Loading...
02-14-00 Town Council Packet DkAwLe 7 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL in ��, 0;2 WORK SESSION 02-14-2000 2:00—4:00 P.M. TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS (FARAWAY RANCH SOUTH) PRELIMINARY PUD DISCUSSION -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 1 4:00 — 5:00 LAND USE CODE DISCUSSIONS -- Leslie Klusmire/Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 49 5:00 — 5:30 KRABLOONIK REQUEST FOR USE OF TOWN PARKING LOT FOR PLANNING PURPOSES -- Victoria Giannola. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 58 5:30 — 5:45 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RTA) UPDATE -- Mayor Manchester. . . . . . . . . . . .No Packet Information NOTE: 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 COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: February 14, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Chris Conrad, Senior Planner Subject: Work Session concerning Resolution No. 6, Series of 2000, a resolution regarding the Timbers at Snowmass (Faraway Ranch South) Preliminary PUD Plan submission, involving Parcel K, Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat, and the granting of authorization to submit a Final PUD Plan application. Topics: Employee Housing Proposal Discuss Draft Resolution/Direction to Staff Overview: The applicant's employee housing proposal has been enclosed as Exhibit F of the resolution. Staff needs to receive direction as to changes that need to occur to the document. It should be noted that Section 16A-4-420(2), Units or lots associated with a free market project, of the Land Use and Development Code would apply to the provision of the mitigation housing should the bonding question not be approved by the voters. Section 16A-4-420(2)(a), Developer responsibilities, states that "... the developer shall sell such unit or lot to the owner of the free market project." Discussion should occur as to whether the project should be under the ownership and control of the Club Association or applicant if the Town does not participate in publicly participating in the project. The applicant proposes to retain ownership as a limited liability corporation ("LLC"). Staff does not support the condominiumization of the individual employee units at this time except as may be appropriate to distinguish the mitigation units from the "community benefit" (Timbers Employee) block of units. Condominiumization of the individual units should be considered at the time the Town Council would be discussing whether to grant approval to lift the restriction prohibiting the sale of the units. Changes have not yet been made to the resolution to: 1) Apply a specific time frame ("Early Stage I") or procedure for the installation of utilities through Parcel "N" and the applicant's staging area. 2) Specifically establish the timeframe for commencing construction of the employee housing or bonding requirement to ensure it's completion. 3) Provide minimum width requirements for the employee units. 4) Discuss the employee housing temporary turn- around which extends into Parcel "N". Please refer to Exhibit E within the packet for a breif discussion to finalize Town Council direction regarding the retaining walls. The entire exhibit packet has not been included but will be distributed for the February 21 Town Council meeting. Recommendation: Proceed with review of the enclosed resolution and provide direction to staff. pZ "ONO SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL An:f11 `7° RESOLUTION NO. 6 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS (FARAWAY RANCH SOUTH)PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN SUBMISSION, INVOLVING PARCEL K, FARAWAY RANCH GROSS PARCEL PLAT, AND THE GRANTING OF AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT A FINAL PUD PLAN APPLICATION. WHEREAS, Faraway South LLC submitted a Sketch Plan Application for a project referred to as the Faraway Ranch South Specially Planned Area to the Town for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, said Sketch Plan was approved by the Town Council on January 18, 1999 in Resolution No. 3, Series of 1999 (Resolution 3"); and WHEREAS, Resolution 3 conditionally authorized SM Partners, LLC, as the Sketch Plan Applicant, to submit a Preliminary Plan application for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village provided Faraway South LLC with direction in Resolution 3 related to the development of the property and identified specific information and studies which were necessary to properly review a Preliminary Plan application for the Project; and WHEREAS, SM Partners, LLC had submitted on behalf of Faraway South, LLC and The Timbers at Snowmass, LLC (the "Landowners") a request for Preliminary Plan submission review of the Faraway Ranch South Specially Planned Area (SPA) involving Parcel K and N, Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat, as recorded in Plat Book 17 at Page 5 in the records of the Pitkin County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed for completeness and accepted by the Town of Snowmass Village Planning Director ("Planning Director") for review on April 13, 1999; and WHEREAS, Parcel N was subsequently conveyed to the Town of Snowmass Village (the "Town") and withdrawn from the Project at that time; and WHEREAS, The Timbers at Snowmass, LLC (the "Applicant'), which acquired the controlling interest in the Project from Faraway South LLC, continued with the Preliminary Plan Application to the Town for its review and approval of a project then renamed from "Faraway Ranch South Specially Planned Area (SPA)" to "The Timbers at Snowmass" (the"Project'); and WHEREAS, Faraway South LLC has consented to the Preliminary PUD Application by Applicant on its behalf; and TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 2 WHEREAS, the submission also involves: 1) a request to rezone the property from SPA-1, Specially Planned Area, to MU-PUD, Mixed Use PUD; 2) subdivision of the parcel: and, 3) a Subdivision Exemption application to permit condominiumization (including a time share regime) of the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director had previously determined that the proposed Project qualified for review as a Major Planned Unit Development ("PUD") application in accordance with the procedures specified within Section 16A-5-300(b) of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the"Municipal Code"); and WHEREAS, said procedure requires an initial Public Hearing and Preliminary PUD Plan review by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, posted, mailed, and published notice of public hearings held before the Planning Commission on June 9, July 14 and August 18, 1999 were provided in accordance with the public notice requirements of Section 16A-5-60 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Project at public hearings which commenced on June 9 and August 18, 1999 for the purpose of receiving public comment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted their review of the Project between June 9 and September 1, 1999 to consider all relevant materials and testimony in order to evaluate whether the Project application complies with Section 16A-5- 300(c), General Restrictions, and Section 16A-5-310, Review Standards of the Municipal Code and whether the preliminary plan submission by the Applicant has responded to the direction given by the Town as stated within Resolution 3; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 16, Series of 1999, which contains their findings and conditional recommendation for approval of the Applicant's Preliminary Plan submission; and WHEREAS, upon receiving the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Town Council, in accordance with the posted, mailed and published public hearing notice requirements of Section 16A-5-150 of the Municipal Code, commenced a public hearing before the Town Council on September 7, 1999, to receive written and verbal public comment on the Project and to provide due process in accordance with the Municipal Code; and an— AJ now TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 3 WHEREAS, the public hearing remained open and additional public testimony was received during the October 4, October 18, November 1,November 15 and December 6, 1999 Town Council meetings; and WHEREAS, in addition to reviewing the application, receiving public comment and recommendations from the Town staff and consultants on the above dates, a site visit and work session occurred on September 13 and additional work sessions were held on September 27, October 11, November 18, December 13, and December 20, 1999 as well as on January 3 and January 10, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at the request of the Town Council, provided further review and comments during their November 17 meeting concerning the changes that occurred to Buildings A, D, L and M subsequent to their review and the overall architecture, colors and materials that were proposed within the applicant's November 8 submission packet; and WHEREAS, following receipt of a more detailed and consolidated set of submission documents on November 29, 1999, the public hearing was closed on December 6 and a new public hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2000 to receive public comment regarding the updated application; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the posted, mailed and published public hearing notice requirements of Section 16A-5-150 of the Municipal Code, a new public hearing commenced before the Town Council on January 17, 2000,to receive written and verbal public comment on the updated Preliminary Plan application; and WHEREAS, the further review of the application and receipt of public comment continued during public hearings and/or work sessions held before the Town Council on February 7, 14 and 21, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council closed the public hearing on February_, 2000, completed it's review of the Preliminary PUD application for the Project on February _, 2000 and, in doing so, has fully considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Town staff, independent consultants hired by the Town to assist in the review of the Project and the relevant written and verbal testimony provided by the public during the course of their review of the Project application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, as follows: Section One: General Findings. The Town Council finds generally as follows: TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 4 1. The Applicant submitted the Application for Preliminary Plan review of the Project in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code. The Planning Director accepted the Preliminary PUD Plan application after determining that it provided the "Minimum Contents" required pursuant to Section 16A-5-40(b), and included written and graphic materials pursuant to Section 16A-5-350, in sufficient detail to deem the application complete for review. Supplemental information had been submitted by the Applicant during the review process in response to staff, public and Town Council requests, comments, and concerns. To the extent, if any, that the original submission was different from the information used by the Town Council in the preparation of this resolution, the amended submission material had been reviewed and accepted by the Planning Director as meeting the intent and satisfying the requirements of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code. 2. The Town Council finds that all Municipal Code requirements concerning the provision of public notice related to the project and public hearings thereon, including publication, posting, and mailing of notices, have been satisfied and that all Preliminary PUD application materials have been made available to the general public within a reasonable time to permit adequate review of the project. The Town Council further finds that the changes made by the Applicant during the Preliminary PUD review process were generally in response to directions and suggestions offered during the Public Hearings and that the public, Planning Commission and Town Council had ample opportunity to consider such changes. 3. The Town Council, during the Preliminary Plan review, considered alternative development layouts, architectural schemes and impact mitigation solutions for the property. These alternatives included: 1) Snow melting Faraway Road; 2) Removing the top floor of Building D to improve northerly sight lines from the Phase I Ridge Condominiums; 3) Eliminating the town home units and surface garages within Buildings L and M to be replaced by condominium four-plex buildings utilizing underground parking; 4) Creating a visually appealing water course and waterfall feature along the northerly perimeter of the Project; 5) Improving trail linkages and bus stops within the Project area; 6) Considering different color and materials schedules to lessen the visual nature of the project; and 6) Investigating whether to participate in the creation of the employee housing in order that the project be owned and managed by the Town. It was determined at the December 6, 1999 meeting not to proceed with the Applicant's offer to snow melt Faraway Road. 4. The amended Project, which was considered by the Town Council at the conclusion of the Preliminary Plan review and determined to be most consistent with Section 16A-5-300(c), General Restrictions, and Section 16A-5-310, Review TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 5 Standards of the Municipal Code is as generally described below. The specific location of the structures and more detailed development parameters for the Preliminary Plan are shown and more fully described in Exhibit A of this resolution and the larger scale file documents and plans retained within the Planning Division records. A. Free Market Residential and Related Support Structures: 4 Four bedroom Townhouse units @ approx.3,586 S.F. ea.: 14,344 S.F. 36 Three bedroom suites @ 2,000 S.F.: 76,634 S.F. Circulation,Service&Common Area: 44.472 ST TOTAL: 150,617 S.F. B. Free Market Residential Parking: 85 Underground parking spaces for Regular Club Members, Employees and Vans 50 Underground parking spaces for Associate Club Members 8 Parking spaces in town home two car garages 0 Surface apron spaces in front of town home garages 7 Surface plaza spaces(Short Term/Time Restricted Parking) 150 TOTAL Free Market Parking Spaces C. Restricted Employee Housing: 9 One Bedroom Units @ 557 S.F. 5,013 S.F. 9 Two Bedroom Units @ 1,057 S.F. 9.513 S.F. 18 Units (27 Bedrooms) TOTAL: 14,526 S.F. D. Restricted Employee Housing Parking: 41 Parking Spaces(1.5 spaces per bedroom) 3. The subject area is identified on the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Sensitivity Map as being within the Brush Creek Impact Area. As such, the Applicant submitted a report that evaluated the potential impacts of the development on Brush Creek and its associated riparian habitat and wetlands. The Town Council has reviewed the report and evaluated the recommendations to determine whether consistency exists with the development evaluation standards found in Section 16A-4-30 of the Municipal Code. Specifically, the Town Council finds: a) Section 16A-4-30(e)(1) of the Municipal Code states that development shall not take place within twenty-five (25) feet from the channel of Brush Creek or the edge of any riparian or wetland areas; however, certain exceptions are permitted. The small. stream channel that traverses the site has been TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 6 previously altered and has historically transported sediment from the areas uphill from the Project to Brush Creek. The Applicant intends to enhance the stream condition by relocating and installing underground detention facilities to better regulate spring run-off flow rates and contain sedimentation so as to mitigate impacts onto Brush Creek. The proposal addresses existing off-site impacts beyond what would strictly be the sole responsibility of the applicant. In this regard, the Town Council finds that the applicant's proposal will be beneficial to Brush Creek and that the twenty-five (25) foot setback should be permitted to be varied to achieve the described development objectives. Specifically, the Town Council finds that the overall enhancement and restoration measures related to Brush Creek will substantially aid the improvement of the water quality and aquatic habitat of Brush Creek and replace the impacted wetland with more and better quality wetland elsewhere on site and in the community than would have resulted from strictly adhering to the setback requirements of the Municipal Code. b) The original proposal was to pipe a segment of the stream underground within the area between Building "A" and the ski slope, return to the surface to create a water feature/pond near the Woodbridge Bridge and then be piped underground to the existing discharge pipe which outflows into Brush Creek. The stream segment between Building "A" and the ski slope has now been brought to the surface. In addition, a pond has been created within the interior Club project area and a waterfall feature has been added proximate to the Brush Creek/Faraway Road intersection. The Town Council finds that these aspects of the enhancement plan to be desirable. c) The Applicant's US Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") Section 404 permit application has been approved and the Applicant has agreed to mitigate the loss of approximately 0.13 acres that cannot be restored on site with 0.25 acre of wetlands within Brush Creek. The Applicant has indicated that the Corps has verbally agreed to allow this to occur. The amount of wetlands that must be mitigated may be different with the final PUD design. The mitigation amount, however, will remain at a 2:1 ratio and shall occur, subject to Corps approval, within the Town. The applicant and Town Staff should continue to work with the Corps to develop a suitable solution that is beneficial to wetlands within the Town boundary. d) The Town Council has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Preliminary Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 16A-4-30, TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 7 Brush Creek Impact Area, and that development could be permitted to take place within twenty-five (25) feet from the channel of Brush Creek and subject riparian/wetland areas by granting the setback exception permitted within Section 16A-4-30(e)(1) of the Municipal Code. These findings are subject to the Applicant satisfying the applicable conditions and Staff Recommendations contained within Section Three and Exhibit G, respectively, of this resolution. 4. The current zone classification for the Subject Property is SPA-1 Specially Planned Area. Section 16A-3-40(5) of the Municipal Code discusses the general purpose for the Specially Planned Area(SPA-1 and SPA-2)zone districts and specifies that development proposals within those districts are to be submitted and reviewed pursuant to the provisions of Article V,Division 3, Planned Unit Developments, and that those provisions will apply to establish and define the zoning parameters for the development. General Restriction No. 3 of the PUD regulations, however, states that "The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those uses that are allowed, or are allowed by special review, in the underlying zone district." Planning Commission Resolution 3 stated that the appropriate zone district for the proposed project was MU-PUD, Mixed Use PUD; however, Town Council Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999, amends Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code such that the Project may not be rezoned to that zone district. As a result of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999, the Town Council finds, and the Applicant agrees, that the Project should be rezoned to the MF, Multi-Family, zone district in conjunction with any Final PUD approval. The MF zone district permits all of the uses now proposed in The Timbers Preliminary PUD application, including multiple family dwelling units, associated office, recreation, and other related uses, and the associated underground parking which will be limited to the multiple family uses and Associate Memberships. The rezoning of the Project to MF zone district will be approved at the time the Town Council approves the Final PUD plan for The Project. Additionally, the Applicant proposes that the"open space" areas, as shown on Exhibit E, be secured by a conservation easement in gross to preserve the open space within the MF zone district. The Town Council supports the Applicant's proposal and a final easement agreement will be provided for Final PUD review and approval. 5. Chapter Six, Future Land Use Plan, of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject area as the Faraway Ranch South (Parcel K & N) Comprehensively Planned Area ("CPA"). As such, the preferred development plan identified these elements: TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 8 a) Employee housing could be included. b) Low-density, high occupancy, multi-family residential housing units could be included. c) A mixed-use recreation center at the base of Assay Hill could be included. d) Enhancement of the skier and pedestrian trails shall be included. e) Faraway Road/ Brush Creek Road intersection improvement shall be included. f) Grouped development that provides for the maximum preservation of open space shall be included. g) Connection to the Snowmass Center and the Base area shall be included. Section 16A-3-40(6)(b) of the Municipal Code specifies which of the above elements of the Comprehensive Plan shall be accommodated in the development of the Faraway Ranch South (Parcel K & N) CPA, namely: (1) enhancement of the skier access and pedestrian trails; (2) Faraway Road/Brush Creek Road intersection improvement; (3) clustered development that provides for the maximum preservation of open space; and (4) connection to the Snowmass Center and the Base area. The Town Council finds that the Project will accommodate these elements as described above, subject to the Applicant agreeing with the conditions in Section Three below relating to the pedestrian trails and Ridge Condominium owner's ski slope access. 7. Section 16A-3-40(6)(b) of the Municipal Code also identifies elements of the Comprehensive Plan that could be considered in the development of the Faraway Ranch South (Parcel K & N) CPA, namely: (1) Low density, high occupancy, multi-family residential housing; (2) Mixed use recreation center at the base of Assay Hill; and (3) Employee Housing. The Town Council finds that these are not required elements that must be provided but notes that the Project will accommodate elements 1 and 3. Low density is defined within the Comprehensive Plan as being up to ten (10) units per acre. The free market residential component of the project will be 4.1 units per acre. 8. The "Comprehensive Plan" Build Out Analysis identifies the potential for up to 50 free market and 50 Affordable Housing units on the subject property if the PUD complies with Section 16A-5-300(c)(6), Community Purposes for PUD's, and other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The development proposal involves far less than 85% and, therefore, no benefits are required except as may be needed for the height variation request. �� / O GEM TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 9 9. Article IV, Division 4, Restricted Housing Requirements, of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code, provides the methodology for determining the amount of restricted housing which must be provided by the Applicant to sufficiently mitigate the employee housing impact of the proposed development. The methodology in force and effect at the time this Preliminary Plan application was submitted requires: CLUB FACILITIES 1,022 S.F. Office Area X 3.78 jobs per 1,000 S.F. = 3.86 jobs 3,456 S.F. Ski Locker Area X 1.47 jobs per 1,000 S.F. = 5.08 jobs 2,955 S.F. Health Club Area X 1.47 jobs per 1,000 S.F. = 4.34 jobs 40 Multi-Family Units X 0.5 0 jobs per unit = 20.0 jobs TOTAL: 33.28 jobs 33.28 Jobs Divided By 1.3 Jobs per Employee= 25.6 Employees 25.6 X 411 sq. ft. per employee = 10,522 sq. ft. Restricted Housing Required The Applicant proposes to construct a minimum of 14,525 sq. ft. (not including storage units) of restricted housing, as further described in Exhibit A. Of that amount, 10,522 sq. ft. will be constructed in fulfillment of the Applicant's obligation to mitigate the employee housing impacts of the Project. The remaining 4,003 sq. ft. are offered as a "Community Benefit" in connection with their height variance request. The Town Council finds that the Applicant can sufficiently meet the employee housing mitigation requirements of the Municipal Code for the Project. The Town Council has reviewed the Applicant's employee housing proposal but finds it to be in the best interest of the community to publicly participate in the creation of the housing and to proceed with structuring an agreement with the Applicant whereby the Town ultimately owns and manages the eighteen (18) employee housing units proposed by the developer. The initial discussion parameters were: a) Rent levels (Revenue)will be calculated based upon what the Mountain View Phase II rent would be for each unit type at the time of final PUD approval plus ten percent(10%). b) The Town will proceed with public financial participation by obtaining voter approval and securing funds through bond issuance(20 year term) in an amount that can be financed from the net operating income derived from - I1 -- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 10 collected rents. An estimated operating, maintenance and reserve budget needs to be developed and agreed upon by both the Applicant and Town prior to Final PUD approval. The bond question is to be presented for voter approval in November, 2000. c) The applicant will then be responsible for the remaining costs of constructing the proposed employee housing units approved as part of the Final PUD application. When completed, the employee housing project will be conveyed to the Town for the purchase price established by the above voter approved bond issuance. d) Upon completion, the Town will own, manage and maintain the project in accordance with Town guidelines, except as provided below. Conveyance will occur at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Applicant's completed affordable housing project. e) While the Town Council finds that it is appropriate to make a certain amount of the housing available to the employees of the project, the Town Council finds that the majority of the project should be available to any employee that qualified under the Town's guidelines. The Town and Applicant mutually agree on a percentage of the project(by specified units) that the applicant shall be entitled to priority use by executing an employer master lease with the Town for the use of the units by employees working within the Timbers Club free market project. Matters involving rent collection, enforcement of housing guidelines and eviction of tenants residing within the master leased units are intended to be the responsibility of the applicant. f) The applicant shall receive first priority to rent additional units should the Town be unable to rent them pursuant to the Town's Housing Guidelines. The Town Council also chose to develop a Plan `B" should the bond issue ballot question not be approved by the voters. To the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Preliminary Plan level of evaluation and review, the Town Council and Applicant have agreed that the final employee housing plan submitted as part of any Final PUD submission shall comply with the requirements and procedures specified within Exhibit F of this resolution. 10. The Town Council was requested by staff to provide their interpretation of Section 16A-4- 400, Pumose, of the Municipal Code which states: TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 11 Recognizing the shortage of adequate housing for persons of low, moderate or middle income, adequate provisions for comfortable and affordable housing in suitable locations shall be made to accommodate such persons and their families employed as a result of the construction, operation or use proposed in a subdivision,PUD or special review application. The Town Council finds that this section of the Municipal Code should be interpreted to apply solely as the preamble to the regulatory provisions, being Section 116A-4- 410, Restricted Housing Requirements, and Section 16A-4-420, Methods of complying with requirements, that follow and that the "Purpose" section has never been applied and should not be interpreted to mean that any required employee provided by the developer pursuant to the above sub-sections are to be made available exclusively or on a first priority basis for employees of the development in the manner which the applicant describes within their application. Further, the Town Council feels that the legislative intent of the "Purpose" section was simply to express the basis or reason for adopting the regulations that follow which specify the manner in which additional affordable housing is to provided by developers within the community. 11. The Town Council has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Preliminary Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 16A-5-300(c), General Restrictions, of the Municipal Code ("Restrictions"), as discussed below and/or subject to satisfying the applicable conditions contained within Section Three of this resolution. Although one (1) of the primary purposes of the PUD regulations is to provide flexibility in the land development process, the Restrictions are intended to define the limits of that flexibility. The following Restriction warrants comment: Dimensional Limitations and Community Purposes. Only certain dimensional limitations may be varied within the PUD process. The Applicant has requested approval to exceed the thirty-eight (38) foot maximum allowable height limit, as specified within the MF zone district, for Club Building "A". One of the review criteria for allowing the variation is that the Project must achieve one (1) or more of the applicable purposes listed in Section 16A-5-300(6), Community Purposes for PUD's. The "purposes" achieved are often referred to as "Community Benefits". The Town Council finds that more than one (1) of the purposes specified within Section 16A-5-300(c)(6) will be achieved. The Applicant has offered to provide 4,004 sq. ft. restricted housing in addition to the amount required to mitigate their employee housing impacts. In addition to the housing, other Community Benefits, as more fully specified within the variance request (see Section "L" of the November 29 application packet), are being offered in connection with their height - 13 - TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 12 variance request. The Applicant must also demonstrate that granting the height variation is "necessary for that purpose to be achieved." The Applicant relates the need to exceed the height limit for Building A as being necessary in order to accomplish an intended purpose to "encourage better design". The Applicant has cited the underground parking and their desire to incorporate roof forms that are compatible with mountain design concepts. A lesser factor involves the evolution of the project to reduce the number of larger stand-alone town homes and converting the town home "units" into smaller condominium suites contained within four buildings. The first fundamental question before the Town Council is whether the additional height being granted for Building A is reasonable and appropriate for the better architectural design that is being achieved and to accomplish the other community benefits proposed. It is felt that the intent and purpose for granting any height variation should relate directly to the purpose being achieved and not entirely on the Community Benefits being provided by the Applicant. The second question is whether the Town Council should accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the manner in which building height will be calculated within the Project. The Municipal Code defines grade as the elevation of the ground in existence prior to the initiation of development or if it is determined that the existing grade has been altered prior to an application for development, then the Planning Director shall establish what had been the existing grade prior to the alteration. The Town Council finds that this site has been altered substantially over time. Detailed studies show that the majority of the 30 percent slopes which now exist on the site are, in fact, man made. The Town Council has determined that there is inadequate data to accurately establish and define the topography which would have existed on the site prior to its alteration. The Town Council and the applicant agree that the real issue relating to height is what the project will look like from various vantage points. For this reason the applicant submitted a substantial amount of computer generate imagery to demonstrate the related mass and visual impact of the project. The Town Council, based on Planning Commission and public input, has determined that the visual impact of the project now described in the Preliminary PUD application and the building height diagram attached as Exhibit D, identifying the defined maximum building roof ridge elevations, is acceptable and consistent with the community and neighborhood image and character. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating height and related variance request, the Town Council finds that it is appropriate to use the topography which TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 13 existed on the property at the time of Preliminary PUD application. With regard to the height variance request, the Town Council finds: 1) The request to exceed the height limit for Building A, as specifically shown in the Preliminary PUD application, is reasonable. The building is situated on top of the underground parking structure, which is considered to be a desirable feature of the project. The pad created by the parking structure is above the existing grade of the site, thereby adding additional height to Building A. 2) While the height of the building could be reduced by lowering the pitch of the roof, the Town Council finds that the proposed roof pitch is more characteristic of traditional mountain design. 3) The project includes smaller scale buildings in the foreground, as viewed from Brush Creek Road and the Woodbridge neighborhood which provides the appearance that the overall design will step up to hillside and that the height of Building A will be minimized by the placement of 38 foot tall buildings in the foreground. 4) Although Building A will exceed the 38 foot height limit, the Town Council finds that this is the appropriate location for additional building height within the property and the proposed design will, as is shown in computer imagery provided with the Preliminary PUD application, protect the desirable view planes from surrounding residential projects. 12. The Town Council finds that the project will provide certain improvements that, under Section 16A-5-300(c)(6) constitute benefits to the community. These benefits are as follows. a) The project will provide either enclosed or underground parking for the 40 free market units. While this is a benefit to the project,the elimination of surface parking does produce a certain level of visual benefits to the community and surrounding neighborhood. b) The Timbers project will provide a number of infrastructure enhancements that will be directly applicable to assisting the development of the Town's employee housing site on Parcel N, including the extension of utilities and roadway and intersection improvements that mitigated the impact of not only The Timbers project but also mitigated the impact of the Parcel N employee housing. - ISM TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 14 c) The Project will relocate the Brush Creek Road transit stop and shelter, now located on the west side of the intersection, to a more suitable location east of the intersection. Relocating the facility for the purposes of improving sight distance and providing an adequate space for the Town and RFTA is a mitigation requirement. The project will, however,provide an enhanced shelter and landscaping as an aesthetic improvement and community benefit. d) The Project will establish a suitable kiss and ride facility to serve the surrounding residential neighborhood. The facility will ensure that, in the future, all drop-offs and pick ups can occur off of the public road. The drop off and pick up activity now occurs on private property. e) The Project will enhance the pedestrian trail system which crosses the property and provide crucial trail connections to help enhance the community and neighborhood trail network and provide better access to the Base Village area. These trails include: (1) The Brush Creek Trail will be realigned near the Faraway Road-Brush Creek Road intersection. A Class I trail right-of-way will be established and the trail reconstructed to the standard of 8 feet. The relocation will move the point of the Faraway Road crossing further from the intersection, thereby improving safety. Environmental and landscape enhancements will improve the aesthetic qualities that now occur along this section of trail. (2) A Class I trail will be provided along the hillside adjacent to the southerly side of Faraway Road, as generally shown on Exhibit H, connecting The Ridge neighborhood to the town shuttle stop area and the Brush Creek Trail. This trail, however, will be evaluated as part of the Final PUD submittal as to where such a paved trail could be constructed into the hill side: 1) without requiring undesirable retaining walls; 2) so as to not adversely affect slope stability or surrounding property; and 3)be extended through The Ridge Condominium parcel. The trail, as proposed, involves obtaining an easement from the Ridge Condominium Association. The Applicant shall also investigate creating the hillside trail within the right-of-way and Project parcel so as to avoid their property. In the alternative, the Applicant shall construct a sidewalk adjacent to Faraway Road within the right-of-way. (3) A Class II unpaved summer use trial will be established along The ` /( � TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 15 Ridge Condominiums existing ski egress trail to the westerly property line. This trial will be only for pedestrians, bicycles, and equestrians. Use will be prohibited during the ski season to ensure that the trail continues to provide proper ski egress for The Ridge Condominiums and does not interfere with the Aspen Skiing Company's winter operations on Assay Hill. An agreement ensuring that a trail easement will be provided to the Town by the Applicant, or successors, enabling the trail to extend westerly through the Aspen Skiing Company ("ASC") ski easement, when authorized by ASC, will be provided with the Final PUD submission. The Applicant shall also investigate an alternative summer trail alignment which avoids involving the Ridge Condominium property. f) The Timbers at Snowmass will undertake significant improvements to the site drainage, which has undergone major alteration over time. The improvements are required to not only mitigate the on-site development, but also help to control the adverse impacts on water quality caused by previous improper development practices that actually occur off-site and above the Project. g) The Project will remove the existing railroad tie retaining wall near the Brush Creek-Faraway Road intersection. The project will provide significant aesthetic improvement at this location, including boulder walls, water feature, and enhanced landscaping as requested by the Planning Commission and Town Council. This will be a desirable aesthetic enhancement to that area. h) The Project will provide restricted employee housing in an amount that exceeds the requirements of the Code. The Developer will construct 15,167 square feet, thereby exceeding the requirement by 4,646 square feet. 13. The applicant has also requested approval of a required parking variation in order to obtain authorization to reduce the number of parking spaces required by Section 16A-4-310 allowing the required parking for the 36 Club Suites to be reduced from one (1) space per bedroom(3 spaces per unit)to a maximum of two (2) spaces per unit. With regard to this request, and given the level of community benefits provided by the project, the Town Council finds the following: a) The applicant has provided parking data obtained from similar fractional ownership interest projects to satisfactorily indicate that the number of TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 16 parking spaces required by the Municipal Code likely exceeds what will be the actual amount of parking necessary to support a project of this type. b) The Applicant has agreed to lease (one year minimum term)rather than sell, for a period of three years from the date of completion of Phase I of the Project, a sufficient number of"Associate Member"parking spaces such that 126 spaces remain not sold or leased to individuals and which will be available within the parking structure for Townhome (8 spaces), Condominium(108 spaces), employee(8 spaces) and van (2 spaces) parking. The number of underground parking spaces in excess of the 126 spaces may be sold as "Associate Member" spaces. c) At the end of the three (3) year evaluation period, or at any time prior to then as determined appropriate by the Town Council, the parking program will be evaluated to determine whether the required parking for the condominium units may be reduced to some level between two (2) spaces per unit (72 spaces) and the required (1) space per bedroom (being 3 spaces per unit or 108 spaces). The Town Council may then, by resolution, establish the long term parking program and authorize the Applicant to sell the available excess lease spaces to "Associate Members". d) The applicant has agreed to implement priority lease and/or sale provisions for all "Associate Members"parking spaces for 1)Faraway Road residents first; then 2) Snowmass Village residents; then 3)Pitkin County residents; and finally 4) all others. 13. The Town Council has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Preliminary Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 16A-5-310, Review Standards, of the Municipal Code ("Standards"), as discussed below and/or subject to satisfying the applicable conditions contained within Section Three of this resolution. a) The Preliminary Plan generally identifies land uses that are consistent with the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") Future Land Use Map in that the subject area is identified as being intended for Open Space/Conservation and Multi- Family Residential uses. The"Club Facility" and the associated parking would be appropriate accessory uses customarily found in connection with a development of this type. . �� /� MOM TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 17 b) It is believed that Building D does partially extend into the area shown as being Open Space on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map; however, the Applicant has committed a southerly portion of the parcel to Open Space, as shown on Exhibit E, that is larger in area than what has been identified for "Open Space/Conservation" on the map. The Applicant needs to provide a copy of the conservation easement document and supply sufficient information within the Final PUD application to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town Council that . there will be no net loss in Open Space from the amount currently identified on the Future Land Use Map. Although not a requirement to the processing of the application, the Town Council will then direct that the Future Land Use Map be amended to be consistent with the Final Plan approval. 14. The Town Council finds that the proposed project generally complies with the directions established by the Town in the Sketch Plan approval resolution and with subsequent' guidance from the Planning Commission during Preliminary Plan review, as discussed below and/or subject to satisfying the applicable recommendations contained within Section Three of this resolution: a) Retaining Walls/Finished Grading. Considerable discussion has occurred regarding the manner in which the Applicant should handle the boulder/grade/landscape placement within the areas currently shown on the site plan as being vertical boulder walls. The Applicant has received verbal direction during the meetings and visual examples and written comments have been provided within the Exhibits E and I of this resolution defining what needs to be provided as part of their Final PUD submittal. Rather than to rely entirely upon site detail and section drawings, it is reasonable to expect that a majority of the work will involve "field judgement and placement" of materials by the contractor. Therefore, the Town Council needs to also receive a descriptive outline the criteria and specifications to be used in the field by the contractor. b) Geotechnical, Groundwater and Drainage. The Town Council retained the professional services of Lambert and Associates ("Lambert"), a geotechnical engineering firm located in Montrose, Colorado, to review the geological materials prepared by CTL/Thompson for the Applicant's Preliminary PUD submission. Their report was presented to the Town Council at their January 17, 2000 meeting and the Applicant was directed to respond to the comments, questions and issues outlined within their report. The CTL/Thompson response was provided to the Planning Division on January 7 and was forwarded to Lambert for review and comment. [Update - 19 - TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 18 paragraph per February 21 meeting findings] c) Town Shuttle and RFTA Pullouts. The Applicant amended their November 29 material concerning the down-hill Faraway Road TOSV Shuttle Stop and west-bound Brush Creek Road RFTA pull-out, as shown in Exhibit G, in response to direction received by staff and the Town Council. The Town Council finds the proposed facilities and improvements will enhance the over-all ability of the Town and RFTA to provide public transportation within that area of the Town. d) Fractional Ownership. The Town Council finds that the fractional ownership nature of the project will help ensure a relatively high occupancy level within the Project. The Project satisfactorily complies with the requirements of the Municipal Code with regard to fiscal impacts. The Town Council finds that the Applicant has used generally conservative assumptions in the fiscal impact report provided with the Preliminary PUD application. As a result, the Town Council has determined that, with no more than a fifty-five percent (55%) occupancy rate, the project will generate sufficient revenue, in the form of taxes, fees and other revenue sources, to offset the readily identifiable fiscal impacts that it creates on the community. Any higher occupancy level was found to produce a net positive benefit to the community. The Town Council finds it to be in the public interest to enable the Applicant to establish Club provisions that may help ensure high occupancy if ownership occupancy does not meet the fifty-five percent (55%) occupancy levels shown to be the "break-even" point within the Fiscal Impact Analysis. The Applicant proposes to allow the owners of interest in the Project, by simple majority vote, to determine whether units, or interests therein, may be rented on a short term basis to individuals not owning fractional interests in the Project. The Town Council finds this to be a desirable provision. 15. The Town amended the Land Use and Development Code in Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999, which will affect the manner in which floor area is calculated for the project. While the Planning Commission and Town Council have thoroughly reviewed the amount of floor area proposed in the Preliminary PUD application, the Town Council recognizes that the applicant will be required to provide with the Final PUD application revised floor area calculations that are consistent with the amendment to the Code approved under Ordinance 11. 16. The Town Council considered the applicant's proposed options related to improving the lower portion of Faraway Road. One option included providing a •.W- d2Q � TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 19 wider driving surface and a second option included a narrower pavement width with a snowmelt system. The Town Council has determined that the narrower pavement surface and snowmelt system is not appropriate. The wider pavement surface with all related improvement described in the Preliminary PUD application is the most desirable traffic mitigation solution. 17. The applicant has requested that the Town Council approve an excavation permit to for the purposes of: 1) preparing for employee housing utilities and preparing a staging area, 2) establishing a temporary stream diversion, 3) creating a shoring wall at the back of the parking structure, 4) commence construction of the parking structure and 5) commence construction of Building A. While the Town Council is under no obligation to issue any excavation or other permits, there are appropriate reasons to consider allowing the Applicant to commence with Items 1, 2 and 3 above following Preliminary PUD approval. Geotechnical studies have considered on-site and neighboring property conditions. Related engineering requirements have been established through the geotechnical studies and reports prepared by the applicant's consultant and the recommendations generated by the Town's independent geotechnical consultant. The Town Council does find that it is desirable to commence this excavation during the winter months and prior to the Spring run-off and rising water tables and further finds that sufficient understanding has been gained during the Preliminary PUD review to permit Items 1, 2 and 3 to commence prior to Final PUD approval. Any such consideration must, however, occur during review of a separate ordinance and require that more detailed information be provided that fully defines their request. No authorization should be granted, however, until wall, diversion and drainage construction documents have been submitted and acceptable detailed construction management and interim erosion control plans have been developed which carefully minimize visual, environmental, noise, traffic, operational and other potential impacts on surrounding properties, roadways and Brush Creek.. Any work conducted on site shall be subject to the Construction Management Plan attached as Exhibit C or as included within the ordinance. Any such permit(s) so issued may only be exercised at the Applicant's own risk. No excavation or foundation permit may be issued for the drainage trench or shoring wall until such time as the construction and engineering documents have been reviewed by the Town Engineer and Town geotechnical consultant. Compliance with all of the recommendations of the Town Building Official, Town Engineer, Project Geotechnical Report and Lambert and Associates, the Town's geotechnical consulting engineer is mandatory. A performance and OL TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 20 restoration bond may be required to ensure completion of the wall, drainage and stream projects once commenced. 18. The Town Council finds that the applicant's request for a subdivision exemption for the purposes exempting a condominiumization and time share estate from the subdivision regulations of the Town is appropriate, except as discussed below. The Code defines a time share unit as "the ownership or use of which is subject to an arrangement . . . . . which provides for or allows the exclusive use or occupancy of the dwelling unit by one(1) or more co-owners or co-users during any annually recurring period of time if said agreement is in any way binding or effective on any assignee or future owner of the unit or any fractional interest therein." The Timbers at Snowmass request approval of an exemption from subdivision regulations of the Town for the following purposes of condominiumizing thirty-six (36) Club Suites and four(4) Club Townhome units and creating a time share estate, including a total of 302 fractional ownership interests in the thirty-six (36) Club Suites and four (4) Club Townhome units; and condominiumizing parking spaces within the parking structure, as specifically described in the Preliminary PUD application. One condominium unit will include all of the parking spaces owned and managed by The Timbers Association. There will be thirty-six (36) individually condominiumized parking space that must be initially owned by the Developer but leased to the Master Association (126 underground spaces are initially required to be preserved for Club Member parking but that amount may ultimately be reduced to ninety(90) spaces if parking is reduced to two (2) spaces per Condo. Unit). The specific number of"Associate Member" spaces that can initially be sold will range from twenty-four(24) spaces upward depending on the interior engineering design of the parking structure. Ultimately, there may be at least fifty(50) individual condominiumized spaces for sale to Associate Members. The subdivision exemption request is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and is necessary to further the objectives of the PUD plan. The subdivision exemption will be approved in conjunction with the Final PUD Plan. Section Two: Action. To provide for the welfare and safety of the public and to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with community goals and objectives, the Town Council hereby grants authorization to The Timbers at Snowmass, LLC to apply for Final PUD Plan development review of The Timbers at Snowmass project, as described within Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth at length, subject to the requirements of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code, the findings stated within Section One above and the conditions specified within Section Three below. TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 21 The Project use, density, and development configuration, which is described in the Preliminary PUD Plan, includes the following Land Use and Development Program: NOTE: Square footage figures will be re-calculated per Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1999, and included prior to final resolution approval. A. 36 three bedroom Condominium, Timeshare Estate Units S.F. B. 4 four bedroom Condominium, Timeshare Estate Units S.F. C. Reserved interior Unit space within building footprint S.F. D. Interior common area, lobby and service space S.F. E. Office S.F. F. Health Club S.F. G. 9 one bedroom employee units S.F. H. 9 two bedroom employee units S.F. I. 7 plaza level parking spaces: -2 Surface Shuttle Parking Spaces -5 Surface Short Term Parking Spaces J. 8 enclosed townhome parking spaces K. 150 underground parking spaces L. 41 employee housing surface parking spaces M. Trails and sidewalks N. School bus and RFTA kiss and ride drop-off O. Exterior pool and spa P. Open space Section Three: Conditions for Final PUD Submission. 1. The Final PUD Plan shall comply with the revised Preliminary PUD application approved pursuant to this resolution, except as otherwise noted in these conditions. 2. The floor area approved in the Preliminary PUD plan was intended to be consistent with the provisions of Ordinance 11, which amended the procedure for calculating floor area during the period of Preliminary PUD review. The revised floor area calculations shall be included in the Final PUD application. Because of the complexity of the project, the Planning Director and the applicant shall review and agree upon the floor area calculations included with the Final PUD application. 3. The building heights for all buildings shall be as now described in the Preliminary PUD application and as further described in Exhibit D. The maximum building elevations shall be documented in an appropriate manner in � 3now TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 22 the Final PUD approval. Elevation 100' on all Sopris Engineering and Stryker/Brown drawings equals 8315' MSL (Mean Sea Level Elevation) and the "Project Benchmark" (Assumed Elevation 1020.33')per Note# 8 on Sopris Sheet Cl (Improvement Location Survey and Topographic/Existing Conditions Map), would be 120.33' StrykerBrown& Sopris elevation or 8335.33' MSL elevation. Any reduction in the plaza surface elevation as part of the Final PUD submission requires a commensurate reduction in building height. 4. The project shall maintain a 22 foot unobstructed emergency access through the project. The project shall also comply with the requirements of the Snowmass- Wildcat Fire Protection District, as described in project review memorandum dated December 9, 1999 attached as part of Exhibit I. 5. The Timbers Master Association shall provide four vans, as described by the Applicant in the Preliminary PUD application, to provide 24 hour on-call complimentary transportation service for the benefit of the Club Members, including but not limited to transportation to and from the Pitkin County Airport. The Timber Association shall in its Reservation Policies and Procedures include a notice to all club members and guests regarding the availability of Club and public transit options. 6. The applicant shall convey a Conservation Easement in gross to the Town that limits the use of that portion of the property located above The Ridge ski egress trail, as shown on Exhibit E, to open space, passive open use recreation, trails, and the Deerbrook access in existence on the date of the Final PUD approval. The conservation easement shall be conveyed by the applicant within 90 days of the effective date of the Final PUD approval or prior to building permit issuance for the garage or buildings, whichever occurs first. 7. The applicant shall mitigate the project's wetland impacts in accordance with the Corps 404 permit for the project. The applicant shall provide off-site wetland mitigation at a ratio of two (2) acres of off-site mitigation for each acre of wetlands lost within the Project and said mitigation shall occur within the Town of Snowmass Village by no later than two years from the date of the final Corps permit to complete the off-site mitigation, or as may be required by the Corps. Provided, however,the Town must assure the Applicant and the Corps that the Town's mitigation project will be completed within two (2)years of the date of the permit. If the Town is unable to provide such assurances that a project will be competed within the specified time,The Timbers at Snowmass will purchase wetland mitigation at the Colorado Rocky Mountain Institute wetland bank or, as determined by the Town Council and subject to Corps authorization, make an equivalent cash contribution to the Town to be escrowed �� � Al TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 23 until applied to a mitigation project within the Town. 8. All site lighting sources will be appropriately shielded from view. While up directed accent lighting may be permitted during Final PUD review, it shall be minimized to as not to create an excessive amount of light pollution. Exposed wall-pak lighting and other similar fixtures are prohibited. 9. In order to minimize the level of traffic impacts from this project, the Town will not issue resident parking permits for the public parking lots to the members of this project. 10. There shall be a minimum of 191 parking spaces provided in the project, including 41 employee housing parking spaces and 150 Club and Associate Member parking spaces. The actual number of parking spaces may be up to 201 depending on and subject to the final engineered design of the interior of the parking structure. The following restrictions shall be applied to the parking. A. With the exception of the two (2) plaza-level van parking spaces provided near the porte-cochere, exterior parking will be time restricted and controlled by The Timbers Association. B. The Applicant shall maintain one (1) space per bedroom for the four(4) Townhomes. The owners of each townhome will own the two spaces in garage that is attached to the dwelling unit. The Timbers Association will own two related spaces within the parking garage for use by the Townhome owners. C. The Timbers Association will provide four(4)parking spaces for Club vans and eight(8) parking spaces for employees. D. The Applicant shall provide two (2) spaces per unit for the thirty-six (36) three(3) bedroom Club suites. Of this number, one (1) space per unit (36 spaces),will continue to be owned by the Applicant and leased to the Master Association for only the prorated cost of maintenance and liability insurance during the three (3) year parking evaluation period. The parking program and evaluation period will be established, commencing upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final units in Phase I, to determine the actual needs of the Club Suites. The Applicant or Association shall not impose any restrictions or limitations upon Club members that would affect the Town's ability to accurately assess what the true parking demand will be. During this time, the Applicant shall implement and conduct the parking management TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 24 program and, with the Planning Director, coordinate parking data collection in order to accurately project the parking needs for an individual Club Suite. It shall then be determined whether any or all of the thirty-six (36) spaces should still be required to meet the needs of the Club Suites. The Applicant will convey each space required to meet the needs of thirty-six (36) Club Suites to the Master Association. if the Town Council determines that any or all of these spaces are not required, then the Applicant may convert said spaces into additional Associate Member spaces. E. The Applicant may provide up to fifty(50) Associate Member parking spaces during the three(3) year parking evaluation period provided 126 underground spaces remain available for the above parking program. During this period the applicant/developer may sell or lease said spaces to Associate Members. The Timbers will offer each Associate Membership created on a priority basis. Property owners in Ridge Run will be given first priority and property owners within Snowmass Village in general second priority. If at the end of the parking evaluation period it is determined that the projected parking needs of a Club Suite exceed 2.0 spaces per unit, up to a maximum of 3.0 spaces per unit, then the Applicant shall reduce the number of Associate Member parking spaces accordingly to ensure that the Club Suite requirement is met. Based on the determination of need, the Town Council shall specify the amount of the reduction necessary. The Applicant will convey each space required to meet the needs of the Club Suites to the Master Association. F. Upon completion of the three year evaluation period, and once the Applicant and Town Council determines the final number of Associate Member spaces that will be available, then the Applicant may either continue to lease or sell any space designated for an Associate Member. Associate member spaces that have not been allocated as described in subsection(E) above will be offered on the same priority basis, except after one(1)year any unallocated space may then be made available to residents of the Roaring Fork Valley. G. The Master Association will assign within the parking structure one (1) parking space per Club Suite and two (2)parking spaces per Townhome. The location of the assigned spaces will be based on proximity of the parking space to the unit. All other required Club Suite parking spaces will not be assigned. 11. The Applicant shall provide reasonable security in the development TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 25 improvements agreement to guarantee the construction of four bus shelters. The design of each bus shelter shall be approved with the Final PUD Plan. Generally, the design will be enclosed on three sides, with appropriate glazing material, and benches. The Town and the applicant shall continue to study the need for and design of a bus shelter at the uphill location along Brush Creek Road. A determination as to the need and/or design of this shelter shall be made prior to Final PUD approval. 12. The applicant shall use a textured concrete at each bus pull out location to differentiate the pull out from the roadway. The final details shall be approved with the Final PUD Plan. 13. The engineering plans related to all roadway, intersection, retaining, and drainage shall be consistent with the Preliminary PUD application and as further described in Exhibit A. The final engineering details shall be approved in conjunction with the Final PUD Plan. 14. The landscape plan shall be consistent with the Preliminary PUD application and as further described in Exhibit I. The final landscape details shall be approved in conjunction with the Final PUD Plan. 15. The Final PUD application shall include the final designs for the down hill bus stop on Faraway Road, RFTA west bound Brush Creek Road pull out and the kiss and ride facility as shown on Exhibit F. The related pathways shall be in compliance with the plan provided in Exhibit H and the landscaping shall be in compliance with the plans in Exhibit A or as may need to be amended to respond to comments contained within Exhibit I. The kiss and ride facility will be conveyed to the Town as part of the employee housing parcel, as described in Exhibit F, and the Town will be responsible for controlling parking at that location. 16. The applicant shall revise the condominium documents to require only a simple majority vote the property owners to allow short term rental of a unit or portion thereof. The final condominium documents shall be submitted with the Final PUD application. 17. The applicant has moved The Ridge ski egress trail in a manner that is consistent with the Preliminary PUD application. If it is determined during the 1999-2000 winter ski season that the trail can or should be improved from the now current alignment, the applicant shall make such improvements prior to the commencement of the 2000-2001 winter ski season. The Applicant shall survey and document the Spring, 2000 trail centerline location and grade elevations TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 26 prior to making adjustments during the Summer of 2000. Working with the Ridge Condominium Association the Applicant shall "field adjust'the new trail following the 2000-2001 ski season as well in order to develop the best trail design solution. 18. The representations made by the Applicant during meetings with the Town Council as well as the recommendations of Town staff and consultants, attached hereto as Exhibit I and incorporated herein by reference, shall be considered as conditions of approval and must be fully addressed or satisfied within the Final PUD submission. 19. The Class I trail along the hillside adjacent to the southerly side of Faraway Road, as generally shown on Exhibit H,will be evaluated as part of the Final PUD submittal as to where such a paved trail could be constructed into the hill side: 1) without requiring undesirable retaining walls; 2) so as to not adversely affect slope stability or surrounding property; and 3)be extended through The Ridge Condominium parcel. The trail, as proposed, involves obtaining an easement from the Ridge Condominium Association. The Applicant shall also investigate creating the hillside trail within the right-of-way and Project parcel so as to avoid their property. In the alternative, the Applicant shall construct a sidewalk adjacent to Faraway Road within the right-of-way. 20. The Class II unpaved summer use trial is to be established along The Ridge Condominiums existing ski egress trail to the westerly property line for pedestrians, bicycles, and equestrians. It is not intended for public use during the ski season. An agreement ensuring that a trail easement will be provided to the Town by the Applicant, or successors, enabling the trail to extend westerly through the Aspen Skiing Company("ASC") ski easement, when authorized by ASC, will be provided with the Final PUD submission. The Applicant shall also investigate an alternative summer trail alignment which avoids involving the Ridge Condominium property. 21. The retaining walls, finished grading and landscaping design submitted with the Final PUD application shall address the issues, comments and direction received from the Town Council during the meetings and as described within the visual examples and written comments within Exhibits E and I of this resolution which further definine what needs to be provided as part of their Final PUD submittal. Rather than to rely entirely upon site detail and section drawings, it is reasonable to expect that a majority of the work will involve "field judgement and placement' of materials by the contractor. Therefore, the Town Council needs to also receive a descriptive outline the criteria and specifications to be used in the field by the contractor. TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 27 INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED on this day of February, 2000 by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on a motion made by Council member seconded by Council member by a vote of to TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk H:\Shared\Clerk\reso.tc\TC 00-06 The Timbers Prelim PUD Draft04 r A9 �r Exhibit A: The Applicant's Development Proposal. Exhibit B: Parking Management Plan. Exhibit C: Construction Management Plan. Exhibit D: Building Height. Exhibit E: Conservation Easement & Retaining Walls. Exhibit F: Employee Housing Proposal. Exhibit G: TOSV Shuttle Stops and RFTA Pull-outs. Exhibit H: Ski and Pedestrian Trails. Exhibit I: Staff and Consultant Recommendations. RpP� n �-" O_=_ ArqiL2 1 \( O ` m Q 7 0.. ,6 !Tg 5 � - _terms_ _ _ \ 3 Area I - Most Visually Sensitive °° `66 —Area— a .6 i -�� p mO <D x - Land Forms With Predominantly �U Angular Boulders Rfi. \,\ Minimize Vertical Walls © a - No Exposed WallsGreaterThan"-• 6 Feet Except At Entry To Building"0" 6 - Integrate planting within boulder areas CD as much as possible 6 �— 8 �Area2 a v _ + 1 / ' , z 1 - More Vertical In Nature To Save Existing ro I a ri v 1p Vegetation _ .Y. r� / •� ov �yQ'" m' Predominantly Round Boulders With Some _ ♦ - / / o Angular Area 3 No Walls Greater Than 6 Feet In Height Z �/ __ x V! �� Except Along Bike Trail ti _ o �°✓' j / W Integrate Planting Terraces Between Walls Uphill Of Employee Housing And Parking r C �" Notes: Area 3 � y - -- / , T Pr NSW he W-d xMuaPe re wining ! \� ^i' - walk shown. scw - Round Boulders Foturd On Ske ^ :+ iy► F — z. Ma ana�or rem n�g wars ro be A' - Minimize Wags Greater Than 6 Feet In HsIpM i /'' j_S TraiFln sere ninee a.rog mat rewew Predominantly Vertleal Watts _ +� 1rdCOWaMO*nat9lKW Pe - Areas Between Buildings Need To AccomnodeEe% j - _ v wen h6vt Pedestrian Egress From Rear r •r , L I ,1� 1 11 ow �' 1 EXPOSED BOULDER RETAINING WALL LXISIING GRADE NDSCAI LD,FILL 0/ PARKING STRUCTURE —FINISHED GRAD-- --- — — — — — — KNEE—WALL ® PLAZA LEVEL EL =95.00 •� EXISITNG RR TIE RETAINING WALLS -_ -. -- --- -- -- -- -- - "' -� - NEW EDULDER RETAINING_ �•�� P INGTRTURE EL=80.00 wo— i— i. " — — — — — — — — — —SODIER BEAM AND— — — — — - - _ LAGGED RETAINING WALL- 9so— — — — — — - — — ANCHORS TO BEDROCK j ACCESSI -- -- _- -- -- - ...QB1E BNE TRA�AANOSCAPRR: _FARAWAY ROAQ -- Section 5. Sheet AS4.2 �4 �?}�'ay Section 6. Sheet AS4.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ->— -- - - - - - - - - - -r — — W - - - - - - - - - - � �y - - - - - - - - - - -- :. - - - �I 1/ L - - - - - - FINISHED GRADE D v- - _ _ _ )-l! T_ 6o_uj EL=80.00 PARKING STRUCTU 1-- -� / —bl11 - - - EXISTING GRADE - - - - - - - -- - - - – - - - - - - - - BLluic Y ARKINC RETAMM/ CLUB AOCESS Section 3. Sheet AS4.1 -'A I I_ Ii F } ji - - � :I "I 1► � ` t ( I - } 1tI � I � t � f 1 Ii--1 f {=► � �' IIt. j I, � 4IIj '� 1 - f ► I:( I -11 It , � 1 } �_ I , so { I - �_I s i-� -�� ! � �� � � ► } � - � i � I 1 , }� '_� � } � 1_l� I T rill i� _ t � i i1 -� 1 _ -J — _ (- , � i I . BOULDER WALL EXAMPLES 1 : img32a.jpg - 3S- BOULDER WALL EXAMPLES 2: img32c.jpg BOULDER MI ,/ v i a • • • mII I�..., 1 ♦ 6 � 6 I W � ijbilYl ^?° E ' 1 I I _ III 11 1.'Ili 1 w A \ Y a t 1 1 �•.; K � � � �r r 11 \ OVA i 1 I " ! 1 TN % 1 1 �1 A r tr� F 1i IT � 1 ' ! ff , I_ 5�° i' ��,�,.• Y e�/��� / �E i S� y 1 , ��I 1�1;1111 i� I •.� r WI, t "` r J`I•`\ � I E � °, I ` 11 Vn„1� 111'J 1 � 1 � 1! I I 1 Ill 1111'111111,1 < I Al"11 11 1 1 I I ry I� ��f 1 1 1111 11 , 1\1' 11i O All cl p _ r 1 =` Z I i Conservation Easement 38- EXHIBIT F EMPLOYEE HOUSING PLAN [NOTE: THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S CURRENT PROPOSAL] The final employee housing plan shall comply with the following requirements and procedures for providing such housing. The condominium documents will be revised in a manner that reflects this condition and submitted with the Final PUD application. It is the intent of the Town Council to purchase, own, and manage all of the employee housing as described here. This requires the Town to gain approval of an appropriate housing finance bond no later than November, 2000. Failure to obtain such bond approval by the voters required that the Town and the applicant to maintain a suitable fall back procedure for providing such housing. These procedures shall be as follows: A. Procedure for providing employee housing assuming approval of a housing finance bond no later than November , 2000. (1) The applicant will submit a request for subdivision approval along with the Final PUD application, the purpose of which will be to subdivide that portion of the property located east of Faraway Road from Parcel K. If the Town completes the purchase of the employee housing project, it shall be detached from The Timbers Master Association. (2) Prior to Final PUD application, the applicant and the Town shall agree upon an estimated annual budget for the employee housing project, including operations, maintenance, and capital reserve needs. (3) Upon Final PUD approval, the applicant/developer shall construct the employee housing in accordance with the plans described in the Preliminary PUD application and approved with the Final PUD Plan. The employee housing shall be constructed in accordance with all plans and conditions of the Final PUD approval. (4) The applicant/developer shall construct the employee housing in Phase II of the Project and as specifically described in the Phasing Plan included with the Preliminary PUD application and shall obtain a building permit for the employee housing either before or in conjunction with the first building permit issued for Phase II of the Project. (5) The applicant/developer shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the employee units prior to obtaining the final certificate of occupancy for any units in Buildings L and M in Phase II. - 39 - (6) Immediately upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the employee housing, the Town shall purchase the entire employee housing project from the applicant/developer. Closing shall occur on the date of the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the employee housing unless other arrangements are agreed to by the applicant. The purchase shall include land, structures and other improvements, and all construction and improvement warranties and the Town and applicant will enter into a hold harmless agreement at that time. The purchase price shall be equal to the amount which can be financed over 20 years by the available net project rental. Rental income for one and two bedroom units shall be an amount equal to the estimated amount of rent that will be charged by the Town for the Mountain View Phase II units at the time the final certificate of occupancy is issued for the employee housing units, plus ten percent (10%). The estimated rents and the purchase price shall be agreed upon by the Town and applicant prior to Final PUD approval. (7) The Town will guarantee The Timbers Master Association an employer master lease arrangement, comparable to that now used by the Town in other projects and for a term of twenty(20) years but which may be terminated prior to that time at The Timbers Master Association's option, the priority use of three (3)one bedroom units and three(3) two bedroom units within Building E of the employee housing project. The applicant and Town shall enter into an agreement at the time of final PUD approval specifying those units for which The Timbers will be granted priority use. If The Timbers is unable to place a qualified employee in the priority unit(s), then the unit(s)will be made available any employee qualified by the Town guidelines and identified by the Town Housing Department. At the end of the lease period of such employee, The Timbers shall regain the priority use of the unit if it can place a qualified employee in the unit. The Timber's units will be subject to the Town's employee housing rules and regulations for this project. B. Procedure for providing employee housing assuming an unsuccessful attempt by the Town to gain approval of a housing finance bond,which shall occur no later than November, 2000 unless otherwise approved by the applicant. (1) The applicant/developer shall construct the employee housing in Phase II of the Project and as specifically described in the Phasing Plan included with the Preliminary PUD application and shall obtain a building permit for the employee housing either A10 before or in conjunction with the first building permit issued for Phase II of the Project. The employee housing shall be constructed in accordance with all plans and conditions of the Final PUD approval. (2) The applicant/developer shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the employee units prior to obtaining the final certificate of occupancy for any units in Buildings L and M in Phase II. (3) The applicant/developer shall retain ownership of the housing, unless conveyance to a third party is approved by the Town. (4) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the employee housing units, the applicant/developer shall establish a deed restriction to the benefit of the Town which limits the use in perpetuity of each unit within the employee housing project to affordable employee housing. (5) The Timbers Master Association shall retain for the life of The Timbers project the priority use of three(3) one bedroom units and three (3) two bedroom units within this employee housing project. The applicant and Town shall enter into an agreement at the time of Final PUD approval specifying those units for which The Timbers will retain priority use. If The Timbers is unable to place a qualified employee in the priority unit(s), then the unit(s) will be made available any employee qualified by the Town guidelines and identified by the Town Housing Department. At the end of the lease period of such employee, The Timbers shall regain the priority use of the unit if it can place a qualified employee in the unit. The Timbers' units will be subject to the Towns employee housing rules and regulations for this project. (6) The applicant/developer and Town shall enter into an agreement at the time of final PUD approval specifying those units for which The Timbers will be granted priority use. (7) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant/ developer establishes a deed restriction to the benefit of the Town to ensure that those units not subject to The Timbers priority will be made available any employee qualified by the Town guidelines and identified by the Town Housing Department. These units shall be subject to all Town rules and regulations for employee housing. (8) Rents charged by the applicant/developer for one and two bedroom units shall be equal to the amount of rent that will be __ A4 I mm charged by the Town for the Mountain View Phase II units at the time the final certificate of occupancy is issued for the employee housing units. The applicant/developer, at its option, may institute annual rent adjustment in an amount comparable to those instituted by the Town for Mountain View Phase II or other Town employee housing project. � *ARW r t � WWI QW v _.......,.._....,.r, _... . .----. ......... . ........ 3 ---- d .. _Std-'T�c�- fklLEa' _...... ....... I. ......._j..... ........ t................. ...... _ ...i2MUNG .......... VV ...._ . _............. ... .... ......... ins t._.... _ - ....:.. ......... .. �...:. _ �owrnNS f�. i►NGrs __L - -- ..._ ............_...._N EEY2..._._1. _._404�,1:..... __....... -- - ----- :�• I CG' Afro o I ... ........;. ... —---- _ ..... F ...:...... ... .... _.... .. : _. ....... ................:......... ... .... .,... ..........fir." �....., ...._i..... .......... __ ....'.... ............. ...................... ..............................................................-...................................................................... ...................................................... ............. ................._....................... .... y-o ccEa� Fps S-coP . .. .- Q r..VJA-LL............... ._ _ ...... , _ . L.ca7w.1 f ?�k nJ.._..... - -- ...._ . n.IS-CJR-�3,�n1GE ...._...... ......... . . '. ......_.- WM4�fJ ... . . ... . . ..... .-- --- S�b ?�t ,!rk ....... �itt`b6.4 ... -�P..•_.. 17 - ... ... cwt , ... ^ V ' yr, 0� 111111 1 \\ I n \ � � • \ \ \ � � 1111111 1111 I \ �� ' � \ \ • \ \ �\ 111111 111Ww0 \ � rL \ \ \ \ \ •:,. I 1111 1.�111�1= �� � ,\ \ \♦ � ;�• UI a� fp 1111 0IIQ2 I I II Ic4 it 1 00 1 11/ \' III Q.. ^ / ; .. n 1 .1 1 \\1\ l \ to Vl`r _ \ a m \ • / .. ` \\ // .. \\ �,I111 \ \ •: - \ \\ \ \ _. .-� � OIL \11111 \960^ t \ _ • .\ \ h �\ 11,\ 11 I 1 1\ 1\ ,3yNiW113bld • w _ t!1 :. _ - .� ass i .�. 1�pGrdS1! I%Sl co . d - .om+ MN z.��— ' ice_ ��4� �� � / � ...• v ^ yr�.+ � _.-__ � I " .��� t �. � . W CL cL 3H1 Y tom— ol ]ji t � e v \ �� ' .A 1. 111IIltIllnllilil / � 1 � i e 1 p 1 y \ l 1 1 l I vvIvA 111 1,��, E I \ J 1 \ •—I I r � .-/ r , , g 9 ftoo Communique To: Gary Suiter From: Leslie Klusmire RE: Latest revisions to Housing Mitigation Code Section Date: February 14, 2000 Here is the latest revision to the housing revision. We are on the home stretch. Recommendation: The Council should make final revisions to this section in preparation for integrating it into other Article 4 revisions previously discussed. Staff is drafting an ordinance for the Town Council to review, which will incorporate all the changes to Article 4. _ 49 _ V 2/14/2000 Proposed Division 4. Standards for Restricted Housing Sec. 16A-4-400. Purpose. To alleviate the shortage of adequate housing for persons of low, moderate or middle income, provisions for comfortable and affordable housing in locations approved by the Town Council shall be made to accommodate up to 80%of the employees generated by development and redevelopment and their families. (Ord. 4-1998 §1) Sec. 16A-4-410. Restricted housing requirements. (b) Job Generation Rates. Job generation rates vary by the type of land .The job generation rates found in Table 4-5, Job Generation Rates Per Type of Use, shall be applied to each type of use in the development at its maximum annual(peak)employment impact on the community. For any use not listed, the Planning Director shall determine the applicable job generation rate by consulting recognized professional publications or studies completed for resort communities similar to the Town. TABLE 4-5 JOB GENERATION RATES PER TYPE OF USE Type of Use Number of Jobs Generated Commercial including general retail,grocery, 6.94 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet liquor,convenience Office 4.44 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet Multi-family and Fractional Ownership/Time 0.66 jobs per unit Share Units Single-family/Duplex up to 3500 sq. ft. 0.31 jobs per lot Single-family/Duplex 3500 sq.ft.and over 1.7 jobs per lot Hotel/Lodge Pillow 0.44 jobs per room which are furnished to accommodate sleeping occupants Ski Area Restaurants—Cafeteria Style 5.50 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet Restaurants 7.9 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet Ski Areas 82.6 jobs per 1,000 skiers atone time Conference Center 0.97 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet wu � �O Health Club 1.47 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet (b) Average Number of Jobs Per Employee. The number of jobs generated by all types of uses, as determined in Subsection(a), Job Generation Rates, shall be divided by one and three-tenths (13), the average number of jobs per employee, to determine the number of new employees that will be generated by the development. (c) Square Footage Per Employee. For that number of employees required to be housed in restricted housing, as determined in Subsections(a)through(c)above,the developer shall be responsible for the creation of a total square footage equal to four hundred forty-eight (448) square feet (as measured in Section 16A-3-210(b), Measuring Floor Area) for each employee to be housed. The total square footage for which the developer shall be responsible shall be provided in dwelling units whose size shall be within the range of sizes described in Subsection(e), Size Ranges of Restricted Dwelling Units. The unit mix and methods of providing housing shall be determined as described in Section 16A-4420,Methods of Complying With Requirements. (d) Size Ranges of Restricted Dwelling Units. Table 4-6, Size Ranges of Restricted-Dwelling Units, establishes the minimum and maximum size range of restricted dwelling units, to ensure that the size of dwelling units contributed by a developer is appropriate. All units contributed by a developer shall meet these size limits. TABLE 4-6 SIZE RANGES OF RESTRICTED DWELLING UNITS Minimum Size(sq.ft.) Maximum Size(sq. Type of Unit ft) Studio 448 550 One-bedroom 550 750 Two-bedroom 750 1080 Three-bedroom 1150 1350 (e)Redevelopment In the case of redeveloped properties the developer shall mitigate the cost of emplovce housing for the 85%of the added sguare footage or additional units(size of the redeveloped proiect—size of the existing project x 85%). After determining the size of the additional project size to be mitigated the formula in Sec 16A-4-410.(f) shall be appplied to determine the total restricted housing square footage the developer shall provide. (f) Summary of Formula. In summary, the total restricted housing square footage the developer shall provide shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula: Number of jobs generated/ 1.3 x 448 square feet x.80 (Ord.4-1998§1;Ord. 11.-1998 §1) Sec. 16A-4-420. Methods of complying with requirements. Restricted housing shall be provided as follows: (1) Housing shall be provided as follows: a. At conceptual review of the project, the Town Council shall, using adopted guidelines, determine the mix and configuration of restricted units to be provided, fair and reasonable rental rates for each type of restricted unit, estimates of occupancy rates and operating budget including maintenance and operating, and the effect of the proposed restricted units on the overall restricted housing inventory in the Town. The criteria shall be the Comprehensive Plan, the most recent estimations of housing needs and rental rates based on a minimum of twenty-four percent(24%)of an employee's gross annual income. The Town shall undertake a study every other year to provide estimates of average employee income and a determination of housing needs. b. Developer responsibilities. The developer shall be responsible for planning and development approvals for any housing proposed to mitigate employee impact. The developer shall provide adequate land for project and shall be responsible for the full costs of constructing of the project. Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy,the developer shall convey the project free and clear of any monetary liens or restraints on alienation to the Town, which shall thereafter own and manage any restricted units. The developer shall warrant that the project is free of any construction defects for a period of one(1)year from the issuance of an unconditional certificate of occupancy for the project or as occupancy of individual buildings by the Town occurs, whichever first occurs. (2) Units or lots associated with a free market project. When restricted units are included in a free market project and are provided for the employees of the project, such restricted units or lots shall be provided as follows: a. The units or lots shall be restricted at the same rates charged by the Town for similar size units or lots with similar amenities. If there are no comparable units, the Town and the owner shall agree on an amount which may be charged for rent,or a maximum sales price. Rental or sales prices shall be adjusted annually based on the inflation index used by Town. b. Annual notification to Town of prices. The owner shall notify the Town, on or before September 1 of each year,of the rental or sale prices to be charged in the coming year. (3) Cash-in-lieu. The Town may, at the Town Council's discretion,accept cash-in-lieu of restricted employee housing in the following instances: a. The Town Council may accept cash-in-lieu of restricted housing the development is minor in w nature(such as,but not limited to,an addition to an existing structure),the Ton Council may permit a developer to contribute cash-in-lieu to meet his or her entire restricted housing requirement. b. Costs to be included. Cash-in-lieu of employee housing shall include an amount of sufficient to cover and purchase land and all related planning, construction and construction management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be incurred by the Town in order to provide the required amount of restricted housing. The amount incurred by the town is the subsidy necessary to provide housing at restricted rental or sale pricing(difference between the project's actual cost and the revenue projected from it's sale or rental over the term of the construction loan) (4) The Town shall grant to the developer of one-family lots restricted in a manner approved by the Town Council, employee housing credits in an amount equal to 448 (or new figure) square feet x the average occupancy for single family homes according to the most recent US Census statistics as determined by the Planning Director for each restricted lot created. (Ord.4-1998 §1;Ord. 11-1998 §3) -33 - V 2/14/2000 Proposed Division 4. Standardsfor Restricted Housing See. 16A-4-400. Purpose. To alleviate the shortage of adequate housing for persons of low, moderate or middle income, provisions for comfortable and affordable housing in locations approved by the Town Council shall be made to accommodate up to 80% of the employees generated by development and redevelopment and their families. (Ord. 4-1998 §I) Sec. 16A-4-410. Restricted housing requirements. (a) E)ne hundnd per eent (100%) of Snawmass Village Ff"playees Shall Be Housed. The developer shall provide festrieted housing for one hundred pereent(100%) of the new emple)ees employed in Snewmass Village that are gettefated by development. (b) Job Generation Rates. Job generation rates vary by the type of land .The job generation rates found in Table 4-5, Job Generation Rates Per Type of Use, shall be applied to each type of use in the development at its maximum annual(peak)employment impact on the community. For any use not listed, the Planning Director shall determine the applicable job generation rate by consulting recognized professional publications or studies completed for resort communities similar to the Town. TABLE 4-5 JOB GENERATION RATES PER TYPE OF USE Type of Use Number of Jobs Generated Commercial including general retail, grocery, 6.94 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet liquor,convenience Office 4.44 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet Multi-family and Fractional Ownership/Time 0.66 jobs per unit Share Units Single-family/Duplex up to 3500 sq. ft. 0.31 jobs per lot Single-family/Duplex 3500 sq.ft.and over 1.7 jobs per lot Hotel/Lodge Pillow 0.44 jobs per room which are furnished to accommodate sleeping occupants Ski Area Restaurants—Cafeteria Style 5.50 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet Restaurants 7.9 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet Ski Areas 82.6 jobs per 1,000 skiers at one time Conference Center 0.97 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet 314 a Health Club 1.47 jobs per 1,000 interior square feet (b) Average Number of Jobs Per Employee. The number of jobs generated by all types of uses, as determined in Subsection (a), Job Generation Rates, shall be divided by one and three-tenths (13), the average number of jobs per employee, to determine the number of new employees that will be generated by the development. (c) Square Footage Per Employee. For that number of employees required to be housed in restricted housing, as determined in Subsections (a) through (c) above, the developer shall be responsible for the creation of a total square footage equal to four hundred forty-eight (448) square feet (as measured in Section 16A-3-210(b), Measuring Floor Area) for each employee to be housed. The total square footage for which the developer shall be responsible shall be provided in dwelling units whose size shall be within the range of sizes described in Subsection (e), Size Ranges of Restricted Dwelling Units. The unit mix and methods of providing housing shall be determined as described in Section 16A-4-420,Methods of Complying With Requirements. (d) Size Ranges of Restricted Dwelling Units. Table 4-6, Size Ranges of Restricted Dwelling Units, establishes the minimum and maximum size range of restricted dwelling units, to ensure that the size of dwelling units contributed by a developer is appropriate. All units contributed by a developer shall meet these size limits. TABLE 4-6 SIZE RANGES OF RESTRICTED DWELLING UNITS Minimum Size(sq.ft.) Maximum Size(sq. Type of Unit ft.) Studio 448 550 One-bedroom 550 750 Two-bedroom 750 1080 Three-bedroom 1150 1350 (e)Redevelopment In the case of redeveloped properties the developer shall mitigate the cost of employee housing for the 85%of the added square footage or additional units(size of the redeveloped proiect—size of the existing proiect x 85%). After determining the size of the additional proiect size to be mitigated the formula in Sec. 16A-4-410.(f) shall be apoplied to determine the total restricted housing square footage the developer shall provide. (f) Summary of Formula. In summary, the total restricted housing square footage the developer shall provide shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula: Number of jobs generated/ 1.3 x 448 square feet x.80 (Ord.4-1998§1;Ord. 11-1998 §1) Sec. 16A-4-420. Methods of complying with requirements. Restricted housing shall be provided as follows: (1) Housing shall be provided as follows: a. At conceptual review of the project, the Town Council shall, using adopted guidelines, determine the mix and configuration of restricted units to be provided, fair and reasonable rental rates for each type of restricted unit, estimates of occupancy rates and operating budget including maintenance and operating, and the effect of the proposed restricted units on the overall restricted housing inventory in the Town. The criteria shall be the Comprehensive Plan, the most recent estimations of housing needs and rental rates based on a minimum of twenty-four percent(24%) of an employee's gross annual income. The Town shall undertake a study every other year to provide estimates of average employee income and a determination of housing needs. b. Developer responsibilities. The developer shall be responsible for planning and development approvals for any housing proposed to mitigate employee impact. The developer shall provide adequate land for project and shall be responsible for the full costs of constructing of the project. Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy,the developer shall convey the project free and clear of any monetary liens or restraints on alienation to the Town, which shall thereafter own and manage any restricted units. The developer shall warrant that the project is free of any construction defects for a period of one(1)year from the issuance of an unconditional certificate of occupancy for the project or as occupancy of individual buildings by the Town occurs, whichever first occurs. (2) Units or lots associated with a free market project. When restricted units are included in a free market project and are provided for the employees of the project, such restricted units or lots shall be provided as follows: a. The units or lots shall be restricted at the same rates charged by the Town for similar size units or lots with similar amenities. If there are no comparable units, the Town and the owner shall agree on an amount which may be charged for rent,or a maximum sales price. Rental or sales prices shall be adjusted annually based on the inflation index used by Town. b. Annual notification to Town of prices. The owner shall notify the Town, on or before September 1 of each year,of the rental or sale prices to be charged in the coming year. (3) Cash-in-lieu. The Town may, at the Town Council's discretion, accept cash-in-lieu of restricted employee housing in the following instances: a. The Town Council may accept cash-in-lieu of restricted housing the development is minor in nature(such as,but not limited to,an addition to an existing structure),the Town Council may permit a developer to contribute cash-in-lieu to meet his or her entire restricted housing requirement. b. Costs to be included. Cash-in-lieu of employee housing shall include an amount of sufficient to cover and purchase land and all related planning, construction and construction management costs of the project, in current dollars, which would be incurred by the Town in order to provide the required amount of restricted housing. The amount incurred by the town is the subsidy necessary to provide housing at restricted rental or sale pricing(difference between the project's actual cost and the revenue projected from it's sale or rental over the term of the construction loan) (4) The Town shall grant to the developer of one-family lots restricted in a manner approved by the Town Council, employee housing credits in an amount equal to 448 (or new figure) square feet x the average occupancy for single family homes according to the most recent US Census statistics as determined by the Planning Director for each restricted lot created. (Ord.41998§1;Ord. 11-1998 §3) 7 4MIW COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 14 February 2000 4:20 PM Presented By: Victoria Giannola, Planning Director Subject: Krabloonik Restaurant Expansion Proposal Overview: 1. The Planning Director met with David Myler of Freilich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle and Gary Watts in November of 1. Background 1999 to discuss a proposal for expansion of the restaurant and potential change in land use. See the Town of 2. Issues Snowmass Village letter attached as Figure 1. The 3. Alternatives attached letter lists the position of the Planning Division regarding interpretation of the Land Use and Development Code regarding this proposed project, in addition to itemizing those issues discussed at the meeting, for Council review. 2. The applicant and the consultant representing the applicant differed with the Planning Division's interpretation regarding four major issues as follows: interpretation of the Code regarding a change in land use; following a PUD Amendment process for expansion of the restaurant; requirements for additional employee housing; and use of Town property for shared parking. See the letter of Freilich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle attached as Figure 2. 3. The applicant's legal council is requesting an interpretation regarding the above four issues from Town Council. Recommendation: The Staff of the Planning Division recommends that the Town Council follow the letter of November 26, 1999 regarding the designation of a Major PUD if the use by right was proposed to be changed to residential in lieu of the existing mixed commercial and residential uses; regarding the designation of a Minor PUD for the restaurant expansion alone; regarding the need for additional employee housing facilities (subject to the interpretation of Council); and regarding the need to address shared use of the Town owned parking lot. i �� FIGURE 1 !naB r;l Community Development Department SNOW ASS VILLAGE •Building ,/iii+irr;l •Natural Resource Management •Planning November 26, 1999 Gary Watts Krabloonik P.O. Box 5517 Snowmass Village CO 81615 RE: Pre-application conference - Krabloonik expansion and proposed change in uses by right Dear Mr. Watts: Thank you for meeting with me on Thursday of last week (18 November 1999) for a pre-application meeting on the Krabloonik restaurant expansion plans. Listed below are the items of discussion per this meeting • The property consists of a restaurant and dog kennel for dinning operations and dog sled rides, respectively. [The restaurant building is approximately 2,500 square feet—telephone conversation with Gary Watts on 26 November 19991. • Approximately 1,700 square feet of restaurant expansion is proposed (with 600 square feet reserved for new seating). Currently the restaurant has 95 seats and,with the addition of 30 seats, the restaurant will have a total seating of 120. • The restaurant is located on 1.7 acres within the Town of Snowmass • Approximately 50 parking spaces are provided for the restaurant's use in a lot owned by the Town of Snowmass Village. This parking lot sees both evening use and limited winter-time, lunch and dogsled ride use by Krabloonik. The parking lot is also used by ski patrons. • The operative site plans limit future expansion of the restaurant to a resulting total of 4,500 square feet for the restaurant operations. The proposed addition plus the current restaurant will not exceed 4,500 square feet • Access to the site is through an easement with thr neighboring property. • •� �� P.O.BOX 3010 • SNO WMASS VILLAGE.COLORADO 81615 (970)923-5524 fax (970)923-1861 p1mratowcom • w -tosv.com -2— November 29,1999 • Shuttle access ends at the last 1/4 mile to the Krabloonik site. • Between 700 to 800 square feet of employee housing is proposed (with approximately 600 square feet of employee housing currently in place on the site). • The applicant is proposing to amend the list of uses by right for this site to include two free market home lots (or a possible duplex) provided the restaurant and dog kennel are removed from the site. You had requested that I provide you with answers to three questions, which arose during our meeting as follows: 1. Would the submission be a PUD Amendment or a Minor PUD? It is the position of the Planning Director that the,proposed restaurant expansion, in conjunction with the proposed change in use by right to allow for residential uses in lieu of the restaurant and dogsled rides, would not meet the provisions for a PUD Amendment. The proposed change in use would not be "consistent with the original PUD" [Section 16A-5-390(3)a], and would "change [the] character" of the site [Section 16A-5-390(3)b]. Furthermore, since the proposed restaurant addition exceeds 10%of the existing floor area of a non-residential building,the proposed expansion would not meet the provisions for a Minor PUD [Section 16A-5-300(b)Table 5-3]. Therefore, the Planning Department would classify the proposal as a Major PUD that would follow the full PUD process. However, if the applicant deleted the proposed change in use by right that would allow for residential uses from the submission, the proposed restaurant expansion would meet the criteria for a Minor PLC Amendment. 2. Wbat is the Comprebenshe Plan fixture land use designation for this rite? The Comp Plan appears to call for Mixed Use on this site. Mixed Use is described in the Plan as including a mix of residential, retail, restaurant, office, public, cultural, and recreational uses as well as lodging and commercial uses. Based upon our discussions of the Krabloonik operations, it would appear that you are using a variety of these uses. It is the opinion of the Planning Director and Interim Planning Director that a change to solely residential uses would not be in keeping with the Mixed Use designation. 3. Wbat community amenities mould be required of this proposal? Based upon the proposed restaurant expansion of 1,700 square feet, the number of new employees generated will be 5.99; and 2,462 square feet are required to house those employees [Section 16A-4410(a) Table 4-5]. "...The developer, in order to assure housing opportunities for all employees generated by their development, shall be responsible for providing affordable restricted housing for one hundred percent (100%) of the new.employees generated [Section 16A-4- 410(c)]. �� ONO& -3— November 29, 1999 Based upon the projection of 30 new seats within the restaurant expansion area, the proposed project would require an additional eight parking spaces [Section 16A-4-310(b) Table 4-31. The submission will need to address if the Town of Snowmass Villa= pTking lot can accommodate this additional parking need through Shared Parking. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our meeting or this letter at the telephone number or address listed below. Sincerely, Victoria Giannola Planning Director cc: David Tyler, Attorney at Law 160 South Mill Street Aspen CO 81611 LAW OFFICES FIGURE 2 FREILICH, MYLER3 LEITNER'& CARLISLE A►AATNUINP INCWOMO PMFUS10NAL COAPOPAMM IN KANW Cm',MH50M D4A3P3MCOCOaAO0 106 SOUTH MMI STPMT F1=Ci,r=3r=&CAKJ = ATTOATAY3 AT1AW StJrrIa 202 DAVM 1.MY10.P.C' AT'rCUWP ATLAW &W C 1 '"" M 1.KALVEY' ' ASPEN,COLORDO 81611 U� tT i lifS P.0 W MAATTNL L671=t.0 ,w„nm„er FACSWLE AKSLUM 0.CAALMLI,P.C.' (970)920-4259 3710I00113fOKOM .e.� TELEPHONE RYJ=&T0070, (970)920-1018 "0114°�'OtO'•"•" CJOITVM LAND UnPLANT' A MU MAPL L LAM AU? nWaML9AUM AIQ =W&.AZ0M,AICP February 10,2000 Town Council Town of Snowmass Village 16 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, CO 81615 RE: EXPANSION OF 1QWLOONIK RESTAURANT Dear Gentlemen: We represent Dan MacEachen and MacEachea Holdings, LLC (hereinafter collectively "MacEachca"),the owners of Lot 45,The Divide PUD,located in Snowmass Village,Colorado,and the Krabloonik Restaurant:and DogKennels located thereon(hereinafter collectively the"Property"). The purpose of this letter is to briefly address some of the issues related to MacEachen's contemplated expansion of the Krabloonik Restaurant on the Property and to serve as a basis of discussion for that work session currently scheduled for February 14, 2000 between the Town Council and MacEachen. 1. Background of Protterh The use of the Property, located within The Divide PUD, is governed by that document known as The Divide Land Use Plan Map. The Divide Land Use Plan Map(hereinafter"Land Use Map")was approved as part of the Final Land Use Plan and Detailed Final Plat for The Divide by Town of Snowmass Village Ordinance No. 16,Series of 1989,and is attached hereto as"Exhibit B" for your reference. One of the purposes of said Ordinance No. 16 was to recognize the underlying zoning of The Divide as MU-PUD (mixed use - planned unit development) and that the planned development of The Divide was in conformance with the intent and objectives of the MU-PUD zone district. FREILICH,MYLEP.LErfNER&CARLISLE Town Council February 10,2000 Page 2 Ordinance No. 16 of 1989 subjected the Property to the Land Use Map and the specific conditions set forth therein, such as allowed land uses, sizes, densities and other development standards specific to the Property. The allowed uses for the Property,identified as"Parcel D"on the Land Use Map,include the Krabloonik Restaurant,dog sled operation and kennels,support buildings for the above, and employee housing. Pursuant to the Land Use Map,the maximum allowable total building area on the Property is 15,000 sq.ft. Allowed uses and maximum developmentparameters related to the Property include 4,500 sq.ft,for restaurant and 2,900 sq.ft.for employee housing. In contrast,the size of the existing development located on the Property is 2,726 sq. ft of restaurant (70 seats) and1056 sq. ft. of employee housing. 2. Proposed Expansio * nt and Fmplpy . .Housing The proposed expansion of the Krabloonik Restaurant contemplates the addition of an additional 1,700 square feet of new space for a total restaurant square footage of 4,426(an addition of 30 seats), which additional space is a use by right and allowed under the Land Use Map. 3. Provision of Additional Affordable Housing Adequate employee housing related to the commercial components of the Property was provided at the time the original restaurant was constructed on the Property, including a separate apartment unit and two(2)bunk rooms with a total of 7 beds utilized primarily for winter use. Also, in designating the allowed uses set forth on the Land Use Map,the Town presumably analyzed the sufficiency of the ratio of commercial components to employee housing in devising the allowable square footage of each component. Accordingly, MacEachen would arguably not be required to meet any Town regulations related to employee housing mitigation in connection with the expansion of the restaurant on the Property. This position is Anther supported by Condition No. 9 as set forth on the Land Use Map related to the Property. This condition states; Expansion or modification of existing structures shall require approval of the Town Council regarding architectural design only. (Emphasis added). Notwithstanding MacEachen's ability to expand the restaurant areawithout further mitigating employee housing capacity, MacEachen is willing to provide an additional 800 square feet of employee housing on the Property,for a total of 1,856 square feet of employee housing,and restrict such housing to use by employees of Kmbloonik only. However,MacEachen shall request that the deed restrictions related to such additional employee housing remain in place only for so long as the _ Iva awo FRuLICH,M1 LER,LzrrmR&CARLISLE Town Council February 10, 2000 Page 3 Property is utilized for its current restaurant and kennel purposes. This condition is based on MacEachen's request to amend the PUD to allow the Property to be used for residential purposes in lieu of its present commercial purposes,which issue is addressed in more detail later in this letter. 4, Paildu9 MacEachen is aware that new or expanded development within the Town is required to provide on-site parking to accommodate the projected parking demand based on the new use. Currently, parking for the restaurant is supplied by a public parking lot located on that .5 acre lot known as Parcel J,The Divide PUD,which Parcel J is owned by the Town. This public parking lot provides approximately 35 parking spaces, the majority of which are designated for use by Krabloonik Restaurant pursuant to an existing easement agreement with the Town. The remainder of the lot is restricted public parking requiring a permit. The Land Use Map allows parking, open space and trash collection facilities on this parcel. Section 16A-4-310 of the Town Code requires any expansion of the Property to be supplemented with 1 space per bedroom, 1.5 spaces per bedroom in a restricted unit,and 1 space per 4 seats for restaurants. As the expanded restaurant would consist of 100 seats,the required number of spaces related to the restaurant use would equal twenty-five (25). In regard to the spaces per bedroom,only 1 restricted bedroom is contemplated to be added,thus requiring 1.5 spaces ofrelated parking. In regard to the other unrestricted employee units located upon the property,there is a total of three bedrooms (one apartment and two bunk rooms)containing 7 beds. The Town Code does not delineate parking spaces per bed, but per bedroom. Thus, it would appear that the required parking related to the bedrooms located on the Property amounts to 4.5 spaces, for a total of 29.5 spaces required for the entire Property. Pursuant to the Town's policy of allowing shared parking when uses are located on the same or adjoining sites,the existing parking lot is currently shared by Krabloonik and the Aspen Skiing Company, which utilizes the parking lot for day skier parking. However, it should be noted that these uses do not conflict or overlap as the day skier parking is only utilized during the day and winter times,while the use by Krabloonik of the parking lot(with the exception of employee parking and very light lunch traffic during the day)occurs only at night. Therefore,the current parking lot is sufficient to handle the shared use traffic, even in light of the proposed expansion plans. 5. Architectural Design Review As previously discussed,Condition No.9 of the Land Use Map related to the Property states: Expansion or modification of existing structures shall require approval of the Town Council regarding architectural design only. FMILICS,MYLER,LEITNER&CARLIBLE Town Council February 10,2000 Page 4 Notwithstanding the review requirement set forth in Condition No. 9,upon understanding and belief the Town Code provides no process for presenting the proposed architectural design plans related to the Property's proposed expansion to the Council. Therefore, the Council needs to determine the most efficient way to fulfill this requirement, while additionally determining the information necessary to review. It would seem that a one-step review process would be the least time-consuming and most efficient process,with MacEachen presenting the proposed architectural plans to the Council at an acceptable date within its schedule. As far as the plans produced to date, the proposed architectural design of the expansion mirrors the existing Krabloonik structures as well as the residential structures located in the surrounding neighborhood. 6, Minor PUD Modification The final issue which MacEachen wishes to explore with the Town is the modificationofThe Divide PUD and related Laa,d Use Map to permit, as an additional allowed use, single family dwellings upon the Property. As an alternative to use,expansion and development of the Property for its current commercial aspects,MacEachea desires to amend the Land Use Map to allow for up to two(2) single family residences,similar to other lots adjacent to the Property within The Divide PUD,in the instance that continued operation of the Krabloonik restaurant and dog kennels upon the Property becomes no longer viable in the future. Obviously,MacEachen would be required to seek a PUD amendment pursuant to the Town Code to achieve this goal. While MacF=hen is not asking the Town at this time to speak to or consider the merits of such a PUD amendment, MacEachen is requesting the Town to render an opinion at the February 14 work session on whether such PUD amendment would be processed pursuant to the Town's minor PUD amendment or major PUD amendment process. It is our opinion that any such PUD amendment related to the Property be handled through the Town's Minor PUD amendment process. The Property is currently zoned MU-PUD and under the terms of the Town Code,single family dwellings are an allowed use within said zone district. Also,homeowners located adjacent and in proximity to the Property would presumably welcome a change in use of the Property to residential as it is in keeping with the neighborhood scheme. It is important to note that the Property was originally zoned MU-PUD solely to accommodate the existence of the Krabloonik restaurant and dog kennels in the first place. Finally,,allowing two single family residences to be built on the Property in lieu of the commercial components meets the criteria for a Minor PUD amendment as set forth in Section 16A-5-300 of the Town Code. Therefore, adding a use for the Property that is already allowed within the zone district, which would fit with the existing neighborhood scheme,which meets all criteria set forth in Section 16A-5-390(2), and does not trigger or meet the standards of a Major PUD amendment process FREILICH,MYLER,LEMER&CARLISLE Town Council February 10,2000 Page 5 appears to meet the criteria for qualifying as a Minor PUD amendment and we would simply request that the Town verify the same. We look forward to discussing these issues with you in more detail on Monday,February 14. Very Truly Yours, FREILICH, YLER,LEITNER& CARLISLE J. ey SJH:om cc: Dan MaeBachen Kim Raymond DRAuIeQ PAc{c� *54w�" -4 Ctrs eur� o BOULDER WALL EXAMPLES 1 : img32a.jpg BOULDER WALL EXAMPLES 2: img32c.jpg ett } s 49 x Ww Tzw "A x 6R DAWAC PRWT Jtt d ku f 'c�a Gt�i►;� SESStCl1 �--/y-� 6yr,,K,it Decisions to date (as of February 10 2000): As of February 3,2000 1. Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt,Aspen, Snowmass Village, Pitkin County and Eagle County have signed resolutions of intent to participate in RTA discussions with the goal of forming an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and placing a RTA formation question on the ballot in November 2000. 2. Each participating jurisdiction has appointed two people to officially represent their jurisdiction. 3. Each participating jurisdiction has appointed a key staff contact. 4. Participating jurisdictions have agreed that there will be a vote in November 2000 on at least the formation of the RTA, contingent on the completion of the IGA. 5. The RTA steering committee(the predecessor to the RTA Policy Committee)has agreed that there will be a public involvement component to the RTA IGA effort, including a citizen advisory committee, survey, meetings and interviews with community members. Decisions made at February 10,2000 RTA Policy Committee Meeting: 6. RTA Policy Committee decision making: The RTA Policy Committee will work to make decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote on motions will be taken. A 2/3rds majority of five jurisdictions will be required to pass a motion. Each jurisdiction will have one vote. 7. Ratification of RTA Policy Committee decisions: Policy Committee representatives will take decisions back to their respective boards and councils and ask for approval on an ongoing basis. A written record of decisions made at each Policy Committee meeting will be provided to policy committee members and each jurisdiction's staff contact person shortly after each meeting. In addition to ongoing updates after each Policy Committee meeting, boards will set aside the time they deem necessary to discuss and officially ratify a"lump of decisions"rather than waiting to ratify all IGA decisions at the end of the process. 8. Approval of proposed IGA timeline: Policy Committee members agreed to the proposed timeline, including meetings on the 2nd and 4d'Thursday of each month at least through April, with the possibility of two more meetings in May, and completion of IGA decisions by June 1. Concern was expressed regarding the limited amount of Policy Committee meeting time. It was decided that if necessary additional meetings might be scheduled and/or meeting duration would be extended. 9. Problem and Opportunity Statement: Approved,with the addition of minor editorial changes. (Final version attached.) 10. RTA Decision Making Framework, including RTA Options: Accepted as a sound method for determining the essential elements of the IGA, with a number of wording changes and options deleted or added. With these changes the Policy Committee accepted as complete the range of options presented. The final version of the Decision Making Framework is attached. RTA PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT As approved at the February 10, 2000 RTA Policy Committee Meeting The Problem 1. Current RFTA funding will not sustain existing service levels nor support needed service improvements. 2. Without a RTA,RFTA will have to cut back on regional transit service. 3. As the valley continues to grow,traffic levels are projected to increase. 4. The entire Roaring Fork Valley is not fully represented in RFTA decision making. 5. Funding and service imbalances exist. 6. Significant valley-wide transit improvements are not possible with current institutional framework. 7. There is currently no"umbrella"organization that can move the region's transit efforts forward. The Opportunity 1. RTA stabilizes and enhances transit funding. 2. RTA enfranchises all Valley jurisdictions in transit service and funding decisions. 3. RTA creates a dedicated source of regional transit funding, avoiding the annual "begathon"from jurisdictions' general funds. 4. RTA creates foundation for improved/expanded transportation options in the entire service area. 5. RTA creates the foundation to resolve regional organizational and service complexity. 6. RTA consolidates resources of member jurisdictions. 7. RTA is essential for valley to receive major new sources of federal grants and increases the region's ability to compete for these funds. 8. RTA essential for completion of major multimodal transportation improvements in the region. RTA Decision Making Framework (including changes from 2/10 Policy Committee Meeting) The Rural Transportation Authority Intergovernmental Agreement will consist of 9 main topics. 1. What are the jurisdictional boundaries of the RTA? 2. What will the RTA do? 3. What is the composition of the RTA board? 4. What is the relationship with existing and future local transit services? 5. How will the board vote to make decisions? 6. What is the relationship between the RTA, RFTA, and RFRHA? 7. What financing mechanisms should be used? 8. What level of service is derived from different funding packages? 9. What are the elements of a to-be-drafted November 2000 ballot question(s)? 1. What are the jurisdictional Boundaries of the RTA? (Please note: jurisdictional boundaries do not necessarily equal service area boundaries. Service area boundary options are discussed under topic 8.) Option 1: All of Pitkin County, RE-1 School District in Eagle County, Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, Snowmass Village, and City of Glenwood Springs. Option 2: The above, plus the portion of Garfield County that lies within the Roaring Fork Valley. Option 3: Either Option 1 or Option 2, but the IGA would emphasize that additional areas can join the RTA in the future, as laid out in the RTA enabling legislation. 2. What will the RTA do? Option 1: RTA serves as a new structure that allows the region to apply and receive new sources of funding and allocates funding to various service providers throughout the region. Option 2: Option 1, plus the RTA is the provider of regional trunk service covering the area that funding will permit. Option 3: Option 2, plus the RTA is feeder service provider, covering area that funding will permit. Option 4: One of the above three options, but RTA is the umbrella transportation planning organization for the region. Option 5: In addition to one of the above options the RTA would have all the powers provided in the enabling legislation and would be in the business of providing a full range of transportation improvements. Page 1 of 5 02/14/00 3. What is the composition of the RTA board? Option 1A: Equal Representation: One elected official representative from each participating jurisdiction, appointed by that jurisdiction (by statute, RTA Board must consist of at least five members). Option 1B: 1 A above, plus one or more at-large members appointed by each jurisdiction. 4. What is the RTA's relationship with existing and future local transit services? Option 1: Local communities have local control over in-town services; RTA is not involved at all in funding local services. Option 2: Local communities have local control but money from RTA flows into local services. Option 3: RTA runs whole system. Option 4: The RTA would fund and/or run local services, with varying arrangements with each community depending on each communities' preference, but details would be worked out after RTA is formed. 5. How will the board vote to make decisionsf Option 1: Simple majority plus any statutory requirements that may exist. Option 2: Two-thirds majority plus any statutory requirements that may exist. Option 3: Three-quarters vote. Option 4: Varying voting requirements for different kinds of decisions. 6. What is the relationship between the RTA, RFTA, RFRHA: Option 1: RTA serves as a new structure that allows the region to apply and receive new sources of funding and allocates funding to various service providers throughout the region. RFTA and RFRHA continue to exist as separate organizations. Option 2: RTA + RFHRA—Option 1, plus immediate absorption of RFRHA and rail corridor, trails. RFTA remains a separate organization. Option 3: RFTA becomes the RTA. RFRHA and trails remains separate organization. Page 2 of 5 02/14/00 Topic 6, continued: Option 4a: All 3 become one. Option 4b: All 3 become one, but merging is phased over a specified time period, as detailed in the IGA (time certain or event-triggered). Option 5: RFTA and RFRHA merge by May 2000, before IGA is written. Option 6: Some portions of RFTA and RFRHA become part of the RTA, others remain separate. 7. What financing mechanisms should be used? Option 1: Basic fundin¢ for RTA a. Vehicle Registration Fee ($10 per vehiclelyear) b. OR Nominal regional sales tax (.04%) C. Dedication of some portion of existing funding sources d. Combination of all Option 2: Enhancement of transit funding Basic funding of RTA, derived from options above, plus one or more of the options below a. Region-wide RTA sales tax: -determine levels (more than .4% requires legislative amendment.) C. Region-wide visitor services fee (Requires legislative amendment) d. Committed (through IGA) local contribution from selected local sources (e.g. dedicated sales tax, property tax levy, special district contributions, etc.) e. Combination of funding mechanisms Page 3 of 5 02/14/00 8. What level of service is derived from different funding packages? OPTION 1A OPTION 1B OPTION 2 OPTION 3A OPTION 3B OPTION 3C Option 4 Level of Maintain Same as 1A Expanded Expanded Trunk Same as 3A Same as 3A Same as 3A Service: existing Roaring Fork Service and Collector/ but include services Valley trunk Distribution Services feeder system services (30- (Including to Rifle/West east to Eagle/ minute 1-70 communities) Gypsum frequency) Fundinz. $10 Same as 1A $10 $10 registration fee, up Same as 3A Same as 3A Same as 3A Registration Fee except use a registration to .75 cent sales tax small amount of fee, portion and/or visitor benefit sales tax as a of.4 sales tax fee funding source instead of the $10 registration fee. Method of Existing RFTA Existing RFTA Existing RFTA All resources pooled Resource Same Level of Service Either 3A, 3B, Resource TDP Model TDP Model TDP Model and appropriated by Allocation is and Funding as 3A— or 3C Allocation: RTA Board vote. determined However, some portion OR OR in ballot of funding is dedicated OR language. to trunk service and Appropriated Appropriated local services are a local by Board vote Appropriated by by Board vote option. For example: Board vote Trunk — .4 cent Local — .3 cent Trails — .05 cent Page 4 of 5 j 02/14/00 9. What are the components of the to-be-drafted November 2000 ballot question (s)? Options to be developed as effort progresses. Page 5 of 5 02/14/00