Loading...
12-11-00 Town Council Packet SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION 12-11-2000 2:00 — 4:00 P.M. SNOWMASS CLUB PUD, PHASE II DISCUSSION -- Jim Wahlstrom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 1(Tab A) 4:00 — 5:00 LAND USE CODE DISCUSSION -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20 (Tab B) 5:00 — 5:10 BREAK 5:10 — 6:00 WORK SESSION WITH ASPEN SKIING COMPANY AND PARK CITY PRESENTATION -- Mayor Manchester. . . . . . . . . . .No Packet Information 6:00 — 6:45 BRUSH CREEK/HIGHLINE ROAD INTERSECTION DESIGN -- Hunt Walker/Dean Gordon. . . . . . . . . . . .Page 34 (Tab C) 6:45 — 7:15 ENTRYWAY SIGN DISCUSSION -- Craig Thompson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 35 (Tab D) nnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 12-11-2000 CALL TO ORDER AT 7:15 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: RESOLUTION NO. 44, SERIES OF 2000 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION LEVYING GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2001 TO HELP DEFRAY THE COST OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO; AND TO PAY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND RELATED COSTS AND FOR THE TOWN'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FOR THE 2001 BUDGET YEAR -- Marianne Rakowski. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Page 37 (Tab E) 12-11-00tc Page 2 Item No. 3: 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: December 11, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Staff: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Chris Conrad, Planning Director Subject: Work Session; (Continuation of Public Hearing to December 18) 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 reference the previous staff report and Planning Commission resolution from the Town Council packet dated November 20, 2000, 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 of the previous staff report dated November 20, 2000. Follow-up of Staff has attempted to outline a draft of the Town Council Discussion on resolution (attached) derived from comments and discussion December 4, 2000 at the last two Council meetings and from recommended language in the Planning Commission resolution. Purpose of The primary purpose of the Town Council meeting is to Meeting: continue review of the Sketch PUD application and the accompanying draft resolution to determine if the application and resolution are acceptable to proceed to Preliminary PUD application or whether further modifications are in order. �/ now Revised schedule Below is a revised list of major issues, following discussions of major issues to on November 20, 2000 and December 4, 2000: be discussed November 20: • Comprehensive Plan and Buildout Analysis Chart compliance (already addressed) • Building height limit or variance -- (finality subject to site visit on November 30 and further discussion of the architectural plans on December 11) • Employee housing requirements (see the applicant's before and after calculations and chart using the old Code and the amended Code provisions — revised to incorporate the required square footage for employee housing) December 4: • Parking demands • Vehicular access, secondary emergency access, and street name change • Trails and Nordic issues • Pedestrian circulation December 11: • Revisit above-noted issues as needed • Golf course and Brush Creek improvements • Architecture and exterior lighting • Landscaping • Community purpose applicability concerning: ➢ the building height variance (if needed), ➢ the additional manager's unit in Phase I, ➢ the 85% threshold rule, and ➢ the new 65% threshold rule • Other • Revisit major issues, as needed • Draft resolution December 18: • Adopt resolution dw ^a Review Process Following review of the major issues, the questions the Town For Sketch Plan: Council should consider in a conceptual manner during review of the Sketch PUD include the following, some of which have already been discussed and answered: 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? It was discussed during the November 20, 2000 Town Council meeting, and per reference of past meeting discussions, the location and use for the proposed Phase 11 residential units was appropriate and that the change in the boundary line between Parcels 3 and 4 was not an issue. 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? It was discussed during the November 20, 2000 Town Council meeting that the allocation for a maximum of 60 units, noted in the Buildout Analysis Chart, may be applied to the area proposed for the two residential buildings located south of Brush Creek and currently within Parcel 3. The shift in the boundary line between Parcel 3 and Parcel 4 was not viewed as a major concern. Further discussion needs to occur, at the appropriate time, as to whether the 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 - 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? It was discussed during the November 20, 2000 Town Council meeting that the split in the southern-most residential building was acceptable as it would improve the appearance of the buildings and create more open,space around the buildings. A split in the northern-most building was explored, but it was also noted that the location of the buildings in relation to surrounding conditions needs to be considered. It was explained at the November 20, 2000 Town Council meeting that, 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. At the December 4, 2000 Town Council meeting, it was stated that the architectural plans would need to be discussed before a determination could be made concerning the height limit standards and whether or not a building height variance would be necessary. The resolution also recommends design upgrades for the tennis structures. Revisions are shown in the exhibit package (Exhibit S). 4. Natural resource and hazard areas. ❑ What are the natural resource and hazard areas on the property? ❑ Is mitigation appropriate? "Y Sam Note: A general description of the preferred Brush Creek enhancements is outlined in the 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? Note: At the December 4, 2000 Town Council meeting, there was a discussion as to whether Town Council found 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. Various viewpoints were raised. In the end, Town Council requested a copy of the traffic study for Phase I outlining its recommendations. See the separate handout with this report. It was determined at the December 4, 2000 Town Council meeting that Fairway Drive or "Access Road"should be renamed "Clubhouse Drive"and that a temporary street name sign should be installed immediately to begin educating the general public about the street name change. Improvements to Clubhouse Drive should also be discussed as well as the adequacy of emergency access to the new residential units. Appropriate trail/walkway connections, replacements, at cetera were discussed, but this issue wasn't finalized and had to be revisited. However, the language in the Planning Commission resolution addressing this issue may be acceptable. 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 demands should be discussed further as well as the future parking lot option if the parking provided subsequently doesn't fulfill the parking demands on the site. A determination was made that the parking needed for the reuse of the Fairways Conference Center, the reuse of the old clubhouse, and the driving range should be calculated into the formula. The utilization of the 28 perpendicular parking spaces along Snowmass Club Circle was examined and noted that these spaces should not be double counted when calculating the parking provision for the site. 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 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. Continue discussion and open public hearing, followed by this Recommendation: order of proceedings: • Application description by staff • Applicant presentation • Public testimony • Applicant response • Staff response, as needed • Discussion among Council members • Continue work session, if needed. Continuation of public hearing scheduled for December 18, 2000. Employee Generation Summary Chart Code in Effect at Submission` Use Original Club Generation Rate Employees Generated Phase One and Two Club Generation Rate Employees Generated Difference Commercial** 12800 sf 5.57 jobs/1000 sf 55 12800 sf 5.57 jobs/1000 sf 55 0 Office na 3.78 jobs/1000 sf na na 3.78 jobs/1000 sf na na Multi-family na .5 jobs/unit na 51 units .5 jobs/unit 20 20 Sin e-family na .3 jobs/lot na na .3jobs/lot 0 na Hotel/Lode Room 76 rooms .44jobs/room 26 na .44'obs/room 0 -26 Ski Area Restaurants na 4.58 jobs/1000 sf na na 4.58'obs/1000 sf 0 na Ski Areas na 82.6 jobs/1000 sf na na 82.6 jobs/1000 sf 0 na ' Conference Center na .97obs/1000 sf na na .97'obs/1000 sf 0 na Health Club 14000 sf 1.47obs/1000 sf 16 18500 sf 1.47'obs/1000 sf 21 5 ' TOTAL 97 96 -1 employee 'summarizes winter uses only as specified in land use code,goff clubhouse/tennis center not intended far winter use includes lobby/reception,offices,restaurantUchen,housekeeping,meeting areas and odw support areas .uses 1.3 reduction to assume muhiple jabs,as per land use code Snowman Club Assoda¢s Snowman Club Phase It 1129.00 Aspen MOMS COMP-Y . i Employee Generation Summary Chart Revised Coda• Uae nW Club Ganent M RNe 6n IDYM Oamrated Phase One and Two Club Ge ERM Rate Em ftanareted DNerenu Carrmwcull' 10535 st 4.93 101ISM000 111 51 10535 sf 4.83 1000 a( 51 Office na 3.69ipbsMODDsf na na 3.68' 100051 na na 1FraceonalTirlesbara na .61' re 51 units .61pbssawt 31 31 le-famiy to 3500 sf na .29 1000 sf na na .29' 1000 sf re m HoWAodge RD= 76 roars .38 pbskoom 29 na .38 pbskoorn na -29 BaRtesfataant(SAGEI 226551 5.16 10003f 12 2265st 5.16 1000st 12 0 . Ski Areas na 61.95W100031 na All 61.95 7000 sf na na Canlerertce Ceriter na .97' 10005( na na .97' 7000 st m na . Hoob Club 14000 III .96' 1000 sl 13 18500 sf .96' 1000 sf 1B 5 }V Gdf CIUNW Band Tema CantPf' 1390 d .96 jobs11000 sl 1 7960 sl .96 1000 sl 8 4 r Goy Res rant 600 st 5.16' 1000 sf 3 240051 5.16 1000 st 12 9 . 132 20 employees. TOTAL 112 S821a1""' TOSV.Ordnance 7.Series of 2000 eneralretai4 .c"won =: ndudes hecepdon,olkes, spacm end otlw spW areas °*Does not s ciude can storage area 8815 sQl •'^Restaaans n and Proposed Gat Clualauses WN of restaureld in VZOIN clubhouse 15 dscadsarsd'n Pna9e Two —Number of ees 448stand reduced b 65%to determine W 5••owmwt C C1A Avori•ra h an ob Ph it 125.00 Srow+w Ayes Skiwa C<�yo,• TOWN OF SNORES SOLUTION NO. 1 OWN COUNCIL DRAFT DR4FT A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE TOWN COUNCIL FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION FOR SNOWMASS CLUB ASSOCIATES TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB PUD PHASE II PROPOSAL. WHEREAS, The Aspen Skiing Company, as General Partner of the Snowmass Club Associates ("Applicant"), submitted a Sketch Plan PUD on June 26, 2000 for amendments to Parcels 4, 10, and 12 of the FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN for the Snowmass Club Subdivision (Ordinance No. 8 Series of 1980) (the "Project")to permit the Phase II development of 21, four- bedroom fractional ownership condominiums, parking lot areas, a new clubhouse, a new tennis structure, a replacement tennis 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 Town Council previously amended the FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ("PUD") by Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1982; and WHEREAS, the Town Council previously amended the PUD by Ordinance No. 31 Series of 1983; and WHEREAS, the Town Council previously amended the PUD by Ordinance No. 8 Series of 1985; and WHEREAS, the Town Council previously amended the PUD by Ordinance No. 3 Series of 2000; 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 amending the Snowmass Club Planned PUD in order 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 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`", 2000 to receive public comment on the new Sketch Plan PUD application; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission recommends that the applicant be authorized to proceed to Preliminary Plan PUD, as described within their Resolution No. 34, Series of 2000; and TC Reso.00-17 Page 2 WHEREAS, in accordance with the public notice requirements of Section 16A-5-60 of the Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV) Land Use and Development Code, posted, mailed, and published notice was given of a public hearing to be held before the Town Council on November 20, 2000 to receive public comment on the Project. WHEREAS, further public meetings were/will be held before the Town Council on December 4t", December 119, and December 18th, 2000 to discuss the proposal, to receive public comment, and to prepare a resolution; and WHEREAS, said Sketch Plan PUD was considered by the Town Council pursuant to Section 16A-5-320 of the TOSV Land Use and Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Town staff has analyzed the major issues involved with the Sketch Plan PUD application and reported to Town Council at their public meetings as noted above and, Town Council is/has considered the issues and considered what additional information and studies are necessary to properly review a Preliminary Plan PUD Application; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is/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 Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, as follows: SECTION ONE: Findings. The Town Council makes the following findings concerning the application for the Project: 1. The applicant submitted sufficient information and detail, deemed to be complete for review, pursuant to Sections 16A-5-40 and 16A-5-330 of the Town of Snowmass Village ("TOSV") Land Use and Development Code, to permit the Town Staff, Planning Commission and the Town Council adequate and complete review of the proposed Sketch Plan PUD. 2. The proposed amendment is being processed in accordance with Section 16A-5-320 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code. 3. All public notification requirements, as specified within Section 16A-5-60(b) of the TOSV Land Use and Development Code, have been satisfied. TC Reso.00-17 Page 3 4. The Town Council is/has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Sketch Plan PUD 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 Three of this resolution. 5. The Town Council is/has, to the extent necessary for and pertinent to a Sketch Plan PUD level of evaluation and review, determined that the application is generally consistent with the provisions of Section 5-230 D., Review Standards, of the TOSV Land Use and Development Code, subject to satisfying the applicable conditions contained within Section Three of this resolution. 6. The Town Council, in preparation of its resolution, is complying/has complied with the applicable requirements of the TOSV Land Use and Development Code. 7. The Sketch Plan PUD identifies land uses that are consistent with the TOSV 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 uses proposed are consistent with the character of the area. 9. The 60-unit allocation per the Buildout Analysis Chart in the TOSV Comprehensive Plan may be applied to the affected area, including the area proposed to be changed from Parcel 3 to Parcel 4. The change in the boundary line is considered acceptable. 10.As the boundary line change between Parcel 3 and Parcel 4 is akin to a subdistrict rezoning, the 44 feet height limit for Parcel 4 may be applied to this area, in lieu of the 39 foot height limit in Parcel 3; OR The 44-foot height limit may be allowed subject to following the review criteria for PUD height variation pursuant to Section 16A-5-300(c)(5) of the TOSV Land Use and Development Code. 11.The building proposed for Phase II will include stepped roof forms, including two-story building heights on the ends of the buildings. 12.The exterior finishes on the Phase II buildings will be as consistent with those shown in Phase 1. TC Reso.00-17 Page 4 13. 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. The Town Council considered the quantity and quality of the employee housing constructed as part of Phase I of this development and finds that: The employee housing provided in Phase I, which was also provided as a community purpose benefit, adequately suffices for the employee housing requirements for Phase I I considering that 48,000 square feet of employee housing was provided in Phase I and that the combined Phase I and II employee housing requirements, following the current TOSV Land Use and Development Code ratios, calculates to 38,438 square feet; OR An additional 5,824 square feet of employee housing will be required with the Phase II proposal. (to be determined) 14.Following PC resolution: The subject area is included as part of the TOSV 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 an updated traffic study would need to be submitted for evaluation at the time of the Preliminary Plan PUD application to determine whether the secondary access road, and which type of road (emergency, seasonal, etc.), is necessary with this proposal, as per the condition in Section Three of this resolution. 15.The culvert crossing at Brush Creek and the Clubhouse Drive will be replaced by the applicant with a new decorative bridge crossing with pedestrian walkways and stone embankments during the Phase II construction. 16.Following PC resolution: Town Council finds 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; TC Reso.00-17 Page 5 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 the same time as the residential buildings. 17.Following PC resolution: Town Council 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 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. 18. Draft language: The application is generally 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. SECTION TWO: Action. Draft language: The Town Council hereby grants authorization to Snowmass Club Associates to apply for a Preliminary Plan PUD review for the Phase II portion of the Snowmass Club Planned Unit Development, with the conditions (directions) specified in SECTION THREE, to the extent that follows: The applicant is authorized to proceed with a PUD Amendment for the Preliminary Plan PUD application for improvements including development of 21, four-bedroom fractional ownership condominiums with underground parking, surface parking lot areas, a new clubhouse, a new tennis structure, a replacement tennis center, and golf course facility upgrades and changes, as shown per the exhibits on file in the Town's Community Development Department. _/3 _ TC Reso.00-17 Page 6 SECTION THREE: Conditions. To provide for the welfare and safety of the public and to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with community goals and objectives, the Town Council authorizes the Applicant to submit an application for Preliminary Plan PUD review consistent with all design, location and policy representations made by the applicant during the Sketch Plan PUD review, subject to the requirements of Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code and the following conditions: Draft language below. 1. General. a) The applicant shall provide additional information and application materials as required by the TOSV Land Use and Development Code in submitting the Preliminary Plan PUD, including but not limited to the following: 1. Preliminary Development Plan, showing surrounding conditions, associated site data figures, and proposed variations from development standards; 2. Preliminary architectural plans; 3. Floor plans; 4. Landscape Plan/Open Space Plan; 5. Fiscal Impact Report; 6. Solid Waste Disposal Plan; 7. Energy Conservation Plan; 8. Condominium Association Documents; 9. Utility Plan; 10.Grading and Drainage Plan; 11.Traffic Impact Report, including analysis of the affects upon nearby intersections and following the criteria per the TOSV Land Use.and Development Code; 12.Air Quality Analysis; 13.Geologic Report; 14.Brush Creek Impact Report; and 15.Construction Management Plan. 16.The intended future uses and operational plans, including provisions for parking, for the Fairway Conference Center and old clubhouse. b) The Preliminary PUD application shall also include the following: 1. Locational information: _/y TC Reso.00-17 Page 7 a) 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. b) Show the location of existing and proposed easements and setbacks on the plan [Section 16A-5-330(4)(c)(d)]. c) 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. c) That the four criteria listed in Section 16A-5-390(3) of the TOSV Land Use and Development Code also be considered when evaluating the Preliminary Plan PUD application. 2. Natural Resources: a) Following PC resolution: 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 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. 3. Parking facilities: Following PC resolution: a) Complete a peak parking demand analysis, including the potential use scenarios of the Fairway Conference Center and the old clubhouse building, as well as incorporating the existing driving range, to evaluate and determine the parking needs for Phase II during the Preliminary PUD application [Section 16A-4-310]. b) Due to the fact that the off-street parking provision proposed is fewer than required by the TOSV Land Use and Development Code, continue to show a location for a future 39-space 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)], unless further evaluation during the Preliminary Plan PUD application reveals that the 39-space parking area is needed at the time the Phase II improvements are constructed. � , c � V TC Reso.00A7 Page 8 c) 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. 4. Vehicular Access and Circulation: a) The name of"Access Road" or Fairway Drive on the east side of the site shall be renamed "CLUBHOUSE DRIVE" because it is reasonable given the proposed new clubhouse location, and because it would avoid confusion with another Fairway Drive accessed off a different street other than Snowmass Club Circle. A temporary street name sign shall be installed immediately to educate the public concerning the new street name. b) Draft language: The traffic study for the Phase I project, recently submitted to the Town during this Sketch Plan review, is deemed inappropriate for Preliminary Plan PUD review. The applicant will supply a more in-depth and updated traffic, transit and parking analysis which includes a full analysis of peak parking demand/needs at peak summer hours, incorporating all proposed uses within the Snowmass Club facilities, including the 21 fractional ownership units, the existing Phase I development, year-round use of employee housing (anticipating off- season rental to other organizations or full-time employee use), the driving range, the reuse of the Fairways Conference Center and the old clubhouse, the tennis facilities, the new clubhouse, and all other aspects contemplated in the Preliminary Plan PUD proposal. The study shall also verify the impacts of the traffic generated upon the nearby street intersections. In addition, the study shall not include the assumption for a secondary road connection to Brush Creek Road in order 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-4-210]. c) Following PC resolution: The redesign of the intersection of Clubhouse Drive and Snowmass Club Circle, in compliance with the TOSV 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 Plan PUD review. d) Following PC resolution: 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 ovbI V "No TC Reso.00-17 Page 9 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. e) The applicant shall work with the Fire District to provide appropriate emergency access to the Phase II residential buildings located on the south side of Brush Creek. 5. Transit issues: a) Show all existing and proposed transit stop locations on the Preliminary PUD. b) Identify the ownership and right-of-way widths of the roads, particularly Snowmass Club Circle and Clubhouse Drive. 6. Trail issues: Following PC resolution: a) The subject area is included as part of the TOSV 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 Plan PUD application review. b) Provide an 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. c) That the Preliminary Plan PUD demonstrate that the Town has easements for all existing and proposed trails within Parcel 10. d) 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. e) Any license agreement between the Nordic Trails group and the applicant concerning trail locations and/or accessory structure location must be provided to the benefit of the Town. _ / 7 _ TC Reso.00A7 Page io f) Provide a detached sidewalk, 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 Plan PUD shows that it is not possible to construct a detached sidewalk in front of the new tennis structure as a result of steep embankments and that an attached walkway would be more conducive with the grading around the tennis structure. 7. Architecture and Landscaping: a) Draft language: Compliance is required with the TOSV Land Use and Development Code criteria, including consideration of the views from the Villas North property, when evaluating any required building height waiver from 39 feet to 44 feet (if needed) 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. b) 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 Plan PUD application. Explore and provide information with the Preliminary Plan PUD application regarding the possibility of splitting the northern-most residential building as well. c) 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 PUD application [Sections 16A-2-20 and Section I 6A-4-320]. d) Following PC resolution: 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 PUD 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. (Note: Some of these guidelines have already been incorporated into a redesign of the architectural sketch plans for these structures— Exhibit S). e) The design of the landscape improvements, including the areas along Brush Creek, Clubhouse Drive, the new clubhouse and parking area, and the golf course improvement areas, shall be evaluated for acceptability at TC Reso.00-17 Page 11 the time of the Preliminary Plan PUD application [Section 16A-4-320]. A heavy landscape buffer is needed between the residential buildings and Clubhouse Drive to provide acceptable screening. 9. Community Purposes: a) Following PC resolution: 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 being within 85% of the maximum allowed number of units specified within the Buildout Analysis Chart for this site, be deed restricted for employee housing only; Further, this deed restriction shall serve as the community benefit for Phase 11 being over the 85% rule. Note: The Town Council should discuss whether the 85% rule or Ordinance 15, Series of 2000 applies to the Preliminary PUD and include within the Findings. 10. Miscellaneous. a) The applicant must acknowledge that approval for any improvements not submitted as part of Preliminary Plan Application, are subject to requests for additional information, full and complete review, analysis, recommendations for change, approval or denial, and that any impacts resulting from future improvements must be fully mitigated by the developer at the developer's expense. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED as amended, on this 18th day of December, 2000, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on a motion made by Council Member , seconded by Council Member and by a vote of Council member Mercatoris was absent on medical leave. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. MICHAEL MANCHESTER, Mayor ATTEST: TRUDI WORLINE, Town Clerk I GPM COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: December 11, 2000 Presented By: Community Development Department Staff: Chris Conrad, Planning Director Subject: Work Session Discussion: Proposed Land Use Code amendments. Overview: The Town Council and staff have a few more amendments to the Land Use Code to discuss. They include: Item No. 1: Amend 30% Slope Provisions. Item No. 2: Amend to include 1 year re-application restriction. Item No. 3: Limit total garage floor area exclusion to 600 sq. ft.. Item No. 4: Amend the Accessory Unit Provisions. Comments: Please refer to the attached Communique Supplement for a discussion of the proposed amendments. All double lined strike out (stFicic®a) are for existing text being deleted and double underlined ( ouble)text represent new language or changes to the existing code. Recommendation: Staff requests direction from the Town Council and will then return with the proposed code amendments in ordinance form. P:\user\cconrad\MS Word Docs\Misc Amendments Dec 11 Mtg TCMemo01 iQc ! COMMUNIQUE SUPPLEMENT Land Use Code Amendments December 11,2000 TC Meeting Item No. 1: Amend 30% Slope Provisions • Paragraph(d)(4), Other circumstances,was to be amended to allow consideration of factors beyond whether the applicant has sufficiently"shown that the development is unable to avoid the steep slopes portions of a development"as that standard could be interpreted to require that the applicant demonstrate that they would essentially be left without any reasonable use of the land if they were to entirely avoid those areas. In certain circumstances, limited development could be permitted to extend into thirty percent(30%) slope areas if the engineering evidence and testimony clearly indicated that it could occur without causing greater slope instability or increase the potential for slope failure. Staff had originally written the amendment to read that the applicant needed to show that they could not avoid the 30% slope areas OR that any potential risks would be mitigated such that slope instability or failure was unlikely to occur. The Planning Commission felt that both criteria should apply in that there are other reasons beyond just the geotechnical considerations why development should be avoided within 30% slope areas. These areas often provide open space within the project area that if encroached upon can visually affect aesthetics,view planes and promote higher density. Paragraph(d)(5),Engineer's Opinion, is being amended to clarify that an engineer is not required to state that all slopes within the development are"not prone to instability or failure". Sec. 16A-4-50. Geologic hazard areas,steep slopes and ridgeline protection areas. (a) Purpose. Steep slopes are prone to erosion and soil instability, are difficult to revegetate and may also be subject to geologic hazards. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that development does not occur on slopes that are excessively steep, unstable or hazardous. Applicants are also referred to Section 16A-4-320, Landscaping, Grading and Other Design Standards, to ensure that development which is permitted on slopes that are more stable is done in a manner that minimizes environmental and aesthetic impacts on the Town. (b) Applicability. The standards in this Section shall apply to all development proposed within the Town. (c) Development Prohibited in Geologic Hazard Areas. No development proposed in any PUD, subdivision or special review application shall be approved in any area that the Town Council finds, on the basis of competent engineering or geologic data, to be ►� t i r LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession unsuitable for the proposed activity or use due to the potential halm to the public health, safety or welfare that would be posed by mud flow,rock slide, avalanche, steep or unstable slopes or soils,or other geologic hazards, features or conditions. (d) Development Prohibited on Slopes Greater Than Thirty Percent (30%). No development shall be allowed on any slope greater than thirty percent(30 0/6), except in the following circumstances: (1) Ski area improvements. Construction of roads,driveways, ski trails and related ski area improvements including, but not necessarily limited to lift towers, but excluding restaurants and similar structures that are intended for human occupancy, may be allowed on slopes greater than thirty percent(30%). (2) Lots subdivided prior to January 1, 1987. Development may be allowed on lots and within approved building envelopes containing areas of slopes greater than thirty percent(30%)if the lot was subdivided prior to January 1, 1987. (3) Man-made slopes. Development may be permitted on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) that are the result of minor man-made cutting or filling of an otherwise continuous natural slope. (4) Other circumstances. The Town Council may authorize development on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) in circumstances not listed above if at least three-quarters (3/,) of the members of the Town Council present and voting approve an ordinance, identifying the reasons why the development is unable to avoid the steep slopes and why, on the basis of competent engineering or geologic data and testimony received the Town Council finds that the design considerations or construction techniaues that will be incomorated within the development will satisfactorily mitigate the risk of potential harm to the Public health, safety or Welfare. (5) Engineer's opinion. For the Town to allow development under any of the above circumstances, the applicant shall provide an opinion from a professional geotechnical engineer licensed in the State stating that: a) the slope is not prone to instability or failure; or b) the proposed development will not cause greater slope instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that therefore,there will be no significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction. If any risk to adjacent property is found, the geotechnical engineer shall describe the design considerations or construction techniques that will be incorporated within the development to mitigate the risk of damage to adjacent property from the proposed development. LUC Code Amendments 12-]1-00 TC Worksession Item No. 2: Amend to include 1 year re-application restriction • Paragraph (4) is being added to prevent an applicant from re-submitting a development proposal that had previously been denied for a period of one (1) year unless the proposal has been substantively amended or unless there has been a clear change in circumstances where a reconsideration would be warranted. The language is a little subjective in order to provide some latitude for cases where earlier reconsideration is appropriate. Sec. 16A-5-70. Action by decision-making body. The decision-making body shall comply with the following procedures in taking action on the development application........ (3) Action by decision-making body. After hearing the evidence and considering the comments of all persons interested in the matter, the decision-making body shall make its decision and findings and have them entered in its minutes. The decision- making body shall not be required to take final action on an application during the same meeting when testimony from interested persons is taken, but action shall be taken as promptly as is reasonable. a. Findings. In its findings, the decision-making body shall report the facts, whether the application complies with the applicable review standards, and whether the application is approved, approved with conditions, recommended for approval by another body,tabled pending receipt of additional information or denied. b. Copy to applicant. A copy of the decision-making body's decision shall be provided to the applicant within a reasonable period of time after the decision has been made. (4) Re-application An applicant may not resubmit an application for a project having been denied by a decision-making body for a period of one (1) year from the date when said action was taken unless there has been a clear, substantial and material change in the conditions or circumstances affecting the subject roazcel and the surrounding neighborhood that support reconsideration or where the new application substantively amends the proiect so as to essentially constitute a new development proposal. (4)W Inactive applications. The decision-making body may deny any application that remains inactive. An application may be deemed inactive and be denied when the decision-making body determines that the applicant is not making reasonable progress in moving the application towards final approval. a. Determination of inactivity. A project shall be considered inactive if more than two (2) months have passed since a written request for additional information was made by the Planning Director or the review body, and the request has not been -a.3 - LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession complied with, or more than three (3) months have passed since the last official contact between the applicant and the decision-making body. b. Written notice. The Planning Director shall provide advance written notice to the applicant stating the time, place and date when the decision-making body will consider denial of the application due to its inactivity. (Ord. 4-1998 §1) Item No. 3: Limit total garage floor area exclusion to 600 sq. ft. • This amendment concerns a minor change to the floor area exception granted for garages. As currently written, it could be interpreted the each individual duplex unit could build a two (2) car garage or that someone could build both a two (2) and one (1) car garage with up to 900 square feet being exempt from calculation. The intent is to only permit the exclusion of a total of 600 square feet for each lot. See 16A-3-210.Measurement of dimensional limitations. B. Measuring Floor Area. (2)b. Exclusions Specifically for Single Family and Two Family Dwelling Units. (1) Garage. Garage space that is intended for storage of motor vehicles and is completely enclosed shall be excluded from the floor area calculation,up to a maximum of three hundred (300) square feet for a single car garage, and up to six hundred (600) square feet for a two (2) or more car garage. The maximum garage exclusion for anv lot is six hundred (600) square feet. (2) Carport. One (1) carport,which shall be one hundred percent(100%) open on one (1) or more sides,with the exception of support members and is used to store a motor vehicle, shall be included in the calculation of floor area,regardless of the number of vehicles to be accommodated therein, at a rate of fifty percent(50%). (3) Accessory Unit. The floor area for an accessory unit shall be included in floor area calculations to the extent required by Section' cn e , d > ,oe e.e�.,..,t 16A-3-230. Accessory Units. Item No.4: Amend the Accessory Unit Provisions • The Town Council had directed staff to consider: 1)increasing the maximum floor area limit from 750 square feet to 1,000 square feet; 2)permitting accessory units above or below detached garages; and 3)developing provisions to enable the creation of accessory employee units, subject to special review,within residences whereby the 4Qq Im LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession resulting calculable floor area could exceed the maximum allowed floor area limit of the lot by more than the 550 square feet or 10%,whichever is less, set forth by the current floor area excise tax provisions. • Time does not permit the preparation of extensive written comments describing the various amendments, including the new C-AEU, shown below. The entire accessory unit section was thoroughly discussed during the December 6 Planning Commission meeting and their recommendations are reflected within the text below. It is important to note that they were concerned that permitting 1,000 square foot units will lead to having more two(2)bedroom units to be created which may impact surrounding properties or cumulatively cause an adverse change to the character of the neighborhoods. • The other factor considered by the Planning Commission,particularly with respect to the new C-AEU provisions,was that the excise tax floor area plus AEU bonus or C- AEU"mitigation fee" floor area,when added to the existing or maximum allowed size of the residence,resulted in much larger homes than had been originally intended within the neighborhood. They,therefore,recommended that paragraphs(2)e. and (2)f (AEU's) remain essentially the same thereby not allowing the residence to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the lot by an amount greater than five hundred fifty(550) square feet or ten percent(10%)of the allowable floor area, whichever is less. • The C-AEU unit was newly created to enable accessory units within residences that already exceed the maximum allowed floor area limit for the lot. It does contain a provision limiting the further increase in size so that adding one would not cause the resulting floor area of all improvements to exceed the existing floor area by an amount greater than five hundred(500) square feet or ten percent(10%)of the existing floor area,whichever is less. The applicant is also required to pay a mitigation fee for the additional floor area and will be subject to pay a fee again should the C-AEU cease to be used for it's intended purpose. • The Planning Commission also recommended that consideration be given to allowing one(1) accessory unit within a DU Duplex lot. Only one(1)of the individual duplex units would be permitted to have the accessory unit. This is not included within the amendments below. 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, above or below a detached garage, or one (1) accessory caretaker unit (ACU) may be permitted within a two-family dwelling, subject to compliance with the provisions of this Section. An ACU or AEU located above or below a detached garage shall require special review approval pursuant to Section 16A-5-230, Special Review. All t -AE 's shall require special review approval pursuant to Section 16A-5-230. Special Review. 00� LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession (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 Fr'^ ("^` one thousand (1,000) 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 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. MD /)an* LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession 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. (2) Standards for an accessory employee unit. An AEU shall comply with the following standards: a. Size. The size of the AEU shall be not less than three hundred (300) square feet or greater than seven hundred rp "`^` one thousand(1.000)square feet. b. Variance. The only variance that may be granted to accommodate the AEU is a setback or height variance. c. Exterior entrance. The AEU 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 AEU in addition to those parking spaces required for the single- family detached dwelling. e. Floor area shall count. A least gone-third(1/3) of the floor area for the AEU shall count toward the maximum allowable floor area for the lot unles acquired under the Town's floor area excise tax provisions. f. Maximum floor area. The AEU shall not cause the resulting floor area of all improvements to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the lot by an amount greater than five hundred fifty (389) (550) square feet or ten percent (10%) of the allowable floor area,whichever is less. g. Pre-existing dwelling units. If the Planning Director determines that one- third (1/3) of the floor area of the AEU cannot be accommodated within a single- family detached dwelling that received a certificate of occupancy prior to November 17, 1997, then the total floor area for the AEU can exceed the maximum allowed for the lot, to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the allowable floor area or five hundred fifty (399) (550) square feet, whichever is less. In such instances, the addition of the AEU shall minimize changes to the NZA7 1r LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession exterior of the single-family detached dwelling. h. No short-term rental. An AEU 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. (3) Standards for a community need accessory employee unit (C-AEU). A C- AE) shall comply with the following standards: a Size The size of the C-AEU shall be not less than three hundred fifty(350) square feet or greater than one thousand (1000) square feet. b Variance The only variance that may be granted to accommodate the_,Q- AE U is a setback or height varian ce. c Exterior entrance The C-AEU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the single-family detached dwelling that is practically accessible as the primary means of access to the C-AEU. d Parking There shall be provided at least one (1) on-site parking space per bedroom in the C-AEU in addition to those parking spaces required for the single- family detached dwelling. e Maximum floor area The C-AEU shall not cause the resulting floor area of all improvements to exceed the existing floor area by an amount greater than five hundred (500) square feet or ten percent (10%) of the existing floor area. whichever is less. f No short-term rental An -AEU 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• e Mitigation fee As additional security that the employee housing unit will be installed maintained and utilized in accordance with the provisions of this Article a mitigation fee shall be paid upon issuance of a building permit for the C-AEU as calculated by the Planning Director by multiplying the square footage of the C-AEU by: The actual value of the lot including improvements, but not including the land, as calculated from the records of the County Assessor, divided by the maximum allowable floor area square footage of the single-family detached dwelling and any accessory building multiplied by seventy percent (70%). (Actual Value/Maximum FAR) x 70% Provided, however, if a change in the actual value of the lot according to the records of the County Assessor occurs within one (1) year from the date of payment of the mitigation fee, then the amount of the mitigation fee shall be recalculated by the Planning Director. The Planning LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession Director shall notify the owner of the amount of the additional mitieation fee. which shall be paid by the owner within thirty(301 days. ( 4 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 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. c. AEU and C-AEU notice of initial registration. Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for an AEU or -AE , a notice of registration of the AEU or -AE 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. The initial registration shall be effective until December 31 of the year in which it is issued, unless the unit is initially registered after November 15, in which case the registration shall be effective until December 31 of the year after it is issued. d. AEU and C-AEU registration renewal. On a yearly basis, the registration of an AEU or C-AEU shall be renewed by filing an application for renewal with the Building and Planning Department on or before November 15. To qualify for a registration renewal, the owner of the AEU must verify that the AEU complies with the conditions set forth in Subsection (2), Standards for an Accessory Employee Unit, and that the AEU or C-AEU has been occupied by an AEU or C- AAE J employee for at least six (6) months during the previous registration period. Thereupon, the Planning Director shall renew the registration of the AEU or C- AEU until December 31 of the year following the expiration of the current registration. e. AEU or -AE conditional registration renewal. In the event that the owner of an AEU cannot meet the conditions for renewal set forth in Subsection (3)d, AEU or AE Registration Renewal, then a conditional registration renewal shall be issued, if the owner agrees to correct the noncomplying conditions prior to July 1 during the conditional registration renewal. The conditional renewal registration of the AEU or -AE shall be effective until July I of the year following the expiration of the current registration, and shall be rr ��""^^�` LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession automatically extended to December 31 upon timely correction of the non- complying conditions. f Failure to register or correct noncomplying conditions. If the owner: 1. Fails to timely complete the construction of an AEU or AE in accordance with the provisions of Subsection(3)a, Completion; 2. Fails to timely comply with the provisions of Subsection (3)d, AEU and C AEU Registration Renewal; or 3. Has not met the conditions for renewal set forth in Subsection (3)d, AEU and C-AEU Registration Renewal, at the end of the AEU or AE conditional registration renewal; within thirty (30) days of the existence of the event of noncompliance, or February 1 of the year following the lapse of the current registration, whichever shall first occur, the owner shall remove the kitchen from the AEU or -AE ; and either: 4. Remove floor area. Remove from the single-family detached dwelling all floor area in excess of the maximum allowable floor area for the lot; or 5. Mitigation fee. Pay to the Town a mitigation fee for elimination of the AEU r -AE as an employee housing unit. The amount of the fee shall be calculated by the Planning Director by multiplying the square footage that is in excess of the maximum allowable floor area for the lot by: a) The actual value of the lot including the single-family detached dwelling unit, any accessory building and the land as calculated from the records of the County Assessor, divided by the floor area square footage of the single-family detached dwelling and any accessory building, not including the AEU or C-AEU, as calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 16A-3-210(b),Measuring Floor Area; or b) In the event that the actual value of the lot including the single- family detached dwelling, any accessory building and land is not available from the records of the County Assessor, then one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the numeric average of the actual value of all lots including a single-family detached dwelling and land for the subdivision or PUD in which the lot exists as calculated from the records of the County Assessor shall be divided by the floor area square footage of the single- family detached dwelling and any accessory building, not including the AEU or C-AEU; Provided, however, if a change in the actual value of the lot including the principal dwelling unit, any accessory building and land according to the records of the County Assessor occurs within one (1) year from the date of payment of the mitigation fee, then the amount of the mitigation fee shall be recalculated by the Planning Director. The Planning Director shall notify the No LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksesslon owner of the amount of the additional mitigation fee, which shall be paid by the owner within thirty (30) days. If the owner paid a mitigation fee in excess of the recalculated mitigation fee, then the Planning Director shall cause the overpayment to be refunded to the owner. (Ord. 4-1998 §1; Ord. 5-1999 §3) TABLE,3.1 SCHEDULE OF USES 7Uses: Allowed; SF SF S F SF SF EST DU MF MU MU CC CC PUB CON OS al Review; 4 6 15 30 150 PUUD hibited Residential and Accommodation.Uses - Single-Family A A A A A A A A P A P P I P I P I P Detached Dwelling' Notes: I. n-acN caretak A 1 o accessory employee unit (AEU)may be permitted in conjunction with any single-family detached dwelling,pursuant to Section 16A-3-230, Accessory Employee Units.A community need al;p&55Q1y employee,unit(Q-AE U)Shall retire sw&ial review aDnrnVa! pursuant to Sections !iA 5 230 Sp;cial R view °^a I§A-3-20%CQMra ney Md AMU=enmlovee units(C-AhUI 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. [NEW SECTION—Review Standards] Section 16A-3-260 Community need accessory employee units (C-AEU) and accessory units (ACU or AEU) above or below detached garages. A proposed community need accessory emroloyee unit (C-AEU) unit, or an accessory caretaker unit (AC 11) or accessory employee unit (A M located above or below a detached garage shall comply with the following standards: 1) Community need The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed accessory unit helps to promote the public policy purpose and community need to create affordable employee housing. 2) Mass and Scale The accessory unit will not contain roof configurations internal ceiling heights or areas open to the floor below which unnecessarily contribute to the mass and scale of the proposed addition. 3) Special Circumstances Exist To the greatest degree practicable, the accessory unit shall include existing space within the residence. The applicant shall MaiLUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksess!on satisfactorily demonstrate that special circumstances exist or practical difficulties would occur such that a reasonably sized caretaker unit cannot be created within or utilize portions of the existing structure. Any additional floor area above the maximum allowed for the lot shall first be acquired under the Town's floor area excise tax provisions. 4) Location The accessory unit shall be carefully situated within the lot so as to be appropriate at its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding residences in the area. 5) Visibility. The visibility of the accessory unit shall be reduced to the highest decree possible including,but not limited to, sensitive choice in placement. screening with landscaping, subgrade placement, architectural desi gn.use of materials and colors or any other effective means that minimize or soften its appearance and visibility on the site. The proposed C-AEU unit may be denied if it is determined that the visibility has not been sufficiently reduced. 6) Not adversely affect neighborhood. The approval of the accessory unit will not change the character or otherwise adversely affect the neighborhood surrounding the land where the accessory unit is proposed will not have a substantially adverse impact on the enioyment of land abutting upon or across the street from the property in question will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adiacent property,will not increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger public safety or the public interest and will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Sec. 16A-2-20. Definitions. AMEND: Accessory caretaker unit (ACU) means an area attached to or within a single- family detached dwelling, or above or below a detached garage, that is located on a lot zoned for a single-family dwelling. The ACU shall be subject to the provisions of Section 16A-3-230(1), Standards for an Accessory Caretaker Unit. An ACU shall have a separate exterior entrance and shall contain an AEU kitchen, a bathroom and sleeping facilities. Accessory employee unit (AEU) means an area attached to or within a single-family detached dwellinf. or above or below a detached garage. that is located on a lot zoned for a single-family dwelling. The AEU shall be subject to the provisions of Section 16A-3-230(2), Standards for an Accessory Employee Unit. An AEU shall have a separate exterior entrance and shall contain an AEU kitchen, a bathroom and sleeping facilities. ADD: r LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession Community need accessory employee unit (C-AEU) means an area attached to or within a single-family detached dwelling, or above or below a detached garage. that is located on a lot zoned for a single-family dwelling. The C-AEU shall be subiect to the provisions of Section 16A-3-230(3). Standards for a Community Need Accessory Employee unit. A C-AEU shall have a separate exterior entrance and shall contain an AEU kitchen, a bathroom and sleeping facilities. Employee. C-AEU. for the purposes of determining occupancy of a C-AEU. shall mean a person employed within the County for a minimum of(6)months a year. Allocation of mitigation fee; amend Chapter 4 Article III,Municipal Code (To Add] r LUC Code Amendments 12-11-00 TC Worksession COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: December 11, 2000 STAFF: Hunt Walker Dean Gordon SUBJECT: CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS —BRUSH CREEK/HIGHLINE INTERSECTION OVERVIEW: The previous Council identified the reconstruction of the Brush Creek Rd. and Highline Road intersection as a project for 2001. Council asked staff to do a preliminary design of the intersection and present it to Council. On Monday staff will present Council with two design alternatives (Alternative A and B attached) for the intersection and road alignment. In addition staff will present a roundabout design (Alternative F attached), which could replace the traditional intersection design shown in Alternatives A and B. The essential difference between Alternatives A and B is the location of the intersection and Brush Creek Road. Alternative A shows the intersection remaining in its current location, and Brush Creek Road relocated approximately 35 ft.to the south towards the Golf Course. Alternative B shows the intersection and road moved approximately 75 h. to the north towards the Rodeo property. Council could pick an intersection location between Alternative A and B. Dean Gordon will be present Monday to talk about the differences between Alternatives A, B,F, and any other alternative Council suggests. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Dean Gordon will present rough costs on Monday. Approximately$425,000 is available from the Aspen Ski Co. while$300,000 is available from the Snowmass Land Co. for the project. BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: NA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although either alternative is acceptable, staff recommends Alternative A because it preserves more land in the Rodeo area for future community amenities. Today's traffic levels do not indicate a need for a roundabout,but if in the future, traffic levels caused left hand turns to be problematic a roundabout should be considered now. s TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: December 11, 2000 Presented By: Craig Thompson Subject: Work Session on TOSV Entryway Sign at Brush Creek and Highway 82. Overview: Currently, three options exist regarding the location of the TOSV Entryway Sign. They are as follows: Option 1. Brush Creek and Highway 82 Island/Median: This is the original proposal to the BOCC for the entryway sign. BOCC staff determined that the sign proposed at this location did not fall within the Pitkin County land use code because it was considered a welcome sign and not a directional sign. Consequently, an amendment to Section 3-110-130 of the Pitkin County land use code was proposed which would allow this type and size of sign, subject to the approval of the BOCC. The proposed amendment was presented to the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 4, 2000, which subsequently recommended denial of the code amendment. The BOCC considered the code amendment in late April,2000. Concerns expressed by the BOCC were size, location, and design of the entryway sign. The Brush Creek Homeowners Association also expressed their opposition to the sign. Currently,the sign code amendment, as I understand,has been tabled. Option 2: TOSV staff is currently looking at the NW comer of Brush Creek and Highway 82 as a possible entryway sign location. This location falls within CDOT right-of-way. The proposed design of the sign is a wedge shape with dimensions of 9 feet by 6 feet. CDOT has denied this type and design because it is viewed as a directional sign on Highway 82. They would, however, approve a sign which is parallel (not perpendicular or in this case a wedge)to Highway 82. Currently, staff has requested a meeting before the CDOT sign code variance committee in Denver. Should this variance request be granted by CDOT, the Town would still need to request approval from the BOCC (section 3-110-130 of the Pitkin county land use code). • Option 3: TOSV staff is also looking at City of Aspen land located at the NW corner of Brush Creek and Highway 82, which is adjacent to Option 2. The City of Aspen has granted the TOSV a license to locate an entryway sign at this location. The design and size of the sign is the same as Option 2. Should the Town pursue this option a request for approval from the BOCC (section 3-110-130 of the Pitkin County land use code) would,be required. Recommendation: Staff would request that Town Council determine the purpose of the entryway sign, whether it is directional or a welcome sign. Once this has been determined, staff would request direction from Town Council regarding location and conceptual design and size of the entryway sign. Map COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: December 11, 2000 BY: Marianne Rakowski STAFF: Marianne Rakowski SUBJECT: Resolution No. 44, Series of 2000 — A RESOLUTION LEVYING GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2001 TO HELP DEFRAY THE COST OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO; AND.TO PAY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND RELATED COSTS AND FOR THE TOWN'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FOR THE 2001 BUDGET YEAR. OVERVIEW: Resolution No. 44, Series of 2000 establishes the property tax mill levy for the year 2001. The Pitkin County Assessors Office provides the Town with the estimated assessed valuation in August of each year for use in the budget process. By December 1011 of each year, the County Assessor must recertify the assessed valuation to each entity. By December 151h of each year, the Town must certify the mill levy to Pitkin County. This resolution meets that deadline. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The 2001 budget includes the property tax revenue amount based on the August certification. Any adjustments to these revenue numbers due to the December recertification of the assessed valuation will be made during the revised budget process in 2001. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of Resolution No. 44, Series of 2000. ,37- a SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.44 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION LEVYING GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2001 TO HELP DEFRAY THE COST OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO;AND TO PAY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL,INTEREST AND RELATED COSTS AND FOR THE TOWN'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,FOR THE 2001 BUDGET YEAR. WHEREAS,the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village has adopted the annual budgets in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 13,2000;and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed 2001 budget have been reviewed by the Financial Advisory Board;and WHEREAS,the amount of money necessary to balance the 2001 budget for general operating expenses is$216,918;and WHEREAS,the amount of money necessary to pay General Obligation Bond principal,interest and related costs for the Operations Facility,Road Bonds and the Droste Conservation Easement is $1,032,054;and WHEREAS,the amount of money necessary to fund the Road Mill Levy Fund is$1,412,226;and WHEREAS,the 2000 valuation for assessment for the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado,as certified by the County Assessor is$282,445,110. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village,Colorado: Section One: Action 1. That for the purposes of meeting all general operating expenses of the Town of Snowmass Village during the 2001 budget year,there is hereby levied a tax of.768 mills upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the Town for the year 2001. 2. That for the purpose of paying General Obligation Bond principal,interest and related costs for the Operations Facility,Road Bonds and the Droste Conservation Easement, there is hereby levied a tax of 3.654 mills on all taxable property within the Town for the year 2001. 3. That for the purpose of funding the Road Mill Levy Fund,there is hereby levied a tax of 5.000 mills upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within the Town for the year 2001. 4. That the Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to immediately certify to the County Commissioners of Pitkin County,Colorado,the mill levies for the Town as hereinabove determined and set. 00 00-44 INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED on the first reading by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 11th day of December,2000,with a motion by ,and seconded by The motion was approved by a vote of_in favor to_opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T.Michael Manchester,Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline,Town Clerk GOD o 1 0 0 ; 0 5 ETBA, LOQO OUItV a a o\ ~I o � W 1 ro - , °oa ._.. ? _... — ap a o O O 0 0 • a O' ' TAE SNOW�fASS�CLUB ..$UBDlVISION 4.i 006C .. . ........ .. a � Sq ¢ PRELIMINARY SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER BRUSH CREEK ROA- NO } l�T 1 18 W. OTC Smeer.Sum 200 G, 2NWGGD SPRINGS, COIOMDO 81601 ' FOR (070)945-1004 FAX(970)045-5048 HIGHUNE ROAD INTERS± CONSTRUCTION SCHMUESER GORDON MEYERP Co �970I 925 6727 \a ; y : F f ._ Rey ... `: I, V i ZA� I - 4 GRAPHIC SCALE 6 am ,� I ` O cwrtn7 ....... � Iewe• w n i a¢ I er -- ALTERNATE — »A rION 1 r ` " ti S ETDA.1 L OURT O` t7 � • R UE1I?RO d? / rn O ": v0 "_ x .... x-x-k . ..._ , o " 0 0 y 0' .` .' ... , e `.... THE SNOftASS�CLUB .SUBDIVISION 3 \006t F �/ _....... 1 , PRELIMINARY SCHMUESER GORDON IM ER BRUSH CREEK ROW NOT 115 W. GTH 5rnEEr.suns zoo GLENW D SPRINOS, COLORADO 51 BOI FOR (070)CONSTRUCTION SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER ASPEN,DCOLORADO(970)Q ;5D4e HIGWINE ROAD INTERS= Enuk rgMVY�V^ 4+^ C3 0 .... .. t .1 or 0 00 GS 001 ol ... .... ... 7 GRAPHIC SCALE 06 3 1... N as A L TERNA TE 'ZION I 1 J D y , \ p oo. , S ETBA 0 0{fRT ;O a 0 0 ` 7 0 f9 X Oo 11 14, o X�R cA a .. a p p Sscs a i \ o ;: o ° c a• al.. f o . THE SNOWMASS)CLUB $UBDIVISION+.. DU 6 �\ PRELIMINARY /_� SCHMUESER CORDON MEYER BRUSH CREEK ROA_ NOT !v� a W. D S RINGS, surre zoo OLENWODD SPRINGS,COLORADO 81505 FOR I 19701 945-I009 70(925.945-5948 HIGHMNE ROAD INTERS = CONSTRUC nON SCHMUESER CORDON MEYER PER,CD woo 670)92s 0727 .a C3 0 0 W N. yY- GRAPHIC SCALE .. ............ A L TERNA TE � Fw 1 �mt "7 F W. I ar ION a� 1 �-/� Base Village Work Sessions Q, `� Preliminary Agenda Meeting#1—January 15'",2001—(possibly at Telluride with TOSV council) • Schedule—Presentation by Bill Kane Next Steps • Comparable Resort Show Power Point Presentation of Whistler,Beavercreek,Park City Areas,Telluride, • _Bed Base Analylis —Presentation by John Norton Decline of area bed base,hot beds • The Snowmass Customer—Presentation by John Norton Demographics Spending Characteristics Recreation and real estate preferences To be scheduled throughout the month • Resort Tours Visit base area facilities at Whistler,Park City areas,Deer Valley,Telluride,Beavercreek,Copper Mtn. Check out hotels,day lodge,kids center,condo/townhomes,spas,skating rinks Meet with other town managers and councils Meeting#2—February 19'",2001 • Pub_lic/Private Partnership Finance Mechanisms—Presentation by Dave Bellack Ford Frick-Analysis Discussion Meeting#3—March 5'",2001 • Real Estate Development and Management Conceots Presentation by Don Schuster Discussion Meeting#4—March 19'",2001—Pre-Sketch Plan • TQSV Presentation of SPA,Comp Plan • jmnnUmrtation Priorities RFFTA regional RFTA skier shuttle TOSV shuttle Compatibility with transit center Skier and Employee Parking Meeting#5—April Zed,2001—Pre-Sketch Plan • _Planning Design Criteria Development area,commercial and residential Height limits,bulk and massing,suitability to site Density for residential,commercial,mixed use Circulation of vehicular,pedestrian,skier Vitality of base area,nightlife,family activities,attractions,summer use