Loading...
02-21-00 Town Council Packet SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION 02-21-2000 1:00 — 1:30 P.M. NATURE CENTER CONCESSION AGREEMENT DISCUSSION -- Craig Thompson/Steve Connor. . . . . . .Page 1 1:30 —2:15 ORDINANCE NO. 02, SERIES OF 2000, FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX (FAR) DISCUSSION -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 2 2:15 — 2:45 LAND USE CODE DISCUSSION • Employee Housing • Amend Sketch Plan Review Process -- Leslie Klusmire/Steve Connor . . . . . . . . . . No Packet Information 2:45 —4:45 TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS (FARAWAY RANCH SOUTH) PRELIMINARY PUD DISCUSSION -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 4:45 — 5:20 MALL TRANSIT PLAZA DISCUSSION -- Joe Kracum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 47 5:20— 5:30 BREAK SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 02-21-2000 CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Item No. 3: PUBLIC HEARING — DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06 SERIES OF 2000 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06, SERIES OF 2000 CONCERNING 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 (Continued from 02-07-2000) -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 57 02-21-00tc Page 2 Item No. 4: FIRST READING - ORDINANCE NO. 01, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 1994 CONCERNING OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY ARISING FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE BURNT MOUNTAIN EXPANSION OF THE SNOWMASS SKI AREA RELATING TO A TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE AND CONSTRUCTION OF MITIGATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 58 Item No. 5: FIRST READING - ORDINANCE NO. 02, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURES TO ASSESS AND COLLECT THE LIMITED EXCISE TAX ON IMPROVEMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR A LOT AS APPROVED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE TOWN ON NOVEMBER 2, 1999, IMPLEMENTING THE SAME BY AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE. (Tabled from 02-07-99) -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 63 Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 02, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENTRANCE INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SNOWMASS-WILDCAT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT -- Craig Thompson/Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . .Page 69 Item No. 7: RESOLUTION NO. 11. SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENTRANCE INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FOR NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT -- Hunt Walker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 75 Item No. 8: RESOLUTION NO. 14, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING PATRICK KEELTY TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 82 Item No. 9: MANAGER'S REPORT Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 84 02-21-00tc Page 3 Item No. 10: APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 01-17-00, 01-31-00 AND 02-07-00 AND MEETING MINUTES OF 02-07-00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 85 Item No. 11: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS Item No. 12: CALENDARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 101 Item No. 13: ADJOURNMENT 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 21, 2000 Presented By: Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Steve Connor, Town Attorney Subject: Nature Center Concession Agreement/Ground Lease Discussion Overview: The proposed location of the Nature Center on Town owned 1. Background property identified as a portion of Parcel F, Lot 3, East Village 2. Issues PUD will necessitate a discussion regarding a concession 3. Alternatives agreement or ground lease between the Town and the Nature Center. At a conceptual level, staff has put forward two alternatives: A: The Nature Center finances and constructs the building (proposed 2,800 sq. ft.) and upon completion the Town would take ownership. The Nature Center would then occupy the building per a negotiated concession agreement with the Town. B: The Nature Center finances and constructs the building and retains ownership. The Naturg Center would then lease the land from the Town. Under both alternatives, the Nature Center would be responsible for: 1. Maintenance of building and site 2. All operational costs (utilities, etc.) 3. Personal property insurance J Recommendation: 1. Alternative A. 2. Direction to staff to proceed with a detailed financial and legal structure for Alternative A. ilk COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 21 January 2000 1:30 and 6:30 PM Presented By: Victoria Giannola, Planning Director Subject: Floor Area Excise Tax Overview: Attached is a second spreadsheet showing the average 1. Background assessed values of improvements only, as well as the 2. Issues associated costs per square foot based upon an average 3. Alternatives square footage for four subdivisions within the Town of Snowmass Village. In addition, the resultant fee for purchasing additional square footage in variable amounts is displayed. 1. Town Council met on 31 January 2000 to review the first spreadsheet, which displayed hypothetical values of improvements only and cost per square foot based upon hypothetical average square footages. Town Council met again on 7 February 2000 to review the Pitkin County Assessors data on the actual values and assessed values of improvements. 2. The prior and current data will assist Town Council in determining the fee to undertake an expansion of a single family home beyond the allowable Floor Area Ratio. 3. Town Council may decide to further study additional data on improvement values and square footage calculations. Recommendation: Provide direction to staff on how to proceed. �� FLOOR AREA EXCISE IAX Assessed Values 21 JANUARY 00 PAGE 1 OF 2 DIVIDE WOODRUN IV WOODRUN I WOODRUN 111 WOODRUN 11 AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $240,433.45 $199,118.33 $111,983.23 $85,160.00 $72,775.00 AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT SO FT 5360 5282 3958 3493 3454 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT $44.86 $37.70 $28.29 $24.38 $21.07 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SO FT 550 550 450 400 450 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD(100°k) $24,671.34 $20,733.64 $12,731.80 $9,752.08 $9,481.40 CONSTRUCTION COSTS: '@$400/SF $220,000.00 '@$375/SF $206,250.00 '@$350/SF $157,500.00 '@$325/SF $130,000.00 '@$300/SF $135,000.00 r - '@$275/SF VJ @$250/SF 1 '@$225/SF @$200/SF OTAL EXPENSE OF ADDITIONAL SO FT $244,671. $226,983.64 $170,231.801 $139,752.08 $144,481.40 OTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SO $444.86 $412.70 $378.291 $349.38 $321.07 ♦ Y f ELTON RANCH III MELTON RANCH 11 ELTON RANCH I PINES AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $38,648.18 $31,041.88 $27,005.45 $36,675.71 AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT SO FT 3016 2597 2574 5473 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT $12.81 $11.95 $10.49 $6.70 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SO FT 450 450 550 550 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD(100%) $5,766.47 $5,378.84 $5,770.40 $3,685.66 FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX Assessed Values 21 JANUARY 00 PAGE 2 OF 2 MELTON RANCH III MELTON RANCH If MELTON RANCH I PINES CONSTRUCTION COSTS: '@$400/SF '@$375/SF '(M$350/SF '@$325/SF '(8$300/SF '@$275/SF $123,750.00 '@$250/SF $112,500.00 '@$225/SF $123,750.00 '@$200/SF $110,000.00 OTAL EXPENSE OF ADDITIONAL SQ FT $129,516.47 $117,878.84 $129,520.40 $113,685.66 OTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SQ $287.81 $261.95 $235.49 $206.70 Ala 4 t COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: February 21, 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 Design Proposal Discuss Draft Resolution/Direction to Staff Overview: The Applicant has amended their employee housing proposal to respond to direction received last week. Their new written proposal has been enclosed as Exhibit F of the resolution. Architectural plans and sections have been placed in your council member boxes. The applicant is working to incorporate the specifications used for Mountain View Phase II and the items that had been directed by Joe Coffey to fully define their proposal; however, this has not yet been completed. Condition No. 25 of the resolution includes the Applicant's proposal to guarantee and secure construction of the Employee Housing. Staff needs to receive direction as to changes that need to occur to Exhibit F and Condition No. 25. Section 16A-4-420(2)(a), Developer responsibilities, of the Municipal Code states that "... the developer shall sell such unit or lot to the owner of the free market project." The Applicant has stated the reasons why they believe it should be acceptable that they retain ownership should the bond question not be approved in 2000 or 2001. Staff needs direction as to whether the employee housing should be under the ownership and control of the Club Association or retained by the applicant if the Town does not publicly participate in financing the project. The February 7 CTL/Thompson response to the Lambert & Associates report has been included within the packet. A final discussion of geotechnical issues will occur at the March 6 meeting. It is being provided at this time so that staff may I- TO, receive direction as to what Lambert & Associates should respond to at this time as well as when any construction documents are completed for the shoring wall. The amended Employee Housing architectural and site plans being provided for the February 21 meeting seem to address Joe Coffey's request to increase unit widths; however, it reduces the parking in that area to 34 Parking Spaces or 1.26 spaces per bedroom (1.5 spaces per bedroom required). The Town Council will need to provide findings to include within the resolution and authorize the reduction in required parking. Staff would like to briefly discuss the Ridge Condominium ski access trail. The Applicant has been working on this issue and may wish to comment as well. The Applicant would like to amend the Conservation Easement in gross (Condition No. 6) to a "No Build/Disturbance Easement" to benefit the owners of the Deerbrook units. This may well have the same effect and the no build easement, which would include specific use restrictions, could then contain provisions to allow both the Town and Deerbrook Association to enforce the terms and conditions of the easement. Paragraph F of Condition 10, which relates to the parking program, contains a provision for leasing 18 of the 36 spaces that are included in the trial parking program. This means that 90 spaces are available for unit owner's use during the trial period vs. the 108 that would be required to be available to satisfy the one (1) space per bedroom requirement of the Code. Staff recommends that all 36 spaces be leased to the Association and made available to the unit owners for at least the first year of the parking program trial period. Recommendation: Proceed with review of the enclosed resolution and provide direction to staff. 17. 2000 2:02P9 ROARING FORK CLUB NO. 00721"'- ?. 2/3 From; David A Burden <dbQsopris.net> To: Bill Hogberg <bhegberg@sopris.net> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 10;56 AM Subject: Fw. Timbers - John Dresser Letter to Snowmasa Town Council Dated February 7, 2000 lie..ral _..Original Message— arc L J From:David A. Burden<ppel' rsl�Y To:John Dresser<Wl1§MAM1,P4]> MaAk Norris<ID29[d 09Tue0d 4cjhdL@sJW>; Fteilich. Myler, Cc:Chris Conrad cr_rtosv. Lehner S Carlisle<fmis�4D �' n >; Brian Stowell c@1.SlI�Y!!A �COm> Date:Thursday,February 10.20001048 AM Subject Fw:Timbers-John Dresser Letter to Snowman Town Council Dated February 7, 2000 ..—ONginal Message— Date:Thursday, February 10,2000 subject:Timbers-John Dresser Letter to Snowmass Town Council Gated February 7,2000 To:John Dresser. Your comments at last Monday's council meeting.and your letter are disappointing. We , at the Timbers prejed, believe that we have been very accom attnp and responsive to the been at JIMost all of the and Me Ridge property owners throughout our app prier Pry heartnge. We have met Informally and formally toidisaus the issues. This included a January meetirq at David Mylera ofllce during which we asked You to provide w with any problems. We also met with you and Robert Goldstein on the site of the new ski trail while it was being 00 nstrucled receiving the clay to abandon the old trail and use the new trail this season. We have offered to out in additional access trolls to h. Shane Harvey s letter cutting off the time allowed to change the trail at August 31 Is Incorrect and not consistent with our discussion at David Mylees offloe. As you can see by his letter, I was not copied on it and since you have contacted me in the past on issues I am surprised that you did not bother to cell me on this ftem to confirm. I invite you to do so In the future. If you and your board am truly solution oriented we invite you to most with us at your earliest convenience to explore how we can help improve the trail.We have some ideas and will do our best to help. We understand that the easement allows us to move it as we see fit, but we would rather try to give your clients the bast possible scenario. In the past,since the property had been unimproved the troll did not necessarily follow the specifically located easement. Now the property is going to be developed which affects the easements location. We Commit to work with you and the association to make something work within the limits of the slope and available property during the next two non-skl seasons. From an obviously uninformed perspective you imply that I have experienced a legal setback in another project In the valley (the Roaring Fork Club)and you further imply that my involvement with the Roaring Fork Club should lead the Town and the public to feel insecure about my ability to perform on this one. I as well a' anyone else have to assume that is why you bring up this matter of guaranteeing performance on this troll issue. I take issue with such an irresponsible comment to the Town Council. I have copied attorneys David Myler and Brian Stowell on this who will both provide unqualified statements(If requested)that MY management of the development of the Roaring Fork Club is relatively recent compared to the origin and Issues regarding the 10991 dispute. I Inherited a legal oonflictfsltuation at the Roaring Fork Club in which I am a part of the solution and was never a part of the problem.You may also consult with the plaintiffs attorney, Scott Salcomb, in the case to further clear up your misunderstanding of the chonology Involved and MY positive role in the matter. Please check your facts before challenging someone s Integrity. You have also verbally slated that H the Ridge buildings have further stability problems after we commence construction then you will look to us. We understand from you that some of your buildings already have such serious problems. We have employed the best in the geotechnical field and they with the town's consulting engineer,state that our planned work will not negatively impact the slope and in fact will 02/10/2000 r �� -"�M. 17. 2000 2: 04PM ROARING FORK CLUB NO, 0072"e�1`, 3/3 likely Improve n. If your buildings were not built or maintained property then that is an Issue which does not Involve us.We invite your engineers to work openly with ours and as our plans progress we will be glad to meet and review all details directly with You and your engineers to receive input on our plans. Let us know If that is$omething you want to do. ether, but if You If You are looking for solutons to Issues we are ready to meet at any time and work tog are merely trying to slow down or stop this project as many Your actions seem to indicate then we have a problem in reaching reasonable solutions, 02/10/2000 low February 7, 2000 Snowmass Village Building & Planning Department P. O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Attention: Mr. Chris Conrad Subject: Lambert & Associates Review Job No. GS-2940 Dear Mr. Conrad: CTLIThompson, Inc. (CTL/T) received a copy of a report addressed to you on January 13, 2000. This report was forwarded to me for a meeting on January 17, 2000. Because of previous scheduled commitments I have not been able to address questions raised by the Lambert review. The purpose of this letter is to respond to Mr. Lambert's questions and provide you with an overview of additional analyses that have been accomplished since our report of March 25, 1999. The project includes a large excavation which potentially could destabilize the hillside below Ridge Road. Considerable on-going effort has been directed at analysis of the major excavation. A permanent anchored retaining system with 3 or 4 rows of anchors spaced about 8 feet on centers is currently being designed. The construction sequence, installation of hillside drainage and relocation of a small drainage are part of the plan. Design of the proposed retention system which will allow the excavation to occur on this site is an iterative process. CTL1T is working closely with the speciality sub-contractor(Goggins&Sons) on the details of the specific retention system. The design is not complete at this point. CTL/T's work on the retention system has primarily been analysis of overall stability of the system. The detailed structural design is being prepared by the contractor. The construction sequence is part of the design and analysis. The Lambert report raises questions primarily in the details of foundation design and areas of slope stability analysis. Specifically on Page 2 under Introduction,the report says "Our review did not include review or assessment of the correctness of the calculations, analysis or assumptions made by CTLIThomgsop, Inc or others during their preparation of the planned development documents," We do not agree with that statement. Most of the questions posed by Lambert are questions directed at analysis or assumptions necessary to perform the analysis. However, In the spirit of cooperation with the Town of Snowmass Village, we are providing response to a number of the questions. CTUTHOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1971 WEST 12TH AVENUE • DENVER.COLORADO 80204 • (303)825-0777 I� WOW Under Paragraph 3, Geologic Hazard Considerations, we believe the previous reports reported in our list of references in our report of March 1999 more than satisfy any geologic hazard report requirement. Our study was directed at evaluating methods to design around known geologic hazards on the site. Under Paragraph 4, Review of Soil Study, Lambert questions existence of fill on the site. The table presented on Page 27 of our original report indicates the anticipated support condition for each of the building areas. The required excavations are such that the existing fill will be removed below foundations. Existing fill may be left in place in landscaped areas. The affordable housing areas are not determined at this time. There is an indication in the second paragraph regarding settlement. Settlement is not a design problem for this project. The depths of excavation anticipated will result in essentially a net unloading for most of the foundation areas. The recommended design pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is relatively low for footings on gravel. The recommendation for 4 feet of over-excavation is discussed in detail on Page 27 of our original report. The purpose for over-excavation of the claystone and weathered claystone is to provide more uniform compressibility. Large areas of the site are expected to be bottomed in gravels and the placement of the select fill is to develop conditions which will provide more uniformity in compressibility. The laboratory test results on clay from this site indicate very low swell potential. The clays tested at this site exhibited less than 1 percent swell. Mancos shale certainly is problematic in the Grand Junction area and other areas of the state in a drier climatic condition. Our experience in the Snowmass area has indicated relatively nominal swell problems. The next paragraph questions rebound after previously questioning settlement. There will be some rebound. Our experience with these types of excavations indicates that the rebound occurs very rapidly. The excavation is likely to be open many months before foundation construction is complete and the deadloads of the structure are applied. We do not anticipate a problem with rebound. The current parking garage floor elevation is approximately 6 feet below the elevation anticipated by the table on Page 27. Elevations are confusing because the drawings indicate project elevations not USGS elevations. The overall area of the excavation has increased since the original report. There may be larger areas requiring over-excavation to balance movements. At this time it is not intended to support the building on any existing fill. There is a difference in professional opinion regarding ratios of clay sizes in mixed materials. For the last 25 years CTLIT has recommended at least 20 to 30 percent clay material to limit moisture penetration through mixed select fills into potentially expansive clay. This process has worked well and is used by most Denver engineers dealing with highly expansive subgrade conditions. With respect to differing values for passive lateral earth pressure the lower value of 300 pounds per cubic foot(pcf) anticipates backfill. The higher value of 400 pcf anticipates placing footings directly against natural material. With respect to SNOWMASS VILLAGE BUILDING&PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAMBERT&ASSOCIATES REVIEW 2 CTUT JOB NO. GS-2940 10- swelling pressure, if any, is very low, please review the swell test results. The comments by Lambert on Page 6 with respect to slope stability considerations primarily deal with reports prepared by Chen & Associates. We have reviewed the reports by Chen and considered the data contained in those reports along with our data in analyzing the stability of this hillside, we do not necessarily agree with all of the comments within Chen's reports but we do not believe it is appropriate to respond to questions on Chen's work. Page 7 - we do not believe the slope movements discussed regarding Inclinometer No. 12 indicate significant movement. The amount of deflection measured is approximately 1110 of an inch in 50 feet. We believe that the measurements represent instrument noise. On Page 7 the global stability analysis is discussed. At several locations within our early report, we have indicated that a long-term stability a factor of safety of 1.5 is desirable. That may or may not be achievable depending on the assumptions used in an analysis. Depending on the analysis condition we calculated a theoretical factor of safety for the existing hillside between 1.1 and 1.3. This calculated factor of safety was for conditions that we believe represent residual strength parameters. It also represents the maximum ground water condition. This means that the two most severe conditions have been combined. The laboratory test results referred to by the Lambert report show a laboratory cohesion value of 1,000 psf and an effective friction angle of 16 degrees. If these parameters are used the factor of safety calculated are larger than those when analyzing the slope using the values recommended in our report. The statement within Lambert's report "The soil strength parameters used in the slope stability analysis were generally stronger or larger than the actual strength parameters obtained by laboratory tests of samples obtained from the site." That statement is not true. The report discusses our reasoning for selection of strength values. The selected values are the result of back analysis to determine what values of c and q) yield reasonable values for the factor of safety. The lowest values from laboratory tests if used in the analysis indicate the hillside would be actively failing. At the bottom of Page 7 there is a question regarding sensitivity analysis. We have,done numerous sensitivity analyses to try to select appropriate design values. The report is a summary. The basic problem is sampling the materials containing clay and gravel particles. The laboratory results must be judged based on the hillside performance. Summary Most of the comments by Mr. Lambert are primarily differences in opinion and judgment between engineers with respect to appropriate values to be used in the analysis of the stability of the slope or interpretation of laboratory test results. Unfortunately these issues will continue to exist as long as there are different engineering firms. SNOWMASS VILLAGE BUILDING&PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAMBERT&ASSOCIATES REVIEW CTI/T JOB NO. GS-2940 3 *Opp Currently, the anticipated slope retention system is a very significant engineering structure and is a composite system. The current concept is to install an interceptor drain system approximately 80 feet uphill of the excavation. The drain system will be installed by drilling vertical holes with a caisson rig which extend from the surface down to the relatively unweathered bedrock. Each hole will probably require casing and will be backfilled with clean sand and gravel to within 3 feet of the ground surface. The holes will be drilled sequentially such that each hole touches the preceding hole and develops a continuous interceptor across the hillside above the project. Installation using the drilling procedure is much more expensive than an open excavation; however, it is our judgment that open excavation would result in a failure of the hillside. After the gravel membrane has been installed, it will be drained using a horizontal drain type procedure. This will result in a dramatic lowering of the ground water table in the hillside and an overall increase in the stability of the hillside. After the drainage is in place, it is anticipated that a permanently anchored foundation wall will be constructed on the uphill side of the project. This is a top-down construction procedure. It is anticipated a relatively shallow excavation will be made after the drains are in-place to allow installation of the first line of anchors. Prior to this excavation, soldier piles will be installed using a caisson drill. The excavation sequence will consist of installation of the soldier piles followed by excavation to the first line of anchors, installation of anchors, installation of sheeting or reinforced gunite followed by additional excavation to the various lines of anchors. At the present time the contractor is preparing alternative designs for anchor system to determine the most economical balance. The anchor system will be incorporated into the permanent foundation wall of the structure. CTUThompson, Inc. is working with the contractor to determine the overall required anchoring force. When the final excavation has been designed, it will be submitted for review. The process at the present time consists of establishing the required total applied force per foot to the foundation wall by CTUT to achieve a factor of safety for both the construction condition and the long-term drained condition. The contractor then is using these applied forces to select different anchor scheme layouts to determine the best layout. When the final layout has been determined we anticipate making additional stability computations to provide a estimated factor of safety for the construction condition and the long-tern condition. Because the construction period will occur during the spring and summer months, at least for part of the construction cycle, high water conditions are used in the analysis of the construction condition. For the long-term condition,we have assumed the interceptor drain will dramatically lower the water table and over the long-term the factor of safety for the entire hillside will be increased. The actual factor of safety for the hillside is very difficult to judge. We have chosen to model the hillside using residual strength parameters which results in low computed factors. The actual strength available is probably higher than our analysis; however, because of the wide range of particle size which make up the soils overlying the bedrock, it is very difficult to obtain samples. The laboratory test SNOWMASS VILLAGE BUILDING&PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAMBERT&ASSOCIATES REVIEW 4 CTLIT JOB NO. GS-2W0 a results are not totally reliable because of the sampling difficulty. Our calculations of the factor of safety for some of the preliminary layouts by the contractor indicate overall long-tern stability ranging from 1.4 to 1.7 for a combination of drained conditions and strength values that would correspond to a soften condition but not residual. When the final design is submitted, we will provide detailed discussion of the various conditions modeled in the analysis of the slope retention system. Overall, the intent of the design is to not reduce the factor of safety.in the hillside and if possible increase it through incorporation of drainage. Very truly yours, CT HOMPSON, o�0P 00if, o,.O�AI W, ly��a Robert W. Tho p Chairman, CEO RWT:dd (3 copies sent) SNOWMASS VILLAGE BUILDING&PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAMBERT&ASSOCIATES REVIEW CTUT JOB NO. GS-2M 5 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL _/ � ; 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 / r 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 WHEREAS, the public hearing remained open and additional public testimony TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 3 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 amended 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 21, 2000, completed it's review of the Preliminary PUD application for the Project on March 6, 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: 1. The Applicant submitted the Application for Preliminary Plan review of the TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 4 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 Standards of the Municipal Code is as generally described below. The specific TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 5 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: 44,472S. 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 Social 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: 34 Parking Spaces(1.26 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 previously altered and has historically transported sediment from the areas 1q, TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 6 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 Corps permit allows the mitigation to occur through participation in one of the Town creek restoration projects in the Brush Creek watershed or alternatively, through the purchase of 0.25 acre of wetland credit from the Rocky Mountain Institute wetland mitigation bank. The actual final 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 NOW TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 7 Preliminary Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 16A-4-30, 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, either as permitted uses or accessory uses customarily found in connection with a project of this type, including multiple family dwelling units, associated office, recreation, ski related facilities provided for the members, other related membership uses, and the associated underground parking which will be limited to the multiple family uses and Social 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 Town Council finds it appropriate 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. In addition to being to the benefit of the Town, the easement will permit access to the Deerbrook Townhomes and be to the benefit of their association as well. The Town Council supports the Applicant's proposal and a final easement agreement will be provided for Final TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 8 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: 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 I 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. WOW TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 9 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. 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 14,526 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 4,004 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 Town Council and Applicant recognize that Town participation in the project z�- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 10 requires voter approval of a bond. Should the election fail, the Town Council and Applicant agree that a Plan `B"under which the Applicant owns and manages the project but ensure that an appropriate amount of housing will be available to any qualified employee of a business located within the Town, will be required. 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, Purpose, of the Municipal Code which states: 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: A. Dimensional Limitations and Community Purposes. Only certain dimensional limitations may be varied within the PUD process. The do TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 11 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 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 z�� TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 12 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 existed on the property at the time of Preliminary PUD application. B. 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. n �► TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 13 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. 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. TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 14 (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 Ridge Condominiums finalized ski egress trail,pursuant to Condition No. 17 below, to the westerly property line. This trial will be only for pedestrians,bicycles, and equestrians. Non-skier use will be prohibited by the landowners during the ski season to the extent necessary 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 agrees to build this trail through the ASC ski easement provided that the Town can secure an easement from the ASC within three(3) years of the effective date of the Final PUD approval. The Applicant shall also investigate an alternative summer trail alignment from Brush Creek Road to the trail segment within the Project 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 A7- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 15 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 14,526 square feet, thereby exceeding the requirement by 4,004 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 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 Town Council finds that a certain number of Social Member parking spaces are acceptable provided that: 1) adequate assurances are made to review and reduce the number of Social Member parking spaces as necessary to ensure that adequate parking for the thirty-six (36) Club suites provide, four(4) Townhomes, employees, and vans; and 2) Social Member spaces are allocated in a manner which helps to minimize traffic impacts on the public roadways within the Town. C. 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 parking program submitted as part of any Final PUD submission shall comply with the requirements of the conditions of the Preliminary PUD Plan approved, as described in Section Three of this resolution. NOTE: The amended Employee Housing site plan being provided for the February 21 meeting reduces the parking in that area to 34 Parking Spaces or 1.26 spaces per bedroom. The Town Council will need to provide findings to include within the resolution and authorize the reduction in required parking. 14. The Town Council has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Preliminary TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 16 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. 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. 15. 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 wag. TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 17 placement" of materials by the contractor. The Town Council needs to also receive a descriptive outline of the criteria and specifications to be used in the field by the contractor; however, subject to a descriptive outline of the criteria and specifications to be used in the field by the contractor,which shall be consistent with the Preliminary PUD Plan and which shall be submitted by the Applicant for final approval with the Final PUD application, the Town Council finds that "field judgement and placement" of materials by the contractor is appropriate provided provisions are included for field inspection by the Town during construction. 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 CTUThompson response was provided to the Planning Division on January 7 and was forwarded to Lambert for review and continent. NOTE: This paragraph will be completed for the March 6 meeting and discussion. 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. TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 18 The Town Council finds it to be in the public interest to establish Club provisions that may further 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. 16. 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. 17. The Town Council considered the applicant's proposed options related to improving the lower portion of Faraway Road. One option included providing a 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. 18. 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 3)- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 19 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 restoration bond may be required to ensure completion of the wall, drainage and stream projects once commenced. 19. 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 purposes of. 1) condominiumizing thirty-six (36) Club Suites and four(4) Club Townhome units; 2) 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; 3) condominiumizing parking spaces within the parking structure, as specifically described in the Preliminary PUD application; and 4) condominiumizing the individual employee dwelling units. The Town Council finds the proposed condominiumization of the thirty-six (36) Club Suites and four(4) Club Townhome units is appropriate. The condominiumization of parking spaces within the underground parking garage also is appropriate but only to the extent that the condominiumization furthers the 3�-' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 20 specific parking program described in Section Three of this resolution. The Town Council does not find that the condominiumization of the employee dwelling units is appropriate at this time. The subdivision exemption request, except as noted above, is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and is necessary to further the objectives of the PUD plan and will be finalized 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. The Project use, density, and development configuration, which is described in the Preliminary PUD Plan, includes the following Land Use and Development Program: A. 36 three bedroom Condominium, Timeshare Estate Units B. 4 four bedroom Condominium, Timeshare Estate Units C. Interior common area, lobby and service space D. Parking and other misc. space within building footprints E. Office and Club administrative uses F. Health Club G. 9 one bedroom employee units H. 9 two bedroom employee units 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. 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 Q. RFTA and TOSV Shuttle stops including shelters Section Three: Conditions for Final PUD Submission. 1. The Final PUD Plan shall comply with the revised Preliminary PUD application o3300 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 21 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 the 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 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 C1 (Improvement Location Survey and Topographic/Existing Conditions Map), would be 120.33' Stryker/Brown& 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. The Applicant will provide information with the Final PUD application to sufficiently demonstrate that the northerly view plane over the roof of Building D will be preserved from the location point within the Ridge Condominiums Phase I property, shown on the"View Plane" diagram included within Exhibit A of this resolution, in a manner consistent with the visual imagery and representations made during the Preliminary PUD process. 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(4) vans, as described by the Applicant in the Preliminary PUD application, to provide twenty-four(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. 3 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 22 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, as may be amended to reflect their Final PUD proposal. 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 has been previously authorized by the Corps to occur through participation in one of the Town creek restoration projects in the Brush Creek watershed or alternatively, through the purchase of 0.25 acre of wetland credit from the Rocky Mountain Institute wetland mitigation bank. The actual final 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 Town's mitigation project must be completed within two (2) years of the date of the final Corps 404 permit authorizing commencement of the wetlands proposal adopted within the Final PUD, or as may be authorized by the Corps. If the Town is unable to provide such assurances to the Corps that a project will be competed within their specified time limit, 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 until applied to a mitigation project 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. 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 Amend per final employee TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 23 housing proposal] provided in the project, including 41 employee housing parking spaces Amend per final employee housing proposal] and 150 Club and Social 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 owned, time restricted and controlled by The Timbers Master 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 (2) spaces in the garage that is attached to the dwelling unit. The Timbers Master Association will own and provide two (2) related spaces within the parking garage for use by the Townhome owners. C. The Timbers Master Association will own and provide, within the parking garage, two (2)parking spaces for Club vans and eight (8) parking spaces for empldyees. D. The Timbers Master Association will own and provide two (2) spaces per unit for the thirty-six (36) three(3)bedroom Club suites. E. The garage parking spaces identified within paragraphs A,B, C and D above will be included as one(1) condominium unit. F. In order to ensure that adequate parking will be available for the thirty- six (36)three(3)bedroom Club suites, the Applicant will provide an additional thirty-six (36)parking spaces. These spaces will continue to be owned by the Applicant. Of this number, the Applicant shall lease eighteen (18) spaces to the Timbers Master Association for only the prorated cost of maintenance and liability insurance during the parking evaluation period described below. During the evaluation period, The Timbers Master Association will retain control over the leased 18 space to ensure that adequate parking is available for the 36 Club Suites. The Applicant may chose to lease, on an annual basis,the remaining 18 parking spaces to Social Members in accordance with the procedures for allocating Social Memberships. The spaces identified here shall comprise 36 condominiumized spaces. G. A three (3) year parking evaluation period shall be established for the 3 I TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 24 purposes of reviewing and determining the specific parking needs of the 36 Club Suites. The evaluation period shall commence on the date of the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the 36 Club Suites. The intent of this evaluation is specifically to ensure that there is adequate parking for the owners of these 36 units. The Applicant or Timbers Master 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 program and, with the Planning Director, coordinate parking data collection in order to accurately project the parking needs for an individual Club Suite. H. If during or at the end of the parking evaluation period it is determined by the Town Council that any or all of the 36 parking spaces retained by the Applicant, as described in paragraph F above, are required to meet the parking needs of the 36 Club Suites, then the Applicant shall convey the specific number of spaces required to the Timbers Master Association, which shall then own and control said additional spaces for the benefit of the owners of the 36 Club suites. Based on the determination of need, the Town Council shall specify the amount of the reduction necessary. Any or all of these spaces not required may be converted into additional Social Member spaces for sale or annual lease at the discretion of the Applicant. I. The Applicant may initially provide a minimum of 24 and up to a maximum of 34 Social Member parking spaces, depending on the total number of parking spaces allowed by the final design of the underground parking garage which, at the Applicant's discretion, may be leased or sold to Social Members. These spaces shall not be encumbered in any manner by the restrictions described in paragraphs F, G and H above. The spaces identified here shall comprise between 24 and 36 individual condominium spaces, depending upon the final parking garage design. J. The Applicant shall allocate, whether for lease or sale, each space made available for a Social Member on the following basis: 1) The Applicant will, after providing a 30 day notice, including advertisement in the newspaper of local circulation and by U.S. mail, offer such Social Memberships and related parking spaces at rates/prices established by the Applicant to owners of property located in any of the Ridge Run subdivisions. 3�- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 2s 2) After the number of spaces sold or leased to Ridge Run property owners is determined, the Applicant will make any remaining Social Memberships and related spaces available to any owner of property within Snowmass Village. These memberships and related spaces shall be offered at rates/prices established by the Applicant for a period of 30 days. 3) After the number of spaces sold or leased to Snowmass Village residents is determined, then the Applicant, at its discretion, may offer to any remaining Social Memberships and related parking spaces to any property owner within the Roaring Fork Valley or others. K. The Timbers 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. L. The condominium documents shall be amended in a manner to ensure that if a Social Membership and related parking space are sold by a purchaser to third party, the advertisement of said Social Membership and related parking space shall be advertised through the Master Association to ensure that the resale of the Membership complies with the advertising and priority allocation provisions established in paragraph J above. 11. The Applicant shall provide reasonable security in the development improvements agreement to guarantee the construction of four bus shelters. The design of each bus shelter shall be approved with the Final PUD Plan. 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 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 26 approved in conjunction with the Final PUD Plan. 15. The Final PUD application shall include the final designs for the uphill and down hill bus stops on Faraway Road, RFTA east and west bound Brush Creek Road pull-outs 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 or as a separate parcel, as described in Exhibit F, and the Town will be responsible for controlling parking at that location. An easement shall be established for the purposes of allowing the Timbers Master Association to maintain subsurface drainage structures/improvements that will occur within this parcel. 16. The condominium documents shall reflect that only a simple majority vote the property owners will be required, at such time as annual occupancy rates fall below percent ( %), to allow short term rental of a Club or Townhome unit. 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 and/or grade, 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 prior to making adjustments during the Summer of 2000. Working with the Ridge Condominium Association the Applicant shall again"field adjust"the new trail following the 2000-2001 ski season if necessary 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 3q ' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 27 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 define 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. 22. Utilities will be extended to the locations of Buildings E and F (the employee housing)within(define time frame) once permits are issued for said utility improvements. The Town shall be given appropriate assurances that the utilities will be installed and sized in a manner that the Town can extend the utilities from Building F to serve its employee housing project in Parcel N. 23. The Applicant will include a reclamation bond in an amount sufficient to cover the reclamation any unfinished portion of the site should the construction of the Club project located west of Faraway Road terminate prior to completion as described in the Preliminary PUD documents dated November 29, 1999. If construction ceases for a period on one year, the applicant shall restore the site, including the placement of dirt in a manner that approximates topographic conditions prior to the commencement of construction and revegetation. In this case, the term "unfinished" refers to all buildings identified,parking structure TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 28 shoring wall, and finished grading and drainage improvements. 24. Prior to Final PUD application or the issuance of any permits, whichever comes first, the Applicant shall revise all dates identified in the construction management plan to reflect the most probable construction schedule. 25. The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat with the Final PUD application that provides for the re-aligned Faraway Road right-of-way and identifies two parcels east of Faraway Road, in addition to a single parcel on the west side of Faraway Road. The easterly parcels shall include: a) the kiss and ride parcel and b) the employee housing parcel. Proper access, utility and trail easements shall be established on the plat. The kiss and ride parcel shall be conveyed by the Applicant to the Town immediately upon final inspection by the Town Engineer of the constructed improvements within that parcel. 26. The applicant shall submit with the Final PUD application a proposal for a development improvements agreement. The agreement shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 16A-5-370(5) of the Municipal Code. The agreement also will include a guarantee that the Applicant shall obtain a building permit and commence construction of Buildings E and F (18 restricted employee housing units and related improvements)within three years of the issuance of the first building permit for the Club Suites. The guarantee shall be a letter of credit or a bond in a form acceptable to the Town. The amount shall be 115 percent of the cost of project construction, less the purchase price to be paid by the Town to the Applicant, as described in Exhibit F. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED on this 6th day of March, 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 AShared\Clerk\reso.tc\TC 00-06 The Timbers Prelim PUD Draft05a 41 . 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. 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. i EXHIBIT F. Employee Housing Plan The final employee housing plan shall comply with the following requirements and procedures for providing such housing. 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 bond by the electorate by November, 2001. The Town Council will hold an election for the purposes of gaining approval by November, 2000. Failure to obtain such bond approval by the voters requires the Town and Applicant to maintain a suitable fall back procedure for providing such housing. These procedures shall be as follows: A. Procedure for providing housing that will be purchased by the Town from the Applicant. 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 on which the employee housing is located from the Kiss-and-Ride parcel, which is also located on the east side of Faraway Road and from The Timbers Club parcel with is located on the west side of Faraway Road. 2. The employee housing units will not be condominiumized. 3. Prior to Final PUD application, the Applicant and the Town Council shall agree upon an estimated annual budget for the employee housing, including operations, maintenance, and capital reserve needs. 4. Upon Final PUD approval, the Applicant/Developer shall construct the employee housing in accordance with the site plan, architectural plans, and specifications which are attached with this Exhibit and approved with the Final PUD Plan. These plans and specifications shall serve as the basis for determining project construction costs. 5. The Applicant/Developer must obtain a building permit and commence construction of the employee housing within three (3)years of the issuance of the first building permit for The Timbers Club project. The Applicant shall provide an adequate guarantee in the Development Improvements Agreement that the employee housing will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter of credit or bond in a form suitable to the Town as security, the amount of which shall be 115 percent of the construction cost of the employee housing project less the purchase price to the Town. 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 OW 3too 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 will enter into a hold harmless agreement with the Applicant at that time. The purchase price shall be the amount which can be financed over 20 years by the available net project rental revenues. Rental income for one and two bedroom shall be equal to the estimated amount of rent that will be charged by the Town for the Mountain View Phase II units at the time of the Final PUD approval, plus ten (10)percent. 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, comparable to that now used by the Town in other Town-owned projects, for a term of twenty(20) years commencing on the effective date of the employer master lease. The Timbers' Master Association shall have the option to terminate the lease prior to that time. The Timbers' Master Association shall be guaranteed 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 the 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. 8. If The Timbers' Master Association is unable to place an employee that otherwise qualifies for employee housing under the Town guidelines in units covered by the employer lease, then the unoccupied unit(s) will be made available to the Town for the purposes of permitting any employee(s) that qualifies under the Town guidelines to occupy the unit(s). The Town shall not lease the priority unit(s) for a period exceeding one year,which in all instances shall terminate on or before October 31. At the end of the lease period, The Timbers shall regain the priority use of the unit(s) if it can place a qualified employee in the unit. The Timbers' units will be subject to the Town's employee housing rules and regulations for this project. B. Procedure for providing housing in the event that the Town is unable to secure voter approval to purchase the employee housing project, unless otherwise approved by the Applicant. 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 on which the employee housing is located from the Kiss-and-Ride parcel, which is also located on the east side of Faraway Road and from The Timbers Club parcel with is located on the west side of Faraway Road. 2. Upon Final PUD approval, the Applicant/Developer shall construct the employee housing in accordance with the site plan, architectural plans, and specifications which are attached with this Exhibit and approved with the Final PUD Plan. 3. The Applicant/Developer must obtain a building permit and commence i construction of the employee housing within three (3) years of the issuance of the first building permit for The Timbers Club project. The Applicant shall provide an adequate guarantee in the Development Improvements Agreement that the employee housing will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter of credit or bond in a form suitable to the Town as security, the amount of which shall be 115 percent of the construction cost of the employee housing project less the purchase price to the Town 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the employee housing units, the Applicant/Developer shall record 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, including the rent and occupancy guidelines set forth in this Section. The deed restriction shall be approved by the Town prior to recording. 5. The Applicant/Developer will retain ownership of the employee housing project, unless conveyance to a third party is approved by the Town. 6. The employee housing units will not be condominiumized. But, the employee housing parcel shall remain part of the Master Association. The Master Association shall, through the Condominium Declaration, retain authority to ensure that the exterior appearance of all structures, improvements, and landscaping of the employee housing project is maintained in suitable condition, regardless of whether the rents collected by the employee housing owner are sufficient to cover the common assessments allocated to the employee housing project. 7. There shall be maintained a suitable capital reserve account, which is funded annually by the rents generated by the project. The capital reserve account shall be comparable to the estimated capital reserve budget described in Section A above. 8. The Timbers' Master Association shall retain for the life of the project 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 the 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' Master Association is unable to place an employee that otherwise qualifies for employee housing under the Town guidelines in units, then the unoccupied unit(s) will be made available to the Town for the purposes of permitting any employee(s) that qualifies under the Town guidelines to occupy the unit(s). The Town shall not lease the priority unit(s) for a period exceeding one year, which in all instances shall terminate on or before October 31. At the end of the lease period, The Timbers shall regain the priority use of the unit(s) if it can place a qualified employee in the unit. I 9. The Timbers shall make the remaining twelve (12) employee housing units available to any employee(s)that qualifies for restricted employee housing under the Town guidelines. The employee housing owner will select occupants from a pool of qualified employees provided by the Town Housing Department or from an advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the Snowmass Village area. 10. The rents charged by the owner of the employee housing shall initially be equal to the amount of rent that will be charged by the Town for the Mountain View Phase II units at the time of the Final PUD approval, plus ten (10)percent. The owner of the employee housing, at its option, may institute annual rent increases in an amount that is comparable to that Consumer Price Index used by the Town to establish employee housing resale prices or an amount comparable to those instituted by the town for Mountain View II or other Town employee housing projects. 11. Leases will establish procedures in the event of a violation of the rules and regulations and termination of the lease. The intent shall be to give employees an appropriate opportunity to comply with the rules and regulations before termination of a lease. Leases made available to employees will be for a one year period. 12. The owner of the employee housing shall be responsible for leasing, managing, enforcing the rules and regulations of the employee housing project, and providing on-going maintenance for the project, except as otherwise delegated to the Master Association. / (vQ COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: February 18, 2000 STAFF: Joe Kracum Hunt Walker David Peckler SUBJECT: MALL TRANSIT PLAZA - FUNCTION ASPECTS DECISIONS OVERVIEW: The primary purpose of the Council Meeting is to make decisions regarding the functional aspects of the Mall Transit Facility. Staff has met several times with Joe Kracum on these issues, and has the following recommendations on the four policy questions for Council contained in Joe Kracum's attached memo, "Functional Aspects Decisions." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) BUS OPERATIONS - CONSOLIDATION: Staff recommends that all bus operations, including the Rodeo Lot bus, be consolidated within the Mall Transit Plaza. Although there are rarely any transfers between the Rodeo bus and RFTA or other Village Shuttle routes, it will be much easier for passengers if there is only one bus stop at the Mall to catch a bus. Consolidation of the bus systems will also reduce the need for extra dispatchers. 2) TRANSIT PLAZA BUS BAYS - Staff recommends that the facility be designed to include 10 bays for the Village Shuttle, four unload bays and six load bays. Our current facility has eight bus bays, and staff projects the need for two additional bays by 2020 to accommodate new or expanded routes for Base Village, the Snowmass Club, or other routes. Charter bus requirements should be included in this analysis. Staff is not in favor of the "multiple use of bays" concept. Because of the equipment (skis and snowboards) our passengers carry, it is more efficient to separate unload bays from load bays. When the 10 bays reach capacity in the future, "the multiple use of bays" concept could be considered to handle additional demand. 3) BASE VILLAGE INTERFACE - A good understanding of the routing of Day Skier buses between Aspen and Snowmass Village would help in the design of the Transit Facility. If all of the Day Skier buses go to the Mall, the required number of RFTA bus bays is needed. However, if all of the Day Skier buses terminate at Base Village, a reduction in RFTA space at the Mall could be considered. If it is contemplated that a people mover between Base Village and the Mall (a cable liner for example) utilize the snowmelt road ROW, its terminus needs to be planned for at the Mall Transit Facility. Town staff is meeting with the Ski. Co. on Monday morning to discuss the interface issues. After this meeting, staff will have more information for the Council at Mondays' meeting. 4) LOADING/DELIVERY ISSUES - Staff recommends that the Mall Transit Facility not preclude a significant upgrade to the loading and delivery function. Since funding dollars for this project will be tight, staff feels public money should be used to make the Mall Transit Facility first class while any significant improvement to the loading and delivery function be paid for by private dollars. Council should consider selling the Gateway Building garage, if the price is right, to the Mall Partners to free up space for an improved delivery function. The money from the sale should be used to construct a bus storage facility in Lot 1. MK CENTENNIAL 402 SEVENTH STREET I TEL 9701928-8599 ATRIUM SUITE 771 P.O.DRAWER 600 FAX 9701928-8526 CEN NNNIAI HNOIMWKAINa.INC. GLENWOOD SPRINGS.CO 81602 • DATE: February 16, 2000 • TO: Snowmass Village Town Council • FROM: Joe Kracum, PE • SUBJECT: Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Town Council Package - 21 Feb 2000 Meeting Transmitted herewith are the following documents for the Council Meeting on 21 Feb. Functional Aspects Decisions Memo - Memo identifying the needed decisions on the functional aspects for the project. Functional Aspects - 10 Feb Staff Meeting Notes - Memo detailing the discussions on the functional aspects of the project. Conceptual Design Update Memo 16 Feb - Memo describing the current direction and schedule of the conceptual design. Copies of these memos will be faxed to RFTA, SRA, Aspen Ski Company and the potential partners in the project on 17 Feb. Copies have been delivered to key TOSV Staff on the evening of 16 Feb. MK CENTENNIAL 402 SEVENTH STREET I TEL 970/928-8599 - ATRIUM SUITE 171 P.O.DRAWER SOi FAX 970/928-8526 oSN rSNNW1.SN01NSEIRINO.INC. GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81602 • DATE: February 16, 2000 • TO: Snowmass Village Town Council ■ FROM: Joe Kraculn, PE ■ SUBJECT: Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Functional Aspects Decisions The following decisions on functional aspects are necessary for advancing the design of the project. According to the project schedule, these questions are posed to the Town Council for decision for the 21 Feb Council Meeting. The decisions have been culled from the 20 Jan Design Decision Memo to reflect the current state of the conceptual design. Notes regarding the specifics discussed at the 10 Feb Staff meeting are attached. 1. Should all bus operations be consolidated in the Transit Plaza? It has been the intent of the project to consolidate all operations in the Transit Plaza. As the space constraints for the transit plaza have been reduced, consideration is given to the possibility of keeping the existing TOSV depot on Daly Lane open until after the Transit Plaza is complete if not all of the needs for bus bays are provided. 2. Should the Transit Plaza be designed for 6 RFTA coaches and 10 TOSV Shuttles? The intent of the design had been to provide as much of the need for bus bays on the Plaza as space and circulation permit. 3. Besides bus routing, parking requirements, and Kiss-n-Ride locations, what other issues are critical in the interface with Base Village operations? Further information should be provided by Aspen Skiing Company by the Council Meeting on 21 Feb. 4. How much improvement should be made in the Loading and Delivery for the Village? Investigation into an alternative loading and delivery location is underway. 49- MK CENTENNIAL 102 SEVENTH STREET I TEL 976/928.8599 ATRIUM SUITE 111 ' P.O.DRAWER 309 FAX 970/928-3526 Olrr6NNwL efJOWHaw,NO.wo. GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 31302 ■ DATE: February 16, 2000 ■ TO: Gary Sutter ■ FROM: Joe Kracum, PE ■ SUBJECT: Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Functional Aspects - 10 Feb Staff Meeting Notes A meeting on the functional aspects of the transit and parking plaza was held on 10 Feb and included discussion on Transit Consolidation & Routing, Interface with Base Village Operations, Kiss-n-Ride Location, Roadway Configuration, and Loading & Delivery. Those in attendance included Gary Suiter, Hunt Walker, David Peckler, Art Smythe, and Paul Hilts of RFTA. The intent was to get staff direction on the issues and prepare for the Council Meeting on Functional Aspects scheduled for 21 Feb. The following questions are derived from the Design Decisions Memorandum dated 20 Jan 2000 and framed the agenda for the Staff Meeting on 10 Feb 2000. In addition, the critical dimensions for the project were reviewed and are attached to the end of this memo. Each question below is prefaced as in the Design Decision Memo, followed by the question, and then the discussion. From a user standpoint, the best situation is for a user to go to one place to catch either the TOSV Shuttle, RFTA bus, or Charter Bus. Given that, the question on Transit Consolidation could be framed as follows: 2. Should all bus operations be consolidated in the Transit Plaza? Yes, if there is enough capacity. If the capacity is too low at Plaza, then only the TOSV shuttles that do not require a transfer to RFTA or other transit service will remain at the existing TOSV station. Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Functional Aspects - 10 Feb Staff Meeting 14 Feb 2000 Page 2 The current plan designates 8 bays for TOSV Shuttles, 2 bays for RFTA buses, and 3 bays for RFTA articulated buses, as identified by the transit operators. There is a possibility for reducing the number of bays, and thereby reducing the overall area required for the plaza, by designing an operations system which would allow multiple use of bays, rather than designating bays for destinations. The system would require more operations scheduling and the use of either mechanical or variable message signing at each bay which would identify the destination and time of departure. 3. Should a system be designed that allows multiple use of bays on the Transit Plaza? The needs of both RFTA and TOSV systems were reviewed and are summarized for both a straight curb and a sawtooth curb. For Straight Curb Section: RFTA : 6 - 40 ft. coaches. TOSV: 10 shuttles ideal; 8 shuttles minimum (existing station remains open) For Sawtooth Curb Section: RFTA: 3 - 40 ft. coach bays and 2 - articulated bays TOSV: 6 bays for pick-up and 4 for drop-off is ideal; 5 bays for pick-up and 3 drop-off as a minimum Concerns were expressed over the sawtooth design in that it reduces flexibility and works against separate drop-off and pick-up locations. Other discussion included that RFTA may go to a 45 ft coach at some day and RFTA does not use, nor plan to use, ski boxes on the backs of buses. For a plaza waiting area, RFTA anticipates the need for space for 200 riders and TOSV requires space for 300 riders. At 9 sf per rider(includes allowance for ski equipment), this relates to 500 riders x 9 sf, or 4500 sf of waiting area. This does not include the space for bus unloading and loading (assumed as the first six feet of curb around the plaza) nor area for circulation, stairs, escalators, ramps, etc. It was suggested that restrooms be designed into the waiting area. The transit plaza should be designed for the anticipated needs for both RFTA and TOSV. The concept of multiple use of bays should be used as a contingency for future growth. 0100 57 Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Functional Aspects - 10 Feb Staff Meeting 14 Feb 2000 Page 3 The only consideration in the design of the Transit Plaza for the actual routing of the buses, whether up Snowmelt Road or up Brush Creek Road to the Transit Plaza, would be the bus entrance and exit to the Transit Plaza. 4. Should the entrance and exit of the Transit Plaza be designed for buses traveling up Snowmelt Road, up Brush Creek Road, or both? RFTA buses will enter the plaza from Brush Creek Road and exit downhill on Snowmelt Road. Charter buses should follow the same route as RFTA. TOSV shuttles need access both from Brush Creek Road and from Lower Snowmelt, with the same exits. The interface with the planned Base Village Operations is primarily in three areas, 1) bus routing;2)parking;and 3) Kiss-n-ride locations. Bus routing is addressed in the previous question, and parking is addressed in the first question. The Kiss-n-Ride will be addressed in the next question. If the Transit Plaza is designed that allows multiple use of bays, consideration of bus scheduling and queuing at Base Village may become an issue. 5. Besides bus routing, parking requirements, and Kiss-n-Ride locations, what other issues are critical in the interface with Base Village operations? Consideration should be given to taxis, charter buses, and lodge vans. Also, a possible fixed guideway system may connect Base Village with the Mall. It was decided to pass on the question in writing to the Aspen Ski Company for further clarification. The current design shows a Kiss-n-Ride located near the entrance to the Mall in the area of existing Lot 7 Consideration may be given to other Kiss-n-Ride locations in the Village. 6. Is the current location for the Kiss-n-Ride acceptable? Current locations for kiss-n-ride include Daly Lane Cul-de-sac, TOSV Shuttle station, curbside locations at Parcel C, Mall, Elbert Lane, Conference Center, and Fall Road. The Kiss-n-Ride for this project should include both a curbside drop off area which will accommodate 6 cars off the travelway and some amount of 30 minute or less parking. The location in the area of Lot 7-8 with a horizontal connection to the Pedestrian Plaza and Mall is acceptable. The closer to the Mall the better. 5�-' Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Functional Aspects - 10 Feb Staff Meeting 14 Feb 2000 Page 4 7. Should other Kiss-n-Ride locations be considered? Where? An alternative is to place the Kiss-n-ride on the Pedestrian Plaza, close to the Mall. This should only be considered as an alternative, as the current location, above Elbert Lane is more suitable. Snowmelt Road is relocated to the outside of the Transit Plaza. Elbert Lane is relocated uphill to accommodate the Transit Plaza. Improvements are made to the intersection of Elbert Lane with Upper Snowmelt. Access to the Transit Plaza is under Elbert Lane into the Transit Plaza and out on Lower Snowmelt Road between Daly and Campground Lanes. 8. Are the roadway configurations of Snowme/t Road and Elbert Lane acceptable in the conceptual design? The configuration of Snowmelt Road is basically acceptable as long as the retaining wall exposed to the Brush Creek side is aesthetically pleasing both in height and form. The configuration of the Elbert Lane intersection, with it being aside road to the extension of Elbert Lane connecting with Upper Snowmelt. The idea here is to have drivers travel up Snowmelt Road naturally, rather than onto Elbert Lane. Charter coaches will be traveling onto Elbert Lane. . 9. Are the entrance and exit configurations of Transit Plaza acceptable? Two configurations are being examined at this time. One configuration has its entrance and exit off the Daly Lane extension for all transit and commercial vehicles. The alternative configuration has all buses entering off relocated Snowmelt Road and exiting on the extension of Daly Lane. Both configurations will be examined during the conceptual design. Loading and delivery access is made through the Transit Plaza and also on Lower Snowmelt Road. A pull-in area is made in the area of Elbert Lane and Snowmelt Road which has access to a freight elevator to Elbert Lane. Consideration was given to the use of Parcel C for Loading and delivery functions, but has not been designed. Prior to the meeting, I discussed the specific loading and delivery problems and possible improvements with a few of the private sector partners. The issues brought forth are summarized below along with the issues brought up during the meeting. Lj5e3 ' Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Functional Aspects - 10 Feb Staff Meeting 14 Feb 2000 Page 5 Loading & Delivery Issues Capacity in Village is too small, needs 30-50% increase Turning/ backing movements too difficult User proximity issues, both grade and linear : delivery times Unsightliness on Daly Lane Elbert Lane needs improvement, has 6-8 businesses Moving heavy loads on hand trucks in inclement weather Elbert Lane wants a pedestrian orientation, not loading and delivery Walkways, elevators, etc. getting messy from dripping juices Substantial pedestrian movements on Elbert Lane Enforcement issues on Elbert Lane Daly Lane is challenged with lodge drop-offs Delivery people park on Elbert to make sales calls and dine Silvertree loading dock is underutilized Conference Center delivery issues Parking violators on Elbert Lane and within circle Need overall loading & delivery management system Safety and security issues Delivery truck/ pedestrian conflicts Limitations on Parcel C functionality Hours of operation Delivery vehicle size: length, width, height Back and side of vehicle loadings Increasing use of Pup trucks (-60 ft) Parcel C structural constraints/ columns Not all existing loading docks are fully utilized Extensive cooperative efforts are necessary for improvements Loading & Delivery Potential Improvements Small vehicles (like golf carts) for linear movements Managed, centralized, and confined loading and delivery system Improve operations in Parcel C Elevator connection from Parcel C to Elbert Lane Storage space for delivery tools - hand trucks, etc. Daly Lane and Elbert Lane are key levels for delivery Improve Parcel C function Remove bus storage from Parcel C Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Functional Aspects - 10 Feb Staff Meeting 14 Feb 2000 Page 6 10. Are the accesses for loading and delivery acceptable? The improvements as proposed in the conceptual layout produced in 1999 and carried forward in the recent layouts are marginal at best. Additional consideration should be given to an overall system design from which then,the components can be designed.A summary of the overall system improvements that can improve the loading and delivery system is forthcoming. 11. Is the freight elevator an acceptable means for transfer of freight to Elbert Lane? Yes. Consideration should be given to conflicting bus and delivery movements as well as the re-orientation of the dock for more efficient delivery. 12. Is the use of Parcel C for Loading and Delivery necessary? Yes. Unless a better overall system can be designed without it, Parcel C will continue to sere its loading and delivery function. - 55- MK CENTENNIAL 402 SEVENTH STREET I TEL 970/928-8599 ATRIUM SUITE 771 P.O.DRAWER 509 FAX 9701928-8528 CEN ZNNIwL aNO1NeaRINO.,NO. GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 57502 • DATE: February 16, 2000 • TO: Snowmass Village Town Council • FROM: Joe Kracum, PE • SUBJECT: Snowmass Village Transit & Parking Plaza Conceptual Design Update 16 Feb Three alternative conceptual layouts are currently underway. All have the Transit Level bounded by the Mall, relocated Snowmelt Road, and extended Daly Lane. Parking below Elbert Lane is maximized for cost efficiency in a two level structure in Lots 4 and 5. It is the intent to maximize the available space within the Transit Level for transit operations, while keeping the overall plaza area within the criteria for mass and scale. All three alternatives are offshoots of the layout first suggested by T. Michael Manchester, presented at the 7 Feb Council Meeting, and revised according to the directions received at the meeting and subsequent staff direction. Alternative A - Access off Daly Lane. Alternative B - Access off relocated Snowmelt Road. Alternative C - Loading & Delivery moved out of Transit Plaza to above Elbert Lane. Each alternative will show two different alternatives for the two level parking structure in Lots 4 and 5. One will show the top deck of the parking structure level with the Transit Level (Daly Lane elevation), the other will show the top deck of the parking structure level with the Pedestrian Level (Mall elevation). A preliminary viewing of the three alternatives will be made during the 24 Feb Partnership and Staff Meeting and will be open for comment. It is our intent to have the three alternatives for full review at the Mass and Scale Staff Meeting on 9 Mar. Direction will be requested at that time with regards to mass and scale and architectural treatment. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON JANUARY 17, 2000 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS PRELIMINARY PLAN. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED AS FOLLOWS: WHEN: February 21, 2000 (continued from February 7, 2000) TIME: During a meeting which begins at 4:00 p.m. WHERE: Town Council Chambers 2nd Floor, Snowmass Center 0016 Kearns Road WHY: To receive public comment on draft Resolution No. 06, Series of 2000, 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 INFO: Contact the Snowmass Village Planning Department at 923-5524 for additional information. Trudi Worline, Town Clerk Published in the Snowmass Village Sun on December 8, 1999 Notice of date change posted and published in the Snowmass Village Sun on January 5, 2000. Continuation Posted and Published in the Snowmass Village Sun on February 2, 2000 and February 9, 2000 ��i TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: February 21, 2000 Presented By: Gary Suiter, Town Manager Stephen R. Connor, Town Attorney Subject: Clean up of issues relating to the approval ordinance for the Burnt Mountain Expansion of the Snowmass Ski Area. Overview: Ordinance No, 9, Series of 1994 was adopted by the Town Council approving the Burnt Mountain Expansion of the Snowmass Ski Area. Since adoption of Ordinance No. 9 the method for calculating the transportation mitigation fee has been modified by agreement of the Town and the Aspen Skiing Company. The timing of the construction of the employee housing mitigation has been changed by several ordinances and is now in technical default. This Ordinance amends the formula for calculation of the transportation mitigation fee and returns the timing for construction of employee housing to that of Ordinance No. 9. Recommendation: Approve the Ordinance on first reading. 19. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 01 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9, SERIES OF 1994 CONCERNING OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY ARISING FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE BURNT MOUNTAIN EXPANSION OF THE SNOWMASS SKI AREA RELATING TO A TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE AND CONSTRUCTION OF MITIGATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994 was approved by the Town Council on October 17, 1994 containing Condition No. 14 which sets forth a program for the payment of a transportation mitigation fee by the Aspen Skiing Company; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994 was approved by the Town Council containing Condition No. 24 which sets forth a procedure for the construction of employee housing by the Aspen Skiing Company; and WHEREAS, as stated in the recorded record of the proceedings before the Town Council on October 17, 1994 the annual adjustment to the base fee per skier in Condftion No. 14 (b) was to be adjusted at an annual rate equal to the percentage increase in the highest cost unrestricted daily lift ticket charged by the Aspen Skiing Company at the Snowmass Ski Area; and WHEREAS, the Town and the Aspen Skiing Company have agreed to modify the procedure for calculation of the transportation mitigation fee; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by and between the Town and the Aspen Skiing Company dated August 28, 1998 setting forth the elements of the new calculation procedure; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding relating to the payment of the transportation mitigation fee for the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 ski seasons has been complied with by the Aspen Skiing Company; and WHEREAS, the new calculation procedure became effective commencing with the 1998-1999 ski season; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to remove the contradiction in procedure between the provisions of Condition No. 14 and the Memorandum of Understanding; and q � -5 Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Town Council approved modifications for the construction of employee housing by the Aspen Skiing Company by adoption of Ordinance,No. 9, Series of 1995 and Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1996; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Skiing Company has requested the Town Council to approve a reversion of the procedure for construction of employee housing to that contained in Condition No. 24; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the amendments to Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994 are appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received and considered comment from the public and comment and recommendations from the Town Staff; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Revision to Formula. To conform to the content of the Memorandum of Understanding the provisions of Condition No. 14 of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994 are hereby amended, as follows: a. Commencing with the 1998-1999 ski season, the Aspen Skiing Company agrees to pay a transportation mitigation fee to the Town at a transportation mitigation rate of Ninety One and Six tenths cents ($91.60) multiplied by the total skier visits for the ski season. A skier visit is defined as the total of all skier days during the ski season, as scanned by the Aspen Skiing Company, less Aspen Skiing Company employees scanned. b. Commencing with the 1999-2000 ski season, and thereafter, the transportation mitigation rate, shall be increased by an annual adjustment of two percent (2.0%) plus the percentage increase from the previous year in the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index, all items, all urban consumers, as defined in Section 20(2)(0 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution. The transportation mitigation fee shall be calculated by multiplying the transportation mitigation rate by the total skier visits. Provided, however, if the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index is ten percent (10%) or greater, then annual adjustment shall be one percent (1.0%), rather than two percent (2.0%). For purposes of illustration, the 1999-2000 ski season transportation mitigation rate per skier visit is calculated as follows: WOW Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2000 Page 3 (0.02 x .9160)+(.9160 x (166.6/161.9))=$.9609. c. The transportation mitigation fee shall be paid in installments of twenty percent (20%) of the total previous ski season transportation mitigation fee on December 1st, January 1st, February 1st, March 1st and April 1st during each ski season. At the end of the ski season the transportation mitigation fee shall be calculated utilizing the applicable transportation mitigation rate and the total skier visits. 2. Reinstate Employee Housing Construction Procedure. The provisions of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995 and Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1996 concerning an amendment of the procedure for the construction of mitigation employee housing are hereby repealed. The provisions of Condition No. 24 of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994 are hereby reinstated, as follows: "The Applicant shall construct all employee hosing in Snowmass Village. The Applicant may construct the housing as a single project or phase the construction, provided that the amount of the housing created in conjunction with each phase is equal to the demand created by the related improvements in that phase of development. The Applicant shall submit a detailed land use plan, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, prior to any construction of related employee housing." 3. Conflict. Any conflict between the provisions of Section No. 1 and Section No. 2 of this Ordinance and the provisions of Ordinance no. 9, Series of 1994, Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995 and Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1996 shall be resolved in favor of this Ordinance. 4. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. ago � ' ' Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2000 Page 4 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on February 21, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on March 6, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and _against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk eq�I / TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: February 21, 2000 Presented By: Stephen R. Connor, Town Attorney Subject: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 Overview: This Ordinance implements the excise tax approved by the electors on November 2, 1999. The comments and directions of the Town Council at the January 31, 2000 work session have been incorporated. Data from the Pitkin County Assessor has been compiled by Victoria Giannola as you requested. Please review the procedures and tax computation contained in the Ordinance for discussion at the meeting. Recommendation: Approve the Ordinance on first reading. 63**- TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 2 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURES TO ASSESS AND COLLECT THE LIMITED EXCISE TAX ON IMPROVEMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR A LOT AS APPROVED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE TOWN ON NOVEMBER 2, 1999, IMPLEMENTING THE SAME BY AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the Town Council proposed the establishment of a limited excise tax for consideration by the electors of the Town, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.1 Authority to Levy Taxes of the Home Rule Charter, by Resolution No. 34, Series of 1999; and WHEREAS, the limited excise tax was considered by the electorate at the November 2, 1999 municipal election as required by the Home Rule Charter, and as a financial question within the meaning of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, the electors of the Town approved the financial question at the municipal election occurring on November 2, 1999, as follows: SHALL TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TAXES BE INCREASED BY $500,000.00, ESTIMATED FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR COLLECTION, OR SUCH OTHER AMOUNT THAT SHALL BE RECEIVED ANNUALLY, BY THE ENACTMENT OF A LIMITED EXCISE TAX TO BE ASSESSED ONLY IF THE OWNER OF A LOT DECIDES TO CONSTRUCT, REMODEL, OR EXPAND IMPROVEMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR A LOT, OTHER THAN BY VARIANCE, IN DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS ONLY, PROVIDED THAT ANY SUCH CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING OR EXPANSION THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE EXCISE TAX MAY NOT EXCEED 550 SQUARE FEET OR 10% OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR THE LOT, WHICHEVER IS LESS, AT A SQUARE FOOTAGE EXCISE TAX RATE EQUAL TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LOT CALCULATED TO THE SQUARE FOOT, NOT INCLUDING LAND, AS SET FORTH IN THE RECORDS OF THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSOR, AND UPON TERMS AND CONDITIONS ENACTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL FROM TIME TO TIME; AND SUCH EXCISE TAX TO EXPIRE 10 YEARS AFTER ENACTMENT OR SUCH EARLIER DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL; AND REVENUES FROM SUCH EXCISE TAX TO BE RESTRICTED FOR THE ACQUISITION, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 Page 2 CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION OF AFFORDABLE EMPLOYEE HOUSING, INCLUDING LAND, NOW OWNED OR HEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY THE TOWN AND ANY SUCH AFFORDABLE EMPLOYEE HOUSING SO ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED OR REHABILITATED MAY BE SOLD TO QUALIFIED PURCHASERS AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL; AND SUCH EXCISE TAX REVENUES TO BE COLLECTED AND SPENT WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONDITION AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION? WHEREAS, the Town Council is authorized by the financial question to enact terms and conditions for the assessment and collection of the limited excise tax; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has directed the Town Attorney to develop procedures for the assessment and collection of the limited excise tax; WHEREAS, the Town Council conducted work sessions on December 13, 1999 and January 31, 2000 to discuss assessment, collection and implementation issues regarding the limited excise tax; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that the method of calculating square footage by the Pitkin County Assessor and the Town is significantly different to require a modification of the valuation of the Assessor to conform with the intent of the limited excise tax approved by the electorate; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the procedures for the assessment and collection of the limited excise tax and finds the same to be within the scope of the delegation of the electors by approving the limited excise tax; and WHEREAS, the Town Council caused notice of a public hearing on January 3, 2000 to receive comment from the public on the provisions of this Ordinance, which public hearing was continued to February 7, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received and considered comment from the public at the public hearing, and comment and recommendations from the Town Staff; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary I V�' Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 Page 3 for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Establishment of Limited Excise Tax. Article VI Floor Area Excise Tax, Chapter 4 Revenue and Finance of the Municipal Code is hereby created as follows: 4-130 Purpose. The purpose of this Article is to implement the authorization of the electorate of the Town given on November 2, 1999 to enact a limited excise tax to allow the construction of improvements in excess of the maximum allowable floor area for certain detached single-family dwellings. 4-131 Imposition of Tax. An excise tax is hereby imposed on construction, remodeling, or expansion of improvements requiring the.issuance of a building peunit_ within the scope of Chapter 18 of this Code in excess of the maximum floor area, as defined in the Land Use and Development Code, except as specifically authorized by a variance. 4-132 Liability for Tax. The owner of a lot which is subject to the excise tax imposed under Section 4-131 is liable for the payment of the tax upon issuance of a building permit within the scope of Chapter 18 of this Code. 4-133 Amount of Tax. The amount of the excise tax shall be calculated by the Planning Director by multiplying the square footage that is in excess of the maximum floor area for the lot by: a. The actual value of the lot including improvements, but not including the land, as calculated from the records of the County Assessor, divided by the floor area square footage of the single-family detached dwelling and any accessory building, not including the floor area subject to the excise tax, as calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 16A-3-210(b), Measuring Floor Area, multiplied by seventy percent (70%); or b. In the event that the actual value of the lot from the records of the County Assessor, then one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the numeric average of the actual value of all lots including improvements, but not including land, for the subdivision or PUD in which the lot exists as calculated from the records of the County Assessor shall be divided by the actual floor area square footage of lot, not including the floor area subject tojp-w Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 Page 4 to the excise tax, multiplied by seventy percent (70%); c. Provided, however, if a change in the actual value of the lot according to the records of the County Assessor occurs within one (1) year from the date of payment of the limited excise tax, then the amount of the excise tax shall be recalculated by the Planning Director. The Planning Director shall notify the owner of the amount of the additional excise tax, which shall be paid by the owner within thirty (30) days. If the owner paid an excise tax in excess of the recalculated excise tax, then the Planning Director shall cause the overpayment to be refunded to the owner. 4-134 Exemptions. The excise tax imposed under Section 4-131 shall not apply as follows: a. to a lot that has received a variance under the provisions of the Land Use and Development Code; and b. to a lot upon which an AEU has been installed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use and Development Code. 4-135 Expiration Date. The provisions of this Article shall become effective at 12:00 o'clock a.m. on March 8, 2000 and shall expire at 11:59 o'clock p.m. on March 7, 2010, or on such earlier date as determined by the Town Council by Resolution. 4-136 Applicability of Tax. The excise tax shall apply specifically to construction, remodeling, or expansion of improvements on a detached single-family dwelling lot in the following subdivisions only: a. Divide PUD; and b. Fox Run PUD; and C. Horse Ranch PUD; and d. Melton Ranch Units 1-111; and e. Ridge Run Units I-IV, but not including any area zoned DU; and f. The Pines PUD, but not in any area zoned DU; and g. Two Creeks PUD but not in any area zoned DU; and h. Wild Oak Unit I; and i. Wildridge Units 1-II; and j. Wood Run Units I-V, Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 Page 5 excluding therefrom, any restricted employee housing within the meaning of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. 4-137 Maximum Square Footage. The maximum square footage to square footage in excess of the maximum floor area not to exceed five hundred fifty (550) square feet or ten percent (10%) of the maximum floor area, whichever is less, minus square footage in excess of the maximum floor area currently existing or granted by variance. 2. Allocation of Excise Tax. The excise tax collected under the provisions of Chapter 4 Article 4 shall be restricted for expenditure for the acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of affordable employee housing, including land, now owned or hereafter acquired by the Town. 3. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on February 21, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on March 6, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk �I TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: February 21, 2000 Presented By: Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Steve Connor, . Town Attorney Subject: Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000 Overview: This Resolution amends Resolution No. 11, 1. Background Series of 1993, and Intergovernmental Fire 2. Issues Code Enforcement Agreement with the 3. Alternatives Snowmass Fire Protection District. Major administrative changes to Resolution No. 02 are as follows: 1) Copies of all fire inspection and fire investigation reports by the District to the Town Building Official; and 2) Submission of Annual Fire Inspection Plan by the District to the Town Manager. Recommendation: Approval of Resolution No. 02. ff A 1 ' TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 02 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENTRANCE INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SNOWMASS-WILDCAT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Town is authorized to enter into this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 1.4 of Article I of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, the District is authorized to enter into this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes 32-1-1001(1)(d); and WHEREAS, the Town Manager and the Community Development Director have recommended to the Town Council that the function of enforcing the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted in the Town, can continue to be more efficiently and more economically accomplished through a contractual relationship with the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District; and WHEREAS, the Town and the District currently share the expense of fire inspections conducted by the District pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement which was effective January 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, the relationship between the Town and the District has been favorable during the term of the Agreement and the Town Manager and the Community Development Director recommend a continuation of the scope of the intergovernmental agreement; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the entrance into an intergovernmental agreement with the District accomplishes a more efficient use of government personnel which will enable better service to be provided to those persons affected by the Uniform Fire Code. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Approval of Agreement. The Intergovernmental Agreement Fire Code Enforcement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved on behalf of the Town. I v Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000 Page 2 2. Direction to Town Manner. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Intergovernmental Fire Code Enforcement Agreement on behalf of the Town. The Town Manager is further authorized and directed to take such actions as are necessary and proper to carry out the intention of the Agreement. 3. Recision of Approval. If the Intergovernmental Fire Code Enforcement Agreement is not approved by the Board of Directors of the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District on or before April 30, 2000, then the approval set forth in Section No. 1 and the directions set forth in Section No. 2 of this Resolution are hereby rescinded and revoked. 4. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 21st day of February, 2000, upon the motion of Council Member , the second of Council Member and approved by a vote of_ in favor and _ opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE By: T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk ' il ' Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000 Page 3 Exhibit "A" INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality, whose address is Post Office Box 5010, Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615, hereinafter referred to as the "Town", and the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, a Colorado special district, whose address is Post Office Box 6436, Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615, hereinafter referred to as the "District'. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by the provisions of Section 29-1-201, C.R.S., et seg., concerning intergovernmental relationships; and WHEREAS, the Town is authorized to enter into this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 1.4 of Article I of the Town Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, the District is authorized to enter into this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-1-1001(1)(d) C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the Town and the District have determined that the establishment of an intergovernmental relationship to ensure compliance with Article VII, Chapter 18 of the Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code is an efficient and effective use of the powers and responsibilities of the Town and the District through cooperation; and WHEREAS, fire inspections are required to be performed by the Fire Chief of the District in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the Town, as specified by Section 18-124 Fire department administration of the Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, fire inspections are additionally required to be performed by the District in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-1-1002 C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, both the Town and the District are political subdivisions within the meaning of Section 29-1-202(2) C.R.S. ; and 7� ' Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000 Page 4 WHEREAS, in compliance with the provisions of Section 29-1-203 C.R.S., the Town desires to contract with the District to provide service for the enforcement of Article VII, Chapter 18 of the Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code, on the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties, and for other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Fire Code Enforcement. The District shall perform all functions of the Fire Marshall and the Fire Chief as set forth in Article VII, Chapter 18 of the Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code. The following specific provisions shall apply: a. All fees which are collected pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code shall be the sole and separate property of the Town. b. The District shall provide the Town Building Official with a copy of all fire inspection and fire investigation reports promptly after issuance of the same. c. The District shall provide the Town Manager with a fire inspection plan for the Town identifying the structures to be inspected and the frequency of inspection for the term of this Agreement. Such plan shall be provided to the Town Manager within 10 days of the date of execution of this Agreement. d. The District shall cooperate with the Town Building Official in the enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 18 of the Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code. e. Any citation for noncompliance with the provisions of Article VII, Chapter 18 of the Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code shall be based upon an affidavit sworn to by an authorized District representative which is presented to the Town Manager. If the Town Manager and the Fire Chief determine that the matter set forth in the affidavit requires the issuance of a Summons and Complaint pursuant to the Municipal Code, the District will cooperate with the Town in the prosecution of the Complaint. 2. District Compensation. The Town shall pay the District the amount of $37,000.00 annually for the services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement. The fee shall be paid by the Town to the District in the amount of$18,500.00 to be paid on June 7300 Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000 Page 5 30th and $18,500.00 to be paid on December 31st of each year during the term of this Agreement. The initial payment shall be paid by the Town on June 30, 2000. 3. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2000, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms and conditions hereof. 4. Termination of Existing Agreement. The Intergovernmental Fire Inspection Agreement entered into by and between the Town and the District effective January 1, 1993, is hereby mutually rescinded and declared to be null and void and of no effect. This Agreement shall supersede and replace the Intergovernmental Fire Inspection Agreement upon its effective date. 5. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2000 irrespective of the date this Agreement is actually executed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town has caused its name to be hereunto subscribed by its Town Manager and the District has caused its name to be hereunto subscribed by its President, on the _day of February, 2000 Town of Snowmass Village Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District By: By: Gary Suiter, Town Manager William L. Cowan, District Manager COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: February 18, 2000 BY: Steve Connor STAFF: Hunt Walker SUBJECT: NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT OVERVIEW: State Statute requires the Town to develop a weed management plan for both private and public properties within the Town. Rather then develop our own plan staff is proposing that we use the Pitkin County Weed Management Plan which was presented to Council several months ago. By entering into an IGA with Pitkin County and Aspen there will be consistent administration and enforcement of the Noxious Weed Act in Pitkin County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council pass Resolution #11, which authorizes the Town to enter into an IGA with Pitkin County and Aspen. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 11 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ENTRANCE INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FOR NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT. WHEREAS, provisions of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, Section 35-5.5-106 (1) C.R.S. require the Town to adopt a noxious weed management plan; and WHEREAS, Section 35-5.5-106 (3) authorizes cooperation between Pitkin County and the City of Aspen by intergovernmental agreement to carry out the powers and authorities granted by the Colorado Noxious Weed Act; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Town is authorized to enter into this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 1.4 of Article I of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the entrance into an intergovernmental agreement will promote efficiency in the carrying out the powers and authorities granted by the Colorado Noxious Weed Act; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and declares that all lands within the Town should be protected from noxious weeds as they pose an threat to the environment and that the entrance into the Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management Plan Intergovernmental Agreement will assist the Town in identifying noxious weeds and establishing procedures for their control. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement. The Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management Plan Intergovernmental Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and adopted by the Town. 2. Authorization to Mayor. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management Plan Intergovernmental Agreement on behalf of the Town. 3. Direction to Community Development Director. The Community Development Director is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary and proper to perform the obligations of the Town under the Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management lb_ I Resolution No. 11, Series of 2000 Page 2 Plan Intergovernmental Agreement, including without limitation the appointment of the Town representative on the Pitkin County Weed Advisory Board. 4. Prior Intergovernmental Agreement. It is the intention of the Town Council that the Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management Plan Intergovernmental Agreement approved by this Resolution shall supercede and replace the intergovernmental agreement effective January 1, 1992 by and between the Town and Pitkin County, as approved by Resolution No. 26, Series of 1992. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to take all actions that are necessary and proper to withdraw from the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement, including without limitation the provision of notice of withdrawal from the Agreement and the execution of an agreement rescinding and voiding the Agreement. 5. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on February 21, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of _ in favor and against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk r PITKIN COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT L RECITALS 1.01 The Colorado Noxious Weed Act, Section 35-5.5-101, et sea:. of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Act'), mandates the adoption by county and municipal governments of a noxious weed management plan within the geographical boundaries of their respective jurisdictions; and 1.02 The counties and municipalities may cooperate with one another through intergovernmental agreement in the exercise of any and all of the powers and authorities granted under the Act. This Intergovernmental Agreement is made and entered into between Pitkin County, Colorado, by and through the County Commissioners for Pitkin County (hereinafter "County"), the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and the Town of Snowmass Village, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "Town") pursuant to the authority and powers vested in them in accordance with Sections 29-1-201, et sec ., 29-20-101 et sec., and 35-5.5-101 et seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes. 1.03 The County, City and Town wish to cooperate with one another for purposes of establishing a comprehensive, uniform and county-wide integrated weed management plan; and 1.04 It is the duty of all persons to use integrated methods to manage noxious weeds that are damaging to the land of neighboring landowners; and 1.05 The County has adopted a weed management plan by Ordinance #99-48, which the City and Town wish to use as their required weed management plan; and 1.06 It is in the best interest of the citizens of the City, Town and County to enter into this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants as expressed below, the parties do hereby agree as follows: II. PURPOSE This Intergovernmental Agreement is intended and designed to fulfill the mandates and obligations imposed upon the County, City and Town by the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, Section 35-5.5-101, et seg, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and it shall be liberally construed to achieve such purpose. III. PITKIN COUNTY WEED ADVISORY BOARD 3.01 The parties hereby authorize and establish the Pitkin County Weed Advisory Board ("Board ") which shall be comprised of residents of the County, City and Town. 3.02 The Pitkin County Weed Advisory Board ("Board") shall be comprised of one representative from the City, one representative from the Town, and three representatives from unincorporated Pitkin County. The County, City and Town representatives shall be appointed by the governing bodies of their respective jurisdictions. The term of board members shall be two (2) years, except that the initial appointments for the City and Town members shall be one (1) year so as to provide for staggered member terms. Weed Advisory Board members may serve no more than two (2) consecutive terms. 3.03 The Board shall have the following powers and duties: a. The Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management Plan shall be reviewed at regular intervals, but not less than once every three (3) years, by the Weed Advisory Board. The management plan and all amendments made thereto shall be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County for approval, modification, or rejection. b. The Board may recommend designation of noxious weeds for integrated management in addition to those as specified in the Act. c. The Board shall submit all its recommendations to the state weed coordinator for review pursuant to C.R.S. 35-5.5-107. d. The Board shall identify landowners that should be required to submit individual integrated management plans to control noxious weeds upon their property and forward same to the County, City, or Town for approval. e. The Board shall review the recommendations of any pest control committee as established under C.R.S. Section 35-5.5-105 for consistencies between the plans activities of the committee and the Board and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners thereon. f The Board, through its chairperson or other designated representative, shall make itself available and appear upon reasonable notice before the County, City or Town to discuss or review any plan, recommendation or action of the Board. NOW g. Powers and duties not specifically provided for herein and not otherwise delineated in writing to the Pitkin County Weed Advisory Board shall be reserved to the County, City and Town. 3.04 The County, City and Town may remove and replace their respective representatives on the Board at any time with or without cause. The failure of any representative to attend two (2) consecutive meetings may cause such representative to be removed and replaced on the Board. 3.05 The Weed Advisory Board shall annually elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson/secretary and adopt such procedural and meeting rules and it deems necessary. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to conduct all business. The Board shall meet no less than two (2) times per year and may convene such other additional meetings, as it deems necessary. IV. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4.01 The County, City and Town agree to designate and hereby authorize the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County (`BOCC") to act and perform the duties and functions of the local governing body for purposes of overseeing and reviewing the operations of the Pitkin County Weed Advisory Board. Pursuant thereto, the BOCC shall have the sole and final authority to approve, modify, or reject the Pitkin County Noxious Weed Management Plan ("Plan"), management criteria, management practices, undesirable plants subject to management, and any other decision or recommendation of the Board. 4.02 Notwithstanding the BOCC's authority to finally adopt the Plan, management criteria, and management practices as provided for herein, the County, City and Town shall provide for the actual administration and enforcement of the Plan within their own jurisdictions through the use of their respective agents or employees, and may enter into contracts with qualified service providers, including each other, to effectuate the purposes of the plan. Any agent; employee or contractor applying or recommending the use of chemical control methods in the implementation of the Plan shall be certified by the Department of Agriculture in the application and recommendation of such methods. V. TERM 5.01 The initial tern of this agreement shall be from its effective date through December 31, 2000. Thereafter, this agreement shall automatically renew on an annual basis for one- year terms (January 1 through December 31), unless a party or parties withdraw therefrom as provided below. This agreement shall also automatically terminate thirty (30) days after the repeal of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. VI. WITHDRAWAL 6.01 The County, City and Town may withdraw from this agreement by providing written notice to the other parties of their intent to do so ninety(90) days in advance of the date each will withdraw. Any party withdrawing from this agreement shall not be entitled to g0 � any rebate or refund of funds, if any, previously contributed hereunder to implement the terms of the Plan. VII. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 7.01 The County, City and Town agree to hold each other harmless from any and all injuries, claims or liabilities of any nature whatsoever that arise or may be caused as a result of the execution of the terms of this agreement, or that arise from the design, implementation or performance of any weed management plan as adopted pursuant to this agreement, and each party shall only be responsible and held accountable for such injuries or liabilities caused or created by its own individual acts, errors or omissions. 7.02 Nothing in this agreement is or shall be construed as a waiver or any immunities and protections provided that parties under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. Section 24-10-101, et sec. VIII. ADOPTION 8.01 The parties agree and acknowledge that this Intergovernmental Agreement must be individually ratified, approved and adopted by their respective governing bodies in accordance with each and parties' controlling legislative or administrative procedures, and this agreement shall have not force or binding effect until it has been so approved and executed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement by their duly authorized representatives on the day and year as specified. ATTEST: THE COUNTY OF PITKIN THROUGH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONSERS County Clerk and Recorder Leslie Lamont, BOCC Chairperson Date ATTEST: CITY OF ASPEN City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor Date ATTEST: TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Town Clerk T. Michael Manchester, Mayor Date 99weed_iga.doc COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: February 21, 2000 BY: Gary Suiter, Town Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 14, Series of 2000 appointing Patrick Keelty to the Board of Appeals and Examiners OVERVIEW: At the February 7, 2000 Work Session, Council interviewed Patrick Keelty, who submitted an application and expressed an interest to fill the vacancy on the Board of Appeals and Examiners. The vacancy was created with the resignation of Tom Dunlop. The term will expire January 1, 2003. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 14 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING PATRICK KEELTY TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS. WHEREAS, Section 8 . 3 of the Home Rule Charter states that members of all boards and commissions shall be appointed by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, Tom Dunlop has submitted his resignation from the Board of Appeals and Examiners; and WHEREAS, the vacancy has been publicly posted and published in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, Patrick Keelty has submitted an application and has expressed an interest to serve on the Board of Appeals and Examiners; and WHEREAS, Town Council conducted an interview with Keelty on February 7, 2000, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Appointments and Terms That the following citizen is hereby appointed to serve as follows : Board of Appeals and Examiners 2-YEAR TERM Patrick Keelty 02/21/2000 - 01/01/2003 INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 21st day of February, 2000 with a motion made by Council Member and seconded by Council Member and by a vote of _ in favor to _ opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE: T. MICHAEL MANCHESTER, Mayor ATTEST: TRUDI WORLINE, Town Clerk r OJ TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GARY SUITER, TOWN MANAGER RE: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2000 MALL PARTNERSHIP MEETING Please be reminded that the Mall Partnership Meeting is scheduled for this Thursday, February 24'^, from 2:OOpm to 5:000m in the Kearns Room of the Snowmass Conference Center. I will be at the City Managers'Annual Conference in Glenwood Springs; however, the meeting should be well-staffed. *RTA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE We have several villagers who are interested in representing Snowmass Village on the RTA Citizens Advisory Committee. Ted Grenda, Jim Heywood, and Joanie Klar have all expressed interest in serving on this committee. If you wish, I could ask these applicants to come before Council for a brief interview. If not, I would suggest that we appoint these representatives, by motion, at today's meeting. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. BRUSH CREEK ROAD/HIGHWAY 82 SIGN This item will appear on the Commissioners' agenda on February 23rd at about 5:OOpm. We have seen a draft staff report and it appears that the only staff concerns relate to long-term maintenance and sight-distance. These are routine items that should be easily dealt with. The Brush Creek Village Homeowners have hired an attorney to oppose the sign and staff will be prepared to address those issues at the meeting. We are scheduling a work session at 3:00 that same day to discuss RTA policy issues with Walter Kieser and Dan Blankenship. The plan is to hold the Work Session in Council Chambers and carpool to the Commissioners' Meeting immediately after the Work Session. COLORADO CITY MANAGERS' CONFERENCE For your information, I will be attending the Colorado City Managers' Conference in Glenwood Springs on Thursday and Friday of this week. I will stay in touch with the office should any problems/issues arise. *Response requested VP SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 01-17-00 The Work Session began at 1:05 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Doug Mercatoris, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Brady STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Chris Conrad, Senior Planner; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Dennis Lambert, Geotechnical Consultant; Jennifer Worth, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Wayne Stryker, Martin Mata, Doug Dotson, John Mechling, Bob Thompson, John Dresser, Judith Burwell, Barbara Lucks, Bob Benziel, Sara Chong, Carolyn Sackariason, and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. EMPLOYEE HOUSING RESALE GUIDELINES Coffey explained that he would like to enforce more strict inspections of resale employee housing in order to keep conditions of the condominiums to an acceptable standard. Coffey then explained his rationale for having an independent third party perform the inspections based on criteria pre-determined by the Housing Department and the inspection company. He also reviewed the estimated costs of using a private inspection company and suggested possible scenarios for receiving the maximum resale price based on the condition of the unit. Town Council members expressed their opinions regarding the inspections and the maximum resale price. Barbara Lucks, representing the Mountain View Homeowners' Association, requested that there be some clarification to potential homebuyers that the Town will not be acting as their agent in the transaction of employee housing sales. Lucks also requested that the cost of the inspection be included in the 1% fee that the Town collects on employee housing sales. Coffey said that the inspection fee could possibly be included in the I%. g5� 01-n-00.ws Page 2 Town Council also discussed how the Housing Department could ensure that the employee resale units stay in reasonable condition without having to manage the maintenance of the units themselves. After further discussion among Council and staff, the majority of the Town Council agreed that the independent inspections were a good idea but that the Housing Department needs to do some more brainstorming regarding the management of the maximum resale price and how the upkeep of the units will be enforced. Coffey then discussed the possibility of an improvement allowance. He explained the capital improvement policy that Pitkin County uses is limited to a very few, specific types of improvements and that the County is of the opinion that the CPI increase is a sufficient enough incentive to keep the units in average condition for the next owner. Joe then explained to Council that, after a lot of research, he has come to the same conclusion and does not feel that credit for capital improvements should be given. After further discussion, the majority of Council agreed that there should not be any allowances for capital improvements or renovations. The Town Council and Staff then agreed that the Crossings discussion should be discussed at a later date. Lucks made a final suggestion to Council that the Housing Department clearly note to potential PMH homebuyers that they will not be represented by the Town in employee housing transactions. Council agreed that this should be clearly communicated. TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS (FARAWAY RANCH SOUTH) PRELIMINARY PUD DISCUSSION Conrad explained that geotechnical issues and the Draft of Resolution No. 6, Series of 2000 would be discussed today and introduced Dennis Lambert, of Lambert & Associates, who had been retained by the Town in order to evaluate the geotechnical information prepared by CTL/Thompson, Inc. relating to the Timbers preliminary plan. Lambert explained that he had prepared questions relating to the development that the Council may want to ask of CTL/Thompson, based on the information that he had reviewed. In response to the questions brought up by Lambert & Associates, Bob Thompson, of CTL/Thompson, Inc. explained to the Council his calculations, procedures and methods of excavation for the structural elements of the Timbers project. After further discussion, Council agreed that, based on the experience and qualifications of CTL/Thompson, they do not have to be concerned about the quality of the work being done. However, the Council emphasized that they do not want to see a project underway before the permits have been approved. The Town Council took a five-minute break at this time. g�- 01-n-oo.ws Page 3 [Hatfield was not present for the following portion of the Work Session Discussion.] The Mayor reviewed that the Council had previously discussed the Timbers selling employee housing to the Town and that they had requested that the Housing Manager review the design of the housing units and, based on his past experience, report back to Council with any recommendations. Coffey then explained that he had compared the proposed design of the Timbers units to the Mountain View Phase II project and had discovered that the Timbers units were too narrow. Coffey would like to make sure that the proposed employee units are at least as wide as the Mountain View Phase II units, with a few minor changes to the floorplan and that similar material be used for the interior. Coffey had no concerns regarding the exterior of the proposed project. After further discussion among the Town Council and Representatives from the Timbers, the Timbers's representatives said that making the necessary changes requested by Coffey would not be a major problem and would not cause any major delays. After asking some questions regarding the Resolution, Council then discussed some changes and additions to the document. The Work Session ended at 4:05 pm. Submitted by: Jennifer Worth Deputy Town Clerk rg�� SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 01-31-2000 The Work Session began at 2:05 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello, Mark Brady, Douglas Mercatoris COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Rebecca Harlowe, Secretary PUBLIC PRESENT: Carolyn Sackariason, Sarah Chung, Mike McCleary, Wolf Gensch and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA The Town Manager summarized the proposed plans for construction of the Mall Transit Plaza. Joe Kracum, of M. K. Centennial, outlined the current design plans for the project. Cost for the project is projected to be approximately $12M - $14M. Council reviewed the material submitted in today's Council packet. The Town Manager stated that consultants will be contracted to study the project and its impacts, and will provide information to Council. Council discussed funding options and requested further information regarding the sale of bonds as a future ballot question and Special District information. Mayor Manchester stated that further discussion of this project is scheduled for the February 7, 2000 Council Work Session. Council requested that they be notified of all upcoming Mall Partners' meetings and that Mall Transit meetings be posted on the Town's Public Notice Boards to allow all Council Members to attend the meetings. FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX For the purpose of implementing the Floor Area Excise Tax approved by the voters at the November, 2000 Snowmass Village Special Election, the Planning Director reviewed a chart illustrating various examples of fee applications and discount rate options for construction projects that will exceed their allowable square footage. Council discussed assessment options, flexibility within the ballot language and discount percentages. Mayor Manchester noted that one of the original premises was that the net effect of construction costs plus the fee, would be equal to the retail value of the square footage to be constructed. In response to comments from members of the 01-31-00 ws Page 2 public, Council discussed the potential of allowing for a return on the builder's investment as it relates to the approved ballot language. The Town Attorney recommended that Council determine and maintain a standard formula and specific tax amount which is fair and equitable and establishes uniformity between the Town's method of property valuation and that of the County Assessor. He noted that the County Assessor's valuations are based on gross square footage, while the Town uses Floor Area Ratio square footage. The approved ballot language states that the Tax will apply to increases in Floor Area Ratio (FAR). For determining the Fair Market Value of improvements on a lot, which is to be a factor in determining the Tax according to the ballot language, the Town Attorney also noted that the County Assessor's valuations are 12 to 16 months behind the current Fair Market Value. He explained that this would also be an influencing factor. After further discussion, Council reasserted their intent to determine a method that both allows the advantage of this opportunity to builders when constructing additional square footage and also generates revenue for maintenance and future construction of the Town's employee housing. Council requested a list of property assessments from the Assessor to use as examples, an explanation of the County Assessor's method for calculating valuations, and a revised chart that includes a 50-percent discount rate. First Reading of an Ordinance on the Floor Area Excise Tax is scheduled for the February 7, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. The Work Session ended at 5:25 p.m. Submitted by: Rebecca Harlowe, Secretary/Records Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 02-07-2000 The Work Session began at 1:15 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello, Mark Brady, Douglas Mercatoris COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Dave Peckler, Transportation Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Leslie Klusmire, Assistant to the Town Manager; Rebecca Harlowe, Secretary/Records Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Carolyn Sackariason, Don Schuster, Bob Purvis, Patrick Keelty and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. INTERVIEW APPLICANT FOR BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS VACANCY Council interviewed Patrick Keelty, who submitted an application to fill a vacant position on the Board of Appeals and Examiners. Council will conduct interviews with any new applicants at the February 21, 2000 Work Session and an applicant will be selected by secret ballot. A Resolution of appointment will be included on the February 21, 2000 Council Meeting Agenda. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA DISCUSSION The policy discussion focused on identifying the philosophy of the Town, objectives, involvement of the business sector and appropriate implementation of the plan. Joe Kracum presented recent changes to the plan and identified organizational aspects as parking requirements, functional aspects, mass, scale and architecture. He defined the current focus for today's meeting as a discussion of parking requirements. Discussion at an upcoming Council Work Session will address functional aspects. Council reviewed and commented on the options as presented by Kracum. Council discussed optional locations for additional parking spaces, use of the County- wide '/z-Cent Tax for this project, identification of who will use the parking structure and its purpose. Council majority agreed that the current parking situation is problematic and requested a contingency plan that will address all goals without building a parking structure as well as a version of the current plan that includes a parking structure. Other possible modifications were discussed in detail. After further discussion, Council 02-07-00ws Page 2 majority reiterated the desirability of a modified version of the current plan over a contingency plan. Staff will meet to discuss the options. TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS (FARAWAY RANCH SOUTH) PRELIMINARY PUD DISCUSSION Council reviewed draft Resolution No. 06, Series of 2000 and discussed construction plans including a timeline for the various phases of construction. Conrad outlined the developer's plans for site preparation and emphasized the importance of a contingency agreement with the applicant for restoration and reclamation of the project should the project be terminated before completion. He proposed alternatives for the ski access trail, which in its current trial location has been determined unacceptable by the Ridge Homeowners. Council suggested modifications for the bus stops and shelters. They also discussed possible trail location, pick-up and drop-off parking options, bus stops and walkways to provide a reasonable pedestrian connection, and the possibility of increasing the width of the employee housing units without sacrificing the number of units to be constructed. Council requested that construction of the employee housing units be of quality construction and functional. Resolution No. 06, Series of 2000 will be scheduled for Council review and approval at the February 14, 2000 Regular Council Meeting. The developer will meet with staff to determine final language for the Resolution. WOODRUN V DUMPSTER — SITE ANALYSIS Mayor Manchester explained that staff is currently investigating alternative locations for the dumpster as well as investigating possibilities for improving the dumpster shed area at its current location. Walker recommended locating a site within the Base Village area for the dumpster site. He stated that the amount of land being used by the dumpster site in the current location is unacceptable to the neighbors, however it may be possible to adjust the current site plan to accommodate their concerns. Council stated that they are open to suggestions concerning other possible alternatives. No final decision was made at this time. LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Klusmire identified problems with the current Employee Housing mitigation requirements as currently outlined in the Land Use Code (LUC). She outlined proposed revisions to the section related to employee housing and submitted an employee survey report conducted in June, 1999. Council discussed job generation rates based on information from Snowmass Village businesses. The Town Attorney explained that although the method of establishing fees may be changed, the fees are designed to mitigate the impact that is created and must be standardized. The Housing Manager suggested an impact fee be initiated if employee OOP �/� 02-07-00ws Page 3 generation increases, whereas if someone remodels and the number of jobs stay the same, no impact fee increase would apply. Council discussed the average number of jobs per employee and agreed that the number should remain at 1.3. Council discussed the possibility of discounting mitigation requirements, cash-in-lieu to meet mitigation requirements, differentiation between major and minor renovation in relation to mitigation requirements and determined the need to discuss the percentage of overall mitigation and to reduce the number of employment categories. WILDCAT FIRE DISTRICT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Craig Thompson outlined the contents of draft Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000 and the attached Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Snowmass Wildcat Fire District. This Resolution amends Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993 and the Intergovernmental Fire Code Enforcement Agreement. He summarized the changes made to the IGA and explained that the Fire District will provide the Town with a Fire Inspection Plan on an annual basis and that copies of all fire inspection and fire investigation reports would be submitted to the Town Building Official. After further discussion, Thompson stated that the Resolution would be presented to Council for approval at the February 21, 2000 Regular Council Meeting. The Work Session ended at 5:50 p.m. Submitted by: Rebecca Harlowe Secretary/Records Clerk 00P SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 02-07-2000 Mayor T. Michael Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, February 7, 2000 at 5:54 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello Mark Brady COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All Council Members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director, Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Don Schuster, Phil McKeague, Carolyn Sackariason, John Dresser, Bob Purvis, Bob Gaudin, Sarah McCracken, Scott Smith, Mary Schubert, Jan Kopka and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Phil Mckeague, a Snowmass Village resident, requested information regarding the categories designated in the Municipal Code for determining qualification and priority of an applicant for employee housing in Snowmass Village. The Town Manager explained that priority of applicants for employee housing units is determined by how long the applicant has been employed in Snowmass Village, the top category being designated as 15 years or more employment in Snowmass Village. He further explained that a 20-year employment category was used specifically for the initial sale of The Crossings single-family employee housing and is not a category included in the Municipal Code. He stated that the "20-year and over" employment category was found to be difficult to verify, and has not been used for any other sales or resales of employee housing. After further discussion, Council stated that this issue will be an item for discussion at the March 6, 2000 Town Council Work Session. -93' 02-07-2000tc Page 2 Item No. 3: DISCUSSION BUILDING AND PLANNING CONCERNS The Town Manager explained that Dick Stumpf, a Snowmass Village resident, has made a verbal request to appeal the Building and Planning fees for administrative modifications to his residence. Although Stumpf was provided with a copy of the appeals process as outlined in the Municipal Code, the deadline to file his appeal has expired. Stumpf is now requesting an extension of time to file. After further discussion, Council requested that Mr. Stumpf submit a letter to Council requesting an extension of time to file an appeal. Item No. 5: PUBLIC HEARING — DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06, SERIES OF 2000 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06, SERIES OF 2000 CONCERNING 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 Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 6:04 p.m. He stated that this Public Hearing was continued from the January 17, 2000 Regular Council Meeting. Chris Conrad read a letter of comment to Council from Chad Lange, owner of Ridge Unit No. 23, whereby Mr. Lange states that the newly relocated ski-lift access trail is unacceptable, urging the Ridge Association Board to reject the trail and return it to its former alignment. Sarah McCracken, Woodbridge Condominium Association Board member, stated that the Board has determined that this project is a sensitively planned, Planned Unit Development (PUD) and will be a benefit to Snowmass Village. She stated that the Board has concerns regarding safety of the intersection at Brush Creek Road and Faraway Road and requested that Council further consider the design. She also expressed the Board's concern about the exterior appearance and management of the proposed employee housing within this development. John Dresser, representing the Ridge Homeowner's Association, submitted a letter from the Association regarding their concern of the relocated ski trail and geotechnical aspects of the development. The letter also stated concerns regarding the 30-percent slopes on the proposed Parcel "N" employee housing project and requested that the Town conduct a thorough investigation to prevent ground movement. The Ridge Condominiums site has experienced ground movement due to slope instability. The proposed Parcel "N" employee housing project is located directly below the Ridge. Dresser stated that the Board is unanimously in favor of the Town owning the employee housing portion of the Timbers project, objected to the mass and scale of the buildings other than the r 02-07-2000tc Page 3 employee housing units, and stated a concern of any consideration by Council to grant excavation permits to the applicant prior to approval of this project. Council Member Costello stated his appreciation to the Ridge Board for allowing him to attend their recent Board Meeting. Jan Kopka, a Ridge homeowner, requested that the developer take all necessary precaution regarding geotechnical issues to prevent the Ridge buildings from further movement due to unstable earth in that area. Mayor Manchester informed the Ridge homeowners that Council shares the same concerns, which will be addressed. There being no further comments, Mayor Manchester stated that this Public Hearing will be continued to the February 21 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. Item No. 4: DISCUSSION/ACTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS: • ALAN RICHMAN PROPOSAL TO PROCESS PARCEL "N" APPLICATION • RENO/SMITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROPOSAL The Housing Manager explained that the Parcel "N" employee housing project will be reviewed by Council through the PUD process. Alan Richman, of Alan Richman Planning Services, is to be contracted by the Town to provide Land Use services and Scott Smith, of Reno/Smith Architects, will provide architectural design services. Council reviewed the proposals with Richman and Smith. After further discussion, Hatfield made a motion to approve the professional services agreements with Richman and Smith. Costello seconded the motion. Mercatoris requested that a consultant be contracted to review the geotechnical aspects of the project, and that all contractor work be coordinated in such a way that the project move forward as expeditiously as possible. Mary Schubert, a Ridge homeowner, asked if story poles were going to be set for the Timbers buildings. Manchester explained that story poles were previously set on the site to depict the location and height of the Timbers buildings, but have since been removed. He suggested Schubert discuss this issue with the developer. Sarah McCracken invited Council Member Costello and Scott Smith to attend another Ridge Homeowners Association Board Meeting in order to complete their presentation. Coffey stated that story poles will be set up in the near future for the proposed employee housing units. Hatfield requested a copy of the list of neighboring properties that staff will provide to Richman. Hatfield explained recent changes to the buildings. Their being no further discussion, the motion to approve the proposals was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 6: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 02, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURES TO ASSESS AND COLLECT THE LIMITED EXCISE TAX ON IMPROVEMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA FOR A LOT AS APPROVED BY THE ELECTORS woo.& 02-07-2000tc Page 4 OF THE TOWN ON NOVEMBER 2, 1999, IMPLEMENTING THE SAME BY AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE. Mercatoris made a motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2000, seconded by Mayor Manchester. Mercatoris made a motion to table First Reading of the Ordinance until the February 21, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion to table was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady had stepped away from the Council table. Mayor Manchester explained that new information had been received from the Pitkin County Assessor regarding property valuations, which would be taken into consideration for the Ordinance. Bob Gaudin and Bob Purvis stated that they feel the ballot language does not allow flexibility regarding the percentage amount stated, and if Council is considering the use of a different percentage rate, that the question should be placed on a future ballot for the electors to decide. Item No. 7: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 03, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SNOWMASS CLUB FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Hatfield made a motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2000, seconded by Mercatoris. The Town Attorney outlined the contents of the Ordinance. There being no further discussion, the motion was approved as amended, by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 8: RESOLUTION NO. 05, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, APPROVING THE 2000 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY %:CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX Mercatoris made a motion to approve Resolution No. 05, Series of 2000, seconded by Mayor Manchester. Hatfield stated his opposition to the expenditure of funds derived from this budget to support the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA) as well as for the design of the Snowmass Village Transit and Parking Center. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. Mayor Manchester and Council Members Brady, Costello and Mercatoris voted in favor. Council Member Hatfield opposed. Mercatoris stated his concern that the funds are used for RFRHA salaries and for consultants employed by RFRHA. Item No. 9: DISCUSSION/ACTION SEVEN-STAR RANCH FINAL PUD EXTENSION 02-07-2000tc Page 5 The Town Manager asked that Council approve a request from Seven Star Ranch to extend their final PUD application to March 20, 2000. Brady made a motion to approve the extension of time, seconded by Mercatoris. After further discussion, the motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 10: MANAGER'S REPORT Brush Creek Road/Highway 82 Intersection Sign In response to an inquiry from Brady, the Town Manager stated that the Brush Creek Village Homeowner's Association is opposed to the Town's proposed sign to be located at the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highway 82. The sign will be reviewed by the Pitkin County Commissioners at their meeting scheduled for February 23, 2000. Manchester requested that Council Members attend if possible. He informed Council that he has requested stakes be placed at a distance from the upper Brush Creek Road Town sign equal to the distance the new sign will be from Highway 82. This exercise will provide insight on the scale and lettering proposed for the sign. Stakes will also be placed at the intersection to indicate the location and size of the sign. The County Commissioners will be notified after all stakes are in place. Directional Sian at Shale Bluffs Manchester requested that staff ask the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to place a sign on the Aspen end of Shale Bluffs directing traffic traveling down-valley to the left lane in order to access the Snowmass Village turning lane. Community Development Department Construction In response to an inquiry from Hatfield, the Community Development Director explained that the front reception counter in his department will be remodeled to accommodate a workspace for the new secretary. He further explained that the workspace currently allows desk space for only one secretary. This project will cost approximately $500. Shuttle/Reservations Looking Up The Town Manager reported that the 2000 year-to-date Town Shuttle ridership numbers have exceeded those of last year. Manchester reported that property managers have informed him of reservation increases, which are sufficient to make up for the slow Christmas season. RFRHA Litigation The Town Attorney stated that a Stipulation to Dismiss is being circulated regarding the Garfield County/RFRHA litigation. This will bring this issue to an end in the near future. 02-07-2000tc Page 6 Item No. 11: APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 12-06-99 01-03-2000, 01-10-2000 AND MEETING MINUTES OF 01-17-2000 Mercatoris made a motion to approve the Work Session Summaries and Meeting Minutes as listed above. Brady seconded the motion. Hatfield requested that in future Minutes, Council Member names be listed as in favor or opposed on consensus issues. There being no further discussion, the Work Session Summaries and Minutes were approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 12: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS RFTA Meetina Due to unavoidable commitments, Brady stated that he may not be able to attend the upcoming Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) Meeting. Mayor Manchester and Mercatoris volunteered to attend the meeting in lieu of Brady. Divide Road Guardrail Costello stated that he has been approached by members of the public who commended the Town for constructing a guardrail along a dangerous section of Divide, and questioned why the guardrail was not extended the remaining 100- feet along what they consider to be an equally dangerous section of the road. The Public Works Director will meet with the Chief of Police to further investigate the issue. Item No. 13: CALENDARS February 14, 2000 Meeting In response to a question from Mayor Manchester, Council Members agreed that the February 14, 2000 Work Session will begin at 1:00 p.m. Entryway Meeting Manchester stated that the Entryway will be discussed by the Pitkin County Commissioners at a meeting scheduled to be held on February 23, 2000. Regional Impacts Bill Manchester stated that Representative Russell George will once again submit a bill to the Legislature regarding County-wide mitigation requirements and cost sharing by major municipalities. This bill, if approved, would create development impacts to jurisdictions outside of the approving jurisdiction. Sanders Ranch Manchester stated that the Sanders Ranch development proposal will be discussed at the Garfield County Commissioners Meeting scheduled for February 8, 2000. Hatfield requested that a letter be submitted to the 02-07-2000tc Page 7 Commissioners commenting on the Highway 82 interchange and transportation impacts proposed for the development. Manchester informed Council that the Planning Director has sent a letter to the Commissioners regarding these issues. Hatfield will attend the meeting and deliver the letter to the Garfield County Commissioners. Town Meeting Manchester stated that the February 2, 2000 Town Meeting was a success. He requested another Town Meeting be scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 2000. He also requested larger advertisements and more extensive advertising in order to better inform the public of the upcoming meeting. Hatfield suggested that each Council Member contact 10 residents and inform them of the meeting. He also suggested that staff arrange for Public Service Announcements on local radio stations. Brady suggested a large poster-board size advertisement be placed on the first floor of the Snowmass Center Building outside the Village Market and Post Office. Council Retreat Manchester requested that Council Members consider a date in the near future to hold a Council Retreat. A date will be determined at the next Council Meeting. Pedestrian Crossing Mercatoris requested a "pedestrian crossing/caution" sign be located on the blind curve on Carriageway Road. He stated that traffic cannot see around the curve where pedestrians are crossing from Parking Lot No. 1 to the Stonebridge and connecting to the path to central West Village. Comfortable Buses Mercatoris stated that the plastic seats in some of the Town's Shuttle buses are uncomfortable and requested that future buses be ordered with more comfortable seats. Discontinuation Date for Snowmakina Mercatoris requested that the Aspen Skiing Company be informed of the Town's support if they wish to request an extension of the "end snowmaking" date outlined in the Record of Decision (ROD) as long as it would not be detrimental to the environment. An extension of time would allow more flexibility for snowmaking. Hatfield stated that the date is fixed in the Record of Decision (ROD) and a process would need to be initiated in order to change that date. Dust Control Hatfield requested that the full width of upper Brush Creek Road be washed in order to minimize dust. An 02-07-2000tc Page 8 Budget Document Referring to the future Town Budget document, Hatfield requested a pie chart depicting the percentages of revenues. He also requested that the number of part-time employees be included in the Budget Summary. Stream Restoration Bridges Hatfield inquired as to the need for the two bridges constructed within close proximity to each other on the stream restoration project. Manchester explained . the need for construction of the two bridges, which allows golfers to access the opposite side of the stream. Item No. 14: EXECUTIVE SESSION PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT DISCUSSION REGARDING LAND ACQUISITIONS AND OTHER LEGAL MATTERS At 7:20 p.m. Mercatoris made a motion to convene to Executive Session for privileged Attorney/Client discussions regarding land acquisitions and other legal matters. Brady seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. At 8:37 p.m. Brady made a motion to reconvene the Regular Meeting, seconded by Costello. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 15: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mercatoris made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Hatfield. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk ID� - 6Z 9Z LZ uBIS AemO 4smg-BuueaH ollgnd 0009 wd00.q siegwe4o Ilounoo 'Bea SM-Vli1 Ol-wd0£:9 wd00:£ SM 01-wd00:t 9z 9Z tz £Z zZ LZ oz I Ol-wd0o:Y SM 01-wd00:Z 6L 9L LL 9L 9L 4L c I ; ; I I 6ea O1-wdo0 9 SM 01-wd00:t z tl 0 6 9 L 9 4ouea uosiepuy II8H 61W jeuue4oS 51W UMO-L wdo0:9 OOOZ Ajenjqa . Aepjn;eS Aepuj Aepsjn41 (epseupaM (epsenl AepuoW AepunS Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturdav March 2000 1 2 3 4 I II Iil I I s 7 5 8 9 10 ----- 11 2:OOPM-TC EOTC Meeting WS Aspen Council 4:OOPM-TC Reg. Chambers 4PM 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 2:OOPM-TC WS 4:OOPM-TC Reg. I 19 li 20 21 22 23 24 25 2:OOPM-TC CAST Mtg. CAST Mtg. WS 4:OPM-TC Denver Denver Reg. 26 -------- 27 28 29 30 �� 31 Mall Partners Mtg. Location TBA �lp�- 1 ANNUAL CULTURAL FORUM MISSION The Annual Meeting of the Arts Advisory Board — also known as The Annual Cultural Forum -- will be held in March for the purpose of establishing a dialog among non-profit, community, resort and government leaders to develop understanding and help set direction for strengthening the economic viability and cultural health of the community. MEETING SCHEDULE: The Annual Meeting will be held 4 - 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 15 at the Schermer Meeting Hall on the campus of Anderson Ranch Arts Center. Tables will be arranged in a large square to everyone can face each other. Careful notes of presentations and dialog will be taken and transcribed. 4 - 4:15, Refreshments, greeting participants 4:15 - 5, Each representative who has been asked to address questions will be given 5-7 minutes to present their answers. 5 - 5:30, Discussions, questions and answers MEETING FOLLOW-UP A summary report of the meeting will be given to the Town Council with copies made for all participating representatives. 1 INVITED NON-PROFIT REPRESENTATIVES Each organization will be invited to give a 5-7 minute presentation (answering questions listed later in this e-mail) Anderson Ranch Arts Center: James Baker Aspen Music Festival: Robert Harth JazzAspen: Jim Horowitz Snowmass Chapel and Community Center: Edgell Pyles Snowmass Institute: Peter Moore OTHER POSSIBLE NON-PROFIT REPRESENTATIVES These are people may be interested in attending but will not be asked to give formal responses: FilmFest: Laura Thielan Aspen Ballet: Jean-Philippe Malaty Writer's Foundation: Julie Cumins Aspen Art Museum: Megan Bly Humphrey Theater in the Park: Tammy Dawson Aspen Institute: John Bennett GOVERNMENT, RESORT REPRESENTATIVES SVRA: Terry Hunt TOSV: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Town Manager Gary Suiter and any other Town Council Members who would like to speak and/or attend. AAB BOARD & FORUM PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Arts Advisory Board Members Planning Committee Members: Laura Smith, Rebecca Henschel, and Chris Nolen MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES Snowmass Sun: Carolyn Sackariason Aspen Magazine: Janet O'Grady 2 J .. QUESTIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVES Representatives will be presented questions in advance that they will be asked to come to the meeting prepared to answer: Non-profit representatives will be asked: What will your audiences look like in five years? How will they be different from today's audiences? What factors will influence those changes? What factors do you consider to determine the extent and character of village programming? What kinds of support (monetary, in-kind, collaborative, legislative) could the village provide that would help your programs in the village? What is the priority of community involvement, partnership and/or outreach in your mission? SVRA representative(s) will be asked: What are the demographic trends you see in the next five years that will influence conference and resort planning? Can cultural programs augment and support conference business? If yes, in what ways? Town Council representatives will be asked: Describe the balance you see between the interests of the resort and the community? Given what you've described above, what is the role of cultural organizations in supporting these interests? Forum Planning Committee Member Chris Nolen will summarize: The role the arts play in bringing together different elements of the community (economic, spiritual, cultural, and educational). 3 FLOOR AREA EXCISETAX Actual values 21 Feb PAGE I OF 2 c r ir' -'; DIVIDE example WOODRUN IV ex. WOODRUN I ex. WOODRUN ill ex. AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $3,238,800.00 $2,531,400.00 $1,376,300.00 $830,700.00 AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 5494 6031 3718 2502 30% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 7142.2 7840.3 4833.4 3252.6 40% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SO FT 7691.6 8443.4 5205.2 3502.8 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 300A INCREASE $453.47 $322.87 $284.75 $255.40 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 40% INCREASE $421.08 $299.81 $264.41 $237.15 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SQ FT ` 550 550 450 400 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 30% INCREASE $249,410.55 $177,578.66 $128,136.51 $1020158.27 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% INCREASE $231,595.51 $164,894.47 $118,983.90 $94,861.25 ,,c.' +fi. Llfw4' w.a : 'tiG�.;�` .'4°=.4i�+..f.t`. �V. i •€:i ,:xt'rt.� MELTON RANCH 11 ex. WOODRUN 11 ex. MELTON RANCH I ex. MELTON RANCH 111 ex. AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $481,800.00 $273,500.00 $250,000.00 $187,400.00 AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 3005 2158 2072 1792 30% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 3906.5 2805.4 2693.6 2329.6 40% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 4207 3021.2 2900.8 2508.8 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 300A INCREASE $123.33 $97.49 $92.81 $80.44 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 40% INCREASE $114.52 $90.53 $86.18 $74.70 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SQ FT `; 450 450 550 450 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 30% INCREASE '? $55,499.81 $43,870.75 $51,046.93 $36,199.35 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD 400,6 INCREASE $51,535.54 $40,737.12 $47,400.72 $33,613.68 ex. AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $1,254,300.00 AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 3804 30% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 4945.2 0% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 5325.6 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 30% INCREASE $253.64 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 400/6 INCREASE $235.52 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SQ FT 550 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 30010 INCREASE $1399501.94 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD 40%INCREASE $129,537.52 FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX Actual Values 21 Feb 00 PAGE 2OF2 I "' "l 'v""" DIVIDE example WOODRUN IV ex. WOODRUN I ex. WOODRUN III ex. 90°A OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40°/6 IN $208,435.96 $148,405.03 $107,085.51 $85,375.13 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 90016 $378.97 $269.83 $237.97 $213.44 800/6 OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% IN $185,276.41 $131,915.58 $95,187.12 $75,889.00 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 80°16 $336.87 $239.85 $211.53 $189.72 70%OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 400/6 INC $182,116.85 $115,426.13 $83,288.73 $66,402.88 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 70% $294.76 $209.87 $185.09 $166.01 60% OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% INC " $138,957.30 $98,936.68 $71,390.34 $56,916.75 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 60°46 $252.65 $179.88 $158.65 $142.29 50°16 OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% INC M�",; $115,797.75 $82,447.24 $59,491.95 $47,430.63 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 50% ""_'` $210.54 $149.90 $132.20 $118.58 MELTON RANCH II ex. WOODRUN II ex. MELTON RANCH I ex. MELTON RANCH III ex. 90% OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 400/6 INC $46,381.98 $36,663.41 $42,660.65 $30,252.31 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 90°16 $103.07 $81.47 $77.56 $67.23 80%OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% IN $41,228.43 $32,589.70 $37,920.57 $26,890.94 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 800/6 $91.62 $72.42 $68.95 $59.76 70°46 OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% IN $38,074.88 $28,515.99 $33,180.50 $23,529.58 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 70% $80.17 $63.37 $60.33 $52.29 60°16 OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% INC $30,921.32 $24,442.27 $28,440.43 $20,168.21 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 60% $88.71 $54.32 $51.71 $44.82 500/6 OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% INC. ri $25,767.77 $20,368.56 $23,700.36 $16,806.84 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 60% $57.26 $45.26 $43.09 $37.35 WOODRUN V ex. 90%OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 400A IN $118,583.77 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 900/6 $211.97 800A OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40°46 INC $103,630.01 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 80°/6 $188.42 700A OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% IN $90,676.26 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 700/6 $164.87 /6 OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40°16 INC $77,722.51 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 60% $141.31 500/9 OF FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 400A INC.;. $64,768.76 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 50% $117.76 Cry., a,�zl fo wS� FLOOR AREA EXCISETAX Assessed Values 18 Feb PAGE I OF 2 " ? 's� ; DIVIDE example OODRUN IV ex. OODRUN I ex. OODRUN III ez. AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $3,238,800.00 $2,531,400.00 $1,376,300.00 $830,700.00 MAXIMUM IMPROVEMENT SO FT 8720 10063 5733 4198 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT $371.42 $251.56 $240.07 $197.88 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SO FT gE'- 550 550 450 400 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD(100%) S' : $204,282.11 $138,355.36 $108,029.83 $79,151.98 MINIM , 'dam°.�.`_°�- CONSTRUCTION COSTS: '@$400/SF $220,000.00 '@$375/SF $206,250.00 '@$350/SF $157,500.00 '@$325/SF '@$300/SF $120,000.00 '@$275/SF '@$250/SF '@$225/SF (3$200/SF ! 3 .. i, i1 :••.. aYi fR w.., . TOTAL EXPENSE OF ADDITIONAL SOFT # $424,282.11 $344,605.36 $265,529.83 $199,151.98 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SO FT $771.42 $626.56 $590.07 $497.88 �� ,. i .'�' r� ?�,f 4:.''4 x ' "1;RS ,....t..a4 ai.: • ..,e..r:;.. ;. .«k. �.... :-. ii.! .t.i,.±i}a Fy>e,t '.(yx. L:.,.., ..? r: MELTON RANCH II ex. WOODRUN II ex. MELTON RANCH 1 ex. MELTON RANCH III ex. AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $481,800.00 $273,500.00 $250,000.00 $187,400.00 MAXIMUM IMPROVEMENT SO FT 4022 2984 3383 2556 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT $119.79 $91.66 $73.90 $73.32 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SO FT 450 450 550 450 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD(10(K) $53,906.02 $41,244.97 $40,644.40 $32,992.96 ,$.'' a ) .'vv i :� t e _ %•� ,� J<.. « y d...Yw I y :mac s y:y� 4 i . a+ 6 ; FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX Assessed Values 18 Feb 00 PAGE 2OF2 MELTON RANCH II ex. WOODRUN 11 ex. MELTON RANCH I ex. MELTON RANCH III ex. CN COSTS. SF SF SF SF SF /SF $123,750.00 /SF 1 $112,500.00 /SF �Vx $123,750.00 '@$200/SF ' $90,000.00 > y x:'+uCS.,i+' +tea"�.f rWll d? ir" v3�� �n t1i.S•:�eY'" ,' _"- rp,;�y- fxwx' .x nf.+?�f i ;a. r . TOTAL EXPENSE OF ADDITIONAL SO FT x $177,656.02 $153,744.97 $164,394.40 $122,992.96 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SO , ; $394.79 $341.6611 $298.9011 $273.32 OODRUN IV ex. i AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $1,254,300.00 MAXIMUM IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 6137 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT $204.38 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SO FT ^s 550 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD(100%) $112,410.79 CONSTRUCTION COSTS. '@$400/SF '@$375/SF '@$350/SF '@$325/SF $178,750.00 '@$300/SF '@$275/SF @$250/SF ..'fir,} `�.._A. tw,— q TOTAL EXPENSE OF ADDITIONAL SO FT $291,160.79 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SO $529.38 - 2 - a--C) HORSE RANCH HOMEOWNERS A S S O C I A T I O N February 16, 2000 T. Michael Manchester, Mayor Members,TOSV Town Council Town of Snowmass Village 16 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, CO 81615 RE: Outcome of discussions between The Rodeo Company and the Homeowners' Associations of The Crossings and Horse Ranch concerning the operating parameters of the Snowmass Village Rodeo. Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council, Last Spring, the Council requested that the owners of The Rodeo Company and its neighbors work towards an agreement concerning the operating parameters of future rodeo events. This request was made in the context of the Councils' discussions,which resulted in the granting of a license. This license permitted the continued, recent encroachment upon the Town's property by the Rodeo's relocated bleachers. While many were puzzled by the granting of a license for expansion of an historic, non- conforming use in an apparent contravention of the Land Use Code, most of the neighbors were heartened by your request for cooperation. The following list of events is provided for your information as a status report from the Crossings and Horse Ranch Homeowners' Associations concerning our efforts to fulfill your request: 1. A meeting was held involving all parties at the Silvertree Hotel in mid-summer to discuss how we might go forward concerning operating parameters. Bill Burwell requested an opportunity to present a "Power Point' slide presentation. All agreed to his request and he made his presentation. The parties then agreed that light, sound and frequency of events were the key "operating parameters" to be addressed. It was further agreed that we would work on "sound" first. This would provide a "pilot" in our work,which would address a pressing concern on the part of the neighbors,while not trying to tackle everything at once, leaving the potentially difficult issue of "frequency of events" for later. The meeting was cordial in nature and held promise. 2. In mid-August, Lance Burwell joined the neighbors (most of whom were present at the first meeting) for a Sound Meter Evaluation. This evaluation was conducted during a rodeo event from locations in The Crossings and Horse Ranch. It seemed to be a constructive discussion. The attached letter of August 21, 1999 describes the outcome of this activity. It was during this time that we reported to the Council that sound levels were more acceptable and progress was in sight. POST OFFICE BOX 6345 • SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 w T. Michael Manchester, Mayor Members,TOSV Town Council February 16, 2000 Page 2 3. At Bill Burwell's request, the Associations invited their members to a presentation by Bill as to his future development thoughts. Discussions at this presentation involved current operations as well. Letters were exchanged during the next two weeks expressing the views of the parties. Our letter of September 13th was copied to you at the time. It indicated a continued willingness to pursue the operating parameter issues and, specifically, reiterated the offer to recommend that our proposal on sound be agreed to by all parties. No response has been received to that letter. 4. In late September, Pat Smith called Lance to inquire if a response to her letter of August 21 sr might be forthcoming. He indicated that he would talk with Bill Burwell in the next week or so before responding. No further response has been received. We believe that we acted in good faith to honor your request to work with The Rodeo Company in addressing our concerns and attempting to agree to the necessary operating parameters. While we do not believe that such agreement is likely, given the lack of response to our last proposal,we continue to see the agreement of such parameters as an important and urgent matter. What will really happen at the rodeo parcel, even this summer, is at best uncertain given the current state of affairs. Historic, non-conforming use rights, as prescribed by the Land Use Code and applicable CC & R's, are more clear than some might think as to activities, structures and dates. We will work to bring clarity to the specific application of the Code in this matter. Your thoughts and guidance will be welcomed, as always. Sincerely, / Pat Smith Roger Marolt President, Horse Ranch Homeowners Assoc. President,The Crossings Homeowners Assoc. Cc: Bill Burwell,The Rodeo Company Lance Burwell,The Rodeo Company Jody Edwards, Esq. enclosure The Rodeo Company August 21, 1999 P.O.Box 5009 Snowmass Village,CO. 81615 Attn: Lance Burwell Dear Lance, We appreciate your joining the representatives of the Horse Ranch and Crossings Homeowners' Associations last week to observe and measure the sound level of the Rodeo operation as heard from various points in our neighborhoods. As we observed on-site(s),the Sound Level Meter indicated readings typically within a range from 50 to 53 decibels.Occasional spikes above that range were noted but not for extended periods. Additionally,most agreed that the sound seemed to be at a level which they would describe as"acceptable'for current operations. It appears prudent to pursue two issues for closure of this matter as follows: 1.)First,we should agree what is meant by"acceptable'. Certainly,the observed levels were below those of the summer of 1998 and likely, 1997. We do appreciate the improvement.However,it has not yet been validated that such levels are at or below the historic basis for the rodeo operations as a nonconforming use. Perhaps we could agree that such levels are both"more acceptable"than 1998-97 levels and assumed to describe the historic levels as well. 2.)Secondly,a discussion as to frequency/intensity of use is welcomed. As we mentioned at the end of our last meeting,we preferred to tackle sound first and then move on to frequency next. Logically,the ultimate effect of off-site nuisance keys on the sound level at any one event multiplied by the total number of such events. The work done on sound is encouraging as to the attitudes exhibited and the results achieved With your agreement,I would seek approval from the HRHOA and CHOA Boards to an agreement between the Associations and the Rodeo Company that rodeo operations sound levels be deemed"acceptable" (as defined in 1. above)when they are not greater than 53 decibels during 90%of any one event and do not exceed a maximum of 57 decibels at anytime. Such levels would be measured at the rear of 0011 Stirrup Circle and/or 0170 Spur Ridge Lane in Horse Ranch as well as at the center of Maverick Circle in The Crossings.These are the locations where we took the sample readings last Wednesday evening. Hoping that we see a basis for mutual benefit in the above notions, I look forward to discussing the proposed agreement defined above and the prospect for future meetings. Sincerely, Pat Smith President,HRHOA