Loading...
11-20-00 Town Council Packet PA<416 r SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 11-20-2000 CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA-ITEMS (5 Minute Limit) OLD BUSINESS Item No. 3: SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 19, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINACE AMENDINGS CHAPTER 16A OF THE MUNICIPAL RELATING TO ACCESSORY CARETAKER UNITS -- Chris Conrad . . . . . . . . . .Page 1 Item No. 4: SECOND READING —ORDINANCE NO. 26 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET FOR ALL FUNDS FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE -- Marianne Rakowski. . . . . Page 7 Item No. 5: RESOLUTION NO.28, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT 2, RIDGE RUN UNIT I, PERMITTING THE CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF THE EXISTING DUPLEX -- Dave Ellis/Chris Conrad. . . .Page 9 Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 29, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT 1, RIDGE RUN 1, PERMITTING THE CONDOMINIUMZATION OF THE EXISTING DUPLEX AND MANAGER'S QUARTERS -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . Page 25 Item No. 7: RESOLUTION NO. 41, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ANNUAL TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY TO ALLOW GRADING ACTIVITIES ON DIVIDE LOT 44 USING EXCAVATED SOILS FROM THE TIMBERS CLUB PROJECT -- Dean Stahman. . . . . . . . . Page 33 11-20-00tc Page 2 Item No. 8: RESOLUTION NO. 45, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO DOUGLAS MERCATORIS -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . .Page 42 Item No. 9: DISCUSSION ON DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 46, SERIES OF 2000 AND DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 28, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION CALL FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION AND AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF INITIATIVE ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 2000 AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES THEREUNDER Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . .Page 45 Item No. 10: APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR 03-06-00, 03-20-2000 09-18-00 AND 10-16-00, SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR 04-10-2000, WORK SESSION SUMARIES FOR 02-21-00 06-12-00, 09-18-00, 10-02-00 AND 10-16-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 52 NEW BUSNIESS Item No. 11: OATHS OF OFFICE FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS Item No. 12: ROLL CALL Item No. 13: RESOLUTION NO. 47, SERIES OF 2000 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO KEVIN COSTELLO FOR HIS SERVICE AS COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL Mayor Manchester. . . . . .Page 101 Item No. 14: RESOLUTION NO. 48, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MARK BRADY FOR HIS SERVICE AS A BOARD MEMBER ON THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION AND AS COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL -- Mayor Manchester. . . . . . Page 101 11-20-00tc Page 3 Item No.15: PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 2000 PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION ON A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE TOWN COUNCIL FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION FOR SNOWMASS CLUB ASSOCIATES TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB PHASE II PROPOSAL -- Jim Wahlstrom. . . . . . . . . Page 104 Item No. 16: MANAGER'S REPORT -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 138 Item No. 17: BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Arnie Mordkin. . . . . . . . . . No Packet Information Item No. 18: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 141 Item No. 19: CALENDARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 105 Item No. 20: EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSS WOODRUN V DUMPSTER, RODEO PARCEL AND 7 STAR RANCH TRIANGLE PARCEL ACQUISITION. Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402 (3) (a) Snowmass Village Municipal Code Chapter 2, Article III, Section 2-45, Executive Sessions. Item No. 21: SEVEN STAR RANCH FINAL PUD REQUEST FOR EXTENSION -- Joe Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 152 Item No. 22: 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: November 20, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Chris Conrad, Planning Director Subject: Discussion and Second Reading: Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2000, an ordinance amending and restating certain provisions of Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code relating to accessory caretaker units within the DU Duplex zone district. Overview: The enclosed ordinance contains proposed amendments to the Land Use and Development Code (Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code) that allow the Town Council the opportunity to review requests by lot owners for certain existing caretaker units not previously registered by the Town to now be authorized as pre-existing accessory caretaker units. Units within a single-family detached dwelling that were created prior to April 16, 1985 (the effective date of the ordinance first allowing caretaker units within the Town) or units in a two- family dwelling within the DU zone district created prior to September 21, 1977 (date of incorporation of the Town) may be permitted to remain provided certain provisions are satisfied. Comments: First reading approval occurred on October 2, 2000. The original ordinance was amended at that time to remove the provision requiring that the calculable Floor area of the existing improvements, including the caretaker unit, may not exceed the maximum allowable for the lot. This was excluded because the residences containing the caretaker units were either constructed prior to the incorporation of the Town (for duplexes) or the effective date of the original caretaker unit regulations (for single family) and could be reviewed on a case by case basis. Staff Staff recommends second reading approval of the enclosed Recommendation: ordinance. PAuser\cconradWS Word Docs\TC Ord 00-19 Chpt 1 AA ACU Duplex TCMemo02 ,..1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 19 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY CARETAKER UNITS WITHIN THE DU DUPLEX ZONE DISTRICT. 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 Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code"); and WHEREAS, the Town Council directed the Planning Staff to propose amendments to Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code to permit accessory caretaker units within two-family dwellings if said units were created prior to the incorporation of the Town and to prepare this Ordinance to formalize the amendments; and WHEREAS, the Town Council will refer the amendments to the Planning Commission after first reading for comment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission will review the amendments and make its recommendations to the Town Council at its meeting occurring on October 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council will review the recommendations of the Planning Commission on November 6, 2000; and WHEREAS, notice of a Public Hearing to be held on November 6, 2000 will published in the Snowmass Sun, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 16A-5-60(B)(1) and 16A-5-210(C)(6) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the public hearing will be held on that date in order to receive public comment concerning the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Town Council will have, prior to second reading, 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 16A-5-210(E) of the Municipal Code; and �� I TC Ord 00-19 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the procedure and requirements set forth in Section 16A-5-210 of the Municipal Code have been satisfied; 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. Amendment to Chapter 16A. The provisions of Chapter 16Aof the Municipal Code are hereby amended and restated as follows: a. The portions of Table 3-1 noted are amended and restated as follows: z t t u. kpp- M ANA W, Uses:A-Allowed; SF SF SF SFSF EST DU MF MU MU CC CC PUB CON OS S e Special Review; 4 6 15 30 150 PUD PUD PUD P-Prohibited ri p '' W, Ea <„. i P�N �. .n �s: r ? ' �s a �' t�,:z,.>r;,�r F.;as:�e„,��(; ..t ikt�.�a�,,ily Detached A A A A A A A A P A P P P P P y Dwelling° P P P P P P A A P A P P P P P ily Attached P P P P P P P A A A P A P P P ily Dwelling P P P P P P P A A A P A P P P Notes: 1. An accessory employee unit(AEU)may be pemutted in conjunction with any single-family detached dwelling,pursuant to Section 16A-3-230,Accessory Units. 2. See Section 16A-5-550,Time Share,for applicable standards and submission contents. 3. Conference facilities shall be directly associated with a hotel/lodge or multi-family use. 4. See Section 16A-3-240,Home Occupations,for standards applicable to this particular use. 5. See Section 16A-3-250,Antenna Reception or Transmission Devices,for standards applicable to this particular use. 6. One(1)accessory caretaker unit(ACU)may be pemutted within a two-family dwelling on a lot located within the DU zone district if created prior to September 21, 1977,pursuant to Section 16A-3-230,Accessory Units. -3 TC Ord 00-19 Page 3 b. Section 16A-3-230, Accessory units, as noted is amended and restated as follows: Sec. 16A-3-230. Accessory units. One (1) accessory caretaker unit (ACU) or one (1) accessory employee unit (AEU) may be installed in a single-family detached dwelling, or one (1) accessory caretaker unit (ACU) may be permitted within a two-family dwelling, subject to compliance with the provisions of this Section. (1) Standards for an accessory caretaker unit. An ACU shall comply with the following standards: a. Size. The size of the ACU shall be not less than three hundred (300) square feet or greater than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet, and shall be built within the maximum allowable floor area for the lot. b. Variance. The only variance that may be granted to accommodate the ACU is a setback or height variance. c. Exterior entrance. The ACU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the single-family detached dwelling that is practically accessible as the primary means of access to the AEU. d. Parking. There shall be provided at least one (1) on-site parking space per bedroom in the ACU in addition to those parking spaces required for the single-family detached dwelling. e. No short-term rental. An ACU shall not be rented on a short-term basis or for vacation-type rentals. All rentals shall be for a minimum term of six (6) months. f. Pre-existing dwelling units. With Town Council approval, one (1) ACU created prior to April 16, 1985 in a single-family detached dwelling or one (1) ACU created prior to September 21, 1977 in a two-family dwelling within the DU zone district may be permitted to remain, provided: 1. The lot owner has submitted architectural drawings reflecting the "As-Built" condition defining the ACU unit. 2. The lot owner has submitted a report from a private building inspection consultant; whose qualifications are acceptable to the now TC Ord 00-19 Page 4 Town, containing their findings with regard to consistency with the Town's building, fire, electrical, and/or plumbing codes as found within the ACU unit and recommendations as to whether modifications should occur in order for the unit to be occupied in a safe manner. 3. That, based upon the review of the inspector's report and recommendations of the Town Building Official, who may inspect said ACU prior to any approval being granted, the lot owner agrees to obtain the necessary permits and perform the recommended modifications that need to occur prior to any registration, rental or conveyance of the ACU unit. 4. The lot owner has successfully demonstrated that the subject unit existed within the principal structure on or before the applicable date specified above and that no other ACU units exist on the lot. 5. The existing ACU unit is in conformity with Subsection (1) above, except that the subject ACU may be acceptable for registration if, at the sole discretion of the Town Council and following presentation of evidence thereon, it is satisfactorily demonstrated that such nonconformity may be determined to be minor in nature or that compliance would be impractical and would cause an unreasonable hardship upon the lot owner. In cases such as this, the Town Council may impose conditions reasonably necessary to mitigate impacts upon surrounding property owners or to specify a timeframe within which the ACU unit or nonconformity must be brought into compliance with Subsection (1) above. c. Section 16A-3-320(3), Accessory unit completion and registration, as noted is amended and restated as follows: (3) Accessory unit completion and registration. a. Completion. A new accessory unit shall be completed within the period prescribed by the building permit issued for its construction. All modifications to a pre-existing ACU shall be completed within the period prescribed by the building, electrical, plumbing or other permits required by the Town Council for it to be registered. b. ACU notice of registration. Upon issuance of a certificate of TC Ord 00-19 Page 5 occupancy for a new ACU or certificate of completion for a pre-existing ACU, a notice of registration of the ACU shall be issued by the Planning Director, and a true and accurate copy shall be filed for record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County. Such registration shall be valid for the existence of the new ACU or, in the case of pre-existing units, may be subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Town Council. 2. 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 October 2, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member Mercatoris, the second of Council Member Brady, and upon a vote of 3 in favor and 0 against. Council Members Hatfield and Costello were absent. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED as amended, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on November 6, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 BY: Marianne Rakowski STAFF: Marianne Rakowski SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000 OVERVIEW: Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000: Under the Home Rule Charter, the Town Council adopts the budget by a resolution, but any amendments to the original budget must be made by ordinance. This ordinance amends the 2000 budget and approves the appropriation of those funds. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: A copy of the budget will be available for public review at this meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000. 7� SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 26 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2000 BUDGET FOR ALL FUNDS FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE. WHEREAS,the Town Manager,has caused to be prepared a 2000 Revised Budget;and WHEREAS,the 2000 budget,revenues and expenditures have varied from budgeted amounts; and WHEREAS,sales tax revenues came in lower than budgeted,excise tax revenue was received that was unbudgeted,and building revenues are revised lower than budgeted. General Fund expenditures were revised downward due to lower than expected sales tax revenue;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 Town of Snowmass Village 2000 budget be adjusted to the 2000 revised budget, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto. Section Two: ADDrODriatlon That the 2000 revised budget revenue is hereby appropriated for expenditure during the 2000 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 13th day of November,2000 with a motion made by Hatfield and seconded by Mercatoris and by a vote of_4_in favor to_0_opposed. Councilmember Brady was absent. INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED on second reading by the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 20th day of November,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: Trudi Worline Town Clerk r COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Dave Ellis Subject: Discussion and Action: Resolution No. 28, Series of 2000, a resolution approving a Subdivision Exemption for Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit I, permitting the condominiumization of the existing duplex. Overview: Barbara Snow, as Trustee of the Barbara Snow Revocable Trust dated August 25, 1994, has made application for subdivision exemption to condominiumize an existing duplex on Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit I. The property is zoned DU, Duplex Residential. The duplex consists of a 4-bedroom unit and a 2- bedroom unit and is conforming except for a minor deck encroachment into the rear setback and some parking within ten feet of the street. Existing floor area is approximately 4,000 sf, well below the maximum allowable of 4,500 sf. A staff memorandum and copy of the application are attached for additional information. COMMENTS: See enclosed staff memorandum. Staff Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution. Recommendation: P:\shared\subdivision exemptions\rr1-2\Communique, 11-15-00.doc so MEMO November 15, 2000 To: Chris Conrad From: Dave Ellis 10- � Re: Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit 1 (23 &27 North Ridge Lane) Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization . Application Summary Barbara Snow, as Trustee of the Barbara Snow Revocable Trust dated August 25, 1994, has made application for subdivision exemption to condominiumize an existing duplex on Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit I. The property is zoned DU, Duplex Residential. The duplex consists of a 4-bedroom unit and a 2-bedroom unit and is conforming except for a minor deck encroachment into the rear setback and some parking within ten feet of the street. Existing floor area is approximately 4,000 sf, well below the maximum allowable of 4,500 sf. A copy of the application is attached. Review Standards The standards and criteria for review of a subdivision exemption are specified in Section 16A-5-530, 'Review Standards," as listed below. 1. Exemption Is Necessary. The exemption shall be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 2. Consistent With Subdivision. The exemption shall be consistent with the preservation of the goals, objectives and standards of the particular subdivision or land area involved. 3. No New Lots Created. Granting of the exemption shall not create any new lots in any single-family subdivision. 4. Comply With Development Code. The exemption shall comply with the standards of the zoning district in which the property is located and all other applicable standards of this Development Code. With respect to an application for a lot line adjustment, if any of the lots or structures thereon are nonconforming prior to the adjustment, then no adjustment shall be allowed that increases the nonconformity of the lot or structure. 5. No Adverse Impacts. Granting of the exemption shall not be detrimental to the public welfare and shall not affect in a substantially adverse manner the enjoyment of land abutting upon or within the area in which the subject property is situated. 6. Not Increase Total Allowable Floor Area. Granting of the exemption shall not increase the total allowable floor area on a lot or lots affected by the proposed I�O � r Lot 2,Ridge Run Unit I Subdivision Exemption exemption beyond the total allowed without the exemption, and any change in allowable floor area permitted by the exemption within those totals shall be consistent with the surrounding area. 7. Special Circumstances. In the instance where the Town Council is unable to find that an application is consistent with any of the above standards, the exemption may only be granted if the Town Council finds that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of these standards would result in undue hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. Review Comments The application is consistent with the land use goals, objectives and standards of the neighborhood. The majority of duplexes in the vicinity are already condominiumized. As the duplex has existed since 1980, no new adverse impacts are anticipated in the neighborhood. No new lot is being created, and the floor area is within the maximum allowable floor area for the lot. The proposal complies with all development standards except for the rear setback encroachment and parking adjacent to the road. An application for administrative modification has been submitted to ratify the minor deck encroachment of approximately 15 sf. Two existing parking spaces are located three feet from the pavement edge and are shown as limited common elements on the proposed condominium map. Hunt Walker has stated that this type of parking on North Ridge Lane, while prevalent, creates problems for snow removal. Section 11-62 of the Municipal Code provides that "The right-of-way of all public roads within the Town shall be one-half (1/2) of the width of the improved surface of a road plus ten (10)feet on either side of the center line of the road, unless a greater distance is provided by specific dedication or conveyance." This is relevant to North Ridge Lane as it was originally a 20-foot wide easement, and the pavement is not centered within the original 20 feet. Section 11-63 prohibits improvements within the public right-of-way without a revocable license. In this situation the parking spaces were in existence and use prior to the adoption of Sections 11-62 and 11-63 (Ordinance 1991-10). They are used as overflow parking and are not necessary to meet the requirement of one space per bedroom. Given the specific circumstances, an appropriate alternative to a license may be a hold harmless agreement for the benefit of the Town to maintain the existing roadway. The condominium map needs several corrections including correct sizing of parking spaces (9' x 19'), addition of a subdivision exemption approval certificate for Town Council, correct street name and miscellaneous typos. Recommendation Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions as specified below and in attached Resolution 28, Series of 2000. Page 2 of 3 41 410 Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit I Subdivision Exemption 1. Applicant shall obtain administrative modification approval for the existing above grade deck encroachment into the rear setback. 2. Applicant shall execute a hold harmless agreement for the benefit of the Town for operation and maintenance of the existing North Ridge Lane pavement as shown on the condominium map. 3. Applicant shall submit copies of all proposed condominium documents to the Town Attorney for review and approval. 4. Applicant shall prepare a condominium map suitable for recording in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The map shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Director and Town Attorney. 5. All the above conditions shall be fulfilled within ninety (90) days of approval or prior to recording of the condominium map and documents, whichever occurs first. pAshared\subdivision exemptionsVO-Zmemo, 11-15-OO.doe so Page 3 of 3 LAwOFFICES OF DOUGLASE ALLEN 600 EASTHOPKINS SUITE 302 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970)925-8800 DOUGL4sA ALLEN FAX: (9 2J=9398Y-. E-MA&: dougr@idouglasallen.com \ June 27,2000 Chris Conrad Town of Snowmass Village Community Development Department Town Hall Snowmass Village,Colorado 81615 Re: 27 North Ridge Lane Lot 2,Ridge Run,Unit One Pitkin County,Colorado Dear Chris: Enclosed is a Subdivision Exemption Application for condominiumization of the above property.I am the attorney and attorney in-fact for Barbara Snow,the owner of the property as evidenced by the enclosed letter authorizing my representation in connection with this application. This letter also constitutes my certification as a licensed Colorado attorney, attorney registration#8864,that title to the property is presently held by Barbara Snow,As Trustee of the Barbara Snow Revocable Trust dated August 25, 1994. I also enclose in connection with this application the following: 1. Condominium map and exemption plat prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers,job#7997A dated June,2000. 2. 8 'h "Y 11" Vicinity Map locating the property. 3. My client's check,number 2660,in the amount of S500.00. Let me know immediately if there is anything further you need in connection with this application. Cordially, Don las P.Allen Enclosures cc: Barbara Snow ^^` nr.925.tombarbarasnow •' ` do TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION APPLICATION GENERAL DATA REQUIREMENTS Date: May 1, 2000 Name of Owner: Barbara Snow, as Trustee of the BarbB�a Snow Phone:949-673-3497 Address: 27 North Ridge Lane Snowma s Villa 2p Name of Applicant(if different than owner): Address: Physical Address of Property: 27 North Ridge Lane Legal Description: Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit One EXISTING CONDITION INFORMATION Present Zoning: -W--aT— 1?U C r" ke. Present Use: Residential Lot Area of Individual Subject Lots (sq.ft.): 38,123 Size of Building Envelope(s): �y Allowable Floor Area Ratio per oning or PUD Plan: 4,500 Square Footage of All Areas Calculated as Floor Area by Code: 3,958 Existing Building Height(if applicable): N/A #of Parking Spaces and Bedrooms (if applicable): eight parkine - �Lri�bedrooms #of Units Prior to Condominiumization or Time Share (if applicable). two J PROPOSAL DATA (Only fill in those that apply) #of Units After Condominiumization or Time Share (if applicable): two Lot Area (sq.ft.)of Lots)After Building Envelope Adjustment(if applicable): Size of Building Envelope(s)After Adiustment (if applicable): N/A Other: N/A Page 1 ,I I Subdivision Exemption '�yt sop AUTHORIZED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS The Town Council shall be authorized to exempt the following activities from the terms of the subdivision regulations: 1. Lot Line Adjustments. Lot line adjustments between previously platted lots. 2. Lot Combinations. Lot combinations of platted lots. 3. Conveying Title. Conveying title and/or fulfilling legal obligations when no development will result thereafter,without subdivision or PUD approval. 4. Condominiumization and Time Share. Condominiumization of a development, or approval of time share estates, (refer to section 5-270 (E) or (F) of the Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code for further information on condominiumization or time share). DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Land Condominiumization of a lot and existing duplex home. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. Name, Address, Telephone Number and Power of Attorney. The applicant's name, address and telephone number. If the applicant is to be represented by an agent, a letter signed by the applicant granting power of attorney to the agent shall be submitted, authorizing the agent to represent the applicant and stating the representative's name, address and phone number. 2. Disclosure of Ownership. A certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed in the State which shall set forth the names of all owners of property included in the application and shall include a list of all mortgages, judgments. liens, contracts, easements or agreements of record that affect the property. At the Town's option,the holders or owners of such mortgages,judgments, liens, contracts, easements or agreements of record may be required to consent to the application before it is acted upon by the Town. 3. Improvements Survey. An improvements survey, showing the location and dimensions of all existing structures, streets, alleys, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, public and private utilities and other significant features within the property. 4. Exemption Plat. The applicant shall submit a proposed exemption plat, which shall contain the applicable information for a final plat,as specified in Section 5-280 (D) of the Code. 5. Vicinity Map. An eight and one-half inch by eleven inch (8 1/2" x 11")vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the Town of Snowmass Village. Page 2 Subdivision Exemption �►� 400 6. Other Maps. All other maps required for the application shall be prepared at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet(1" = 100')or larger, on sheets no larger than thirty inches by forty-two inches (30" x 42"), with an unencumbered margin of one and one-half inches (1.5") on the left hand side of the sheet and one-half inch (0.5") around the other three (3) sides of the sheet. Sheets of twenty-four by thirty-six inches (24"x 36") are preferred. If it is necessary to place information on more than one(1)sheet, an index shall be included on the first sheet. Report-size versions of all maps, reduced to a sheet size of no greater than eleven inches by seventeen inches(11"x 17"),shall also be submitted. 7. Base Fee.The application shall be accompanied by the applicable base fee from the Building and Planning Department's fee schedule. The applicant shall reimburse the Town for such amounts in excess of the base fee as determined by the Planning Director. The reimbursement to the Town by the applicant shall be due and payable within fifteen (15)days of the date of billing. 8. Other Information. The applicant shall submit such other written or graphic information as is necessary to describe and evaluate the proposed subdivision exemption. NO APPLICATION WILL BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION IS PROVIDED. REVIEW STANDARDS An application for a subdivision exemption shall comply with the following standards: 1. Exemption is Necessary. The exemption shall be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 2. Consistent With Subdivision. The exemption shall be consistent with the preservation of the goals, objectives and standards of the particular subdivision or land area involved. 3. No New Lots Created. Granting of the exemption shall not create any new lots in any single-family subdivision. 4. Comply With Development Code. The exemption shall comply with the standards of the zoning district in which the property is located and all other applicable standards of this Development Code. With respect to an application for a lot line adjustment, if any of the lots or structures thereon are nonconforming prior to the adjustment,then no adjustment shall be allowed that increases the nonconformity of the lot or structure. 5. No Adverse Impacts. Granting of the exemption shall not be detrimental to the public welfare and shall not affect in a substantially adverse manner the enjoyment of land abutting upon or within the area in which the subject property is situated. 6. Not Increase Total Allowable Floor Area. Granting of the exemption shall not increase the total allowable floor area on a lot or lots affected by the proposed exemption beyond the total allowed without the exemption, and any change in allowable floor area permitted by the exemption within those totals shall be consistent with the surrounding area. 7. Special Circumstances. In the instance where the Town Council is unable to find that an application is consistent with any of the above standards, the exemption may only be granted if the Town Council finds that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of these standards would result in undue hardship and deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. Page 3 ' Subdivision Exemption � � REASONS FOR REQUESTING THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION 1. Exemption is Necessary: 2 Consistent with Subdivision: Consistent with other condominiumized duplexes on the same street. 3. No New Lots Created: No new IntA will hp rrPnt-Pej_ 4 Comply with Development Code: Complies with development code. 5 No Adverse Impacts: The duplex preen_nri t axisrs A33d _is_iu—us4--aUd thus there will be no adverse impact or change in impact, 6. No Increase in the Total Allowable Floor Area: The allowable floor area will remain unc ange a ter t e approval of this application. 7. Special Circumstances: REVIEW PROCEDURE The following procedures shall apply to a subdivision exemption application, (see attached figure: Subdivision Exemption Application Procedures). 1. Pre-Application Conference. Attendance at a pre-application conference is optional, but recommended, prior to submission of an application for subdivision exemption. 2. Submission of Application. The applicant shall submit an application to the Planning Director . Page a Subdivision Exemption � r7 so 3. Staff Review. Staff review of the application shall be accomplished, as specked in Section 5A40 of the Code. 4. Town Council Action. A complete copy of the application shall be forwarded to the Town Council, together with a copy of the staff review. The Town Council shall consider all relevant materials and testimony, shall consider whether the application complies with the review standards and shall, by resolution, approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. 5. Recording of Exemption Plat. Within ninety (90) days of the date of approval of the subdivision exemption, the applicant shall submit three (3) mylar copies, suitable for recording, of an exemption plat to the Planning Director. The Planning Director shall review the exemption plat to ensure it complies with the terms and conditions of approval, shall obtain signatures for all of the applicable plat certificates and have the exemption plat recorded Page 5 ' Subdivision Exemption ' � BARBARA B. SNOW 27 NORTH RIDGE LANE SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 June 22, 2000 Town of Snowmass Village Community Development Department Town Hall Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 RE: 27 North Ridge Lane Lot 2, Ridge Run, Unit One Pitkin County, Colorado To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that by this letter I hereby appoint Douglas P. Allen as my attorney and as my attorney in-fact to submit a Subdivision Exemption Application to condominiumize the lot and existing duplex on the above described property. Very ly yours, Ba ra B. Snow �i tlIIOV 20 �sAM 7 Y .!/ 1 r///V/-� . StIOW11RI SS U ll(7,,Tc? Str c N4 '/�j' i ' ••�J • i� In P.q =h:•��� 1 W N hhMY n JAI, y U a. •� i�%iL5 r h d S J1 y�y 'Qy c�7 U73 IV? y low ftd r r i q S1 it IA ' �.�:. AWRAW*76AWWWQR6, RRRARAA3ARAAA�A WFAWR�R� A RRARtR yy y9 .ltll/ N�, f LR' .' tit W'�'lT1`.?n✓'." .u." � ;n .... . ;fir ;.. . - t CONDOMINIUM MAP OF THE SNOWY OWL CONDOMINIUMS \01 1. 410iF iw1U�4Y/T'r/bDi`��'Ine' SM,�{(Fe> i"..w.Kb{i411 Iq{ •µy{ W IVI 41C 1M4iX1 fW4D {q{D/GNYG lOex K llrvu YIIII(L.{Ir{IM GIRT 6L{4p0. ll'q H/.De' III.I] l].il IN.N YN'lrl/'� qlr 4], �/ nle,Ip4l HUiµKllil6 r 6.C.F. LOT 2 LOT 3 UNIT x! ' BUILDING UNIT xs ,N 4Jr� y t d I Gc4ne nnn. .� UNIT xf �E IN , w(( / ee.e/ `` / „•'`FYI LOT I r �IMilq� ]fNF UNIT x! )T 15 �IFYG Nojt CE' Ki]fq1 LOT 16 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 28 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT 2, RIDGE RUN UNIT 1, PERMITTING THE CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX. WHEREAS, Barbara Snow, as Trustee of the Barbara Snow Revocable Trust dated August 25, 1994, ("Applicant"), being the owner of Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit I, according to the plat recorded December 1, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 282 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, has requested Subdivision Exemption approval in order to condominiumize an existing duplex, and WHEREAS, Section 16A-5-500 of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code ("Municipal Code")authorizes Town Council to exempt condominiumization from the terms of the subdivision regulations, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the application and heard the recommendation of the Town Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Findings. Based upon the information submitted and testimony in the record, the Town Council finds as follows: 1. That the application was submitted in accordance with Section 16A-5-520 of the Municipal Code. A condominium map was submitted as satisfaction of the requirement for an improvement survey and exemption plat. 2. That the request complies with the Review Standards for granting a subdivision exemption contained in Section 16A-5-530 of the Municipal Code. Section Two: Action. The Town Council hereby grants subdivision exemption approval for Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit I, permitting the condominiumization of an existing duplex as generally shown on Exhibit A, subject to the conditions of approval in Section Three. Section Three: Conditions of Approval. 1. Applicant shall obtain administrative modification approval for the existing above grade deck encroachment into the rear setback. 2. Applicant shall execute a hold harmless agreement for the benefit of the Town for operation and maintenance of the existing North Ridge Lane pavement as shown on the condominium map. AX 60 TC Reso 00-28 Page 2 3. Applicant shall submit copies of all proposed condominium documents to the Town Attorney for review and approval. 4. Applicant shall prepare a condominium map suitable for recording in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The map shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Director and Town Attorney. 5. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign the plat only after approval as to technical and substantive completion by the Town Attorney and Planning Director. Two(2) mylar sets of the condominium map shall then be provided to the Town for signature. One (1) set shall then be recorded, at Applicant's expense, with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The other set shall be retained in the Town Community Development Department records. 6. All the above conditions shall be fulfilled within ninety (90) days of approval or prior to recording of the condominium map and documents, whichever occurs first. Section Four: Direction to Town Clerk. Following recording of the condominium map, the Planning Director shall provide a reduced copy to the Town Clerk who shall then attach said map as Exhibit"A"of this resolution. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED, on the motion of Council Member and the second of Council Member , by a vote of in favor and_against, on the 20'day of November, 2000. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk I�♦ COhiPOIF]P1rLr}/. f f_*- ? THE on•A, > CERn I—"TE SNOWY OWL CON=:�i_f 1.1TUlf ::«K.�" °,d,..rta.,.z•«.,..•....,•.., `°I ISO ,ANP xeres SURVEYOR-S CEP,TIPICATE A. C TITL C-RT 1'. CnIDErt ^^s �A"'r'Z, terry LOT 2 LOT 3 �hl _ // • `..ue: w.e+nw:.,w.. TOWN p'T0 VA rt,•e,a.a.s,.,,.......r°,.. _388J A / P''ANNING DE?A APPROVAL �• /� I i �•`.M1w e•e•ea as n w s v.,a.lone,xo VYrT ff � I d n'M•�'u n�me� r• " /�'..^'`�µ LOT I CLERK AND•RECrtORRDDEER$ CE.PTIE^CATE �rt^tea San C r LOT 15 •NONT N AVM E CANE n , r I LOT IB ° EN v • ASPEN sUR VErl ENGINEERS. INC. ,.PNA..'rr°.n wrz " '0° _ •rr_r.-r_rr. COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Chris Conrad, Planning Director Subject: Discussion and Action: Resolution No. 29, Series of 2000, A resolution approving a Subdivision Exemption for Lot 1, Ridge Run Unit I, permitting the condominiumization of the existing duplex and manager's quarters. Kenneth H. Roberts and K. Brent Waldron ("Owners"), being the Overview: owner's of Lot 1, Ridge Run Unit I, requested Subdivision Exemption approval in order to condominiumize the existing duplex and manager's quarters as three (3) separate units. The application was discussed August 21 and Staff was directed at that meeting to return with an ordinance amending the Land Use Code in a manner that would allow caretaker units within two-family residences in those cases where they were created prior to incorporation of the Town. Ordinance No. 19 was then prepared in response to the direction received during the August 21 meeting and is included within your packet for second reading prior to your final consideration of the Owner's subdivision exemption request. COMMENTS: The enclosed resolution contains a number of conditions that are intended to ensure that the manager's quarters may only be condominiumized and sold as a separate unit if it is deed restricted to be used and sold in accordance with the Town's employee housing guidelines, being Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. The only exception is that the restricted unit may be offered first for purchase by the current tenant who has lived there for more than ten (10) years. The lapse provision within Condition No. 4 of Section Three does not yet specify a deadline for completing all actions directed within the resolution. A recommended date will be provided by staff at the meeting. Staff A resolution granting approval has been included within the packet Recommendation: should the Town Council adopt Ordinance No. 19 which precedes this resolution on the agenda. Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution if Ordinance No. 19 is adopted. P:\user\cconrad\MS Word Docs\TC 00-29 Subd Exmpt L1 RRI TCMemo02 1 r TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 29 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOT 1, RIDGE RUN UNIT I, PERMITTING THE CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF THE EXISTING DUPLEX AND MANAGER'S QUARTERS. WHEREAS, Kenneth H. Roberts and K. Brent Waldron ("Owners"), being the owner's of Lot 1, Ridge Run Unit I, according to the plat recorded December 1, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 282 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, have requested Subdivision Exemption approval in order to condominiumize the existing duplex and manager's quarters as three(3)separate units; and WHEREAS, a building permit was issued by Pitkin County on August 11, 1969 permitting the construction of a duplex within the subject lot; and WHEREAS, correspondence within the Town Community Development Department building permit file would indicate that the Pitkin County Building Inspector had knowledge that a "manager's quarters"existed within the duplex as of November 1, 1971; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1, Series of 1989,which granted a setback variance allowing portions of the existing structure extending outside the building envelope to remain, identifies the manager's quarters as existing at that time; and WHEREAS,the Owners believe that the manager's quarters qualifies as a legal non-conforming use and third unit within the structure; and WHEREAS, said unit has been rented by the Owners as an employee unit during the period in which they have owned the property; and WHEREAS,the current tenant works within the community and has lived in the unit for more than ten (10) years; and WHEREAS,the Owners wish to condominiumize the duplex including said unit to ensure that it remains available as employee housing and to enable it to be initially offered for sale to the current tenant; and WHEREAS, the Owners voluntarily agree to deed restrict the sale and use TC Reso 00-29 Page 2 of the manager's quarters condominium unit(the"Restricted Unit')in perpetuity to employees that qualify under provisions consistent with the Town Employee Housing Guidelines for Affordable Housing sales units only; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the application and heard the recommendation of the Town Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Findings. Based upon the information submitted and testimony in the record, the Town Council finds as follows: 1. That the application was submitted in accordance with Section 16A- 5-520 of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code"). An Improvement Survey and Exemption Plat were not submitted and will be required as specified within the Section Three below. 2. Sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the "managers unit' existed at the time the Town was incorporated and that the unit has been used and rented as employee housing during the period in which the Owners have owned the lot. The Town Council will, therefore, now find that the managers unit can be accepted as legal non-conforming for the sale and use as an employee housing unit but only if in a manner consistent with the Chapter 17, Employee Housing, of the Municipal Code ("Chapter 17"). 3. The Owners have agreed to restrict the sale and/or use of the Restricted Unit to individuals that qualify pursuant to Chapter 17. They have requested, however, that the current tenant of the Restricted Unit be given the first opportunity to purchase the unit. With the sole exception being the manner in which the unit is initially purchased, all use and/or sales of the unit will be in accordance 4. That the request is consistent with the Review Standards for granting a subdivision exemption contained in Section 16A-5-530 of the Municipal Code. i0 • TC Reso 00-29 Page 3 Section Two: Action. The Town Council hereby grants subdivision exemption approval for Lot 1, Ridge Run Unit I, permitting the condominiumization of the existing duplex and Restricted Unit into a total of three (3) separate units. The Restricted Unit will be as generally depicted within Exhibit A. Said approval is subject to the Restricted Unit sale conditions in Section Three and general conditions of approval contained within Section Four below being satisfied. Further, the Town Council has determined that the Restricted Unit was created prior to September 21, 1977 in a two-family dwelling within the DU zone district and may be permitted to remain, subject to the applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2000. Section Three: Restricted Unit Sale. This approval is subject to the Owners satisfying the following conditions relating to the Restricted Unit: 1. The condominiumization of the Restricted Unit is permitted solely for the purpose of creating an employee housing sales unit. The Owners shall submit a deed restriction, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, that effectively restricts the use and establishes procedures for the sale of the unit in accordance with Chapter 17. 2. The only permitted exception to Chapter 17 will be that the Restricted Unit may first be offered for purchase by the current tenant. The offer and acceptance or refusal shall occur prior to recording of the Condominium Map. If the offer is not accepted, the Owners shall then either remove the Restricted Unit from the Condominium Map and documents or submit a written notice of intent to sell with the Town Housing Manager in accordance with Chapter 17. 3. After either the current tenant agrees to purchase the Restricted Unit or another qualified purchaser has committed to purchase the unit, the Condominium Map, deed restriction and condominium documents may be recorded. 4. The deed restriction, condominium map and documents shall be recorded and the Restricted Unit shall be conveyed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this resolution on or before , 2001; otherwise, this resolution shall be null and void and of no effect as of that date unless further extended for good cause by the Town Council. Section Four: General Conditions of Approval. In addition, this approval is TC Reso 00-29 Page 4 subject to the Owners satisfying the following conditions: 1. An Improvement Survey and Exemption Plat, being the condominium map(s), and condominium documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review by the Planning Director and Town Attorney. The limited common elements shall be clearly defined to allocate adequate on-site parking to each unit as required by Section 16A-4-310(b) of the Municipal Code. 2. Architectural drawings reflecting the "As-Built' condition within the basement and defining the manager's quarters shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. A report from a private building inspection consultant,whose qualifications are acceptable to the Town, shall be submitted containing their findings with regard to the mechanical, electrical, structural and plumbing conditions found within the manager's quarters unit and recommendations as to whether modifications should occur in order for the unit to be occupied in a safe manner. Necessary permits shall be obtained and said modifications need to occur prior to recording of the condominium map. 3. The condominium documents shall be provided to the Community Development Department and will include provisions stating that the Restricted Unit may only be sold and/or used as an employee housing unit in a manner consistent with Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code, except as noted below regarding the initial sale of the Restricted Unit. Said unit shall be deed restricted to require that any initial or subsequent buyer of said unit is a "Qualified Purchaser" as defined in Section 17-3(8) of the Municipal Code. 4. The maximum allowed floor area limit for the lot is 4,500 square feet. The condominium declarations shall specify how this floor area is to be apportioned between the three (3) units. 5. The applicant shall complete all actions or matters which in the opinion of the Planning Director and Town Attorney are necessary to satisfy or dispense with requirements of this resolution and the Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code before the subject condominium map(s) may be placed of record. 6. Should problems arise that cannot properly be resolved at the administrative level,they will be presented to Town Council for direction. I1 - / • TC Reso 00-29 Page 5 7. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign the map only after approval as to technical and substantive completion by the Town Attorney and Planning Director. Two (2) mylar sets of the condominium map shall then be provided to the Town for signature. One (1) set shall then be recorded, at applicant's expense, with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The other set shall be retained in the Town Community Development Department records. Copies of the recorded deed restriction and condominium documents as well as the recording information for the map shall also be provided to the department after they have been recorded. 8. The approval granted pursuant to Sections Two of this resolution shall not take effect until such time as Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2000, approving certain amendments to Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code relating to accessory caretaker units within the DU Duplex zone district, has been adopted and is in effect. Section Five: Direction to Town Clerk. Following recording of the deed restriction, condominium map and condominium documents,the Planning Director shall provide a reduced copy to the Town Clerk who shall then attach said map(s) as Exhibit "A" of this resolution. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED, on the motion of Council Member and the second of Council Member , by a vote of in favor and _ against, on the 2161 day of August, 2000. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk 30 00 �►+�s1r A SoiµTDN T{D. 29,$SAeS 9-27-00 Dear Chris, Here are my measurements for the square footage of 19 Northridge Lane Unit 3. I have included the Storage area in the total but I am not sure if it is considered living space. It has bare walls, insulation, pipes all over, and no windows. I use it for storage and a workbench. Here is the breakdown. Kitchen. 14x14 196 square feet. Living room 14x14 196 square feet. Boy's room. 14x10140 square feet. Master bedroom. 10.5x15 157.5 square feet. Bath room. 7x5 35 square feet. Hallway. 16x4 80 square feet. Old sauna room converted to computer area attached to master bedroom. 12x8.5 102 square feet. Storage area. 14x12 168 square feet. This gives us a total of 1074.5 if my math is correct. Hope this helps.. .And thanks for all your hard work on this project. . Rocky Huber and Family. 00 Rpsou{rroN �O�e�2�oR 2�cv i 00 I ® Oki In" Q'e" UnF n� i I 01044 i js old Sha cr ,v�e� pmts► , X610\ used -(or closAk, JJof 1'o Scale _yam �eJ\ low $ r► COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 20 November 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Dean Stahman, Planner Subject: Annual Temporary Use Permit for the Aspen Skiing Company to allow the transport of up to 10,000 yards of structural fill from the Timbers project to Divide Lot 44 and to allow grading activities to occur there. The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) received land use and site development approval to construct a Vehicle Maintenance Overview: Facility (VMF) on Divide Subdivision Lot 44. ASC intends to submit a building permit application in January 2001 and is requesting approval to undertake earthmoving activities on the site, as shown in Exhibit "A", in preparation for construction next summer. The building site for the Divide Lot VMF will require imported fill to prepare the site and this has been referenced in previous site development applications. The Timbers project will begin mass excavation shortly.' This application requests approval to deliver the unneeded structural fill from the Timbers project to the Divide VMF site. At the November 130' Public Hearing, a few concerns were raised and the Town Council requested a few amendments to Resolution No. 41. These changes are summarized as follows: 1) Condition 4 was changed from "promptly" to "by the end of the days work." 2) Condition 8 now includes ski-out access, refers to the Slot Run, and includes Town Parking Lot E. 3) Condition 10 has been added. Please note Exhibit"B", which is a memo from Town Police Chief Art Smythe. Art believes that it is not necessary to "restrict the applicant's hours of operation or insist that they provide specific traffic control." However, I have included Condition 10 to allow for flexibility in implementing traffic control should it be deemed necessary. Staff Staff recommends approval Recommendation: • ^a TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 41 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ANNUAL TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY TO ALLOW GRADING ACTIVITIES ON DIVIDE LOT 44 USING EXCAVATED SOILS FROM THE TIMBERS CLUB PROJECT WHEREAS, the Aspen Skiing Company ("Applicant ) has land use and site development approval to construct a Vehicle Maintenance Facility ("VMF") on Divide Subdivision Lot 44 (the "Site"), and WHEREAS, imported structural fill must be placed on the Site in order to adequately prepare it for the VMF as shown in Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, the Timbers Club at Snowmass is currently under construction and has unwanted structural fill (the "Soils") that would otherwise be trucked to a landfill, and WHEREAS, the Timbers Club has agreed to allow the Applicant to utilize these Soils for grading at the Site, and WHEREAS, utilizing the Soils in this manner is beneficial to all parties involved and has less environmental impact, and WHEREAS, the Applicant has contacted the Divide Homeowners Association and the owner of neighboring Lot 45 (Dan MacEachan- Krabloonik)to receive their input and have their concerns incorporated into this resolution, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application on November 1, 2000, heard the recommendations of the Town Staff, and has recommended approval by way of Resolution No. 34, Series 2000, and WHEREAS, the conditions included in Resolution No. 34 have been incorporated into this Resolution, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the application on November 13, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the application again on November 20, 2000, and has heard the recommendations of Town Staff, .3y - Resolution No.41,Series of 2000 Page 2 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Findings. Based upon the information submitted and testimony in the record, the Town Council finds as follows: 1. The application has been submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 16A-5-260 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code (the "Municipal Code"). 2. The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed grading activities will comply with the Review Standards for approving an Annual Temporary Use Permit contained in Section 16A-5-260(d) of the Municipal Code. Section Two: Permit Authorization. The Town Council hereby authorizes the issuance of an Annual Temporary Use Permit for the Aspen Skiing Company to allow the transport of up to 10,0000 cubic yards of excavated soils from the Timbers Club Project to Divide Lot 44 and to allow grading activities to occur at Divide Lot 44, as shown in Exhibit "A", in order to prepare the site for the future Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Said approval should be subject to satisfying the following conditions. Section Three: Conditions of Permit Approval. The authorization of the Annual Temporary Use Permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The term of this permit shall be for one (1) year from the effective date of this resolution. The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (excluding legal holidays). No work shall be performed on November 24 and 25. 2. No noise-producing construction or excessive vehicle activity, as defined in Section 18-3 of the Municipal Code, shall be permitted during Sunday or legal holidays. 3. The Applicant will utilize sediment and runoff control best management practices to prevent sediment laden waters from draining from the Site. These include, but are not limited _I em Resolution No.41,Series of 2000 Pago 3 of 4 to, a sediment pond and silt fencing. The Town may amend the sediment and runoff control plan at any time as necessary. 4. The Applicant must prevent soils from being tracked onto the paved section of Divide Road, and cleanse the area by the end of the days work, should it become soiled. 5. In the event the Applicant receives any complaint arising from this operation, they shall exhibit due diligence in attempting to resolve the problem. Since this program is being conducted under the sole supervision and control of the Applicant, certain refinements, modifications, or amendments to the operational plan may be necessary in response to impacts, complaints or concerns which were not apparent at the time application was made. Any such changes may be authorized by the Town Manager, or designee, provided they are not in conflict with the findings and Review Standards relative to this Annual Temporary Use Permit. 6 All requirements of the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire District Chief and Town Police Chief, or designees, whether imposed prior to or during the term of this permit, must be satisfied and shall be considered conditions of this permit. 7. The Applicant shall promptly notify the Snowmass Village Planning Office of any additions, modifications, or amendments to this permit or proposed use of the subject property. Any such changes should not be in conflict with the findings and Review Standards relative to this Annual Temporary Use Permit and may be permitted with written approval of the Town Manager or referred by him to the Town Council for review. 8. The Applicant will maintain ski-in/out access from the Snowmass Ski Area (Slot Run) to Krabloonik Kennel and Restaurant and Town Parking Lot E (Divide Parking Lot). 9. The Applicant will not utilize Town Parking Lot E as a staging area for operations or as an overnight storage area for vehicles and equipment. Resolution No.41, Series of 2000 Page 4 of 4 10. At the request of the Town Police Chief or his designee, the Applicant will provide a "flagger" at the intersection of Divide Road and Brush Creek Road when Roaring Fork Transit Authority buses are staging for afternoon peak travel. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on November 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 R EXHIBIT A � � ,j TC RESO 41, Series 2000 � �� (page 1 of 3) 991' • fr y. •�I i II I ��. I 1� ` � qiI � _. � \ � • I) II' III il�i,� I) I � ' \ �/ ' ' �' � � \�'. . 1 11 I A/) f - c m Of \ t l 1 o' r �o N-za EXHIBIT A sass TC RESO 41, Series 2000 (page 2 of 3) / So loo ISO yap �o1E r RW Ft LL.AlEk I % \ L.OT 46 `O v Z.S9/AcRa corw4404 OFSM SPACE LOT 'H' ` ` SFA�NeNT POND LOr 43 ° •' LOT 45 /•711 ACRES toA E (KftApwOrlth) LOT 4i a0.474�cnss o- _ i of 5 n for % " EXHIBIT 41 RESO TC Series 2000 \ (page 3 of 3) i 7 (O NV d N OA Al c7 PCP co co \ 1, lllnnn��' INV p \ \\ , O Oo co ? CIO LO OD 00 \ C} 00 � ,i EXHIBIT B TC RESO 41, Series 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Stahman, Community Development FROM: Art Smythe, Police Department RE: Skiing Company Application For Moving Dirt To The Divide DATE: Nov. 14, 2000 Regarding last night' s discussion at Town Council, I don' t believe that it is necessary to attach specific conditions to this permit addressing the safe transit of dump trucks through the Brush Creek/Divide Road intersection. While the uphill sight-line can be partially obstructed when RFTA busses are utilizing their staging area, drivers using due care can still safely negotiate this intersection. Since the start of development activities at the Divide Subdivision, a number of large construction vehicles have been passing through this intersection on a daily basis without incident. In fact, there have been only two minor accidents at this location in the past five years and neither one of them involved obscured sight-lines or construction traffic. To sum up, all of our intersections present their own challenges and can be hazardous if drivers are careless. However, I don' t believe that the movement of one truck through this intersection every half an hour or so requires us to restrict the applicant' s hours of operation or insist that they provide special traffic control. A general safety briefing for the drivers and regular maintenance ( sanding) by our road crew should suffice. '00V~ TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Presented By: Stephen R. Connor, Town Attorney Subject: Resolution No. 45, Series of 2000 Overview: Grants a medical leave to Marc until February 20, 2001. The action of the Town Council granting such a leave at the November 13, 2000 special meeting is ratified. Since the action was previously taken at a special meeting and was not an agenda item, the adoption of the Resolution is necessary to insure that the leave granted is valid. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 45, Series of 2000 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 45 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO DOUGLAS MERCATORIS. WHEREAS, Douglas Mercatoris is a member of the Town Council; and WHEREAS, Mercatoris informed the Town Council on November 13, 2000 that he would be undergoing medical treatment that would preclude him from performing his duties as a member of the Town Council for one month to three months commencing on November 14, 2000; and WHEREAS, Section 2-49 of the Municipal Code states as follows: Absences. Any member of the Town Council or a board or commission who shall be absent from two (2) consecutive regularly scheduled meetings without the prior approval of a majority of all the other members shall be considered deficient in performing the duties for which he or she was elected or appointed, and such action shall constitute grounds for removal. Upon the affirmative vote of four (4) members of the Town Council, removal proceedings pursuant to Section 31-4-307, C.R.S., shall be commenced; and WHEREAS, Mercatoris requested the Town Council to grant him a medical leave of absence within the meaning of Section 2-49; and WHEREAS, Section 2-49 of the Municipal Code authorizes the Town Council to grant prior approval of anticipated absences of a member of the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considered and granted the request of Mercatoris by Motion on November 13, 2000; and WHEREAS, as the request of the Town Attorney, the Town Council desires to ratify its action on November 13, 2000 on the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Medical Leave of Absence. A medical leave of absence within the meaning of Section 2-49 of the Municipal Code is hereby granted to Douglas Mercatoris effective November 20, 2000 and terminating on February 20, 2001. The Town Council extends its support to Mercatoris and desires that he resume his duties as a member of the Town Council expeditiously. 2. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on November 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 - ow TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Presented By: Stephen R. Connor, Town Attorney Subject: Draft Resolution No. 46, Series of 2000 and Draft Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2000 Overview: Preliminary draft of special election resolution for discussion only. Draft implementation ordinance pertaining to the Initiative Ordinance for discussion only. Recommendation: Discuss draft and provide direction for final draft for December 4, 2000 adoption. r DRAFT TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 46 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PARCEL N EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT UNDER INITIATIVE ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 2000. WHEREAS,Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 was approved by the electors of the Town on November 7, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Initiative Ordinance defines a "project" as follows: Project. A project means the total of any activity or group of activities, which are properly, usually, or best planned or executed together to achieve an objective or related objectives; and WHEREAS,the Parcel N employee housing project is a"project"within the meaning of the Initiative Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Initiative Ordinance categorizes projects by the anticipated cost of the project, as follows: Project spending limitation. Project spending limitation during a current year is forty percent (40%) of the latest available years' audited total of general revenue of the Town of Snowmass Village. This shall be determined consistent with the accounting practices of the Town of Snowmass Village audited financial statement of 1999, forwarded with the auditor's report dated March 8, 2000. For example, page 4 of that report cites a general revenue total of$9,648,730,which would yield a spending limitation of approximately $3.86 million for calendar year 2000; and WHEREAS,the Parcel N employee housing project is a project that is subject to the "project spending limitation" as the anticipated project cost is in excess of the "project spending limitation"; and WHEREAS, if a project is subject to the "project spending limitation," then the Initiative Ordinance requires an election as follows: The Town Snowmass Village shall not implement,approve, institute,orcontract any project or obligate itself in any way to any project within the Town of Snowmass Village or to be paid for by the Town of Snowmass Village, which requires an expenditure of money in excess of the project spending limitation without a vote of the electors of the Town of Snowmass Village approving the project and the money for the project; and C R PAN Fµ` DRAFT Resolution No. 46, Series of 2000 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Parcel N employee housing project is a project that must be approved by the electors as required by the Initiative Ordinance; and WHEREAS,to comply with the terms and conditions of the Initiative Ordinance, the Town Council desires to call a special election within the meaning of Section 2.2 of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS,the Town Council finds thatthe adoption of this Resolution is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Scheduling of Special Election. Pursuant to the Town Charter,the Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965 and all laws amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto a special municipal election is hereby called to be held on January_, 2001 for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 to authorize the construction of the Parcel N employee housing project, consisting of 16 restricted private ownership permanent moderate housing units on Parcel N, Faraway Ranch. 2. Election Question. The question to be submitted to the eligible electors of the Town is as follows: WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES SHALL THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE BE AUTHORIZED TO CONSTRUCT THE PARCEL N EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 16 RESTRICTED PRIVATE OWNERSHIP PERMANENT MODERATE HOUSING UNITS ON PARCEL N, FARAWAY RANCH; AND SHALL THE TOWN BE FURTHER AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE PROCEEDS OF A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT,THE FLOORAREA EXCISE TAXAND UNIT SALES,ANDTOWN FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT? 3. Direction to the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk shall provide notice of and shall conduct the special election in compliance with the Town Charter, the Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965 and all laws amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto 4. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. qJa CRAFT DRAFT Resolution No. 46, Series of 2000 Page 3 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on December4,2000 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 GRAFT Lit , DRAFT TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 28 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF INITIATIVE ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 2000 AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES THEREUNDER. WHEREAS, Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 was approved by the electors of the Town on November 7, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to specify the manner in which the Initiative Ordinance will be codified in the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that interpretations must be provided and procedures must be established for the orderly and efficient implementation of the Initiative Ordinance; 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. Codification. Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 is hereby codified in the Municipal Code as Chapter 4, Article VI, as follows: ARTICLE VI Project Spending Limitation Sec. 6-1 Purpose. Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 was approved by the electors of the Town on November 7, 2000. The provisions of this Article are effective prospectively on November 7, 2000. Sec. 6-2 Definitions. The following definitions are established for application in this Article: DRAFT DRAFT (1) Money means money from any source and of any type. (2) Project spending limitation during a current year is forty percent (40%) of the latest available years' audited total of general revenue of the Town. (This shall be determined consistent with the accounting practices of the Town audited financial statement of 1999, forwarded with the auditors report dated March 8, 2000. For example, page 4 of that report cites a general revenue total of $9,648,730, which would yield a spending limitation of approximately $3.86 million for calendar year 2000.) (3) Project means the total of any activity or group of activities, which are properly, usually, or best planned or executed together to achieve an objective or related objectives. Sec. 6-3 Project Limitation. The Town shall not implement, approve, institute, or contract any project or obligate itself in any way to any project within the Town or to be paid for by the Town, which requires an expenditure of money in excess of the project spending limitation without a vote of the electors of the Town approving the project and the money for the project. 2. Implementation Provisions. To implement the provisions of Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, the following sections are hereby added to Chapter 4, Article VI of the Municipal Code, as follows: Sec. 6-4 Project Evaluation. The Town is authorized to analyze, consider, design, plan, review, obtain approvals for the project required by other provisions of the this Code, and to expend money in furtherance thereof for a project that is subject to the provisions of Sec. 6-3 without a vote of the electors of the Town approving the project and the money for the project. Sec. 6-5 Project Approval Election. Prior to the entrance into a contract for the construction of a project that is subject to the provisions of Sec. 6-3, the Town Council shall cause a vote of the electors of the Town approving the project and the money for the project at a regular or special election. Sec. 6-6 Project Construction. In the event that the electors approve the project and the money for the project at the project approval election, the Town Council may proceed to construct the project without further application of the provisions of this Article. In the event that the electors do not approve the project and the nRAFT nP FT money for the project at the project approval election, the Town Council may continue to evaluate, modify or redesign the project within the meaning of Sec. 6- 4. Sec. 6-7 Penalty. The provisions of Sec. 1-72 and Sec. 1-78 shall not apply to violations of this Article. The sole remedy for the enforcement of the provisions of this Article shall be a proceeding brought under the provisions of Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on December 4, 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 December 18, 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 DRAFT 61 ~ To: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: CLERK' S OFFICE RE: OLD MINUTES DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2000 During our normal cross checking of the minutes, we found that some of the minutes did not make it to the Town Council for approval. We apologize for any inconvenience. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 03-06-2000 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 03-08-2000 — CONTINUED FROM 03-06-2000 Mayor T. Michael Manchester reconvened the March 6, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester; Doug Mercatoris, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Brady was absent. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Marianne Rakowski, Finance Director; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Jennifer Worth, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Shane Harvey, Chris Chaffin, Don Schuster, Sara Chung, John Dresser, Martin Mate, Wayne Stryker and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. NOTE: The Agenda items for this continued Meeting were renumbered. Item No. 1: MANAGER'S REPORT EOTC Meetino The Town Manager stated that the next Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Meeting is scheduled for March 16, 2000. RTA Citizen Advisory Committee Mercatoris made a motion to appoint Jim Heywood and Ted Grande to the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) Citizen Advisory Committee. Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Council Member Brady was absent. 03-08-00tc-cont'd Page 2 RTA/RFRHA Meeting Summaries The Town Manager stated that he will provide summaries of RTA and Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA) meetings. NOTE: Item Nos. 2 and 9 were combined and discussed at this time. Item No. 2: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT Item No. 9: CALENDARS SVRA Internet Web Page Mayor Manchester requested that the Town Manager contact Snowmass Village Resort Association (SVRA) and request that they provide a link to access the Town's Internet Web Page and include additional Town information on SVRA's Internet Web Page. Joint Meeting - Water & Sanitation District Council will meet with the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District at their meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 11, 2000,to discuss current issues and future plans related to the District. Rodeo Property Appraisal Mercatoris requested that the Town Manager contact the Rodeo property owner to obtain permission for the Town to have an appraisal conducted on the Rodeo property in anticipation of potential land purchase negotiations. He explained that this purchase of the Rodeo property by the Town may possibly become a ballot question at the November, 2000 Snowmass Village Regular Election. Potential uses of the property by the Town would be for public purposes, continuation of Rodeo, recreation and open space. Council majority agreed. The Town Manager and Mercatoris will meet with the Aspen Appraisal Group on March 16, 2000 to discuss the results of an appraisal requested by the Town in 1995 relating to the Town's goals for use of the property. Hatfield stated his approval to subsidize the year 2000 Rodeo with $30,000 as agreed previously by Council and requested a list of conditions be applied to use of the funds. Mayor Manchester said that an agreement will be outlined with the Rodeo Company, stating uses for the funds and identifying overhead costs for all in-kind services that may be provided by the Town. Mercatoris reported that the SVRA will make a decision at a special meeting of the SVRA Board of Governors on April 29, 2000 to determine whether to increase SVRA's subsidy to �� • 03-08-00tc-cont'd Page 3 the Rodeo from $30,000 to $60,000. He mentioned other business owners who have affirmed their intention to subsidize the operation for the year 2000. Mercatoris commended Terry Hunt of the SVRA for his efforts toward making the 2000 summer Rodeo become a reality. Costello suggested the entire Real Estate Community contribute to this effort. After further discussion, Council majority agreed to provide $5,000 of in-kind services at this time and allow the landowner the option of requesting an additional amount in the future, if it should become necessary. Council directed the Town Manager to write a Letter of Understanding, stating the amounts specified as well as the terms and conditions as requested by Council. Chapel Sion Hatfield requested that the Town Manager address a request from Jeanne Woods regarding a sign for the Chapel as soon as possible. Two Creeks Parking Fees Hatfield requested that Council schedule a discussion regarding Council's earlier decision to allow free parking at the Two Creeks parking lot. Due to an improvement of mountain skiing conditions, he suggested that the Town once again begin charging a fee for parking in the lot. Council majority disagreed and no discussion was scheduled. RFTA Buses Hatfield requested information regarding empty, out-of-service RFTA buses. Manchester stated that he would ask the question at the upcoming RFTA Board Meeting and report back to Hatfield. Draw Parcel Hatfield requested a report on the status of information regarding deed restrictions on the Draw Parcel as soon as possible. Employee Housing Guidelines Hatfield requested information from the Housing Manager regarding employee housing single-family and multi-family Income and Asset Guidelines for possible revisions and updating of the document. Land Use Code Update Hatfield requested a date certain for completion of revisions to the Land Use Code. ZSS7 own 03-08-00tc-cont'd Page 4 Brush Creek/Hwy 82 Sign Hatfield referred to a letter from Bill Lucks regarding the Town sign proposed for the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highway 82. He suggested a compromise with the County by constructing the sign at its original location, and suggested a location on either side of Brush Creek Road. Council directed staff to schedule Work Session time for further discussion of this issue. Dumpster Fees/Capacity In response to an inquiry from Hatfield, the Public Works Director explained that fees charged for commercial dumpsters are based on an industry standard and suggested that if a dumpster collects less than full dumpster capacity, the owner should contact the Town and request that the frequency for trash pick-up be reduced. He explained that the dumpster overflow charge is to prevent customers from consistently overflowing the dumpster rather than requesting more frequent pick-ups. Mercatoris stated that trash pick-up is currently subsidized by the Sales Tax Fund. He suggested that an increase in the recycling effort would result in a cost savings to the business owner. Owl Creek Trail Manchester reported that an appraisal has been completed on the section of Mr. Guber's property pertinent to completion of the Owl Creek Trail. A letter is being mailed to Guber requesting a meeting to discuss possible purchase of the property or granting an easement to construct the trail connection. The Town Attorney stated that the property has been subdivided since the appraisal was completed and suggested obtaining an updated appraisal. Employee Generation Rate Manchester requested an update on the progress of finalizing the employee housing generation rate as a part of the Land Use Code update. The Planning Director explained that the survey conducted was deemed incomplete since it did not include a number for full-time employees. She further explained that the Town Clerk maintains information related to this issue from Business License Applications, although it does not include information on Contractors. She suggested that information be obtained from the list of Contractor Licensees via telephone inquiries and informed Council that as soon as this information is completed it will be presented to Council for review and approval. 2000 Census Manchester stressed the importance of the 2000 Census now in progress. The Planning Director stated that posters have been made and placed in conspicuous locations as a reminder to Snowmass Village. Council suggested placing posters at the Snowmass Chapel and in the locker rooms at the employee housing sites. _5(GOP 03-08-00to-cont'd Page 5 Telephone Feedback/Council Internet E-Mail Manchester reported that a location for the public to submit comments and feedback to Council regarding the "Question of the Week", is now available on the Town's Internet Website. At this same site, an option is available to connect to Council Member's e-mail if the public wishes to do so. A telephone "hotline" is also now available. The public can now leave a message for Council by calling 922-6727. T.O.S.V. Made National News! Manchester reported that Snowmass Village was on National Television news. The report was aired on CBS News on Sunday, March 5, 2000, was presented in a positive fashion, featured segments of interviews with Mayor Manchester and Council Member Brady and included several film shots of the ski area. 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. Mayor Manchester referred to additional information on this Item, which was distributed to Council separately from the information included in the Council Packet for today's Meeting. The Planning Director explained that information included in the Packet is based on the formula used by the Pitkin County Assessor to value improvements. The separate information includes a spreadsheet using only square footage of actual improvements and resulting cost per square foot based upon that actual square-footage value. Manchester outlined the new information and explained the results produced using the new numbers. Council agreed to use the 70-percent figure as outlined in the document. Mercatoris made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2000, seconded by Hatfield. The Town Attorney explained that the formula in the Ordinance is incorrect and explained the correction. After further discussion, Hatfield made a motion to amend the Ordinance with the correct formula. Mercatoris seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. A roll-call vote was taken and Second Reading of the Ordinance was approved as amended by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. 03-08-00tc-cont'd Page 6 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 Hatfield made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09, Series of 2000, seconded by Mercatoris. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. 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 Mercatoris made a motion to approve First Reading of Ordinance No. 09, Series of 2000. Hatfield seconded the motion. Mercatoris explained a change to the Ordinance title, changing the word "Conceptual" to "Pre-Sketch". The Planning Director explained changes to the body of the Ordinance. After further discussion, Hatfield made a motion to amend the Ordinance to include changes as outlined by the Planning Director. Mercatoris seconded the motion to amend. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Mayor Manchester called the question and First Reading of the Ordinance was approved as amended, by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Item No. 6: DISCUSSION/ACTION APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION — GRACIE'S CABIN The Town Attorney explained Council's options for this discussion. On August 18, 1997, Council adopted Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, approving the Final PUD Plan for Gracie's Cabin with conditions, one of which was that the Final Land Use Plan and Final Plat Map would be submitted to the Town prior to building permit issuance or within 60 days of the effective date of the Ordinance, whichever occured first. The Ordinance became effective on September 2, 1997. A letter from Shane Harvey, representing Gracie's Cabin, explained that due to development and monetary constraints following the PUD approval, Gracie's did not submit the documents, thus triggering a suspension of final approval until such time as the documents were submitted and accepted by the Town. In 1999, the applicant submitted the required documents which were executed and approved by Town staff. The current Planning Director dated the documents for recordation with the Final PUD approval date of September 2, 1997. The applicant feels the Final PUD approval date to be November 11, 1999, when the 03-08-00tc-cont'd Page 7 final documents were approved by the Town. Council discussed the issue to determine a means for the applicant to finalize their Plan within a reasonable time. The Town Attorney provided his opinion and stated that neither interpretation of the date in question made by the applicant or by the Planning Director is incorrect and recommended options of using the 1997 date and providing an extension or use the date requested by the applicant. After further . discussion, Council directed the Planning Director to meet with the applicant and negotiate a settlement that is consistent with the Land Use Code and determined that due to the unusual circumstances, the original date would be extended. Council directed the Planning Director to prepare an Ordinance that confirms the new vesting date. The applicant explained that there is no use identified for the cabin at this time and indicated an interest in any proposed uses for the structure.. 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 GROSS PARCEL PLAT, AND THE GRANTING OF AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT A FINAL PUD PLAN APPLICATION (Public Hearing continued from 02-21-200 and 03- 06-2000) Continuation of this Public Hearing began at 5:00 p.m. John Dresser requested that this Public Hearing be continued to allow comments regarding geotechnical issues related to this project to be included in the record. He explained that geotechnical information was received from the applicant and submitted directly to Mr. Pollack, the geotechnical expert representing the Ridge Homeowners Association, and time has not been sufficient to allow Pollack to review and comment on the information. Council discussed aspects of the project related to construction of the employee housing, further information and clarification necessary for preliminary approval, benefits and the time schedule for approval of an Ordinance allowing the contractor to begin preliminary construction on the site. Manchester stated that geotechnical information would be fully discussed and considered before final action is taken on this Resolution. Conrad and the Town Attorney clarified the outstanding information requested by the Town. After further discussion, Manchester stated that this Public Hearing would be continued to the April 20, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting at 4:00 p.m. Action on the Resolution was also scheduled for the April 20, 2000 Regular Town dM 03-08-00tc-cont'd Page 8 Council Meeting in order to allow time for the applicant to submit documentation necessary for consideration of approval. Hatfield requested that community benefits related to this development be discussed at the next meeting. He stated that he would be absent from the April 13 Work Session and April 20 Council Meeting. Hatfield further stated that with the information at hand, he would not be able to vote in favor of the project because of the mass and scale of the project and the proposed associate parking. He commended the applicant for working with Council and providing positive aspects to the project, and stated that he believes this will be a good project respective to design and planned management. Mercatoris requested that Hatfield outline his concerns related to the project for submission and discussion at the March 13, 2000 Council Work Session. Hatfield left the meeting at this time. Designs were provided and the Housing Manager reviewed and discussed revisions to the employee housing portion of the development with Council, staff and the architect. "Significant Risk", related to the surrounding property as written in the Resolution, was discussed at length. Item No. 8: APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 02-14-00 AND 02-23-00 AND MEETING MINUTES OF 02-21-00 This item was not heard at this meeting. Item No. 10: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Manchester declared the Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk cap SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 03-20-2000 Mayor T. Michael Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, March 20, 2000. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Mark Brady, Kevin Costello COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Hatfield STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Chris Conrad, Senior Planner; Jennifer Worth, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: John Dresser, John Meckling, Steve Pollack, Michael George, Madeleine Osberger, Doug Dotson, Bill Kane, Leonard Farber and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS Leonard Farber, owner of Country Club Townhome, Unit No. 32, requested information related to the Town's requirements for the operation of the Rodeo. Mayor Manchester and the Town Manager explained that a Temporary Use Permit is not required of the Rodeo Company in order to operate each year as long as they don't expand the allowed use. The Town Manager explained that the Rodeo has a right to conduct their operations each year as a Non-Performing Use, although if the Rodeo wishes to expand the allowed use, only then are they required to apply for a Permit. Item No. 3: PUBLIC HEARING —ATUP/SUMMER CONCERT SERIES TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT ON FANNY HILL AT THE MALL WITH ACCESS FROM ELBERT LANE, BY THE SNOWMASS RESORT 03-20-00tc Page 2 ASSOCIATION TO ALLOW A FREE SUMMER CONCERT SERIES Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 4:35 p.m. The Planning Director requested that this Public Hearing be continued in order to allow the applicant time to provide information necesssary to this application. There being no comments from the Public, Mayor Manchester stated that this Public Hearing would be continued to the April 3, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. Mercatoris requested corrections to statements included in the information provided to Council for this meeting. He explained that although the Snowmass Resort Association makes a cash contribution for the concerts and obtains the necessary Temporary Use Permit for the Concert Series, which allow insurance coverage for the concerts, it is the Snowmass Community Fund that organizes the Summer Concert Series. Item No. 4: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION — 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 and action tabled from 03-08-00) Mayor Manchester explained that this Public Hearing is being continued from the March 3. 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting and action on Resolution No. 06, Series of 2000 was tabled to this Meeting from the March 8, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. He opened the Public Hearing at 4:40 p.m. Chris Conrad read a letter from Lance Burwell, Attorney representing the Woodbridge Condominium Association. The letter addressed the proposed location and design of the bus stop and requested certain conditions relating to the greenbelt area in that location. Council requested that a Condition be included in the Resolution which states that the issues outlined in Burwell's letter will be presented to Council prior to Final Review of this application. Steve Pollack, of H.P. Geoteck and representative of the Ridge Homeowners Association, stated geotechnical concerns regarding the use of outdated equipment, length of monitoring time sufficient to gain valid information and additional equipment necessary for testing ground water and ground movement that is not currently included in the plan. He also stated that the Ridge woo 03-20-00tc Page 3 Homeowners have concerns regarding slope stability that may cause further damage to their structures. He informed Council that the Ridge Homeowners have requested that he monitor the site throughout the construction process. Meckling explained that planning for construction of the infrastructure and monitoring the site has been based on a "worst-case" scenario. Meckling stated that the applicant agrees to allow Pollack to monitor the readings, collect data as a team effort and share the information as a formal process. The Town Attorney stated that an agreement relating to this issue will be a part of the final approval Ordinance. The group discussed the contingency plan, the order for construction of the buildings, priority for employees in the employee housing units, unoccupied employee housing units and materials, appliances and landscaping at the employee housing site. Meckling explained that one year's monitoring has been completed and no movement has been detected. Another round of testing is planned before construction begins. John Dresser requested that today's Public Hearing date be included in the Resolution. There being no further comments, Manchester closed the Public Hearing at 5:12 p.m. Conrad summarized information included in the Resolution and the attached Exhibits. Council reviewed the Resolution and requested necessary changes. Council discussed condominium documents related to the property. The Town Attorney stated he felt the information provided by the applicant is sufficient for Preliminary approval. After further discussion, Mercatoris made a motion to approve Resolution No. 06, Series of 2000, seconded by Costello. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Mercatoris made a motion to amend the Resolution by including changes as discussed with the Town Attorney at this meeting. Brady seconded the motion to amend. The motion to approve the Resolution as amended, was passed by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Hatfield was absent. Item No. 5: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 09, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF 16A TO CREATE A PRE-SKETCH PLAN PROCEDURE IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE The Planning Director requested that this item be continued until the April 17, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting in order to allow time to prepare the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council on this item. Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 6:15 p.m. In response to an inquiry from Bill Kane of the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC), Council stated that the Pre-Sketch Process is not mandatory. There being no I (o3 03-20-00tc Page 4 further comments from the public, Mayor Manchester stated that this Public Hearing will be continued to the April 17, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting at 4:00 p.m. Mercatoris made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 09, Series of 2000, seconded by Costello. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Mercatoris made a motion to table action on Second Reading of the Ordinance to the April 17, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Hatfield was absent. Item No. 6: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION — RESOLUTION NO. 16 SERIES OF 2000 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND COUNCIL ACTION ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WOODRUN PLACE, UNIT 34, TO PERMIT AN ENCLOSURE OF A DECK RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN THE FLOOR AREA Mayor Manchester and Council Member Costello stepped down from the Council table, stating conflicts of interest. The Planning Director explained that the applicant and owner of Woodrun Place, Unit 34, has requested approval to enclose his deck, which would result in an increase of calculable floor area of 66.4 sq. ft. She stated that this Public Hearing was noticed in accordance with the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. She provided Council with a historical background of the Woodrun Place PUD and explained that the Planning Commission has reviewed the submission and recommended conditional approval. Mayor Pro Tern Mercatoris opened the Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. There being no comments from the public, Mercatoris closed the Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. Brady made a motion to approve Resolution No. 16, Series of 2000, seconded by Mercatoris. In response to an inquiry from Brady, the Planning Director stated that a few of the Woodrun Place homeowners have enclosed their individual decks in the past. Kevin Heath, representing T. Michael Manchester and Associates, stated that previous deck enclosures at Woodrun Place have followed a consistent exterior architectural scheme. After further discussion, Mercatoris called the question and the motion to approve Resolution No. 16, Series of 2000 was approved by a vote of 2 in favor to 0 opposed. Mayor Manchester and Council Member Costello abstained. Council Member Hatfield was absent. GOWW '• 03-20-00tc Page 5 Item No. 7: 2ND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 08, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1999 BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Brady made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 08, Series of 2000, seconded by Mercatoris. The Finance Director stated that there have been no changes made to the Ordinance since First Reading. There being no further discussion, a roll-call vote was taken and the Ordinance was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Hatfield was absent. Mercatoris requested that Work Session time be set to discuss this year's Sales Tax shortfall as soon as the First Quarter Sales Tax numbers are received. Item No. 8: MANAGER'S REPORT Council Retreat In response to an inquiry from the Town Manager, Council stated that a Council Retreat date will be scheduled at a time when all Council Members are present. Town Meetings The Town Manager stated that he will provide Council Members with a questionnaire in order to determine an agenda for the Town Meetings scheduled for April 4 and 5, 2000. Staff Retreat The Town Manager stated that he will provide Council with a summary of the Staff Retreat held on March 14, 2000. Cultural Arts Forum The Town Manager stated his appreciation to Mercatoris and Costello for attending the Cultural Arts Forum. He reported that the Forum was a success. Travel Symposium The Town Manager reported that the Travel Symposium will be held this year in Snowmass Village on April 2 — 9, 2000. He stated that the group has offered complimentary registration for Council Members and the Town Manger. He requested that any Council Members who wish to attend should contact the Deputy Town Clerk for registration. Item No. 9: SEVEN STAR RANCH PUD— REQUEST FOR EXTENSION The Town Manager provided Council with a letter from Joe Wells, representative for the Seven Star Ranch, requesting an Extension of Time for Council review of 03-20-00tc Page 6 the Seven Star Ranch PUD. Mercatoris made a motion to approve the Extension of Time to April 19, 2000, seconded by Costello. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Hatfield was absent. Item No. 10: APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 02-14-00. 02-23-00 AND 03-06-00 AND THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR 02-21-00 Mercatoris made a motion to approve the Work Session Summaries and Meeting Minutes as listed above. Costello seconded the motion. There being no changes or additions, the motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Hatfield was absent. Item No. 11: DISCUSSION REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RTA) Mayor Manchester stated that an RTA Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 22, 2000. The focus of the meeting will be to discuss the issue of consolidation of the RTA, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) and the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA). Council determined that they would recommend that the RTA trunk line serve as its own entity and not incorporate at this time. If the need to use RFRHA's tracks becomes a reality in the future, a discussion of consolidation with RFRHA can be discussed at that time. He will recommend that RFRHA does not become incorporated into the RTA at this point RTA needs to be a planning entity, but not planning or finishing the CIS. Item No. 12: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORT/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT Rodeo Property Mercatoris reported that he and the Town Manager met with the Aspen Appraisal Group and have requested that they provide the Town with information relating to the value of the Rodeo property. The Town Manager will notify Council when he receives the information. The Town Attorney stated that Council would be limited to the appraised value of the property in determining a fair purchase price. The Town Manager informed Council that a confidential summary of the meeting with the Aspen Appraisal Group has been placed in Council mailboxes at Town Hall. Manchester reported that he has spoken to two citizens who are interested in participating in a citizen committee to determine alternatives for possible purchase of the land with a combination of free-market and non-profit funds. The Owl u/00 03-20-00tc Page 7 committee would also investigate how to sustain the Rodeo over the long term and possible uses for the area for the immediate and distant future. The committee would consist of interested citizens and a couple of Council Member to investigate possible alternatives and make recommendations. Manchester suggested use of Town staff to coordinate and assist with the meetings as a part of that process. After further discussion, Council agreed that the committee would be of assistance and agreed to allow Town staff support. Council determined that this issue will be further discussed during the March 27, 2000 Work Session and agreed that any further information from the appraisers than that which has been requested to date, is not necessary at this time. Item No. 13: CALENDARS Town Manner's Annual Review Manchester stated that the Town Manager's Annual Review will be scheduled for the April 10, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. Costello agreed to meet with Department and Division Heads, along with another Council Member to discuss this item before the April 10 Meeting. Transit Plaza Financing Options The Town Manager will contact Walter Kieser to discuss a date that he will provide Transit Plaza financing options to Council. Testing — Parcels K and N Mayor Manchester requested that staff begin soils and ground water testing and monitoring on Parcels "K" and "N" to monitor the areas for any effects beginning construction for the Timbers may have on the properties. The Town Attorney suggested this issue be added as a Condition to the Final Approval Ordinance for the Timbers. The Town Manger will contact the soils engineers for recommendations. Question of the Week Manchester informed the public of the "Question of the Week" on the Town's Internet Website at www.tosv.com. The question was regarding whether the Town should proceed with installation of a Town identification sign at the intersection of Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road. Comments may be made to the Town directly from the Website or by calling the "Citizen Hotline" telephone number at 922-6727 or by sending an e-mail to feed backCciltosv.com. Brush Creek Road/Hwy 82 Sign Costello reported that he met with County Commissioners Ireland and Lamont at the proposed location for the Town sign at the intersection of Highway 82 and WOW, (07 ~ 03-20-00tc Page 8 Brush Creek Road. Council has proposed that the sign be located on the landscaped median at the beginning of Brush Creek Road. The Commissioners suggested the sign be located near the road on land which was previously a part of Cozy Point Ranch, designed as an inverted "V" with wording on both sides to be seen by traffic traveling both up valley and down valley. Commissioner Lamont offered to investigate ownership of that land. The Town Manager explained that the plan was for the sign to be more subtle, set back from the Highway, to welcome those traveling to Snowmass Village. Council Voice-Mail The Deputy Town Clerk stated that individual voice-mail boxes will be available for each Council Member within the upcoming week to receive feedback from the community. She will prepare an instruction sheet to instruct Council Members on how to retrieve the messages. Council Vacations Council discussed scheduled vacation times for April and May, 2000. Council Meeting and Work Session dates will be set to accommodate schedules. Item No. 14: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mercatods made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Brady. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Hatfield was absent. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 09-18-00 Mayor Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, September 18, 2000 at 5:20 p.m. Item No.1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Mark Brady, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: All Council Members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Rhonda Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim Heywood, Phil Desmond, Mary Desmond, Alan Richman, John Meckling, Bill Meehan, Tom Singleton, Martha Singleton, Janet Urquhart, Bob Purvis, Jim Raaf, Harry Benton, Ursula Benton, Madeleine Osberger, John Dresser, Greg Masse and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. Public Non-Agenda Items Item No.2: GUEST GRANT FUNDING REQUEST—CHRISTIAN MOSIMAN This item was heard during the Work Session preceding this meeting. Item No. 5: INITIATIVE ORDINANCE NO.1. SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROJECT SPENDING LIMITATIONS FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL ABOVE WHICH APPROVAL BY THE ELECTORS OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE IS REQUIRED. The Town Manager stated that First Reading of this Ordinance is being presented to Council as brought forth by a Citizen's Petition Committee. Jim ..W so 09-18-00tc Page 2 Heywood, representing the Petitioner's Committee, further explained that this Ordinance was brought to Council by a group of citizens concerned about Town funds proposed for construction of the Mall Transit Plaza. He voiced the concerns regarding the projected cost, design and timing of the project. The Committee determined that a stronger approach was necessary to express these concerns regarding issues outlined above, as well as Council's reluctance to allow a voter's decision on this issue. He further explained that the Ordinance limits the authority to a certain spending amount on specific projects compromised to a certain portion of the Town's revenue. He stated that the Petitioners obtained 258 signatures, resulting in 189 after certification. Harry Benton, a Snowmass Village citizen, read a statement explaining the reasons why he signed the Petition. He explained that it is his sincere belief that Council has not set the proper order for prioritizing projects, which is creating an adverse affect on the Town. He stated that he felt the Village is becoming less attractive to citizens and visitors with the elimination of such things as horseback riding, snowmobile rides, hay rides and sleigh rides. He further stated that if discussions proposing industrial construction at the entrance to the Town and the potential loss of the rodeo come to fruition, the western experience will be lost, and Snowmass Village will become a winter resort without ice skating and a summer resort lacking proper swimming facilities or sufficient golfing. He exclaimed that the resort is becoming boring and less attractive to visitors, the business community and citizens, and outlined the communities needs for a rodeo, horses, additional golfing, skating and a youth center. Benton explained that he signed the Petition in hopes that Council will focus on projects that will benefit the entire community and concentrate on creating a vital, prosperous, youthful, fun resort, rather than an attractive retirement community. Heywood stated that he encountered 6 citizens who made the statement that they were in favor of constructing a Transit Plaza. One person stated that he felt the project would cost significantly more than is currently being proposed. Phil Desmond stated that the Committee discussed a certain amount of flexibility regarding the percentage numbers relating to spending limits when developing the Ordinance. Manchester stated that it is necessary that the Ordinance be sent to the voters go to a vote as it was signed on the Petition. If an alternative is accepted, the Ordinance could be adopted by Council, then it would not be an election question. Heywood further explained that Council has the option of adopting or denying the Ordinance. If Council denies the Ordinance, it would then be placed on the upcoming election ballot. The Town Attorney confirmed a comment that the Ordinance could be withdrawn by the Petitioners, if done so before Council 46 400 09-18-00tc Page 3 action takes place. Hatfield stated that although he was not involved in creating the Initiative, he has had two conversations with Mr. Heywood regarding this issue. He explained the conversations. Bob Purvis spoke in favor of the Ordinance and stated that this is a time when the citizens need Council to be a facilitating force and create a partnering, cooperative and constructive atmosphere, and also stated that he would prefer to see a compromise. The Town Manager explained that the Initiative Ordinance establishes broad spending limitations on the Town Council, and all future Councils, for all future projects. The limit in the Ordinance is equal to 40-percent of the Town's latest available years' audited general revenue. Any project in excess of the limit will require voter approval. The limit for the current year would equate to $3.86M. He stated that the Initiative Petition was submitted to the Town Clerk on behalf of the Petitioner's Committee on September 11, 2000. Deputy Town Clerk Rhonda Coxon read a statement of Certification into the record. She stated that the Petition and form were submitted in accordance with the Snowmass Village Town Charter and Municipal Code. The signatures were certified on September 11, 2000. 163 signatures were required and 189 signatures were certified by the Town Clerk. The Town Manager recommended denial of the Initiative Ordinance, stating staff felt that the Ordinance would further hinder the ability of government to accomplish projects in an already constrained environment and recommended that the Ordinance be placed on the November ballot. He read the definition of "project". Staff and the Town Attorney requested clarification regarding the limitations on future project planning. Heywood stated that the Ordinance allows expenditures for project planning, although project construction proposed to exceed the Ordinance funding limitations would need to be approved by the voters. In response to an inquiry made by Costello, the Town Attorney stated that this Ordinance would become law if approved by Council upon First and Second Reading. If the Ordinance is denied it would then be placed on the November ballot. If approved by the voters in November, the Ordinance would become law. Manchester explained that the Town has held numerous public meetings to discuss the proposed Transit Plaza, which resulted in very low public participation. He stated that neither a plan nor the cost has been determined for _71- 09-18-00tc Page 4 the Transit structure. He stated that he felt the language in the Ordinance is not clear and if approved, decision-making may require interpretation by the court. There being no further discussion, Hatfield made a motion to approve First Reading of Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, seconded by Mercatoris. The Town Attorney stated his concern regarding the Ordinance definitions and explained that if this Ordinance is approved by Council or by the voters, it would be necessary to enact an additional Ordinance in order to set forth a process for implementation of the Initiative Ordinance. Due to the mechanics of the Initiative Ordinance, the Town Attorney recommended a "no" vote. The Mayor called the question and First Reading of the Ordinance failed by a vote of 1 in favor to 4 opposed. Council Member Hatfield voted in favor. Mayor Manchester and Council Members Mercatoris, Brady and Costello opposed. Council directed staff to include Initiative Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000 on the November 7, 2000 Snowmass Village Regular Election ballot. Item No.3: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION — RESOLUTION NO. 25, SERIES OF 2000 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE PARCEL "N" AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMISSION INCLUDING SUBDIVISION PLAT AND REZONING FORM SPA-1 TO MF MULTI-FAMILY (oont'd from 09-05-00) (Public Hearing cont'd to 4:00 p.m.10-2-00) Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m. John Dresser stated that the Ridge Homeowners Association is strongly in favor of the two-building design with the extended buffer between the two properties. He also stated that the Homeowners felt a requirement for a performance bond on the project is in order, in respect to slope stability during the construction process. John Meckling stated that on September 5, 2000, Council requested that he provide a slope stabilization design for the current building site design as well as for the optional designs presented by the applicant. He read his conclusions from a document, which he submitted to Council. Myler referred to his letter to Council dated September 13, 2000, which explains the two techniques for retainage and costs for each, and which may be required depending on the location of the buildings on the site. In response to a request for confirmation made by Manchester, Meckling explained that installation of a ground water inceptor drain would increase the existing hillside stability. Alan Richman stated that a preferred site plan needs to be identified before discussions relating to other issues of the project can occur. Manchester requested that plans be developed to meet the requests of the reviewing agencies to enable construction to begin as 09-18-00tc Page 5 soon as possible. Hatfield expressed his appreciation for Meckling's report. Mercatoris stated that Meckling's report would assist Council in making a determination, if the applicant recommends construction on the 30-percent slope areas. The Town Attorney reiterated that it was determined previously by Meckling that the 30-percent slopes were natural slopes. Richman stated that the 30-percent man-made slopes are not within the construction area. Hatfield requested that staff provide a recommendation and additional information in order that the project may move forward. For scheduling purposes, the Town Planner requested that the applicant submit all new information no later than September 25, 2000, or at least seven days prior to the date scheduled for Council review, in order to provide adequate time for staff to review the information. Richman stated that the revised plans would be submitted to Council in one week. There being no further comment, Mayor Manchester continued this Public Hearing to the October 2, 2000 Town Council Meeting scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. NOTE: Manchester stated that due to time constraints, a portion of this Meeting would be continued to September 25, 2000. Council determined that the following items would be heard at this time. Item No. 7: RESOLUTION NO 38. SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING TABOR QUESTIONS TO THE TOWNS ELECTORATE Mercatoris made a motion to approve Resolution No. 38, Series of 2000, seconded by Costello. The Town Attorney distributed a document proposing alternative language for the Rodeo property debt question. He stated that the alternative language would limit the purchase price to a maximum of$3.5M. After further discussion, Mercatoris made a motion to approve the alternative ballot language distributed to Council at this Meeting, which would include $3.5M for purchase of the Rodeo property and the conservation easement. Manchester summarized the discussions, stating that the Community Pool ballot question would remain as it currently appeared in the Resolution included in the information packet for this Meeting. The Rodeo property ballot question was amended to include the alternative language as submitted by the Town Attorney at this Meeting, with the purchase price not to exceed $3.5M. After further discussion, the motion to approve the Resolution as amended, was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 8: APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF 08-07-00,08- r73 to 09-18-00tc Page 6 21-00 AND WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 07-17-00 AND 08-07-00 Hatfield made a motion to approve the Council Meeting Minutes and Work Session Summaries as listed above. Mercatoris seconded the motion. There being no corrections or additions, the motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 9: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT In anticipation of a discussion which would be continued to September 25, 2000 regarding Employee Housing guidelines, Manchester proposed that teachers of the Aspen School District be included with Snowmass Village employees to meet the employment requirements for purchase of employee housing in Snowmass Village. MEETING CONTINUED At 7:25 p.m. Mayor Manchester stated that this Meeting will be continued to September 25, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk 9Y SOS TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 10-16-2000 Mayor Pro Tem Douglas Mercatoris called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, October 16, 2000 at 4:01 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester; Douglas Mercatoris, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Brady STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Robert Voigt, Senior Planner; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Bob Purvis, Madeleine Osberger, Dave Spence, John Dresser, George Huggins, Alan Richman, Scott Smith and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS Dave Spence, Top of the Village, expressed his concern regarding a recently detected heating failure in upper Snowmelt Road. Spence explained that the non-functioning tubes will allow formation of black ice on the road and could prove to be extremely dangerous. He encouraged Council to diligently pursue identification of the problem in order to repair the road before winter. The Public Works Director stated that an expert in the field of detecting leaks was hired and failed to locate the leak, although it has been determined that two of the tubing loops located under the road are not functioning. The Public Works Director described the specific location of the tubing failure, the extent of investigation since the leak was detected in August of this year and winter maintenance required for the failed section in order to ensure safety if the leak cannot be repaired before the winter season. Council discussed the available options and directed staff to continue to investigate a means to identify the location of the leak and repair the road. "WOO" 10-16-00tc Page 2 Item No. 3: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ON ORDINANCE NO. 15, SERIES OF 2000 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND SECOND READING ACTION ON AN ORDIANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 4:15 p.m. The Planning Director stated that all submittal and public notification requirements have been satisfied in accordance with the Municipal Code. There being no comments from the public, Mayor Manchester closed the Public Hearing at 4:16 p.m. Mercatoris made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2000, seconded by Mayor Manchester. Mercatoris made a motion to amend the Ordinance with changes requested during discussions of this item during the Council Work Session held prior to this Meeting. Conrad stated that changes requested previously by Council were double underlined in the document. He explained the language change referring to review of building height within a development as discussed during the Work Session just prior to this Meeting. Mercatoris requested the correction of all grammatical errors be included in his amendment. Costello seconded the motion to amend. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Conrad explained that the Planning Commission reviewed existing inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan Buildout Chart and the Land Use Code Unit Equivalency Chart and conveyed that whenever additional mathematical formulas or numbers are inserted, unintended consequences may be the result. He further explained that the Planning Commission has recommended that the Charts be removed from the Ordinance to be further reviewed before Council consideration of this Ordinance. Mercatoris stated that Council has acknowledged the problem and due to time constraints has agreed to insertion of the language and formula proposed by staff in order to address the problem until such time as Council can sufficiently review and revise the Chart. Manchester stated that the purpose of the Buildout Chart is to determine if an applicant should be required to submit a community benefit as a part of their application. The Town Attorney stated his comfort with the language provided by the Planning Director as an interim application to be used until time allows for thorough review of the Charts. He also stated that he believed the language proposed by staff addresses the concern of the Planning Commission. After further discussion, a roll-call vote was taken and Second Reading of the Ordinance was approved as amended, by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Council directed staff to move forward with a ( T � 10-16-00tc Page 3 revisions to the Charts to present to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Item No. 4: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 20, SERIES OF 2000 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND SECOND READING ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE HOUSING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO COMMENCE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN PARCEL N, FARAWAY RANCH GROSS PARCEL PLAT Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 4:39 p.m. The Planning Director explained that a Public Hearing is not a requirement for this application, however a Public Hearing notice was published in the Snowmass Sun to allow for public comment at this Meeting. John Dresser, representing the Ridge Homeowners Association, requested that the start date to restrict construction Times from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. from November 18 through December 15, be delayed until the Holiday season begins. Mercatoris stated that the time was set to be consistent with that required of the Timbers development. After further discussion, Mercatoris made a motion to amend the language to restrict construction time to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. commencing on December 15. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Manchester closed the Public Hearing at 4:45 p.m. Hatfield made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2000. Costello seconded the motion. Costello seconded the motion to amend made by Mercatoris. The motion to amend was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. There being no further discussion, a roll-call vote was taken and the motion to approve Second Reading of the Ordinance as amended was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Mercatoris summarized changes made to the Ordinance and directed staff to make recommended revisions to the Buildout Chart for review by the Planning Commission. Item No. 5: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 36 SERIES OF 2000 TO RECIEVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND COUNCIL ACTION ON A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING FOR BUILDING ADDITIONS AND PARTIAL OR WHOLE RENOVATION OF THE CAFETERIA, DORM BUILDING, AND WOOD SHOP STUDIO BUILDING AT THE 77 • I 10-16-00tc Page 4 ANDERSON RANCH ARTS CENTER, PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 02, SERIES OF 1990 Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 4:47 p.m. The Planning Director explained that this application is being reviewed pursuant to Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1990, which outlined a Master Plan for Anderson Ranch. He stated that this Public Hearing was noticed in the Snowmass Village Sun on September 13, 2000. There being no comments from the public, Mayor Manchester closed the Public Hearing at 4:48 p.m. Mercatoris made a motion to approve Resolution No. 36, Series of 2000, seconded by Costello. Lathrop Strang, of Harry Teague Architects, explained that the application includes renovation of the cafeteria, minor enclosures on the dorm building and construction of two additions onto the studio building. He explained the proposed exterior colors and materials. After further discussion, the Resolution was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 31. SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SNOWMASS WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT Mercatoris made a motion to approve the alternate language for Resolution No. 31, Series of 2000, which was distributed by the Town Manager at this Meeting. Mayor Manchester seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Resolution was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Item No. 7: MANAGER'S REPORT Budget Meetings The Town Manager stated that Council/Staff Budget meetings are scheduled for October 17, 18 and 19. The Meetings will begin at noon. Candidate Forum/EOTC Meeting Mayor Manchester stated that a Candidate Forum is scheduled for Thursday, October 19, 2000, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. He also stated that a tentative Elected Officials Transportation Committee Meeting (EOTC) is scheduled on the same day at 4:00 p.m. Staff will notify the EOTC Meeting coordinator of the conflict. 10-16-00tc Page 5 Amendment No. 21 Position After discussing the issue, Mercatoris made a motion stating that after studying the detrimental effects voter approval of Amendment No. 21 would have on the operation of Town governments and Special Districts, the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council requests that the voters take a position against the Amendment at the November 7, 2000 Election. Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Council requested that staff acquire copies of booklets printed by the Legislative Council, which explain all the State issues and amendments that will appear on the November 7, 2000 General Election ballot. The booklets are to be made available as an aid for Snowmass Village voters. Council Meeting Schedule After reviewing and discussing draft Council Meeting Agendas for November, 2000, Mercatoris made a motion to reschedule the November 6, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting to November 13, 2000. Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Council directed the Planning Director to provide an Administrative Temporary Use Permit for the Timbers project, in order to avoid construction delays that may occur due to the change in Council Meetings. Formal action will then be reviewed and formalized at the November 13, 2000 Council Meeting. Item No. 8: APPROVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF 09-05-00, 09-25-00 CONT'D FROM 09-18-00. 10-02-00 AND 10-09-00, AND WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 08-14-00, 09-05-00 AND 09-11-00 Mercatoris made a motion to approve the Work Session Summaries and Meeting Minutes as listed. Costello seconded the motion. There being no changes or additions, the motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Item No. 9: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT -and- Item No. 10: CALENDARS C.A.S.T. Meeting Council Members Mercatoris, Costello and Brady stated previously that they would not be attending the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (C.A.S.T.) ,won 10-16-00tc Page 6 Meeting in Park City, Utah. Hatfield will advise the Town Manager if he plans to attend. Council suggested Planning Commission Members and/or Planning staff attend the meeting to fill Council vacancies. Council Attendance Mercatoris reported to the Clerk that Council Member Brady was present for the Council Work Session held prior to the Meeting, although he was not present at roll call for today's Regular Meeting. Stream Restoration Project In response to an inquiry made by Hatfield, the Community Development Director stated that revegetation at the new section of the Stream Restoration Project will take place in Spring of 2001. The Town Manager requested that barriers be set to avoid damage to the new project from snowmelt, sand and spring run-off. Chanae of Council Meetina Dates Mercatoris made a motion to reconsider his earlier motion to reschedule the November 6, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting to November 13, 2000. Hatfield seconded the motion. Mercatoris made a motion to cancel the November 6, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting and call a Special Town Council Meeting for November 13, 2000. Hatfield seconded motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Mall Transit Plaza Delay Hatfield commended Council on their decision to delay proceedings for design and development of the Mall Transit Plaza until 2001. Mercatoris explained that Council decision to delay any further action on the proposed Transit Plaza was based on valid community concern regarding timing for construction of the project. Employee Housing Construction Costs Hatfield stated his concern regarding the current price for construction of employee housing. He requested that staff investigate costs related to recent construction of the Highlands employee housing in Aspen. Election Information Mayor Manchester reported that a candidate "squirm" night would be held on October 17, 2000 at the Ritz Carlton in Aspen. The purpose of the gathering is to provide the public with an opportunity to meet and question the candidates regarding election issues. He also reminded the public that the Snowmass Village Sun will sponsor a "Candidate's Night" on Thursday, October 19, 2000 and a "Ballot Issues Forum" on Wednesday, October 25, 2000. These two events will be held at the Snowmass Village Council Chambers and will be filmed goo 10-16-00tc Page 7 by GrassRoots Television. Mayor Manchester urged the citizens to vote on November 6, 2000. Absentee Votina Mayor Manchester informed the public that Absentee Voting would be available at the Town Clerk's Department beginning on October 26, 2000, during regular office hours. Reconfirm Vote - Resolution The Town Clerk requested that Council clarify and reconfirm the vote on Resolution No. 38, Series of 2000, which was approved by Council at the Regular Town Council Meeting on September 18, 2000. The Town Attorney explained that at the time of approval, changes made to the document as requested by Council, discussion and voting left the Clerk unclear as to the final outcome. Hatfield made a motion to reconfirm Council's unanimous approval of Resolution No. 38, Series of 2000, seconded by Mercatoris. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Council Position on Ballot Questions Hatfield made a motion stating Council's support of both the Community Swimming Pool Debt Question and the Rodeo Debt Question and requested that the Snowmass Village voters support both issues which are to appear on the November 7, 2000 Regular Snowmass Village Election ballot. Mercatoris seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Mercatoris requested that press releases be sent to newspapers throughout the valley stating Council's support of these issues. Voter's Registration Drive Manchester expressed his appreciation to the volunteers and staff involved in the recent and very successful voter's registration drive. Council Position on RTA Ballot Question Mercatoris made a motion stating that the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council supports and urges the electorate to support the Pitkin County ballot question regarding formation of a Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) as well as for the ballot issue requesting approval of$10.2M in transit revenue bonds to support the RTA. Mayor Manchester seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. Council stressed that approval of the revenue bonds will not increase taxes to the taxpayers of Pitkin County. _91 mom 10-16-00tc Page 8 Item No. 11: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Hatfield made a motion to adjourn the Meeting. Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. The Meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 04-10-2000 Mayor Manchester called to order the Special Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, April 10, 2000 at 5:50 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Doug Mercatons, Kevin Costello, Mark Brady and Jack Hatfield. COUNCIL ABSENT: All Council members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Dave Peckler, Transportation Manager PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT: George Huggins, Arnold Mordkin, Doug Faurer, Robert Gaudin, Bob Purvis PUBLIC PRESENT: Gert Van Moorsel, Geri Wright, Don Schuster, Bill Kane, Bill Burwell, Judy Burwell, Madeleine Osberger, Sherri Sanzone, Doug Grabel and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING. Bill Burwell, of the Snowmass Rodeo Company, requested Executive Session time to meet with Council regarding sale of the Rodeo Parcel to the Town. The Town Attorney recommended that this issue be discussed during Executive Session time set for today's Meeting. Council agreed. Manchester stated that Council would discuss possible purchase of the Rodeo with Burwell during Item No. 3 on today's Meeting Agenda. Item No. 2: JOINT MEETING WITH SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION • SNOWMASS CLUB PHASE II SKETCH PLAN APPLICANT PRESENTATION Giannola explained that the applicant for Snowmass Club Phase II has requested this time to present a Sketch Plan overview of their proposal to Council and staff. Don Schuster of the Snowmass Club provided an update on Snowmass Club 04-10-00tc Page 2 Phase I construction. He explained that of the 210 fractions in the fractional housing plan, 164 fractions, or seventy-five percent of the total inventory, have been reserved to date. He explained that his goal is to have sold 100% of the inventory by the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. After final subdivision approval by the State of Colorado, reservations will be converted to real contracts. Assuming that all inspections are passed, Schuster explained that the Sage Restaurant deck is scheduled to be reopened by Memorial Day and the Golf Maintenance and Employee Housing facilities are scheduled to be completed by September, 2001. The new indoor Racquetball/Handball Court and completion of the weight room is scheduled for completion in July. Completion date set for the entire project is February, 2001. He stated that the goal for today s Joint Meeting with Council and the Planning Commission is to continue discussions and to identify the appropriate community benefit for this project as outlined in the application. Schuster stated that the Sketch Plan will include thirty 3 and 4-bedroom condominium units with an average square footage of 1,800 sq. ft. per unit in Phase I, and up to 2,150 square feet per unit in Phase 11. The Tennis Bubble will be removed while more surface parking, a golf clubhouse of approximately 7,000 sq. ft. with golf cart parking underneath, and a permanent indoor tennis facility are being added. Gas-powered golf carts are being replaced with new electric golf carts and improvements will be made to the existing golf course as well as to the outdoor tennis facility. Schuster reviewed the Phase 11 Site Plan in detail. Parking will be constructed beneath each condominium building at a ratio of 1.2 parking spaces per condominium unit. The existing summerhouse will be replaced with a smaller structure, which will have bathrooms and a tennis check-in facility. New synthetic clay courts will replace old courts. The new clubhouse will be 7,000 square feet larger than the existing clubhouse and will be located on Clubhouse Drive. Schuster explained that the softball field might be reoriented to allow for changes to the golf course. He stated that the applicant has determined that it would not be financially feasible to expand the golf course onto the school site and requested a discussion with Council to determine alternate community benefits in lieu of the additional previously planned nine holes of golf. Doug Grabel, architect, explained the architectural details of the Phase 11 Site Plan. Most of the materials and architectural details will match or blend with existing structures. Council, the applicant, staff and members of the public discussed proposed alterations and additions such as proposed parking locations and number of parking spaces, golf course upgrade, clubhouse, storage, existing waterflow and irrigation, and the proposed pedestrian/bicycle path. Schuster explained that almost all components of the golf course upgrade could be done with the existing 18 holes in play. 04-10-00tc Page 3 Schuster explained the employee housing mitigation for Phase I and Phase II, and requested that Council waive any further employee housing mitigation requirements generated by Phase II. Mayor Manchester explained that the Planning Commission will review the plans and formulate their recommendation to Council. Council would then review the plans and recommendations and determine if the application should proceed to Preliminary Review. Manchester informed the applicant of revisions currently being made to the Sketch Plan process and Employee Housing Generation requirements within the Land Use Code (LUC), which may require that the applicant supply additional information and adjust housing mitigation numbers during the Sketch Plan process. Council requested that the Planning Commission review the submission both with and without the proposed additional 9 holes of golf and determine the advantages and/or disadvantages of this use on the golf reservation land previously set aside, versus utilizing the school site for this use. Council also requested that the Planning Commission submit a recommendation in favor or against the proposed golf course, recommend a location for an additional 9 holes, discuss elimination of golf course expansion in relation to how it may affect the future of Snowmass Village and discuss optional community benefits related to this proposed development. Council discussed the restoration of Brush Creek and the Town's long-term use of the baseball field in its current location and as a site for future festivals. Hatfield requested additional information regarding allocation of additional square footage, number of units per acre, capacity and accessibility for public use of the Club facilities after buildout, Brush Creek restoration, drainage, building height, mass and scale, additional traffic generated and additional transportation and pedestrian improvements. He also requested that the Town Attorney investigate the employee generation component of the proposal. Mayor Manchester requested that architectural components of Phase I carry through to Phase II construction. He stated that the community is in need of locations to accommodate future Jazz Aspen festivals, softball and baseball fields, soccer and a community swimming pool. Manchester also proposed a discussion regarding a possible community benefit of assistance from the applicant for preservation of the Rodeo. CALENDAR Council Meetings were scheduled for the month of May, 2000, to be held on May 1 and May 30. A Joint Meeting will be scheduled with the Planning Commission on June 7, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. S5600 04-10-00tc Page 4 A Town Meeting was scheduled for Noon on June 13, 2000 and an evening Meeting on June 14, 2000. PRE-SKETCH PLAN PROCESS George Huggins, representing the Planning Commission, requested that the Planning Commission attend future Pre-Sketch and Sketch Plan submission presentations in Joint Meetings with Council. Huggins explained that if the Planning Commission can be included in this initial process, it would provide them with a more clear idea of Council's thoughts and opinions regarding the submissions. After further discussion, Council agreed that future Pre-Sketch Plan and Sketch Plan discussions will be held in Joint Meetings with the Planning Commission. Item No. 3: Executive Session • TOWN MANAGER'S ANNUAL REVIEW • LAND PURCHASE DISCUSSIONS— RODEO PARCEL At 7:26 p.m. Mercatoris made a motion to convene to Executive Session to discuss personnel issues and to receive privileged Attorney information regarding land purchase. Costello seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. At 9:42 p.m. Mercatoris made a motion to reconvene the Special Meeting, seconded by Hatfield. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Council then generally discussed various Town policy matters and priorities including the Mall Transit Plaza, the Draw Parcel and employee housing issues. Item No. 4: Adjournment There being no further business, Hatfield made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Costello. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Submitted By: Rebecca Harlowe, Records Manager go SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 02-21-2000 The Work Session began at 2:07 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello, Douglas Mercatoris, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Brady arrived later during the meeting. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Chris Conrad, Senior Planner; Dawn Keating, Wildlife Specialist; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Dave Peckler, Transportation Manager; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Jennifer Worth, Deputy Town Clerk/Executive Secretary; PUBLIC PRESENT: Jim Wells, Carolyn Sakariason, Bob Purvis, Chris Kiley, Dave Bellack, Don Schuster, Judi Burwell, John Dresser, Mike McCleary, Martin Meta, Doug Dotson, Bill Boineau, Jeff Tippett, Jim Hooker, Joe Kracum, and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. NATURE CENTER CONCESSION AGREEMENT DISCUSSION Thompson reviewed the status of the proposed Nature Center site and explained issues related to two alternative sites that were suggested as possible locations for the facility. Council discussed alternatives by which the Town would ultimately own the building and lease to the Nature Center in order for the Town to retain control of the facility, both financially and legally. Council discussed issues related to this owning the facility including tax consequences, fees, funding for improvements, the feasibility of this use on the proposed site and maintenance for the building and site. The Town Attorney outlined the details of the Concession Agreement and procedures for review and approval of the submission. Jim Wells, spokesperson for the Nature Center, informed Council that detailed information regarding the building design, parking, and activities would be submitted with the Wildlife Plan. Conrad explained the desired process for review and approval of the Nature Center and Wildlife mitigation. After further discussion, Council agreed that 00 0212112000ws Page 2 the preferred alternative would be for the Nature Center to fund construction of the building and then deeding it to the Town at completion. As the owner, the Town would then lease the building and land back to the Nature Center. Council also agreed that this application would be subject to the Special Review Process as outlined in the Municipal Code and requested Work Session time to discuss transportation, parking, lighting and other potential impacts before a final decision is made. ORDINANCE NO 02 SERIES OF 2000, FLOOR AREA EXCISE TAX (FAR) DISCUSSION Giannola, Planning Director, explained the revised Assessed Value Chart. Council requested that the Chart reflect the market value due to the verbiage of the ballot language approved by the voters. Giannola explained the Floor Area Excise Tax Actual Values Chart, whereby a non-scientific sample taken from one subdivision, chosen at random, was used to determine the fee by using the actual value of the home only. Council discussed the information included in the Charts, the formula used and the resulting fees. After further discussion, Council requested that the Planning Director obtain further information from the County Assessor's office for discussion and revisions to the fee formula at the next Council Work Session. LAND USE CODE DISCUSSION Giannola informed Council that the numbers derived from the recent Employee Survey were determined to be inaccurate due to lack of information regarding full-time equivalents. She explained that staff is in the process of obtaining the missing numbers through information submitted to the Town Clerk's office on Business License applications. The Town Attorney reviewed the Sketch Plan Review Process and explained the legal ramifications based on the current Code. Council requested an informal Pre-Sketch Plan Process be developed to discuss ideas and plans with potential developers and address any liability issues. The informal process would not require public notice. Applicant requirements for the Pre-Sketch Plan Process would include only a letter and site plan. TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS (FARAWAY RANCH SOUTH) PRELIMINARY PUD DISCUSSION Conrad reviewed changes requested by Council during previous discussions. Council discussed an "no build disturbance" open space easement near the Deerbrook Condominiums which will satisfy Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map requirements. Rights to allow for utilities and landscaping may be reserved. Council reviewed draft Resolution 06, Series of 2000 and requested necessary changes to the document. Council further discussed whole ownership versus fractional ownership, wetlands mitigation, and parking space requirements. Council requested that Conrad provide calculations relating to the height of Building "D". Council agreed that the allowable time frame for construction of Employee Housing is two years from the date the first permit is obtained. After reviewing the revised v r 02121/2000ws Page 3 Employee Housing plans, Council agreed that they would like the building placement to be staggered on the site in order to eliminate any "wall effect" visual impact. Council will review geotechnical issues related to the proposal in two weeks. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA DISCUSSION Joe Kracum of MK Centennial outlined the decisions made at the last Mall Transit Plaza meeting regarding parking requirements. He stated that decisions regarding functional aspects are necessary for advancing the design of the project. Kracum explained consolidation of bus operations. Hatfield stated that he felt Transit Plaza designs should be tabled and continued after plans for Base Village are submitted. The Town Manager explained that the resort is very transit-dependant and to maximize space by consolidation of Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) buses and Town shuttle buses in the Plaza, warrants further investigation. Kracum encouraged Council to attend the upcoming Mall Transit Plaza Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 24, 2000. He stated that the next project update to Council is scheduled for March 20, 2000. Mercatoris invited the public to attend the Mall Transit meetings. The Town Manager reported that he has made a request to Walter Kieser to investigate funding aspects for the project. Hatfield requested a letter be sent to Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) from the Mayor, formally inviting them to meet with Council to discuss Base Village plans. Loading and delivery improvements at the Mall will be discussed at a meeting in the near future. Council will continue discussion on this item at the February 24, 2000 Council Work Session. Meeting ended at 6:16 p.m. Submitted by, Jennifer Worth, Deputy Town Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 06-12-2000 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester; Kevin Costello; Jack Hatfield; Douglas Mercatoris, Mark Brady COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All Council Members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; David Peckler, Transportation Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Donna J. Garcia, Secretary PUBLIC PRESENT: Madeleine Osberger, Joe Kracum, Gary Ross, Mark Moebius, and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. The Work Session began at 2:00 p.m. PARK SHELTER DISCUSSION Barthelenghi recommended a gazebo-style structure for use as a shelter at the Community Park, which comes in either an octagon or hexagon shape with cedar shakes, tongue & grove decking and timber walls. Council agreed to proceed with investigation, purchase and installation of a gazebo. They provided direction to staff regarding elements for customization of the shelter. Barthenlenghi explained that the chosen package includes doors, vent panel and partitions, is handicap accessible and can be customized with fireplaces or fire pits if desired. Council requested that staff provide drawing and costs for the available options. Barthelenghi stated that delivery would be approximately 6 weeks after the order is placed. Through the use of visual aids Barthelenghi pointed out potential site locations for both the Park Shelter Structure and the Community Pool. Council Members were mixed in their opinions as to the best site location, but agreed that a Community Swimming Pool is a definite need for the community. Council discussed parking, hiring a pool consultant and conducting an analysis to determine the proper location for a pool. do 06-12-00ws Page 2 Manchester requested drawings of the parcels proposed for the pool location, as well as footprint drawings of the James E. Moore Pool, Basalt Pool and the Carbondale Pool for comparison purposes. The Mayor requested Work Session time be set on July 10, 2000 to further discuss Park Shelter design details as well the Community Pool site location. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA DISCUSSION Joe Kracum, of MK Centennial, presented costs related to optional plans for construction of the Transit Plaza. He explained the optional plans as "upper structure" and "lower structure", and provided approximate costs for each. In terms of a start date, Kracum explained that it is necessary for Council to make a decision by the middle of July on major excavations and roadway designs, and early August to mid-August for the garages. Council discussed costs related to the optional designs, additional parking spaces, parking for businesses, parking for guests staying in lodges adjacent to Snowmelt Road, visual impact of a parking garage constructed next to adjacent lodges, affordability and possible partnership with the Mall business owners. Manchester requested a sketch and related costs for a scenario which he outlined. Council also requested that the project not exceed $12M. The Mayor requested a straw vote, which revealed 3 Council Members in favor of the upper structure option and 2 Council members in favor of the lower structure option. The next Work Session to further discuss this issue was scheduled for July 10, 2000. The Town Manager stated that a financial report from Walter Kieser would be provided at the July 10, 2000, Work Session. Work Session ended at 6:25 p.m. Submitted by: Donna J. Garcia, Secretary/Town Clerk's Office _q1 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 09-18-2000 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Kevin Costello, Jack Hatfield, Douglas Mercatoris Council Member Brady arrived at 4:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; Carey Shanks, Assistant to Town Manager; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; David Peckler, Transportation Manager; and Donna J. Garcia, Secretary/Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Madeleine Osberger, Joe Kracum, Bill Kane, Sandy Stay, June Gordon, Jim Heywood, Bill Burwell, and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. The Work Session began at 2:10 p.m. LAND USE CODE DISCUSSION Chris Conrad, Planning Director, presented a revised Unit Equivalency Chart, and explained the changes. Council discussed the discrepancies between the Buildout Chart contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Unit Equivalency Chart included in the Land Use Code and provided staff direction. Council reviewed draft Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2000 and discussed site plan review, building permits, zoning, changes to definitions and Sketch Plan Review. The Planning Director stated that the Planning Commission would review the draft Ordinance at their September 20, 2000 meeting. The Planning Commission will provide recommendations to Council October 2, 2000 Regular Town Council Meeting. A Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15 is also scheduled for the October 2nd Town Council Meeting. Manchester requested that language relating to community value be written as a purpose statement. Mercatoris requested language be included to outline a process for amending the Buildout Chart as previously agreed upon by Council, including identification of the reasons why the amendment is warranted. r�u 00 09-18-00ws Page 2 Council also discussed information required during the Sketch Plan Review process, expiration timelines for review processes, sustainable development, criteria relating to a Minor Development and air quality analysis required of developers. Mercatoris requested that Staff revise the Unit Equivalency Chart to provide guidelines for larger projects. ARTS ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANT INTERVIEW June Gordon and Sandy Stay, applicants, were present at the Meeting. The Town Manager introduced the two applicants for the Arts Advisory Board (AAB) June Gordon, with Gordon's High Alpine Restaurant and Sandy Stay, a local business owner and accountant. Suiter explained that this Board is designated as "advisory," therefore residency is not a requirement. Suiter reminded Council that a recent Ordinance was approved by Council, expanding the number of members allowed on the AAB to 15. Both applicants explained their interests and provided a brief background of their qualifications. Council interviewed the applicants and invited them to attend the up-coming Boards and Commissions dinner scheduled to be held on Saturday, September 23, 2000. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA DISCUSSION Joe Kracum provided an overview of previous discussion on this issue and presented two new options based on Council's direction of August 7`". The First option, Alternative L, was scaled back to reduce the overall structure exposure near Brush Creek Road and vertical circulation was added between the Upper Parking Structure and the Mall, re-grading of Lots 4 and 5, with net new parking of 201 spaces, at an approximate cost of$13.5 - $14.5 million. The second option, Alternative M, is a plan for a parking structure in parking lot Nos. 4 and 5 and deck overs in parking lot Nos. 8 and 9, with net new parking of 204 spaces, at an approximate cost of$14.5 - $15.5 million. Both alternatives presented include the Transit Plaza and Pedestrian Deck. Some adjustments to unit costs were made to reflect more current cost data. Both alternatives include vertical circulation with stairs, escalators, and elevators, and include a pedestrian underpass to connect the Mall with the upper parking structure. Roadways and the entire Transit Plaza are fully snow melted. Cost comparisons for both options were discussed, and it was determined that funds are short. Council stated that they,are anticipating a $21VI contribution from the Mall Partners through a Business Improvement District (BID) proposed for the November ballot. Council discussed possible funding sources as .q3 • 09-18-flows Page 3 Snowmass Village Resort Association (SVRA) and the sale or lease of parking spaces in one of the proposed structures. Bill Burwell expressed concern with the distance of the parking spaces relative to the Commercial Core. Further, he is concerned with the high price tag of the Mass Transit component and would like to see a community funding effort. He addressed safety factors regarding bus stop locations, delivery trucks, and general traffic coming in and out of the Mall parking area. In conclusion, he stated support for the project. Pat Leto, Mark Mobius and other members of the community expressed that they would like to see the project move forward as soon as possible. Mercatoris suggested a straw vote to determine Council Members in favor of alternative "M" and construction in one phase rather than two phases. A straw vote was taken and Council Members indicated 3 in favor and 1 opposed. Mayor Manchester and Council Members Mercatoris, and Costello were in favor. Hatfield was opposed. Council Member Brady was absent. NOTE: The following item was not included on the Agenda for this Work Session. PARCEL "N" The Housing Manager reviewed optional site plans with Council. These site plans reflected changes as previously requested by Council and reduced the number of buildings from three to two, and reduced the number of proposed units from seventeen to sixteen. Coffey outlined estimated project costs for the optional plans. After further discussion, Council consensus was in favor of the plan depicted "Option 1A", although Council requested that staff investigate the two-building scenario and include the unit previously deleted from the original plan. John Dresser, representing the Ridge Homeowners Association, stated that the Homeowners have expressed their approval of the two-building plan. NOTE: The following item was scheduled on the Regular Meeting Agenda for this date. Mayor Manchester stated that this item would be heard at this time. GRANT FUNDING REQUEST— CHRISTIAN MOSIMAN Mr. and Mrs. Mosiman reviewed the request for funding made by their son, Christian. The funding is for Christian to pursue his efforts to reach Olympic status in snowboarding. After further discussion, Council unanimously agreed to grant $1,500 to Mosiman. The funds are to be paid from Council's Decretionary Fund budget line item. Council requested that the Town's logo be NOW 09-18-00ws Page 4 visibly imprinted on Mosiman's skiwear. Council directed the Deputy Town Clerk to send the Town's logo to Mosiman. The Work Session ended at 5:15 p.m. Submitted by: Donna J. Garcia, Records Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 10-02-2000 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Mark Brady COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Hatfield, Kevin Costello STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; David Peckler, Transportation Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Art Smythe, Chief of Police, Rhonda Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Joe Kracum, Mark Moebius, Bob Purvis, Madeleine Osberger, Lance Burwell, Bill Burwell and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. The Work Session began at 2:00 p.m. DIAL-A-RIDE DISCUSSION David Peckler, Transportation Manager, explained that he had received a letter from the provider of the Dial-A-Ride program, who stated that the labor shortage has resulted in diminished quality and quantity of service for the program. The Dial-A-Ride provider recommended that the program be abandoned or at least suspended until circumstances improve. Peckler further explained that a realistic investigation of the Town providing the service would not be cost-effective, especially at this time when the Town has experienced two low-snow years, resulting in budget constraints. Council discussed the possibility of a program whereby businesses provide a $5.00 voucher to the customer to be used for public transportation service and the businesses could then be reimbursed for the voucher. After further consideration, Council agreed that Dial-A-Ride should be discontinued at this time with the potential of reinstatement in the future. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA DISCUSSION The Town Manager distributed financial funding information provided by the Finance Director, which included options to fund construction of the Mall Transit Plaza. The Public Works Director explained that Road Fund dollars could be used for the proposed construction to extend Elbert Lane as well as for Snowmelt Road reconstruction. The Finance Director provided the options available to fund the Transit Plaza construction with use of Town funds. She identified funding sources that may become unavailable for this use due to the amount of funds received from Excise Tax as it relates to construction of Parcel "N" and repair and reconstruction of Snowmelt Road due to the possibility of snowmelting .qb40 10-02-00ws Page 2 system failure. She stated that firm numbers for construction of the Transit Plaza would be provided in the near future since a final plan has recently been chosen by Council. Mayor Manchester discussed the possibility of selling parking spaces within the proposed Transit Plaza structure as a potential for partial funding for the project. The Town Manager suggested a possible survey to determine the interest of parking space purchasers. Joe Kracum of M.K. Centennial, provided answers to Council questions made during the last discussion on the Transit Plaza project. Due to necessary preliminary planning, he identified a beginning construction date for the Fall of 2001, resulting in construction extending through two winter seasons. He provided information related to the optional project plans identified to date. After further discussion, Council agreed on a preferred plan identified as "Q2" Kracum suggested that he meet with staff to coordinate construction of the Transit Plaza and reconstruction of upper Snowmelt Road for the sake of economy and efficiency. Council discussed safety for pedestrians and transit customers during construction, possible construction of temporary roadways during construction, start and stop dates for construction related to ski and summer seasons and the influx of visitors. They agreed that to begin construction in the Fall of 2001 would provide the opportunity for fine-tuning the final design. Discussions will continue in January, 2001. 2001 EMPLOYEE HOUSING RENTAL RATES DISCUSSION Council determined the proposed increase in Employee Housing rental rates for the year 2001, to be necessary and reasonable. Mercatoris identified the Employee Housing rates as Y2 the rental amounts requested for free market units. The Housing Manager explained the need to increase the Capital Reserve amounts for future maintenance and necessary improvements. The new rental rates will go into affect on November 1, 2000. The Work Session ended at 3:43 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk ......................................................................... q7 so SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 10-16-2000 The Work Session began at 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Mark Brady, Kevin Costello, Jack Hatfield COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All Council Members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Robert Voigt, Senior Planner; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; Craig Thompson; Community Development Director; Marianne Rakowski; Finance Director; Rhonda Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Bob Purvis, Madeleine Osberger and other members of the Public interested in today's.Agenda items. ARTICLE V. LAND USE CODE DISCUSSION Chris Conrad, Planning Director, outlined changes made since the last discussions on this issue, including creation of a Zoning Plan Review Chart and Special Review Use Chart. Changes were also made as requested to language pertaining to maximum buildout, condominium conversion under Subdivision Exemption, and the definition of sustainable development. Conrad explained that Special Review Use Applications would be handled administratively unless issues emerge or the applicant and Planning Director do not agree on an issue. In these cases, the application would be referred to the Planning Commission for their determination. Council requested changes to language addressing zoning plan review. The Planning Director explained the addition of a provision to address issues arising when extenuating circumstances are recognized at the time of Building Permit application. These issues would then be addressed by the Planners who would determine if the issue or issues should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Town Manager explained that the Land Use Code did not previously include a provision for these occurrences, and including the proposed language will allow the Town to regulate those issues. qg. 10-16-00ws Page 2 Council discussed the definition for sustainable development as it relates to community purpose. Conrad reviewed a formula and language that he developed to address the discrepancy between the Comprehensive Plan Buildout Chart and the Land Use Code Unit Equivalency Chart. The formula was proposed for use until such time as the Buildout Chart could be reviewed and necessary changes made. Council discussed developing a means, which would encourage reconstruction and addressed language pertaining to Council review of project building height restrictions as a whole versus per building, when determining the need for a % vote by Council Members for approval. WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT DISCUSSION The Town Manager referred to a revised copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), which he distributed to Council Members. The IGA outlined a mutual agreement between the two entities concerning building permit fee waivers and discounted system development fees for Town projects. Council reviewed and approved the format and content of the Agreement. COMMUNITY POOL DISCUSSION The Town Manger referred to the conceptual assumptions regarding costs for the pool, operation costs and maintenance fees. He provided color renderings and a conceptual site plan developed by Gary Ross. Manchester explained that the purpose for development of the conceptual designs and costs is to inform the Snowmass Village electors of a conceptual plan and location for construction of a community pool. A ballot question will be included on the November 7, 2000 Regular Municipal Election ballot asking the voters to approve a bond issue to support construction of a pool. Suiter reported that he met with the Horse Ranch Homeowners Association Board, who agreed with the conceptual site plan and location for the pool. He explained the exterior colors and materials proposed for the structures. In response to an earlier question from Council, he reported that a minimum 5-foot fencing is required around the pool area. The proposed pool is approximately 4,600 square feet and consists of three lap lanes and a mechanical building, deck space and a kiddie pool. Possible inclusion of water features, such as a fountain, are being investigated by staff. Council discussed a funding source of approximately $60,000 to subsidize pool maintenance and operation costs, an amount comparable to that paid in the past to subsidize the Snowmass Resort Association pool. The Town Manager explained that the bond issue, which will be a financial ballot question at the November election, includes an estimated amount to cover operating and maintenance costs for two years. He also reported that $420,000 has been reserved in the Town budget for the pool. Council discussed fees for use of the pool and a conceptual budget. Council majority agreed that the conceptual AN 40 10-16-00ws Page 3 numbers and designs were acceptable to provide to the public for informational purposes. Mayor Manchester requested that the conceptual designs be copied to the Town's Internet Web site and located at Town Hall for the public to view. Staff will develop informational material to distribute to the public. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk _ 1bb � COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Presented By: T. Michael Manchester/Gary Suiter Subject: RESOLUTION NO.'S 47 AND 48, SERIES OF 2000 Overview: These Resolution's express appreciation to Council Members Kevin Costello and Mark Brady for their service on the Town Council. Recommendation: Approval 16 � - SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.17 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO KEVIN COSTELLO FOR HIS SERVICE AS COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WHEREAS, Kevin Costello was appointed by the Town Council of Snowmass Village in November of 1998,to serve as Council Member on the Snowmass Village Town Council;and WHEREAS, Kevin Costello has served the last two years with dedication and loyalty to this community;and WHEREAS,Mr. Costello was not re-elected at the November 7th,2000,Municipal Election;and WHEREAS, Mr. Costello's fairness and common sense have been positive for both the Town Council and the community;and WHEREAS, Mr. Costello has demonstrated a strong commitment to employee housing, the environment and the employees of this Town;and WHEREAS, Mr. Costello's leadership, common sense, and straight-forward approach to government will be missed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village,Colorado: The Citizens of Snowmass Village,the Snowmass Village Town Council and the entire Town Staff hereby express their sincere gratitude and appreciation to Kevin Costello for his dedication, loyalty and excellence in his efforts to promote a strong community and to enhance the quality of life for our citizens. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 20° day of November, 2000 with a motion made by Mayor Manchester and a second by Council member Hatfield by a vote of 9 in favor to 0 opposed. Attest: TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Trudi Worline,Town Clerk T.MICHAEL MANCHESTER,MAYOR SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 98 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MARK BRADY FOR HIS SERVICE AS A BOARD MEMBER ON THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD,PLANNING COMMISSION AND AS COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WHEREAS,Mark Brady served 1993 and 1999 on the Snowmass Village Financial Advisory Board,and from 1995 to 1998 on the Snowmass Village Planning Commission;and WHEREAS,Mark Brady was elected by the people of Snowmass Village in November of 1998,to serve as Council Member on the Snowmass Village Town Council;and WHEREAS,Mr. Brady has served this community with enthusiasm and fortitude;and WHEREAS,Mr. Brady chose not to run for re-election at the November 7th,2000,Municipal Election;and WHEREAS,Mr. Brady is recognized for his commitment to employee housing,recreation and the rights of working youth;and WHEREAS,Mr. Brady has demonstrated strong support for this resort/community on a consistent basis;and WHEREAS,Mr. Brady's common sense,can-do attitude and sense of humor will be missed. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village,Colorado: The Citizens of Snowmass Village,the Snowmass Village Town Council and the entire Town Staff hereby express their sincere gratitude and appreciation to Mark Brady for his consistent effort to enhance the quality of life for our citizens. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 20°day of November,2000 with a motion made by Council member and a seconded by Council member ,and by a vote of_in favor to_opposed. Attest: TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Trudi Worline,Town Clerk T.MICHAEL MANCHESTER,MAYOR — I bi • TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING WHEN: NOVEMBER 20, 2000 WHERE: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 0016 KEARNS ROAD 2ND FLOOR SNOWMASS CENTER BUILDING WHY: TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON: RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 2000, A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE TOWN COUNCIL FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION FOR SNOWMASS CLUB ASSOCIATES TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB PHASE II PROPOSAL. 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 Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk Posted and Published in the Snowmass Sun on November 8, 2000. http://www.tosv.cOm clerk @tosv.com GNP 1 COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Staff: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Chris Conrad, Planning Director Subject: Public Hearing — Resolution No. 17, Series of 2000: Public comment and discussion on a resolution providing the Town Council findings and determination regarding authorization for Snowmass Club Associates to submit a Preliminary Planned Unit Development application for the Snowmass Club Phase II proposal. Overview: The Aspen Skiing Company (Owner: Snowmass Club Associates) has resubmitted their Phase II Sketch Plan application to amend the Snowmass Club Planned Unit Development (PUD). Please see the attached staff report, which describes the proposal and outlines the major issues discussed between the applicant, Planning Commission and staff. It also provides an analysis of the application as it relates to Comprehensive Plan policies and compliance with the Code's development criteria. The Planning Commission resolution is attached on the back. Staff requested that the applicant prepare an updated exhibit package for Town Council, from the original submission presented at the joint Town Council/Planning Commission meeting on September 5, 2000. The updated package addresses the agreed upon changes discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and additional information received during the review process. The information includes further explanation from the applicant, a request to change the boundary line between Parcels 3 and 4, a split in the southern- most residential building, elevations of the tennis structures, and supplemental data/graphics to better explain the proposal or address concerns from Planning Commission and staff. Purpose of The primary purpose of the Town Council meeting is to Meeting: continue review of the Sketch PUD application and the accompanying Planning Commission resolution to determine if the application and resolution are acceptable to proceed to Preliminary PUD application or whether further modifications are in order. I � � Review Process The questions the Town Council should consider in a for Sketch Plan: conceptual manner during review of the Sketch PUD include the following: 1. Use. ❑ Is the use proposed for the property generally appropriate in this location? ❑ Is it consistent with the intent of the underlying zone district? Note: The existing use of the property and the surrounding uses should come into play here along with the applicant's request to change the boundary line between Parcels 3 and 4, including the affect this has on the height restriction. 2. Comprehensive Plan. ❑ Is the proposed development generally consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan? ❑ Is the proposed buildout within the range anticipated for the property? ❑ If the applicant proposes buildout in excess of the 85% of that identified in the Comprehensive Plan, then are the community purposes to achieve the appropriate ones for this development to accomplish? Note: Comprehensive Planning issues are addressed in the major issues section of the staff report, such as the impact upon the Rodeo/Entry Comprehensively Planned Area (CPA), the Brush Creek impact zone, transit and pedestrian linkage issues, and the buildout analysis chart. A investigation as to whether a maximum 60 units are allowed on this site needs to occur and whether the area in Parcel 3, proposed for 11 residential units, was contemplated as being developed with a portion of the 60 units. In addition, a discussion needs to occur as to whether community purposes provisions have been adequately addressed concerning the additional manager's unit found in the lodge building. Please note that the application concerns 21 additional units (35% of the 60- unit maximum), or a total of 52 units for both phases (86.7% of the 60-unit maximum). Lastly, the applicability of the new 65% threshold rule for future applications should be discussed. 3. Architecture and Planning. • Are the buildings proposed to be developed in appropriate locations? • Is the mass, scale and density of the buildings generally compatible with the character of the community and that of surrounding buildings? ❑ How much of the site is proposed to be common or dedicated open space? ❑ Is this an adequate amount of open space and does it appear to be in the appropriate locations? Note: Per the Planning Commission resolution, the southern- most residential building is to be split and the applicant is to explore the possibility of splitting the northern residential building to create an improved appearance and additional open space around the units. As a result of the split of the southern-most residential building, the underground parking square footage increased to accommodate the connecting drive and the above-ground square footage decreased to eliminate a unit. Conversely, the northern-most residential buildings'square footage increased to accommodate a relocated unit. The resolution also recommends design upgrades for the tennis structures. Revisions are shown in the exhibit package. 4. Natural resource and hazard areas. ❑ What are the natural resource and hazard areas on the property? ❑ Is mitigation appropriate? Note: A general description of the preferred Brush Creek enhancements is outlined in the Planning Commission resolution. 5. Access and circulation. • Is the conceptual location, alignment and type of entry roads and the primary on-site roads acceptable? • Should the applicant provide transportation options for residents, visitors, guests and employees and, if so, what type of options may be most appropriate? Ow- goo) Note: A discussion should occur as to whether Town Council finds it necessary to provide a secondary road connection to Brush Creek Road from the new clubhouse, and if so, what type of road it should be, including a discussion about the potential impacts upon the Nordic trail. Improvements to the access road (Fairway Drive) should also be discussed as well as the appropriate trail/walkway connections. The recommended street name change from Fairway Drive to Clubhouse Drive may also become an issue. 6. Parking. ❑ Should the applicant provide on-site parking for the development in compliance with the standards of this Code, or should the applicant reduce parking below these standards, as provided in Section 16A-4-310, Off-Street Parking Standards? Note: The assumptions used by the applicant to determine the parking needs should be discussed, including the future parking lot option if the parking provided subsequently doesnY fulfill the parking demands on the site. The utilization of the 28 perpendicular parking spaces along Snowmass Club Circle should also be examined. 7. Timetable. ❑ What is the proposed timetable for the development? ❑ Is it most appropriate for the development to occur all at once or in phases? ❑ If phasing is appropriate, then which portions of the project should proceed first? Note: The Planning Commission resolution outlines the timetable for the development as described by the applicant. 8. Community welfare. ❑ Do the concepts contained in the proposed development promote the public health, safety and welfare? Note: The applicant's letter of justification outlines reasoning for these criteria. Also, the adequacy of employee housing provisions needs to be discussed. Recommendation: Open public hearing, followed by this order of proceedings: • Application description by staff • Applicant presentation • Public testimony • Applicant response • Staff response • Continue public hearing to December 4, 2000, if needed Staff would also like to know if Town Council wants to schedule a site visit. P:\user\w\SnowmassClubll\Snowmass Club II Sketch Plan TC Memo02 _ )01 ' Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11120/00 Planning Division Staff Report Project Name: Snowmass Club Phase II Part 1 : Summary of Application and Major Issues Applicant Information: Applicant Aspen Skiing Company Owner Snowmass Club Associates Contact Don Schuster, Vice President, Real Estate, Aspen Skiing Company Project Summary: The Aspen Skiing Company (Owner: Snowmass Club Associates) resubmitted their Phase II Sketch Plan application to amend the Snowmass Club Planned Unit Development (PUD). The development proposal concerns Parcels 3 (Club Villas & Villas North), 4 (Snowmass Club) and 10 (Golf Course) of the Snowmass Club PUD (Exhibits B, Q, R and S). The Phase II application involves: 1) The construction of 21, four-bedroom fractional ownership condominiums averaging 2,400 square feet in size, with two underground parking spaces for each unit; 2) A general upgrade of the 18-hole golf course, including the combination and rearrangement of a few fairways. See attached list of Club improvements for Phase 2 (Exhibit C); 3) Construction of a 7,560 square foot golf clubhouse with golf cart storage beneath; 4) Construction of a permanent indoor tennis facility and tennis center; 5) Reconfiguration of Phase I parking provisions to accommodate the Phase II proposal; 6) Upgrade the internal road network and improvement of the pedestrian circulation; and 7) Restore and enhance Brush Creek. The proposed golf course improvements or changes specifically include the following: 1) Taking the southern portion of existing Fairway#18 to create a new Fairway#1 from the new clubhouse and converting the northern portion of existing Fairway#18 to a wetlands improvement area; 2) Combining Fairway#1 and a portion of Fairway#2 into a new 5-par Fairway#2; 3) Converting the remaining portion of existing Fairway#2 to create a new short Fairway#3; 4) Renumbering the order of existing Fairways#3 through#7 as Fairways #4 through #8; 5) Adding a new replacement Fairway#9 leading back to the new clubhouse location; 6) Renumbering existing Fairway#17 to Fairway#10; 7) Deleting existing Fairway#8 (across the small pond on west side) and renumbering existing Fairway#9 to accommodate a new 5-par Fairway#11; 8) Renumbering the order of existing Fairways #10 through #15 as Fairways #12 through#17; 9) Relocating existing Fairway#16 between the pond and the proposed repositioned softball field to create a new 5-par Fairway#18 and to also accommodate the proposed new clubhouse, parking lot, trail connection to Brush Creek Road, and the recommended secondary road discussed further in this report. P:\use\iw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report am b '� Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 The application contains two (2) site plan options: 1) Option I shows Brush Creek Road remaining at it's current location and retains an area for a re-oriented softball field in the general area where the current field is located; and 2) Option II responds to the 1999 Town Entry Plan proposal involving the relocation of Brush Creek Road and does not include a location for a softball field. The northerly portion of Parcel 10 (Golf Course) is located within the Rodeo/Entry Comprehensively Planned Area (CPA). Elements within this CPA that are intended to be accommodated include: 1) Intensification of the recreational uses, including playing fields, pedestrian and bike trails, expanded golf course and a recreation center; 2) Intersection improvements; and 3) Clear circulation and access. This relates to Option I versus Option II of the applicant's proposal. Planning Commission didn't focus on Option 11, as Town Council did not pursue the entryway plan. The applicant, on September 12, 2000, amended their application by submitting a request to modify the boundaries between Parcel 3 and Parcel 4 (Exhibit D). This change is requested because the current boundary is located along Brush Creek between the two proposed residential buildings. The proposed adjustment in the boundaries would allow Parcels 3, 4 and 10 to maintain the same acreage according to the applicant's proposal. The shift in the boundaries is proposed because Parcel 3 is limited to 110 units, which are already constructed, and because Parcel 4 allegedly allows 60 total units according the Comprehensive Plan Buildout Analysis Chart. In addition, the buildout chart is in contrast to the equivalent 30.4 condominium units allowed in Parcel 4 per the Snowmass Club Land Use Plan on file in the Community Development Department. Therefore, staff needs clarification on whether the 60 units contemplated fell within the subject potion of Parcel 3. The change in the boundary is akin to a rezoning request, because the change could also allow Parcel 4's development standards, such as the height limit of 44 feet, to be utilized for the two buildings. These two buildings, containing 11 units, are currently proposed to be located in Parcel 3, which has a height limit of 39 feet. Below is a table outlining the differences in the development standards for the parcels: Standard category Parcel 3 Parcel 4(after Phase 1) Maximum number of units 110 units 30 condominium units, plus one, two-bedroom unit in the former lodge area Maximum number of bedrooms Not listed 76 Maximum open s ace 6.48 acres Not listed Maximum building ground 1.56 acres 1.12 acres coverage Maximum parking and driveway 2.1 acres 1.63 acres ground coverage Maximum number of parking 1 space/bedroom 500 (this applies to Parcels spaces 4, 10 and 12 combined Minimum number of parking 2 spaces/unit 61 spaces Maximum building height 39 feet 44 feet PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report I � " Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 As shown, the change in the boundaries could permit an increase in the height limit, unless conditioned otherwise, and a less restrictive parking required ratio than required by the Land Use Code and the original PUD. Staffs view is that since the 21 proposed units are over and above the 30.4 units allowed by the previous zoning, that the new units should comply with the off-street parking requirements per the Town's Land Use and Development Code, unless a reduction is satisfactorily demonstrated during the Preliminary PUD review. However, the applicant submitted a parking generation analysis during this Sketch Plan review to determine the parking demand based upon assumptions (Exhibit N). At the Planning Commission meetings and per the recommended resolution, the applicant showed a future phase parking lot, which could be constructed if the Town deems it necessary after monitoring the parking operations on the site for some period after build-out (Part of Exhibits N and Q). Applicant's Request: PUD Sketch Plan approval (Reference Code Sections 16A-5-300(b)(2)(a), 16A-5- 300(c), and 16A-5-310) History or Background: The following list is a brief and general itemization of issues discussed at the joint Town Council and Planning Commission meeting on September 5, 2000 regarding the Sketch Plan: • The appropriateness of the amendment, and whether there were appropriate reasons to amend the PUD; • The application was considered a major PUD, so all the criteria regarding a new PUD would need to be followed; • Request for information concerning the square footage in Phase I versus Phase II, and the unit and bedroom mix between the phases; It was noted that the applicant reduced the number of units from 30 to 21 for Phase 2 (60 to 51 for Phase I and Phase II combined), but the floor area for the units increased in the Phase li area; • The number of units allowed needed further discussion; • The number of restricted units needed to be further discussed; • Whether the proposal was consistent with surrounding conditions; • The entrance off of Brush Creek Road seemed important, if Option II pursued; • Separation and buffering from the Villas North property needed to be discussed further; • The encouragement of a creative approach and to allow variations; • The upgrade of the golf course was felt to be a necessity, and is not considered a community benefit; • Planning Commission to make recommendations regarding design issues; • Town Council disappointed in previous withdrawal of the application; • Applicant needs to demonstrate why this project is good for Snowmass Village. Community or Adjacent Owner Comments: None at this time. P:\use\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report 1 000'Q• Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20100 Major Issues Discussed During Development Review: • Square Footage in Phase I versus Phase II. The square footage figures, number of dwelling units, maximum number of bedrooms and the average number of bedrooms per unit for Phase I are outlined in table format for Parcels 4, 10 and 12 taken from the previous Preliminary Plan approval (Exhibit H). The Phase it figures are also attached (Exhibit 1). As a result of the split of the southern-most residential building, the underground parking square footage increased to accommodate the connecting drive and the above-ground square footage decreased to eliminate a unit. Conversely, the northern-most residential buildings' square footage increased to accommodate a relocated unit. • Maximum Number of Units Allowed by the Zoning. The Comprehensive Plan contains an analysis of future buildout for individual parcels within the Town. Reference was made during the review of Phase I that sixty (60) future residential units were allocated to the "Snowmass Lodge & Club (Parcel 4)". Discussion needs to occur, however, regarding the fact that the eleven (11) condominium units, proposed to be located adjacent to Villas North, are located within Parcel 3 of the Snowmass Club PUD, and whether this area was contemplated as being developed with a portion of the 60 units. This has triggered the applicant's request to amend the boundary line location between Parcels 3 and 4 (Exhibit D). The change in the boundary line would allow this area to fall under the 60-unit allocation per the Buildout Analysis Chart for Parcel 4. The applicable portion of the Buildout Analysis Chart has been enclosed for reference (Exhibit K). Staff's view is that the defined zoning parameters within the PUD should be a major factor when considering the number of units that should be allowed, but we also understand the applicant's request to amend the PUD for additional units. The Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart mainly serves as a guide to direct decision makers concerning the appropriate number of units for this site. Parcel 3 presently contains the Country Club Villas (78 units including 8 restricted units) and the Villas North employee housing project(32 restricted units), totaling 110 units. Ordinance No. 31, of Series 1983, an amendment to the Snowmass Club PUD, specifies that amount as the maximum number of units permitted in Parcel 3. Staff verified with the applicant that there is another unrestricted unit in the lodge building that wasn't accounted for in the Phase I approval. The extra unit would increase the Phase 1 and 2 unit total to 52 units, which is beyond the 85% threshold (i.e., using the 60 unit allotment). The applicant agreed to deed restrict this unit for employee housing. As a result, Planning Commission felt that deed restricting the unit could mitigate for itself when applying the community purposes criteria. • Building Height Limitations. As mentioned, Parcel 3 also has a maximum building height of thirty-nine (39)feet measured from natural grade. If the boundary line changes between Parcels 3 and 4, the height restriction could increase to 44 feet for this area with the acceptance of the PUD amendment, or it could be conditioned that the height restriction for this area remain at 39 feet. The application was amended to show that the southern-most buildings at least fall within the 44-foot height limit, but further documentation and critical dimensioning with the Preliminary Plan application is requested to demonstrate compliance. Per the Planning m PAuse\jw\Snowass Club II Sketch Plan TC Reportl _l \ns`%# Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 Commission's resolution, it is recommended that the Code's height variance criteria be applied to the height limit increase from 39 feet to 44 feet and to any portion of the building(s)which may exceed 44 feet. As a result, a potential of two height variances could be proposed with the Preliminary PUD. Application of Restricted Housing Mitigation Requirements. Parcel 12, where the current employee housing is located, was previously limited to 23 restricted or unrestricted units. The applicant built 61 employee housing units on this parcel concurrent with the construction of the Snowmass Club Phase I redevelopment. The employee housing provided was viewed as a community purpose/benefit for Phase I. It could also be interpreted that the units provided over and above the 23 unit limitation was a community benefit, and that a portion of the 23 units previously allocated could be used to satisfy the employee housing requirements for Phase 11. The Planning Commission resolution indicates that there doesn't appear to be a need for more employee housing for this site to mitigate the housing impacts created by Phase 11. For Phase 2, the requirement for employee housing, per the old Code, would be: 0.50 jobs per unit for 21 new fractional ownership units = 10.50 4.58 jobs per 1,000 square feet for 2,400 square feet of restaurant, bar and kitchen area within the new golf clubhouse = 10.99 1.47 jobs per 1,000 for remaining 13,975 square feet in clubhouse = 20_54 Total employees: 42.03/ 1.3 = 32.30 The requirement for employee housing for Phase 11, per Ordinance 7, Series of 2000, would be: 0.61 jobs per unit for 21 new fractional ownership units = 12.81 5.16 jobs per 1,000 square feet for 2,400 square feet of restaurant, bar and kitchen area within the new golf clubhouse = 12.39 0.96 jobs per 1,000 for remaining 13,975 square feet in clubhouse = 13_42 Total employees: 38.62 The above calculations are different than what's stated in the Planning Commission resolution, because staff felt the remaining square footage, even though not considered part of the primary use, should be added to determine the job generation. However, the employee generation rate for the underground cart storage could be something different than the 0.96 health club rate. Using the current Code rates, 38.6 employees multiplied by 448 square feet of floor area equals 17,300 square feet of units. These units could be deed restricted to allow other employees within the Town of Snowmass Village, other than for the Aspen Skiing Company employees, to utilize these units. Given the mean average size of the units is 649 square feet, 26.7 units would need to be provided for employee housing. Using the median average of 857 square feet (utilizing the square footage and the percentage/number of various unit types), 20.2 employee housing units would need to be provided. PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club Il Sketch Plan TC Reportl 1 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20100 Contrary to this viewpoint, it could be argued that the employee housing requirements have not been fully mitigated for Phase II due to the fact that the original Lodge was fully mitigated in 1981 and that, therefore, Phase II has further employee housing responsibility to mitigate it's impacts. Town Council Resolution No. 49, Series of 1988 ("Resolution 49"), has been enclosed for reference (Exhibit Q. Consider the following: a) The Snowmass Company was permitted to proceed with the development of the Snowmass Club PUD on the basis that a ratio of 130 unrestricted units to 31 restricted units be maintained through the course of developing the PUD. This explains the .2384 factor referred to within Resolution 49. b) As shown within Exhibit A of Resolution 49, no specific restricted units were directly associated with any particular phase of the Snowmass Club development. Note that the "Restricted Required @ .2384 U.R" for the Snowmass Club Lodge was seven (7) units. c) The seven (7) units were required by the 76 lodge units being constructed in 1981. That was considered to be equal to what would have been the requirement for providing 30.4 condominium units, the same number of units built in Phase I. No requirement was applied to the commercial elements of the Club itself and no employee housing size or type criteria was specified. The developer provided a mix of employee unit sizes and types during the period in which the PUD was being developed. d) The term "unit" as it was applied to restricted housing was never defined in terms of size or number of bedrooms. e) Resolution 49 indicates that the developer received credit for all units within the PUD that were constructed as restricted units even though some of them were later authorized to be sold as unrestricted units. f) Equating what the requirements were over twenty (20) years ago, to fully mitigate the impacts of development occurring then as being entirely equivalent with the current mitigation standards, is not appropriate. Specific restricted units were not constructed in conjunction with the Lodge and neither size or unit mix was ever defined for restricted units as part of the overall restricted housing program applied to the Snowmass Club PUD. g) Staff may be able to accept the conclusion reached during Phase I of the current Snowmass Club development that the seven (7) units required in 1981 could be considered as satisfying the requirement at this time for the thirty (30) condominium units approved in Phase I. It could mean that it does not mitigate the Club itself or Phase 11. For example: 1. Twelve (12) of the Phase II condominium units are located within Parcel 3 and were not previously mitigated; 2. The Clubhouse is located within Parcel 10 and was not previously mitigated; PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report/ _I Ls too Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 and 3. The remaining nine (10) condominium units in Parcel 4 are in addition to the thirty (30) approved and mitigated as being equivalent to the original Lodge in Phase I. h) The proposed Golf Clubhouse contains approximately 2,400 square feet of restaurant, bar and kitchen area, which should be calculated as „Ski Area Restaurants” rather than "Health Club" as proposed by the applicant. There could be a reduction in the job generation rate applied to the golf cart storage beneath the Clubhouse to less than the "Health Club" rate applied in the Employee Generation Summary Chart submitted by the applicant, although, staff used the 0.96 per 1,000 square foot rate, per Ordinance#7, of series 2000, to determine the number of jobs. i) The employee mitigation requirement for Phase II should be calculated in accordance with the new requirements adopted within Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2000, because this ordinance would apply at the time the Preliminary PUD is submitted. The applicant's summary chart utilizes the provisions that existed prior to adoption of the ordinance. Adequacy of Off-Street Parking. The application previously failed to discuss the effect of displacing the existing parking spaces within Parcel 3, which is heavily used to currently provide parking for the current clubhouse and the Fairway Conference Center, when that area is used to locate the twelve (12) condominium units adjacent to Villas North. Since the initial submittal, the applicant has provided a peak parking demand analysis with various assumptions used in determining the parking demand for the many uses on the site (Exhibit N). In addition, the applicant indicated in the last Planning Commission meeting that the residential portion and the tennis structures will be completed during the last phases of the construction, or after the clubhouse, the 150-space parking lot, and the golf course improvements are completed or underway. The applicant also provided a future parking area, which could be installed if deemed necessary by the Town after viewing the operations on the site (Part of Exhibits N and Q). Further review of the parking demand and requirements will likely need to be performed during the Preliminary PUD application. For example, the parking analysis will also need to address the potential use scenarios for the Fairways Conference Center and the old clubhouse. The 28 parking spaces perpendicular to Snowmass Club Circle, opposite the existing clubhouse, appear to be within the public right-of-way. There should be a discussion as to whether the Town wishes to allow the applicant to use these spaces as parking provided for their plans. Staff recommends that if these parking spaces are allowed to be utilized by the applicant as parking provided, the parking bay should be improved to possibly include curbing, a few landscaped islands within the parking bay, and/or deeper parking stalls to allow more room for people to load/unload their vehicles outside of the roadway. P:\use\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report � i�- Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 • Pedestrian Circulation. Staff was seeking a comprehensive approach to addressing pedestrian circulation throughout the site and to provide needed trail connections for the employee housing area, as well as showing how these trails link to existing trails and the bus stop locations. The Planning Commission resolution indicates that the Trails Committee should work with staff and the applicant to resolve the trail linkages throughout the site. In addition to the comprehensive assessment, the following specific connectivity issues were discussed or addressed with the application: a) Staff recommended that a trail and/or detached sidewalk be constructed along the west side of the access road (Fairway Drive, recommended to be renamed Clubhouse Drive), connecting all five of the new buildings proposed, to improve pedestrian circulation, convenience and safety between the buildings. The reason for this request was because the path located on the west side of the resort's facilities in Phase I, although appropriate, is too far removed from the pedestrian circulation pattern anticipated along Fairway Drive. The applicant agreed to provide this connection via a detached walkway and a landscaped parkway along most of this street frontage. b) New trails are proposed along Brush Creek between the proposed two residential buildings with a future planned connection to Highline Road per the written materials in the application. The Planning Commission resolution recommended that all trail easements be documented on the Preliminary PUD. c) The re is a trail connection from the tennis courts west toward the Brush Creek Road trail that is not shown as remaining on the plans. Proposed new fairway#9 replaces the trail as well as encroaches into one of the ponds. As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission resolution requests that the Trails Committee work with the applicant and staff to determine the proper trail linkages on the site. A trail connection is shown along the recommended secondary road alignment from the clubhouse to the Brush Creek Road as previously requested by staff. This trail connection was also intended to replace the removed east-west trail, but this new trail location, as a replacement, appears to be unacceptable to the Trails Committee due to more significant grade changes. For reference, please see the attached trail location from the trails master plan in 1988 and from the Comprehensive Plan showing the trail alignment (Exhibit M). Vehicular Access Issues. The following issues were previous discussed at a technical review meeting with affected staff on September 19, 2000: a) A second point of access from the employee housing area in Parcel 12, the tennis courts, and the new clubhouse and parking area to Brush Creek Road is thought among some staff to be somewhat important as these areas are far removed from Snowmass Club Circle and because of the large, mixed-use nature of the project. However, the need for a secondary access is dependent upon the results of a traffic study required with the Preliminary PUD. Major golfing or tennis events could be held on the site necessitating the need for the secondary access to the site, if the main access is blocked or constricted. In PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report 60' 111 ✓ Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11120/00 addition, the secondary access could be warranted if an analysis of the impacts upon the intersections of Highline Road and Clubhouse Drive at Snowmass Club Circle reveal that the secondary road to Brush Creek Road would be prudent to construct. The extension of"Clubhouse Drive" north to Brush Creek Road is currently identified as a possible road connection on the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Maps. However, the Nordic Trails coordinator has submitted comments concerning the road bisecting the Nordic trail. See the attached memo (Part of Exhibit P). Staff finds the secondary road may be needed, but it could possibly be gated and designated for emergency vehicles only and/or it could be designated as a seasonal road to be closed during winter months. In any event, an emergency secondary road, gated or not, would need to be plowed, affecting the Nordic trail operations. Other issues to consider would be that a public road intersecting Brush Creek Road at the base of the hill is not desirable either, especially during winter months. A connection instead to Horse Ranch Drive would be preferable, but this would interfere with the applicants plans to construct a new five-par Fairway#18. Another issue is that the Fire District does not believe there is adequate emergency access around the southern-most residential building. The applicant and the Fire District are working together to try to resolve this issue by studying other options. b) A street name change from Fairway Drive to Clubhouse Drive is proposed with the application, as the Police Department felt there was one too many Fairway Drives accessed off of different streets. Although, emergency services in Aspen recently indicated there are too many street names in Aspen and Snowmass with the "club" name included (see part of Exhibit P). However the Fire District doesn't appear concerned about the use of"Clubhouse Drive," plus the previous phone book showed this street as "Clubhouse Drive," and the employee housing is addressed off of"Clubhouse Drive." c) The widening of the Access Road (Fairway Drive) should be discussed. The Fire District requests that this road be a 24-foot wide all weather surface road (20 feet of drive lane with two-foot shoulders). According to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Phase I, "SCA shall design and construct improvements to the access road travelling from 'County Club Circle' to the District facilities as described in the Plans." This has not yet been constructed, and it is required as a condition of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new Phase I units. d) The Preliminary PUD will need to document the accurate location of the road easement for Access Road or existing Fairway Drive. Per the plat, it doesn't appear that it precisely follows the alignment shown on the proposed plans. Staff is concerned that the Town obtain legal access for all parcels along this road. Staff recommends that a new access easement be dedicated for the improved roadway (Clubhouse Drive). P:\use\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Reportl aw 1106 40 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11120/00 e) A decoratively designed bridge with pedestrian walk and decorative railings should be constructed to replace the culvert crossing where Brush Creek meets existing Fairway Drive. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant agreed to provide this improvement if they were allowed to construct a trail on one side of the creek (between the proposed residential buildings) without having to provide a secondary pedestrian bridge crossing in this area. Summary of Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Town Council follow the review criteria per Code, and upon completion of the review of the application, provide a resolution taking action on the application that may accept the Planning Commission's resolution, or that may modify any aspect of said resolution. The resolution must authorize the applicant to submit a Preliminary PUD or shall state that the applicant must submit a new Sketch Plan prior to proceeding to Preliminary PUD review. The Town Council must consider all relevant materials and testimony, and whether the application is generally consistent with Section 16A-5-3000, General Restrictions, and Section 16A-5-310, Review Standards. P:\use\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Reportl �� Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 Part 2: Detailed Case Analysis (for reference and informational purposes only) Related Cases: None. Public Notification: Legal notice of the Town Council public hearing was published in the Snowmass Sun on November 8, 2000. The applicant submitted verification that public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property. Public hearing notices were posted on the property by November 9, 2000. Community Referrals: Referral packages were mailed to the following groups and agencies for review and comment: Public Works, Transportation, Police, Engineering, Snowmass Water and Sanitation, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, Landscaping/ Parks/Trails, Holy Cross Electric, US West, and AT&T Cable. Attached are comments from the agencies, which had specific comments relating to the Snowmass Club Phase 11 proposal (Exhibit P). Conformance with Code Criteria: General Restrictions Criteria: General Restrictions: The following restrictions per Code Section 16A-5-300(c), generally outlined, shall apply to all PUD's: (1) Compliance with minimum land area requirements; (2) Compliance with PUD locational criteria; (3) 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, (4) Compliance with maximum buildout limitations and criteria, including the 85% development rule; (5) Compliance with the variation criteria concerning dimensional limitations; (6) Compliance with the Community purposes criteria for PUD's, if applicable, utilizing the following purposes: a) Provision for restricted housing, b) Encouragement of sustainable development; c) Provision of open space and/or avoiding wildlife habitat; d) Encouragement of better design; and e) Development of necessary public facilities. Analysis: • There is no minimum land area requirement for this PUD. • The proposed PUD is located within the Town of Snowmass Village. • Land uses proposed are permitted in this area, but the number of units allowed for this area has yet to be determined. P:\use\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report/ dim Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 • Compliance with the maximum buildout limitations and criteria need to be discussed, including the 85% development rule, and whether the future allotment of 60 units, if allowed, can be extended over into Parcel 3. Phase I included 30 condo units plus one manager's unit in the lodge. If the Town includes the 21 proposed units for Phase II, the total units exceed the 85% rule of the 60 units specified within the Buildout Analysis Chart by one unit (52 versus 51). Since the applicant agreed to deed restrict the one unit in the lodge as an employee unit, the Planning Commission recommended that this one unit could mitigate for itself with the deed restriction. A discussion should also occur as to whether the 21 new units in this area is permissible under the maximum buildout chart showing 60 future units for this area. • Please see the comments in the variation section of this report dealing with the height limitations. • Compliance with the Community purposes criteria for PUD's needs to be discussed, and whether the PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: a) Whether there is a need for the additional provision of restricted housing for Phase 2; b) Whether or not this proposal encourages sustainable development; c) Whether there is adequate provision for open space and/or avoiding wildlife habitat; d) Whether this proposal creates better design; and e) Whether there is a need for further public facilities with this proposal, such as public parking and transportation facilities., public recreation facilities, and other public facilities. (7) Variations of Development Standards Criteria. Any PUD that requests any of the dimension limitation variations authorized in Code Subsection (c)(5) of 16A-5- 300(c), shall also comply with the following standards: a) Height. 50% of the building or structure within the PUD shall conform to the height limits of the underlying zone district, b) Open space and minimum lot area. Variation shall not be detrimental to the character of the proposed development or to surrounding properties, shall include open space for the mutual benefit of the entire development, and the open space that is provided is accessible and available to at least all dwelling units and lots for which the open space is intended; c) Minimum building setbacks. Adequacy of distance between buildings for necessary fire access and protection, to ensure proper ventilation, light, air, and snowmelt between buildings, and to minimize the effects of transmission of noise between units and buildings. P:\use\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report/ 111.W v Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 Analysis: • Height. Please see the major issues section of this report discussing this issue. • Open space and minimum lot area. The percentage of open space for the impacted area for the proposed residential buildings needs to be verified with the Preliminary PUD application. However, it seems that the minimum 25% open space is being met. • Minimum building setbacks. A cross-section of the site and proposed structures has been provided to illustrate the setbacks and separation between buildings and to determine if there is appropriate light and air to the creek area (Part of Exhibit R). Further critical dimensioning would need to be documented on the Preliminary PUD. (8) Parking. Compliance with the underlying zoning's parking requirements, unless a reduction in that requirement is granted, pursuant to Code Section 16A-4-310(c). (9) Road standards. A PUD may be permitted to deviate from the Town's road standards to generally achieve greater efficiency of infrastructure design or to achieve greater sensitivity to environmental features, when the following minimum design principles are followed: a) Safe, efficient access to all areas of the proposed development, b) Provision for internal pathways to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site; c) Design of roadways to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units, including provision of access easements; d) Acceptable design of principal access points to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic, and to avoid direct access onto highway, arterial, or collector streets from individual lots, units or buildings when other reasonable access options are available. Analysis: • Parking. Please see comments under the section of major issues for issues relating to the parking needs on the site. • Road standards. The road standards will need to be addressed at the time of the Preliminary PUD application. Review Standards: In addition to demonstrating its compliance with the provisions of Section 16A-5-300(c), General Restrictions, and with all other applicable provisions of this Code, a proposed PUD shall also comply with the following review standards: (1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) Preservation of community character, including consistency with the standards of Code Section 16A-4-340, Building Design Guidelines, in order to be compatible with or enhance the character of existing land uses in the area and not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area; Muse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report I WE Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 (3) Sufficiency of proposed landscape buffering both within and between the PUD and surrounding lands to minimize noise, glare, and other adverse impacts, create attractive streetscapes and parking areas, and be consistent with the character of the Town; (4) Compliance with development evaluation criteria of Article IV of the Town's Development Code; (5) Suitability of the development, considering its topography, environmental features and any natural or man-made hazards that affect its development potential, (6) Adequacy of facilities for utility services, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, roads and pedestrian circulation; location of site is reasonably convenient to police and fire protection, emergency medical services and schools; and the accommodates the efficient provision of transit facilities and services, (7) Avoidance of creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services or that require duplication of premature extension of public facilities to achieve roadway continuity and alignment with existing platted streets to create connectivity, and to ensure that water and sewer lines are consistent with the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District's service plan; and (8) Provision that each phase of development shall contain the required streets, utilities, landscaping and other improvements that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, including trail connections, which are for the benefit of the Town, are constructed with the initial phase of the development or as early in the project as is reasonable. Analysis: • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Please see previous comments in this report concerning Comprehensive Plan issues. • Preservation of community character. At the time of Preliminary PUD application review, the exterior finishes and color schemes will need to be called out on the building elevations, and a materials/color sample board of the exterior finishes will need to be provided. Staff recommends that the masonry on the buildings be increased to improve the durability of the exterior, the aesthetic quality of the buildings, and to create some contrast between buildings while at the same time encouraging compatibility. The Planning Commission resolution recommended certain upgrades for the tennis structures. The resolution is attached to this report. Overall, discussion needs to occur to determine if the character of this proposals fits in appropriately with the surrounding area. See the attached set of elevations (Exhibit R). • Sufficiency of landscape buffering. The applicant provided supplemental cross sections between the two proposed residential buildings and the Villas North buildings, located to the southeast, to illustrate the adequacy of the separation and buffering between the buildings (Exhibit R). The vegetated area on the southeast side of the residential buildings could either be retained in a natural state or enhanced, if this area is located on the applicant's property. More detailed plans and cross-sections will need to be provided with the Preliminary PUD application showing critical dimensioning. PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report V Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 Compliance with Development Evaluation Criteria per Article IV: a) Although this area is not shown on the Comprehensive Plan to be within a significant wildlife impact area, staff requests that the Preliminary PUD application identify any possible wildlife habitat areas within Brush Creek and within the vegetative buffer on the southeast side of the property, if needed or necessary. b) The Environmental Sensitivity Map identifies portions of the project as being within the Brush Creek Impact Zone and those development evaluation standards will apply at the time of the Preliminary PUD application. The application needs to describe in detail the enhancements proposed to the creek. Planning Commission recommended that the Brush Creek enhancements be similar to, and a preference that it be better than, the creek improvements near the Community Chapel. Per the applicant's proposal, Brush Creek is to be diverted through two golf course ponds as a means to aesthetically improve the appearance of the creek and improve the quality of the water entering the Roaring Fork River. c) Per Code Section 4-120-D and E, a site-specific analysis of the property needs to be provided with the application, or at least at the time of the Preliminary PUD review. The report will need to evaluate the potential impacts of the development on Brush Creek and its associated riparian habitat and wetlands. d) Identification of the 100-year floodplain boundary will need to be provided with the Preliminary PUD application and addressed within the Brush Creek Impact Report. e) Provision of a topographic map in two-foot contours showing existing grades, a slope analysis, and proposed grades will be required for the Preliminary PUD review. f) A pedestrian path from the Roaring Fork Transit Authority bus stop to the Snowmass Clubhouse site was constructed with Phase I to create a pedestrian link from the bus stop to the new clubhouse as an extra trial to the planned trail shown on the plans. However, a new trail connection is recommended to connect the new clubhouse to Brush Creek along a recommended secondary access road, however, the Trails Committee is not in favor of having this trail location serve as a replacement to the east-west trail deleted by proposed new Fairway#9. In addition, existing and proposed transit stops need to be shown and labeled on the plans. In general, improving pedestrian trail linkages to both the TOSV and RFTA stops (north and south of the site) and to other activity areas from the Employee Housing and Phase II condominiums will need to be discussed. Please see the comments in the major issues section of this report for further details relating to the provision of new trails/walkways. g) The locations of Phase II buildings seem appropriate with their orientation dependent upon a solar analysis being completed. Staff recommended that the upper floors be staggered back, at least from the creek side, or that the buildings be set back from the creek bed,a greater distance to allow ample light and air PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Reportl dw yr Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 along the creek edge. Since this initial suggestion, the applicant split the southern-most building per a Planning Commission recommendation. The three-story buildings seem generally consistent with the character of the buildings in Phase I and with the Villas North project since the site sits lower than that property. h) It was recommended that the TOSV transit stop at Snowmass Club Circle (near the Villas and Mountain Bell facility) be relocated to the north side of the access to the new parking and roadway for improved pedestrian circulation and safety. A pull-out lane for buses is currently under construction in this area. i) A traffic study will be required with the submittal with the Preliminary PUD to evaluate the vehicle trips generated from this project per Code ratios and to provide a projected traffic count at the intersections of Access Road (Fairway Drive) and Highline Drive where they meet Snowmass Club Circle. As previously mentioned, the study will also need to address whether a secondary road to Brush Creek Road is necessary. j) A phasing construction plan, along with profile for all road improvements, particularly Access Road (Fairway Drive), will need to be provided with the submittal of the Preliminary PUD. The timeframe for the completion of the Phase 2 improvements (e.g., the clubhouse, the 150-space parking lot, the golf course improvements, the condo units, the indoor tennis structure, the adjoining parking area, and the Brush Creek enhancements) must be noted in the application or phasing plan. The timing of the construction for Phase 11, as described by the applicant, is summarized in the attached Planning Commission resolution. k) As part of the Preliminary PUD submission, a comprehensive, master trail plan for the entire property, which shows the proposed trail linkages with existing trails, linkages with neighboring property trails and the coordination with transit facilities must be provided for review. Staff and the Trails Committee will be reviewing the proposed trail plan and the Preliminary PUD application for Parcels 3, 4 and 10 to evaluate trail linkages with neighboring property trails and complexes, coordination with transit facilities, access to the employee housing, and connection with the golf, tennis, and club facilities. 1) An Energy Conservation Plan demonstrating compliance with the criteria in Code Section 4-330 will need to be submitted with the Preliminary PUD application. m) According to Division 4-4, Standards for Restricted Housing, the Phase II development would be required to mitigate for employee housing. Please see further details and scenario options in the major issues section of this report. • Suitability of the development. The site seems to be under the 30% slope limitation for development, although a topographic and slope analysis will need to be prepared with the Preliminary PUD application, also addressing environmental features and any natural or man-made hazards that affect the development potential. A geotechnical report will also need to be provided with the Preliminary PUD application along with recommended mitigation techniques. P:\use\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Reportl • 1ONOS r Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 Adequacy of facilities for roads, utilities, and services. This will need to be demonstrated more in detail with the Preliminary PUD. Appropriate emergency access needs to be provided to the new residential units, including appropriate locations for fire hydrants, and the possible use of standpipes and a fire sprinkler system. See the Major Issues section of this report under Access Issues for further details. Other Project Information: None. ..��� P:\use\jw\Snowmass Gub 11 Sketch Plan TC Report/ Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 Attachments: ➢ Planning Commission resolution#34, of series 2000 Exhibits: (for reference and informational purposes only—see separate exhibit package handout in notebook binder) Exhibit A Vicinity Map Exhibit B Revised letter of description and justification from applicant addressing Code criteria, including request to convert portion of Parcel 3 into Parcel 4 Exhibit C List of Phase II Club Improvements Exhibit D Map highlighting the affected site area conversion from Parcel 3 to Parcel 4 Exhibit E Letter from applicant outlining and explaining agreed to changes to the plans in response to Planning Commission comments. Exhibit F Legal Description Exhibit G Disclosure of Ownership Exhibit H Program summary figures for Parcels 4, 10 and 12 of the Phase 1 project Exhibit I Summary figures for the Phase 2 project Exhibit J Dwelling Unit/Bed Summary of the Employee Housing Exhibit K Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart Exhibit L Resolution 49 with referenced "Exhibit A" Exhibit M Copies of trail alignment maps Exhibit N Parking Analysis and assumptions Exhibit O Copies of two options of redesign of Fairway Drive/Clubhouse Drive and Snowmass Club Circle Exhibit P Comments from staff, outside agencies, and others received thus far, including a memos concerning the Nordic trails and a response from emergency services concerning the street name change Exhibit Q Revised Site Plans and supplemental enlargements Exhibit R Revised elevations, floor plans, and cross-sections of the residential buildings Exhibit S Revised elevations of the clubhouse and tennis structures doom 4W PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Report 1401 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item No. 13 Town Council Meeting Agenda Date 11/20/00 Project Statistics: Surrounding properties primarily for the proposed residential buildings: >D� North PUD Snowmass Water and Sanitation District facility; Employee housing and the golf course farther to the north; and the rodeo grounds beyond Brush Creek Road East PUD Golf Course; Open space farther beyond Highline Road South PUD Villas North project and the Country Club Villas West PUD Snowmass Club Phase 1 project, golf course, and remaining PUD beyond • PAuse\jw\Snowmass Club 11 Sketch Plan TC Reportl SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 34 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROCEEDING TO A PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMISSION FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB PHASE II DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. WHEREAS, the Aspen Skiing Company, as the General Partner of the Snowmass Club Associates, applied on June 26, 2000 for a Sketch Plan to permit development of 21 condominiums, parking lot area, a new clubhouse, a new tennis structure and center, and golf course facility upgrades and changes, as shown per the exhibits on file in the Town's Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Skiing Company, as the General Partner of the Snowmass Club Associates, previously applied on February 23, 2000 for a Sketch Plan to permit development of 30 condominiums, parking lot area, a new clubhouse, a new tennis structure and center, and golf course facility upgrades and changes, as shown per the exhibits on file in the Town's Community Development Department, but then subsequently withdrew the application on June 12, 2000; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing and Joint Public Meeting was held before the Town Council and the Planning Commission on September 5'h, 2000 to receive public comment; and WHEREAS, public meetings were held before the Planning Commission on September 201h, October 11'h, October 18`h, and November 1 st, 2000 to discuss the proposal and prepare a resolution to Town Council; and WHEREAS, said Sketch Plan request was considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 16A-5-320 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application and heard the recommendations of the Town Staff, heard and considered comments from the public and Staff, as well as the information presented by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: -)aq- PC Reso.00-14 Page 2 Section One: Findings 1. The applicant has submitted sufficient information pursuant to Section 16A-5-320 of the Code to permit the Town Staff and the Planning Commission an adequate review of the proposed Sketch Plan. 2. All public notification requirements, as specified within Section 16A-5-60(b) of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code, have been satisfied. 3. The proposed amendment is being processed in accordance with Section 16A-5- 320 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code. 4. The application is consistent with the development review standards specified within Sections 16A-5-40,16A-5-50, 16A-5-310, 16A-5-320, and 16A-5-330 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code. 5. The Planning Commission has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Sketch Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 5-230 C., General Restrictions, of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code, subject to satisfying the applicable conditions contained within Section Four of this resolution. 6. The Planning Commission has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Sketch Plan level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 5-230 D., Review Standards, of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code, subject to satisfying the applicable conditions contained within Section Four of this resolution. 7. The Sketch Plan identifies land uses that are consistent with the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map in that the subject area is identified as being intended for Mixed-Use purposes. The proposed residential buildings, new tennis structures, clubhouse, and parking facilities would be appropriate mixed uses customarily found in connection with a development of this type. 8. The subject area is identified on the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan Environmental Sensitivity Map as being within the Brush Creek Impact Area. Any Preliminary PUD application must satisfy the provisions of Section 4-120 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code. _1W go PC Reso.00-14 Page 3 9. The subject area is included as part of the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan Future Transportation Map showing the realignment of Brush Creek Road per Option II of the applicant's submittal. It was determined that Option II would not be considered and that Option I would be utilized showing the current Brush Creek Road alignment. In addition, the Transportation Maps show a road connection south from Brush Creek accessing the golf course area. It was determined that a traffic study would need to be submitted for evaluation at the time of the Preliminary PUD application to determine whether this access road, and which type of road (emergency, seasonal, etc.), is necessary with this proposal, as per the condition in Section Four of this resolution. 10.The subject area is included as part of the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan Trails and Open Space Map, which shows a trail connection from the tennis court areas west to the Brush Creek Road Trail. It was determined that the Town's Trails Committee would need to work with staff and the applicant to determine the appropriate locations for new and replacement trails on the site during the Preliminary PUD application review. 11. Section 4-410, Restricted Housing Requirements, of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code, provides the methodology for determining the amount of restricted housing, which must be provided by the applicant to sufficiently mitigate the employee housing impacted by the proposed development. a) The Planning Commission considered the quantity and quality of the employee housing constructed as part of Phase I of this development and finds that there doesn't appear to be a need for more employee housing. Case and point: The Town of Snowmass Village could accept the conclusion reached during Phase I of the current Snowmass Club development that the seven (7) units required in 1981 could be considered as satisfying the requirement at this time for the thirty (30) condominium units previously approved in Phase I. For Phase 2 the requirement for employee housing, per Ordinance 7, Series of 2000, would be: 0.61 jobs per unit for 21 new fractional ownership units = 12.81 5.16 jobs per 1,000 square feet for 2,400 square feet of restaurant, bar and kitchen area within the new golf clubhouse = 12.39 Total employees: 25.20 No PC Reso.00-14 Page 4 However, the area in Parcel 12 planned for the employee housing was limited to 23 units (restricted or unrestricted), and therefore, the remaining 38 units built (61-23=38) could be what was intended as a community purpose benefit with the approval of Phase 1. Since the 23 permitted units in Parcel 12 could have been previously developed for restricted or unrestricted housing, the estimated 11,287 square feet of the 23 units could be appropriately deed restricted to allow other employees within the Town of Snowmass Village, not just the Aspen Skiing Company employees, to utilize the employee housing units and thus satisfy the employee housing requirement for Phase 2. Therefore, 25.2 employees multiplied by 448 square feet of floor area, equals 11,287 square feet of units, which could be deed restricted to allow other employees within the Town of Snowmass Village, other than for the Aspen Skiing Company employees, to utilize these units. 12.Planning Commission found that due to the proposed residential building replacing parking for the existing golf course operations, the golf course operations would need to be relocated first before constructing the fractional ownership units. The estimated timetable of the proposed project and phasing of improvements are as follows: (a) Replacement of hole #16 with new hole #18 in the Spring 2001, depending on length of approval process; (b) Commence construction of the new clubhouse and the 150-space parking lot in Spring 2002 along with the possible closure of the golf course to accommodate the upgrades planned; (c) Then construct the residential portion of the project, after moving the golf course operations using a temporary clubhouse structure, in the Fall 2001, which is anticipated as an 18-month project; and (d) Construct the tennis structures approximately during the same time as the residential buildings. 13.Planning Commission finds that the proposed development promotes the public health, safety, and welfare because: (a) The golf and club serve public health; (b) Additional RETT tax will be provided; (c) Additional property tax will be provided; (d) It will improve hot or warm bed base in a period of a declining bed base; (e) The increase in bed base will provide incremental retail spending resulting in additional sales tax collection; and WOO,� • PC Reso.00-14 Page 5 (f) The sale of the units will capture a base of future skiers for Snowmass Village that might otherwise travel to other resorts or purchase real estate in other resorts. 14.Planning Commission finds that Town Council should determine whether appropriate community purposes have been provided. Section Two: Action. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the applicant proceed to the submission of a Preliminary Plan for the Snowmass Club Phase II Development to permit construction of condominiums, parking lot areas, a clubhouse, a new tennis structure and center, and upgrades to the golf course facilities, as shown in the staff report exhibits, subject to the recommendations and conditions listed in Sections Three and Four below: Section Three: Recommendations. • That anew water feature(s) be considered with the Preliminary PUD application. Section Four: Conditions 1. The Preliminary PUD application shall include the following: a) Locational information: 1 . Provide a full legal description of Parcels 3, 4, and 10 [Section 16A-5- 40(b)(2)] concerning the boundary line shift between Parcels 3 and 4 in order to retain the same acreages in Parcels 3, 4, and 10. 2. Show the location of existing and proposed easements and setbacks on the plan [Section 16A-5-330(4)(c)(d)]. 3. Clearly show and label all the improvements to the golf course on the plans, such as which fairways get combined, fairway deletions, new fairway locations, the renumbering of the fairways, and golf cart routes. API 10 PC Reso.00-14 Page 6 b) Natural Resources: 1. The Brush Creek impact report shall provide a detailed description and plans of the proposed enhancements to Brush Creek. The Brush Creek enhancements shall be similar to, and a preference to be better than, the creek improvements near the Community Chapel. Per applicant's proposal, Brush Creek is to be diverted through two golf course ponds as a means to aesthetically improve the appearance of the creek and improve the quality of the water entering the Roaring Fork River. c) Parking facilities: 1. Complete a peak parking demand analysis, preferably including the potential use scenarios of the Fairway Conference Center and the old clubhouse building, to evaluate and determine the parking needs for Phase II during the Preliminary PUD application [Section 16A-4-310]. 2. Due to the fact that the off-street parking provision proposed is fewer than required by the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code, show a location for a future parking lot to be constructed if the Town of Snowmass Village determines that additional parking is needed for the site following completion and operation of the facilities [Section 16A-5-330(5)(k)]. 3. That the underground parking for the Phase II residential buildings, including the connecting ramp for the southern building, be retained to help meet the parking demand on the site. d) Transit issues: 1. Show all existing and proposed transit stop locations on the Preliminary PUD. 2. Identify the ownership and right-of-way widths of the roads, particularly Snowmass Club Circle and Fairway Drive. e) Vehicular Access and Circulation: 1. The name of "Access Road" or Fairway Drive on the east side of the site should be renamed to Clubhouse Drive because it is reasonable given the proposed new clubhouse location, and because it would avoid confusion with another Fairway Drive accessed off another street besides Snowmass Club Circle. ,)3gso PC Reso.00.14 Page 7 2. Applicant shall complete a traffic analysis as part of the Preliminary PUD to determine the traffic generation for Phase II, not including the assumption for a secondary road connection to Brush Creek Road, to determine if the secondary road connection, including the type of road (e.g., emergency, seasonal, etc.) is needed along with other recommended improvements [Section 16A-4-2101. 3. The redesign of the intersection of Fairway Drive and Snowmass Club Circle, in compliance with the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code criteria, shall be redesigned for improved sight distance and reaction time for turning movements. Such reconfiguration shall include a westbound right-turn slip lane with a center island or some variation of this design and shall be completed with the Preliminary PUD review. 4. Improve the appearance of the culvert crossing for Brush Creek at Fairway Drive to replace or redesign the existing culvert crossing with a new bridge or culvert crossing incorporating a pedestrian walkway, decorative railings and stone embankments on both sides of Clubhouse Drive at the creek crossing. This would also be in lieu of providing a second pedestrian bridge between the two proposed residential buildings. f) Trail issues: 1 . Provide interconnecting trail along and between the northern-most residential building and Brush Creek, utilizing a meandering path and a decorative surface treatment (but not asphalt), to connect Clubhouse Drive to Snowmass Club Circle, and the existing trail located farther to the west across the main entrance. 2. That the Preliminary PUD demonstrate that the Town has easements for all existing and proposed trails within Parcel 10. 3. Applicant agrees to provide additional easements as needed to complete a trail connection from Clubhouse Drive to the future trail along Highline Road, planned between Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road, to permit the Town to construct the trail connection once deemed necessary. 4. Provide a detached walk, with a landscaped parkway, along the west side of Clubhouse Drive to connect the new residential buildings for Phase II to the new tennis structures and the new clubhouse facility. An exception may be considered if the Preliminary PUD shows that it is not possible to construct a �� r PC Reso.00-14 Page 8 detached walk in front of the new tennis structure as a result of steep embankments and that an attached walkway would be more appropriate. 5. The Town of Snowmass Village's Trail Committee shall work with staff and the applicant to determine the appropriate locations for new and replacement trails on the site. g) Architecture and Landscaping: 1. Compliance is required with the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code criteria, including consideration of the views from the Villas North property, when evaluating any building height waiver from 39 feet to 44 feet for the southern-most building, proposed to be within Parcel 4's boundary versus Parcel 3's boundary. A separate height variance would also be required for any building beyond 44 feet in height. 2. The split in the southern-most building, to create more open space area and architecturally pleasing results, shall be retained with the design of the Preliminary PUD application. Explore the possibility of splitting the northern- most residential building as well. 3. The specific amount of common open space area intended for the enjoyment of the residents, such as landscaped areas, stream beds, and areas for pedestrian use only (not parking lots), must be determined at the time of the Preliminary Plan application [Sections 16A-2-20 and Section16A-4-320]. 4. The design and exterior finishes of the residential units, the tennis structure, tennis facility, and the clubhouse facility will be further evaluated at the time of the Preliminary Plan application [Section 16A-4-330]. Additional exterior finishes should be considered for the tennis structures (such as a timbers or stone base) and should incorporate more of a "ranch" theme and discourage a shed-type design. The roof design should incorporate additional detailing or articulation, such as dormers and a clerestory feature. If standing seam metal roofing is proposed, it should incorporate a dull finish and color. 5. The design of the landscape improvements, including the areas along Brush Creek, Clubhouse Drive, the clubhouse and parking area, and the golf course improvement areas, shall be evaluated for acceptability at the time of the Preliminary Plan application [Section 16A-4-320]. A heavy landscape buffer is needed between the residential buildings and Clubhouse Drive. PC Reso.00-14 Page 9 h) Community Purposes: That the additional manager's unit in the lodge that wasn't accounted for in Phase I, which is in excess by one unit of the 85% build out chart for this site, be deed restricted for employee housing only; Further, this deed restriction shall serve as the community benefit for Phase II being over the 85% rule. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED AS AMENDED on the motion of Planning Commission member Mordkin and the second of Planning Commission member Faurer by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against, on this 1st day of November, 2000. TOWN SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLAN G COMMISSION I Geor a P. uggin , C ai an ATTEST: Sherry loci ntire, tanning Commission Secretary P:\useryw\SnowmassClubll\PC Reso. Snowmass Club Phase II Sketch Plan.doc ,124 TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GARY SUITER, TOWN MANAGER RE: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2000 #i*i#**#i*i#*RRRRR RRRR RRR**#*#i*#***RR RRR*#*i#*fifififi*fififi********###****fififififififiR******R#****fififififiii***#####*R ORIENTATION FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS Congratulations to Mayor Manchester on his re-election, and to Arnie Mordkin and Dick Virtue on their successful election bid. A reminder that orientation for the newly elected Council Members is scheduled for Thursday, November 301h, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. All Council Members are invited to attend. Council Members will be taken on a tour of all Town facilities and introduced to Town staff. We will conclude at about 12:30 with lunch at the Snowmass Club. TOWN COUNCIL RETREAT As you know, we have scheduled a Town Council Retreat for Wednesday, December 6th at the Snowmass Conference Center. This will be an all-day retreat and will include meals. We hope to cover key issues and projects, future goals, expectations, and discuss process and strategy. Additional strategic planning work sessions are anticipated. Please mark your calendars. SPECIAL ELECTION Steve Connor has been in contact with Bond Counsel regarding the Parcel "N" election. A draft resolution calling the election is included in this packet, however a s ecific date has not been set. The resolution will therefore be considered at the December 4t regular meeting. This delay should not materially affect the project. *RTA BOARD APPOINTMETNT Per the Mayor's request, Town Council needs to appoint a Council representative to the newly formed Rural Transportation Authority Board as soon as possible. Attached is a memo from Alice Hubbard explaining the urgency of this matter. The Mayor can provide more detail at the meeting. PARKING RESTRICTIONS For your information, the Town's winter parking program will begin on Monday, December 11th, at which time parking permits will be required and enforcement will begin. The Town has executed the annual Transportation and Parking Agreement with the Aspen Skiing Company, which provides a coordinated approach to managing the resort's traffic, transit and parking demand. *Response requested To: RTA Policy Committee, RFTA Board, RFRHA Board, City and County Managers, and Interested others From: Alice Hubbard, RTA Project Manager Re: Appointment of RTA Board of Directors and Alternates Date: November 15, 2000 With the successful voter approval of all RTA ballot questions, the formation of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority becomes official as soon as we receive a certificate from the Division of Local Government within the State Department of Local Affairs. Revenue collection in those areas that approved an RTA sales and use tax will begin January 1, 2001. Because the IGA has been approved by voters, an RTA Board of Directors as described in the IGA is the only group that can now govern RTA decisions. There are a host of decisions that will need to be made in the very near term, and until a board is established they cannot be resolved. The most critical decision is adopting at least a preliminary RTA budget before January 1. This means that the RTA will need a director and alternate director appointed as soon as is possible by each member jurisdiction, but by December 15 by the latest. This will allow for a meeting to be held before the holidays, and adoption of a budget before January 1. There are two requirements for Directors and Alternate Directors: 1. They must be elected officials, as required by the state enabling legislation. 2. They must also serve on the RFTA Board of Directors, as required by IGA Section 8.02b: "For the purposes of continuity, Directors of the Authority appointed by each Initial member will also serve as such member's director on the Board of Directors of RFTA during the RFTA Transition Period.° This does not mean that each jurisdiction's current RFTA board member automatically becomes the RTA board member. Now your board handles this is up to your local ► 139 - discretion - you may choose to appoint someone who currently is not on the RFTA board, and that person would then become the RFTA board member as well. The meeting times of this board will be determined once appointments are made. We will find a meeting time that works for all Directors. We know that this time of year is not the usual time to be making these kinds of appointments, but it is Imperative that a board be established as soon as possible in order to move ahead on many key decisions. Please forward your appointments to me as soon as possible, or contact me if there are any problems in making these appointments before December 15. Thank yowl Please Turn in Your Status Report Updates to Donna J. Garcia by November 29, 2000 at 5 P.M. Status Report Bullets in Italics have been previously listed State of the Town December 04, 2000 Town Council / Town Manager Activity/Staff Manager Status Mail Transit Plaza ■ Summary report due in Mid-January. Gary Suiter Entryway Planning Project ■ Highline/Brush Creek intersection schematics Gary Suiter completed and are being refined. ■ Commencing Pool and Rodeo discussions. Town Manager's Office Activities ■ Employee reviews. Gary Suiter ■ Little Red School House lease renewal. ■ Pay& Classification Plan review and update. ■ Amend Timberline Lease. ■ Develop GTV IGA. ■ Review RTA Upper Valley]GA. ■ New Council orientation. Town Attorne ' Activity/Staff Manager Status Town Attorney General Activities ■ Finishing revisions to the Snowmass Club I. Steve Connor ■ Finishing Timbers project documents. ■ Assisting on Droste reclamation project. ■ Assisting with Parcel Nproject documents. Housin Activitv/Staff Manager Status Housing Department Activities ■ Country Club Town Home#19 was awarded to Joe Coffey Terry Johnson and Mindy Robinson. • The Mt.View retaining wall construction is finished. Additional boulders and topsoil will be added this Spring. • The groundskeepers have finished their seasonal work. • M.V. 1222 is for sale and Claire Fuller may receive this unit with the In-complex Priority Rule. This will require her M.V. 1 bedroom unit to be sold. • Snow removal has taken a considerable amount of staff time recently. • A contractor has been hired to complete the Little Red School House repairs. Parcel N.Employee Housing ■ The Ridge Condominium inspections will be Joe Coffey scheduled in the near future. • A more accurate construction budget will be created for the new site plan. • CTL Thompson, S.G. M. and Scott Smith are reviewing the new site plan and designing the inceptor drain. • CTL Thompson has a new drainage plan that will eliminate the trench drain. Horizontal drains will be drilled into the hillside behind the buildings. • The Initiative implications must be resolved ASAP for the project to continue on our schedule. • CTL Thompson is still recommending that the horizontal site drains be installed before March. Finance Activity/Staff Manager Status Finance and Personnel Activities ■ Finalizing Draft Pay& Classification Plan. Marianne Rakowski ■ Closing October financial statements. ■ Conducting physical inventory inspection. ■ Preparing numerous reports to put in the budget document. ■ Working with Russ Caldwell and Calvin Hansen on Parcel "N"financing. ■ Following up on delinquent sales tax remittance. ■ Reviewing GASB 34. Web Page Enhancement ■ Added Quick Links to main page. Nick Tucker ■ Council minutes, agendas, etc. are working and current. ■ New interface being designed. ■ Departmental outlines due by December I". Ready for BID early January, Ito so 2 Public Works BRUSH CREEK/HIGHLINE ■ Two alternatives have been prepared for Council INTERSECTION DESIGN input. Will present to Council in December. Hunt Walker BRUSH CREEK CORRIDOR ■ The final report is ready to be adopted by both the TRANPORTATION STUDY Town Council and Pitkin County. Hunt Walker SNOWMELT ROAD ■ The stop leak product has arrived and it will be Hunt Walker installed the week of 11/13/00. All loops in the TOV section of the road are activated and performed well during the Wednesday,November 15,2000 storm. Town Clerk ' Activity/Staff Manager � Status Town Clerk's Office Activities ■ Updating Town Clerk section of Town Web Page. Trudi Worline ■ Sending letters to real estate purchasers whom failed to file a RETT application in 1999. ■ Issuing Business Licenses to businesses renewing their licenses for another year. ■ Preparing ballots, documents, and judges for November election. ■ Municipal CodeBook update in progress. ■ Town Council Public Notices, Agendas, and Minutes &Elections information now on Town's web page. ■ Entering all existing files into new central files database. ■ Advertising for Secretary/Receptionist pos�Uon. Public Sa e ActivitylStaff Manager Police Department Activities ■ The Department has been awarded a$19,300 Grant Art Smythe from the State Department of Transportation to enhance our D.U.I. Prevention and Enforcement efforts. ■ Our seasonal Traffic Control Officers have been selected and enforcement of the permit system ._.__...__._..___begins December I lb. ��� • 3 Community Development Department :Activkty/Staff Manager Status , Community Development Director ■ Scheduled interviews on 11/21 for Wildlife Activities Specialist position. Craig Thompson ■ Met with Pitkin County GIS regarding GIS data layers. Community Enhancement Projects Apflyity/staff Manager Status Brush Creek ■ NPS 319 Grant-Final report on the creek Bernadette Barthelenghi restoration is being written this Fall. ■ As-built survey should be completed Nov. Srn ■ After survey is completed, the Planning staff will complete a planting and park design for next year. ■ Fish monitoring was done on November 14th and only two fish have been captured. ■ Installation of New Jersey barriers along new Creek project completed November 140' . ■ BMP brochure delayed field data still being completed as of November 14tH ■ Setting up a meeting with Season 4 to discuss what's been completed and what needs to be done next year. Park Shelter ■ Gazebo w/cedar shake roofing has been ordered. Bernadette Barthelenghi ■ Seatwall/footers to accommodate a seatwall will be added to the shelter. ■ Construction is scheduled for October/November due to contractors schedule. ■ Nov. P 1 will be meeting with contractor to start permit process. ■ Due to weather conditions, delayed until Spring too cold for concrete work. BRUSH CREEK AT Woodbridge ■ Some re-vegetation &seeding will be done this Bernadette Barthelenghi month on bare areas and steep slopes. ■ Getting a plant-grow contract together to grow natives for this area. � • 6004 Environmental and Wildlife Activities Alctivity/Staff Manager Status Brush Creek Field Guide. ■ Contract completed. Project timeline June 2002. T.B.A. Plans & Policy Development Brush Creek/Benedict Trail ■ Storm drainage plan for Detention Pond has been Bernadette Barthelenghi ordered. This will determine new pond size and location. ■ On Nov. 3rd I will be meeting Debbie Duely to walk the Mall sections to review accuracy ofpast survey information in order to kickoff comprehensive planning effort. ■ Up dating survey information into electronic format. ■ Just completed cross section. Bio-Water Assessment ■ Monitoring has been ongoing since July. Bernadette Barthelenghi ■ August 16` we began inventory offish in Brush Creek. So far, lots of sizes and colors have been found. ■ Monitoring for macro invertebrate samples was completed last week. ■ Consultant compiling scientific data. Greenway Master Plan ■ Staff has received printed copies for Planning Bernadette Barthelenghi Commission from consultant and will forward for review next agenda opening. Land Use Code Amendments ■ Work Session regarding 30%slope,engineer's Chris Conrad opinion, and other incidental items tentatively scheduled for Dec. 18`h. Possibly including Unit Equivalency and Buildout Charts discussion. Trails Planning ■ Wooden signs have been ordered for backcountry Bernadette Barthelenghi trails. ■ Staff is setting up a meeting with Wildlife officials to discuss trail closures scheduled for Nov. 15`h or 17th Trails Committee meeting. ■ Future trail planning needs to be discussed for the next two years. ■ Working with Ski Company to upgrade the summer trails Master Plan for approval by the Forest Service. ■ Need GIS Map layers and trails to be located on the layers accurately and usable for staff and public. 0�c4s- 5 ■ Staff has set up a meeting with Wildlife officials to discuss trail closures scheduled for November 2151. ■ I flew with Pitkin county Wildlife Officer on November 10 to look at the elk migration, corridors, and winter range for the elk and deer herds. ■ November 10 I met with Pitkin County/Ski Company to discuss up dates of G1S data and Geo referencing. Watershed Management Plan ■ Data in a draft form has been submitted to the Bernadette Barthelenghi Town. ■ Mapping of the watershed data was successful. ■ A Steering committee needs to be formed. ■ Reviewing Best Management Practices and Environmental Protection Agency&Erosion Control Society for Brush Creek. ■ Ready to complete into final form. ■ Need to meet with the Erosion Control Society Chapter. Reports and Forms ■ Standardizing a report format, review procedure for Jim Wahlstrom PUDs, and application form for Land Use proposals. FLOWER GARDENS ■ Numbered lots on Lower section have been put to Bernadette Barthelenghi rest&composted by landscape contractor. M J Develo mint Review U date Daly Lane Conference Center ■ Received application August 2" . Sketch Plan ■ Tabled by applicant on September 26'h. Jim Wahlstrom ■ SVRA Board voted 10-26-00 to put plans on hold until next year. Parcel N Preliminary PUD ■ Approved October 16'ti. Chris Conrad Seven Star Ranch ■ Extension granted to November 21". Scheduled for Gary Suiter/Steve Connor November 20th Council meeting. Snowmass Center Expansion ■ Applicant considering amending application. Sketch Plan Chris Conrad Snowmass Club Phase II Sketch ■ Original application withdrawn June 12. Plan ■ Amended sketch plan submitted June 26 Jim Wahlstom ■ Joint PCITC meeting Sept. 5. ■ Planning Commission meetings held Sept. 20th, Oct. 6001 6 I Vh, Oct. 18`h, and Nov. I". ■ Preparing Resolution, Staff Report, and executive summary for Town Council on 11/20. Minor Develo ment Review Update Pr jeptjManager Update DROSTE RANCH COUNTY ■ Reviewing referral for subsequent comments in REFERRAL association with Conservation Easement and Brush Jim Wahlstrom Creek corridor transportation study. PARAGON ENTERPRISES ■ Beginning review. COUNTY REFERRAL Jim Wahlstrom Subdivision Exemption Lot 1, ■ To condominiumize existing duplex plus caretakers Ridge Run Unit I quarters. Chris Conrad ■ Scheduled for November 20. Lot 2, Ridge Run Unit 1 ■ Scheduled for November 20'h T.C. meeting. Dave Ellis Anderson Ranch ■ Conversion of cafeteria design to match other Jim Wahlstom building in courtyard. ■ Addition to Woodshop Studio building. ■ Town Council Review October 16'h. ■ Permit signed for Studio Building Oct. 25"h ■ Finalizing final resolution for Town Council. Administration Modification, SUP, TUP, Variance rr9jeiptjManagpr —Update Administrative Modifications ■ Snowmass Water Sanitation District Employee Housing, Governmental SPA. LOT 68,WOODRUN I ■ Building height constant outside envelope. Special Review ■ Public Works Operation Facility Expansion. ■ Toddler Center addition. Administrative decision to occur on Nov. 6'". ASC, DIVIDE LOT 44 ■ Special grading permit before Planning Commission on November P ✓ ✓ Enforcement U date Project / Manager Update mm Brush Creek Offices ■ Draft an agreement to resolve the land use disputes Chris Conrad between Brush Creek Offices and Woodbridge Homeowners. ■ Commenced discussion with Owner's attorney. Signs at the Mall ■ Photographed signs at the Mall. Jim Wahistom ■ Evaluating against comprehensive sign,plans, and codes. ■ Will photograph potential of more signage after ski season begins. Pendin Iodate Update Netbeam Wireless ■ Discussions regarding placing antennae atop Chris Conrad Snowmass Center for wireless phone and Internet connections. ■ Process as minor SPA amendment. ■ Received diagram, showing location Snowmass Real Estate Expansion ■ Interim SPA administrative modification Chris Conrad application received for 300 square f. addition to building. ■ Planning Commission to review November 15'x. Snowmass Water& Sanitation ■ Possible re-zoning of all Water&Sanitation Chris Conrad parcels to PUB—Public along w/possible employee housing project. ■ Complete application received. Will be processed as an administrative modification. ■ Approval granted for minor modification to Administration Building. Trans ortation 1�rqject / Manager Update HIRING WINTER STAFF FOR ■ Continuing to run Ads in local papers and on the BUS SYSTEM Internet. David Peckler OWNg400 8 SNOWMASS CLUB PHASE ONE ■ Discussion on possible location and design has BUS STOPS begun with the Country Club Townhouse David Peckler Homeowner's Association and the developers. ■ Land access agreement would be presented to Homeowner's at Board meeting in January.__,__ Project Update Coordinaaon Gary Sutter 923-3777 est.106 Public Works-Hunt Walker 913-5110 Housing-Joe Coffey 913-2360 Community Development-Thompson/Conrad/8arthelenghi/Ettis/Stahman/GaundMclntire 913.5514 Town Clerk -Truth Worline 923-3777 Finance-Marianne Rakowski 923-3796 Police Chief-Art Smythe 923-5330 1�q' �. 9 r 1 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -2:00 P.M. -Election Day TC WS -4:00 P.M. TC Mtg, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -2:00 P.M. TC WS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -4:00 P.M. Thanks Giving TC Mtg. Holiday 26 27 28 29 30 -9:00— 1:30 Council Orientation (includes lunch) ego -`C , , Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -2:00 P.M. -8:00—4:30 TC WS Council Retreat @ Conference -4:00 TC Mtg Center 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -2:00 TC WS -6:00 P.M. Town Holiday Party @ the Conference Center 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 -2:00 TC WS -4:00 TC Mtg. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Christmas Holiday I 31 5 � COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 BY: Gary Suiter, Town Manager STAFF: Steve Connor SUBJECT: Seven Star Ranch Final PUD Request for Extension OVERVIEW: This development review has been extended, at the applicant's request, to November 21, 2000, while negotiations for access continue. As of packet time, a letter requesting another extension had not been received. I have had discussions with the applicant regarding the Town's desire to utilize the 13-acre triangle parcel for trails and welcome/entry activities. The applicant has requested an executive session to discuss the possible acquisition of the triangle parcel. This application has been in the process for over three years without resolution. Before granting another extension, we need to reach some agreement on the disposition of the triangle parcel and require the applicant to comply with the updated Land Use Code (it is still being reviewed under the old Chapter 16). Joe Wells and Gideon Kaufman will be at the meeting to discuss this matter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council discuss the Triangle Parcel in executive session and require the applicant to comply with Chapter 16A, the updated LUC. Consistent with previous recommendations, if these issues cannot be resolved, staff recommends denial of the application p:/shared/clerk/manager.xsc/cmq.2000 I 11-17-88 15:36 COLDWELL BANKER ASPEN ID-9709284378 _ P82/82 /In C'od_ onto£oJ Joseph Wells Land Planning c) �O T 602 Midland Park Place Aspen,Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) e-mail Address: WellsAsperw@aaol.com November 17, 2000 Gary Suiter,Town Manager Steve Connor, Town Attorney Town of Snowmass Village 16 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Delivered by Facsimile to 923-6083 and 925-9199 Dear Gary and Steve: 1 am writing on behalf of Seven Star Residential Partners,Ltd.,Snowmass Land Partners,Ltd. and Snowmass Partners,Ltd.,owners of Seven Star Ranch. As you are aware, November 20, 2000 is presently the deadline for the Town Council to act on the Seven Star Ranch Final PUD Application. The owners are requesting that the Town Council continue its review of the Seven Star Ranch Final PUD Application for an additional period of time,to be resolved at our discussion with the Town Council next Monday. At the meeting we will update the Town Council regarding our progress to date on the access issue and will discuss outstanding issues. S. Y� AjosepWells CC: John Sullivan Gideon Kaufman ARNOLD P. MORDKIN , P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA CU November 17, 2000 Gary Suiter, Manager Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Planning Commission Dear Gary: It is with mixed emotion that I must respectfully resign from the Planning Commission for the Town of Snowmass Village. I regret having to resign because I have enjoyed the last two years that I have had the privilege to be on the Commission. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed the cooperation and dedication of my fellow Commissioners. am pleased to resign, because I am doing so for the sole reason that I have been elected to the Snowmass Village Town Council. I look forward to the opportunity to serve the citizens of our community in my new capacity. Very truly yours Arno . Mord P.O. BOX 6940 1 12 SILVERTREE PLAZA SNOWMASS VILLAGE MALL SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 (970) 923-5797 • FAx (970) 923-7592 11-20 00 03:OOPm From-ASC PLANNING +9709234675 T-619 P.01/01 F-407 A sisLN SK':NC COMPANY November 20, 2000 Mr. Dean Stahman Town of Snowmass Planner Post Office Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear Dean: Aspen Skiing Company is requesting it the grading permit for Divide Lot 44 be tabled until April 2, 2001. Thank you for your time and consider on in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Kane Vice President Planning and Development Pu,oj Box 1248 •ANpm,CO 51612 970.925.1?20 � 1-17-66 15:36 COLDWELL BANKER A6PEN ID-9769264378 P02/92 Lo Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen,Colorado 81611 Phone:970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.920.4378 (Temporary) email Address: WellsAspen&ol.com November 17, 2000 Gary Suiter,Town Manager Steve Connor, Town Attorney Town of Snowmass Village 16 Kearns Road SnoWma65 Village,Colorado 81615 Delivered by Facsimile to 923-6083 and 925-9199 Dear Gary and Steve: I am writing on behalf of Seven Star Residential partners,Ltd.,Snowmass Land partners,Ltd. and Snowm2000 its presently the deadlinSeven or the Town Council You are aware, November 20, act on the Seven Star Ranch Final UD Application.The owners are requesting UD that the Town Council continue ats review of f toe Seven resolved a Ranch Fi discussion�`n� Application for an additional period the Town Council next Monday. At the meeting we will update the Town Council regarding our progress to date on the access issue and will discuss outstanding issues. S' y. Josep Wells cc: John Sullivan Gideon Kaufman X1-17-68 15:36 COLDWELL BANKER ASPEN ID-9799294378 P02/92 � �— Lo — � Joseph Wells Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Asper,Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.9211.4378 (Temporary) email Address: WellsAspen@aol.com November 17, 2000 Gary Suiter,Town Manager Steve Connor, Town Attorney Town of Snowmass Village 16 Kearns Road Snowmass Village,Colorado 81615 Delivered by Facsimile to 923-6083 and 925-9199 Dear Gary and Steve: 1 am writing on behalf of Seven Star Residential Partners,Ltd.,Snowmass Land Partners,aware, November 20,2000 Partners,esently the deadlinSeven or the Town Council to act on the Seven Star Ranch Final PUD Application.The owners are requesting that that the Town Council an dittcontinue eriod of review o the Seven Star be resolved at Ranch discussion ti► the lil tl the Town Council next Monday. At the meeting we will update the Town Council regarding our Progress to date on the access issue and will discuss outstanding issues. S' y. Josep Wells cc: John Sullivan Gideon Kaufman