Loading...
03-08-00 Town Council Packet ' Dt�awEiL_.�T C,5?- 7121 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING (CONTINUATION FROM 03-06-2000) 03-08-2000 RE-CONVENE AT 3:30 P.M. Item No. 1: MANAGER'S REPORT -- Gary Suiter...................................................................Page 101 Item No. 2: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT..........................................................................Page 151 Item No. 3: SECOND 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. --Victoria Giannola/Steve Connor.................................... Page 88 Item No. 4: RESOLUTION NO. 09, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO CHRIS NOLEN FOR FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE ARTS ADVISORY BOARD --T. Michael Manchester................................................... Page 99 Item No. 5: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 09, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF 16A TO CREATE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE -- Victoria Giannola/Steve Connor.................................... Page 78 Item No. 6: DISCUSSION/ACTION APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION — GRACIE'S CABIN --Victoria Giannola/Steve Connor...................................Page 106 Item No. 7: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION — DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06 SERIES OF 2000 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 03-08-OOTC (continuation of 03-06-00) Page 2 GROSS PARCEL PLAT, AND THE GRANTING OF AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT FINAL PUD PLAN APPLICATION (Public Hearing continued from 02-21-2000) -- Chris Conrad ................................................................. Page 30 Item No. 8: APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 02-14-00 AND 02-23-00 AND MEETING MINUTES OF 02-21-00 .........................................................................................Page 140 Item No. 9: CALENDARS...................................................................Page 159 Item No. 10: 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. r SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION 03-06-2000 2:00 —2:30 P.M. YARD WASTE -- Hunt Walker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 1 2:30 — 3:30 HOUSING RESALE GUIDELINES -- Joe Coffey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 2 3:30— 3:45 LAND USE CODE DISCUSSION - Pre-Sketch Plan - Victoria Giannola/Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 3:45 -4:00 BREAK +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 03-06-2000 CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Item No. 3: REQUEST FOR FUNDING - THE RODEO COMPANY -- Bill Burwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 Item No. 4: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 05, SERIES OF 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 5, SERIES OF 2000, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, FOR A 3.201 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL F, LOT 3, EAST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF A SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER, INC. TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14 03-06-00tc Page 2 Item No. 5: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION — DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 06 SERIES OF 2000 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 (Public Hearing continued from 02-21-2000) -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30 Item No. 6: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 08, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE -- Marianne Rakowski. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 75 Item No. 7: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 09, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF 16A TO CREATE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE -- Victoria Giannola/Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 78 Item No. 8: SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 01, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 09, 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 83 Item No. 9: SECOND 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. -- Victoria Giannola/Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 88 03-06-00tc Page 3 Item No. 10: RESOLUTION NO. 09, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO CHRIS NOLEN FOR FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE ARTS ADVISORY BOARD -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 99 Item No. 11: MANAGER'S REPORT -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 101 Item No. 12: DISCUSSION/ACTION APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION — GRACIE'S CABIN -- Victoria Giannola/Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 106 Item No. 13: APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 02-14-00 AND 02-23-00 AND MEETING MINUTES OF 02-21-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 140 Item No. 14: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORT/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 151 Item No. 15: CALENDARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 159 Item No. 16: 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: March 6, 2000 STAFF: Hunt Walker Dave Ogren SUBJECT: YARD WASTE PROGRAM OVERVIEW: During the 2000 budget process staff recommended that we discontinue the yard waste program for two reasons: 1. The program was too expensive. 2. Since commercial businesses produce 95% of the yard waste, all the Town was doing was subsidizing private businesses by hauling their yard waste to the landfill. The Town Council agreed not to include the cost of the program in the 2000 budget, but directed staff to bring the issue before Council in the spring of 2000; hence, the reason for Monday's meeting. When making a decision to continue the yard waste program or not, the Town Council should take into consideration that there is not any guarantee that the yard waste will be composted. Last year; for example, all of the yard waste the Town diverted from the waste stream eventually was buried in the landfill, and was not composted. The reason the yardwaste was buried was because Pitkin County had too much wood and not enough nitrogen to make compost. In order to make good compost one needs 3 to 4 parts wood for one part sludge (which provides the nitrogen). Two years ago Pitkin County was begging for wood waste, but since they dropped their tip fees for sorted lumber they now have an over abundance of wood. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Last year the Town spent $56,596 in tip fees for the yardwaste program. This does not include the cost of the roll off truck and driver used to transport the yard waste to the dump. If the Council decides to reinstate the yard waste program, it will cost at least the same amount as last year. BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: NA LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: NA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council not increase the Town's budget to accommodate the yard waste program because the program provides little benefit to the community, and there is no guarantee the yard waste will be composted. In addition revenues will be down this year making it much harder to add additional services. As an alternative staff recommends the Town sponsor a spring cleanup day similar to what Aspen and other Towns do. Pitkin County will credit the Town $10,000 in tip fees for this type of program. / I / COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: 03-06-00 BY: Joe Coffey STAFF: Steve Connor SUBJECT: Housing Resale Guidelines OVERVIEW: There are several items we need to discuss today. I have listed these items below: 1. Maximum Resale Prices 2. Employment Categories (Should the twenty year plus category be re-instated?) 3. Family Priority 4. Income & Asset Guidelines for Crossings Homes 5. Should future Crossings applicants be allowed to own other real estate. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A BOARD OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review information and provide direction to the Housing Manager on how to proceed. 2;00 RESALE INSPECTIONS / PRICE REDUCTIONS I am continuing to work on the procedures that will allow the Town to reduce the resale price of a unit in sub-standard condition. Please note that probably 95% of the units we sell are in average to above average condition. The Council needs to know that occasionally a unit has come up for sale in below average condition. I have listed four options below that I would like Council direction on how to proceed. 1. The first method is to inspect the unit and provide a report to all interested applicants with all repair costs required to bring this unit up to average condition. If applicants bid the maximum resale price for the unit that is their choice. A complete inspection report may influence applicants to wait for a unit in better condition to purchase. 2. Pitkin County uses a real estate contract that allows money to be taken away from the seller if the unit is not up to the buyer, or Housing Authority standards at closing time. Steve is not sure this method can work for us. 3. The other method we discussed was to escrow money to make the repairs based on the inspection report. The repairs would be estimated at 1 1/2 times the cost of the repair to insure the escrowed money is enough to pay for the repair. The new owner or the Housing Manager will contract the repair work and the Housing Manager will inspect the work before payment. All extra money left over will be refunded to the seller after all the conditions have been met. This method will require more time for the Housing Manager and will make the Town responsible for all the repair work. 4. Another method to insure equitable resale values is to inspect the unit and reduce the maximum resale price the amount the inspection report estimates it will cost to bring the unit up to average condition. The new buyer will not pay the maximum resale price if the unit is in sub-standard condition. This method does not get items repaired; it only transfers the responsibility to the new buyer. This method allows the new owner to select the type of materials and schedule the repairs he would like to make without the Housing Department's assistance. Methods 1 and 4 are probably the simplest ways to correct the sub-standard resales of units without a lot of Housing Department participation. Town Counsel is not sure method 2 is suitable for our application. Method 3 will put the Town Housing Department in a liaison type position with the buyer and seller, and could require a substantial amount of Housing Manager time. This method could become very involved and problematic to administer. Lastly, method 1 would be the easiest plan to implement and administer for the Housing Department. 3 � DEED RESTRICTED PURCHASE PRIORITY CATEGORIES Recently a long term Snowmass Village employee requested that the Town Council add a twenty plus years employment category back to the purchase guidelines. The twenty plus years category was taken out a few years ago because of the problems the Town had verifying employment that long ago. The top category we have currently is 15 years plus, and verifying this amount of employment is sometimes difficult. There have been numerous complaints over the years that our employment employment categories are too high and they restrict the newer employees from purchasing deed- restricted property. The guidelines we use now really do take care of the long-term employees. Pitkin County uses a lottery system that allows all applicants to apply for a deed restricted sale unit after they have been employed in the County for more than four years. The County takes care of the long-term employees by giving them more chances in the lottery. FAMILY PRIORITY A few months ago the Housing Guidelines were changed so that two or more individuals were required to purchase a three bedroom or larger unit. A single parent and child also counted as two people. Recently there has been a request to give families priority for the purchase of three bedroom or larger units. The Pitkin County Housing Guidelines give priority to families for units with three or more bedrooms. Is a family priority a category Snowmass Village should consider adding? 4 - CROSSINGS RESALE GUIDELINES In 1995 when The Crossings homes were sold there were 11 homes on subsidized lots and 24 homes on non-subsidized lots. The 24 homes on the non-subsidized lots did not have the income and asset guidelines applied to them. The subsidized home purchasers had to qualify within the income and asset guidelines. The Council and the developer did not want restrictions on 24 homes that might jeopardize the sales of these homes. I believe that all The Crossings homes should now be subject to the housing income and asset guidelines. This will limit the future buyers of these homes to employees who may not be able to afford other homes. At the present time with no income and asset guidelines in place anyone can buy one of these homes. I do not believe this is helping the people affordable housing is suppose to help. Some people have expressed their concerns to the Housing Manager about employees buying deed-restricted homes who can afford free market homes. I have attached the Maximum Income and Net Worth Guidelines for your review. If the Council desire, I will review the Income and Net Worth Guidelines because I am not sure the Town should sell affordable units to individuals with an annual income $252,000.00 The Council may want to consider not allowing applicants who already own free market single family homes in Snowmass Village or Pitkin County to buy a Crossings home. This would not pertain to condominium owners or other multi-unit owners in Pitkin County. Should the Town allow future Crossings owners to own any other real estate property of any kind? Jennifer Countis, a loan officer with Vectra Bank was contacted and provided us with the following information about the income required for the following loan amounts: $$$ Amount to loan Income to qualify Down payment Interest Rate 50,000.00 19,000.00 5% 8.875 150,000.00 50,830.00 5% 8.875 250,000.00 93,557.00 5% 8.875 350,000.00 129,000.00 5% 9.0 450,000.00 164,000.00 5% 9.0 I TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE HOUSING AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE HOUSING BUYER RULES AND REGULATIONS QUALIFICATIONS 1. The maximum annual income and net worth of an applicant or combination of applicants shall not exceed the amounts set forth below in relation to the applicable purchase price. Purchase Price ($) Max. Annual Income_W Net Worth ($1 40,000...............................................22,400................................................52,800 50,000...............................................28,000 ................................................66,000 60,000...............................................33,600 ................................................79,200 70,000...............................................39,200 ................................................92,400 80,000...............................................44,800..............................................105,600 90,000...............................................50,400..............................................118,800 100,000...............................................56,000..............................................132,000 110,000...............................................61,600 ..............................................145,200 120,000...............................................67,200 ..............................................158,400 130,000...............................................72,800 ..............................................171,600 140,000...............................................78,400..............................................184,800 150,000...............................................84,000..............................................198,000 160,000...............................................89,600..............................................211,200 170,000...............................................95,200 ..............................................224,400 180,000.............................................100,800 ..............................................2 37,600 190,000.............................................106,400 ..............................................250,800 200,000.............................................112,000 ..............................................264,000 210,000.............................................117.600 ..............................................277,200 220,000.............................................123,200..............................................290,400 230,000.............................................128,800 ..............................................303,600 240,000.............................................134,400 ..............................................316,800 250,000.............................................140,000 ..............................................330,000 260,000.............................................145,600 ..............................................343,200 270,000.'*........... ............*....*.....*......151,200..............................................356,400 280,000.............. ..............................156,800..............................................369,600 290,000.............................................162,400..............................................382,800 300,000.... ... .......................... ............16 8,000..............................................396,000 310,000.............................................173,600 ..............................................409,200 320,000.............................................179,200 ..............................................422,400 330,000.............................................184,800 ..............................................435.600 340,000.............................................190,400 ..............................................448,800 350,000.............................................196,000..............................................462,000 360,000.............................................201,000..............................................475,200 370,000.............................................207,200 ..............................................488,400 380,000.............................................212,800 ..............................................501,600 390,000.............................................218,400 ..............................................514,800 400,000.............................................224,000..............................................528,000 410,000.............................................229,600...........................I..................541,200 420,000.............................................235,200 ..............................................554,400 430,000.............................................240,800 ..............................................567,600 440,000.............................................246,400 ..............................................580,800 450,000.............................................252,000..............................................594,000 Maximum income is 56% of listed purchase prices. Net Worth is 132% of listed purchase price V ' I COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 6 March 2000 at 3:30 PM Work Session and 4:00 PM Regular Meeting Presented By: Victoria Giannola, Steve Connor Subject: Land Use Code Discussion on Pre-Sketch Plan "Conceptual Plan" and First Reading of Ordinance No. 09, Series of 2000 Overview: 1.) Town Council has requested that staff develop new Land 1. Background Use and Development Code language for a plan process 2. Issues prior to submission of a Sketch Plan. At the last Town 3. Alternatives Council meeting of 21 February 2000, Council provided staff with a list of provisions for this process. 2.) Staff is now referring to this process as a Conceptual Plan. Attached is the Draft language of the Conceptual Plan process as proposed by staff. 3.) Staff structured the new Land Use Code language to be both flexible and simple as directed, yet adhere to necessary provisions for a valid plan submission. This new Conceptual Plan process would be inserted as a new Section of the Code labeled Section 16A-1-55. Recommendation: Provide staff with suggested Code language edits and proceed to second reading on 20 March 2000. DRAFT LANGUAGE "d Version (1) Steps in the Conceptual Plan 2Mnrch 2000-2 Ordinance 08 Series of 2000 process. An applicant may utilize 20 March Public Hear!n¢ the Conceptual Plan process more than once for a single site proposal. Sec. 16A-1-55 Conceptual Plan No prioritizing or entitlements for the proposed project would occur as (a) Purpose. The Town Council is a result of going through this process authorized to conduct sessions to provide an opportunity for informal (2) Submission of an application. discussion among developers, public The applicant shall submit a officials, and the public on various conceptual plan and narrative as an issues relating to the use of land in the application to the Community Town and the relationship of its use to Development department a least two the overall operation and economic weeks prior to a scheduled Town stability of the Town. Council meeting. (1) Allow discussion. The sessions (i) The applicant shall include in are for the purpose of discussion and the application the name of all education and are not intended to property owners result in any formal action or decision-making. Under no (ii) The application shall include circumstances can the Planning a plan displaying the existing Commission or Town Council be improvements, as well as the estopped to deny approval of any conceptual development development proposals, or other proposal, for the entire property matter for which approval is required pursuant to the provisions of this (iii) The applicant shall submit a Chapter, because of the participation narrative describing the proposed of members of the Planning uses and activities Commission and/or Town Council in such sessions. (iv) If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, (b) Conceptual Plan review procedure. then the applicant shall include The Conceptual Plan process is an both evidence that the property is optional step prior to the submission of a under contract and a letter sketch plan. The process is a joint containing the written consent of planning effort with the applicant and the landowner to the submission the Town Council. The Town Council of the conceptual application may determine that additional input from the Planning Commission is needed (3) Public meeting. A complete prior to holding a public meeting before copy of the application shall be the Town Council. The Town Council forwarded to the Town Council. The and the Planning Commission's application shall be scheduled for a participation in the process is informal public meeting to present the initial and non-binding proposal to Town Council. Town 8� Council shall schedule the discussion during a Work Session at their discretion. Town Council may determine that the application be forwarded to the Planning Commission first for their review and comment. (4) Town Council comments. Town Council shall comment on the proposal and such comments shall be reflected in the minutes of the public meeting. (4) Modified proposals submitted in response to Town comments. Re- submission of proposals shall be scheduled at the next available Town Council Work Session or after two weeks following the Community Development Department's receipt of a revised application, at the discretion of Town Council. Section 16A-2-20. Definitions. The following word shall be included in the Definitions section of the Land Use and Development Code to have the following meaning when used in the Code Conceptual Plan means a narrative and plan proposal submitted to the Town for non-binding comment prior to the submission of a Sketch Plan. I TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: March 3, 2000 Presented By: Gary Suiter, Town Manager Subject: Rodeo Discussion Overview: Attached is a letter from Bill Burwell requesting a $100,000 contribution to the Snowmass Rodeo Company in order to ensure continuation of the rodeo for this coming summer and buy the Town some additional time to study alternatives for the property. This parcel has historically been of significant interest to the Town and this offer may be worth examining, assuming that our objectives are as follows: 1. Ensure the continuance of the Rodeo for the upcoming season. 2. Buy the town some additional time by taking the property off the market for a specified period of time. Effectively, the Town would be guaranteeing the Rodeo Company against an operating loss this summer, up to a specified amount. This would require some methodology and tracking to verify actual income and expenses. We should also receive an assurance that the Rodeo would be held this summer. Staff would need to address the details regarding the performance dates, the quality of the events, remedies in case of default and other operating parameters. We would also be paying some unspecified value for the land being taken off the market. My understanding is that the property would be removed from the Multiple Listing Service for six months. The actual value of this "option" is subjective and dependent upon market factors. Additionally, we should ask for the "right of first refusal", should the owners receive a legitimate offer from another party for the property during the specified timeframe. The basic elements of this proposal are based upon a preliminary discussion with Bill Burwell last week and will need to be discussed with him in more detail at the meeting. Recommendation: If Council's objectives are consistent with those above, and there is interest in pursuing this proposal, then I would recommend as follows: • Determine if the price is negotiable with Mr. Burwell. The value of the "option" is subjective, may be negotiable and could be applied toward the eventual purchase price. We should also ask for the "right of first refusal". • Require the Rodeo Company to share their audit and/or books with a selected Town staff member in order to verify the actual operating losses for this summer. Parameters will need to be specified up front (e.g. is debt service included as an operating expense?) • Direct Staff to work out the details regarding performance dates, quality of the events, remedies in case of default, or other conditions as may be imposed by the Town Council. ole 10 *� �0S 0110 c o e" y' Opaess vii1101, February 29, 2000 The Honorable T. Michael Manchester Town of Snowmass Village PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear T. Michael, Today in our taped television interview, you said you might have some interest in my offer to continue the rodeo this summer in order to have more time to look for a long-term solution. That offer is specifically that if that Town made a contribution to the rodeo of $100,000—which corresponds to our annual loss at the rodeo—we would run the rodeo this year as we have in the past. By this letter I am making a formal request to you and to the Town Council to consider the above proposal. I am available to discuss this with you and the Council at your convenience; however, the clock is ticking on producing a first class rodeo, i.e., coordinating stock contractors for both roughstock and the timing stock, as well as lining up specific key personnel, the announcer, secretary, arena manager, etc. I look forward to your response. Cordially yours, /� /V' //�^^r`�"' William E. Burwell WEB/gmd cc: Town Council Members The Rodeo Company P.O. Box 5009/2735 Brash Crook Road * Snowmass Village, Colorado 81815 (970)923-4433 * (970)923-5185 raosimile the caestwooa A CONDOMINIUM HOTEL February 21, 2000 Town Council Town of Snowmass Village P. 0. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Gentlemen, At the Annual Meeting of Crestwood Owners held last month, the news that the Snowmass Rodeo was canceled for this coming summer was not well received. As you may know, The Crestwood ownership have been enthusiastic supporters of the rodeo through their attendance and financial support via personal contributions, direct sponsorships and SVRA contributions . The Directors and Members of the Crestwood homeowners association appeal to you to pursue all avenues at your disposal to preserve the summer rodeo events in Snowmass Village . Sincerely, Lam• z Larry De sey, CH , P sident Crestwo Condom' niu / ssociation, Inc . — / Box 5460.400 Wooed R • ss Village,Colorado 81615 9701923-2450•Fax 970/923.5018•ew @rof.net•http://www.thecrestwood.com Paee I of I From: Snowmass Chapel & Community Center <edgell @aspeninfo.com> To: gsuiter @tosv.com <gsuiter @tosv.com> Cc: sysun @sopris.net <sysun @sopris.net>; mail @aspentimes.com <mail @aspentimes.com>; rcarroll @aspeninof.com <rcarroll @aspeninof.com>; rfsunday @sopris.net <rfsu nday@sopris.net> Date: Friday, February 25, 2000 5:00 PM Subject: Snowmass Village Rodeo Dear Gentlemen; For a moment, I would like to take off my clerical collar and put on my cowboy hat. I have been involved with the Snowmass Village Rodeo since the day Bill Burwell started producing it and voluteers from the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center help at each rodeo as a community service. I have helped produce other rodeos and know how much work goes on behind the actual performance. Bill puts in the extra effort to make our village event, what Larry Mahan (six times world champion all-around cowboy) once called, "the best open rodeo around". To make this rodeo first class, like other athletic events in our valley, Bill contracts with Harry Vold, eleven times the PRCA stock contractor of the year, as the stock contractor for the rodeo. Because of the 'added' money Bill is able to raise from community and commerical groups, professionals on the PRCA circuit occasionally travel to Snowmass Village to compete with local cowboys and cowgirls. However, I believe that one of the most significant impressions our guests take home after attending a Snowmass Village Rodeo is that this is a family and community event, much like a county fair use to be. The reality that the Snowmass Village Rodeo could disappear from our village is very near. I challenge you, as our village leaders, to keep the Snowmass Village Rodeo in Snowmass Village. I offer, also, whatever support I can give to this effort. Not only is the Snowmass Village Rodeo important for our future in Snowmass Village, it also symbolizes our past. REMEMBER THE RODEO. Blessings, Edgell Edgell Franklin Pyles, Ph.D. Chaplain Snowmass Chapel & Community Center 5307 Owl Creek Road P.O. Box 17169 Snowmass, CO 81615 970-923-6199 x11 Fax:923-6092 2,28,00 - �3' TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING WHEN: March 6, 1999 WHERE: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2ND FLOOR, SNOWMASS CENTER 0016 KEARNS ROAD, SNOWMASS VILLAGE WHY: TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON: ORDINANCE NO. 5, SERIES OF 2000, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, FOR A 3.201 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL F, LOT 3, EAST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF A SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER, INC. TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. TIME: AT A MEETING WHICH BEGINS AT 4:00 P.M. THE EXACT TIME OF THE HEARING WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE AGENDA. INFO: 923-3777 Trudi Worline, Town Clerk Posted and Published in the Snowmass Sun on February 9, 2000 - 1� COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: March 6, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Chris Conrad, Senior Planner Subject: Public Hearing And First Reading: Ordinance No. 05, Series Of 2000, an ordinance concerning the Wildlife Habitat Analysis, including Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, for a 3.201 acre portion of Parcel F, Lot 3, East Village Planned Unit Development and to authorize submission of a Special Review Use application by the Snowmass Nature Center, Inc. to permit the construction of the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility. Overview: The Snowmass Nature Center, Inc. has made application for approval of a Wildlife Analysis Report, including Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan, in order to permit the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility to be located within a 3.201 acre portion of Parcel F, Lot 3, East Village Planned Unit Development. Town Council Resolution No. 52, Series of 1999 authorized and directed the Applicant to conduct the Wildlife Analysis a Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan for their project. A copy of this report has been placed in your council box for review. The Wildlife Habitat Analysis was referred to the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW"), the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist and Town Wildlife Specialist on February 2, 2000 for their review. Please refer to Exhibit B of the ordinance to review their comments. Recommendation: First reading of this ordinance only requires a simple majority for approval, however, Section 16A-4-20(e)(2) of the Municipal Code specifies that the ordinance must be adopted (Second Reading) by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the members present and voting. Staff recommends first reading approval subject to the conditions contained within the ordinance or as may be provided at the meeting. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, FOR A 3.201 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL F, LOT 3, EAST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF A SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER, INC. TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. WHEREAS, the Snowmass Village Town Council previously approved the East Village Planned Unit Development ("PUD") and Land Use Plan in Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1994 ("Ordinance 6"); and WHEREAS, the East Village PUD Land Use Plan Map was subsequently recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 60 in the records of the Pitkin County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder; and WHEREAS, the Snowmass Nature Center, Inc. ("Applicant") has made application for approval of a Wildlife Analysis Report, including Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan ("WEMP") in order to permit the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility (the "Project')to be located within a 3.201 acre portion (the "Subject Area") of Parcel F, Lot 3, East Village Planned Unit Development ("Lot 3"), as further described within Exhibit A of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, Lot 3, which is 18.63 acres in size, was conveyed to the Town of Snowmass Village (the 'Town") in 1994 as part of the East Village development agreement; and WHEREAS, the Town, as landowner, has consented to allow the Applicant to submit the Nature Center proposal; and WHEREAS, Town Council Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1999, was adopted on November 15, 1999 thereby: 1) amending the permitted uses and zoning parameters specified for Lot 3 within the East Village PUD Land Use Plan Map; 2) rezoning the 3.201 acre portion of Lot 3 from OS-Open Space to PUB-Public; and 3) removing the "Conservation Corridor" designation from the Subject Area on the East Village subdivision plat; and WHEREAS, Town Council Resolution No. 52, Series of 1999 ("Resolution 52"), which was adopted by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the members present and voting, authorized and directed the Applicant to conduct a Wildlife lb TC Ord. 00-05 Page 2 Analysis and prepare a Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan; and WHEREAS, said direction to the Applicant did not constitute a decision to authorize development; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has now submitted Wildlife Habitat Analysis, including Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan ("WEMP"), for the Subject Area in accordance with Section 16A-4-20(d) of the Municipal Code and is requesting approval of this WEMP pursuant to Section 16A-4-20(e)(2) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 16A-4-20(e)(2) of the Municipal Code specifies that the ordinance must be adopted by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the members present and voting; and WHEREAS, a notice was published in the Snowmass Sun on February 9, 2000 to inform the public that this item was being considered by the Town Council on March 6, 2000 and that an opportunity would be given for public comment concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has received public testimony, reviewed the application materials, heard a presentation by the applicant and received the report and recommendations from the Town staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: Section One: Findings. The Town Council finds as follows: 1. Lot 3 is owned by the Town and a motion to approve the use of the Subject Area within Lot 3 so that the Applicant could proceed with a "Land Use Application" was approved at the July 20, 1998 Town Council meeting. 2. The Applicant submitted the application for review of the Wildlife Habitat Analysis and WEMP in accordance with the provisions of Section 16A-4-20 of the Municipal Code. The Wildlife Habitat Analysis and WEMP contain both written and graphic materials, in sufficient detail, to deem the application complete for review. 3. The Subject Area is identified as being within an area designated "Migration Corridor' on the "Elk Season Activity 1" map within the Snowmass Village r TC Ord.00-05 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"). Section 16A-4-20(c)(2) of the Municipal Code states that these maps are general in nature which need to be verified on the ground pursuant to Subsection (d), Wildlife Habitat Analysis. Based upon written testimony provided by Dr. Dan Baharav of Baharav Environmental Consulting, Randy Cote with the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW"), and Dawn Keating, the Town's Wildlife Specialist, there was sufficient reason at the time Resolution 52 was adopted to believe that the Subject Area was not within the current active migration corridor and that the proposed Project would not contribute additional negative impacts to the migration corridor's viability. 4. The Wildlife Habitat Analysis, including mitigation and enhancement plan, was referred on February 2, 2000 to the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW"), the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist and Town Wildlife Specialist for review and comment. The Town Council reviewed the comments, attached as Exhibit B, and finds that the WEMP submitted by the Applicant should be amended as follows: a. The recommendations from Dawn Keating, TOSV Wildlife Specialist, regarding seasonal closure during migration, trail closure and construction schedules should be incorporated within the final Nature Center WEMP. b. The Applicant should work with the Town's Landscape Architect and amend their final WEMP to incorporate the recommendations from the CDOW regarding revegetation and landscaping. C. The final WEMP should be amended to incorporate the recommendation(s) from Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist, regarding . NOTE: His report was not available at the time the ordinance was being prepared - Comments will be provided at the meeting. 5. The East Village Planned Unit Development Land Use Plan in Ordinance No. 6 should be amended only to the extent necessary to redefine Wildlife Management Zones A, B and C within Lot 3 in accordance with Figure III of the Nature Center WEMP. 6. The Two Creeks and The Pines Final Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan contained within Exhibit B of Ordinance 6 should be amended as follows: lb TC Ord. 00-05 Page 4 a. Amending the Management Zones A, B and C to be consistent with Figure III of the Nature Center WEMP. b. Amend the Enhancement Plan Landscaping requirement, which currently specifies that five (5) Blue Spruce, thirty (30) Willows, eight (8) Aspens and five (5) Chokecherry bushes be planted within Lot 3 so that the Snowmass Land Company may be permitted to provide a greater mix of trees and shrubs equivalent to or better than what is presently required, in terms of quantity and/or quality as determined by the Town, which would more appropriately enhance the existing aspen ecosystem and wildlife values within Lot 3 in accordance with the Nature Center WEMP. C. Incorporating the recommendations and guidelines contained within the Nature Center WEMP to supercede the original plan as it would apply to the Subject Area and/or Lot 3 only. 7. The Town Council has reviewed the Applicant's Wildlife Analysis and finds that the above proposed amendments to the original East Village PUD 'Two Creeks and The Pines Final Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan", contained within Exhibit B of Ordinance 6, should occur by separate ordinance following adoption of the Nature Center WEMP and prior to any Special Review approval of the development by the Planning Commission. 8. The Town Council finds that, subject to the conditions within Section Three below, the Nature Center WEMP is consistent with the Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Standards specified within Section 16A-4-20(f) of the Municipal Code. Section Two: Action. The Town Council hereby: 1) approves the Nature Center Wildlife Enhancement and Mitigation Plan, as shall be amended; 2) consents to the Applicant submitting a Special Review application for the Nature Center educational facility; and 3) authorizes development within the Subject Area if in accordance with said final Special Review and WEMP plans. Further, this action shall be subject to the conditions contained within Section Three below. Section Three: Conditions of Approval. Said approval is subject to the satisfying the following conditions: 1. The Nature Center WEMP submitted by the Applicant shall be amended to incorporate the recommendations from the CDOW, Pitkin County and / 11 , Tc ord.00-05 Page 5 the TOSV Wildlife Specialist as outlined within Finding No. 4 above. 2. Ten (10) copies of the amended plan shall then be submitted to the Town Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Director and Town Attorney, who may refer said plan to the CDOW, Pitkin County and/or Town Wildlife Specialist for further review and comments or the Town Council for further direction. 3. Following approval of the final document, a copy shall be provided to the Town Clerk and staff shall then prepare an ordinance for adoption by the Town Council which will amend the Two Creeks and The Pines Final Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan as it relates to Lot 3. 4. Authorization to proceed with development within the Subject Area shall be: 1) strictly limited to the development parameters shown in Exhibit C; 2) only as necessary to permit the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility; 3) subject to the terms and conditions of any agreement(s) between the Town and Applicant concerning the placement of improvements within or the use of the Subject Area; and 4) further subject to obtaining Special Review approval of the Project by the Planning Commission. 5. The authorization for development and approvals granted pursuant to Section Two of this ordinance shall not take effect until such time as the final Nature Center WEMP has been approved by the Planning Director. 6. No building permits may be issued or development of any kind occur without prior written authorization of the Town and/or Special Review approval of the Applicant's final design proposal. 7. As landowner, the Town reserves the right to rescind this ordinance should the above conditions not be satisfied within one (1) year or should the issuance of a building permit not occur within three (3) years, from the effective date of this ordinance. Section Four: Direction to Town Clerk. Upon receipt of the final Nature Center WEMP from the Planning Director, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to attach said document as Exhibit A of this ordinance. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on March 6, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member I 10 TC Ord. 00-05 Page 6 , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and _ against. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village members present and voting on Second Reading, on March 20, 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 By T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk EXHIBIT A Nature Center Wildlife Enhancement & Management Plan COUNCIL MEMBERS PLEASE REFER TO THE COPY PLACED YOUR BOXES QB THE PUBLIC MAY REFER TO THE COPY ON FILE WITH THE TOWN CLERK COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE EXHIBIT B Meeting Date: March 6, 2000 Presented By: Dawn Keating Wildlife Specialist Subject: Snowmass Nature Center Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan Overview: On October 4, 1999 the Council approved Resolution No. 52 Series of 1999 directing the Snowmass Nature Center(SNC) to prepare a Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan (WEMP) for the Nature Center site. This was the first step in a three- step process that is undertaken when a development is proposed in certain mapped sensitive wildlife habitat. This process is outlined in Section 16 A—4-20 3 (e). The other two steps, which are the focus of the discussion on 3/6/00, are presentation to the Town Council of the wildlife report that was prepared by the SNC and adoption of an ordinance by 1/4 vote of the Town Council if they decide to authorize development in the wildlife habitat after reviewing the WEMP. Attached for your information are the review comments from staff, CDOW and Pitkin County on the WEMP. Also provided for discussion is an ordinance that, if passed, would outline the extent and nature of the development that could occur based on information provided in the WEMP. Issues: The enhancement and mitigation plan must comply with Section 16A—4— 20 3 (f), Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Standards. There are fourteen standards that the WEMP must comply with. The SNC's WEMP complies with nine of these standards. Three standards need additional discussion and two standards are not applicable. These are listed below by category. WEMP COMPLIES WITH NEEDS DISCUSSION NOT APPLICABLE Building sensitively located Seasonal closure of Watering areas Maintain native vegetation facility during migration preserved Dogs and cats prohibited Noise and lighting minimized Trail closures Retaining walls No fences Construction management Access for Town & DOW Enhances native vegetation Nest sites buffered Nest sites preserved I Page two SNC WEMP Staff Comments for March 6, 2000 Seasonal Closure of the SNC Facility During Migration - The SNC WEMP does not mention the option of limiting hours of operation or closing the facility down completely during elk/deer spring and fall migration. It has been determined that the majority of the migration occurs further east (see previous staff&Baharav comments and attached DOW& Pitkin County comments). However, regarding the comments of Kevin Wright, DOW, and Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County, if future development occurs on the Guber parcel, the migration corridor may shift back to the west towards the Nature Center site. Staff believes there is an opportunity to undertake proactive joint planning between the Town, Pitkin County, DOW and private landowners that emulates other successful endeavors to preserve this migration corridor such as Droste Ranch, Wildcat Ranch and Brush and Owl Creek Roads. Until permanent strategies are in place to preserve the migration corridor on the Guber parcel, the benefits of protecting the migration corridor under some unknown future condition should be weighed against the costs to the SNC of seasonal versus year-round operation. Fall migration occurs at this location from approximately October 31 —November 30. Spring migration occurs from April 25 —June 20. The Town currently discourages vehicles from using Owl Creek Road during migration from May 1 —June 1 and November 1 —November 30 from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. Since the SNC site is adjacent to Owl Creek Road, staff recommends that SNC activities be prohibited during the dates and hours that Owl Creek Road use is restricted during spring and fall migration. Trail Closures—Per Ordinance 6— 94, the Town currently closes the trails in East Village for spring migration from April 25 —June 20 and for fall migration from October 31 — November 30. These specific dates are not listed in the SNC WEMP, and should be added to the final Plan in order to be consistent with Town policies. Construction Schedules—The WEMP proposes to limit construction activities to the hours between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Staff reviewed the policies on adjacent properties to see if the schedule proposed in the SNC WEMP was consistent. Two Creeks and the Pines do not have any limitations on construction schedules. In the pending WEMP for Seven Star, outside construction would be limited to the hours between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. from November 15 —April 15 in order to limit impacts to elk and deer during their use of transition and winter range habitats. However, there would be no limitations on construction inside the homes during this period once the structures are enclosed. Based on these other projects, staff recommends that language be added to the WEMP to clarify that all construction activity (both inside and outside) be limited to between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. except during the Owl Creek Road closures. During these periods, the beginning time should be moved back to 6 a.m. from 7 a.m. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan for the Snowmass Nature Center, and to incorporate the three staff recommendations listed above in the Communiqu6. 0 op STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens,Governor �O� p DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE N AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John W. Mumma, Director NOF 6060 Broadway For Wildlife— Denver, Colorado 80216 For People Telephone: (303)297-1192 2-15-00 Town of Snowmass Village $RECEIVED P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village,CO 81615 FEB -17 2000 RE: Snowmass Nature Center Snowmass Village Dear 1&. Conrad Building & Planning The nature center site lies within a mapped elk and mule deer migration corridor,is adjacent to elk production area to the south,and lies adjacent to elk winter range,winter concentration area,and severe winter range across Owl Creek Road on the Droste ridge. Currently,the majority of the elk and deer migration occurs on the east side of Glendale Divide. This shift in the migration route over time has probably occurred due to the amount of disturbance and activity associated with the east village,including construction of homes in The Pines and Two Creeks. The site is a highly disturbed site located immediately adjacent to Owl Creek Road and trailhead for the various trails above the site. However,some elk still utilize the area and pass across the site. If current conditions of the area surrounding the site remain I concur with Randy Cote that the site is far enough removed from the corridor to have no additional or minimal impact. Elk and mule deer will still continue to utilize the corridor east of the divide. Construction of the center will encroach into the west end of the corridor,expanding the zone of influence eastward into an area set aside for open space and wildlife. What happens in the future to the current area used for migration east of the divide may be questionable. This area lies within property owned by Guber and Sinclair. What is the development potential of these two parcels and how would this future development effect the migration? In speaking with Lance Clark and Cindy Houben from Pitkin County, the Guber parcel could potentially have 1-home/10 acres. However,that is unlikely and a more likely scenario would be 1-home/35 acres. If this would happen,home placement would become critical to ensure the integrity of the migration corridor. If the development would occur,what would happen to the migration corridor? Would it be shifted more toward the divide and possibly to the west of the divide where the center would be encroaching?After build-out of The Pines and Two Creeks,construction noise and disturbance will be minimized on that side of the corridor. Depending upon the development plan for the east side of the divide and the amount of disturbance and activity associated with it,elk will probably be able to find their way through Although the corridor may be much more confined than before. If the Town wishes to consider the impacts of potential future development of the Guber and Sinclair parcels,then the Town may wish to consider an alternative site for the center. If the Town maintains the current site,the following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. no dogs or fences 2. revegetate all disturbed sites with native grass and forts,with a weed control program 3. all trash be kept in approved bear proof garbage containers 4. maintain and enforce the trail closures and restrictions above the center 5. modify the vegetation plan outlined in the application. Since the site does not contain any wetlands,I question the planting of willow. Also,blue spruce are not common for the area I would recommend planting more clumps of aspen,englemann spruce,and more native shrubs such as serviceberry,currant,snowberry,bitterbrush,etc. Also,more plantings on the east side of the building to help screen noise,activity,and disturbance. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Watcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Chuck Lewis, Chairman. Mark Le Valley,Vice Chairman.Bernard L.Black, Jr.,Secretary Members, Rick Enstrom . Marianna Raftopo Arnold Salazar. Robert Shoemaker. Philip James ow/ 6. If the town is going to monitor the success of the wildlife plan,center personnel could do this and use it as an educational experience for themselves and the public. The Colorado Division of Wildlife supports the nature center concept and believes it will be a great value to the residents and general public. We will provide any assistance that m can Sincerel Kevin Wright District Wildl' er Colorado Divi n of Wildlife I I PITKIN COUNTY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT February 24,2000 Chris Conrad Senior Planner TOSV P.O.Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear Mr. Conrad: The proposed Snowmass Nature Center lies in an area that was vital to the local elk herds until encroaching development reduced the habitat quality by increasing human activity. The TOSV side of Sinclair Divide was historically (that is, as recently as 10-15 years ago) used by elk for migration and calving. Currently, elk continue to use the area for those purposes but to a lesser degree with calving activity being negatively affected the most. The proposed development site is in close proximity to active winter range, winter concentration, and severe winter range. Elk continue to migrate to and from the Willow Creek drainage across the Buttermilk Bowls area and the Guber, Hines, and Sinclair properties across the TOSV side of Sinclair and over 7-Star to the Brush Creek drainage. By far, the majority of the herd moves across Peter Guber's property to Owl Creek Ranch and over Peter Droste's property,yet,some still utilize the west side of the Divide. Given the current surrounding land uses, the construction of a nature center and associated human activity would probably not have a tremendous impact on the migration patterns or calving activity of the local herd. We do not, however, live in a static world. When evaluating the impacts of development on wildlife we must, unfortunately, assume the worst case scenario. That scenario would involve complete build-out of the Guber and Sinclair properties combined with the completion of The Pines and Two Creeks developments. Although animal movements are somewhat unpredictable, the scenario described above would likely cause some, if not many, of the animals currently migrating across the Guber property to shift across the Divide to the narrow corridor that remains undeveloped between the Sinclair property and The Pines across the road to 7-Star and the Droste property. I do believe that a nature center in Snowmass Village similar to ACES is a great idea and would tremendously benefit wildlife via education. It seems, however, somewhat contradictory to build a nature center where it could threaten the integrity of important wildlife habitat. When one considers development it is often the change in human activity in an area that is significant to wildlife rather than the actual structures. If the Town chooses to approve.the Nature Center I have the following recommendations to minimize the impacts to wildlife: 76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD • ASPEN, CO • 81611 PHONE: 970/920-5395 • FAX: 970/920-5374 E-MAIL: JONE ®fiO.PITKIN.CO.US -2- March 2, 2000 1. Pull the building envelope away from the edge of the adjacent aspen stand. 2. Build the Center such that it is tucked up against the hillside above the proposed building envelope. 3. Establish seasonal closures during the peaks of the elk migration period. These closures should be from dusk to dawn October 1 -November 30 and from May 15-June 30. 4. Use only native plants in all landscaping. 5. Create a weed management plan in accordance with the Pitkin County Weed Management Plan adopted by the Town. 6. Prohibit dogs on the property. 7. Use bear proof trash containers. 8. Prohibit all fences on the property. If you have any questions, please call me at 920-5395. Sincerely, Jonathan Lowsky,M.S. Wildlife Biologist EXHIBIT C (From Town Council Ordinance No. 12,Series of 1999) The zoning and land use parameters (Limitations) for the Nature Center: Uses permitted within Lot 3 subject to Special Review pursuant to Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code: • Environmental Educational Facility and associated uses. • Associated Parking for Nature Center. • Incidental retail, food and beverage service and sales. • Accessory office/administrative use. • Educational interpretive signs • Snowmass Nature Center identification sign • Outdoor lecture area. • Picnic tables, sitting benches, campfire ring and associated facilities. Majors Structure permitted: One (1) Educational Facility for uge as Nature Center. Maximum allowed square footage (FAR): 2,800 s.f. Maximum allowed building height: 28 ft. Maximum allowed parking spaces: 14 Maximum size of identification sign: 12 s.f. Maximum number of identification signs: 1 Maximum number of interpretive signs: 12 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: March 6, 2000 (continued from February 21, 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 Villagc 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, February 9, 2000 and February 23, 2000 ow COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: March 6, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Chris Conrad, Senior Planner Subject: Public Hearing and Action: 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: Resolution Amendments per February 21 Meeting. Employee Housing Proposal (Exhibit F of Reso.) Overview: Staff has amended the resolution in response to direction received during the February 21 Town Council meeting. The Applicant has amended their employee housing proposal to respond to direction received last week. Their slightly amended written proposal has been enclosed as Exhibit F of the resolution. Joe Coffey has completed his estimated operations budget and rent structure/net income analysis which have been included within the packet for your review. Marianne Rakowski will be providing bonding capacity information based upon Joe's figures. The applicant met on-site with representatives and unit owners of the Ridge Condominiums on February 23. The Applicant needs to provide a written description of any intended course of action resulting from the meeting. You will note that an engineer's opinion has been included within this packet as Exhibit J of the resolution. Section 16A-4-50(d)(5) of the Municipal Code requires that one be prepared whenever a development involves construction within areas containing thirty percent (30%) slopes. This was part of a package of information submitted regarding the Applicant's excavation/shoring wall building permit request. Comments from Lambert and Associates, however, will not be available until the March 20 meeting. Recommenda Proceed with review of the enclosed resolution and provide tion: direction to staff. 3�� TIMBERS EMPLOYEE HOUSING ESTIMATED OPERATIONS BUDGET 2001 2002 2003 2004 Account Number Account Description Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed PERSONNEL SERVICES Payroll-Snow Removal $ 1,200.00 $ 1,260.00 $ 1,323.00 $ 1,389.15 Payroll-Groundskeeper $ 2,025.00 $ 2,126.25 $ 2,232.56 $ 2,344.19 Payroll-Maint Man $ 30,000.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 33,075.00 $ 34.728.75 Payroll-O.T-. $ 250.00 $ 257.50 $ 265.23 $ 273.18 Payroll-Benefits $ 9,000.00 $ 9,630.00 $ 10,304.10 $ 11,025.39 Expenditure: $ 42,475.00 $ 44,773.75 $ 47,199.89 $ 49,760.66 PURCHASED SERVICES Audit $ 550.00 $ 566.50 $ 583.50 $ 601.00 Professional Services $ 1,000.00 $ 1,030.00 $ 1,060.90 $ 1,092.73 Carpet Cleaning $ 625.00 $ 643.75 $ 663.06 $ 682.95 Fire Extinguisher Maint $ 103.00 $ 106.09 $ 109.27 $ 112.55 Trustee Fees/Bonds $ 309.00 $ 318.27 $ 327.82 $ 337.65 Telephone $ 750.00 $ 772.50 $ 795.68 $ 819.55 Trash Fees $ 2,400.00 $ 2,472.00 $ 2,546.16 $ 2,622.54 Utilities-Electric $ 1,500.00 $ 1,545.00 $ 1,591.35 $ 1,639.09 Utilities-Natural Gas $ 7,725.00 $ 7,956.75 $ 8,195.45 $ 8,441.32 Water& Sanitation $ 9,025.00 $ 9,295.75 $ 9,574.62 $ 9,861.88 Expenditure: $ 23,987.00 $ 24,706.61 $ 25,447.81 $ 26,211.24 OPERATING&MAINTENANCE Advertising $ 300.00 $ 309.00 $ 318.27 $ 327.82 Insurance $ 4,100.00 $ 4,223.00 $ 4,349.69 $ 4,480.18 Misc $ 150.00 $ 154.50 $ 159.14 $ 163.91 Supplies-Cleaning $ 300.00 $ 309.00 $ 318.27 $ 327.82 Supplies-Landscaping $ 2,000.00 $ 2,060.00 $ 2,121.80 $ 2,185.45 Supplies-Maintenance $ 1,000.00 $ 1,030.00 $ 1,060.90 $ 1,092.73 Supplies-Painting $ 500.00 $ 515.00 $ 530.45 $ 546.36 Supplies-Plumbing $ 150.00 $ 154.50 $ 159.14 $ 163.91 Supplies-Tools $ 100.00 $ 103.00 $ 106.09 $ 109.27 Supplies-Laundry $ 100.00 $ 103.00 $ 106.09 $ 109.27 Parts-Appliances $ 150.00 $ 154.50 $ 159.14 $ 163.91 Supplies/Building $ 200.00 $ 206.00 $ 212.18 $ 218.55 Vehicle-Gas&Oil $ 225.00 $ 231.75 $ 238.70 $ 245.88 Vehicle-Insurance $ 125.00 $ 128.75 $ 132.61 $ 136.59 Vehicle-Parts/Supplies $ 175.00 $ 180.25 $ 185.66 $ 191.23 Expenditure: $ 9,575.00 $ 9,862.25 $ 10,156.12 $ 10,462.86 GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 76,037.00 $ 79,342.61 $. 82,805.81 $ 86,434.76 2001 -2004 TIMBERS RENT STRUCTURE 2001 2001 20D1 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2000 2004 2004 2004 ` # MONTHLY ANNUAL % MONTHLY ANNUAL % MONTHLY ANNUAL % MONTHLY ANNUAL % UNIT SIZE UNITS RENTS INCOME INCR. RENTS INCOME INCR. RENTS INCOME INCR. RENTS INCOME INCR. ONE BEDROOM 9 $735.00 $79.380.00 0.00% $755.00 $81,540.00 2.72% $775.00 $83,700.00 265°6 $795.00 $85,860.00 2.58% TWO BEDROOM 9 $1,095.00 $118,260.00 0.00% $1,125.00 $121,500.00 274 9/6 $1,145.00 $123,660.00 1.78% $1,175.00 $126,900.00 2.62% RENT DISCOUNT MANGER/MAINT. ($4,800.00) ($4,800.00) ($4,800.00) ($4,800.00) VACANCY FACTOR 3% ($6,400.00) ($6,560.00) ($6,725.00) ($6.890.00) TOTAL RENT 18 $186,440.00 $191,690.00 $195,835.00 - $201,070.00 Operating ($76,037.00) ($79,34261) ($82,805.81) ($86,43476) E)enditures Reserve Funds ($10,500.00) ($10,500.00) ($10,500.00) ($10,500.00) Net Income $99,903.00 $101,847.39 $103,129.19 $104,135.24 TOWN OF 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 i TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 2 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 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 condom iniumization (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 35*- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 3 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 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 and March 6, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council closed the public hearing on February 21 March 6, 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 TC Reso. 00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 4 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 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 _37- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 5 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 location of the structures and more detailed development parameters for the Preliminary Plan are shown and more fully described in Exhibit A of this resolution and the larger scale file documents and plans retained within the Planning Division records. A. Free Market Residential and Related Support Structures: 4 Four bedroom Townhouse units @ approx. 3,586 S.F. ea.: 14,344 S.F. 36 Three bedroom suites @ 2,000 S.F.: 76,634 S.F. Circulation, Service &Common Area: 44.472 SY 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) TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 6 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 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 39- TC Reso. 00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 7 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 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 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 8 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, or equivalent "non-disturbance" 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 The final easement agreement, as further described in Section Three below, will be provided for Final PUD review and approval. 5. Chapter Six, Future Land Use Plan, of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject area as the Faraway Ranch South (Parcel K & N) Comprehensively Planned Area ("CPA"). As such, the preferred development plan identified these elements: 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 '' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 9 preservation of open space shall be included. g) Connection to the Snowmass Center and the Base area shall be included. Section 16A-3-40(6)(b) of the Municipal Code specifies which of the above elements of the Comprehensive Plan shall be accommodated in the development of the Faraway Ranch South (Parcel K & N) CPA, namely: (1) enhancement of the skier access and pedestrian trails; (2) Faraway Road/Brush Creek Road intersection improvement; (3) clustered development that provides for the maximum preservation of open space; and (4) connection to the Snowmass Center and the Base area. The Town Council finds that the Project will accommodate these elements as described above, subject to the Applicant agreeing with the conditions in Section Three below relating to the pedestrian trails and Ridge Condominium owner's ski slope access. 7. Section 16A-3-40(6)(b) of the Municipal Code also identifies elements of the Comprehensive Plan that could be considered in the development of the Faraway Ranch South (Parcel K & N) CPA, namely: (1) Low density, high occupancy, multi-family residential housing; (2) Mixed use recreation center at the base of Assay Hill; and (3) Employee Housing. The Town Council finds that these are not required elements that must be provided but notes that the Project will accommodate elements 1 and 3. Low density is defined within the Comprehensive Plan as being up to ten (10) units per acre. The free market residential component of the project will be 4.1 units per acre. 8. The "Comprehensive Plan" Build Out Analysis identifies the potential for up to 50 free market and 50 Affordable Housing units on the subject property if the PUD complies with Section 16A-5-300(c)(6), Community Purposes for PUD's, and other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The development proposal involves far less than 85% and, therefore, no benefits are required except as may be needed for the height variation request. 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 A;V TC Reso. 00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 10 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 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: 43- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 11 Recognizing the shortage of adequate housing for persons of low, moderate or middle income, adequate provisions for comfortable and affordable housing in suitable locations shall be made to accommodate such persons and their families employed as a result of the construction, operation or use proposed in a subdivision, PUD or special review application. The Town Council finds that this section of the Municipal Code should be interpreted to apply solely as the preamble to the regulatory provisions, being Section 116A-4-410, Restricted Housing Requirements, and Section 16A-4- 420, Methods of complying with requirements, that follow and that the "Purpose" section has never been applied and should not be interpreted to mean that any required employee provided by the developer pursuant to the above sub-sections are to be made available exclusively or on a first priority basis for employees of the development in the manner which the applicant describes within their application. Further, the Town Council feels that the legislative intent of the "Purpose" section was simply to express the basis or reason for adopting the regulations that follow which specify the manner in which additional affordable housing is to provided by developers within the community. 11. The Town Council has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Preliminary Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 16A-5- 300(c), General Restrictions, of the Municipal Code ("Restrictions"), as discussed below and/or subject to satisfying the applicable conditions contained within Section Three of this resolution. Although one (1) of the primary purposes of the PUD regulations is to provide flexibility in the land development process, the Restrictions are intended to define the limits of that flexibility. The following Restriction warrants comment: A. Dimensional Limitations and Community Purposes. Only certain dimensional limitations may be varied within the PUD process. The Applicant has requested approval to exceed the thirty-eight (38) foot maximum allowable height limit, as specified within the MF zone district, for Club Building "A". All other buildings proposed will comply with this dimensional limit. 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 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 12 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 "U 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 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 r Imo+ TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 13 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. 12. The Town Council finds that the project will provide certain TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 14 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. 17640 TC Reso. 00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 15 (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 trail will be established along the Ridge Condominiums finalized ski egress trail, pursuant to Condition No. 17 below, to the westerly property line. This trial trail 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 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 16 quality caused by previous improper development practices that actually occur off-site and above the Project. g) The Project will remove the existing railroad tie retaining wall near the Brush Creek-Faraway Road intersection. The project will provide significant aesthetic improvement at this location, including boulder walls, water feature, and enhanced landscaping as requested by the Planning Commission and Town Council. This will be a desirable aesthetic enhancement to that area. h) The Project will provide restricted employee housing in an amount that exceeds the requirements of the Code. The Developer will construct 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 and to permit the required parking for the Employee Housing to be reduced from 1.5 spaces per bedroom to 1.26 spaces per bedroom (34 Parking Spaces). 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 the free market portion of 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. The applicant was requested to increase the interior width of the individual Employee Housing units and to provide a laundry room TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 17 within that portion of the project. To successfully accomplish this necessitated the elimination of parking spaces. The Town Council finds that a parking ratio of 1.26 spaces per bedroom within the Employee Housing project should be sufficient based upon: 1) past experience with employee housing projects within the Town, including the Mountain View Phase II project; 2) the fact that approximately one-third (1/3) of the units will be occupied by employees working at the Timbers Club; and 3) the proximity of the project to the ski area and public transportation. D. 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. 14. The Town Council has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Preliminary Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 16A-5- 310, Review Standards, of the Municipal Code ("Standards"), as discussed below and/or subject to satisfying the applicable conditions contained within Section Three of this resolution. a) The Preliminary Plan generally identifies land uses that are consistent with the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan") Future Land Use Map in that the subject area is identified as being intended for Open Space/Conservation and Multi-Family Residential uses. The "Club Facility" and the associated parking would be appropriate accessory uses customarily found in connection with a development of this type. 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 i 5' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 18 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 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 SOP 5'' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 19 CTL/Thompson response was provided to the Planning Division on January 7 and was forwarded to Lambert for review and comment. Additional geotechnical information, including the Engineer's Opinion required pursuant to Section 16A-4-50(d)(5) of the Municipal Code and attached as Exhibit I of this resolution, was provided on February 26. This was promptly forwarded to Lambert and Associates as well. Following consideration of the comments received from Lambert and Associates and review of the geotechnical information provided by the Applicant, the Town Council finds that the provisions of Section 16A-4-50 of the Municipal Code, concerning development within areas containing thirty percent (30%) slopes, have been satisfied. NOTE: The engineer's opinion has been included within this packet, however, comments from Lambert and Associates will not be available until the March 20 meeting. They have received all material submitted regarding the Applicant's shoring wall and this information will be the subject of discussion at that meeting regarding their pre-Final PUD excavation/shoring wall building permit request c) Town Shuttle and RFTA Pullouts. The Applicant amended their November 29 material concerning the down-hill Faraway Road TOSV Shuttle Stop and west-bound Brush Creek Road RFTA pull-out, as shown in Exhibit G, in response to direction received by staff and the Town Council. The Town Council finds the proposed facilities and improvements will enhance the over-all ability of the Town and RFTA to provide public transportation within that area of the Town. d) Fractional Ownership. The Town Council finds that the fractional ownership nature of the project will help ensure a relatively high occupancy level within the Project. The Project satisfactorily complies with the requirements of the Municipal Code with regard to fiscal impacts. The Town Council finds that the Applicant has used generally conservative assumptions in the fiscal impact report provided with the Preliminary PUD application. As a result, the Town Council has determined that, with no more than a fifty-five percent (55%) occupancy rate, the project will generate sufficient revenue, in the form of taxes, fees and other revenue sources, to offset the readily identifiable fiscal impacts that it creates on the community. Any higher occupancy level was found to produce a net positive benefit to the community. The Town Council finds it to be in the public interest to establish Club TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 20 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. NOTE: The Applicant has requested the addition of the following two (2) paragraphs: The Applicant has stated that its desire is to sell all units under the fractional interest scheme identified in the application. However, due to economic uncertainties the Applicant has requested authority to allow a certain number of units to be sold and occupied as whole ownership units. The Applicant's request is to allow at the discretion of the Applicant the sale and occupancy of 4 Townhouse units and up to 6 Club Suites for whole ownership dwellings. As a partial off-set to the reduction of fractional interests in the project, the Applicant proposes to sell one-eight interests in all fractionally-owned Club Suites. With regard to this request, the Town Council finds that: 1) the Comprehensive Plan requires a project to promote short-term occupancy but does not specifically state or describe the proportion of units within a project necessary to meet this requirement; 2) it is crucial that this project be a vital part and contributor to the local economy; 3) the fractional interest concept is new to Snowmass Village and appropriate steps should be take to ensure that such projects, while consistent with community goals, are successful; and 4) the Town has already approved one fractional interest project at the Snowmass Club and future prospects for similar programs in Base Village, while possible, are unknown at this time. Therefore, the Town Council finds that so long as a substantial majority of the project complies with the General Plan goals related to short-term occupancy and that the project is not expected to adversely affect the Town's ability to provide services, the proposed whole ownership allowance is appropriate. The Town Council finds that the Applicant has indicated that all reasonable efforts will be made to provide the greatest degree of fractional interests in the project. �3 ' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 21 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 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 TC Reso. 00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 22 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. 18. The Town Council finds that the applicant's request for a subdivision exemption for the purposes exempting a condominiumization and time share estate from the subdivision regulations of the Town is appropriate, except as discussed below. The Code defines a time share unit as "the ownership or use of which is subject to an arrangement . . . . . which provides for or allows the exclusive use or occupancy of the dwelling unit by one (1) or more co-owners or co-users during any annually recurring period of time if said agreement is in any way binding or effective on any assignee or future owner of the unit or any fractional interest therein." The Timbers at Snowmass request approval of an exemption from subdivision regulations of the Town for the 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 up to 302 fractional ownership interests in the thirty-six (36) Club Suites and four (4) Club Townhome units; 3) condom iniumizing 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 and timeshare regime is appropriate. The condominiumization of parking spaces within the underground parking garage also is appropriate but only to the extent that the condom iniumization furthers the specific parking program described in Section Three of this resolution. The Town Council does not find that the TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 23 condominiumization of the employee dwelling units is appropriate at this time. Further, the Town Council finds: a) The Applicant may be afforded the opportunity to offer the town home units as whole interest rather than fractional interest units within the timeshare regime of the Club concept or as separate condominium units within the Timbers Club at Snowmass Owners Association, Inc. ("Timbers Master Association"). b) All four (4) town homes must be either wholly or fractionally owned and either part of or separate from the timeshare regime. c) Up to but not exceeding (Insert number) condominium suite units may be offered as whole interest rather than fractional interest units within the timeshare regime of the Club concept provided wholly owned units remain available for use by other interest owners when not being occupied by the specific unit's whole interest owner. d) 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. 19. The Town Council finds that the Applicant's proposed condominium documents, including 1) Condominium Declaration, 2) Purchase Agreement, 3) Disclosure Statement, 4) Club Rules and Regulations, and 5) Parking License are appropriate and meet all requirements related to Preliminary PUD Plan approval. The condominium documents will be incorporated into the Final PUD Plan. NOTE: Comments will be provided at the meeting. Section Two: Action. To provide for the welfare and safety of the public and to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with community goals and objectives, the Town Council hereby grants authorization to The Timbers at Snowmass, LLC to apply for Final PUD Plan development review of The Timbers at Snowmass project, as described within Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth at length, subject to the requirements of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code, the findings stated within Section One above and the conditions specified within Section Three below. TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 24 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. 34 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 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 TC Reso. 00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 25 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 Timbers Master Association shall in its Reservation Policies and Procedures include a notice to all club members and guests regarding the availability of Club and public transit options. 6. The applicant shall has agreed to convey a Conservation "Non- disturbance" 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. No development, as defined within Section 16A-2-20 of the Municipal Code, may occur within that area except as specifically authorized within the Final PUD approval and/or final non-disturbance agreement. The conservation "non-disturbance" easement shall be conveyed by the applicant within 90 days of the effective date of in conjunction with the Final PUD approval in a format acceptable to the _5 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 26 Town 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 Town Council and 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 Town Council and 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 184 191 parking spaces provided in the project, including 34 41 employee housing parking spaces and 150 Club 09 00 TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 27 and Social Member parking spaces. The actual number of parking spaces may be up to 194 201 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) Town homes. The owners of each town home 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 per town home unit within the parking garage for use by the Town home 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 employees. 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. lid so TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 28 G. A three (3) year parking evaluation period shall be established for the 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. L 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. Following the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy ("C of O") for the parking garage structure, the The Applicant shall allocate, whether for lease or sale, each space made available for a Social Member on the following basis: I �I ' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 29 t) The Applicant will, after providing a 30 day notice from the date of issuance of the C of O, 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. NOTE: Should the Ridge Condominium unit owners be included? 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 town home. 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 Timbers 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 (4) bus �a- TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 30 shelters. The design of each bus shelter shall be approved with the Final PUD Plan. A determination will be made during Final PUD review whether a shelter is appropriate at the west-bound Brush Creek Road RFTA pull-out. 12. The applicant shall use a textured and/or colored concrete, as recommended by staff, at each bus pull out location to differentiate the pull out from the roadway. The final details shall be approved with the Final PUD Plan. 13. The engineering plans related to all roadway, intersection, retaining, and drainage shall be consistent with the Preliminary PUD application and as further described in Exhibit A. The final engineering details shall be approved in conjunction with the Final PUD Plan. 14. The landscape plan shall be consistent with the Preliminary PUD application and as further described in Exhibit I. The final landscape details shall be approved in conjunction with the Final PUD Plan. 15. The Final PUD application shall include the final designs for the 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 final landscaping plan shall be in compliance with the plans in Exhibit A or as may need to be amended to respond to comments contained within Exhibit 1. 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 WO tom./ ' TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim.Plan Page 31 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. NOTE: The applicant met on-site with representatives and unit owners of the Ridge Condominiums on February 23. The Applicant needs to provide a written description of any intended course of action resulting from the meeting. 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, to the extent that such recommendations do not conflict with any findings or conditions specifically stated herein. 19. The Class I trail along the hillside adjacent to the southerly side of Faraway Road, as generally shown on Exhibit H, will be evaluated as part of the Final PUD submittal as to where such a paved trail could be constructed into the hill side: 1) without requiring undesirable retaining walls; 2) so as to not adversely affect slope stability or surrounding property; and 3) be extended through The Ridge Condominium parcel. The trail, as proposed, involves obtaining an easement from the Ridge Condominium Association. The Applicant shall also investigate creating the hillside trail within the right-of-way and Project parcel so as to avoid their property. In the alternative, the Applicant shall construct a sidewalk adjacent to Faraway Road within the right-of-way. 20, The Class 11 unpaved summer use trial trail 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 if authorized by ASC, will be provided with the Final PUD submission. The Applicant agrees to construct this trail through the r /�f� TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 32 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 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 judgment 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 three (3) months of the issuance of an excavation permit 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 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. (Done—to be provided for March 20 meeting) 24. The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat with the Final PUD application that provides for the re-aligned Faraway Road right-of-way TC Reso.00-06 The Timbers Prelim. Plan Page 33 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. 25. 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 two (2) years of the issuance of any 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. 26. Since no general map was provided with the preliminary condominium documents, all land areas within Parcel "K", Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat (the "Property"), not containing improvements specifically described within the condominium documents as being a "Unit' or "Limited Common Element' shall be considered "Common Elements" owned as an undivided interest by the unit owners. 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 ATTEST: T. Michael Manchester, Mayor Trudi Worline, Town Clerk HAShared\ClerkVeso.tc\TC 00-06 The Timbers Prelim PUD Draft06 /A n' 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. Exhibit J: Geotechnical Engineer's Opinion 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 30, 2001. The Town Council will hold an election for the purposes of gaining approval by November 30, 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. The employee housing parcel will be a condominium unit, identified in the Condominium Declaration, which is severable from the Association upon sale of the employee housing parcel to the Town. 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 thFee "` °°°-° of 4he igrugnee „f'w„ first building..°....," two (2) years of the issuance of the first building permit for a residential structure 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 go, 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 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 for the purposes of proiecting a budget for the proiect. Rental income for one and two bedroom units 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 (4 0) pereA44. 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 tetra 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-4 31 s`of each year. 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. I. 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 v &Q OW 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 construction of the employee housing within!hree(;) two 2 years of the issuance of the first building permit a residential structure 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 will be a single condominium unit and 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 3-1,31't of each year. 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. 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, if there is no pool,then 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 ton"^` pereeR4. The owner of the employee housing, at its option, may institute annual rent increases in an amount that is comparable to that C,.......me;: P;:Oe,, r°a°° used by the 4:swn instituted by the tR •m fo; Mountain View II annual rent increases ar Ashei: Twwn empleyee h 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. � ' 00 Exhibit J Geotechnical Engineer's Opinion. February 25, 2000 Building Permit Submittal #1 Site Work and Site Retainage Permit � Snowmass Village Building and Planning Department Geotechnical Information (9 total reports and/or letters) d P. O. Box 5010 2 of 3 sections Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Section i= d Attention: Mr. Chris Conrad Submitted 2-26-2000 F Subject: Item 3-c Engineer's Opinion The Timbers Club Snowmass Village, Colorado Job No. GS-2940 Gentlemen: The following discussion is to address our opinion that significant retention systems are required to mitigate the risk of slope movement caused by construction of the project. Installation of these systems should maintain or possibly enhance the stability of the hillside. In any project there is always some risk that movement will occur even with carefully designed and constructed retention systems. This risk is also possible for the existing slope. The site is a large area and includes slopes both natural and man-made at varying steepness. There were no tension cracks, scarps or other indications of recent instability. CTL/Thompson, Inc. conducted stability evaluations on the portions of slope judged to be critical. The area of greatest steepness occurs in approximately the middle of the site below an access road to Deerbrook. This is believed to be one of the critical locations. At the east side of the site in the vicinity of Building D near the Ridge Condominiums is an area judged critical because of property boundary considerations. Less steep conditions occur on the west side of the site near Deerbrook. This area is planned for a soil nail retention system. The other portions of the site are planned with a permanent anchored retention system. These retention systems are installed using a top-down construction process to limit the risk of large ground movements. Within the site, soil nailing is planned to allow cuts near buildings A, J and K. Coggins and Sons, the shoring contractor, has prepared detailed designs for the slope retention systems. CTL/Thompson, Inc. performed global stability analysis of the slope to provide Coggins with design anchor loads per foot of wall in the critical sections. Design of the soil nailed portions of the excavation was by Coggins and Sons. The site is believed to be stable in its current condition. The relative stability is judged by mathematical comparison of the forces tending to cause movement to the forces resisting movement. This ratio is called the Factor of Safety (FOS). In our opinion, the FOS is lower in the period March through August of each year because CTUTHOMPSON , INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WEST 12TH AVENUE • DENVER,COLORADO 80204 V (303)825-0777 I� i of elevated ground water levels that occur because of snowmelt. This high ground water condition was used in global stability analyses. Surveys, studies, borings and similar activities have defined the geometry of the slope, ground water levels, types and thickness of soil, and depth to bedrock. Strength of the various layers of soil and rock is the most difficult parameter to judge. Because of the gravels and sands, obtaining good quality samples is limited. Sand or gravel inclusions in samples tend to distort laboratory tests. The laboratory tests were used to aid in selection of strength values. However, the recommended design values were selected by making numerous comparative analyses with different values of the strength parameters cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (m). This is called a sensitivity analysis (parametric analysis). By comparing the computed FOS against different values of c and m. a judgment is made regarding the appropriate strength values based on the estimate of existing FOS. The combination of c and m judged to be representative was used to determine the required anchorage to allow excavation. During the process of these multiple trial analyses, it became apparent that the strength parameters assigned to the layer of weathered bedrock controlled the calculated FOS. Water levels also have a dramatic influence but are much more readily established. Residual strength, softened strength, and peak strength are descriptors of different deformation conditions when considering the strength of a clay or shale. Peak strength is measured at relatively low strain. Residual strength is at very large strain and is used when analyzing an existing slide surface. The softened strength presumes considerable strain but the strength is greater than residual. CTUThompson, Inc. analyzed the slope at the Timber's project for strength conditions judged to be representative of residual and softened strength as design considerations. Our report of supplemental stability analyses presents a detail discussion and FOS for a number of different possibilities. Our analysis indicates the FOS for the anchored slope will be equal to or greater than the existing condition for the parameters used to model the slope. The proposed slope control system (retention) includes both permanent drainage and permanent anchored or soil nailed walls. The primary difference between anchors and soil nails is the pre-loading that occurs during installation of soil anchors. Soil anchors are an active system because the anchor is pre-loaded to a specified load with hydraulic jacks and locked off at the design load. Soil nails also involve a tension member to resist earth pressure but the tension is developed by movement within the retained slope and the system is described as passive. Both types of retention systems are planned for the "Timbers". Both systems are constructed using top down excavation processes. The top down retention methods stabilize each cut layer before additional depth of excavation is allowed. These methods of construction are designed to limit movement in the slopes above the excavation. SNORING A VILLAGE �/� � BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT JL CTUT JOB NO. GS-2940 4 2 It was desired by the client to limit transfer of load to the framing of the buildings. The shoring systems designed by Coggins & Sons are detailed with corrosion protection and planned as permanent anchors or soil nails. Drain systems uphill of the building areas with backup drains at the retention wall are designed to lower the water level in the slope and increase site stability. The above discussion presents a summary of our opinions regarding the proposed slope retention system. Other"Timbers" project reports include summaries of the many trials to analyze the slope. Very truly yours, CTUTH PS C. v Joh chling, PE Br h Manager �� •*�wsTE•A;•'fn O .2 Robert W. Thompson 7 0 7 8 ;�t Chairman, CEO 'p 2/1�f/oo W? `!'!'�SSiONAi EN�.�''O RWT:JM:dd ATE 0 •COLbR�O (12 copies sent) SNODING A VILLAGE w� BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT � � .3 CTL/T JOB NO. GS-2940 COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: March 6, 2000 BY: Marianne Rakowski STAFF: Marianne Rakowski SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 08, Series of 2000. An Ordinance amending the 1999 budget for the General Fund for the Town of Snowmass Village. OVERVIEW: Attached is Ordinance No. 08, Series of 2000, amending the 1999 budget for the General Fund. The purpose of revising the 1999 budget is to include the Droste bond proceeds, the Pitkin County Open Space proceeds, plus the expenditures for the Droste property including the bond issuance costs. This will bring us into compliance with budget law. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Exhibit "A" includes the new budget summary for the General Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Ordinance No. 08, Series of 2000. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 08 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE. WHEREAS, the Town Manager, has caused to be prepared a 1999 Revised Budget for the General Fund; and WHEREAS, the 1999 budget,revenues and expenditures have varied from budgeted amounts; and WHEREAS, the Town is required to account for the bond proceeds,revenues and bond expenditures related to the Droste property;and WHEREAS,the Town of Snowmass Village Home Rule Charter requires adjustments to the budget when circumstances change relating to the budget. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village,Colorado: Section One: Revised Budget That the General Fund 1999 budget be adjusted to the 1999 revised budget, a true and accurate summary of which is attached hereto. Section Two: Appropriation That the 1999 revised budget revenue is hereby appropriated for expenditure during the 1999 budget year. Section Three: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption in accordance with Article X, Section 9.11 (e)of the Home Rule Charter. INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED on first reading by the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 6th day of March,2000 with a motion made by and seconded by and by a vote of_in favor to_opposed. INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED on second reading by the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 20th day of March,2000 with a motion made by and seconded by and by a vote of_in favor to_opposed. A roll call was taken,those in favor were those opposed were TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T.Michael Manchester,Mayor ATTEST: Trudy Worline,Town Clerk 76' TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY 1999 zaoD 399e 1999 3999 f z000 f zoos zaoz zaw zoos 613DOET S/MMARY ACTV !@f£T R VIS V� $Iq VARI BEbRMNB CARRYOVBt f 3.918,994.21 f 4,201,70.07 f 4.203,]18.0] f - f 5,]51338.49 f 1,517,59042 E 5,617,41349 f 4,49078349 f 3.015.464.49 f 1,748,90149 REVS s f 7.195006.43 $ 7633,4200 f 7.63344700 § - § 807601600 § 44259900 § ?42988100 6 1.66594500 § 784321700 E 808213000 OPERATING EXPENDITUtES f (6355,561.52) § (7.00,71070) § (],080.]1000) $ - f (7]04.00500) f (62329500) § (7,87369400) § (8.141,01600) f (8,H8,41200) $ (8846136.00) OTIRR E%PENDITURES: [OMMIAIITYPMK $ (1393726) § - S - f - f (110.oW.o) $ 010,aaoau7 § - $ - f - f - \ RODEO PARK f (5.31029) $ - S - f f - f - f - f - E - E - CAPEQUIPRESERVE f (%5.M0.50) f (130,024.00) f (130024,00) f f (395,96670) E (265942-00) f (682817.00) $ (1000.24800) f (661362.00) f (47388600) FIWSINI6LMD PWC1MSE $ f (349,63100) f (349,63100) $ $ E 349,63100 f f f E MOSIE LAND ft.RONSE/BOND COST5 f (7.6] .M,33) f V.6n.M.33) DROSTEBCNDPItOCEED.S E 7.150154.15 f 1,150,451.)5 DROSTE-0ItKIN CIY OPEN SPACE CON3RBTN E 2000000.00 f 200000070 S NET REVEM/E/f9PEBDITi1RE5 E 259,753 B6 f 73,082.00 f 1.51].590.42 f 1,01,500.42 § (133.92500) $ (1,68151572) § (1126.63000) E (11]5,31900) $ (126655?00) f (1,237,89200) S SRA LEASE INCOME f ]43.689.80 f ]29.]5570 $ 129.]5500 f - E 739,803.00 $ 10.09800 E 741,350.00 § ]39.5]800 f ]3915700 f ]3461]00 1RA6LfER d]r-pEBT SERVILE Fld-D f (]03689.80) $ (129.155.00) f (]29.]5500) f - f (739,80300) f (10,01800) f (741350.00) f (]395]800) f (139,15].00) $ (]3161]00) BID3PA9 CARRYCNBt f 4,203,]480] $ 12]68300] $ 5.75133849 E 1A71,508A2 f 561 7,41349 E (133,92500) f 4490.78349 E 3015.461.49 f 1.748,907,49 f 51101549 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS 1999 2000 1998 1999 1999 f zo90 f zaoL zaoz zow zaa AM gEyrsep V�A�.g VAK MAP' Bu T Buhr T DESIGNITIONSIRESERVEs: INVENrartv f 145,596.53 f 14o.D w f tames f - $ 140000.00 E - § 140700.00 f 140.00 m E 11o.=w § 14000070 PREPAID E)0'ENSES f 38.631.49 f •7,00000 f 5070070 $ - f 50.00000 f - f 50.00000 f 50.00000 $ 50.00000 f 50.00000 ECCMOMICRESERVE f 388.059.49 f 376,13800 f 31613800 $ - E 328,39000 f (4 7.74800) $ 328390.00 f 328.39000 $ 32839000 f 328,39000 EMERS3ICY COMII`b'E1.1LY f 211.91051 f 223,862.00 f 223,86200 $ - f 211610.00 f 4 7,74800 f 21161000 f 271,61000 E 27161000 f 27161000 CAPITAL EQUIP RE6 W f 1.815.02400 f 2.37623100 f 2,37623100 f - f 2631,078.00 f 257.8000 E 2,55495100 f 2167,81400 f 2220,58200 f 2.551.129.00 COMMITIIIY PMK E 97.50000 f 11000000 § 110.000.00 f - f - f (11000000) f - f - $ - $ - TOILETR13iAC8MENT E 10116.52 § - f - f - f - E - $ - f - f - f - 5V7MMINGPOOL f 110,000.00 f 29000000 $ 290.000.00 f - f 410,00000 f 120,000.00 f 530000.00 E 65000070 f P000000 f 09000070 NIX151116 RESERVE f - f - f - f - f 10000000 E 1W,000.00 f 100.00000 § IW,00070 E 100.000.00 f 10000070 DROSTE BONDS f - f - f 1,180820.32 $ 1,480.82032 f S TOTK APPROPRIATI061S: f 2.8])49851 f 3,56623100 $ 5,01?051.32 f 1.480.82032 f 3931,018.00 f 367.8200 f 3971,95100 § 3,]0).81100 f 380858200 § !334,12900 3 - f 5AVAILABLE $ 1,32624953 $ 110,599.01 $ ]0128]17 § (6,31190) f 1,683.33549 f 9]9.18.32 f 515,83249 § (692349.51) f (2.139,674.51) f (3,823,11151) E TOTAL ADRtCPRIAT[p156 ft 5AV/ KE f 4203,7007 f 4,276830W f 575133849 f 1,474.O A2 § 5,611,41349 $ (133,92570) f 419078349 E 3015461.49 f /1/890749 f 51/01549 COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 6 March 2000 at 3:30 PM Work Session and 4:00 PM Regular Meeting Presented By: Victoria Giannola, Steve Connor Subject: Land Use Code Discussion on Pre-Sketch Plan "Conceptual Plan" and First Reading of Ordinance No. 09, Series of 2000 - An Ordinance Amending the Provisions of 16A to Create a Conceptual Plan Procedure In the Municipal Codes. Overview: 1.) Town Council has requested that staff develop new Land 1. Background Use and Development Code language for a plan process 2. Issues prior to submission of a Sketch Plan. At the last Town 3. Alternatives Council meeting of 21 February 2000, Council provided staff with a list of provisions for this process. 2.) Staff is now referring to this process as a Conceptual Plan. Attached is the Draft language of the Conceptual Plan process as proposed by staff. 3.) Staff structured the new Land Use Code language to be both flexible and simple as directed, yet adhere to necessary provisions for a valid plan submission. This new Conceptual Plan process would be inserted as a new Section of the Code labeled Section 16A-1-55. Recommendation: Provide staff with suggested Code language edits and proceed to second reading on 20 March 2000. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 09 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF 16A TO CREATE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL CODES. WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 16A contained in this Ordinance are being processed under the provisions of Section 5-210.C.7 of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council directed the Planning Staff to propose amendments to Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code, and to prepare this Ordinance to formalize the amendments; and WHEREAS, the Town Council referred the amendments to the Planning Commission after first reading for comment; and WHEREAS, the Town Council reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission meeting held on March 15, 2000; and WHEREAS, notice of a Public Hearing to be held on March 20, 2000 was published in the Snowmass Sun, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5-60 B.1. and 5-210 C.6. of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received comment from the public at the Public Hearing held in accordance with the provisions of Section 5-210 C.6. of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered the application, all relevant support materials, the report of the Town Staff, the Planning Commission recommendations, and public testimony given at the Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that this Ordinance complies with the provisions of Section 5-210 E. of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the procedure and requirements set forth in Section 5-210 of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code have been satisfied; and WHEREAS, as to the provisions of this Ordinance that do not amend Chapter 16A, the Town Council has review the provisions and has received the recommendation of the Town Staff and comments from the public; and 0:P 00 Ordinance No. 09, Series of 2000 Page 2 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. Amendment to Article I. Section 16A-1-55 General Provisions of the Municipal Code is hereby created, as follows: Sec. 16A-1-55 Conceptual Plan (a) Purpose. The Town Council is authorized to conduct sessions to provide an opportunity for informal discussion among developers, public officials, and the public on various issues relating to the use of land in the Town and the relationship of its use to the overall operation and economic stability of the Town. (1) Allow discussion. The sessions are for the purpose of discussion and education and are not intended to result in any formal action or decision-making. Under no circumstances can the Planning Commission or Town Council be estopped to deny approval of any development proposals, or other matter for which approval is required pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, because of the participation of members of the Planning Commission and/or Town Council in such sessions. (b) Conceptual Plan review procedure. The Conceptual Plan process is an optional step prior to the submission of a sketch plan. The process is a joint planning effort with the applicant and the Town Council. The Town Council may determine that additional input from the Planning Commission is needed prior to holding a public meeting before the Town Council. The Town Council and the Planning Commission's participation in the process is informal and non-binding (I) Steps in the Conceptual Plan process. An applicant may utilize the Conceptual Plan process more than once for a single site proposal. No prioritizing or entitlements for the proposed project would occur as a result of going through this process 'l� t�J - Ordinance No. 09, Series of 2000 Page 3 (2) Submission of an application. The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan and narrative as an application to the Community Development department a least two weeks prior to a scheduled Town Council meeting. (i) The applicant shall include in the application the name of all property owners (ii) The application shall include a plan displaying the existing improvements, as well as the conceptual development proposal, for the entire property (iii) The applicant shall submit a narrative describing the proposed uses and activities (iv) If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property, then the applicant shall include both evidence that the property is under contract and a letter containing the written consent of the landowner to the submission of the conceptual application (3) Public meeting. A complete copy of the application shall be forwarded to the Town Council. The application shall be scheduled for a public meeting to present the initial proposal to Town Council. Town Council shall schedule the discussion during a Work Session at their discretion. Town Council may determine that the application be forwarded to the Planning Commission first for their review and comment. (4) Town Council comments. Town Council shall comment on the proposal and such comments shall be reflected in the minutes of the public meeting. (g) Modified proposals submitted in response to Town comments. Re-submission of proposals shall be scheduled at the next available Town Council Work Session or after two weeks following the Community Development Department's receipt of a revised application, at the discretion of Town Council. 2. Amendment to Article Il. Section 16A-2-20 Definitions of the Municipal Code is amended to create the team and its and meaning, as follows: Section 16A-2-20. Definitions. , TWO Ordinance No. 09, Series of 2000 Page 4 The following word shall be included in the Definitions section of the Land Use and Development Code to have the following meaning when used in the Code Conceptual Plan means a narrative and plan proposal submitted to the Town for non-binding comment prior to the submission of a Sketch Plan. 3. Severability. 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 March 6, 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 20, 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 0-1-P.- TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: March 6, 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. The error in the formula from first reading has been corrected. Recommendation: Approve the Ordinance on second reading. �3' TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1 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 Condition 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 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 ($.9160) multiplied by the total skier visits for the ski season. A skier visit is defined as the total of all skier days during the ski season, as scanned by the Aspen Skiing Company, less Aspen Skiing Company employees scanned. b. Commencing with the 1999-2000 ski season, and thereafter, the transportation mitigation rate, shall be increased by an annual adjustment of two percent (2.0%) plus the percentage increase from the previous year in the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index, all items, all urban consumers, as defined in the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Section 20(2)(f) Inflation, Article 10 of the Colorado Constitution. The transportation mitigation fee shall be calculated by multiplying the transportation mitigation rate by the total skier visits. Provided, however, if the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index is ten percent (10%) or greater, then annual adjustment shall be one percent (1.0%), rather than two percent (2.0%). For purposes of illustration, the 1999-2000 ski season transportation mitigation rate per skier visit is calculated as follows: .9160 x (166.6/161.9)+.02)=$.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 q5 OV Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 Page 3 1st, January 1st, February 1st, March list 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 1994 concerning the procedure for the construction of mitigation employee housing set forth in Condition numbers 23 and 24 are hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end of each Section: Provided, however, the employee housing required to be constructed shall be completed and shall have received a certificate of occupancy on or before December 31, 2001. 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. Severability. 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 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 Page 4 ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 6 March 5:00 PM Presented By: Victoria Giannola, Planning Director Steven Connor, Town Attorney Subject: Spreadsheet to Assist in Establishing Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2000 on the Procedures to Assess and Collect the Limited Excise Tax on Improvements in Excess of the Maximum Allowable Floor Area For a Lot Overview: Attached is a third spreadsheet showing the average actual 1. Background values of improvements only, the heated square footage of 2. Issues those improvements, as well as the associated costs per 3. Alternatives square foot for three subdivisions within the Town of Snowmass Village. In addition, the resultant fee for purchasing additional square footage based upon 30% and 40% increase in the heated improvements is displayed. 1. Town Council met on 21 January 2000 to review the first spreadsheet, which displayed hypothetical values of improvements and cost per square foot based upon hypothetical average square footages. Town Council met again on 7 February 2000 to review a second set of spreadsheets of the Pitkin County Assessors data on the actual values and assessed values of improvements, in addition to potential percentage discount rates on costs. Town Council met again on 21 February 2000 to review a third set of spreadsheets containing examples from select subdivisions of potential cost per square foot, in addition to percentage increases in square footage and their resultant cost per square foot. 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. fig ' Page 2 According to the Pitkin County Assessor's data, only Woodrun III, Woodrun II, and Melton Ranch III's average heated square footage is greater than the Town of Snowmass Village Community Development Department's example home calculable Floor Area by approximately 1,000 square feet. In the case of Woodrun IV, and Melton Ranch II, the Pitkin County Assessor's data is actually between 400+ and 800+ square feet lower than the Community Development Department's calculation for the example home. The following is a list of the actual average square footage figures for each subdivision contained within the 6 March 2000 Floor Area Excise Tax spreadsheet: • DIVIDE = 7082 • MELTON RANCH UNIT 1 = 3418 • MELTON RANCH UNIT II = 3836 • MELTON RANCH UNIT III = 4207 • WOODRUN UNIT 1 = 5234 • WOODRUN UNIT II = 4792 • WOODRUN UNIT III = 4691 • WOODRUN UNIT IV = 7935 • WOODRUN UNIT V = 4954 Please note that the Pitkin County Assessor uses the Heated square footage as the basis for their values, not the Actual square footage as noted above. The Assessed value of a home is 9.74% of the Actual Value of a home, which is based upon the Heated square footage of the home (improvement only, not including the value of the land). At the 21 February 2000 Town Council meeting, Council developed the following formula based upon the preceding assumption: Assumption: Between 30 % and 40% x Town of Snowmass Village calculable square footage = Pitkin County Assessors square footage used in determination of improvement Actual value Formula: $ Actual Value / Town of Snowmass Village calculable Floor Area square footage = $ x 30% or 40% = Floor Area Excise Tax' Fee It is the position of the Planning Division that this formula is invalid based on a faulty assumption. OV Floor Area ExciseTax Average Heated Values 6 March PAGE 1 OF DIVIDE average WOODRUN IV average WOODRUN I average WOODRUN V average VERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $2,468,506.90 $2,044,316.67 $1,149,726.04 $1,231,412.50 AVERAGE HEATED IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 5420 5191 3777 3514 AVERAGE VALUE/HEATED SQ FT=$per SQ $455.44 $393.82 $304.40 $350.43 30% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 7046 6748.3 4910.1 4568.2 0% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 7588 7267.4 5287.8 4919.6 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 30% INCREASE $350.34 $302.94 $234.16 $269.56 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 40% INCREASE $325.32 $281.30 $217.43 $250.31 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SQ FT 550 550 450 550 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 30%INCREASE $192,687.88 $166,615.91 $105,369.89 $148,259.02 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 40% INCREASE $178,924.46 $154,714.78 $97,843.47 $137,669.09 Ct mrr WOODRUN III ave WOODRUN 11 ave MELTON RANCH III ave MELTON RANCH 11 ave AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE A $874,350.00 $747,170.00 $396,809.09 $309,022.92 AVERAGE HEATED IMPROVEMENT SQ FT MR` 3604 3219 2875 2573 AVERAGE VALUE/HEATED SQ FT=$per SQ $242.61 $232.11 $138.02 $120.10 30% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT 4685.2 4184.7 3737.5 3344.9 0% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SQ FT __ 5045.6 4506.6 4025 3602.2 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 30% INCREASE $186.62 $178.55 $106.17 $92.39 FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 40% INCREASE $173.29 $165.79 $98.59 $85.79 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SQ FT 400 450 450 450 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 30%INCREASE $74,647.83 $80,346.62 $47,776.35 $41,573.83 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD 40% INCREASE $69,315.84 $74,607.58 $44,363.75 $38,604.27 x� max, r Rlt 0Oft a�.. - .. "'" FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX Heated Values 6 March 00 PAGE 2 OF 2 MELTON RANCH I ave AVERAGE IMPROVEMENT ONLY VALUE $277,263.64 AVERAGE HEATED IMPROVEMENT SO FT 4- 2389 AVERAGE VALUE/HEATED SO FT=$ per SO N $116.06 30% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SO FT 3105.7 0% INCREASE OF IMPROVEMENT SO FT 3344.6 `'' FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 30% INCREASE $89.28 , FEE PER SQUARE FOOT AT 40% INCREASE $82.90 ALLOWABLE ADDITIONAL SO FT 550 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD AT 30% INCREASE $49,101.65 FEE FOR RIGHT TO BUILD 40% INCREASE $45,594.39 i a �'�''' fx '�"'` *t n.:: ^' ".t ,,: *�+' " �? - 'i:Y.ar.�4 ,e's�wsas'ut3�._. .sw3 ..§.-.. s. -,' �M._ .= X 9 y,s �� ` . ', ,G :xs"4#6:. . .mom:* r..,... "..5t..,..r."xs . r a n ; z. i COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 6 March 2000 5:00 PM Presented By: Steven R. Connor, Town Attorney Subject: Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2000, an Ordinance Establishing the Procedures to Assess and Collect the Limited Excise Tax on Improvements in Excess of the Maximum Allowable Floor Area For a Lot Overview: This Ordinance implements the excise tax approved by the electors on November 2, 1999. The comments and directions of the Town Council at the January 31, 2000 work session have been incorporated. Data from the Pitkin County Assessor has been re-complied by Victoria Giannola at your most recent request of 21 February 2000, during which time the 1$` reading of this Ordinance took place. Recommendation: Discussion of Ordinance. 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, �3� 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 9�� 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 permit 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 as calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 16A-3-210(b), Measuring Floor Area, multiplied by seventy percent (70%); (existing FAR/actual value)*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 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-III; 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. Woodrun 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 as amended, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on February 21, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member Costello, the second of Council Member Mercatoris, and upon a vote of 5 in favor and 0 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: Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2000 Page 6 Trudi Worline, Town Clerk COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: March 6, 2000 BY: Gary Suiter, Town Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 09, Series of 2000, Expressing appreciation to Chris Nolen for her service on the Snowmass Village Arts Advisory Board OVERVIEW: Chris Nolen submitted her resignation from the Snowmass Village Arts Advisory Board (AAB) as of December 16, 1999. Chris served on the AAB from January 29, 1996 to December 16, 1999. This Resolution expresses the Town"s appreciation to Chris for four years of volunteer service on this Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. p:/sha red/c1erk/cou nci1Ac\cmq TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 09 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO CHRIS NOLEN FOR HER SERVICE ON THE SNO WMASS VILLAGE ARTS ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, Chris Nolen was appointed as a Member of the Snowmass Village Arts Advisory Board on January 29, 1996,and WHEREAS, Ms. Nolen dedicated 4 years of volunteer service on the Arts Advisory Board,and WHEREAS, in her position as a member of the Arts Advisory Board, Chris contributed her expertise and knowledge for the good of the community;and WHEREAS, Chris Nolen submitted her resignation on December 16, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village wishes to formally express appreciation for Ms. Nolen's tenure on the Snowmass Village Arts Advisory Board. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: The Snowmass Village Town Council Members extend a unanimous vote of thanks to Chris Nolen for 4 years of outstanding service to the community as a member of the Snowmass Village Arts Advisory Board. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 6th day of March, 2000 with a motion made by Council Member Mercatoris and the second of Council Member Hatfield and by a vote of 5 to 0. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE ATTEST. T. Michael Manchester, Mayor Trudi Worline, Town Clerk 400 i TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GARY SUITER, TOWN MANAGER RE: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: MARCH 2, 2000 +++xxxxx+x+xxxx+xxxx+xx+++++++++++++++++++++++xx++x+x+x+++xxxxxxx+++++++++++++++x+xxxxxxxx++xxxx++++++++++x *COUNCIL RETREAT I would like Council to select one or two days in late March or early April to hold your retreat on project planning and priorities. Please let me know which dates might work for you and provide me with as many specifics as possible regarding location, expectations, topics, etc. Keep in mind that the Town meetings are scheduled for April 4'" and 5t". *EOTC MEETING Please be advised that the EOTC Meeting scheduled for Thursday, March g'" is being postponed until Thursday, March 16u at 4:00pm at the Aspen City Council Chambers. Please let me know if a quorum of Council can attend. COMMUNITY ARTS FORUM A reminder that the Community Arts Forum, organized by our own Arts Advisory Board, is scheduled for Wednesday, March 15'"from 4:00pm to 5:30pm at the Schermer Meeting Hall, Anderson Ranch. This is "cutting edge" thinking so please make it a point to attend. *RTA CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS As you know, Ted Grenda and Jim Heywood have applied and interviewed for the Citizen Advisory Board for the Regional Transportation Authority. I would ask that Council ratify these appointments by motion so that the applicants and the RTA Steering Committee can be informed accordingly. TRANSIT MEETING UPDATES Attached are the meeting summaries for the RTA and RFRHA meetings, as prepared by our staff. Please review and let me know if you have any comments or concerns. WEB PAGE AND HOTLINE Thanks to the Mayor and staff for setting up a telephone hotline (922-6727) and a WebPage for citizen feedback(feedback @tosv.com). Both the hotline and e-mail site are currently operational. Within 10 days, we should have a survey page on the web, whereby community polls can be taken. We will be running some display ads to inform the public of these new ways to communicate with their elected officials. p:/vi,areN Wmanagw.xWmre ns.mg00301-00 ./,?TA Decisions to date (as of February 25 2000): As of February 3, 2000 1. Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt, Aspen, Snowmass Village, Pitkin County and Eagle County have signed resolutions of intent to participate in RTA discussions with the goal of forming an Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) and placing a RTA formation question on the ballot in November 2000. 2. Each participating jurisdiction has appointed two people to officially represent their jurisdiction. 3. Each participating jurisdiction has appointed a key staff contact. 4. Participating jurisdictions have agreed that there will be a vote in November 2000 on at least the formation of the RTA, contingent on the completion of the IGA. 5. The RTA steering committee (the predecessor to the RTA Policy Committee) has agreed that there will be a public involvement component to the RTA IGA effort, including a citizen advisory committee, survey, meetings and interviews with community members. Decisions made at February 10,2000 RTA Policy Committee Meeting: 6. RTA Policy Committee decision making: The RTA Policy Committee will work to make decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote on motions will be taken. A 2/3rds majority of five jurisdictions will be required to pass a motion. Each jurisdiction will have one vote. 7. Ratification of RTA Policy Committee decisions: Policy Committee representatives will take decisions back to their respective boards and councils and ask for approval on an ongoing basis. A written record of decisions made at each Policy Committee meeting will be provided to policy committee members and each jurisdiction's staff contact person shortly after each meeting. In addition to ongoing updates after each Policy Committee meeting, boards will set aside the time they deem necessary to discuss and officially ratify a "lump of decisions" rather than waiting to ratify all IGA decisions at the end of the process. 8. Approval of proposed IGA timeline: Policy Committee members agreed to the proposed timeline, including meetings on the 2nd and 4`h Thursday of each month at least through April, with the possibility of two more meetings in May, and completion of IGA decisions by June 1. Concern was expressed regarding the limited amount of Policy Committee meeting time. It was decided that if necessary additional meetings might be scheduled and/or meeting duration would be extended. 9. Problem and Opportunity Statement: Approved, with the addition of minor editorial changes. (Final version attached.) 10. RTA Decision Making Framework, including RTA Options: Accepted as a sound method for determining the essential elements of the IGA, with a number of wording 00.10 changes and options deleted or added. With these changes the Policy Committee accepted as complete the range of options presented. The final version of the Decision Making Framework is attached. Decisions made at February 24, 2000 RTA Policy Committee Meeting: 11. Jurisdictional boundaries for the RTA: The City of Glenwood Springs, the Town of Carbondale, the Town of Basalt, the Town of Snowmass Village, the City of Aspen, all of Pitkin County, and RE-1 School District in Eagle County. The portion of Garfield County that lies within the Roaring Fork River watershed would also be included, contingent on Garfield County signing a resolution of intent to participate in RTA discussions. 12. RTA board composition: One elected official from each participating jurisdiction,appointed by that jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction will also appoint an elected official as an alternate board member who would be allowed to vote only when the primary representative is unable to attend. The RTA will also have a Citizen Advisory Council, the specifics of which will be established by the RTA board. 13. Board voting requirements: All matters will require a 2/3rds majority of the quorum. �a3" INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Suiter FROM: Hunt Walker RE: 2/3/00 and 2/29/00 RFRHA Meeting Updates DATE: March 3, 2000 2/3/00 Meeting Other then normal business the Board only discussed two significant items : 1 . Reviewed comments on the Comprehensive Plan submitted by the various valley government entities . The Town of Snowmass ' s comments (see attached) were summarized by Tom Newland and discussed by the Board. The RFRHA Comprehensive Plan will appear before Council for approval on April 3 , 2000 . 2 . In Executive Session the Board discussed different ways to preserve the Conservation Easement , and at the same time appease Congressman' s McGinnis ' s demand to have local elected representatives administer the easement . 2/29/00 Meeting The Board took action on the following items : 1 . Appointed Charlie Tarver as the Pitkin County at large rep to the Board. 2 . Approved a General Management Plan, which included these goals : a. To form an RTA. b. To build a recreational trail on the corridor. c . To maintain the conservation values of the corridor. 3 . Further discussed the transfer of the conservation easement . The Council will probably receive an update on this issue at the next EOTC meeting. Articles on this subject were in the 3/2/00 daily newspapers . � Iv Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan discussion — 1/17/00 1. No financial Commitment for bypass. Although not explicitly discussed, the Comprehensive Plan does not intend to bind RFRHA to participate in the funding of the Glenwood Springs bypass. Language can be added to clarifv this point. 2. Timing on Utilities: Before transit or tail is preferred. This comment deals with the section where future compatible uses, such as telecommunications hardware, could be placed along the corridor. The plan could be modified to include language that conditions any future proposal to bring telecommunication improvements in the corridor on compatibility with transit and trail. 3. Design Details of "initial" vs. "ultimate" trail. A final draft of the Recreation Trails Plan has been developed that discusses more fully the "initial" trail design and cost. This new draft should replace the previous draft in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Is there an adverse impact on the eagle nest? The Draft Environmental Impact Statement will fully discuss the potential impacts, if any, to the bald eagle nest buffer that includes a portion of the corridor. In addition, the DEIS will recommend mitigation measures, if necessary. 5. Exactly how would the Conservation Easement be modified? Mapping will be developed to show where the conservation values (i.e. the natural, scenic, open space, historical, educational, wildlife, and recreational values) are located and where they are not located within the corridor. This mapping should more accurately define the physical limitations of the conservation easement as proposed under the Comprehensive Plan. Glenwood Springs letter regarding the Comprehensive Plan dated January 7, 2000 (Attachment 2) 1. Utility easements and/or licenses to use what currently exists on or across the railroad corridor should be reflected in the Plan. The project team will confer with Glenwood Springs staff to insure that the Access Plan accurately defines all existing easements and/or licenses existing on the corridor and include this information on the maps within the Access Plan. 5 � �t6 ( 1 COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 6 March 2000 5:00 PM Presented By: Victoria Giannola, Planning Director Subject: Appeal of Planning Director's Decision — Gracie's Cabin Overview: Attached is a letter from the Planning Director addressed to the Town Council's attention in response to a letter of appeal from Frelich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle dated 28 February 2000. Recommendation: Denial of applicant's request to change the official date of final PUD approval per Ordinance No 11, Series of 1997. lob' LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN KANSAS CITY,MISSOURI IN ASPEN COLORADO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 106 SOUTH MILL STREET FREILICH.LEFFNER 6 CARLISLE DAVID 1.MYLER PC SUITE 202 ATTORNEYS AT LAW E.MICHAEL HOFFMAN' SHANE 1.HARVEY' ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 ROBERT H.FREILICH,P.C. mMmrnnm MARTEN L LEITNER P.C.' FACSIMILE RICHARD G.CARLISLE,P.C. (970)920-4259 STEPHEN I.MOORE,P.C.' S.MARK WHITE" TELEPHONE KYLE E.FOOTE' (970)920-101 B IDNH=DN NO,CA',NY',NC' CERTIFIED LAND USE PLANNERS MICHAEL J.LAUER,AICP JENNIFER K.BARRETT,MCP KIM S.BROPHY,MCP February 28, 2000 Town Council Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 RE: GRACIE'S CABIN PUD, SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO Dear Gentlemen: We represent Gracie's Cabin,LLC("Gracie's"),owner of that property located in Snowmass Village,Colorado slated for development as Gracie's Cabin PUD(hereinafter"PUD"). The purpose of this letter is to address certain issues connected with Final Approval of the PUD and to serve as the basis of appeal of the Town Planning Director's, Ms. Victoria Giannola's, determination of the date of Final Approval for the PUD. 1. Background Historx A. On August 18, 1997, the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village ("Town Council") adopted, upon second reading by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 which conditionally approved the Final Planned Unit Development Plan for the PUD subject to certain conditions ("Ordinance"), which Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. Section Three of Condition No. 1 of the Ordinance specifically states: The applicant shall deliver to the Town Planning Department a Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map, in a form suitable for filing of record in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, that is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the final Town Council ordinance. Said document shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance, or within sixty (60) days of the effective FREILICIL MYLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Town Council February 28, 2000 Page 2 date of the ordinance,whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the foregoing terms and conditions shall cause the terms and conditions of this ordinance granting approval to be suspended until compliance with the condition has occurred. (Emphasis added). C. Due to development and monetary constraints following final approval of the PUD, Gracie's did not submit the Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map to the Town within the 60 day time period set forth in the Ordinance,thus triggering a suspension of final approval of the PUD until such time as such documents were submitted to and accepted by the Town. D. Gracie's eventually resumed action to meet all conditions of the Ordinance beginning in July of 1999. At that time,Gracie's attempted to pay an employee housing fee-in-lieu to the Town as required by Condition No. 13 of the Ordinance based on the figure of$170.00 per square foot, which was the dollar figure utilized by the Town in its cash-in-lieu formula at the time of the conditional approval of the PUD in August 1997. E. Mr. Gary Suiter, then Town Planning Director, indicated that due to the fact that approval of the PUD had been suspended and would not be final until such time as the Final Land Use Plan and Plat Map had been submitted to and approved by the Town, Gracie's was subject to whatever cash-in-lieu dollar figure was currently in place and utilized by the Town as vested rights related to the PUD would not be established until the time of Final Approval. F. Based on this determination by Mr.Suiter,Gracie's agreed to pay $285.00/square foot as the cash-in-lieu amount rather than the $170.00/square foot figure, for a total fee of$19,462.43. G. On November 11, 1999,the Town finally executed and approved that Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map for the PUD. In preparation of all final documents for recordation related to the PUD, the Town proceeded to fill in pertinent dates in the related Subdivision Improvement Agreement("SIA")for the PUD,including the date of Final Approval. However,in Section 8(b)of the PUD SIA establishing the date that vested rights related to the PUD were established, Ms. Giannola, the current Town Planning Director, filled in the date of Final Approval for the PUD as September 2, 1997, the date the Ordinance became effective. H. Ms.Giannola's determination that Final Approval of the PUD occurred on September 2, 1997 and Mr. Suiter's prior determination that Final Approval, pursuant to the terms of the Ordinance,would not occur until such time as the Final Land Use Plan and Plat Map were approved by the Town (November 11, 1999) are in direct conflict. Obviously, the Town cannot set two separate Final Approval dates for the same development, especially after an applicant has relied on 1/'�r FREILICIL MYLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Town Council February 28, 2000 Page 3 a prior determination of the Town to its detriment which determination was in turn based on the plain language of an ordinance. I. Gracie's subsequently made numerous attempts,both orally and in writing, to explain to Ms. Giannola the language of the Ordinance and the resulting prior determination by Mr. Suiter of Final Approval of the PUD and to request that her determination of the Final Approval date coincide with her predecessor's. See Letters dated January 3, 2000 and January 28, 2000 attached hereto as Exhibits B and C,respectively. Despite Gracie's plea,Ms. Giannola denied such requests and indicated that she was "unswayed by Gracie's argument." J. Due to the present dispute in regard to the date of Final Approval and establishment of vested property rights related to the PUD, final documents for the PUD have yet to be recorded and Gracie's is unable to move forward on its development of the PUD. 2. Resolution of Issues A. Based on the Town's prior determination that Final Approval of the PUD and establishment of vested property rights for the PUD would not occur until such time as the Final Land Use Plan and Plat Map were approved by the Town or, November 11, 1999, Gracie's paid to the Town $19,462.43 as fee-in-lieu for employee housing. B. Had the Town determined in August 1999 that Final Approval for the PUD had in fact occurred as of the effective date of the Ordinance, as Ms. Giannola now holds, Gracie's would have been obligated to only pay $11,609.17 as fee-in-lieu for employee housing. C. Therefore,the Town must make a final determination of the Final Approval date for the PUD and choose one date for purposes of fixing the employee housing fee-in-lieu to be paid to the Town by Gracie's, as well as the vested rights period related to the PUD. D. Option #1: Based on Mr. Suiter's August 1999 determination, make Final Approval date commensurate with date of Final Land Use Plan and Plat Map approval by Town or,November 11, 1999, as dictated by Condition No. 1 of the Ordinance; Establish date of vesting of property rights related to the PUD as November 11, 1999 in Section 8(b) of the SIA; and / FREILICH,MVLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Town Council February 28, 2000 Page 4 Reconfirm as correct Town's previous determination that amount of Employee Housing Fee-in-Lieu payment due from Gracie's to Town is $19,462.43. OR: Option#2: Ms. Giannola's Based on Ms. Giannola's January 2000 determination, make Final Approval Date commensurate with effective date of Ordinance or, September 2, 1997, in contravention of plain language of Ordinance; Establish date of vesting of property rights related to PUD as September 2, 1997 in Section 8(b) of the SIA; and Change required payment by Gracie's to Town of Employee Housing Fee-in-Lieu based on formula in use by Town on September 2, 1997 which was date Gracie's rights related to PUD would be held to vest or, $11,609.17. E. Under Option#1, the only remaining step to be authorized by the Town is filling in the vested rights date in Section 8(b) of the SIA as November 11, 1999. C.R.S. § 24-68-10, addressing establishment of vested property rights, states in pertinent part: "[C]onditional approval [of a Final PUD Plan] shall result in a vested property right, although failure to abide by such terms and conditions will result in a forfeiture of vested property rights." Therefore, C.R.S. § 24-68-10 tracks exactly with the plain language of the Ordinance. Not only will Final Approval not occur until all conditions of the Ordinance are met, but vested rights related to the PUD will also not be established until such time. F. Under Option #2, the only remaining step to be authorized by the Town is the repayment to Gracie's of$7,853.26, the difference in the amount that would have been paid by Gracie's as the employee housing fee-in-lieu based on a September 2, 1997 Final Approval date determination and that amount actually paid by Gracie's based on a November 11, 1999 Final Approval date determination. We FREILICIL MYLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Town Council February 28, 2000 Page 5 3. Conclusion The Town cannot fix two separate dates for Final Approval of the PUD. Gracie's relied to its detriment on the initial determination of the Town that Final Approval would not occur until such time as the Final Land Use Plan and Plat Map were approved by the Town. Based on the plain language of the Ordinance, which clearly directs the Town in fixing the date of Final Approval for the PUD, as well as the language of C.R.S. § 24-68-10, Gracie's agreed with such initial determination and agreed to pay an increased employee housing fee-in-lieu. In the face of the Town's prior determination related to Final Approval, Gracie's reliance on such determination,the plain language of the Ordinance,and Colorado statutory law,Ms.Giannola's determination that Final Approval of the PUD occurred on September 2, 1997 and related determination that vested rights for the PUD were established as of such date is unreasonable, irrational, and as a result, arbitrary and capricious. Gracie's respectfully submits the information set forth in this letter to the Town Council and requests that the Town Council make a final determination as to the Final Approval date related to the PUD and related issues at its March 6, 2000 Council meeting. Very Truly Yours, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER& CARLISLE eJ. H y SJH:om w/ attachments cc: Mr. Christopher Chaffin / f I or 1; SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 11 SERIES OF 1997 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE GRACIE'S CABIN PARCEL, PARCEL 30. WHEREAS, James Christopher Chaffin (Applicant) has submitted an application for approval of a Combined Conceptual and Final PUD to allow for the creation and development of two (2) single family lots; and WHEREAS, the subject property is a separate parcel, not reviewed in the East Village Final PUD Land Use Plan but recognized and provided an accass easement: and WHEREAS. the Applicant has requested that the project be classified as a minor development and be reviewed through a Combined Conceptual and Final PUD review process; and WHEREAS, the Town Council, through Resolution No. 26, Series of 1997, allowed for a combined Conceptual and Final PUD Development Plan review process; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has further requested that submittal requirements be waived except as required to establish a Final Land Use Plan for the subject parcel: and WHEREAS, Section 16-179(b)(1)e of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the "Code") allows for a combined review provided that Town Council finds that the project is a "minor development", as defined in Section 1-21 of the Code; and WHEREAS, Section 16-179(b)(1)a of the Code permits certain submittal requirements to be waived if it is determined that the required information is not relevant due to the nature of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heard a presentation by the applicant and the recommendations of Town Staff and conducted a review and evaluation of the proposal pursuant to Chapter 16, Article VIII (PUD), Article X, (Development Evaluation Standards and Constraints to Development) and Section 16-100 (Mixed Use PUD (MU/PUD)) of the Code; and _ �jEXHIBIT A - IT �a, sLt Ord 97-11 Page 2 WHEREAS, in accordance with posted, mailed and published notices, a puolic hearing was held before the Snowmass Village Town Council on July 21, 1997, to receive public comment concerning this application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Findings 1. The applicant has submitted information and documentation to permit the Town's review of the proposed development as required by the Code. 2. All public notification requirements, as specified within Section 16-179 of the Code have been satisfied. 3. The proposal is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD and does not adversely affect adjacent properties. 4. The Town Council has reviewed the application and determined that it is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the Snowmass Village Master Plan, Development Evaluation Standards and Constraints to Development. 5. The Town Council finds that, subject to the conditions specified below, the application for combined conceptual and final Planned Unit Development for the Gracie's Cabin parcel is consistent with the applicable review standards within Chapter 16 of the Code. 6. The Town Council finds the land use and development standards set forth in Exhibit A to be appropriate and consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Gracie's Cabin PUD and the surrounding development of East Village. Section Two: Action 1. Town Council hereby approves the Applicant's application for the Gracie's Cabin Conceptual and Final Planned Unit Development Land Use Plan, as described within Exhibit A, as to Land Use and Development Standards, and the Applicants plan submittals, as to 113' �0, X416 �. i ii Ord 97-11 Page 3 subdivision layout, for two (2) single family lots, subject to the conditions listed below in Section Three. 2. Gracie's Cabin, identified in Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1987, was zoned MU/PUD for twelve (12) unrestricted residential units, zero (0) restricted units, and up to but not to exceed 16,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. The Gracie's Cabin Final Planned Unit Development Plan now contemplates two (2) unrestricted residential units and zero (0) square feet of commercial space. The Town Council and the applicant therefore acknowledge that, upon recording of both the Final Plat and Final Land Use Plan Map, the remaining units and commercial square footage shall not be permitted within Gracie's Cabin, Parcel 30, nor shall they be transferable to any other parcel under the provisions of Note 1 of Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1987, Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1987, is hereby amended to reflect that the total unit allocation on Parcel 30 is two (2) unrestricted housing units. Section Three: Conditions 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Town Planning Department a Final Land Use Plan Map and Final Plat Map, in a form suitable for filing of record in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, that is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the final Town Council ordinance. Said document shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. or within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this ordinance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the foregoing terms and conditions shall cause the terms and conditions of this ordinance granting approval, to be suspended until compliance with this condition has occurred. 2. All Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat map requirements, as specified within Chapter 16 of the Code, must be satisfied prior to recording of the map or plat. The applicant shall complete all actions or matters which in the opinion of the Town Planner and the Town Attorney are necessary to satisfy or dispense with all applicable requirements of the Code. 3. The Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat for the Gracie's Cabin PUD shall not become effective until the applicant is in compliance with pertinent conditions contained herein, and until such time as all fees payable to the Town have been paid. � ' 13. 0: 36AM No. 4476 a. 5/8 Ord 97-11 Page 4 4. The applicant shall execute any required Subdivision Improvements Agreement as determined to be necessary and provide acceptable security in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney. 5. The Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat shall fully identify, define and convey all easements as shown on the conceptual plans. Such easements shall meet with the approval of the Town Attorney and Town Planner. 6. All final platting requirements, as specified within Chapter 16 of the Code, must be satisfied prior to recording of the plat. 7. Private driveways crossing thirty (30) percent slopes will require administrative review by the Building and Planning Department. 8. The applicant shall submit drainage and erosion control plans for each building site at the time of building permit application which meets with the approval of the Town Landscape Architect and Town Engineer for both water quality and storm water runoff control purposes. 9. The applicant shall submit cut sheets of outdoor lighting types at the time of building permit application which meets with the approval of the Town Planner. All exterior lighting associated with the single family dwellings shall be of a down-shielded luminarie type so as not to cast light on adjoining properties or in an upward direction. 10. No signage indicating that certain roads are private will be permitted. 11. That the Construction Management Plan (Exhibit B) as proposed in the Gracie's Cabin submittal document, dated June 12, 1997 be implemented and abided by during and following infrastructure installation until such point as determined to be completed by the Town Planner. 12. That the wildlife development restrictions as proposed in the Gracie's Cabin submittal document, dated June 12, 1997 and as addressed in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions be implemented and abided by and, -that all existing fences be removed and no now fences be erected. Wildlife management shall be consistent with the terms set forth in Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1994 as it addresses Wildlife Zone C. r J .iUi. J m Ord 97-11, Page 5 13. That, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Code, regarding Employee Housing, the applicant will be responsible for payment, based upon the fee in lieu formula as calculated by the Town Planner, prior to recordation of the Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat. 14. The single family residences shall be subject to review and approval by the Snowmass Homeowners Association Design Committee as proposed in the application. 15. That all requirements of the Town, to meet the needs of the Snowmass- Wildcat Fire Protection District, related but not limited to emergency access, hydrant location, and fire suppression systems, shall be satisfied by the applicant and its successors in interest. 16. That the landscaping plan for roadway, driveway and retaining wall landscaping be implemented in conjunction with infrastructure installation. Amendments to the landscaping plan, as to specific species and specific locations, may be approved by the Town Planner as long as such amendments provide adequate density and screening. 17. That a form of guard rail be installed on all areas of the road and/or driveway where the grade differential is greater than ten (10) feet on the downhill side. Such guardrail design and placement shall meet with the approval of the Town Public Works Director and Planner. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED, on first reading, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on this 21st day of July, 1997 on a motion by Council member Hatfield and a second by Council member Manchester, by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council member Burwell was absent. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED, on second reading, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on this 18th day of August, 1997 on a motion by Council member Boineau and a second by Council member Burwell, by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. TOWN OF�SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO TED T. GRENDA, Mayo --� Trudi Worline, Town Clerk EXHIBIT A GRACIE'S CABIN PUD LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standard Allowed Permitted Uses: Single Family and accessory uses and buildings Maximum density one single family dwelling unit per lot Maximum commercial none Minimum lot area 1.39 acres Minimum lot area/unit 1.39 acres Minimum lot width approx. 74 ft. Min. building setback 10 feet Max. principal bldg. ht. 28 ft. max. Max. access. bldg. ht. 18 ft. max Min. open space none dedicated Max. allowed floor area 5,500 sq. ft. Min. parking spaces 1 spacelbedroom ^ m:�planrecVeapc�Gracie.wpd EAQ, A loft SOO �ul. .�. i99y !O: S�dwi No. 44'Fj oA Construction Management Plan We have developed the following projected timetable for the development of the Gracie's Cabin parcel: A. Complete roadway and install utilities - June 15 - Sept. 15, 1998 B. Pave private roadway - September, 1998 C. Install infrastructure and construction of individual homesites - May - December 1999. Revegetate all disturbed areas. The road and utilities will be completed as part of the paving schedule. Specific management issues include: 1. Strip topsoil and store on site away from streams. 2. Control dust with watering trucks. 3. Revegetate as soon as feasible with construction sequence. 4. Use erosion control fabric on all slopes over 2:1. 5. Use haybales as temporary measures during consuuction to control sedimentation and runoff. 5. Use perimeter fence around graded areas to protect surrounding landscape and to prevent sedimentation from grading activities. 7. Consrruction activity will be limited to correspond with wildlife restrictions. Exhibit B 1� Page One of One LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN KANSAS CITY.MISSOURI IN ASPEN COLORADO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 106 SOUTH MILL STREET FREILICH.LEITNER&CARLISLE DAVID) M LER-P.C.' SUITE 20Z ATTORNEYS AT LAW E.ANMJ H HOFFMAN' SHANE 1.HARVEY ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 ROBERT H.FREILICH P.C. awimen mm MARTIN L LEITNE L P.C.' FACSIMILE RICHARD c.CARLISLE.P.C.' (970)920-4259 STEPHEN 1.MOORE.P.C.' S MARK WHITE" TELEPHONE KYLE E.FOOTE' (970)920-1018 w�rmnmwr u'.m.yc' CERTIFIED LAND USE PLANNERS MICHAEL 1.LAUER MCP JENNIFER K.BAARETf,AICP KW S.BROPHY.MCP January 3, 2000 � AX E Ms. Victoria Giannola, Planning Director VIA FACSIMILE Community Development Department 923-1861 Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 RE: GRACIE'S CABIN PUD - VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS Dear Victoria: As you know,we represent Gracie's Cabin,LLC,owner of that property located in Snowmass Village, Colorado slated for development as Gracie's Cabin PUD. It is my understanding that in connection with the Gracie's Cabin project,you have determined that September 2, 1997 constitutes the date of"Final Approval" related to the PUD. Similarly, it is my understanding that in regard to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement ("SIA") for the PUD, you have determined that the vesting rights for the development uses and rights related to the PUD shall be for a period of three years from September 2, 1997. These determinations are directly opposite of and contrary to previous Town of Snowmass Village determinations regarding the final approval of the Gracie's Cabin Project. Approval of the Gracie's Cabin PUD was set forth in Town Ordinance No. 11,Series of 1997 (hereinafter "Ordinance No. 11"),which Ordinance No. 11 required as a condition of approval that a Final Land Use Plan Map and Final Plat would be submitted by our client within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the Ordinance. For various reasons, however, these documents were not submitted to the Town within such time period and no further action was undertaken by our client related to the PUD until this firm was retained in early 1998 to ensure that the conditions of Ordinance No. 11 were fulfilled. EXHIBIT B -� 14- FREILICIL MYLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Ms. Victoria Giannola January 3, 2000 Page 2 One of the conditions set forth in Ordinance No. 11 was that our client,prior to recordation of the Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat, was to pay an employee housing fee-in-lieu payment to the Town based on the formula calculated by the Town Planner. However,from the time Ordinance No. 11 was executed until the time our client was ready to pay such fee, the formula had changed dramatically, increasing from a$170.00/square foot formula to a $500.00/square foot formula. It was our client's contention that it should be subject to the$170.00/square foot figure as that was the number in place at the time of the Town's final approval of the PUD project (please see file which undoubtedly contains copies of correspondence and notes on this issue). However, the Town, and in particular the then-acting Planning Director Gary Suiter, disagreed with our contention that the date of final approval was the effective date of Ordinance No. I 1 and that our client was entitled to any rights granted therein. In setting forth its position, the Town relied on Section Three, Condition No. 1 of Ordinance No. 11, which stated: The applicant shall deliver to the Town Planning Department a Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map, in a form suitable for filing of record in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, that is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the final Town Council ordinance. Said document shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance, or within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the ordinance,whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the foregoing terms and conditions shall cause the terms and conditions of this ordinance granting approval to be suspended until compliance with the condition has occurred. (Emphasis added). Based on the language in bold above, the Town deemed that no final approval of the PUD had occurred and would not occur until such time as the Final Land Use Map and Final Plat were approved by the Town. Accordingly,our client was not entitled to rely on the employee housing fee- in-lieu calculation in place at the time of Ordinance No. 11. Despite the Town's position set forth this past summer as well as the clear language of Ordinance No. 11 that final approval of the Gracie's Cabin PUD would not be deemed to occur until such time as the Final Land Use Map and Final Plat of the PUD are approved by the Town,it appears to be the Town's current position that final approval of the PUD occurred upon September 2, 1997, or, the effective date of Ordinance No. 11. Clearly, these two positions by the Town at different stages of the PUD approval are conflicting and inequitable to our client. 1 P"0'. FREILICH.MYLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Ms. Victoria Giannola January 3, 2000 Page 3 It is our contention that the date of "Final Approval" related to the PUD should be, as previously relied upon by the Town and as clearly set forth in Ordinance No. 11,the date upon which the Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat for the PUD are approved by the Town. The Town approved of such documents on November 11, 1999 as evidenced by the Town Council's dated signatures thereon. Accordingly,the date set forth in Paragraph 8(b)of the SIA relating to final approval of the PUD and vested rights stemming therefrom should be November 11, 1999,not September 2, 1997. To the extent the Town remains committed to its current contention that the final approval of the PUD was the effective date of Ordinance No. 11, our client requests that the Town reimburse it in the amount of$7,853.26, which amount represents the additional money paid to the Town by our client based upon the increased employee housing fee-in-lieu dollar/square footage calculation established and applied by the Town between the effective date of Ordinance No. 11 and the time our client ultimately paid such fee. Please notify me as soon as possible regarding the Town's final position in this matter as our client desires to record the final PUD documents as soon as possible. Very Truly Yours, FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER& CARLISLE Shane J. Harve SJH:om cc: Stephen Connor Chris Chaffin LAW OFFICES FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS IN KANSAS CITY,MISSOURI IN ASPEN COLORADO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 106 SOUGH MILL STREET FREH.ICfi.LEITNER&CARLISLE DAVID 1 MYLEIL PC SUITE 202 ATTORNEYS AT LAW E.WCHAEL HOFFMAN' SHANE 1.HARVEY ASPEN,COLORADO 8161 1 ROBERT H.FREMICH.P .o"rmnwca MARTIN L.LEITNER,P.C.' FACSIMILE RICHARD G.CARLISLE,P.C. (970)920-3259 STEPHEN 1.MOORS.P.C.' S.MARK WHITE TELEPHONE KYLE E.FOOTE' (970)920-1018 no"rtrzowww.cn.xrt ac• CERTIFIED LAND USE PLANNERS MICHAEL 1.LAUEIL MCP JENNIFER K.BARRETT,AICP KB S.BROPHY,.AICP January 28, 2000 Ms.Victoria Giannola,Planning Director VIA FACSIMILE & REGULAR MAIL Community Development Department 923-1861 Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 V A X E o -o RE: GRACIE'S CABIN PUD Dear Ms. Giannola: We represent Gracie's Cabin, LLC. This letter serves as a follow up to that telephone conversation yesterday between you, Stephen Connor and myself related to that real estate located in Snowmass Village owned by our client known as Gracie's Cabin PUD (hereinafter "PUD"). Per our phone conversation, please notify me as soon as possible of the first date available before the Town Council where I can address your determination of the final approval date related to the PUD. Your determination handed down yesterday that the Town's final approval of the PUD occurred on September 2, 1997 contravenes and is in direct conflict with the decision of your predecessor,Mr.Gary Suiter,that final approval would not occur until such time as a Final Land use Map and Final Plat had been submitted to and approved by the Town. Again, Mr. Suiter's determination was based on Section Three, Condition No. 1 of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 (hereinafter "Ordinance"), which states: The applicant shall deliver to the Town Planning Department a Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map, in a form suitable for filing of record in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder,that is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the final Town Council ordinance. Said document shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance, or within sixty (60) days of the effective EXHIBIT C FREILICH,MYLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Ms. Victoria Giannola January 28, 2000 Page 2 date of the ordinance,whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the foregoing terms and conditions shall cause the terms and conditions of this ordinance granting approval to be suspended until compliance with the condition has occurred. (Emphasis added). You have provided no basis or explanation in support of your determination that final approval of the Gracie's Cabin PUD occurred on September 2, 1997,which determination is illegal, inequitable, and results in damages to our client. In light of your predecessor's previous determination,the clear language of the Ordinance,and detailed correspondence related to the issue provided by this firm,your determination is grossly arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map for the project were not delivered to the Town by the deadline set forth in Ordinance No. 11 clearly triggered the suspension of approval provision set forth in the Ordinance "until compliance with the condition . . . occurred," which compliance occurred in November of 1999. Colorado courts interpret legislation,including ordinances,according to the legislation's plain language. People v. Owens, 670 P.2d 1233 (Colo. 1983); Harding v. Industrial Commission, 515 P.2d 95(1973). To read a provision into an ordinance which does not appear in its text would result in legislation untested by the political process and unintended by its drafters. Clark v. Town ofEstes Park, 686 P.2d 777, 779 (Colo. 1984). Furthermore, in addition to the actions of your predecessor and the plain language of the Ordinance, the legal doctrines of laches and equitable estoppel preclude you from now setting the final approval of the PUD as of September 2, 1997. Based on the Town's previous interpretation of the Ordinance, and our client's reliance on such interpretation, $7,853.26 in additional employee housing cash-in-lieu consideration was paid to the Town in connection with the PUD approval process. Mr. Suiter found that since the final approval granted by the Ordinance was suspended,our client was not allowed to rely on paying the cash-n-lieu fee based on the formula in place in September of 1997,but rather the formula in place in October 1999. This determination resulted in our client paying to the Town $19,462.43 as cash-in-lieu rather than the $11,609.17 amount that would have been due had Mr. Suiter determined that final approval of the PUD occurred in September 1997 as you have done. A municipality is estopped from taking a position contrary to previous representations reasonably relied upon by a person dealing with the city to his detriment. P-W Investments, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 655 P.2d 1365 (Colo. 1982). This doctrine is invoked against public entities to prevent "manifest injustice." Roderick v. City of Colorado Springs, 193 Colo. 104, 563 P.2d 3 (1977); Coady v. Worrell, 686 P.2d 1375(Colo.App. 1984). Manifest injustice would clearly apply 1 �3 FREILICH.MYLER,LEITNER&CARLISLE Ms. Victoria Giannola January 28, 2000 Page 3 to our client in this case should the Town now decide to arbitrarily change the PUD date of approval once our client has already relied on the Town's original determination(in this case,to its detriment in the amount of$7,853.26). Please inform me as soon as possible of the earliest available time I may have before the Town Council to address these issues in an attempt to exhaust our final Town remedies, as well as the soonest I may provide a copy of the record relating to these issues for the Town Council's review. Very Truly Yours, FREILICH. MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE 4 S e'J. Hary y SJH:om cc: Stephen Connor via Facsimile Chris Chaffin � I � .M SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR GRACIE'S CABIN SUBDIVISION THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of 1999 by and between the TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter "Town"), and GRACIE'S CABIN, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (hereinafter"Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain real property situated within the County of Pitkin. State of Colorado,more particularly described as"Gracie's Cabin Subdivision"(hereinafter "Property" or "Project") according to the Final Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book at Page in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder: and WHEREAS, the Property has been divided into two (2) single family lots ("Lots"); and WHEREAS.Developer desires to develop the Property and has submitted to the Town a final Gracie's Cabin Subdivision Land Use Plan (hereinafter"Plan") showing the planned layout of the Property: and WHEREAS. Developer shall install and construct certain utilities and infrastructure in and upon the Property in order to serve the Property, the cost estimates for which have been generated and are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference(hereinafter"Construction Cost Estimates"): and WHEREAS, Developer has further submitted to the Town a Construction Management Plan in connection with the Property which sets forth the anticipated schedule for improvements installation on the Property, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter "Construction Schedule"); and WHEREAS, final approval for the Gracie's Cabin Subdivision was granted by the Town pursuant to Town Council Ordinance 411. Series of 1997(hereinafter"Final Approval"). subject to certain requirements and conditions, including execution of this Agreement in order to ensure the construction and installation of those utilities and improvements described on Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is acknowledged by the parties hereto, it is agreed as follows: 1. Developer's Guarantee. Developer hereby guarantees the installation, as hereafter provided and as necessary to serve the Property, and payment therefor, of all private Property roads and road improvements, all utility lines, storm drainage improvements and storm sewers, 17.6 6*0 landscaping,and any other improvements required to be constructed by the Developer as identified in Exhibit A and in accordance with the timelines set forth in Exhibit B. 2. Utilities. a. Holy Cross Energy has agreed to engineer and provide for the installation of all electric distribution lines and facilities required for the Property. Developer shall pay for such work in accordance with the established fees of Holy Cross Energy. b. Kiel Energy Company has agreed to engineer and provide for the installation of all required gas lines and facilities required for the Property. Developer shall pay for such work in accordance with the established fees of KN Energy Company. C. US Nest Communications has agreed to engineer and provide for the installation of all required telephone lines and facilities required for the Property. Developer shall pay for such work in accordance with the established fees of US West Communications. d. ATT Cable Services (formerly TCI) has agreed to engineer and provide for the installation of all required cable television lines and facilities required for the Property. Developer shall pay for such work in accordance with the established fees of ATT Cable Services (TCI). C. Snow-mass Water and Sanitation District has agreed to engineer and provide for the installation of all required water and sewer lines and facilities required for the Prope,T. Developer shall pay for such work in accordance with the established fees of such District. 3. Roads and Drainage. Developer agrees to construct, at Developer's cost, all private roads within the Property and install all necessary drainage infrastructure therein. Developer shall submit all necessary road and drainage plans and specifications to the Town for the Town's review and approval prior to commencement of construction. Developer anticipates completing such construction in accordance with the Construction Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. Developer agrees to install any traffic control signs and standard street name signs as required by the Town and to revegetate all cuts and fills resulting from construction in a manner which will prevent erosion. d. Maintenance and Reoair. a. Developer agrees that it shall repair or pay for any damage to any existing public improvements damaged during the construction of new improvements. The Town shall notify Developer within a reasonable time after discovery of any claim hereunder, and Developer shall have a reasonable period of time within which to repair such damage. b. At such time as Developer records the Declaration of Protective Covenants for Gracie's Cabin Subdivision in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, Developer shall simultaneously record that: 1) Easement and Shared Roadway Maintenance Agreement entered into by and between Developer and The Pines-East Villase Homeowner's Association,Inc. regarding the use of Slope Side Lane,which serves as the main access to both developments, and the joint maintenance obligations of said Homeowners Association and the eventual owners of the Lots; and 2) Declaration of Private Shared Driveway Easement and Related Maintenance Obligations regarding the obligations of the Lot owners for the individual Lot driveways. 5. Assurances of Completion. a. Pursuant to Paragraph I of this Agreement. Developer has guaranteed the completion of all necessary infrastructure, utilities, and landscaping related to the Project for which Developer is responsible in accordance with the Exhibits hereto or as shown on the Plat or as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the Final Approval b. No security for the installation of any improvements related to the Project shall be required of Developer: provided. however. that no building permit for any major structure,or any portion thereof,related to the Lots shall be issued by the Town until such time as all improvements related to the 'roiect have been installed,,completed as contemplated herein and/or the Final Approval. 5. Completion of Improvements. Upon completion of construction/installation by the Developer of all improvements related to the Project as contemplated herein, the Town Engineer shall inspect the road and drainage infrastructure to determine the same conforms to the Town's specifications and/or meet the conditions of the Final Approval. The Developer shall make all corrections necessary to bring any improvement into conformity with the Town specifications or Final Approval. Developer shall also provide to the Town certification from each utility provider listed Paragraph'_above that all required utility facilities required for the Property are complete and full payment for such work has been received. Once all road and drainage infrastructure has been approved by the Town Engineer and all utility provider certifications have been submitted to the Town. building permits shall be issued by the Town in accordance with the Town Municipal Code for the buildings related to the Project. Upon the issuance of all building permits related to the Project. any and all oblig ations of Developer set forth herein shall be considered completed. 7. Warranty of Improvements. Developer shall warranty the Project road and drainage infrastructure for the benefit of the owners of the Lots until June 15 of the year following the second winter season following completion. Developer shall warranty all other improvements for a period of one (1) year following completion. S. Right to Development/Vested Property Rights. (a) Developer shall have the right to undertake and complete development of the Property and the facilities described in the Plat to be located thereon, and to use, occupy, sell, encumber or lease the Property and its facilities subject to the terms and conditions of the Plat and this Agreement. Such rights shall vest in the owner of the Property, and its successors and assigns. as benefits and shall run with title to the Property. The Plat and all other aspects of the development plan for the Property submitted by the Developer and finally approved by the Town,constitute a"Site Specific Development Plan" pursuant to C.R.S. § ?4-68-101, et seq. (b) The development rights and uses described in this Agreement and included in the Final Approval are vested for a period of 3 years from the date of the Final Approval which, for the purposes of this provision, ij"2 Sep-,. 1999'.7 During the '-year vesting period. Developer and'or its successors or assigns shall not be subject to any addition, modification or amendment to the Town Land Use Code or to any other regulation not in effect on the date of vesting which imposes restrictions or limitations on the use of land which are inconsistent with the Final Approval. Developer and/or its successors or assigns shall be subject to regulations and laws of general applicability during the 3-year vested rights period. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement.no provision hereof shall be construed to exempt Developer or any future owner or owners of the Propem from the requirements of the Plat. building permits, or other necessary permits or approvals which become applicable subsequent to the approval of this Agreement. Nor shall any provision hereof be construed to preclude the application of the Unifonn Building Code.Fire Code.Plumbing Code.Electrical Code, Mechanical Code,or other.equirements reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health. safety and welfare. 9. Notices. Notice given to the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed given if personally delivered or if deposited in the United States mail to the parties by registered or certified mail. postage prepaid. at the addresses listed below or at such other address as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns and in the event of mailing, shall conclusively be deemed received three(3)business days after the date of registration or certification: Notice To Town: Town of Snowmass Village Town Manager P.O. Box 5010 Snow-mass Village. CO 81615 Fax: (970) 933-6083 With Copy To: Stephen R. Connor � ' 323 W. Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Fax:(303) 265-9076 Notice to Developer: Gracie's Cabin, LLC J. Christopher Chaffin. Manager c/o Chaffin/Light Associates P.O. Box 620 Basalt, CO 81621 With Copy To: Shane J. Harvey Freilich, Myler, Leitner& Carlisle 106 S. Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Fax: (970) 920-4259 10. Amendment. This Agreement, including its Exhibits, may be amended only by written instrument signed by the Town and the Developer. 11. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.. 12. Assignment. In the event Developer does not market the individual Lots or develop the real property referred to herein. Developer may assign its interest in the property to a third party who shall develop the properr or portions thereof. including the construction of the improvements contemplated hereunder. in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Agreement. 13. Execution of Final Plat. Developer's obligations to construct the improvements contemplated hereunder are expressly contingent on the Town approving and executing the Final Plat and the recordation of the same in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin City, Colorado. 14. Cal2tions. Titles or captions of Paragraphs contained in this Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference. and in no way define or limit, extend or describe the scope of this Agreement or to the intent of any provisions hereof. 15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the parties hereto and shall not be modified except by a written agreement signed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed the date and year first written above. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO BY: ATTEST� �i�rO Michael Manchester, Mayor Trudi Worline, Town Clerk APPROVED BY: Lxtb�'� � Stephen R. Connor, Town Attorney GRACIE'S CABIN, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company BY: IIIWA4114�- J. 'stoI r ChatNi b ager too STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The above and foregoing Agreement is acknowledged before me this/Oday of De=.-66kA 1999, by Michael Manchester as Mayor of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado and Trudi dhiltei.�own of Snowmass Village, Colorado Clerk. i�ydy.SEAL 7n r Witness tr}h and official seal. 's,; _/ otary Public `'•,,,ry �J",co'mt("si expires: 0 2�12o0Z STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The above and foregoing Agreement is acknowledged before me thisZdav of 2� e. _ 1999. by J. Ch�iet� �ig C^!ry fin, as Manager of Gracie's Cabin, LLC, a Colorado limited liability G company. �C.�• O, �. SEAL Q• N O T A R Witness m�'- ,q[d aVn c1a '�.,��.• „_„ �otary ublic My commission c�!ep .•n ` M� � G(rIl"�C iLjG'ti' 13�" PRELIMINARY COST OPINION FOORrPRIVATE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS GRACIE'S CABIN SUBDIVISION Mill P�IIII WATERLINE 550 If s 33.001S 13,150.00 6' waterline 80 If I S 20.00 S 1,600.00 3/4" water water service 1 I ea S 625.0b I S 625.00 8" a[e valve 1 ea I s 2,750.00 s 2.750.00 Standard fire hvdrant assambly I 4 ea IS 300.00 S 1.200.00 8' - a8d bend 2 I ea S 300.00 I S 600.00 S' - 22 1/2d bend 1 ea $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Connection to existtna water l 1 I <a S 225A0 I S 225.00 8' chid I 1 SANITARY SEWER 700 If s 30.00 I s 21,000.00 8' seritary sewer I S0 If S 25.00 I S 2.000.00 4' sar.Itary sewer tateral 5 I ea 13 2.000.00 I S 10.000.00 a' sanitary sewer manacle 2 ,a S 1CO.00 1 S 200.00 a" chic 1 I ea 15 1.200.00 S 1.51,0.00 Connection to exlstina sewer STCRM SEWER 1 1 if Is 35.00 b 2.450.00 2a" !II RC? 2 ( f I S 350.60 I S 700.00 1 10 I CJ I S 25., I S 252`-0.00 rm *sD (9'1 RCAD I I 0 7 I ac I ; m00.CC I S 6?00.00 I Clear and drue I 8^3 I cv I S 3.50 Is 2.915.50 ! S rc tacsoil 3 e0 S 6.424.50 E,-cavaticr 1 2407 I cv I $ .0 1 S "960.00 I 1592 cv S - Embankment 1 1616 I sv S Lc0 S 2.274.00 Succrade creo X0.00 S 15.36x.00 45' asDnait I 307 I tons I S r 7" Cass 6 base course 483 I tens I S 16. 0 I S 7.722.00 I 1516 sv o ' 'n S 1..819. 20 I Mlr�n 6COX ceote ale 244 1 sv $ 2.50 1 S 610.001 S�-1 Gecdrid 171 I tons S 16.00 S 2 X36.00 ?i2" Rcckstabilizaticn I 500 I If I S 2.00 15 1.600.00 Eerrdw di ch I 152 I tons I S 22.00 I S 3.34a,00 Na ravel shoulder 3030 �f $ 35.00 S 106.050. 0 1 inina walls 240 If S 22.00 S 5.280.00 rd rail 600 I tf Is 2.50 S L500.00 Silt Is S KOM S `00.00 erosion control ILITIES3,1tltl.ctl Trench If 15 0.50 S 310.0 1 tallaticn If S 3.0 I s 2.170.00 beedina F yCe , G:E[9=a Cccs�ES938_Fre4m G09Lx1S 8/23199 A EXHIBIT A i3�' hu¢-23-99 II 14am From-Desi¢n Workshop. Inc. +9709201387 T-828 P.04/04 F-837 PRELIMINARY COST OPINION FOR N RIVATE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS GRACIE'S CABIN SUBDIVISION hill , III , 1 ea 350.00 S 350.00 Vault installation• 620 If $ 12,00 $ 7,440.00 Gas Main 620 If $ 11.00 S 8.820.00 Tele none 620 ff S 9.00 $ 5.580.00 Cable TV LANDSCAPING 278 $ 4,00 $ 1.112.00 Soread t soil 15000 sf $ 0.50 $ 7,500.00 Reveastation MISCELLANEOUS 6 Mobllltation 109, S 25.924.32 Conbcien cv i $ 309,629.68 TOTAL P89,2 G:�E49361Cocs1Ea9'•6�re8m CcsLda 33-00 Construction Management Plan We have developed the following projected timetable for the development of the Gracie's Cabin parcel: A. Complete roadway and install utilities—June 15 — September 15, 2000 B. Pave private roadway—September, 2000 C. Install infrastructure and construction of individual homesites—May—December, 2001. Revegetate all disturbed areas. The road and utilities will be completed as part of the paving schedule. Specific management issues include: 1. Strip topsoil and store on site away from streams. 2. Control dust with wate mg trucks. 3. Revegetate as soon as feasible with construction sequence. 4. Use erosion control fabric on all slopes over 2:1. 5. Use haybales as temporary measures during construction to control sedimentation and runoff. 6. Use perimeter fence around graded areas to protect surrounding landscape and to prevent sedimentation from grading activities. 7. Construction activity will be limited to correspond with wildlife restrictions. A EXHIBIT B we 134 SNOWMASS VI L,AGE COBuild n Development Department R �ltir li t i •Natural Resource Management •Planning 3 March 2000 Attention: Town Council: RE: Gracie's Cabin PUD date of final approval The following items address the issues of contention contained within the letter of Frelich, Myler, Leitner & Carlisle dated 28 February 2000. 1. A. As noted in the letter of contention, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 approved the Final Planned Unit Development Plan for the Gracie's Cabin Parcel on 18 August 1997. A condition of final PUD approval, in accordance with Section Three, item 3, states that "the final land use plan and final plat for the Gracie's Cabin PUD shall not become effective until the applicant is in compliance with pertinent conditions contained herein, and until such time as all fees payable to the Town have been paid." By the agent's (representing the applicant) own admission in a letter addressed to my attention dated 3 January 2000 "...these documents where not submitted to the Town within such time period and no further action was undertaken by our client related to the PUD ..." As such, it is the position of the Planning Director that technically, the final PUD approval for Gracie's Cabin was no longer valid due to the inactivity on the part of the applicant. Typically, plans are considered to have "died" at this point. However, the Town of Snowmass Village elected to continue to work with the applicant towards completion of the outstanding conditions of approval. 1.B. As quoted in the letter of contention, the applicant had sixty (60) days from the effective date of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997 to deliver to the Planning office a Final Land Use Plan Map and Final Plat Map for recordation, that would be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Ordinance, which the applicant failed to do. This Section Three, item 1, goes on to state that "failure to comply with the foregoing terms and conditions shall cause the terms and conditions of this ordinance granting approval, to be suspended until compliance with this condition has occurred." The Ordinance did not state that the terms and conditions, which include the date of final PUD approval, would be extended, but rather suspended — on hold. Nowhere in Ordinance No. 11 is there the provision for extension of the final approval date. Requests for time extensions must be made before the Town Council through a formal request. The file shows no such record of a request P.O.BOX 5010 • SNOWMASS VILLAGE.COLORADO 81615 (970)923-5524 • fax (970) 923-1861 • plangtosv.com w .tosv.com ' � 36 0*0 -2— March 3,2000 for a time extension of the date of final approval of the PUD. 1.C. Again, the agent states that "...Gracie's did not submit the Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map to the Town within the 60 day time period, thus triggering a suspension..." 1.D. The applicant did not resume to address the conditions of final PUD approval until nearly two years after the official deadline. At that time, the applicant attempted to make payment on the employee housing fee-in-lieu to the Town based upon the formula in place in August of 1997. However, the formula used to calculate the fee-in-lieu had changes since 1997, and the Town recalculated the fee based upon the new formula, resulting in a higher rate. 1.E. By the agent's own admission in the letter of contention, vesting occurs at "the time of final approval." Final approval of the plan occurred by Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, by Town Council action and signature on 18 August 1997, effective 2 September 1997. 11. The applicant appears to have recognized that the legal intent of cash- in-lieu for employee housing must be based upon the current year's dollar values that it would cost to construct such housing; and that during the two years that had past, the cost per square foot of construction had increased. I.G. As stated in the letter of contention, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, became effective on 2 September 1997. It is the position of the Planning Director that this date is the latest date of approval associated with this Ordinance of final PUD approval. 1.H. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement signed, not only by the Town of Snowmass Village, but by Christopher Chaffin, Manager for Gracie's Cabin, L.L.C. shows the date of 2 Sept. 1997 item 8(b). There are no records or letters in the file which indicate any other such date as having been agreed upon and signed, no has the agent produced evidence of such. I.I. Since this matter was brought to my attention through requests for reconsideration of the date of final PUD approval, I have notified Mr. Harvey that I was not in a position to amend or extend a date put in effect through Ordinance by Town Council. 1.J. The applicant has chosen not to proceed with the recordation of the final documents to complete the outstanding conditions of approval to date. 2.A. Again, there is no record of any modification of the date of final PUD approval. 134, WOW -3— March 3,2000 2.B. Since the applicant failed to meet the sixty (60) day requirement to complete the conditions of approval, the approval for this plan is technically void. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant chose to let a further two years lapse before attempting to make payment on the cash-in-lieu fee would necessitate that the Town insure that sufficient funds be collected to cover the cost of construction relative to the proportion of impact that this development would impose upon the community. The generosity that the Town demonstrated in suspending the finalization of conditions on this plan for over two years is commendable; however, it does not entitle the applicant to an extension of the date of final PUD approval outright. 2.C. Again, it is the position of this Planning Director that the date of final PUD approval remains unchanged from the effective date of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, which is 2 September 1997. 2.D. Although reference is made to an August 1999 determination, there is not such record of amendment or extension to the date contained in Ordinance No. 11. Furthermore, the strict interpretation of Ordinance No. 11 suggested a date of final approval of 18 August 1997, effective 2 September 1997. 2.E. The section quoted from C.R.S. 24-68-10 does not state, as the agent contends, that final approval occurs whenever all conditions of the Ordinance of approval are finally met by the applicant (be that one year, two years, or ten years), and hence vesting. It states, as quoted, that an applicant forfeits (looses) their vested property rights when they fail to abide by the conditions of approval. This section of C.R.S. is meant to protect the government in the event that an applicant fails to meet all conditions of approval such that the approval is no longer valid (the approval is void). As such, the applicant may choose to resubmit the application under the current Land Use Code (changed or unchanged) unless a time extension to complete the outstanding conditions of approval is requested, prior to the expiration date, and such time extension is granted. This section is not meant, as the agent contends, to extend indefinitely the time an applicant may take to complete its conditions of approval at its leisure. If this were the case, Land Use Code amendments could occur over those years of leisure during which time other applicants would be subject to the amendments, but not the leisurely applicant. The purpose of vesting is to ensure that the applicant can have the assurance that they will not be subject to subsequent code amendments once approval is granted on a final plat before the governing body, provided that the applicant completes any outstanding - 131`" -4— March 3,2000 conditions of approval within an agreed upon and reasonable time frame — sixty (60) days in the case of Gracie's Cabin. 2.F. It is the position of the Planning Director that there is also an Option #3, Gracie's Cabin final PUD is void, and the applicant has lost all vesting rights. The cash-in-lieu for employee housing collected for this PUD can be returned to the applicant and the applicant can resubmit a new plan under the current Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code. 3. The decision of the Planning Director to abide by a date put into effect by official Ordinance is neither arbitrary nor capricious; it is contained within the official Town of Snowmass Village records. Furthermore, the direct mention that my decision is unreasonable and irrational is not only unnecessarily insulting, it is unprofessional on the part of Mr. Harvey. Sincerely, Victoria Giannola Planning Director 13g' SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 02-14-2000 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Mark Brady, Douglas Mercatoris; Jack Hatfield arrived at 4:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Costello was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Chris Conrad, Senior Planner; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Leslie Klusmire, Assistant to the Town Manager; Rebecca Harlowe, Secretary/Records Manager PUBLIC PRESENT: Carolyn Sackariason, Doug Dotson, David Burden, Mark Norris, Martin Mata, John Dresser, Don Schuster, Bill Kane, Bob Purvis, David Myler and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. The Work Session began at 2:10 p.m. TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS (FARAWAY RANCH SOUTH) PRELIMINARY PUD DISCUSSION Chris Conrad summarized the content of draft Resolution No. 06, Series of 2000. He also provided information concerning the applicant's Employee Housing Proposal. Timbers' representatives submitted revised building configurations based on new width parameters. Council, Staff and Timbers representatives discussed details and modifications concerning building height, retaining walls and building configurations, details of the language included in the applicant's Employee Housing Plan and ownership issues related to the Timbers priority-use units as shown in Exhibit "F" of the Resolution. The applicant proposed an offer to guarantee Employee Housing with a bond or Letter of Credit. The Town Attorney advised them to submit a Letter of Credit as soon as possible and to attribute ownership of Timbers units to the Association rather than to the Limited Liability Company (LLC). Mayor Manchester suggested that a revised site plan be resubmitted before the end of the Preliminary Review process. Council discussed language within the Resolution relating to Phase II, the possibility of a 1-year lease, square footage adjustments, changes to the number and allotment of the proposed parking spaces, the number and size of bus stops and shelters, as well as the Ridge ski egress trail. They also discussed Town ownership of the pick-up and drop-off location and the replacement or mitigation of wetlands within Town limits, directing staff to assure that wetlands mitigation is completed by the two-year deadline. ole 14n i 02-14-00ws Page 2 The applicant agreed to advertise availability of extra parking spaces in the local newspaper. Council reiterated that the new ski-lift access trail must be as easy or easier to negotiate than the original trail. A Council member stressed the importance of a pedestrian connection between the Timbers project and the neighborhoods above it. Members of the public stated concerns regarding certain aspects of Resolution No. 06, including rent collection, the ski access trail, parking and geotechnical aspects of the project. The draft Resolution will be revised and further discussed at the February 21st Town Council Work Session. LAND USE CODE DISCUSSIONS Council reviewed the discussion of February 7th concerning Employee Housing and requested minor changes. They requested that staff provide additional data concerning full-time equivalents (FTE) and agreed on 1.3 as the average number of jobs per person. Council discussed specific mitigation requirements for redevelopment projects versus new development projects and expressed concerns that, mitigation requirements, as they exist today, are functioning as a disincentive to renovation. KRABLOONIK REQUEST FOR USE OF TOWN PARKING LOT FOR PLANNING PURPOSES David Myler explained the history of Krabloonik's use of the Snowmass Village Parking Lot in question. He commented that the lot seems to work well as a shared facility since day skiers use the parking lot during daytime hours and Krabloonik's use is primarily during evening hours. After further discussion, Council agreed to allow Krabloonik to continue using the parking lot on a temporary basis but recommended that they develop a contingency plan for parking if the need should arise for the Town to utilize the lot area for other purposes. RURAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RTA) UPDATE Mayor Manchester reported that he and Council Member Mercatoris attended the first Policy Committee Meeting of the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) held on February 10, 2000. He will inform Council of discussions and decisions concerning the RTA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and the nine main topics contained therein. Five additional meetings are scheduled with the goal of providing answers to the questions listed in the RTA handout, which he submitted during today's Work Session. Also scheduled is a series of interviews between individual Policy Committee members and Walter Kieser, the consultant hired to conduct the process. Mr. Kieser will discuss the RTA process with Council during a Work Session scheduled for February 23, 2000. The next Policy Committee meeting will be held February 24, 2000. The Town Manager commented that Staff member Leslie Klusmire is the primary point person, attending the various transportation meetings and is providing summaries of the meetings. Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA) representative Hunt Walker, will also be involved in transportation issues. Council directed the Town 02-14-00ws Page 3 Attorney to research the initiative process necessary to allow placement of the RTA question on the ballot, if it proves to be necessary in the future. The Work Session ended at 5:54 p.m. Submitted by: Rebecca Harlowe Secretary/Records Manager l4Z. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 02-23-2000 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; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Dave Peckler, Transportation Manager; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Rebecca Harlowe, Secretary/Records Manager PUBLIC PRESENT: Carolyn Sackariason, Snowmass Sun; Walter Kieser, Jim Heywood, Ted Grenda, Bill Burwell, Dan Blankenship, and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. The Work Session began at 3:08 p.m. INTERVIEW RURAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RTA) CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANTS The Mayor explained that the RTA Citizen Advisory Board would have no specific political agenda. The Council agreed that RTA's purpose is to provide viable valley- wide transportation. The Citizen's Advisory Board will be following a parallel course in their efforts to solicit more input from a wider range of members of the Community. Joanie Klar, Ted Grenda and Jim Heywood have volunteered to serve on the Board. The Town Manager explained that the Board is to be made up of two representatives from each entity. Grenda explained that he was interested in exploring the possibilities of Valley-Wide bus transportation but clarified that he did not plan to abandon his position against a rail alternative. Mr. Heywood stated that he had been asked to participate and expressed his interest in the complexity of challenges that the Board would face. Manchester reiterated that the RTA was not about technology, i.e., rail versus bus transit. Its goal is to set up regional transportation that functions throughout the valley and is equitable in terms of funding and service provided. It will also concern itself with the management of operational aspects of what will be the second largest transportation system in Colorado. RTA DISCUSSION , 14.3 Ow 02-23-00ws Page 2 Gary Suiter distributed copies of the RTA Decision-Making Framework handout. Walter Kieser stated that this was the first of seven meetings he would conduct with the Councils and Boards of the various jurisdictions throughout the Valley. He explained the Policy Committee format and clarified the nine main concerns to be addressed. In response to an inquiry from Council, Kieser outlined optional funding sources. He further outlined other key issues including jurisdictional boundaries, composition of the Board and how the Board will make decisions. The notion of objectives, specifically objectives for Snowmass Village, was considered. Mr. Kieser summarized the timeline for preparation of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The Mayor clarified that the boundaries for the RTA district and the boundaries of the service area are not necessarily the same. Several boundary options were discussed as outlined in the "RTA Decision Making Framework" document. Council discussed the need to investigate the initiative process protocol in order to allow placement of the RTA question on the ballot if it should become necessary. Council agreed that the RTA should be the umbrella transportation planning organization for the region, while individual jurisdictions should be responsible for their own decision-making and funding concerning local transportation needs. Council discussed the functions and composition of the RTA as well as RTA's relationship with existing and future local transit services. Flexibility and diversity in application and one vote per jurisdiction were favored by members of the Council. Other topics of discussion included how the Board will make decisions, by straight majority or super majority, the possibility of incorporating a visitor's fee and possible funding questions on upcoming ballot(s). The Work Session ended at 4:50 p.m. Submitted by: Rebecca Harlowe Secretary/Records Manager I I ' SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 02-21-2000 Mayor T. Michael Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, February 21, 2000 at 6:16 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Doug Mercatoris, Jack Hatfield, Mark Brady, Kevin Costello COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All Council Members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Chris Conrad, Senior Planner, Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Bob Purvis, Jim Hooker, Bill Boineau, Carolyn Sackariason, David Bellack, Don Schuster, Michael Craig, John Dresser, Sarah Chung and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Jim Baker, Chairman of the Arts Advisory Board (AAB), explained that the AAB will hold an Annual Public Meeting on Wednesday, March 15, 2000, 4:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. at Schermer Meeting Hall, Anderson Ranch, in an effort to assist Council with future planning decisions. Purpose of the meeting is to begin a dialogue among non-profit, community, resort and government leaders to develop an understanding and identify a direction for strengthening the economic viability and cultural health of the community. Representatives from each group of non-profits within the Village will be invited to answer specific questions regarding future planning for their organizations and provide an update of future plans. The Mayor and Town Manager will be invited to speak as representatives of the Town. For those who cannot attend, a summary of the meeting will be provided. Baker further explained that the AAB is attempting to serve an even stronger purpose for the Town and community and urged Council Members to attend. ��r 02-21-00tc Page 2 Horse Ranch Letter— Rodeo Meetings The Town Clerk submitted a letter recently received by Council from Pat Smith, President of the Horse Ranch Homeowners Association. She explained that the letter is in response to a previous request from Council that the owners of the Rodeo Company and its neighbors work towards an agreement concerning the operating parameters of future rodeo events. The letter outlined the outcome of discussions between the Rodeo Company and the Homeowner's Associations of the Crossings and Horse Ranch concerning complaints of disturbance. Smith requested that the letter be submitted and entered into the record of today's Council Meeting. Wireless Service Bill Boineau, a member of the Aspen Community Technology Forum, informed Council that a wireless Internet broadband service provider would be locating an antenna in Snowmass Village. The Forum is a group that has come together to determine the most appropriate means of infrastructure for the Valley. The antenna, approximately seven feet in height, will provide line-of-sight opportunities and will be located on top of the Snowmass Center Building. Boineau explained that additional antennas might be necessary as the demand from the Village increases. He informed Council that with no Communications Master Plan in affect, there are no restrictions on locating antennas within the Village. 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) Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. He explained that this Public Hearing was continued from the February 7, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. There being no public comment, Mayor Manchester stated that this Public Hearing would be continued to the March 6, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. 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 02-21-00tc Page 3 TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE AND CONSTRUCTION OF MITIGATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING The Town Manager explained that staff has conducted a thorough review of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995, which approved the Burnt Mountain Expansion of the Snowmass Ski Area. He further explained that since approval of the 1995 Ordinance, the method for calculating the transportation mitigation fee has been modified by agreement between the Town and the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC). Also, the timing for 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. Mercatoris made a motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance No. 01, Series of 2000, seconded by Brady. The Town Attorney explained that a correction will be made to the formula and a typographical error will be corrected before Second Reading of this Ordinance. Mercatoris requested that the mitigation fee per skier be corrected to read $.91. After further discussion, Mercatoris made a motion to amend the Ordinance, adding language to provide an extension of time for the construction of the employee housing mitigation to June of 2002, in order that ASC can meet the requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995. Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion to amend was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve the Ordinance as amended, was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 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 02-07-2000) Mayor Manchester stated that First Reading of this Ordinance was tabled from the February 7, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. Costello made a motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2000, seconded by Mercatoris. Mayor Manchester explained that additional information from the County Assessor, determined to be necessary information for completion of the taxing formula, will be included in the Ordinance for Second Reading. After further discussion, First Reading of the Ordinance was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 02-21-00tc Page 4 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 Brady made a motion to approve Resolution No. 02, Series of 2000, seconded by Manchester. There being no further discussion, the motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 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 Mercatoris made a motion to approve Resolution No. 11, Series of 2000, seconded by Brady. Manchester requested that an Ordinance be drafted in the near future to allow the Town stand-alone enforcement capabilities on this issue. After further discussion, the Resolution was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 8: RESOLUTION NO. 14, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING PATRICK KEELTY TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS Mercatoris made a motion to approve Resolution No. 14, Series of 2000, appointing Patrick Keelty to the Snowmass Village Board of Appeals and Examiners. Brady seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 9: MANAGER'S REPORT RTA Citizens Advisory Committee The Town Manager requested a motion from Council to appoint Ted Grenda, Jim Heywood, and Joanie Clar to serve on the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Citizens Advisory Committee. In response to a request from Hatfield, Council agreed that the three applicants come before Council for a brief interview before formal appointment. Staff will arrange the interviews to be held at a Council Work Session scheduled for Wednesday, February 23, 2000. Brush Creek Homeowners Association Meeting Council determined that they would attend the Brush Creek Homeowners Association Meeting to address their concerns and discuss the Town's proposed sign to be constructed at the intersection of Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road. I�/ 02-21-00tc Page 5 John McCarty will attend the meeting to provide information regarding the proposed sign. Landscape Architect The Town Manager stated that an offer has been made to Bernadette Barthoelenghi to fill the position of Landscape Architect for the Town. Council requested that staff provide Barthoelenghi's name and background highlights to them via e-mail. 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 Mercatoris made a motion to approve the Work Session Summaries and Minutes as listed above. Costello seconded the motion. Mercatoris requested that only those Minutes, which have been sent to Council for review via e-mail, are to be included in the Council Meeting Packet for approval. Hatfield requested that the names of Council Members voting in favor and against an issue be included in future Minutes. He also requested that the comments of Council Members voting against an issue be included in the Minutes or Summaries. There being no further additions or corrections, the Minutes and Work Session Summaries were approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 11: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS The Draw Parcel The Town Manager reported that he met with Steve Lamar and Richard Shaw to discuss preliminary planning concepts for Faraway North. Council directed the Town Attorney to address any existing restrictions that may affect the Town's future plans for the property. The Town Attorney will investigate and provide the costs to Council in the near future. Repeat Application Hatfield stated his concern regarding an application from a Fox Run Homeowner for a Minor PUD amendment to increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR) square footage. This same application was submitted and acted on by Council within the last year. The Town Manager explained that the Municipal Code does not address this issue and there are no restrictions disallowing an applicant to submit an application more than once. Council requested that potential restrictions be addressed during upcoming Land Use Code amendment discussions. ASC Environmental Advisory Committee In response to an inquiry from Hatfield, the Community Development Director explained that the ASC has requested that the Town's Wildlife Official, Dawn Keating, be a participant on their Environmental Advisory Committee. The letter 02-21-00tc Page 6 of request to Keating included a list of others who have been asked to serve on this Committee. Hatfield requested a copy of the letter. He will contact ASC regarding his interest in participating on the Committee. Divide Road Guardrail In response to an inquiry from Hatfield, the Public Works Director explained that the Town installed approximately 600 feet of guardrail along what was determined to be a dangerous section of Divide Road. A 400-foot gap currently exists between this guardrail and the guardrail that previously existed. He reported that an investigation of the area with the Chief of Police revealed that the open area is not a safety issue and that it is not necessary to connect the two sections of guardrail. Council Retreat In response to a comment from Hatfield regarding plans for a Council Retreat in the near future, Council determined that this topic will be discussed at a Council Meeting during the month of March. Impaired Vision Manchester stated that he received a letter from Paul Eckel regarding an issue of concern to the homeowners in the Village Run Circle and Woodrun of impaired vision for drivers on certain corners in this area. The Public Works Director will investigate and make recommendations. Council requested that staff respond to Mr. Eckel in writing. Town Meetings Manchester reported that citizens have requested some of the upcoming Town Meetings be scheduled during the daytime hours, enabling night workers to attend. Council discussed the issue and agreed to schedule the next Town Meetings on Tuesday, April 4 during lunchtime and Wednesday, April 5 at 6:00 p.m. Council requested additional advertising for the upcoming Town Meeting, including larger advertisements, a poster or sandwich board near the Post Office, and include a list key topics to be discussed at the Meetings. Item No. 12: CALENDARS This item was not discussed. Item No. 13: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Hatfield made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mercatoris. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. '160#00 Staff changes March 1 5. 2000 Status Report 13Y-12 P.M.!!!!! Bullets in Italics have been previously listed State of the Town March 6, 2000 Town Council / Town Manager y/StalTManager Status Mall Transit Plaza ■ Working with Walter Kieser to develop scope-of- Gary Suiter, Town Manager work. (Taking longer than expected.) ■ Partners meeting held on 2/24/2000. Designs are being refined. Entryway Planning Project ■ Memo coming from SGM's office next week. Gary Suiter, Town Manager Offices at Snowmass ■ Discussions have broke down. Woodbridge is Gary Suiter demanding zoning enforcement by the Town. Victoria is reviewing the case. Town Manager's Office Activities ■ Holy Cross Franchise extended to 413012000. Gary Suiter ■ Need to reschedule Council retreat. ■ Planning a staff retreat to formulate objectives and tasks for this year. Town Attorney Activity/StaffManager Status Town Attorney General Activities ■ Stipulation approved by all parties. A stipulated Steve Connor, Town Attorney dismissal is expected to be entered by the court. Public Works Activity/Staff' Manager Status Brush Creek Trans Corridor ■ Open space and trails working on property Hunt Walker ownership in lower valley. ■ Request for planning on 31912000 EOTC agenda. Wood Run Dumpster ■ Research 18 years continuous use. Hunt Walker ■ Doing conceptual site plan. Housing Activity/Staff Manager Status Housing Department Activities ■ Creekside#G-12'2-bedroom$115,110 and Joe Coffey Mountain View#914 2-bedroom$125,730 are currently for sale. ■ Robert Sinko and family won the Crossings#18 home lottery. There were three applicants in the 15 year category. Phil McKeague was drawn 2nd and George Gordon P. ■ Joe and Wayne Stryker are reviewing the Timbers Employee Housing plans. ■ Staff continues to check apartment smoke alarms and complete apartment condition records. ■ Received a final renovation bid from Rudd Construction. Several items were deleted and the renovation plan must be re-evaluated. Parcel N. Employee Housing ■ Scott Smith, Dean Gordon and Joe met to discuss Joe Coffey the construction schedule for Parcel "N". ■ Dean Gordon will prepare an engineering proposal for Parcel "N". ■ Scott and Joe continue to review floor plans and building designs. ■ A Council meeting will be scheduled in March to discuss Parcel "N". Finance Activity/Staff Manager Status Finance and Personnel Activities ■ Closing December financial statement. Marianne Rakowski ■ Preparing annual solid waste homeowner's billings. ■ Finalizing year-end audit work ■ Preparing for change over from Novell server to Windows NT. ■ Preparing for January close. ■ Auditors are here from 2/28/2000 to 3/10/2000. Web Page Enhancement ■ Consultant is preparing new storyboard. Nick Tucker I��'2 Town Clerk Activity/Staff Maijager Status Town Clerk's Office Activities ■ Finalizing and'securing 99 Work Session Trudi Worline Summaries, Minutes, Resolutions and Ordinances ■ Making arrangements for citizen hotline installation,management,and public awareness. ■ Investigating CD's to store archival information. ■ Cross checking all 1999 documents with computer files and council packets. ■ Advertising to fill secretary position. Police Activity/Staff Manager Status Police Department Activities ■ Oral boards for Police Officer applicants to begin Art Smythe,Police Chief this week. Community Development Department Community Development Director ■ Attended BOCC mating tegairding entrywaygignr Activities Code amendment will come before Pitkin County Craig Thompson Planning and Zoning Commission on 4/4. Environmental and Wildlife Activities Activity/Stall' Manager Status Brush Creek Field Guide ■ Staff preparing contract and final budget with input Dawn Keating from Janis Huggins. CSU Wildlife Study ■ CSU graduate student scheduled for 3/13 council Dawn Keating meeting. Will present findings of study. SLC and ASC WEMPS ■ April 17, 2000 meeting scheduled for Council to Dawn Keating review annual WEMPS. Staff willprovide comments. Snowmass Nature Center ■ Staff will provide comments to Dr. Baharav's Dawn Keating wildlife plan on 3/6. 53 3 White River Forest Plan ■ Staff is preparing draft letter to USES for March Dawn Keating review by Council. Community Enhancement Projects Creekside Drainage ■ Project completed, Dean Stahman Owl Creek Trail ■ Appraisal completed. Dean Stahman ■ Dave Will(PitCo Open Space)preparing letter with offer for Peter Gruber. Plans & Policy Development Activity/St ail' NI an ager Status Affordable Housing Mitigation ■ Staff pursuing accurate employee figures for land Leslie Klusmire/Joe Coffey uses in mitigation formula. Census 2000 ■ Complete survey. Attended a meeting on tourism Victoria Giannola and economic development with Pitkin County on February 25. Conference Center ■ Met with SVRA on November 11 for pre-application Victoria Giannola on Conference Center Expansion. Comprehensive Plan ■ Edit transportation and housing maps. Editor Victoria Giannola updated text and is printing 50 copies for binding. Floor Area Excise Tax ■ Prepare calculations using assessors data to assist Victoria Giannola Town Council in a determination of the discount rate for 2"d reading on March 6. GOCO Grant ■ GOCO grant application due 3/3 for stream Dean Stahman restoration trail/park at four seasons condos. Greenway Master Plan ■ Received approval from GOCO to extend Craig Thompson completion date to 612000. ■ Revising proposal for completion ofproject from support consultant. Land Use Code-Chapter 16 ■ Oversee staff and planning commission comments Amendments on Article V and Article IV. Victoria Giannola ��4 Z Article 1 ■ 0 Article 2 ■ 0 Rezoning Clarification ■ 0 Tourist Oriented Business ■ 0 Misc. Comp Plan Integration ■ 0 Properties w/o zones ■ 0 Permitted Use Chart ■ 0 Home Occupations ■ 0 Floor Area& Height Area ■ 0 Article 4 ■ 0 Compatibility Criteria ■ 0 Minor Modification Criteria ■ 0 Public Notice/Application ■ Review Process 0 Zoning Enforcement Provisions ■ 0 Developer/staff Information ■ Timing 0 Build-out criteria ■ 0 Zone District Map ■ 0 FAR Variance Criteria ■ 0 Employee Housing Impact ■ Mitigation 0 Sign Code Amendments ■ 0 Design Review ■ Watershed Management Plan ■ Scoping for Phase 11 of project has been completed. John McCarty ■ Final sampling event will occur in March. Major Development Review Update Project / Manager Update Krabloonik ■ Council reviewed a written appeal on February 14. Victoria Giannola The Timbers at Snowmass ■ Town Council reviewing draft resolution expected Chris Conrad to be completed March 6. Received geotechnical information regarding shoring wall February 26. First reading of ordinance to consider authorizing a permit to commence limited work prior to final PUD scheduled for March 6. Seven* Ranch ■ Extension granted to March 20`s. Gary Suiter/Steve Connor Minor Development Review Update Fox Run ■ Staff report regarding request for additional floor Victoria Giannola area prepared and scheduled for March 1 Planning Commission meeting. Nature Center ■ I'reading of ordinance accepting the wildlife Chris Conrad report and adopting mitigation and enhancement plan to occur March 6. Administration Modification, TUP, Variance Update Administrative Modifications ■ Lot 49,Wood Run 1. Administrative TUP ■ Marcus Morton Productions/Ski Splash meet with ` applicant to explain submission procedures: ■ Mountain Dragon Chinese New Year ATUP. Complete final letter of conditional approval. Variances ■ Beckerman Remodel -Review site plans and issue an interpretation. ■ Lot 61,Horse Ranch—PC approval 10120. Revised plat amendment submitted. PC granted 60- day extension. ■ Lot 64, Horse Ranch—Notice published for public hearing on a building envelope adjustment. ■ Lot 24, Ridge Run 4 - 2/16 Planning Commission hearing. ■ Lot44, Two Creeks -PC Hearing on 3/15. ■ Harris variance -review modification to application and issue revised report. �6&' � 6 Enforcement Update Project / Mana�,wer Update ASC Control Building Compliance ■ SPA amend. Application is incomplete. Dave Ellis Gracie's Cabin PUD & Plat ■ Staff report prepared on vesting date for Town Dave Ellis Council March 6. Pending Update ASC Ski School Building ■ SPA Amendment. Dave Ellis ■ Application received& determined incomplete 8/19. ■ Waiting for title certificate and owner consent. ■ Follow-up request 1119. AT & T Cell Site @ Timberline ■ Pre-application conference held. Maintenance Building ■ Amended lease required, Town-owned land. Chris Conrad ■ SPA modification. ■ AT&T will submit application when survey is completed. Design Workshop ■ Attended meeting with Gary Suiter on 2/9/2000. Victoria Giannola Snowmass Real Estate Expansion ■ No application received at this time. Chris Conrad ■ Applicant considering whether to submit sketch plan application. Snowmass Water& Sanitation ■ Possible re-zoning of all Water&Sanitation Chris Conrad parcels to PUB—public along w/possible employee housing project ■ Preliminary discussions occurring—No application received at this time. Timberline Meeting Room & Pool ■ Below grade facility adjacent to pool. Facilities Building ■ Staff researching past approvals and establishing Chris Conrad correct process for review—no application received at this time. Wildcat Ranch ■ Preliminary discussions occurring involving Chris Conrad employee housing and maintenance facilities within ranch manager's parcel ■ No application received at this time. Project Update Coordination-Gary Sutter 923-3777 ext. 206 Public Works-Hunt Walker 923-5110 Housing-Joe Coffey 923-2360 Community Development-Craig ThompsonNictoria Giannola/Chris Conrad/Dawn Keating/Dave Ellis/Kaye Gaunt 923-5524 Town Clerk -Trudi Worline 923-3777 Finance-Marianne Rakowski 923-3796 Police Chief-Art Smythe 923.5330 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday March 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2:OOPM-TC WS 4:OOPM-TC Reg. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2:OOPM-TC ANNUAL EOTC WS CULTURAL MEETING ARTS PUBLIC ASPEN FORUM COUNCIL ANDERSON CHAMBERS RANCH 4PM SCHERMER ROOM 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2:OOPM-TC CAST Mtg. CAST Mtg. WS Denver Denver 4:OOPM-TC Reg. 26 27 28 29 30 31 Mall Partners Mtg. Location TBA Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 April 2000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2:OOPM — TOWN TOWN TC WS MEETING MEETING 12:00 5:30 P.M. — 4:OOPM — NOON — LOCATION TC Reg. LOCATION TBA TBA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2:OOPM — TC WS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2:OOPM — TC WS 4:OOPM — TC Reg. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30