% DAILY DAILY III. SNOW VLG INTECEPT -ASPEN 2008 2009 VARI 2,008 2,009 VARI SM- INTERCEPT 102,181 138,669 35.71% TOSV /BC &82 NO SUMMER IN'09 115,363 51,208 55.61% SUB -TOTAL 217,544 189,877 12.72% 594 520 12.48% ISM-ASPEN DIRECT 126,282 191,372 51.54% 909 1,387 52.64% SKI CO SNOW 332,169 295,872 10.93% 2,390 2,144 10.28 TOTAL SNOW VLG 675,995 677,121 0.17% 3,893 4,051 4.07% DAILY DAILY IV. GRAND HOGBACK RIDEGLENWOOD 2008 2009 VARI 2,008 2,009 VARI RIFLE GLENWOOD 105,459 89,391 15.24% 288 245 15.00% DAILY DAILY V. OTHER 2008 2009 VARI 2.008 2,009 VARI SKI CO LESS SNOW VLG 229,809 202,567 11.85% 1,653 1,468 11.22% RIDE GLENWOOD 526,710 453,233 13.95% 1,439 1,242 13.71% MAA TO SENIOR VAN 222,184 210,195 -5.40% 607 576 -5.14% TOTAL OTHER 978,703 865,995 11.52% 3,699 3,285 11.19% GRAND TOTAL 4,853,725 4,286,406 11.69% 13,262 11,744 11.45% ATTACHMENT B 2010 FREE AS -SM FREE SERVICE COST ESTIMATE (With $1 Increase in Cash Fare by Zone Fall 2009) SEASON DAYS COST /DAY COST /SEASON 1 1ST WINTER 101 2,188 221,027 2 SPRING 56 862 48,295 3 SUMMER 92 862 79,342 4 FALL 79 862 68,130 5 2ND WINTER 37 2,215 81,966 6 TOTAL 365 N/A 1 $498,761 7 Additional Back -up Service Estimate 80,000 8 Total Annual Cost 578,760.93 9 Winter Season Only 302,994 10 Additional Back -up Service 80,000 11 Total 382,994 12 Summer Season Only 79,342 13 Winter Summer Seasons Only 462,336 x N_ [b a) a) LL t U O O o o V (O to N O N O C3),' CO o 0 o N CN et.: O O N O N 004 V':. O O O C) NCO O) V (O h 00 h r r' CO U? o o In 00. m O O h N to pct< CT ro Z c OOMc W toCD NrCl et rr O) tD tf) M Cl) V: OOCAOM?q w (4 r Co h N d• M N m o o M M Co O'.- h Co. N L6 h O r h to N j O b Cl) N M00 O met: M. Oh? W u")M WrO m N l0 00 COO <t 00 h N :,LPL a) O d'.: In O 00 ICJ O r U Z M to (DN O11, rCO, c0 Nrr%47 C) LU o OOOO ON V N W ret 2O, [o 0 0 o Co OO O: OO TCDCO'O OOOO m 00 00 N N 00 N CO, to 00 CO OM O OONh00- N Q C M OOW c 'ct to M r O Q) CD (0 N .-LO LO r C)O. N. OOc C)O ';N U M r 04 P- MT COON 00 M T Mh lo: O M00' M Nh00OMf,C' a 0 O 0) CO CO V M r N Cl) co M ,Cit N M tl CO. to'. O O M CO n N to h to c0 00 O h r6 r V M 'It In h W it CJ r Q M 4 N M N (O Lo M N r r 0000 ohNO o o et o ca° rn o o Lo ov m OOOOOFa 0) 0 0 0 C) N Cn m o rr o 0o r-- m to b o o CO O et O o 0o N O r O O cq cq Lo (O o c c cq O: In "t r N O et O O M r N oa$ t r O m W h o) h N 0 h u'J 00 N M W O Cl) 0 0 Io M M'FC O M to N M M r Lo N CA M O N` et: M 00 0) cr to to O) r co 0. N 113: h CO h t0 h C V 00 V d' h het CO PO) Cl) V N Cl) aw CO d' M OOOO CON000 O O C) rCf)) C) o 0 0 (n to y� O: OO OO ICJ O 0000 hO 00 C) O tO CA V) CO Lq o V? O Nom' N' OOCOION N c c M cc 00 C h O o Lo CD h to N' LO N r h W. In O O Lo et h CN c r 0) ('M h O N Lo r O CO V ti N 00 M O M O. et': cr M ct h M !a r CA Nlzt (D M M r Lo N U') O N N Cl) 00 (O O N LLO (D 00 f° CD Q. C14 MhNM h O CO r et CD CD. MhhCl) Q Cl) V N Cl) O (O Cl). M N r 1 y ca r a O O O O MNO O O O r O NE LO o 0 o In h0) r 000 CD hP�r L w OOOO et OOO O M CD r �A, O CD Mt- N OO Cl) h Cl) 40' O C) O O 00 oo to r 4J O O O h O CD N o o r r N .r• T C C o C) N t! C a) 0) O g C1 CD et r O U) of 00 N N h` LO O O tom" h' C) W e} M C) h 1 'p O et 0O O M N M r ICJ N r h et Di; h M h N r: et 00 r N 3 N Cl) CD r r r h If) N U)" M et to C) M CO h cl N :C=• m M et N C4 T. t0 N M N r W" O O O O M Cl) O O O O M V' N Io M C) C) V¢ h o 0 0 (o N sr- OOOO hhOO O MM V' (D et0MI- d"- OoCO CO 00 IN Q w O O O C W h (o O O O h h O CJ M c V M C�" o I- LO r O (a C) O MNOO O V V (Od O)00O LO c 6 M O O O It N h V r M r (n M M W V h r N M h' M p 7 N M co r r h Cn r r Cl h M' CD m M N V W sp OWN W k r O r m CV E o oa)rno w o O o o U O U o Z v). v (h E m= C M N M O O O m' G aS 06 N CO ca N r r r c) C U m N o c r v w N a) :off AM LL 0 1 1 LL W C N N U U U U U Z F-'. In Q N In U t `0m°�\icaZia�iaZia�ia�ia) U y No o N O m r N N N N N •1 w .0 O O w- W N N N N CL 3 3 0 0 o E c c t6 Q x E n o�� a o n G7F Q (4 3 r c m o r C. L O c x L j o m c c E o n n n n uJ Z o CL U) n m a n v c w w(n m M(n LCI; O c c 'c 2. I i c ca N N E z 06 'D x x n o o CO (6 N N N .a J F U O W O O O 0-11 2. m n U, n n om a E E E E E Y tl a) Q `o w c a o UT, NN o (°�m��mmr°�oOOOOOaoi m Z� c1°i o �,xox°�0L)im w C E Y Y a c C c c c C C Q rn O a) 2 C O N N O N E CA O c U Cn N o (n (n fn CA (D ll rn (4 U O a) o U c L. LL U v U c c n 0 c Wo c c c c c w E w e Q ;c U) m ca Inc o Q Q c C7 c c 0 'FO c 00)) a a)) U) CL CL CL o. CL o L- 6 w .N F �n c o o ff C o a) h N C Y N N N N (n c a) a) Z o o a)(n U-o Q� U) o. QQQQQ� .L, o U a w o 0NN c LLFz U U E c c o E U U E o a) 0" a) Z o c; Err o �q 'c w a o N w o tQ- 4.2 —T T T w- w� o o w �0 (r o c Q a) o CY E tL c n o c U c LL o 0 0 0 0 0 o a) a) Q Co a) c c LL o c F� E W �dmXmm(A�mZZZZZZ N'Q` U' m N c m e "m •c.. 0 0 ow d o a) w U c m Q n Q. .Co Cc UUt) >Q N.a U p �NM V lo Or W6)O�NMet' OOO O. m U Z C ,G .E; C �c Y N F- r r l- w L� t.t_ I1LL Ul IL d Z 0 0 N M �A V F--i b O. o 11 11 U twists won C� s_ Cn v a� c O -i A t .,'a o U� I'l "way t �s� y— Cn. to f 1 0 Q W �N E �121`1,�"_"Yll­ I WANO"VAN" ASTASS, VqKQ,1Xv;�"vT% 'yinsl sANTIT ,"111 "-,&W,W' 'T "I'll nwr,;�,,��5"' I 11 �,,�-��,�""",x,-""-"�<',�,,""-,���:,-, 'A,", ­�­�,_­,��'v',­',1111'� "'�,-����,�',,,'�',,_,,",��,�,�,,,--��'I'�',�,�,,��,,-�""�-�', ',',,,,�,,�,',,"�,,�",�'I'�r��,��,�', e�,, ��'r,',_,,�,, ,,�,,,-,�-�,�,�,,,,,,�,,�"",'�r�,,��,,,��-,',-,,',�,,,,, 1 ��-,'�>",,,,,�,N� istoct I �Xfov. .mTUAN YZ aNA, lal�­­,� 0311,111 ��o- __1 I 0 1> a d", I IT! -111,111:,-,"" Lop qo:n-,,� 7 Q Ln O N o o: it- u N 4- O Q V L (a -O: s. N U u) t� N cn t,1„ 7 Q o Ot" ,c� S- T- Q N L- N plogf, O A.Q�V,,�',­,,��,� LAW? I 01, WO r fmc Cn W 11 2 O O CU p Q.+ d' N Q N a� Q V 0 u ca k; nywh go 5 57 U Q A TUT LOAN AN51APTA iss I-4 LL Ul r� h: M'' ME, _,_,�,111,11 '21611 ;777777 O' _­�'11'11' '__',___,____l '11,,�"',�,,�,,�,,�,,��,,�"",:""", i� A -1 skova",` I ll,c U to xnna"-WM, 111 �F I I I I -`,,:',',!'­'_,,',-,,l' ­­111,11­ 11 N e', -'s", Q ­_­,­��,,�:s -,,�',,��,,,,-,,,"-""�,,':I�,",��,-',',,,,',,','� -1, I­e �,�Z_ _:��_�­,�_�,­,'W.m�. _,,',',,',,__­­l c �l,:,��,-',',�,',-,;,"""-,.��,��"",-""","",",;""","", 11 -0, 0 o I 1'�� j! I N ,,X Rf O m o v` I'll N L A O I',' V to O ISSIM T' U r- E 3 y"y �Jxnx r O C6 o v N 'too O U 3t: O (Cf 11- U c�a OWKINT a B 1 I U Q� 1'� O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o d- c� S &AW a is�,�ll""--,-"�,11-�l-",��,,,-,-�-,,�,,,�,,,-,,,,,,-,/",-,"" ,,�,'�"M,,,-��,,-,,,-,,�,,,,�,�,,,�/"�-,,-,,,,,�,,,--I;:-�,�2m wo Own: MAP -Y son ao 0 0� o N c i Z Cl) N O) LL LL WNU O C� ASIAN list 12 W Tom N O ee_ c CD L Q U_ U) O 10RAT WIN L N m vivo- Raw Q L L U) Co CL �Co d W. lox a "ANT I MY C1,4 O U 1 1 TAP Q I to WAR W }�y ASS Who a� M wooly 1; Mini QW940% ANN REHM oil TDIT pill Wool hot O lt 10115 L U O O O O O O O O O O O O O as ui vi N Lon I c o cfl j 2 C 0) v, r� 11 O C� O N o .Q o G1 Lt. �O m 00 n O p N o a 11 CL m Z L E Q`. a� F- 11 v� c C M i a� E o C 11-1 Q O d U` I" I i o I �j W Nr` M 11, U .0 °o i c 11 V s �l v I o 0 o a o o d N O (V CO op O O l L L 11 11 L:. >C� Q I I 2w I 11 I I 11 I I z' 1- 1 Q, t/� I I I I- I I -11-11 1, I I I C I, ''I'll I -11 I 1, I I I "I I 'e I" 'Z' I :1 I I I I I I I I I I'll, 1, 1, g g 11 o o d 1,' o .0 t N N 1 Y N N N °i LL LL 1 M ��1� 1 1 I W I W Q d" 9 ung ung ,11 i j F S L S 11 N 333 11 M i:: .s co I 11 z 1, el 11, 1 L 1 L M 3 i� 'I= M 3 1 1 I t i W W 22 �C Cv1 I;= �C g ung t ung 11 ''I',-,,, 7,, ir,, 0 g C� 1 I N 3 N i N i 1 0 M 3 1: M 3 1 C� 1 0 1 Q c w c i w 11 S" s N S d S Q y N d 1 a M 3 11-11, 3 f' 3 M LL 1 m 11 11 W W LL i 11 ,i,,. v.S,, a,...,. unS ung S S 11 -11 a I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u� o in o o o L" o w o o V M M N N M M N N I"'-- -l"," ya j 00 40 c Lf) LO LO O V j (Y) L) i c rti bo 0 0 L U O 00 0) rd x Q CD o ti o LL w T O Mrs O 5� r o 00 u N Ch LO N kD V un to O C U U o cn a) 0 o o a 0 0 U Q 0 0 e ,�a 00 00 a�. Q d N N 11 s: U .T l O to 11 o o o o U ti 00: o C� 11 11 N (o 11, O Q o �H .M" LL O a� a� o o o� 0 c� 11 o o o a� L 0 11 -11 I 11 0 11 11 "I I I I "I I Ott ''I, —0 _�Q ��Y"­ I "I STA NSA A I-` "I", I" I ­­11 -1 11 I I 11 I "I I W n."",", A,, ""I", ""Il","""""� l""""llll'l" I l'I 'l, I l"' l "I' l I l 'I ;�,"11": I, O O I OO N N N 1 WIN LL U c 3 I -1111, cn V O. r U m 6` 0 v 11 1­111,11, 1. V cu cn N i o c N I a� VI A -i 11 c.. VVY&ANY fn U`` a� -f-+ cu `i? N t6 U p r 0 V z �,n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti N v, it so ivmmotooEtate2at O m tigmAkof ,,_,I:_,_"-,- M 11 i U.. 0- 9 Of CO N ch t� CO o0 CO tC) N 1 I -f d 11 s v_� I I I A "'i"! l Ow JIMM YNT I.� v, co 11 L: -11 11 11 C N.. ":"C 11 Q ..;r: 1 I e­,,"_�, I 11 "I NOT ''T �""O SLOW 1, ivhtyt;allzo7,,t,oZia AV it 1 W­ wa Q 11� �'11 -��",�i 030 `,:"­",i%',,­� 1_­�,;�,­,, �,,�QW TAMONS I -�_nvt AN Tv"M j��"",-,-,, ,,,,,,,,,v_,,-,,-,"',� mow jyj�PSOT"Wn Qtztov ±KIYh,iOMQQQQ&jKIQQAS 70jvx 4�pi y 1 _'I", ,z Tlacol, 41 W� AQVI� van"'," 'I'll �11' I" 1. ­Ie, 1,; 1� ,"I I I, "I l f "I ��,n "I 1'1�1' MY "I', :V_,,,,, ,,-,,,,,_,o,-,,�, o 11"", '1�1 __�11,?*!"',:1,01_1_1 :i �,,,,,,'�­;_i�­, _,__��,l �5 V "ONT, �`,�,,i�','_,",:�­ 1, z �e A loot&TI4"--""",,-"'""' ,­e'­­ -'­­",­­o`-­� 11 �`i'­e� I I Z" i-,"', I wn, f I ­�o I 11 1 I I I I I ''I 11 11 I "�'--,,,'­_o,, ,11 "I 1 -11 -I' I'll __'_11-11" i,' -'l, "I, ""I"," "I w M I "I"I'l 1 "I" 11 -o -11 1-1-111- I 1�­ I 11 I ""i"',,""', �,­1_1_­11_­­'II_I Q C/) U') d' N tCf U d' L.0 d O o 0 0 0 L U r 00 M U) U cn 0 _o o co c a� r o 'i'�:i' I 'Q 11 -1, 'i E t E Q E o O 11 o 0 D 11 N (h L o p tC c� o N N od 0 o r 11 N C r 1- 3 ti 1 ch o C7 C o U) U a) O p ccn U co c O c C O cA O p O Q C O N O p ca Q O 00 O 11 G1 o C C L L o CO (O O o E 11 L d I'll 11 N co 11 z 0 lw V s c' N mo Rf 1, i C) ti U t') .0 o In 0 0 N� N o0 a 3 I le 0, y o C N N 0 I I a 11 "a p t 4- c 1 I �l" ""�'-'���-�I'll"!" r -1-+ .v a� c N CJ O p Clz 0 aD U) a) o o 0, o U) o ��l"",�""","�,',,"�,/�',',�,,,'�'i�'. o L a� Q o ANS Ply AT WOMAN Wiliv to di CU o ai III NMI c Ln Ln v r 41 (n FINITE RAW 0 6 spot 450: its TIVA" r° Q Q Q co LP Ln malmAy nos W", age AMA too c c cv cts N wN cn FAA y MEMOS, r re r ea r ra t: Pw s� m ma ±•t rn aft'114Y slakfa oMLI a0slo 'Runs t a lu[yd Wnsdt�c 1: O 8 f e-S [4 i M e'a ll1 R 3HA m o r iti ci it ui ssr rri ai o ei MIAMI r r SAW MOD UIEqu ICON �1 as m ax r ca to y3 rf 2i Ni 7+i a GP r r tl M g its +D h 110 d11'4{fS1U UO°,}6IC� yt19U 11 o a r v st w 0 :45 10 31 1 TIES 9 7: aG m r '55 t IF 1 11 'BPIB tunno 016. OPINu.y1CJ514quity_ 24 F5 Qz r r M R US N il'4 Jd t"- 4R r U a r 013an S .tme win g x 7 k MIT Wnwagy n 3 o w it} t8 T a o a a sss as as o op L s; ev u5 ra +s in ry T a zz r rai ci c *r u�5 us ec ui isi p n ME SWAM "L t s �r a l e �r f+''t' of r ry es 1o� —H ,e1jCVrjE 14 x 4; N4 ss as JIM g G PH a[ k ?snftGp *e x *t x K se sc (pedapl jequaa uo1vodsuejjHe Tr r CV M *F 4 t15 �G f1d el3 r G*9 gi too 1 r 56 K W9 t+l 6y 1Yf �e NS LR r 'tL 0�clllstc9S K sv ens T a mS e9 sn m,a su EMS ,pad Uuk*"Oae :-OUD� JIM ISON o t6 imp MIT �„r r r r Alto TWO I I I 11 �l I ll� -1, 1-��Ill""""""""",�,�,�""I'll",I '11'1��I� "I tl� L a 0 `,.R3 I'll 117 L 1 O 11 I 11- 1: 1 0. 0 A 1 C, 1- 11 to tt' 11 I 'l 11 o` v 1-1 11 11 stn N N 4- O: s.= to N Q p 11 to O N N Q V O 11 0� jm I'll (6 :0� O C.) 1, O (Q ClS` O N O to O O;: ti3 N L Q to U N i- N N O N 0.; i i to i i i i i i. O O U` 11 (a U EOTC Transit Project Funding History 2005 -2009 BUDGET DETAIL Total Actual Actual Act Actual Revised Proposed ACCUMULATIVE 1994 -2008 2009 2010 21 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL EOTC SOURCES: a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 47,277,881 3,349,000 3,349,000 3,399,000 3,450,000 3,502,000 3,555,000 67,881,881 b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 7,313,094 626,000 689,000 723,000 759,000 797,000 837,000 11,744,094 c) Grants 7,103,498 7,103,498 d) Investment income misc. 4,287,135 174,000 101,800 247,800 418,800 565,800 621,800 6,417,135 e) RFTA Loan Payment f Reimbursement of expenditures 139,013 139,013 Total EOTC Sources 66,120,621 4,149,000 4,139,800 4,369,800 4,627,800 4,864,800 5,013,800 93,285,621 EOTC USES: 1) RTA Expand Service 1994.2000 5,736,237 10% 5,736,237 6.6% 2) RTA Contribution 2001 -04= 48.04% then 81.04% 18,328,430 32% 2,714,030 2,714,030 2,754,550 2,795,880 2,838,021 2,880,972 35,025,913 40.5% 2) Use tax collection costs Pitkin 682,417 1 113,878 126,549 132,876 139,520 146,496 153,821 1,495,557 1.7% 3) Project design, mgmt, admin Pitkin 1,241,324 2% 32,773 34,192 35,902 37,697 39,582 41,561 1,463,031 1.7% 4) Bus stop safety imprvs /cob ride in -lieu Aspen 85,831 0% 10,500 11,500 11,788 12,082 12,384 12,694 156,779 0.27 5) Federal funding consultant RTA 152,000 0% 152,000 0.2% 6) RFTA operating shortfall RTA 939,000 2% 939,000 1.1% 7) RFTA capital contributions: RTA -4 hybrid electric buses 1,620,000 3% 1,620,000 1.9% -Aspen BMF roof replacement other maintenance 225,000 0% 225,000 0.3% -Aspen BMF Sewer Hookup 165,000 0% 165,000 0.2% Bus grant match 250,000 0% 250,000 0.3% 8) X -Games transit subsidy All 190,000 0% 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 390,000 0.5% 9) Garfield County regional traffic pattern study All 30,000 0% 30,000 0.0% New Century Trans. Foundation All 282,000 282,000 0.3% 9) Still Water Bus Stop -Aspen 0 0% 10) Maroon Creek Bridgeergineering Aspen 1,368,417 2% 1,368,417 1.6% 11) Buttermilk Roundabout Design 659,843 659,843 0.85. Buttermilk Roundabout Construction 7, ,385,358 934,799 8,320,157 9.6% 12) Main Street Transit Lanes 104,489 104,489 0.1% 13) Brush Creek Parking Design All 182,375 0% 182,375 0.2% Brush Creek Parking Construct. I II All 927,568 2% 927,568 1.1% Brush Creek Parking Annual Operating Cost Aspen 54,132 0% 30,000 25,000 26,000 27,040 28,122 29,246 219,540 027 14) 5 RFTA buses (debt service'94 -00 then by RFTA) 944,361 2% 944,361 1.1% 15) Loan to RFTA for Purchase of 10 buses 0.0% 15) Expanded RFTA bus service to Snowmass OV 0% 0.0% RFTA Efficiency Study 36,500 36,500 0.0% RFTA BRT Implementation Plan 200,000 200,000 0.2% 16) Snowmass Transit Center Design Snowmass 581,644 1 6,430,165 7,011,809 8.1%, 17) Brush Creek Study Pitkin 135,428 0% 135,428 0.2% 18) No -Fare Aspen Snowmass Study 20,000 20,000 0.0% No -Fare Aspen Snowmass Service 227,397 428,964 583,886 613,080 643,734 675,921 709,717 3,882,699 4.5% 19) No -Fare Woody Creek 430 2,610 2,741 2,878 3,021 3,172 14,852 0.0% 20 Airport intercept lot construction Aspen 798,063 1% 798,063 0.9% 21) Airport intercept lot shuttle service '95 -98 Aspen 782,885 1% 782,885 0.9% 22) Intercept lot maintenance Aspen 50,026 0% 50,026 0.1% 23) Entrance -to -Aspen design /engineering Aspen 319,585 1% 319,585 0.4% Pee valuation ETA FEIS 197,890 197,890 0.2% Public Process ETA 87,932 87,932 0.1% 24) Aspen reimbursements Aspen 113,824 0% 113,824 0.1% 25) Aspen roundabout Aspen 90,802 0% 90,802 0.1% 26) ROWpre- acquisition costs• RFRHA 400,240 1% 400,240 0.5% 27) ROW acquisition EOTC 56 share •RFRHA 1,624,000 3% 1,624,000 1.9% 28) ROW acquisition grants RFRHA 5,593,075 10% 5,593,075 6.5% 29) RFRHA budget share 1,552,801 3% 1,552,801 1.8% 30) RFRHA CIS& enhancedpublic process contrib. 700,504 1% 700,504 0.8% 31) RFRHA/RTA CIS grant exp 1,984,822 3% 1,984,822 2.3% 32) Regional Transit Authority formation RTA 125,000 0% 125,000 0.1 33) RFRHA CIS advance -RFRHA 0.0% Total EOTC Uses 57,156,200 1 84%1 4,335,374 3,547,767 3,626,937 3,708,831 3,743,547 1 10,261,348 86,380,005 100% EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS /(DEFICIT 186,374) 592,033 742,863 918,969 1,121,253 (5,247,548) 86,380,005 EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/ DEFICIT 8,964,421 8,778,047 9,370,080 10,112,943 11,031,912 12,153,165 6,905,617 RFTA SUPPORT RTA 28,721,528 50% 2,714,030 2,714,030 2,754,550 2,795,880 2,838,021 2,880,972 45,419,012 53% RFRHA RTA 11,855,442 21% 11,855,442 14% ASPEN 12,099,077 21% 975,299 36,500 37,788 39,122 40,506 41,940 13,270,232 15% PITKIN COUNTY COLLECTION MAINT. 2,059,169 4% 146,651 160,741 168,778 177,217 186,078 195,382 3,108,868 4% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 581,644 7% 6,430,165 7,011,809 8% REGIONAL, PROJECTS All (X- Games, Brush CRK 1,839,340 3 499,394 636,496 665,821 696,612 678,942 712,889 5,714,642 7% Parking, New Century Garfield Traffic Study No -Fare Aspe Snowmass) TOTAL EOTC USES 57,156,200 100% 4,335,374 3,547,767 3,626,937 3,708,831 3,743,547 10,261,348 86,380,005 100% 86,380,005 ALLOCATION OF RFTA, RFRHA AND REGIONAL TO JURISDICITONS BASED ON MARCH 2004 RFTA RIDERSHIP ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY+ JURISDICTION'S DIRECT BENEFIT. RFTA RIDERSHIP ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY BY JURISDICTION ASPEN 43.0% WITHOUT INTERCEPT LOT= ASPEN 45.4% PITKIN COUNTY 38.2% PITKIN COUNTY 34.8% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 18.8% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 19.9% 1994 -2008 2009 2010 2011 ASPEN 30,338,090 53.1% 2,357,071 54.4% 1,477,226 41.6% 1,508,548 41.6% PITKIN COUNTY COLLECTION MAINT. 18,262,199 32.0% 1,374,179 31.7% 1,440,642 40.6% 1,475,360 40.7% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 8,555,910 15.0% 604,124 13.9% 629,899 17.8% 643,030 17.7% Cross Check 57,156,200 100.0% 4,335,374 100.0% 3,547,767 100.0% 3,626,937 100.0% ACCUMULATIVE Continued 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL ASPEN 1,540,894 41.5% 1,552,800 41.5% 1,587,300 15.5% 40,355,543 46.7% PITKIN COUNTY COLLECTION MAINT. 1,511,349 40.8% 1,529,558 40.9% 1,568,237 15.3% 27,170,703 31.5% SNOWMASS VILLAGE 656,588 17.7% 661,189 17.7% 7,105,811 69.2% 18,853,759 21.8% Cross Check 3,708,831 100.0% 3,743,547 100.0% 10,261,348 100.0% 86,380,005 100.0% 3/8/2010 1994 to 2014 EOTC Funding Allocation.xls TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: RUSS FORREST, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: MARCH 15, 2010 Building Permit Activity /Stimulus for Small Projects in Snowmass Village Ian Long approached the Town Council to request a discussion on creating a short term stimulus for small residential construction projects. Staff met with Ian Long several times to discuss ideas for creating incentives for small remodel projects. His primary idea was to waive the excise tax for a period of six months. After reviewing the ballot language and the legal issues associated with that, staff concluded that waiving or providing a rebate for the excise tax was not something that could be recommended. The ballot language was very specific on the rate and methodology for excise tax calculation. Staff also discussed a rebate on building fees. However, Mr. Long did not believe that would be significant enough to generate new interest in construction. Pending Strategic Actions Last Updated March 8, 2010 Staff Action Status Date to follow -up w/ Contact Council Land Use Comp. Plan Comprehensive Comp Plan approved in first reading. The Complete 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 22 John Dresser Demolition Council asked that an ordinance be prepared April 19, 2010 to provide a period of time to review demolition permits before demolition of a building occurred. Council agreed that staff should develop language for future PUDs to identify critical integral components of a PUD that must 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 April 5, 2010 Code Issues also be considered with the completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would recommend having a work session with Council to review potential code changes. 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 nexus April 5, 2010 Department study and can begin to work with the Town on a new housing policy. The Planning Commission is also reviewing housing goals as part of the Comp. Plan review. Staff will schedule two agenda items based on the input from Council on October 6 (these could be on the same dates) which would be 1) policy 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 Excise April 19, 2010 Tax and its application Joe C Natural Disasters On 11/3/08 Council asked that staff further Complete. (Terri and Cost evaluate criteria for allowing some costs from Everest) Recovery in Deed property damage incurred by natural disasters Restricted For in deed restricted homes to be recovered Sale Housing upon the resale of the home. Examples of criteria discussed included: cap on recovery based on a (percent) value of the home and requirements for comprehensive insurance. Finance Marianne Credit Card Provide options and implications for allowing March 15, 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 15, 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 April 5, 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 April 19, 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 April 5, 2010 Susan process for city relationship creating a Sister City Relationshi Hunt, David, Pedestrian Staff should evaluate how to improve Complete 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 April 5, 2010 Russ Authority Council Susan Marketing, Follow -up on specific form and frequency for Complete Hamley Special Events& communication between Council and Board. Group Sales May require code change. Will review Thursday Board night series on April 5, 2010 5th DRAFT SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA APRIL 5, 2010 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 5:00 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: PLACE HOLDER FOR BOCC JOINT MEETING (Time: 90 Minutes) Item No. 5: SUMMER CONCERT SERIES PLANS FOR ALCOHOL SALES (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and comment on plans for Summer Concerts series. -Susan Hamley Item No. 6: DISCUSSION BUILDING 8 SPA IN BASE VILLAGE: (Time: 60 Minutes) REGARDING A PROPOSED MINOR PUD AMENDMENTS FOR BASE VILLAGE BUILDING 8 MOUNTAIN CLUB SPA ADDITION. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provided direction to determine findings and conditions in an ordinance for subsequent consideration at another meeting -Jim Wahlstrom Page (TAB Item No. 7: SUMMARY OF LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and comment on he list of proposed Land Use Code Amendments. -Chris Conrad Item No. 8: PROCESS FOR SISTER CITIES (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide directions if applicable on next steps. 04-05-1 OTC Agenda Page 2 of 2 -Susan Hamley /Lesley Compagnone Item No. 9: SCOPE OF WORK FOR URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITUY (Time: 45 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction to staff on next steps. -Russ Forrest Item No. 10 MANAGER'S REPORT (Time: 10 minutes) Russell Forrest ...........................Page (TAB Item No. 11: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ..............................P g (TAB a e Item No. 12: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR: ..............................Page AB Item No. 13: COUNCIL COMMENTS /COMMITTEE REPORTS /CALENDARS Page (TAB Item No. 14: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approx 4 and 30 minutes (excluding items 1 -3 and 9 —10) 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. PLEASE JOIN TOWN COUNCIL FOR A SOCIAL AT TASTER'S AFTER TONIGHT'S MEETING. (If the Meeting ends before 9:00 p.m.) 1 2 SNOWMASS VILLAGE 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 4 MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2010 5 6 CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. 7 Mayor Boineau called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town 8 Council on Monday January 4, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. 9 10 Item No. 1 ROLL CALL 11 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis Council Members Mordkin and Butler arrived late 12 COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All council members were present. 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest, Town Manger; John Dresser, Town 15 Attorney; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; 16 Marianne Rakowski, Finance Director; Chris Conrad, 17 Planning Director; Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner; 18 David Peckler, Transit Manager; Lesley 19 Compagnone, Public Relations Director; Rhonda B. 20 Coxon, Town Clerk 21 PUBLIC PRESENT: Madeleine Osberger, Carolyn Purvis, Bob Purvis, 22 Donna Aiken, Bob Sirkus, Mary Beth Blake, Doug 23 Casebeer, Mel Blumenthal, Page Shuck, Susan 24 Cross, Mary Lou Farrell, Sally Sparhawk and other 25 members of the Public interested in items on Today's 26 Agenda. 27 Item No. 2 PUBLIC NON AGENDA ITEMS 28 Mel Blumenthal of PTRAB thanked the Council Members and members of the Public 29 that attended the reception hosted by PTRAB and sponsored by the Viceroy Hotel. He 30 noted it was very well attend and enjoyed by all. 31 32 Item No. 3 COUNCIL UPDATES 33 01 -04 -1 OTC Minutes Page 2 of 9 34 There were no Council updates at this time. 35 36 AT 4:10 p.m. 37 Council Member Butler arrived. 38 39 Council Member Butler inquired about the snowmelt system at the Mall. In response 40 Town Manager Russ Forrest noted he has spoken to the Property Owner regarding the 41 danger, he also noted this is not Town Property. 42 43 Item No. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 03, SERIES OF 2010 -INTERVIEW AND APPOINT 44 BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS 45 The Town Council interviewed the applicants for each board. Only two boards had 46 more people applying than open positions. The Town Council voted and Peter Moore 47 was appointed to the Marketing, Group Sales and Special Events Board and Bob 48 Purvis, Donna Aiken, Tom Yocum and Robert Sirkus were appointed to the Planning 49 Commission. Julie Ann Woods was not able to attend the meeting and was not 50 appointed to a Board at this time. 51 52 Town Council chooses to wait until Council Member Mordkin arrives to vote on 53 Resolution No. 3, Series of 2010. 54 55 At this time Mayor Boineau thanked Tom Yocum for all the hard work in providing a new 56 amenity for the Town of Snowmass Village which is the ice skating rink. He noted there 57 have been a lot of positive comments from the community. 58 59 Tom Yocum a resident of Snowmass Village noted labor would probably cost $20,000 60 and that is all being provided by volunteers at this time. He feels more marketing and a 61 sign at the rink would be beneficial, there will probably not be rental skates this year but 62 may look into it for the future. 63 64 Mel Blumenthal a part time resident of Snowmass Village spoke to having 65 grandchildren in town and had no skates, possibly the marketing board could look in to 66 a rental programs as this could be a big tourist market. 67 68 Item No. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 4 SERIES OF 2010 -GRANTS 69 Citizens Grant Review Board Mary Lou Farrell provided Town Council a brief review of 70 how the Citizen Grant Review Board comes up with the recommendations provided to 71 Town Council. Farrell spoke to the criteria and Deputy Clerk Donna Garcia Spaulding 72 reviewed the procedure for accountability. 73 74 At 4:38 p.m. 75 Council Member Mordkin arrived. 76 01 -04 -1 OTC Minutes Page 3 of 9 77 Item No. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 03, SERIES OF 2010 INTERVIEW AND APPOINT 78 BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS CONTINUATION OF VOTE 79 Town Council voted for the member of the Planning Commission twice due to ties and 80 at this time Resolution No. 3, Series of 2010 was presented with the appropriate board 81 appointments. 82 83 Reed Lewis made the motion to approve Resolution No. 3, Series of 2010 appointing 84 Board Members. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 85 vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 86 87 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and 88 Markey Butler. 89 90 Voting Nay: None. 91 CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEM NO. 6 AND ITEM NO. 7 92 93 Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 01 SERIES OF 2010— DESIGNATING PUBLIC 94 NOTICE BOARDS 95 96 Item No. 7: RESOLUTION NO. 02, SERIES OF 2010 APPOINTING H. LAWSON 97 WILLS AS MUNICIPAL JUDGE, SETTING THE TERM OF OFFICE AND 98 COMPENSATION 99 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve Item No. 6 Resolution No. 1, Series of 100 2010 Designation the Public Notice Boards and Item No. 7 Resolution No. 2, Series of 101 2010 Appointing H. Lawson Wills as Municipal Judge. Reed Lewis seconded the 102 motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. 103 104 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. 105 106 Voting Nay: John Wilkinson 107 Mel Blumenthal a part time resident of Snowmass Village noted for the record that the 108 "Consent Agenda" verbage does not appear on Granicus for the Public to see, Town 109 Clerk Rhonda Coxon will look into this matter. 110 111 112 113 114 01 -04 -1 OTC Minutes Page 4 of 9 115 Item No. 8 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO.24 SERIES OF 2009 116 Council Member Mordkin spoke to the "beer profit" and asked if the proceeds from the 117 liquor have been taken out of this budget, Marketing Director Susan Hamley noted it is 118 still in this budget. 119 120 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve to continue this item to January 19th for the 121 Board to reconsider this budget and take the $35,000 out of this budget. John Wilkinson 122 seconded the motion. The Motion failed by a vote of 2 in favor to 3 opposed. 123 124 Voting Aye: John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. 125 126 Voting Nay: Mayor Bill Boineau, Reed Lewis, and Markey Butler. 127 Mel Blumenthal part time resident of Snowmass Village spoke to the comment "we are 128 not doing this to make money for the Town and the profit was to be given to non 129 profits within the Town of Snowmass Village the first year, and now we are using the 130 profit to offset other costs of the event. 131 132 Markey Butler made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 24, 2009, the 2010 Budget 133 for the Marketing, Group Sales and Special Events Board and a roll call vote was 134 taken. Mayor Bill Boineau seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote 135 of 3 in favor to 2 opposed. 136 137 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, Reed Lewis, and Markey Butler. 138 139 Voting Nay: John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. 140 Item No. 9 FIRST READING -ORDINANCE NO. 1 SERIES OF 2010 141 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 142 Town Manager Russ Forrest thanked the community for providing input and direction for 143 the last two years regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that Pitkin County 144 has submitted comments. 145 146 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve the First Reading of Ordinance No. 1, 147 Series of 2010. John Wilkinson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 148 vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 149 150 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and 151 Markey Butler. 152 153 Voting Nay: None. 01 -04 -1 OTC Minutes Page 5 of 9 154 The Town Council consensus was to postpone the Second Reading of Ordinance No.1 155 Series of 2010 until February 16, 2010 to allow Pitkin County ample time to submit 156 comments to us. 157 158 Mayor Bill Boineau made the motion to approve to have second reading on February 159 16 Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in 160 favor to 0 opposed. 161 162 Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill 163 Boineau. 164 165 Voting Nay: None. 166 Item No. 10 PUBLIC HEARING- RESOLUTION NO. 5 SERIES OF 2010 167 168 At 5:29 p.m. Mayor Boineau opened the Public Hearing. 169 170 Council Member Lewis spoke to his concerns regarding this type of operation creating 171 an uneven playing field for the other open businesses located in the Base Village. 172 173 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to modify the language on line 73 of the Resolution. 174 John Wilkinson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor 175 to 0 opposed. 176 177 Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill 178 Boineau. 179 180 Voting Nay: None. 181 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve Resolution No. 5, Series of 2010, TUP for 182 the Magic Buzz. John Wilkinson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 183 vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. 184 185 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. 186 187 Voting Nay: and Reed Lewis. 188 Item No. 11 PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING -ORDINANCE NO. 2 SERIES 189 OF 2010 MINOR PUD AMENDMENT PARCEL D EAST VILLAGE PUD 190 Planning Director Chris Conrad noted that the Public Hearing Notice needs to be re- 191 advertised for February 1st and second reading and public reading on February 16, 192 2010. No action is required by Town Council at this time. 193 01- 04 -1OTC Minutes Page 6 of 9 194 Item No. 12 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING -ORDINANCE NO. 11 195 SERIES OF 2009 196 At 5:45 p.m. Mayor Boineau opened the Public Hearing, there being none Mayor 197 Boineau continued the Public Hearing to the Regular Town Council Meeting on January 198 19, 2010. 199 200 Markey Butler made the motion to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 11, 201 Series of 2009 Minor PUD amendment for the Stonebridge Condos. John Wilkinson 202 seconded the motion. 203 204 Steve Santomo, General Manger of Lower Village of Destination Resorts which 205 included Stonebridge Inn and the Terrace house, spoke for the record to concerns from 206 his membership regarding views and the negative impacts for summer travelers having 207 the pool under construction this summer. He noted that the Stonebridge Inn is a 38% 208 owner of the pool and cabana and they have issues in regard to the financial impact to 209 the owners in hiring an additional person to the facilities. 210 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to table the second reading of this item to January 19, 211 2010 to further investigate the notice requirements and if they have been fulfilled 212 properly. Reed Lewis seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in 213 favor to 0 opposed. 214 215 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and 216 Markey Butler. 217 218 Voting Nay: None. 219 Item No. 13 SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. 23 SERIES OF 2009 220 COMCAST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT 221 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve as amended by the Town Attorney the 222 second reading and take a roll call vote of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2009 regarding 223 the Comcast Franchise Agreement. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion 224 was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. 225 226 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. 227 228 Voting Nay: and John Wilkinson. 229 230 Town Attorney John Dresser noted some date and language changes made between 231 first and second reading to the agreement, not the Ordinance itself. 232 233 Item No. 14 RESOLUTION NO. 06 SERIES OF 2010 01- 04 -1OTC Minutes Page 7 of 9 234 Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 2010 for Base 235 Village Interim Building 7. Markey Butler seconded the motion. 236 237 Voting Aye: None. 238 239 Voting Nay: None. 240 Town Attorney John Dresser stated pursuant to the Development agreement and 241 Performance Bond for Interim Building 7, TOSV must indicate to the Surety that the 242 improvements have not been installed or completed. This resolution does that. 243 244 Item No. 15 MANAGER'S REPORT 245 246 ICLIE Local Governments for Sustainability 247 Town Manager Russ Forrest stated that there is currently over $12,000 available in the 248 REOP fund. One of the expenditures Council approved in October of 2009 from REOP 249 was joining an organization called ICLIE, Local Governments for Sustainability. This 250 was a recommendation action from the EAC, Environmental Advisory Committee. 251 ICLIE is an international organization of best management practices and grant 252 opportunities. He stated in addition, membership allows free utilization of a database to 253 determine energy usage and the carbon footprint for the community. Although use of 254 the database is free with membership, it is labor intensive to input information in the 255 database to determine energy usage and the carbon footprint for the community. The 256 EAC is recommending that the Town retain as short -term contract resource to 257 determine TOSV's carbon footprint. Staff is requesting to use up to $7,000 from the 258 REOP fund to pay for this labor. Town Council consensus was to approve the $7,000 259 from the REOP fund for this project. 260 261 Aspen Ski Company Summer Operations of the Gondola 262 Town Manager Russ Forrest stated that at the December 21, 2009 Town Council 263 Meeting, Steve Sewell and Victor Gerdin of the Aspen Skiing Company presented a 264 proposed operational plan for summer 2010 and beyond. The primary component of 265 the Ski Company's summer planning was taking steps towards the summer program at 266 the top of the Elk Camp Gondola. He noted at this meeting the Council also discussed 267 the "Ski Resort Operation Agreement" dated November 4, 2004. Due to the Council not 268 being aware they would be discussing this agreement and not having a copy, this item 269 was schedule for discussion at a future meeting. The Aspen Skiing Company asked the 270 Council to consider whether to provide written notice to initiate summer operation of the 271 Elk Camp Meadows Gondola as per Section 2.4 of that agreement. The Aspen Skiing 272 Company is asking this be discussed on the January 19, 2010 meeting. 273 274 After a lengthily discussion by Town Council and with a comment from Council Member 275 Lewis, Council directed staff to place this discussion on the February 1, 2010 agenda. 276 01- 04 -1OTC Minutes Page 8of9 277 Mel Blumenthal a part time resident of Snowmass Village stated that this was meant 278 only as an experimental trigger for when Base Village was completely built and the 279 Town should not pull the trigger at this time as it will cost the Town a lot of money! 280 281 Town Manager Russ Forrest stated he attended the HOA Meeting for the Country Club 282 Townhomes as the Town owns three units at that complex, he noted the Board did 283 discuss additional assessments are coming for the driveways and roofs. 284 285 Forrest also noted that the Tree House had their peak day this past weekend and the 286 Town did have to help with traffic control issues and he will discuss this with the Aspen 287 Ski Company. 288 289 Item No. 16 AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 290 Staff and Town Council reviewed and made changes to the January 19, 2010 regular 291 Town Council Meeting agenda. 292 293 Item No. 17 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR 11 -16 -09 294 Reed Lewis made the motion to approve as amended the Regular Minutes of the Town 295 Council for November 16, 2009. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was 296 approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 297 298 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and 299 Markey Butler. 300 301 Voting Nay: None. 302 Item No. 18 COUNCIL COMMENTS /COMMITTEE REPORTS /CALENDARS 303 Town Council asked that the Urban Renewal Authority be placed on a future agenda 304 for discussion. Council Member Butler thanked Council Member Lewis for the Colgate 305 13 reception he held at his store. 306 307 Mayor Boineau asked about grooming the trail in front of the Viceroy, and Town 308 Manager will look in to that. Council Member Wilkinson stated there is a safety hazard 309 with employees walking up the Base Village side of Wood Road. 310 311 Council Member Wilkinson commented on the Snowmass Village Municipal Judge and 312 the Court process, he felt this was a very positive environment. 313 314 Item No. 19 ADJOURNMENT 315 At 6:40 p.m. 01 -04 -1 OTC Minutes Page 9of9 316 Reed Lewis made the motion to approve Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The 317 motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 318 319 Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill 320 Boineau. 321 322 Voting Nay: None. 323 Submitted By, 324 325 Rhonda B. Coxon, CMC 326 Town Clerk 327 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Town Council Meeting 5:00 p.m. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Daylight Town Savings Council EOTC Time Begins Meeting Meeting m. Aspen 5:00 p.m. p.m. St Patrick's Da 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PALM SUNDAY VFV Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 GOOD FRIDAY 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Easter Sunday TOWN COUNCIL El MEETING 5:00 P.M. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TOWN Earth Day COUNCIL MEETING 5:00 P.M. 25 26 27 28 29 30