Loading...
08-06-03 Town Council Minutes SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 6, 2003 T. Michael Manchester called to order the Special Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 at 6:42 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Richard Virtue, Arnold Mordkin and Bill Boineau. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: No Council Members were Absent. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Segrest, Town Manager; Carey Shanks, Economic Resources Director; Carolyn Poissant, Senior Planner; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; Rhonda Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk; David Peckler, Transportation Director; Susan Hamley, Marketing Director; Jennifer Houston, Marketing Assistant; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager, Jim Wahlstom, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Please refer to attached sign in sheet. Community Forum Listening Session Wednesday evening of August 6, 2003 262 community members came together with Town Council to discuss the Community’s issues, concerns and suggestions regarding the Town’s future and the influence of pending developments. The bulk of the meeting consisted of each of our five (5) Council Members moderating a breakout group. Each group was designated by a color; T. Michael Manchester’s group was White, Arnold Mordkin’s group was Red, Doug “Merc” Mercatoris’ group was Blue, Dick Virtue’s group was Green, and Bill Boineau’s group was Yellow. The following notes are straight off of each group’s flip charts. Also, at the end of most of the flip chart notes is information that a Council Member took down to 08-06-03tcsm Page 2 of 12 help them further clarify and understand certain issues. The Town has not altered these notes in any way. **If anyone from the community who attended this important and valuable meeting would like to clarify information presented here, please feel free to contact the Town and submit your thoughts directly to Wm Carey Shanks, cshanks@tosv.com. Community Issues, Concerns and Suggestions The White Group: T. Michael Manchester  Parking – higher demand – more capacity  Pin point the kind of community we want. Base Village plan – impacts it will have on the community  Re: Base Village – Why do we have to change? When the essence of Snowmass Village is openness. What is the fiscal crisis? Inconsistency with plans from the past to future.  Need to balance the Snowmass ideal with ongoing Snowmass planning.  New Town – risk of losing character. Need to work on combining both the old with the new  Quality of life – concerned with negative impacts; as an example the construction and traffic  Stay current with resort renovations, but incorporate the existing mall. What will happen to the old mall with the new Base Village?  Transportation – 3 to 4 lanes needed on Brush Creek  Limited amount of space to put in a new Base Village  Why not a written survey for registered voters regarding Base Village?  Focus on economic viability: The question of which are we, a resort or community? We are both a resort and a community (T. Michael Manchester)  What will be the visual impact? New buildings will obstruct views  Stop trying to be Aspen, stop trying to compete head to head with Aspen. Snowmass has a different clientele than Aspen  Concerned with height and density of buildings  Is there enough water for new developments, with our unpredictable seasons  The Comprehensive Plan from 3 years ago… What happened to it?  Base Village will lead to more traffic  Some kind of Base Village is necessary for the Village’s economic viability  Inform public of the comprehensive plan  Need to 4 lane Brush Creek Road nd  Need a 5 star hotel, not more 2 home owners: focus on 5 star hotel nd bed base instead of selling to 2 home owners 08-06-03tcsm Page 3 of 12  Will there be a vote of the people if you try to change the current height restriction, or will that be decided for us (the citizens)?  What happens to Snowmass if Intrawest and the Skico decide to pull out? What’s implied for our Snowmass Village future?  The community needs to better understand the differences between mitigation requirements and community benefits and other land use processes  T. Michael’s notes from people’s remarks include: Need to better understand the Town’s fiscal crisis o Concern for lost open space o Don’t tweak it to death, Village cannot stay the same forever, need o to keep up with competition Don’t want it to look like Vail or Beaver Creek or Copper o Concerns for infrastructure o Character and Aesthetics o Short and long term: open space and view planes o Would like to have new base village, need to respect financials of o the developers Need to 4 lane Brush Creek, better integrate the mall o Concern that the entire Base Village cannot fit within the footprint o Resort vs. Community o Visual impacts to a spectacular place o We’re not Aspen, we like the quiet times, “off-season” o Water and Sanitation concerns o The Red Group: Arnold Mordkin  First improve the infrastructure  Development: Zoned for new, Variance, % difference?  Increased need for housing?  Volunteer for marketing community: pool, sleigh rides, ARC (Aspen’s Rec. Center: more empty places to come  More family / children activities: a community that has a center / youth / kids: We need more  Water problem  Fire Department enlarged? Ladders? Equipment?  Traffic – 4 lanes?  Power Station  What Intrawest wants and what community needs is a very large gap  220 units in Comprehensive Plan – 645 applying for: 30,000 commercial feet suggested in Comprehensive Plan – 94,000 applied for: ($) ½ billion in hot beds: Base Village success depends on Mall? NO.  What does Snowmass Village want to be? Kids? Family? What is our draw? Mountain Bike trails! What is the theme? Identity? 08-06-03tcsm Page 4 of 12  Not enough to do in Snowmass Village – not maintained or competitive – Base Village concept brings Snowmass Village into modern times of a ski resort – economic viability vs. transportation  Copper: Arrival to Aspen Snowmass Village – United Airlines – How are visitors going to get here?  Black hole at bottom of Fanny Hill – Is it going to be a neighborhood?  Comprehensive Plan – it’s huge  Aspen  Intrawest formula – how is it going to happen?  Promote our location – don’t get so big – it’s too much  Impacted existing property values – Intrawest areas  The Center Project – problems – density/size/parking/transportation  Snowmass Village Finances: sources of revenue – sales tax revenue base going down – fear from the Town to want this project?  R/E development – increase in property taxes?  Ski lift alignment – 60% hot beds @ Fanny Hill th  The Center – citizens still can have lots of input: August 25 is the next Council meeting on this topic  How do we know that Intrawest is right? Evaluates R/E projects – not for profit organization – independent.  Urban Land Institute.  The Town does have a consultant – has a mathematical model  1. Sketch, 2. Preliminary – locks the Town Council into the future, 3. Final  Intrawest Finance – margins & return on capital (On other projects? 50%? 20%?) they will get back on this project. Diligence and homework  Timbers is a good look for the Village  Infrastructure -- airline access: volume and growth overtime  Intrawest Information: larger projects by Canadian large airports: profits 12-20% annually: build out is 5 to 10 years  Town Council interpret computer model – consistencies  How many beds have we lost in the last 10 years? Less than 10%…?  Budgeted 1/3 to mitigation to the community  Air conditioning / sound proofing – very disruptive to Snowmass Village  Construction Management Plan – close to village, compensation to businesses  Size, Density, Height: view from the Rim Trail, how close are they really – use story poles  What do you want?  Bigger vision for the entire community!  Arnold Mordkin’s notes from group remarks include: List what’s zoned and figure out the difference to what is o being requested Too many units to be absorbed o 08-06-03tcsm Page 5 of 12 Don’t want it to look like I 70 corridor o What they want and what we are willing to give o Rates have decreased each year for the last several years o Not enough to do  No enough competition with other resorts  Capitalize on our differences with other resorts o We should be counseled with the viability of the project to be o successful We allege we must do something o Do studies on the Intrawest o We should use Timbers Club as a model o Do something with the airport o What are the results of the computer model? o The Yellow Group: Bill Boineau  Family resort emphasis  Transportation #1 problem  How to get people here  Too big – over 3 times (stories high)  Don’t want Highlands  Adhere to the Comprehensive Plan (rules of 38 feet height restriction  Community facilities  Needed so we don’t need to go to Aspen  Summer activities here  How was “Critical Mass” determined?  Fractional(s) would get more people here – like Timbers Club (vs.) more condos that aren’t rented out.  Construction impacts  Who will occupy units?  How many pillows exist?  Concern resort favors big jets  Explain how code works  Comprehensive Plan & Code are living documents to accommodate what we want; flexibility  Prices keep going up  Too expensive to hold conferences  We’ve lost skier days to places like Beaver Creek  Need to stay competitive with good facilities  Maybe 50 to 70,000 retail commercial space  Airport need improvements  Get a good kids center and more facilities for families  Need enough vitality to encourage people to stay  Sales tax is too high 08-06-03tcsm Page 6 of 12  Don’t understand what critical mass is for…  What types of businesses should be encouraged?  Lodging max’ed in the 1970’s; has declined since 1980’s  Don’t see (declining) skiing filling a lot of new space  Traffic – finite capacity of Brush Creek  Large development proposals will cause congestion  Respect capacity of infrastructure, including water (especially if draught continues)  3:1 vote – Airport vote failed  Quality of life is important; or to grow – don’t compromise quality of life  What size? Traffic is an issue  Support project because developer has experience creating “critical mass.”  Après ski and other amenities are needed  Concern for resort’s loss of jobs  Comprehensive Plan balances needs – variations are too large ( 2 – 300%)  Not concerning regulations: limits and context  Concern resort impact on existing businesses and quality of life (mall owners)  Haven’t asked local business owners what would be good  Large corporations aren’t as good – prefer locally owned  Like to see viable – not so big  Retired – What’s wrong with being a suburb of Aspen?  Intrawest’s Copper, Keystone, Mammoth – look at what they would do to our quality of life  Places are empty – mass doesn’t bring people  Reasonable size – family oriented – not just a big real estate development. Executives don’t live here  Supports Base Village – without ½ of other developments  Cont get friends up here – there’s nothing to do  Village has changed – fix what we have to energize existing businesses  Fewer people come to concerts – do some small things first  Not enough restaurants  Nothing for families in Snowmass  Need growth; not as big  People will spend $ for new  Status quo wont work  Ski industry is growing – last 3 years – business is out there – people are going elsewhere – shopping areas where there is more to do  We’re not competitive  Hard to get here by air, buses get here from Denver?  Larger cross section / diversity makes vitality; more variety of ages, etc.  Need to attract major conventions – need bigger facilities 08-06-03tcsm Page 7 of 12  Condo owners will rent out  Recreation Center at the Rodeo Lot  Better local owners – condominiumization of space  Problem: lack of updating of existing facilities  Concerns about Base Village  Concerns about Transportation  $50 – $60 Million of Skico mountain improvements with Base included -- cannot do improvements without growth  Profits will go toward improvements  What can we do to improve existing facilities? Then expand  Need teenage entertainment  Aspen is well constructed  Fanny Hill is an eyesore  Move forward with improvements – need to find out what is needed  Council should remind us of consequences – “Do a Deal.”  Quality of Life – det. By prop., values bonding capacity  Not many options to developer  If this doesn’t work, nothing will  Concerned about referendum – we don’t have all the information – Need to rely on the Council  Don’t let developers take over; respective of existing owners to make improvements  Concerned about Intrawest’s intentions – they prefer blank slate  Bill B Boineau notes from people’s remarks include: The five issues written by the Town: Density, Mass and Scale; o Changes; Balance between Resort and Community; Economic Viability Family – Recreation o “Critical Mass”? o Cannibalization of existing retail o Quality of Life o Nothing to do now o Need activity o Other transit means o Vibrancy, need better definitions o What economic analysis o The Green Group: Dick Virtue  Mass and Scale – Bottom Line?  Economic Viability?  Base Village – skepticism with developer – an idea to retain the Urban Land Institute: condition would be to accept their unbiased report, 08-06-03tcsm Page 8 of 12 Intrawest buy-in? Try it. Why is land use code now negotiable: Latitude exists.  Taxes: sales – property, not in resort communities  Airline cost considerations  Definition of successful resort?, models for commercial core mix  Community can agree – work together  Business landscape changes constantly – need to be flexible and address new parameters  Water concerns – must be part of approval process, as all environmental concerns will be  Potential disruption over development (construction) time: Village and guest visits Some cant be avoided (noise, etc.) o Some will be worth it (roads, economy, etc.) o Symbiotic relationship: units – commercial core o  Credibility for bigger projects: Snowmass Club fulfillment of membership: weather factor significant for course  Thanks to Council – time, wisdom, efforts – not giving away the Village  Community and developer need to achieve proper balance/compromise  Not all agree we need a Base Village – only way out?… Budget under great pressure o Wont be able to support infrastructure o Losing competitive strength quickly o  Quality over quantity – need to have properties and businesses to help improve existing  Smaller number of units = less anxiety More you drop off, more benefits fall off, what would we lose? What o are we willing to give up?  What (consultant) assumptions made? Let’s give them a chance to present  Desire amenities we had – Base Village will do that / bring visitors and something for them to do  Base Village can help keep “satellite skiers” here, enjoying and spending  Dick Virtue (Scribe Susan Hamley’s) notes from people’s remarks include: o The Blue Team: Doug “Merc” Mercatoris  Community Pool – Recreation Center  Children’s Center  Height and Density of future development  Roads and Transportation impacts of future development 08-06-03tcsm Page 9 of 12  Ice Rink  Water available  Town Hall  Timing and process of decision making  Rational traffic flow of Lower Snowmelt Rd.  Lift systems in ski area  Historical / Present  Needs driving new developments  Traffic Brush Creek and Highway 82  Parking for residents  Impacts of people mover from Base Village to the Mall on adjacent homeowners  When and how Town will support renovations of existing residential and commercial  Future development projects to current Comprehensive Plan  Definition of “Extraordinary Circumstances”, variances, LUC… all within the Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Code)  If “extraordinary circumstances” found, what would limit be (sky?)  Super majority still applies to future development approvals, as well as variances  If “e.c.” is found to be necessary to sustain the number of people, should they be allowed?  Assay Hill – number of units (why?) if we already have low occupancy  Why aren’t people coming here: Not competitive, amenities  Research on current Intrawest projects – are they successful?  Economic Viability – fiscal impact on lodging: why not authorize analysis of lodging?  Historical impact with previous build-out  Concern of size of commercial square footage(within proposed developments)  Second homeowners – opinions need to be heard, keep them in the loop  How are the three (3) commercial nodes integrating?  Light ordinance – keep small community feel (height)  Impact of phasing – Construction Management: approval of phases not all at once  Protect local serving – tourism: support local business  Distorted comm. (commercial) due to 900 pound gorilla down the street  Quality of life: sample Highlands Village: balance of size of commercial; not wanting to be an Aspen  Risk mitigation of over-development How to measure – community vs. resort o Economic model – occupancy o Measure both sides: community / resort o  Comprehensive Plan – guiding document for: Relevant still o 08-06-03tcsm Page 10 of 12 CPO o BTA o LUC o nd  2 homeowners are residents here  Critical Mass vs. over-development  How does the Comprehensive Plan address economic development in the mall: parking, traffic  Balance to achieve world class resort and small community feel  Holy Cross: Base Village – residents paying for additional surcharge  Land Use Approval Process  Retention of non-applicant consultant: Town hired  Merc’s notes from people’s remarks include: Recreational amenities pool, rec-center, ice rink, Town Hall o Utility issues, Holy Cross and water supply o Development Impacts, parking, traffic, mass transit, variances, o super majority vote by Town Council Balance as to maintain quality of life – community/resort o Town consultants not paid by the applicant o Effects on commercial and residential o How to achieve a world class resort and still have the “Small Town o Feel” TOWN COUNCIL SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS  Height, Mass, Density  Construction Management – Phasing  Amenities  Water and Utilities – How much is enough  Transportation issues  What do we want to be when we grow up  What is permitted (comp plan) what are the rules, how does applicant get more than permitted  We need to be better how to we get there  What are “they” (applicant) willing to give to get what they want  Concern with occupancy levels we can’t fill what we have now how will we fill additional units  Community character – parking, traffic, four lane Brush Creek  Relationship between resort and community – competitiveness  Economic Viability – Sales Tax  Doubling the property tax to rid of sales tax to provide a service  Community/Resort both are necessary to succeed  Not to be Aspen  Survey registered voters for their opinions 08-06-03tcsm Page 11 of 12  Why consider something larger than the comp plan allows  Economic Sustainability  Occupancy – how do we fill these condos  What happens if the applicant and developer pull out – where do we go then  Recreational amenities pool, rec-center, ice rink, Town Hall  Utility issues, Holy Cross and water supply  Development Impacts, parking, traffic, mass transit, variances, super majority vote by Town Council  Balance as to maintain quality of life – community/resort  Town consultants not paid by the applicant  Effects on commercial and residential  How to achieve a world class resort and still have the “Small Town Feel”  Retain Urban Land Institute to assess projects  Define successful community and resort and how do we market that  Merits of consultants  Concern regarding vision “Vision based by Comp Plan”  Mass, scale, density – our Character  Economics  Complete resort should not be based on economic information provided by developer and applicant  Town Council should do homework and answer to community THIS ITEM WAS ADDED TO THE AGENDA AT THE MEETING Discussion Item Regarding Rodeo Contract Mordkin made a motion for Council to agree that no contracts would be approved for the Rodeo or Horseback Riding Contract without a discussion with Town Council Discussion, seconded by Council Member Boineau. The motion was passed by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Virtue was unavailable. Item No. 3: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Manchester made a motion to adjourn the Meeting, seconded by Council Member Boineau. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Virtue was unavailable. The Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. This set of Minutes was approved by Council at the August 25, 2003 Regular Town Council Meeting. 08-06-03tcsm Page 12 of 12 Submitted By: ___________________________________ Carey Shanks, Economic Resource Director And _______________________________ Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk