Loading...
12-17-07 Town Council Packet Oe4 ql A) SNOWMASS VILLAGE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 17, 2007 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THEIR STATED TIME 3:00 P.M. 4:00 p.m. CIRSA TRAINING —TOWN COUNCIL Page 1 Tab A CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON AGENDA ITEMS (5- minute time limit) Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Item No. 4: 2ND HOMEOWNERS ADVISORY BOARD (Time: 15 -Minutes) REPORT ON COMMUNUTY SURVEY ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and comment to 2nd Homeowner Advisory Board. Greer Fox .Page 18 Tab B Item No. 5: GYMNASIUM HVAC SYSTEM (Time: 15 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: To approve an additional expenditure of $178,000 to upgrade to a more efficient and cost effective HVCA system. Hunt Walker .....................Page 25 Tab C Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 32, SERIES OF 2007- AUTHORIZING JIM GUSTAFSON A MEMBER OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SPEAK BEFORE THE TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS (Time: 5 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify or deny Resolution No. 32, Series of 2007 Bob Nevins Page 30 Tab D 12- 17 -07tc Page 2 of 3 Item No. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 33, SEREIS OF 2007 SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS MINOR PUD AMENDMENT A RESOLUTION CONCERNING WAIVERS AND DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN PRELIMINARY PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINOR PUD APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (Time: 30 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve or denial of applicant's requests to waive or defer preliminary plan requirements Bob Nevins Page 30 Tab D Item No. 8 DISCUSSION -CLUB COMMONS II EMPLOYEE HOUSING: REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CLUB COMMONS II EMPLOYEE HOUSING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (Time: 60 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the final PUD Application and provide input or direction for eventual preparation of an Ordinance. Jim Wahlstrom Page 38 Tab E Item No. 9: HOUSING GUIDELINES DISCUSSION (Time: 15 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and direct Housing Manager to change the regulation or leave the regulation as it stands. Joe Coffey Page 59 Tab F Item No. 10: RESOLUTION NO. 30 SERIES OF 2007 APPROVING THE 2008 EOTC BUDGET (Time: 15 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Table this Resolution to the first Regular Town Council Meeting after the next EOTC meeting, which is January 22, 2008 David Peckler Page 61 Tab G Item No. 11: RESOLUTION NO. 31 SERIES OF 2007 FTA 5309 AND 5311 GRANTS APPROVAL OF CERTIFCATIONS AND ASSURANCES (Time: 15 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approval, modify or deny Resolution No. 31, Series of 2007 David Peckler Page 65 Tab H Item No. 12 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 23, SERIES OF 2007 BUILDING PERMIT FEES (Time: 30 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify or deny second 12- 17 -07tc Page 3 of 3 reading of Ordinance 23, Series of 2007 Mark Kittle /Jason Haber...... Page 69 Tab Item No. 13: MANAGER'S REPORT ...........................Page 73 Tab Item No. 14: COUNCIL COMMENTS /COMMITTEE REPORTS /CALENDARS ...........Page 88 Tab K Item No. 15: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approx 3 hours 45 minutes (excluding items 1 -3, and 13 15). 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. PLEASE JOIN TOWN COUNCIL FOR A SOCIAL AT SPENCER'S AFTER TONIGHT'S MEETING. (If the Meeting ends before 9:00 p.m.) Liability Issues for Council, Boards and Commissions Town of Snowmass Village December 17, 2007 Tami Tanoue General Counsel /Claims Manager CI RSA a Why do you need to be concerned about liability? Depending on the nature of the allegations that may be made against you, you may or may not have liability protections under: The Governmental Immunity Act Common law (judge -made) immunities Insurance coverages Your goal: make sure your conduct doesn't cause you to lose your liability protections Let's see how you're doing Property /Casualty Pool 2002 -2006 Vehicle 4,043 $12,582,022 Police Liability 524 7,219,658 Employment 244 6,071,335 Sewer Backups 720 3,333,190 Negligent 745 1,580,959 Inspect /Maintenance Total Top 5: 6,276 $30,787,164 s (68 (72 Total PC Pool 9237 $42,726,331 Snowmass Village PC Claims 2002 2006 Vehicle 68 $84,158 Negligent 6 $44,013 maintenance Slips and Falls 3 2 824 Age discrimination 1 3 All others 12 3,192 Total 90 $137,345 2 Workers' Compensation Pool 2002 -2006 Strains /sprains n 1239 $7,957,339 Vehicle 145 $6,718,359 Slips /falls 696 $5,716,500 Struck by 564 $1,732,888 Burns 59 $577,841 Total Top 5 2703 $22,702,927 (61 (84 Total WC Pool 4437 $27,065,258 Which boards and commissions need Mll to be concerned about liability? Keep in mind that anyone can sue anybody for anything, but liability is of particular concern if Your actions can affect someone's financial interests Property rights, right to a license Your actions can affect someone's "'good name" or reputation Personnel matters involving a specific employee Your role is more than advisory Your role is advisory, but you venture out past advisory territory 3 What are my sources of liability? Governmental Immunity Act 6 "'waivers"' of immunity "Outside the Scope" and "willful and wanton" actions 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Deprivation of constitutional or other federally protected rights Due process, discrimination Liberty interest in one's "good name" What are my legal protections? Governmental Immunity Act Notice of Claim Right to defense Right to have judgment /settlement paid GIA applies to appointed officials and volunteers as well as elected officials and employees NOTE: GIA does not apply to federal law actions Common law immunities Insurance 4 What key coverages and exclusions do we have? The Town is a named insured under the CIRSA Liability policies Council, boards, and commissions, elected and appointed officials, employees, and volunteers are also insureds, but only while acting within the scope and performance of their official duties What key coverages and exclusions do we have? Key coverages include: Auto liability (AL) .Law enforcement liability (LEL) General liability (GL) Public officials liability (including employment) (POL) 5 What key coverages and exclusions Key general exclusions include: All actions connected with principles of eminent domain, condemnation /inverse condemnation Governmental fines and penalties Punitive or exemplary damages Issuance of financial obligations, or taxes, fees, assessments, or collection /retention/ expenditure of funds Breach of contract (except allegations of wrongful termination of employment) w What key coverages and exclusions do we have? Nightmare cases involving personal liability can and do occur Defense /indemnity obligations determined on basis of plaintiff's allegations in complaint Plaintiffs may have reasons to either "plead into" or "out or coverage Real life examples: County official $150,000 punitive damages for retaliation on basis of political affiliations Mayor $1.5 million punitive damages for retaliation based on discrimination charges City official allegation of defamation, interference with contractual relationships, personal vendetta against employee of contractor 6 What do I do to avoid liability? -1 Al You have personal protection from liability under the Governmental Immunity Act (GIN only if you are "within the scope of employment and not acting "willfully and wantonly." Concept of "scope of employment" applies to ALL persons covered by the GIA— including elected and appointed officials, employees, and authorized volunteers Means everyone needs to know their "job description""! For council, that's found in a variety of legal sources For boards and commissions, that's primarily the establishing enactment y What do I do to avoid liability? Conduct that is outside the scope of employment (SOE) or willful and wanton will result in a loss of governmental immunity. Can also result in loss of coverage under liability insurance policies Can also result in personal liability, including punitive damages You may become responsible for defending yourself and paying any settlement /judgment against you 7 What do I do to avoid liability? Understand your "job description" and stay within it. Before acting, look for a law, ordinance, resolution, or motion that authorizes you to act. Keep in mind you may need to reconcile conflicting and superseding authorities If you can't trace your action to a source of authorization, you may be outside your SOE! If you know what the limits of your authority are, and you choose to ignore those limits, you may be acting willfully and wantonly! What do I do to avoid liability? As board and commission members, you act primarily as a BODY. You exercise your responsibilities mainly by VOTING in a PUBLIC MEETING. When you find yourself doing anything other than that, it is particularly critical to make sure you are properly authorized! 8 What do I do to avoid liability? "We" not "I If you find yourself thinking in terms of "I" rather than "we" ...that's a red flag. Be particularly cautious once you've voted on a matter. The tribe has spoken! Get behind the decision, don't undermine. If you feel there is a need to change it, use proper channels only. Recognize that some decisions CANNOT be undone without liability. What do I do to avoid liability? Avoid acting out of personal motives Acting on the basis of personal motives is likely to be outside your SOE! May also be willful and wanton If a motivation can be described in any of these terms, it may be a red flag! Retaliation Revenge Personal axe to grind Out to "get" someone Single- issue"agenda" Personal benefit financial or otherwise 9 What do I do to avoid liability? Protect legitimate confidences. Government is conducted in the open but there are legitimately confidential matters, including: Legal advice, litigation issues Personnel matters Issues being negotiated Comply with the formalities and substance of the Open Meetings Law, and maintain executive session confidentiality after you complete the executive session Recent enhancement to CIRSA coverage executive session limited defense cost coverage for executive sessions held by Council (but not boards and commissions) Other suggestions use your power wisely Whatever the `official" responsibilities, council, board, and commission positions carry a perception of "power" Understand that those who come before you may be uncomfortable or feel intimidated You review dozens or hundreds of issues, but those who come before you may do so only once in their lifetime Exercise your responsibilities wisely and humanely Use courtesy, tact, and diplomacy in interactions with citizens, applicants, and staff 10 a Other suggestions run a good meetin Outside of appropriately confidential matters discussed in a properly convened executive session, ALL matters before a public body are to be discussed AND decided only in a properly noticed public meeting. Don't hold a private "meeting before the meeting" No public "rubber stamping" of decisions already made in private If some or all members have already decided an outcome in private, then the concept of public participation in a public meeting has been effectively destroyed Other suggestions run a good meeting Understand the difference between legislative and quasi- judicial matters, and observe the different requirements applicable to each! Boards that need to be particularly concerned about this distinction. include Council, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission In a quasi judicial hearing, an array of special procedural requirements apply. Violation of those requirements is a violation of due process a constitutional /civil rights violation! 11 Other suggestions avoid ex parte contacts An ex parte contact is an "outside the hearing contact with someone who has a stake or interest in the subject matter of the hearing The contact is impermissible whether with the applicant, citizens, or staff When your Town Attorney advises against them, he is protecting YOU, your ability to participate in the decision- making, and your ultimate decision Improper ex parte contacts disempower you as the decision- maker! What's the problem with ex parte contacts, anyway? The courts will accord you a presumption of integrity, honesty, and impartiality as a decision- maker. You can lose that presumption by actions that are unfair, or even appear unfair Ex parte contacts are among those actions 12 What's the problem with ex s parte contacts, anyway? A local elected official or board member doesn't wear a robe, and is easily recognized on the street So how do you avoid ex parte contacts when everyone knows who you are and expects you to be accessible? First, make sure that you don't INITIATE any ex parte contacts yourself! Second, arm yourself with the knowledge and "talking points you need to address an ex parte contact Initiated by another What °s the problem with ex paste contacts, anyway? Some "talking points" "I'd love to hear your views, but the Town Attorney advises that the only evidence we can consider as board Imembers is what we actually hear at the hearing. Please plan to attend the hearing on so that I can hear and understand your viewpoint." "The Town Attorney advises that when I talk to one side or another at any time or place other than at the hearing itself, it really compromises my ability to maintain the reality AND appearance of fairness. Worse case scenario, I could end up having to recuse myself from participating in the hearing. I'm sure neither you nor I want that. Please, please, please come to the hearing and express your views." 13 Reduce your involvement in administrative matters Understand and observe the difference between legislative and administrative matters! Establish "corporate" values and mission, set overall goals and priorities, and give broad direction, leaving details of execution to staff. Honor the Town Manager format gold standard of municipal government "Committee" format can be problematic and can increase your liability Chances of successfully suing you go way down if you weren't involved and way up if you were! Reduce your involvement in administrative matters The legislative- administrative distinction is particularly important in personnel matters. Council's most appropriate role is to stick to the "big picture" issues: Personnel rules, including selection procedures performance evaluations, disciplinary actions Town -wide pay plan Selection of your "direct reports" Budget Overall Town -wide and departmental goals and priorities Councils, boards, and commission must do their work in public but some aspects of personnel management should not be done in public! 14 Reduce your involvement in 4< ,administrative matters Your BEST immunities as elected officials are in the legislative and quasi- judicial arena. Courts recognize legislative and quasi- judicial immunities Venture into administration, and you're venturing into" outside the SOE" territory! Avoid conflicts of interest In Colorado, ethics scandals are rare but happen from time to time Ethical misjudgments greatly undermine public confidence in government Can result in criminal and civil liability Amendment 41 concerns "Personal benefit" exclusion from liability coverage! Gaining a personal benefit is outside your scope! 15 Avoid conflicts of interest Conflicts are a particular concern in quasi- judicial context land use approvals, licensing decisions A quasi judicial vote tainted by conflicts can result in due process violations civil rights liability Disclose conflict, DO NOT VOTE, do not influence others, leave the room! I Avoid conflicts of interest The bottom line: No one should derive a personal or private benefit from holding public office. Any such benefit raises red flags from an ethical, civil Liability, and criminal Liability standpoint! 16 Finally don't let fear of liability be the engine that drives you! Don't focus on rules technicalities, while overlooking basic values Determine and articulate the basic "values" that should influence everything the board or commission does. Basic motivating principle: "DO THE RIGHT THING." QUESTIONS? 17 Snowmass Village Seasonal Residents A Report to the Second Homeowners Advisory Board December 2007 Greer L. Fox This report was requested by the Snowmass Village Second Homeowners Advisory Board. The board members have not participated in the preparation of the report and are not responsible for any of the comments herein. This report is based entirely on the results of the Snowmass Village (CO) Community Survey conducted during Summer 2007 by RRC Associates of Boulder, CO. No one from RRC Associates was consulted in the preparation of this report. All of the comments about and interpretations of data are solely mine, and I take full responsibility for their accuracy in describing the seasonal residents in SMV represented in the survey. The report has seven sections, each one focusing on a different aspect of the Community Survey. Each section is summarized in a "bottom line." At the end of the report I provide biographical information. The Data and Some Suggestions and Caveats re Interpretation The Data: Two separate sets of data were provided by the TOSV staff to assist the Second Homeowners Advisory Board [SHAB] in learning more about their constituents: 1) a series of quantitative analyses of each of the questions in the survey showing responses for the seasonal residents separately from those of the town's permanent residents. Thirty -nine pages of tabular results comprise this set of data. This data set will be referenced as the "quantitative data." 2) A separate set of text tables listed all open -ended responses from seasonal residents. This 36 -page data set will be referenced as the "qualitative data." It is important that these two sets of data on the seasonal residents be available as you read this report. The qualitative commentary for seasonal residents only is currently available on the Second Homeowners page on the TOSV website, and the quantitative dataset for the seasonal residents only will be uploaded to the Second Homeowners page by town staff as soon as feasible. I have made the simplifying assumption that the seasonal residents are second homeowners [SHO] and so I use these terms interchangeably. Suggestions: In reading the quantitative tables, note the first three columns of data, labeled "overall," "year -round resident," and "seasonal resident," respectively. These three columns of data provide an excellent comparative snapshot of the distributions of responses to each of the questions in the survey for three groups: the entire set of respondents to the survey, the full -time residents of SMV only, and the seasonal residents only. These columns should be consulted if one wants to know how full- timers differ from SHO on various points in the survey. The next three columns in each of the quantitative tables show a more finely grained distribution of responses for SHO only according to their tenure of ownership in SMV 5 years, 6 -15 years, 15+ years). Moving on across the tables, the next three columns present responses of SHO 1 according to age category <45, 45 -65, 65 Finally, the neighborhood locations of SHO are used to differentiate among responses. Caution should be used in viewing the age group and neighborhood location distributions because data are presented as percentages, but the total number of respondents in some of the categories is so small that percentage calculations are simply inappropriate and can be misleading. To be meaningful, percentages should be based upon at least 10 cases, and clearly some of the numbers in several subcategories falls below this minimum (eg, SHO aged <45; residents of Horse Ranch, Fox Run, Two Creeks, Divide). In reading the qualitative tables, it is helpful to work alongside a copy of the survey itself so that the full context of the open -ended responses can be understood. Responses to each open -ended opportunity or question are organized alphabetically in these tables. In several instances, lengthier commentaries have been truncated to one line of text. RRC Associates has provided some categorization and interpretation of the qualitative responses from all survey respondents, and their report to TOSV should be consulted. Qualitative data lends itself to several different analytic approaches. In general, one asks for open -ended responses in a survey, not so much to find predominant patterns (quantitative results do a better job with this), but rather to find some explication of the meaning of quantitative results and to discover the range of opinions among respondents, that is, opinions that might not have been captured by the preset responses in the survey. In interpreting open -ended data, one often characterizes a set of responses in words not used by the respondents themselves in attempting to express a sense of the whole. Caveats: A few caveats are needed. First, the SHO sampling frame may or may not be a good reflection of the SHO population. It simply is unclear how well the sampling frame used by RRC Associates matched the target population. Second, the response rate was 17% among SHO, reasonably healthy for a typical mail -out survey, but anemic when compared to the "gold standard" of at least an 80% response. Finally, missing data can be problematic for individual questions. Because respondents are free to answer some questions and ignore others, the "base N" the number on which percentages or means are calculated varies by question. Moreover, only a subset of SHO provided open -ended commentary, so the qualitative data are even more selective of those with strong opinions than are the quantitative data. Bottom line: These data are the first and best data available on SMV SHO. They provide an excellent starting point for developing a profile of SHO and are worthy of SHAB and TOSV attention. Who Are the Seasonal Residents? A Look at Age, Tenure, and Lifestyle Age: Age data are of interest primarily because so much of life is developmentally organized, and age is a reasonable indicator of life stage. However, one's age is a sensitive topic to many people, and SHO are no exception. Age data are missing for approximately 7% of SHO. A good picture of SHO age distribution is found on p. 37 of the quantitative report. There we can see that the SHO are most likely to be in 2 their 60s or older. Only 5% (8 respondents) are <45 years old too few to say much about intelligibly and only 13% (20 respondents) are between 45 -54. Compared to SHO, the full -time residents are much more evenly distributed across age groups, with fully 1 in 3 (33 younger than 45. Moreover, the median ages between the two groups are separated by almost a decade, such that the median age of full -time residents is 52.5 years and that of the SHO is 62 years. Tenure: Information on length of residency or property ownership is available in at least three places in the quantitative report, with slightly differing numbers in each place. As can be seen in the table below, which shows the results I found for tenure, although the total N varies from 151 to 162, the distribution of SHO across varying lengths of tenure does not differ substantially from one source of information to another. The data indicate that more than half of the SHO respondents have been in SMV for more than 15 years. A comparatively small number has owned property here for less than five years. SHO Len th of Residence in SMV <5 6 -15 15+ N Year Years Years p.I N 16 59 82 157 3I 6% 52:% r 100.0% �,1 p.36 N 16 62 84 162 99% 38.3% 51 "9% 1.00.0% p.37 N 15 57 79 151 Age and Tenure: A better profile of SHO is gained by considering age and tenure simultaneously. To do this, I recalculated data from p. 37 to obtain a cross- tabulation of the age and tenure data. These data are shown in the table below: SHO Len th of Residence in SMV SHO 5 6 -15 15+ N Age Years Years Years Group <35 N 2 1 0 3* 35 -44 N 0 5 0 5* 45 -54 N 5 7 7 19 `2 36:8 ,v.: 36.8% 55 -61 N 6 21 16 43 0 %r ti 48.$% 3 '2 100.0% 62+ N 2 23 56 81 2.4 2 4% k69 9.% Total N 15 57 79 151 9;9 37:7 52.3% 99.9% 3 N too small for calculation of percentages. Immediately apparent is the strong correlation or link between age and tenure: older age and lengthier tenure are related. Almost 70 percent of the SHO 62 years old and over have owned property in SMV for more than 15 years. Further, among all SHO, 37% (56 of 15 1) are 62+ and have lived in SMV for 15+ years, and almost half (16 +56/151 or 48 are at least 55 years old and have lived in SMV for 15+ years.. Is there any evidence of retirees buying into SMV in large numbers? Not in this survey. A look at the first column of data in the table above shows that among the 15 SHO respondents who have owned property here for five years or less, only 2% are of retirement age. 14% of middle -aged SHO (the baby -boom ages of 55 -61 years) are recent buyers and 26% of SHO in early middle age (45 -54 years) are recent buyers. This underlines again the link between age and tenure; short tenure in SMV is associated with people of younger ages. Lifestyle: A question in the survey asked respondents to describe themselves as one of the following: empty nester, couple with children, couple without children, or single without children. A look at the distribution of responses on p. 37 shows that second homeowners are preponderantly found among traditional family lifestyle categories. Fully 86% of SHO have children in their households now OR have had children present at some point. This suggests that family- oriented activities and activities for children of all ages will be of importance to SHO either now or in the future. Indeed, more than twice as many SHO as full -time residents indicated that grandchildren visit with them in SMV (56% vs 21 Bottom line: Clearly, the voices of SHO in this survey are mature voices with a lengthy history in Snowmass Village. Seasonal Resident Views re the Second Homeowners Advisory Board SHO reactions to the SHAB may be found on pp. 3 and 6 of the quantitative report and primarily on p. 10 of the qualitative report. Note that on p. 6, the number of respondents to the question about satisfaction with the SHAB falls off rather sharply; only 61 of the 162 SHO respondents (38 actually answered this question. Satisfaction with the SHAB is lukewarm, with an average rating of 3.0 among the 61 respondents. The open -ended commentary fleshes out the quantitative data. Evident here is general support for the idea of a SHAB, but there is also frustration with the Board's lack of visibility and relative powerlessness as the representative voice of the SHO to the TOSV Town Council. The comments also suggest the need for improved means of communicating information to and hearing from SHO constituents. Reinforcing this notion are the awareness (of the SHAB) data on p. 3 of the quantitative report. It is of concern, even if understandable, that fewer than half (45 of the relatively new homeowners are aware of the existence of the SHAB, but it is also of concern that 1/3 of the SHO with 6 -15 years tenure and' /4 of the SHO with more than 15 years tenure in the village are unaware of the SHAB. In considering possible avenues of contact with SHO, 4 note should be made of the data on p. 26 about the ways respondents access information about TOSV government happenings. It would appear that most SHO rely upon. the Snowmass Sun; a quarter (25 rely upon the TOSV website, a figure that does not vary substantially by tenure in the village. Bottom line: There is interest in and support for the SHAB among SHO, but more effective ways of eliciting participation from SHO need to be tried. Seasonal Resident Attitudes about the Community The qualitative report used in conjunction with the quantitative data on SHO gives much rich information on SHO attitudes about community issues and the tenor of community relationships. Questions throughout the survey elicited an outpouring of commentary from SHO. Among the serious issues SHO feel face SMV were the amount, scope, and continuation of construction over the foreseeable future. Many comments spoke to the need for forceful management of the construction process by the TOSV. Overdevelopment, residential density, and traffic congestion all accompaniments of the plans to expand significantly the size of the population in the village surfaced as concerns. Base Village and the dominance of Related WestPac in village growth, development, and political process were frequently singled out as matters of concern, particularly in light of what some saw as timidity and diffidence among the Town Council in recent years. Fears that SMV was being lost in the process of saving it were not uncommon, and indeed not a few questioned whether the ultimate beneficiaries of the current and planned development were in fact a small cadre of developers and realtors rather than the community at large. Others were just as convinced that the current developments would be a boon to the village, if only the Town Council would facilitate the process more effectively. Some voiced a desire for retaining the small -town atmosphere of SMV, its family friendliness and affordability, and avoiding elements that smacked of Vail, glitz, and a European style uber- sophistication out of keeping with SMV history and character. There were calls for inclusivity, for opportunities for the coming together of locals and SHO along with visitors. Employee housing was often mentioned in open -ended comments, not only as a necessity but also as very desirable in order to sustain the sense of SMV as an integrated community. A sense of SMV as a community is important to SHO, and many voiced a desire to be a welcomed part of the community. Frustration and anger were voiced at the sense that SHO are the targets of often- hostile reactions from locals at worst and at being ignored within the political arena at best. Many found the continuing divisiveness and rancor within the community upsetting and wished for a greater degree of civility and comity in public life in the village. Bottom line: The SHO do not speak in one voice; there is the similar mix of attitudes about the direction and implications of current development for the community as is found among the full -time residents. However, the degree of SHO affection for, interest in, and commitment to the village in its past and future is quite evident. Seasonal Resident Preferences for Community Amenities 5 A number of questions throughout the survey queried respondents about different kinds of town- provided amenities and services. Results were discussed thoroughly in the RRC Associates report to the TOSV (pp. 24 -26) and need not be repeated here. Results pertaining specifically to SHO are in tables on pages 22 -24 of the SHO quantitative report; page 28 provides data on rodeo preferences of seasonal residents. There are relatively few differences between SHO and full -time residents evident in these tables. When SHO ratings of different amenities are considered, SHO give slightly more support to a performing arts center than to a new conference center. A new movie theatre receives the highest level of support among SHO, with support strongest among SHO with the most recent tenure in SMV (80% of SHO with <5 years tenure rate a movie theatre 4 -5 in importance compared to about 60% of SHO with lengthier tenure who rate it so highly). Parking and access to facilities received only moderate satisfaction ratings from SHO (pp. 18 -19 of the SHO quantitative report), and the open -ended commentary throughout the survey suggest that access is an issue for many, with specific comments directed to the need for parking at more trailheads, better access to skiing, and more parking near stores in the Center and the mall. Accessibility was also interpreted by some as "affordability," and there is evidence in the open -ended commentary of a desire for more affordable golf, tennis, and recreation center fees for SHO. Finally, despite the thrust of the survey questions which encouraged responses couched in terms of what "more" was wanted, there were a few voices who said in essence: "Whoa. We don't need to develop everything. We don't need to be Disneyworld." The SHO commentary on their preferences for the mall suggested there was no desire to replicate Aspen but many want more "life" on the mall, with a variety of restaurants and stores that appeal to a wide price range from up -scale to modest, with pleasant "people- watching and people gathering areas, places to sit to be part of a scene, to soak up the ambience, and to do so without the constant pressure of harried staff trying to turn over the crowd to make another dollar. The mall should be a place to linger, to sit, to enjoy the human and architectural scenery and landscaping, rather than simply a place to eat, shop, and leave. There is much support for resort- enhancing businesses, such as restaurants and retail stores, but also considerable support for community- sustaining businesses, such as groceries, convenience, and hardware stores. The development on the mall only of high end, upscale, private club -type facilities that are costly and exclusionary will turn off many in this audience of SHO. Bottom line: The SHO provide a wealth of suggestions about enhancing the bounty of community amenities and activities in SMV. At the same time, there is a constant thread of inclusivity in their commentary, such that the activities and amenities should be designed for the entire community, for people of varying ages and incomes, and for residents, second homeowners, and visitors alike. Seasonal Resident Attitudes about the Future of Snowmass 6 Respondents were asked how excited they were about the improvements taking place in SMV, and these data are shown on p. 32 of the quantitative report. Evident is a good deal of excitement among SHO. When the "don't knows" are removed from the calculations, 40 of the remaining 144 SHO, or 28 are "not at all excited 61 of 144, or 42 are "somewhat excited and 43 of 144, or 30 are "very excited." The degree of excitement dissipates somewhat with tenure, with those of longer residency in SMV showing less enthusiasm than the more recent SHO. It is important to look at the open -ended commentary that accompanies these ratings when trying to understand what they mean. These data are included on p. 31 of the qualitative report. Helpfully, the commentary has been organized by the degree of "excitement" assessed in the original survey question. The comments of those who are not at all excited suggests the degree of disagreement, almost bordering on despair for some, with the direction of the "new" SMV. But, even more notable is the hesitancy expressed by those who are "somewhat excited." Many of these comments suggest residents are withholding final judgment until the results are more evident. Finally, even among those most excited there are expressions of concern and apprehension. The "support" for the new direction is tenuous at best, judging from these data. An alternative view of the future can be gleaned from the open -ended commentary in response to the question that asked "If you could keep one thing the same in Snowmass Village in perpetuity, what would it be In essence, this is a "values" question and can yield insight into those often elusive elements that are of most importance to SHO about the nature of the village. This question elicited an outpouring of commentary, which is found on pp. 26 -28 of the qualitative report. The predominant messages here are two- fold: Keep the small scale, accessibility, low -key, friendly nature of the village. And equally important: Remember to preserve the beauty and peace of the mountain, the natural surroundings, the open space, the native environment and wildlife. Don't sacrifice the natural surroundings in the attempt to salvage the village, because that will presage the demise of both. Bottom line: Most SHO are optimistic about the future of SMV but want to proceed with caution and awareness of the full range of costs, both human and environmental, of continued development, and some SHO do not feel the gain is worth the toll. Future Surveys of Seasonal Residents Sprinkled throughout the open -ended commentary from SHO was support for the current survey effort and encouragement to continue with an annual survey. Whether done in conjunction with the TOSV as a whole or as a separate effort of the SHAB, attempts to reach out to constituents to elicit their opinions and engage them in the work of the SHAB through additional survey efforts would seem a good idea. In the future, the SHAB might want to ask questions more particularly addressed to SHO issues, such as amount of time in residence in a typical year, SHO desire for participation in the life of the village, and their views of the mission and effectiveness of the SHAB. 7 There were some omissions in the current survey that future surveys could address. For example, no questions were asked about the fire department or medical services /emergency care services. No questions were asked about the protection of wildlife and the environment. Nowhere were respondents asked to indicate that they had a voice in local governance, or wanted such a voice, or felt adequately represented, or felt there was someone to contact if they had an issue or problem. Although many questions were asked about respondents' preferences for additional recreational services and recreational spaces, there was no opportunity for respondents to indicate a desire for community participation, volunteer opportunities, or community service. Many local governments, in assessing citizen attitudes, are interested in collective efficacy, that is, whether citizens feel they have a commitment to the community, live among like- minded others who share similar values, and can solve community problems effectively. Because Snowmass Village has embarked upon a developmental pathway that portends a shift to a more affluent resident, visitor, and second homeowner base, it would seem important to ask how respondents feel about economic and social diversity in the town, and how that impinges upon their view of the quality of their lives here. And no questions were asked about the respondents' timelines how long do respondents anticipate living, or working, or renting, or owning property in Snowmass Village. Finally, a good community survey must have the support of the citizenry through their engagement and participation as respondents. It is imperative that survey content reflect a full range of issues confronting a citizenry and that, over time, citizens see that their responses are read by, listened to, and incorporated into consideration of issues that come before their civic leaders and town staff. Bottom line: Citizen surveys serve many useful purposes. Although expensive, they can be a valuable source of citizen input to community leadership. About the Author: Greer L. Fox is Distinguished Professor of Child and Family Studies at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, TN. A sociologist, she teaches graduate courses in research methods and has served as principal investigator on federally funded research projects that rely upon survey methods as well as upon qualitative approaches. She and her husband Bruce, a native Coloradan with four generations of ties to Leadville, Denver, Boulder, and the Western Slope, have been second homeowners in Snowmass Village for the past 24 years. Professor Fox may be contacted at lg foxgutk.edu or at 970- 923 -4427. 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Public Works Department DATE: December 17, 2007 SUBJECT: Gym -HVAC System Upgrade I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: To approve an additional expenditure of $178,000 to upgrade to a more efficient and cost effective HVAC system. II. BACKGROUND In an effort to reduce the construction costs for the new gym the Town decided to allow Design Mechanical, Inc. to design and build the HVAC system for the gym. Design Mechanical (DM) designed a separate HVAC system that was going to be located outside the building on the north side of the gym. The cost of the system is $130,300. The annual heating costs of the gym with this system would be $41,764. When the Town experienced problems with Upper Snowmelt Road in 2002, on a recommendation from Gert VanMorsel from the Aspen Skiing Company, we hired an HVAC commissioning agent, Engineering Economics, Inc. (EEI) to troubleshoot the snowmelt system. Since EEI did such a good job on Upper Snowmelt we have hired them to review the HVAC plans for the Recreation Center, Town Hall, and now the gym. After reviewing the gym HVAC system proposed by Design Mechanical, Inc. EEI provided the following assessment: "The HVAC system for this building as described on the plans will have poor energy efficiency and create regular discomfort in several of the spaces. As the system is currently defined, the aerobics area in particular will have poor indoor air quality. The only redeeming feature of this system is that it is cheap to install." Since the existing high efficiency boilers in the Recreation Center have excess capacity, EEI recommends using them as the heat source for the gym. By utilizing the Recreation Center heat plant for the gym, the reject heat needed to cool the gym would be used to heat the swimming pool. In addition the gym would benefit from the Recreation Center's solar panels because the solar panels are integrated into the Recreation Center's heat plant. The system recommended by EEI would cost $308,300 or $178,000 more than the DM system. Annual heating costs for the EEI system would be $18,064 or $23,700 less than the DM system cost of $41,764 or a 69% annual heat cost savings. It is estimated the installation cost premium of $178,000 will be recovered through energy cost savings in 7.5 years ($178,000 divided by $23,700). (For a more detailed explanation of the advantage of EEI's recommended HVAC system see the 12 /12 /07- attached memo from EEI). III. FUNDING Since the current budget cannot absorb the HVAC system upgrade cost of $178,000 (see attached budget), the 2008 Rett Funds available of $370,535 would need to be utilized. IV. OPTIONS 1. Stay with the existing system at a cost of $130,300 which is within budget. 2. Spend an additional $178,00 to install the Engineering Economics, Inc. HVAC system. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends Option #2, the EEI HVAC system at an additional cost of $178,000, which would be paid for from the Rett 2008 "Funds Available" of $370,535. It is estimated the payback for the upgrade would be 7.5 years or earlier if gas prices increase. The comfort levels in the gym will be far superior with this system. Engineering I uonotnics In(- 780 Simms street; suite 210 Golden, Colorado 80401 ctennone 303 239 8700 tatsirttle 303 239'9982 Memorandum Date: December 12, 2007 To: Mr. Hunt Walker, Town of Snowmass Village From: Jarrell Wenger, Engineering Economics, Inc. Subject: Snowmass Recreation Center Gymnasium Building Recommended Improvements to HVAC System EEI Project No.: 01 -07132 This memo is a summary of EEI's recommendations to improve the proposed HVAC system for the new Recreation Center Gymnasium, along with discussion of the improved performance and operation that will result. Current Design The current design consists of a rooftop air handling unit (mounted outside on the ground), which contains an 81 efficient gas furnace and an air conditioning coil with an air cooled condenser. This unit provides the same supply air temperature to all zones (lobby, mezzanine, climbing, aerobics and gym), with the temperature of that air dictated by the thermostat located in the gym. To prevent over cooling during periods of low occupancy, a thermostat in each of the aerobics rooms stages on an electric duct heater for each room. Economizer dampers allow cool outside air to be used in lieu of air conditioning when appropriate; this approach saves energy as well as air conditioning compressor wear and tear. During very warm and cold conditions, a fixed flow of fresh outside air is processed for ventilation. We recommend against using this system for the following reasons: 1. The ground mounted air handling unit will be difficult to maintain, especially in the winter and it, or the connecting ductwork, may be subject to damage from snow and ice falling off of the roof. 2. The energy efficiency of the unit for heating and cooling is at the low end of the scale; more efficient equipment is available. 3. Comfort in the building will be poor because supply air temperature is dictated by conditions in the gym. When the gym is active and warm, cool air will be supplied to other zones. The electric heat will kick on to prevent the aerobics rooms from becoming too cold. When the gym is unoccupied and cold, the unit will supply warm air, which will tend to overheat other zones. If aerobics rooms are fully active, they will be sweltering. 4. Ventilation throughout the building will be less than optimal. Since the same fraction of outside air is supplied to all zones, some zones will be regularly over ventilated. Other zones, such as the gym and aerobics, will tend to be under ventilated at full occupancy, likely resulting in odor discomfort. 5. The control system is relatively crude and does not provide advanced energy management functions along with remote web access for monitoring and troubleshooting. The primary advantage to this system is that it is relatively inexpensive to purchase and install. FA01 -07132 Snowmass Gym Addition \Reviews \Snowmass Gym summary 121207.doc Mr. Hunt Walker December 12, 2007 Page 2 Recommended Design Our recommended design consists of water source heat pump units located within the building to serve each zone of the building. Heat will be drawn from or rejected to the swimming pool. When the Gymnasium building needs to be cooled, heat is pumped out of the building and into the pool, potentially displacing heat provided by the existing boiler. When the Gymnasium building needs to be heated, heat is pumped into the building from the pool and made up by the boiler, which has adequate spare capacity, or by the existing solar system if its production exceeds other needs. When some zones require cooling at the same time that other zones require heating, heat is rejected to and drawn from the pool loop without significantly impacting pool heating. Each heat pump would be fitted with economizer dampers to allow cool outside air to be used in lieu of operating the heat pump compressor for air conditioning when appropriate. During very warm and cold conditions, the outside air dampers are controlled via a carbon dioxide sensor located in each zone to make ventilation responsive to occupancy demands. Compared to the current design, the recommended system has the following advantages: 1. The heat pumps would be located within the building for ease of maintenance. 2. The energy efficiency of this system is far superior. Energy modeling predicts annual savings of $23,700 of the $41,760 annual energy cost for the current design. This should be a conservative estimate of savings, as it does not account for displaced boiler heating of the pool or utilization of solar heat for the Gymnasium building. Increases in utility rates will increase the savings. 3. The comfort in the building will be far superior, since each heat pump unit will be operated in cooling, economizer or heating as necessary to condition its zone. 4. The ventilation and odor control within the building will be nearly optimal from the standpoint of performance versus energy efficiency. 5. The control system will be integrated with the existing Recreation Center system. The primary drawback to this system is the cost. The initial cost estimate suggests that this system will cost $178,000 more than the current design. System options are being explored that will hopefully reduce this premium to just over $100,000. The current estimated premium will be paid back through energy cost savings in 7.5 years and it is hoped that the payback period can be reduced to just over four years. FA01 -07132 Snowmass Gym Addition \Reviews \Snowmass Gym summary 121207.doc GYM BUDGET STATUS APPROVED BUDGET Hard $3,167,981 Soft $160,000 Contingency $167,204 Total $3,495,185 CURRENT PROJECTED COSTS GMP $3,135,980 Soft Costs $160,000 CO's accepted $26,061 CO's pending $100,745 Contingency $72,399 Total $3,495,185 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: December 17, 2007 SUBJECTS: TC RESOLUTION NO. 07 -32 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JIM GUSTAFSON A MEMBER OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SPEAK BEFORE TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS; AND TC RESOLUTION NO. 07 -33 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING WAIVERS AND DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN PRELIMINARY PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINOR PUD APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Pursuant to Section 16A -5 -340, Preliminary plan, Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code "Municipal Code Applicant is seeking approval of a Minor PUD Application for the redevelopment and expansion of the existing Snowmass Mountain Condominium project. Applicant: Snowmass Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. Representatives: Paul J. Taddune, Attorney Jim Kehoe, Caudill Gustafson Architects (Jim Gustafson, Caudill Gustafson Architects) Planner: Bob Nevins, Town of Snowmass Village I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Town Council shall adopt a Resolution approving or denying, any or all of the waivers and deferral requests of certain Preliminary Plan requirements for a Minor PUD Application by the Snowmass Mountain Condominiums. Applicant is requesting waivers of the following Preliminary Plan requirements: 1. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)g. Fiscal impact report; 2. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)o. Transportation impact analysis; and 3. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)p. Air quality analysis. Applicant is also seeking a deferral of the following Preliminary Plan requirement until submission of the Final Plan: a. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)f. Landscape plan. II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal seeks to upgrade the exteriors of the existing condominiums (Buildings A -L); build new office space, a deed restricted employee unit, conference area and owner storage; and construct a new two -level parking facility that would provide thirty -eight (38) additional parking spaces. To offset the redevelopment costs, the Association is requesting approval to create six (6) additional free market condominium units: four (4) new 4- bedroom units; one (1) 3- bedroom unit reconfigured from the existing office /meeting area; and conversion of the existing "manager's unit" into a 2- bedroom unit. III. BACKGROUND Snowmass Mountain Condominiums currently contains a mix of fifty -nine (59) 1, 2 and 3- bedroom units contained within twelve (12), 2 and 3 -story buildings. There are a total of sixty -two (62) on -site parking spaces: twenty -four (24) covered and thirty -eight (38) uncovered surface stalls. The project was platted in three (3) phases: Parcel A was recorded January 1974; Parcel B, April 1976; and Parcel C, April 1977. The entire site contains approximately 4.99 acres and is zoned (SPA -1) Specially Planned Area. IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The proposal is being processed as Minor PUD Application in accordance with Table 5 -3 Criteria for Classifying PUDs as Major or Minor and Division 3 Planned Unit Development of the Municipal Code. Applicable Sections of the Municipal Code that apply to this application include: 1) Section 16A -4 -50 Geologic hazard areas, steep slopes 2) Section 16A -5 -220 Amendments to the Official Zone District Map 3) Section 16A- 5- 300(c)(4)c.b. Greater buildout 4) Section 16A- 5- 300(c)(7)a. Height 5) Section 16A- 4- 310(c) Reduction of Required Parking 6) Section 16A -5 -340 Preliminary Plan 7) Section 16A- 4- 410(e)(2) Existing employee housing replacement 8) Section 16A -5- 500(4) Condominiumization and time share V. DISCUSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS Alternative A: Grant approval of all waivers and deferral requests; direct Planning Commission to begin their review of the application and to forward their recommendations by Resolution to Town Council for consideration. Alternative B: Approve certain waivers and/or deferral requests; require the Applicant provide the necessary information/studies; and either allow Planning Commission to begin their review or place the application on -hold until the required information/studies are submitted and accepted by the Planning Dept. Alternative C: Deny the waivers and deferral requests; and place the application on hold until the necessary requirements have been submitted and accepted by the Planning Department. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS Based on the scope of the redevelopment proposal, staff believes the request for waivers and deferral may be granted and the Planning Commission may be directed to initiate their review. During the Preliminary Plan review, key issues that need to be considered are: 1) a greater buildout and Community Purposes; 2) the mass and scale of the proposed new 4 -plex building, unit size /number of bedrooms; 3) a reduction of required parking; and 4) the replacement of the existing 2- bedroom 965 sf "manager's unit" with a new, deed restricted 1- bedroom 580 sf unit. VII. NEXT STEPS If Alternative A passes- authorize the Planning Department to begin the Minor PUD review process and refer the application to Planning Commission for their review in providing recommendations to Town Council. If Alternative B approved establish the required information that needs to be submitted; supplement the application; and initiate the review process or place the application on hold until the information has been submitted and accepted. If Alternative C passes -place the application on hold until all of the required information has been submitted and accepted. Attachments: Attachment 1: CGA Letter of Authorization to Represent TC Reso 07 -32: Jim Gustafson Authorization to Represent TC Reso 07 -33: Waivers and Deferral of Certain Preliminary Plan Requirements TC Mailbox: Snowmass Mountain Condominiums Minor PUD Application Binder (distributed) Supplement- December 3, 2007 December 10, 2007 Mr. Bob Nevins Senior Planner Town of Snowmass Village Re: Snowmass Mountain Condominium Renovation Dear Bob As a member of the TOSV Planning Commission, it is my understanding that I must obtain the approval of the Town Council to be allowed to present a Land -Use Application to the Town Council and the Planning Commission. As you know, Caudill Gustafson Architects has submitted a Land -Use Application to TOSV regarding the Renovation of Snowmass Mountain Condominiums. I would like to hereby respectfully request that the Town Council grant permission for me to be allowed to personally present and represent the Snowmass Condo Association's Application for the renovation of their complex. Consideration by you and the Council in this regard is appreciated, and I will be happy to respond to any questions that you or they may have, and to attend the Council Meeting when this request will be considered if appropriate. Thank you for your assistance and attention to this matter. Sincerely, CAUDILL GUSTAFSON ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.C. James A. Gustafson, NCARB President ATTACHMENT1- CGA LETTER CAUDILL GUSTAFSON AND ASSOCIATE t� .RCHITECTS, P.C. 234 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 USA TELEPHONE 970 925 3383 FAX 925 -1371 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 32 5 SERIES OF 2007 6 7 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JIM GUSTAFSON A MEMBER OF THE TOWN OF 8 SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SPEAK BEFORE TOWN COUNCIL 9 AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE 10 REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS. 11 12 WHEREAS, JIM GUSTAFSON is a member of the Town of Snowmass Village Planning 13 Commission; and therefore an official of the Town of Snowmass Village within the meaning of 14 the Town Code of Ethics; and 15 16 WHEREAS, Section 2 -97 of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code prohibits an official 17 from representing a private interest before the Town without the prior approval of the Town 18 Council by resolution; and 19 20 WHEREAS, Mr. Gustafson requested the Town Council to approve his appearance on 21 behalf of the Snowmass Mountain Condominium redevelopment project; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to approve Mr. Gustafson's request on the terms 24 and conditions hereinafter set forth. 25 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass 27 Village, as follows: 28 29 1. Approval of Appearance The Town Council hereby approves the 30 appearance of JIM GUSTAFSON before the Town for the purpose of 31 discussions regarding the Snowmass Mountain Condominium 32 redevelopment project. 33 34 INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass 35 Village, Colorado on the December 17, 2007 upon a motion made by Council Member 36 the second of Council Member and by a vote of in favor 37 and —opposed. 38 39 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 40 41 42 43 DOUGLAS MERCATORIS, Mayor 44 ATTEST: 45 46 47 Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk 48 49 50 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 51 52 53 John C. Dresser, Jr., Town Attorney 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 RESOLUTION No. 33 5 SERIES OF 2007 6 7 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING WAIVERS AND DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN 8 PRELIMINARY PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINOR PUD APPLICATION BY 9 THE SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 10 11. WHEREAS, Snowmass Mountain Condominium Association, Inc. "Applicant 12 submitted a Minor Preliminary Planned Unit Development "PUD application and 13 updated it to address Staff comments for application completeness; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the revised application was submitted October 25, 2007, the 16 Applicant has requested deferrals and a waiver of certain submission requirements 17 within the meaning of Section 16A- 5- 50(a)(1) of the Town of Snowmass Village 18 Municipal Code (Municipal Code); and 19 20 WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 50(a)(1) states, "The Town 21 Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Director, may authorize the 22 waiver and /or deferral of the requirement to submit certain application items if 23 determined that they are not necessary to commence review of the application; and 24 25 WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 16A- 5- 50(a)(1) further states, "The 26 authorization of the waiver or deferral request by the Town Council shall occur by 27 adopting a resolution at a regularly scheduled meeting and shall reserve the right for 28 the Town to require that any material initially waived or deferred may be required to 29 be submitted by the applicant at any time during the review process if needed to 30 evaluate the applicant's proposal;" and 31 32 WHEREAS, the deferrals and the waiver requests of the Applicant were 33 scheduled for consideration by the Town Council at its regular meeting on December 34 3, 2007, to receive evidence and comment from Town Staff, Applicant and to provide 35 an opportunity for comment from the public. 36 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of 38 Snowmass Village, as follows: 39 40 Section One: Submission Requirement for Waivers and Deferral The waivers 41 and deferral of certain Preliminary Plan submission requirements requested by the 42 Applicant, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, is 43 hereby conditionally approved within the meaning of Municipal Code Section 16A -5- 44 50(a)(1). 45 46 47 Section Two: Condition of Waiver and Deferrals The approval of this Resolution 48 shall be subject to satisfying the following conditions: 49 50 1. The requested waivers in Section One above and shown on the attached Exhibit 51 A are conditionally granted and the Planning Commission is hereby authorized to 52 proceed with its review of the Minor PUD Preliminary Plan application. 53 54 2. The Landscape Plan Deferral as requested and shown on the attached Exhibit A 55 shall be a deferred until the Final Plan of the Minor Planned Unit Development 56 (PUD) application is submitted. 57 58 3. Town Council reserves the right to require that any materials initially waived or 59 deferred may be required to be submitted by the applicant at any time during the 60 review process if needed to evaluate the applicant's proposal. Such 61 determination by the Town Council shall occur in accordance with the procedure 62 set forth in of Section 16A- 5- 50(a)(1) of the Municipal Code 63 64 Section Three: Severability If any provision of this Resolution or application 65 hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any 66 other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the 67 invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are 68 severable. 69 70 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of 71 Snowmass Village on December 17, 2007 upon a motion by Council member 72 the second of Council member and upon a vote of 73 in favor and against. 74 75 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 76 TOWN COUNCIL 77 78 79 Douglas Mercatoris, Mayor 80 ATTEST: 81 82 83 Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk 84 85 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 86 87 88 John C. Dresser, Jr., Town Attorney 89 90 91 92 93 TC Reso. No. 33, Series of 2007 94 Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1 95 96 97 98 Town Council approves to waiver, within the meaning as set forth in the Town of 99 Snowmass Village Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Section 16A- 5- 50(a)(1), the 100 following Minor PUD Preliminary Plan requirements: 101 102 1. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)g. Fiscal impact report; 103 2. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)o. Transportation impact analysis; and 105 3. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)p. Air quality analysis. 106 107 Town Council grants a deferral of the following Preliminary Plan requirement until 108 the submittal of the Minor PUD Final Plan application: 109 110 a. Section 16A- 5- 340(c)(2)f. Landscape plan. 111 112 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: December 17, 2007 meeting SUBJECT: DISCUSSION CLUB COMMONS II EMPLOYEE HOUSING REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CLUB COMMONS II EMPLOYEE HOUSING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) This meeting is for purpose of beginning the review of the application, also as an amendment to and expansion of Parcel 12 of the Snowmass Club PUD, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A -5 -360, Final Plan for the proposed Club Commons 11 employee housing project. The project proposes the development of 36 seasonal and long -term restricted employee housing units generally located approximately 1,200 feet south of Brush Creek Road and east of Clubhouse Drive between the existing Club Commons I complex, golf course maintenance facility and the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District (SWSD) facilities on the southern portion of Parcel 12, "The Snowmass Club P.U.D." Subdivision, and the northern portion of the unplatted Snowmass Water and Sanitation District site, involving proposed land exchanges, lot line adjustments via a Subdivision Exemption, re- zonings and re- platting of the affected parcels via a consolidated review. Applicant: Aspen Skiing Company (ASC), which is the sole member of the Snowmass Club, which also consented to the application as did the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District (SWSD), represented by: Mr. Don Schuster, Vice President Real Estate, ASC Planner: Jim Wahistrom, Senior Planner I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: a. The purpose of the meeting would be to begin reviewing the Final PUD application. b. The action requested of Council would be to provide input or direction for eventual preparation of an ordinance. 11. SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. The application proposes several application items for consideration as outlined on the first page the updated project description (See the `Development Plan' tab in the updated application notebook received November 27, 2007 for edits made since the original application submission referred September 17, 2007). Be advised that Staff continues to work with the Applicant in resolving technical matters related to the associated applications involving: a) the proposed lot line adjustments and land exchanges requiring a Subdivision 1 Exemption; b) the proposed re- zonings and legal descriptions for the various parcels; and c) the final proposed re- platting of the affected properties. These portions of the application, with the exception of the Subdivision Exemption and Final PUD, will require a public hearing before the Council involving separate resolution actions, especially since they were previously deferred during the Preliminary Plan review. Further details of these application items will be provided at a subsequent Council meeting. Council may begin review of certain core issues for the Final PUD, as that part of the application does not require a public hearing. The Final PUD also proposes variations for building heights and minimum lot size. These variations trigger a majority vote, but not a super- majority vote by the Council. Final consideration of these variations will eventually be needed once an ordinance is drafted for the affected applications at a subsequent meeting. In summary, the Club Commons II employee housing project in the Final PUD includes: Two, three -story buildings that include: 24 seasonal units with 96 bedrooms (all are four bedroom units), and 12 permanent housing units with 24 bedrooms (from 1 -3 bedrooms per unit); Height variations up to 44' -2.5" for Building A24 and 43' -5" for Building B12; A minimum lot size area of 1.97 acres or 85,813 square feet versus the required 99,000 square feet per the proposed housing project's bedroom mix; 102 surface parking spaces on proposed Lot 3 for the employee housing project; 8 additional parking spaces on the site would be used by Lot 2 (maintenance facility); Additional off -site parking on Parcel 10 for joint usage by proposed Lots 1 and 2 via an easement and per the PUD Guides; Two new unheated storage buildings on proposed Lot 2; Illustrated access and structural orientation changes on the abutting SWSD site (Note: A proposed expansion of the SWSD plant will require a separate land use application for consideration by the Town). III. BACKGROUND Why and how did protect inception process start The proposed project was envisioned by the Applicant for the purpose of mitigating 38,143 square feet of the employee housing requirement for the initial phases of the Base Village project. The project initially began as a Sketch Plan application in September 2003, was subsequently placed on hold to complete the review of the Base Village application, and then modified to a four -story proposal, which was earlier accepted. On January 17, 2006, Council granted the Applicant permission via Resolution No. 5, Series of 2006, to proceed to a Preliminary Plan application with the four -story concept in mind. On September 21, 2006, and updated as complete on October 25, 2006, the Applicant initially submitted a Preliminary Plan application for the Club Commons II employee housing project. On December 4, 2006, a joint meeting of the Town Council and Planning Commission was held, as required by Code, to hear the presentation of the Preliminary Plan application by the Applicant. On February 7, 2007, Planning Commission passed Resolution No. 2, Series of 2007, providing their recommendations to Council on a proposed four -story employee housing project. 2 The four -story project was initially presented to Council on March 5 and 19, 2007, but at the March 19 meeting, the Applicant requested continuance of the public hearing to April 16, 2007, when at that time, the application was revised again to revert back to a three -story proposal. On May 21, 2007, Council accepted the Preliminary Plan application as modified via Resolution No. 16, Series of 2007 (Resolution 16) and granted the Applicant permission to proceed to preparing a submission for a Final PUD application. The re- zoning and re- platting information for the proposal was deferred to the Final PUD stage. How the Final PUD application process started The Final PUD application was submitted by the Applicant on August 3, 2007, but it was deemed incomplete pursuant to the staff review comments dated August 13, 2007. The Final PUD application was subsequently re- submitted as completed on September 7, 2007. The initial application was referred to affected Town Council, Planning Commission and Town Departments on September 17, 2007. Initial review comments from Town Staff were forwarded to the Applicant on October 15, 2007. The Applicant submitted a supplemental update of the Final PUD application on November 27, 2007, subject to updating certain aspects of the re- zoning and re- platting information. Action or Direction From Council To Date See the revised Applicant responses to the Council conditions of Resolution 16 in the updated Final PUD application supplement received November 27, 2007 (first 'Development Plan' tab). IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Municipal Code review criteria, which regulate the review and approval of Final Plan applications, include the General Restrictions outlined in Section 16A- 5- 300(c), and the Review Standards listed in 16A -5 -310, which also includes reference to Article IV, Development Evaluation Standards of the Land Use and Development Code. These criteria were also used to evaluate the previous Preliminary Plan application. The Town Council did not direct in Resolution 16 that the Final Plan undertake a review by the Planning Commission. However, since the re- zoning and re- platting information was deferred to Final Plan review stage, the Planning Commission reviewed those portions of the Final PUD application at their meeting on October 3, 2007. Staff will forward the Planning Commission recommendations on the re- zonings and re- platting, once these items are ready for public hearing notification. V. DISCUSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS TOGETHER WITH SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Again, please reference the edited Applicant responses to the Council conditions of Resolution 16 in the updated Final PUD application supplement received November 27, 2007 (first `Development Plan' tab). 3 In summary, Staff believes the following core issues might deserve further discussion and evaluation prior to the drafting of an ordinance: Mitigation Floor area: The Applicant was required to mitigate 38,143 square feet of employee housing at the Club Commons II site per the Base Village Restricted Housing Agreement. The square footage for the qualifying floor area determined at Preliminary Plan stage changed in the Final PUD application as follows: Category Preliminary Plan Final Plan Change Dwelling units 34,104 SF 36,468 SF 2,364 SF Porch areas 1 S level 1,053 SF 966 SF 87 SF Deck area (upper two levels 2,106 SF 2,208 SF +102 SF Locker storage (Building A 622 SF 644 SF 22 SF Storage closets off decks 168 SF 336 SF" 168 SF Building B Total mitigation floor area 38,053 SF 40,622 SF +2,56 SF Two storage closets in lieu of one are now proposed on each deck /patio for Building B12 Staff Comments Recommendations Staff now questions why discussions occurred during the Preliminary Plan review stage to include the upper deck areas as qualifying mitigation floor area. It appears that the Applicant could have narrowed the hallways and enlarged the units slightly at the Preliminary Plan stage to achieve the mitigation requirement of 38,143 square feet. Staff previously understood during the Preliminary Plan stage that the Applicant was struggling to achieve the mitigation requirement at the time when the upper deck areas were allowed as mitigation square footage. As a result of the changes to the floor plans with the Final PUD application, the Applicant now seeks a 2,479 square foot credit. The Applicant has not achieved vesting of the previous qualifying mitigation square footage, only permission to proceed to a Final PUD application. Therefore, assuming that the Applicant has applied in good faith, Council may wish to re -open the discussion as to what qualifies as mitigation square footage as a result of the latest Applicant changes to the floor plans, which may still be of benefit due to the slight enlargement of the units. Building height variations: Due the grading changes and the proposed re- zoning with the Final PUD application, the Applicant has provided, at the request of Staff, a height study /analysis of the height variations from proposed finished grades that appear to be the worse case scenario since the grades and buildings for the most part are being cut into the existing topography. This time the analysis was based on the worse case 38 -foot height limit, per the proposed `Multi Family' zone district, for the larger A24 building versus 41 feet per the existing Parcel 12 standards during the Preliminary Plan review. One -half of the smaller B12 building is situated on Parcel 12, which has a height limit of 41 feet. The studies reveal that the majority of each structure would be able to meet the underlying or proposed height limits. The revised PUD Guides now indicate the specific height variation request for each building. See the `Architectural Plans' tab in the supplemental notebook received November 27, 2007. During the Preliminary Plan acceptance, the Applicant offered as a Community Purpose for the height variance the following (Exhibit `C' of Resolution 16 see Attachment 2): 4 1. "Provision of Private Shuttle to and from Club Commons II and Base Village. This is an expansion of service to Black Saddle and Club Commons I. The shuttle will operate during peak a.m. and p.m. during ski season." 2. "Additional pedestrian pathways to Brush Creek Road." Staff Comments Recommendations 1. Council should confirm with the Applicant that they are still planning to expand (emphasis added) the existing bus service to accommodate the increased transit demands from the Club Commons II residents. 2. Council would need to ratify the height variations by simple- majority vote with a subsequent Final PUD ordinance. They were similarly accepted during the Preliminary Plan review, albeit assuming a different height standard. 3. As of the writing of this report, the Applicant provided material and color boards of the buildings' exterior finishes, which will be brought to the Council meeting for review. This could be reviewed at a subsequent meeting, but it may be of benefit for Council to review in conjunction with consideration of the proposed height variations. (Note: the new maintenance storage buildings are proposed to match the exterior finishes on the existing buildings on proposed Lot 2 for the maintenance facility). Minimum lot size variation: Since the re- zoning and re- subdivision platting information was deferred during the Preliminary Plan review, the required lot size could not be determined. The currently proposed Lot 3 with a 'Multi Family' zone district, together with the proposal for 36 units and bedroom mix, require a lot size of 99,000 square feet, but the proposed plat depicts a lot size of 1.97 acres or 85,813 square feet. Staff Comments Recommendations The general purpose of a minimum lot size requirement in the zone district is to ensure adequate light, air and open space. The plans exceed the 25% open space requirement for intended Lot 3. Recommendations: 1. The lot size variation does not necessarily achieve the proposed community purpose for the provision of the extended bus service to Club Commons 11, but such bus service directly benefits the residents on the lot. However, the existing bus service was provided as a result of Condition No. 7 in Resolution No. 35, Series of 1999, with the Snowmass Club Phase I proposal. In addition, the expanded (emphasis added) bus service was provided as a community purpose and commitment for the height variations during the Club Commons II Preliminary Plan review (see Attachment 2 Exhibit `C' from Resolution 16). 2. The Applicant should propose a different community purpose for the lot size variation since such request was not available during the Preliminary Plan review because of the deferral of the re- zoning and re- platting information. Parking: The Applicant verified the parking required and parking provisions for each lot by providing revised PUD Guides and a color -coded drawing exhibit showing the allocation of parking among the usages on proposed Lots 1 through 3. See the `Proposed PUD Guide' tab, and the colored -coded parking allocation drawing toward the back of the `Civil Plan' tab in the supplemental notebook received November 27, 2007. Staff Comments Recommendations 1. Staff recommends that the color -coded drawing for the allocation of parking be provided as an exhibit to either the PUD Guides or the Parking Management Plan. 2. A draft parking easement would eventually need to be submitted for Staff review. 5 3. Since there are now only 102 spaces allocated for the employee housing project (e.g., 1.25 spaces for each of the 24 permanent housing bedrooms and 0.75 space for each of the 96 seasonal housing bedrooms) to match the anticipated demand, the eight (8) parking spaces on the east side of the project site, now proposed to be allocated for usage by the maintenance facility on proposed Lot 2, should be able to be used by guests or visitors of the Club Commons II residences during the evening hours. Off -Site Pedestrian Connections to Brush Creek Road: The supplemental notebook received November 27, 2007 now incorporates the proposed off -site pedestrian connections to Brush Creek Road (see the `Exhibits' tab). The Applicant proposes attached sidewalk connections in lieu of detached sidewalks with a landscaped parkway. Staff Comments Recommendations 1. If such off -site walkways are to be installed, they should be included in the civil plans, as they are referenced as a required installation item in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA). 2. The Applicant should maintain the sidewalks including snow removal in conjunction with the maintenance for Clubhouse Drive. This responsibility could be incorporated in a separate development agreement along with the provisions regarding the bus turnaround installation and maintenance together with the previous Applicant commitment for expanded bus service. Private Shuttle Service: According to Condition No. 9 in Resolution 16 it states, "Pursuant to attached Exhibit "B" (of the resolution) the Applicant shall continue to operate and run in perpetuity the current private shuttle service from the Black Saddle parking lot as required by the Snowmass Club Phase I and the Base Village approvals (e.g., the Base Village Parking Management Plan dated June 30, 2004) and will add service to the Club Commons II during peak ski season usage periods to accommodate the added transit dependent demands of the residents in Club Commons II." The amended parking management plan in the application similarly states as such in the application materials but the language makes reference to combining the transit service with the existing service for Club Commons I versus expanding the service as needed to meet the transit demands of the Club Commons II residents. Staff Comments Recommendations Council should be comfortable with the added language in the parking management plan. Council may request that the language in the parking management plan be made more consistent with the previous Applicant commitment for addition bus service during the Preliminary Plan stage and add such commitments in a development agreement. (See Attachments 1 and 2). Bus Turnaround (Subdivision Improvements Agreement versus a Development Agreement): Council previously agreed to defer construction of the bus turnaround area for up to 10 years. According to Condition No. 10 in Resolution 16 (Preliminary Plan), "the bus turnaround as described or illustrated in attached Exhibits 'A" "B" and "C" (of Resolution 16) does not need to be constructed unless and until such time the Town Council desires to create a public shuttle route, including along Clubhouse Drive, that may also serve other areas in the vicinity other than the Snowmass Club or Club Commons, at the Applicant's expense. The terms of this condition shall be binding on the Applicant, their affiliates, successors and assigns, and shall survive for a period of 10 years from the date of final approval of this project by the Town." 6 Staff Comments Recommendations 1. Staff recommends that the Council may wish to re- consider this condition as it may be of benefit to design and construct the transit facility at this time to better serve the residents on the Snowmass Club site, especially if the Applicant does not now wish to expand the transit service to meet the increased transit demands. There are other examples in the Town where private developments have their own on -site transit stop or facility. (Note: Reference the conceptual bus turnaround layout toward the back of the 'Civil Plan' tab in the supplemental notebook received November 27, 2007. In addition, refer to the Transportation Department comments dated October 12, 2007 together with the Applicant's response). 2. A separate development agreement, rather than the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, should address, a) the expanded bus service commitment, and b) the final design and construction of the bus turnaround if intended to be built in the future including maintenance thereof. 3. Staff recommends that the Town not be solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the turnaround facility, considering that it primarily serves residents that are employed by the Applicant. The last page behind the `Subdivision Improvement' tab in the supplemental notebook dated November 27, 2007, states the language proposed by the Applicant for the development agreement. The language now indicates that the owner of Club Commons II (versus the Town) shall be solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the bus turnaround facilities. 4. The Applicant made other minor changes in the documents that seem acceptable pursuant to the previous Staff review comments. Employee Housing Restrictive Covenant Ownership or Dedication Issue: The Applicant made a few changes in the covenant to clarify that the associated parking is connected to the project. Also, the ownership interest issue for the project may be one of the most important matters to address in this application review. Staff Comments Recommendations An option for the Applicant to guarantee that this site remains for employee housing usage in the long term would be to dedicate proposed Lot 3 to the Town with the continued obligation that the Applicant construct the employee housing. Staff understands that this concept was never before discussed, and the Applicant believes it would actually reduces property taxes to the Town and would also help their argument that they should also dedicate Clubhouse drive to the Town, since it would now serve a Town owned parcel. However, Staff recommends that the Town be allowed some form of ownership right for the employee housing project, and Council may wish to discuss with the Applicant a similar provision to ensure that the site remains long term for the purpose of housing employees in the future. For example, the proposed re -plat could convey intended Lot 3 for the Club Commons II project to the Town and perhaps it could serve as a community purpose item for one of the variations, such as the minimum lot size variation. Recreational Use Agreement Amendment: Toward the back of the `Zoning and Subdivision' tab in the original application notebook, completed and received as of September 7, 2007, the Applicant has proposed a language change to the Nordic Crossing provisions in the Snowmass Club's Recreational Use Agreement. The previous agreement is also provided in the original application notebook. Staff Comments Recommendations The revised language makes reference to the use of a rubberized crossing on Clubhouse Drive to be paid and maintained by the Town or the 7 Nordic Council. It appears that the guests and residences of the Snowmass Club or their abutting neighbors could utilize or market the amenity, and Council may wish to consider whether or not the Town should be responsible for the cost and maintenance of the crossing. Relationship of and transition of area between Club Commons II and SWSD site: Concerning the new fire access and the proposed future addition area for the SWSD facilities that were shown in the original Final PUD application and drawings, Staff recommended further detailed plans in addition to the cross- section drawings to better illustrate what is being proposed in the area west of proposed Building A24 in particular. Staff recommended that the Applicant provide photos of the current existing conditions along with before and after view simulations of the area as viewed from Highline Road that would illustrate the interim SWSD building elevation appearance, landscape buffering and the potential future addition. An enhanced landscape plan of the proposed buffering in the area was also recommended. The Applicant proposed the same retaining wall design as what was proposed at Sinclair Meadows (e.g., varied, integrally colored split -face block along the site's perimeter) along with low -rise boulder walls within the interior landscaped spaces. With the supplemental updated of the application submitted November 27, 2007, the Applicant responded stating: "The proposed changes to the SWSD plant are not part of this application and will be addressed separately by SWSD. The work completed this fall was part of the pond reconfiguration, and SWSD staff will be available to review their intent with Council during the Council review of the application." Staff Comments Recommendations 1. If the SWSD proposed changes are now not to be reviewed in conjunction with the Club Commons II plans then perhaps the Club Commons II Final PUD should not be acted upon until the SWSD submits their land -use application proposing their changes. The changes to both adjacent sites are inter dependent upon each other, considering the proposed land exchanges, re- zonings and re- platting involving both sites. 2. As an option to the above, Staff understands that the SWSD would prefer to have their site zoned "Public" (PUB) first in order to utilize the `Special Review' provision under that zone district for applying later for changes to their 'public utility use, services and facilities' pursuant to Table 3 -1, Schedule of Uses, in the Municipal Code. 3. If 'the second recommendation above is preferred, then a Certificate of Occupancy for the employee housing buildings should not be issued until the access /emergency lane behind the SWSD site is constructed. Staff understood that this is a requirement of the Fire District. 4. Council may wish to define whether additional landscape buffering might be desired, especially in between the various usages and the proposed lots that might be visible from surrounding areas. 5. Council might wish to request that the Applicant provide an outdoor recreation space for the residences of Club Commons II (e.g., picnic tables, benches, play space, etc.). PUD Guides: Town Staff had several review comments concerning the proposed PUD Guides for the intended new lots for Club Commons I, the maintenance facility and the proposed Club Commons II project. The Applicant has revised the PUD Guides pursuant to the information behind the `Proposed PUD Guide' tab in the supplemental notebook received November 27, 2007. 8 Staff Comments Recommendations For proposed Lot 3, planned to house the Club Commons II housing, the project would meet the 0.75:1 maximum F.A.R., but would not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the proposed re -plat area due to the number of bedrooms envisioned for the project as previously explained in this report. The updated PUD Guides also note the allocation of parking spaces for usage by the affected, proposed lots. These PUD Guides should be included as exhibits in the final ordinance. Re- zonings: At the request of Staff, the Applicant provided a map, similar to how the land exchange map was prepared, showing the proposed zone districts for the intended lot arrangements. Staff is working with the Applicant to finalize outstanding technical comments regarding the re- zonings, in particular the update or provision of metes and bounds legal descriptions for the affected re- zoning parcels and for the preparation of the subsequent hearing notice and exhibits for an ordinance. Staff Comments Recommendations Once the re- zoning information is in order, a public hearing for the proposal could be scheduled for a subsequent Council meeting. It appears that the proposed `Multi Family' zone district may be the most appropriate category for the proposed employee housing project. Subdivision Exemption: The proposed land exchanges were previously envisioned as being part of the proposed subdivision re- platting process when the Final PUD application was first submitted. However, during the review of the re -plat for the properties, there was a small portion of the adjoining Parcel 10 boundary next to the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District site that was proposed for relocation as part of the land exchanges between the property owners. Therefore, the Applicant was required to either re -plat Parcel 10 or to first propose a lot line adjustment via a Subdivision Exemption prior to completing a final re- subdivision plat for the properties. The Applicant also had the option of incorporating the off -site parking area in Parcel 10, north of Club Commons I and proposed Lot 1, as part of the Subdivision Exemption application option. Staff Comments Recommendations Staff continues to work with the Applicant to finalize details concerning the subdivision exemption for the lot line adjustments. Once it is in order, the proposal could be scheduled for a subsequent Council meeting. The Subdivision Exemption for the proposed lot line adjustments does not require a public hearing. Re- platting: As of the writing of this report, the Applicant has not yet re- submitted a revised re- subdivision plat in response to the previous staff review comments. The related lot line adjustments, as described above, together with the re -plat are proposed for consolidated review, although action on the subdivision exemption for the lot line adjustments would need to be reviewed and acted upon first. Staff Comments Recommendations Staff continues to work with the Applicant to finalize details concerning the re- platting information, including the metes and bounds legal descriptions for the land exchange areas. Once these items are in order, a public hearing for the re -plat could be scheduled for a subsequent Council meeting. VI. OTHER HEADINGS RELATED TO THE TOPICS Attachments 1. Exhibit "B" from Town Council Resolution No. 16, Series of 2007 (Preliminary Plan); 2. Exhibit "C" from Town Council Resolution No. 16, Series of 2007 (Preliminary Plan); 9 3. Review comments from other Town Department or referral agencies: a) Transportation comments of October 12, 2007 together with Applicant responses. b) Town Engineer comments dated October 12, 2007. c) Town's Environmental Consultant comments dated October 21, 2007. Separate Handouts Reference the updated Final PUD supplemental notebook that was received November 27, 2007. The updated application notebook was submitted by the Applicant primarily in response to Town Staff and referral agency review comments. Previous Handout Reference as needed the original Final PUD application that was referred to Council and Staff on September 17, 2007. VII. NEXT STEPS Next Steps include: Schedule item to another meeting to finish the review of the core issues involving the Final PUD application, if needed; If determined ready to proceed, direct Staff to schedule a date for a meeting or public hearing to consider and take action on the accompanying Subdivision Exemption for the proposed land exchanges and lot line adjustments, the re- zonings and the re- subdivision plat for the properties and affected parcels. The re- zonings will eventually need to be reviewed and processed with the ordinance for the Final PUD with its variations. Two resolutions for the Subdivision Exemption and the final re -plat, in respective order, would subsequently need to be considered and acted upon. 10 ATTACHMENT 1 TC Report 12 -17 -07 (2 Pages) Exhibit "B" from Town Council Resolution No..16, Series of 2007 (Preliminary Plan) SN{tWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BU117EIRMILK A S P E N S N O W M A S Ste. ASPEN SKIING COMPANY EXHIBIT "B TC Reso 07.16 Page 1 of 1 May 2, 2007 Jim Wahlstrom Town of Snowmass Village PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear Jim, Based on recent discussions with Russ Forrest and David Peckler in reference to funding a new transit route that would serve the Rec Center, Rodeo Housing, Club Commons, Black Saddle and Melton Ranch it was determined that our best course of action at this time will be to continue the private shuttles provided by ASC. We commit to continue to run those shuttles as required by the Snowmass Club Phase 1 and Base Village approvals and will add service to Club Commons II. If the Town decides at some time in the future to establish a new route to serve the Town related entities mentioned above, we will entertain discussions to fund a portion of that expense in return for relief from the private shuttle obligations. Since no shuttle service to Club Commons II is contemplated by the town at this time, the applicant wishes to remove the proposed bus turnaround from Council's consideration in the review of this application. We will continue to provide the additional sidewalks, as suggested by the planning commission to provide better access to transit for those employees walking to the RFTA and TOSV stops at the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Clubhouse Drive. In reference to parking we commit to a Parking Management Plan that will allow permit only parking with preference provided first to the residents of the B12 Building designed for year round residents at a ratio of 1.25 spaces per bedroom. No permits will be provided to residents of the seasonal housing if the number of permits requested exceeds the parking ratios proposed in this application. Additionally, the applicant is comfortable with the town prohibiting residents of Club Commons II from obtaining a Town permit to the numbered lots. The Town Council may want to discuss whether the residents of the year round housing should be eligible for TOSV permits for the numbered lots. We look forward to our meeting on May 7 th Sincerely, Don Schuster QO, Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 -1248 970.9251220 ®Pda'd on Be ed Papa. www.aspensnewmass. cam ATTACHMENT 2 TC Report 12 -17 -07 (2 Pages) Exhibit "C" from Town Council Resolution No. 16, Series of 2007 (Preliminary Plan) SNOWMAS5 ASPEN IN0UNRIN ASPEN "164lUMV BUTtERMICK ASPEN S N 0 W M AS S- ASPEN SKIING COMPANY EXHIBIT "C TC Reso 07 -16 page 1 of 4 May 14, 2007 Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Town of Snowmass Village PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Club Commons II Dear Jim: The proposed community purposes for height variations include: 1. Provision of Private Shuttle to and from Club Commons II and Base Village. This is expansion of service to Black Saddle and Club Commons I. The shuttle will operate during peals a.m. and p.m. hours during ski season. 2. Additional pedestrian pathways to Brush Creek Road as shown on attached .drawings. Sincerely, TV Of Don Schuster Vice President -Real Estate P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612.1248 870.825.1220 �teo m www.aspeasuawmass.eom ATTACHMENT 3 TC Report 12 -17 -07 (7 Pages) Review comments from other Town Departments or referral agencies: Transportation comments of October 12, 2007 together with Applicant responses. Town Engineer comments dated October 12, 2007. Town's Environmental Consultant comments dated October 21, 2007. t MEMO To: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner From: David Peckler, Transportation Director Date: October 12, 2007 Re: Club Commons Final PUD In oen d zinc final, Th ese arn ur 4 ner+ks ere ��L,�JY} made Burin tl7e relirr�ir�a blare re ieti ante town ceur7dil made its tindin any! conditions eased or l 1' t deleitaerat ar fe have already rii cussi 3 c ur feQiirres r 'this is u ith lho tovm man atter. As noted in their letter dated May 2, 2007 under Resolution 16 of 2007 "Reso 16'), Exhibit B, we. were not able to reach agreement on an appropriate level of funding to create municipal transit service to these areas. The applicant does "...commit to continue to run those shuttles as required by the Snowmass Club Phase I and Base Village approvals and will add service to Club Commons IL" Council included in Reso 16, Section Three, Item 9) the requirement to "...add service to the Club Commons it during peak ski- season usage periods to accommodate the added transit dependent demands of the residents in Club Commons U." It appears that there is consensus that transit service for the Black Saddle, Club Commons Phase I and Club Commons Phase II is at least desirable, if not necessary. I would ask that the Council review the following issues before final approval I. Construct the bus turnaround when you build Club Commons Phase 11: With development of Club Commons II the demand for transit service in this area will be fueled by: 120 parking spaces in Black Saddle for employees of the Aspen Skiing Company "ASC 154 bedrooms in Club Commons Phase I, and the proposed 120 bedrooms in Club Commons Phase II. If on a given day two- thirds of the potential demand (one person per car or bedroom) requires transit service to get to work, the daily demand for transportation will be roughly 260 employees. The two phases of Club Commons will generate roughly 180 employee one -way trips on a daily basis. Given these levels of transit demand, I believe the bus turnaround should be developed in conjunction with the Phase 11 development regardless of whether the service is provided by the public or private sector. For this reason I recommend revisiting Reso 16, Section Three, Item 10) that states 'The bus turnaround as described does not need to be constructed unless and until such time the Town Council desires to create a public shuttle route." If we believe that the transit service is necessary, then the infrastructure (bus turnaround) should be developed to make the service work effectively. 11. Clarification on transit facility design and intent of language: In the Subdivision Improvements Agreement for Club Commons 11, Snowmass Club P.U.D., Agreement #5 Construction of Bus Turnaround it states "If at any time within ten years after the date of execution of this agreement, the Town elects to commence and operate a Town bus route on Clubhouse Drive, SCA will at the written request of the Town, construct a bus turn around area on Fairway Drive adjacent to the Club Commons I buildings, near the tees for the first hole of the Snowmass Club golf course." I again suggest that the bus turnaround is justified by the demand generated by the Club Commons development. Also, it is not clear to Page 1 me what the intent is of the statement: "SCA shall construct said bus turn around in such configuration as may be subsequently agreed upon by SCA and the Town in their respective exercises of reasonable discretion." At issue here are probably the screening of the bus turn around from the tee box of the first hole of the golf course, and the cost of the bus turnaround facility. These two issues may be incompatible. I believe that reaching agreement now on a design will prevent the possible inability to reach resolution on a design in the future. I also feel that there is a benefit to reaching conclusion on the design and constructing the bus turn around now to allow the landscaping to mature while bus service is only being provided in the winter by the applicant. III. Is repair and maintenance of the bus turnaround by default the responsibility of the Town? I do not believe that it is prudent for the Town to accept being "solely responsible for the repair and maintenance of the bus turnaround facilitiesP as stated in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement for Club Commons II, Snowmass Club P.U.D., Agreement #5. Bus facilities in Base Village, Snowmass Center, and elsewhere exist on private property for the primary benefit of the property owner, and are maintained by that property owner. The property owners are free to maintain their facilities in a manner that they determine as acceptable. Given the relationship of the proposed bus turnaround to the first hole of the golf course, I would suggest that there is a significant benefit to the property owner to maintain control of the maintenance and care of the bus turnaround. They will be able to determine its compatible with their expectations for a facility close to the first tee box. This m intenance res ns 0 ibility verbia has been changed in the S r"efiecrin tF e r t r sibrlrt y ill be that sf floe t e ratsa' t f CG IiCG II, Sic IV. Is the bus service to Club Commons and the bus turnaround true Community Purpose, and if so, what is to be considered reasonable? In the f=inal Development Plan, Council is asked to accept as Community Purpose the statement that `The Applicant shall continue to operate and run in perpetuity the current private shuttle service from the Black Saddle parking lot as required by the Snowmass Club Phase I and the Base Village approvals and will add service to the Club Commons II during peak ski seasons periods to accommodate the added transit dependent demands of the residents in Club Commons Il." The services to the Club Commons and the parking area are made necessary by the nature of the Club Commons development accommodating transit dependent residents, housing mitigation, and park and ride services as a requirement of previous land use and/or development proposal(s). At present, I have found nothing that defines the scope of the bus service. This is important because in Reso 15, Exhibit B. the applicant states that "if the Town decides at some time in the future to establish a new route to serve the Town related amenities above (Rec. Center, Rodeo Housing, Club Commons, Black Saddle, and Melton Ranch), we will entertain discussions to fund a portion of that expense in return for relief from the private shuttle obligations. Some definition of what acceptable service hours and frequency are would be helpful to frame the expectation. The follcin [angtrsc� is inoo oorated jr the S MQ Phase I ooroV4 a s a condition and el it f, a "pr pr %te to control the ge ed hours of 60eratio��: xcEir fr from Re" o]Ot on 3 5 Seri °s of tggg P t�tar� Ar�orovar for I�fsase I of the Sr�c�wsr� ass Ck ib. Condifon Thge jam i n shalt trah the"empk��ree housing sit t +the work "1 rnin and afitern er week dur`in the w nter ski s Peak train and attnrr►n rlerraard tlrr�e, n:, sedules sre ^ub_of "et tc� I nua� aooro ofi this TCSV I�ublie V� /c�rl�� C�Ireetc�r. In the sum,7aer tierc�� Page 2 f sea mol resgee'e rts. Page 3 SCH:MUI =SER GORDON I MEYER GLENWOOD SPRINGS ASPEN CRESTED BUTTE 9 N G I N E E R S S S U R V.E Y O R S 11 8 w. 6TH, surrE 200 P.C. Box 2 155 P.O. Box 3088 GLEhN'OCO SPRINGS, CO B 160 I. ASPEN, CO 81612 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 8 1 224 970 970-925 5727 970 5355 Fx: 970- 945 Fx: 970 Fx: 970- 349 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 2007 TO: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior PI n j mmwahlstrom@tosv.com FROM: Dean Gordon, Town Engine r RE: Club Commons Phase 11 Final Plat Submission The final engineering drawings for the above referenced project dated July 16, 2007 have been reviewed with the following comments: 1. Sheet C2.OA Identify rim and invert elevation for the two (2) catch basins /inlets located on either side of the building with a proposed finish grade of 7926.00. Identify what these structures will be and provide a detail. Provide length, size, pipe material and slope of the two (2) storm drain segments leaving the above mentioned structures. 2. Sheet C2.1 The relocated storm drain in the north east corner of the most northerly parking lot extension does not have an invert shown. I could not find where a relocated storm drain from this structure was identified. Please clarify. 3. Sheet C.2.2 There is an apparent trail extension provided at the south east corner of the project. No information is provided with respect to this trail, including width, material type, horizontal or vertical geometry, etc. There is a down hill retaining wall along this trail. It has an apparent maximum height of 5'. 1 did not see any pedestrian rail protection provided. There is a fence and /or guardrail shown along the wall system on the south west corner of the parking lot area. The wall height in this area appears to be up to 5.5' in height. I assume the proposed facility has a guardrail. Please verify. 4. Sheet C3.0 The MSE retaining wall detail does not show either a guardrail, pedestrian railing or fence as part of the standard detail. Note that the site plan does not appear to allow $CHMUESER GORDON I MEYER ENOIN EERS S. SURVEYORS Page Two Jim Wahlstrom October 12`, 2007 adequate clearance between the guardrail and the back of the MSE wall near the parking lot. 5. Construction Specifications None were received. These need to be made part of the record for the submittal to be complete. DWG als/91004E -16 IM 9911910041E1Phase 16 Club Commons Phase IRM20071012 to Wahlstrom.doc DUNLOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Environmental and Public Health Planning for the Future September 21, 2007 Thomas S. Dunlop CEIVE President Town of Snowmass Village Jim Wahlstrom, Sr. Planner SEP 2 4 2007 0016 Kearns Rd PO Box 5010 vi,uvsrrnaso village Snowmass Village, CO Community Devoloprnent 81615 Re: Club Commons 11 Employee Housing Final PUD Application Dear Mr. Wahlstrom: The above mentioned PUD application for Club Commons it has been reviewed by .Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. at your request. The focus of this review is to determine compliance by the applicant with conditions of approval by Town of Snowmass Village Council found in Resolution No. 16, Series of 2007. The applicant responses to conditions in Section 3 of Resolution 16 in this application are found behind the Development Plan tab. Under "Final Development Plan Response to Preliminary Plan Conditions," the applicant has agreed to: Subsectionl3) Supply a fugitive dust control plan for the project even if it is not required by the State of Colorado. A dust control plan is contained in this application under the Construction Management tab. Specific control strategies are listed and are acceptable using current guidance standards from the State of Colorado. Use of chemical dust suppressants are not mentioned, but are available as an approved option. However, prior to use of chemical dust suppressants material safety data sheets (MSDS) should be provided to the Town. Subsection 14) .Provide fuel spill containment and response details as part of the construction planning documents. Subsection 15) Comply with the State of Colorado and local standards for storage and dispensing of fuel from fuel farms associated with this project. Subsection 16) Provide a storm water management plan and erosion control plan for review by the Town Engineer, and the State of Colorado if necessary, prior to commencement of construction. This concludes findings of this review. Please contact me should you have further questions or comments. Sincerely, Dunlo REHS Thomas S. p, Post Office Box 6289 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 USA Office and Fax (970) 923 -4820 k 0 printed on recycled paper MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Joe Coffey, Housing Manager DATE: December 17, 2007 SUBJECT: Housing Guidelines Discussion I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: At the 2008 Budget discussion in September of 2007, Council asked to discuss the following items; housing guideline discussion, begin design plans for the Draw employee housing and review housing mitigation requirement for development. In January staff will present proposals for the Draw Site employee housing and a proposal for a housing survey to assist us with the mitigation requirements. At this meeting staff will begin discussion on the housing guidelines. The guideline for discussion at this meeting is should we continue allowing Aspen or Pitkin County employees to reside in the Snowmass Village Housing Apartments. Council may direct the Housing Manager to change the regulation or leave the regulation as it stands. II. Summary of Housing Rental Regulation One council member questioned; how many of our units are occupied with Aspen or Pitkin County employees? Today we have 247 rental units containing 344 bedrooms and of that number I believe there are approximately 48 tenants living in our housing units who work in Aspen. or Pitkin County. This equals approximately 14% of our rental housing bedroom inventory. Some of these tenants are roommates with Snowmass Village employees. The current rental regulations require that an applicant be a full time (1400 hours) Snowmass Village employee when accepting an apartment. We do not ask tenants to move out if they change jobs and begin working in Aspen or Pitkin County. They may not work in Eagle or Garfield Counties. We will not transfer anyone to another apartment if they are not a full time Snowmass Village employee. Many tenants over the years have moved to Aspen to be closer to their work. This rental regulation has been in place since 1980. Pitkin County employees are currently our second priority for rental units and we did rent three apartments to Pitkin County employees four years ago (2003) when 12 -17 -07 Housing Discussion Page 2 of 2 we did not have Snowmass Village employees to rent these apartments. Each year a few employees change jobs and some tenants work in both Snowmass Village and Aspen. I have seen many tenants switch employment and then return to Snowmass Village when full time employment is available for them. If the Council has specific Guidelines they wish to review please let me know today and I will schedule work session time in a future meeting to discuss the guidelines. Please note the current Housing Guidelines were adopted in January 2003 after many hours of Council discussion and review. MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: David Peckler Transportation Director DATE: December 17, 2007 SUBJECT: Resolution #30 Series of 2007 EOTC 2008 Sales and Use Tax Budget I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council's approval of Resolution 30, Series of 2007 to appropriate funds for the projects in the 2008 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) budget for the Pitkin County' /2 Cent Sales and Use Tax. II. BACKGROUND Attached is the EOTC budget for 2008. The major projects included in the budget are: 1. Transportation associated with X -Games for $50,000; and 2. Completion of the Brush Creek parking expansion, a carryover of $772,198; and 3. Snowmass Village transit improvements, a carryover of $300,000; and 4. RFTA contribution of $3,516,326; and 5. Construction of bus lanes along the Highway 82 corridor from Buttermilk to the Roundabout, a carryover of $8,000,000 The budget items were discussed and approved at the EOTC meetings on November 15, 2007. Total Revenues are projected to be $5,391,000, and expenditures are projected to be $3,707,362. The Annual Surplus would be $1,683,638, and the Cumulative Surplus would be $6,800,160. III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The approval by all three jurisdictions that comprise the EOTC is necessary for appropriation of the Pitkin County' /2 Cent Sales and Use Tax. IV. DISCUSION ITEMS NEXT STEPS NA V. NEXT STEPS MAJOR MILESTONES NA VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Staff requests that this resolution be tabled to the January 22n meeting to facilitate additional time to resolve the free bus proposal between Aspen and Snowmass. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 30 SERIES OF 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, APPROVING THE 2008 EOTC BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX WHEREAS, the Town Council of Snowmass Village, the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (the "Parties have previously identified general elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan which are eligible for funding from the Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax; and WHEREAS, by intergovernmental agreement dated September 14, 1993, the Parties agreed: a. To conduct regular public meetings to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complimentary to the Plan; and b. That all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County -wide one -half cent transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced by a resolution adopted by the governing body of each party; and WHEREAS, at a public meeting held on November 15, 2007, the Aspen City Council. Pitkin County Board and Snowmass Village Council considered and approved the attached budget for the year 2008 for the Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax; and WHEREAS the Town of Snowmass Village Council desires to approve the 2008 budget for the use of the Pitkin County one -half cent sales and use tax by adoption of this resolution: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, That the attached initial Pitkin County one -half cent transit sales and use tax budget for the year 2008 is hereby approved as summarized below: Total Revenues (Sources) $5,391,000 Total Expenditures (Uses) $3,707,362 READ, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 17 of December, 2007 upon a motion made by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Douglas Mercatoris, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM John Dresser, Town Attorney ATTEST: Rhonda Coxon, Town Clerk N X O Cl) O N 0 0 0 0 r- 0 (O Cl) CO r- 00 0 0 0 0 r ti ti 'fit N I� C 0 0 0 0 O (fl Lp V O O O N o c 3 00 C N T O N O O N i6 'in m V V Lr) CO LO Cl) M to O O O U O H d N u (fl V 'V W N O O 15 0 .w a, C) N C O O O O N M N O O O N "0 f O O O O r- CO N N O d N g G CO Nt rv.. 33 V N 0) a 0 O 00 w o m O d T LO a q;3 N M (4 a) `O Y N N N C Q a N O O O O O 00 O O O of (0 O N m 0 .c N c O O O O i M W O O V' O O) In LO CT (O CA (fl O O O W O Y v m .o N O V aq M� 04 O t` O LO r- 00 C N c m N c0 i' ,a N O V LO) U') N LO N (0 N M O O N N N a N O v ti W O O U U N cu E C4 cyi Q5 —7 pr O (6 C O Y N O o ON O O O O o) 0 0 0 0 0 O O) L N p ro a. .N ":.0 0 0 0 E M O O O O I� O 'It cn `•:,0 0 0 0`" OM O OO O O N 3 N o O E•;OtiOO O (ONO O (A W O) o) O U w w N (B O N O O N LO V (n N (O (0 (f) LO c c c 0) a N r Lt) Liz V V) (n (4 Cl) CA 'y O c _O N N N L O O O O i, r` 6) O O a) O a) to a7 N co O N M C ti N N N N (fl to O O O N (O M to N o c .S U) n CO O O O O M to O O O O O M O M (O N N .12 '3 c r .c cm O M 0 O l f) d' r COIL N (D O O O S .0 W o N H N L. O O N M to M Olt (D 00 cn (O a 0 N �O N •U m LA L L M L M r CG N N M N U C N C CC) C =1,, O O O O X 00 to O O 00 O O r- O O O O O O O O O o O N o m uO m U N j U 0 0 0 0 3a r •q O O O O O (D O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N M m N rn S N N O o r +q O O O O c' t` 0 0 r- N O O) O O O O LC) O. O LO O It V Lc) N N =p to N -O N I- Cl) O O) CN M r- (0 O N O O (o O O LO) O 00 M O O (O O (fl V CO O O M O) N (D 00 c`') It LO r` N C) N N 0 O- N O O Cl) O Cl) LO c d a m o O c6 0 O O to (D N ,lh,g I- Cl) M V e- O) N O It 6 -O N N .m Q m m N t d' Lt7 ,..i M 00 V O to W m� j 2 m c O O .LN: N O N ui o 3 00 C) N o 0 U O N V U N Co V) a) 0 N r" c p0�"= (n �.o rnN c N- m N o� Q c U c 0 m 3 O t: c N c 0 U F (rE U CL E c c m .4 U Co E Ow o a) c w L :2 (n X f6 O .0 O U O N O .0 O O) •N O o (v W o p) c E n aE 3 m c N o 0 -0 LL c6 C N C M O c0 O "0 C C C a O D c cu g m c cn o y N o m m m C N° N c N rn N c N c6 cu o 3 •x a rn g a°i o N o c N E o a U N E E N U o 2 o N N a) N E N co L V o N CO Q N m t c LL m c E n v o a Y c a c c o o c o Q m e m H W N CC) '5; a c E C o x- g% O O Q 0 0 LL a) N O a) O (6 0 (n U 0 m c� N N p° N C U N '(n 'N N C O- 7 O- 7 N a N Q CJ x€ m U m cu -Q U to p W m N 0c -rN�O. O N 7 w V LN. m (L cn c1 O1 •L- V C «S j 7 J C 7 'O O _tn 3 T C L is u E cn a aa)i c H e N :6 m a m N° a a m c o .E w (n c 06 o Z ov a W W e co a co .5 m cu y 3 N E y o U CL C c L cn N W a rn 'o w .n m° w 0) 0` 0 o a) N c c c E Q c cn O c E m C L o) a N E cc E. w a) o d ca o o m c N c n N m m° w N m N N w c c N (a (L Y Y c Y 0 N o E o (n N a .S o S co a) m° a) n FS c c o a�i ui c w o' o a) Y I— 3 Y J Q N E E U a E o o� 's U O O N U O O2 0 f6 O c6 C O 1 6 o. Q C N O N N c cn n F 0 U U E c x o E U U E U E a) c c a 00 c o) N Z� cn �i o v j Y CD 'o cn U 30 Q 3: 3: a) 0 H N a Z m .3 E W 'c to o m (7 -°b C cn co c rn c c LL a) N N LL a) Q U ri c E 'c m E d F LL Q: Z) 0- m X m m On of (D z 0.. m w LL m U U N Q N 3 X N C 30 N °c CC d t 0 0 co O Co co�cornorc� c� v (n(o�ao O O O o QH =H= —r —r I— w o w c ao le LL c6 L U N M O V i0 (o r I-- r 0 0 N N MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: David Peckler Transportation Director DATE: December 17, 2007 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 31, SERIES OF 2007 FTA 5309 5311 Grant Approval of Certifications and Assurances I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council's approval to accept 5309 (Capital) and 5311 (Administration and Operating) grants from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for 2008. Resolution 31 accepts the terms of the Federal Master Agreement for funding for projects, and authorizes the Transportation Director to verify the provision of the annual Certifications and Assurances for the projects. Il. BACKGROUND: The resolution approves the Town accepting financial assistance from the FTA for the purchase of a transit vehicle (under Section 5309), and Administration and Operating assistance (under Section 5311) in 2008. The Master Agreement between the Town and the FTA contains a number of Certifications and Assurances that would apply to the purchase of a transit vehicle and the operation of transit services. The Certifications and Assurances cover a number of issues, most notably: 1. Authority and Ability to Enter Into an Agreement with the FTA; and 2. Lobbying Compliance; and 3. Procurement Compliance; and 4. Protections for Private Transportation Providers; and 5. Public Hearing; and 6. Acquisition of Rolling Stock Guidelines; and 7. Charter Service Agreement; and 8. School Transportation Agreement; and 9. Americans With Disabilities Act; and 10. Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use; and 11. Title VI Civil Rights Act; and 12. Labor Standards. To review the Master Agreement, go to http: /www.fta.dot.gov /documents /12- Master.doc III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS There are a number of regulations covered by the Master Agreement that are standard to a Federal contract. IV. DISCUSION ITEMS NEXT STEPS NA V. NEXT STEPS MAJOR MILESTONES NA VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Approve Resolution 31, Series of 2007. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 31 SERIES OF 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, AN OPERATING ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. CHAPTER 53, TITLE 23 UNITED STATES CODE, AND OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION. WHEREAS, the Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV) has the power to enter into agreements with the Federal Transit Administration; and, WHEREAS, the Federal Transportation Administrator has been delegated authority to award Federal financial assistance for a transportation project; and, WHEREAS, the grant or cooperative agreement for Federal financial assistance will impose certain obligations upon the TOSV, and may require the TOSV to provide the local share of the project cost; and, WHEREAS, the TOSV has or will provide all annual Certifications and Assurances to the Federal Transit Administration required for the project, and, WHEREAS, the TOSV is desirous of obtaining said funds for the purchase of a transit vehicle, and has filed an application with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the purchase of a transit vehicle, and, WHEREAS, the TOSV desires to accept the funds for such a purchase pursuant to the conditions of the Master Agreement, certifications and assurances of the agreement, and, WHEREAS, the TOSV desires to work together with the FTA to effect said purchase as provided in the agreement, and, WHEREAS, the TOSV finds that the adoption of this Resolution is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare: 07 -31 RESO. Page 2 of 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, 1. That the Transportation Director is authorized to execute and file an application for Federal assistance on behalf of the TOSV with the Federal Transit Administration for Federal assistance authorized by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Title 23, United States Code, or other Federal statutes authorizing a project administered by the Federal Transit Administration. 2. That the TOSV agrees to the conditions of the Master Agreement as they pertain to this purchase, and the Certifications and Assurances that the FTA requires for this assistance agreement. CERTIFICATION READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on the 17th of December 2007 upon a motion made by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of _in favor and opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Douglas Mercatoris, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM John Dresser, Town Attorney ATTEST: Rhonda Coxon, Town Clerk 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Jason Haber, Economic Resource Director DATE: December 17, 2007 SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 23 SERIES OF 2007 BUILDING PERMIT FEES I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1. To amend the Town's Building Valuation Regional Modifier in order to ensure that building department revenues cover the ongoing costs of reviewing, permitting, and managing new construction. 2. Approve the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2007, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18 -42(h) of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. II. DISCUSSION On December 3, 2007, Council approved the First Reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2007. Based upon the construction permitting projections (presented at First Reading), as well as on the revenue and expense projections presented therewith, raising the regional modifier from 1.5" to "2.5" is expected to ensure that revenues will cover Building Department expenses over the next several years. Staff will undertake an annual evaluation to determine whether these projections are consistent with actual departmental revenues and expenditures. III. CONCLUSION Increasing the Regional Modifier from "1.5" to "2.5" will bring the average minimum Square Foot Construction Costs among typical Snowmass Village construction projects up to approximately $302 per square foot, and will enable the Town to recover new costs being incurred as a result of the day -to -day management and coordination of Town -wide construction activity. Again, staff is recommending Second Reading approval of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2007. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 23 SERIES OF 2007 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE III, SECTION 18 -42(h) OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, on April 2, 2007, the Town Council accepted a set of thresholds concerning the individual and cumulative impacts of land development and construction activities throughout the Town; which thresholds are defined in the Town's Construction Coordination and Impact Mitigation Plan, as that plan may be amended from time to time, and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2007, establishing regulatory tools that improve the Town's ability to effectively control and limit the impacts of construction, and to regulate, monitor, and enforce provisions concerning construction management in order to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the Town and its citizens, and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the Construction Coordination and Impact Mitigation Plan, the Town has engaged the services of a Construction Coordinator to work under the direction of the Chief Building Official, and has implemented a Town -wide Construction Information Initiative, and WHEREAS, in order to further achieve those goals and objectives, the Town intends to procure the necessary environmental monitoring equipment to ensure compliance with established regulatory standards and thresholds, and WHEREAS, Town staff from several Town Departments have been engaged in the establishment and ongoing management of construction coordination and impact mitigation efforts, and WHEREAS, the costs of each of these efforts, resource allocations, and equipment purchases have been, or are expected to be realized and paid by the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is appropriate that the new costs generated as a result of new development and construction activity be paid for by the developers and /or contractors responsible for generating said costs, and WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby finds that the amendments and revisions to the Municipal Code as hereinafter set forth are necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2007 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, as follows: 1. That Chapter 18, Article 11, Section 18 -42() of the Snowmass Village. Municipal Code is hereby amended to reads as follows: a. Section 108.3.1 Fees, is added, to read as follows: "108.3.1 Underestimated Valuation. If, in the opinion of the Building Official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the building valuation shall be determined by using the current edition of Building Safety Journal, Building Valuation Data, published periodically by the International Code Council. The regional modifier for the Town shall be 2.5." 3. Severability If any provision, of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on December 3, 2007 upon a motion by Council Member Wilkinson, the second of Council Member Lewis, and upon a vote of 4 in favor and 0 against. Council Member Sparhawk was absent. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on December 17, 2007 upon a motion by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Douglas Mercatoris, Mayor ATTEST: Rhonda Coxon, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2007 Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Dresser, Town Attorney TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: RUSS FORREST, TOWN MANGER SUBJECT: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: December 17, 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update On December 12 the Town hosted a public meeting for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Approximately 65 people participated in the meeting. The meeting input is being summarized with regard to participant's comments on values and attributes. The public also participated in a real time voting process to solicit input on key trade offs that will be useful in framing alternative vision scenarios for the December 20 meeting. The December 20 meeting will again be at 5:00 at the Silvertree conference center. The attachments include the summary of electronic voting that occurred on December 12 and the agenda for December 20th The following is a list of strategic projects and their current status for your information. (Last up -dated 12- 30 -07) Staff Action Status Date to follow Contact up w/ Council Russ, Comprehensive State of Comp Plan on Dec 3 Ongoing Chris, Plan Update State of Snowmass Report on Dec 3rd David Public Meeting at 5:00 on December 12 Public Meeting at 5:00 on December 20 Hunt Entryway Construction on gym has begun; basket August 4, 2007 Walker Gymnasium ball courts will be complete by the end of November. Tennis courts will be completed in early summer 2008. The entry way lights for signs are not acceptable. The sign contractor will be replacing the face of the signs (in place) in the next month Jason Environmental Rocky Mountain Institute will provide the Haber Committee environmental committee with a proposal to help facilitate this group. Susan Economic Marketing Director is working with RRC December 2007 Hamley Strategic Plan Associates on an Economic Strategy to help guide economic related decision making for Marketing, Special Events, and the Group Sales Board. Draft is expected in December 2007. Joe Coffey Housing Policy Housing Department will present a December 17, schedule on December 17 to address 2007 housing policy questions the Town Council requested be examined in the budget process. P: \MANAGER.XSC \Manager Report'07 \12- 03- 07.doe t l ATTACHMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC MEETING: COMMUNITY VISION DRAFT OUTLINE: SUBJECT TO CHANGE December 20, 2007 5PM -7PM Public Meeting #2 Community Vision 1) 5:00 PM Welcome (handout on postcard comments and top values, timeline) 2) 5:05 PM Purpose Planning 101 Process 3) 5:15 PM Recap on Public Meeting #1 Community Values: Synthesis of legacy postcards Results of key pad polling Values handout 4) 5:30 PM Vision discussion Matrix of scenarios (handout on topical areas chart on 3 4 scenarios) Topics: Housing Transportation Land use Recreation Economics Community Environment Development design pattern mass character Key pad polling on vision scenarios 5) 6:45 PM Comments on missed items issues 6) 6:55 PM Exit survey on scenarios 7) 7:00 PM Invitation to January 10, 2008 Public Meeting on Vision Values Summary January 10 11, 2008 Design Charrette for West Village tf��m4 EZrot a �r aoh .��xt SIB Y� "YK',"s 32 rxaw.c �v 3t "I�,r a1 �7 x na, 9 f� 14 d s� y9 t ffi 3. k a kY d y y a^�.✓� E3 a d o V C C tq ae� p °vi A'f Nd vi oo o E 13 1 'N E '0MM4? E `t"g >'E d Ili J y O ZOO }°O }h cli J n' ®goo ®o ®o o N d 7 L Q C. L I� 0 +0 C 0 0 X10 C 0 C.0 LO V tvrn CAO Ot('10 MO OOuLL�OO co O� OOIOD tO M O N N 4O�>AjtnNOd'� y M� WfO;� O 7 cn N N C C C Cl) V 10O�C)M V OC7 O OCA�N00CD O. U a+ r O N O r CO O L O N E a+ O ayi V a� v .2 N O. ID N R �0o Cl. >L E o O E (D m E N �9L N m_w 2 aa) c H 's N '2 O m o s N a mNa A mN E CL O O w (6 N 4 7 a !r r O of O fN °6 a) N Mn 7 O t N O a3 N O L E a N C V 0 at i a w N of O_ O .0 p a7 Oj,, f O co E! L N N L Z N O E O C (6 �a =c���r�m 3 �c6LoLiLo 3 a) O..2 ,w O O m L 2 L N O M O O N O V O N E N N N N N O r D O O O w N N w O 01 i N G C 0 `O. C m 0 0 cc N CD l0 O L N� O 0 0 0U) r ZOO O HI— cm —m0H Cl) O Je -L7MF Yb', /1�j�� f� 9 9�) ✓�3 R �i;�� �,:1 l 3 k b ;9 n R O y a o 0 E 0 0 0 F A m m r a13 o m O cli C0 ao3 13 D a a M V {O 0 0 M Cl) O N 00 tnyLO O M OD 'OO O C) 00 O m N S O O U) 0 a; r d O(��M�� N 07 �wr- C U) L�\ 0) CD coC>0 �OONM� MNMr— C 0 6 R N E U 3 a) m E o o `o o a c a w d c Cl. ai Cl. Co a m o a c �o w v a CD 0 0 w a1 N N— U a) w y O E C O m T A L_ T C O O co Q l0 C O 0 7 to a) C O_ E 3 0 N 0 a m m3� 3 CO (D ..�`m E c> '0 C _N O N CO N j E 03 0 S O Q 3 CD O 3 O O w N C E L v 3 C/ )<0 o in 0 rzr>>I co `m �inm°Q�o— C O U C d U N L O T N E w 4 C E 3 m o rn d d N o a o o U` Z Z 0 Ti r 3 3 w m o r 2 76 L ti o U) O o ®s M aD m O r` .O O O O O O V N OD t[)` 00 O tf5 t O M O N 00 0 N,JN l`�N N O. 00 0 N CO r a0 O V �chM �M 00 N 6 r Nix y N 2 Q OD 0000 r Q mWmm NON Lq'IT W r U) CO t0 N to N N to O A C to al w C C V 0 N 0 C L 3 to o m -2:= 0 O O i 3 0 �.��y C i rn0 a wmoE em CC Q V C'. N N .V rn 3 3 m t o� t m E T O N C y O C_ E N O N d N m ��ofr of of 1 0o d -iI(DW0 pp y14z X"X Oa R 4 ii ti ttk §.ti5 fir' ,tt 3,: s i t try 3 nro a r>a i" f;;t lDSysrfrt'3 �,.�dt �,�r��ltki 3i� i Efa1c *Yalf'.W�"a`.",�ss,c s aK� 's�� f �arsLrt"�1j d s r a'"xa f i t }s t a' MOW $M 4 ',rs #k tsr �"otiikt 6r b. a' 4 ifs 7 s "a a>d� a �J11aY a Ax; r m C a1 O Z m d G m 'IV O c o c OQ 5f s�n� y d S i` Z E (D c a)_ LL(a O C N J` 4 a1 'a^ a) L LL m> y m a3 z g U 2❑ �cEm'°o O pp x 0 O m y _0 mmy 3 t i" E3 o f a) >5 5;'95 o EdEtt— c m o`o at a) t E= nUU c X6 �EY'Sc o'"' MW(O(Of- rMw(no i v ®D o ®moo ®o�� �a�,, E V r r a) co 0- 0 0 0 0 0 o e o e e �'!;e o e o 0 0 0 0 NON O O co O r V O O O M N (D 1- gc `IO O (D O O (o O L(�O LO 1l �h OV�O �Lnh 00 MWLO(D Ln d N;: Q) V V MI- r LO 06 m V M "t, d mr N NY r N a) Lr) L) SVa a7 O O. V (DMOMMNIn c d NCDMN0m CL (DN CO0�0M N r' CO a) M to N M r (O Cl. a3 y a) N a) N CL m a) a) R E H N y> C p U O C N C 7 O w N oQ fA C N a) a) E a) a) C a) m 'O a) Q ca 2 C p p C .9 m m 7 C 0 L Q O _W Ln (6 E O a5 3 tto C E a) 'p C 0 3 2 a) c c m m (n 3 T La E a) a) a) a) O O m E c o `O_ in 3 (a 2 U) U) 0` m m gip. c �ja m c cu E CL m N ca N N O 7 m y O O O O E N E E O p C co (6 3 3 m c N N C C C C O O C O E 'p 3 Q a) m 'C'L a) rri E a) o_ (n (n E Q) 3 3 ai a��i m s E m> E E o o 8> E o 0 0 0 0 ca O O O C C (mD O m C W H p a) C N o c o00 3 3 a�i R C' a) Y O-� aiH� C (6 E Y Y O O O E a) 0 0 O O O O r O l9 L Y O p O1 m 2 W U) U) HH2 W (n❑H r �NM r a7 �UU(nmO t 6 id art ,a O L 4 d gm w r cb�17f�t•r r�,MaM u 0 R v x m i p E3 13 m 13 In (o C 0 O N OO{�'.O (O 00 N,:O 0 0)0D d;O (O Cl? O) QUO to C0 'r? -.0 (O 00 N v M, y N V aNx H n N' O O O N NOMOON� N r-�MrOco N OM to 3 c L c o E O N N 3 9 N d 0 O. O 0 W t J 0 co M d to c tm r w C o 0 0 vi rn 9r C d O R 3w LO c_c L d3c (D H Q N O C N d j� p C. O O .0 f6 O) w l0 d co CO N w C a C 3 pa 010 O O N _C 4) �0 0 0 0 o_ C j 0 0 0 0 (V O N t O O Cl) L O M OD O O er y O (n O O O i r J�Mr�0�— r V N V (O 00 0 r i MIO O)I- f` h,� a �3 ri Y a �'>t ✓`x u �a`� a U O� l L L 3 3 L L 4k E E E E g O O G 3 m m� N❑ ��4 m m m. 0 a 0 gg- 0 0 °N W N O (0 a) Og- O O O NziO O O N y lnd:Ln O ODtOO)'�d' O Ind• 00 N� M r M M "O a0 N'� (V FA Q ONO N C h 0(O LO 0) M (D f-M W N y N (0 N N N (n y N (0 i C 'C O O T d u) 0 d O m O y 3 o o a rn m E t 3 s d c CI. d C V N N O� a dw i d H m w O m y t O m w d1 d 'O L a 3 C d N m O O N N L fA C_ O> m N .0 O> i> m d C i s '6 O N 'O C ❑-OL N U N O-O w O i d O -2O2•C O i w C E O_ N N( m R E O_ N N l m 41 E O. u) U '00 m v t O. L V Of p U t p .v Of w L v L d t U 5 0a 0 m 3 3 m ra c 3� 3� N c m m CC 3 0 3 N ;m EE -EE:? EE>.EE;o C tea EE>EEwq (C! O N O 2 O O (G N 2 O So O h d= f2 O O E O s m ❑(A (q(nOH w ❑L/) ()(n❑H r w> ❑CnCnfn❑F- 1' Y 4 zz tf.dd Y .l l 2Y� di Zf 53 6 d „buy ^3 W Ff 1� tY� a A gY�p d �4dG two' ✓4' k 'Y. o o a E o N a a a 3 c o0 0. U a° 2 m oc mO rnEm E o o >W c >a) �o.o m I ai m a TLV�NCEu'.2 f` O EtUS-MEyw n °�NN�� 7! o"L�cmE° ='c a NCO m m'r as m UJ C. m knC s U> C f @,C fi r d U U N 0 0'a to m m 0 m O 0.— y 2 d N N O I N R+jL mOn1N4 ojfL C m -•N yw. ma>a N UC41yTw> —''.r C«N N NO>+�fT O.N 4 N m N�•CN 0 LEo�o.?m�.... LEo�o. >_mo5= U¢U(7(700.z00 UQU(7ai5mzoo a d o N�R:N OO (0, X00 V V 00000000 04 (D 0)COh CO(O(00) O 00 OiONO NCON:N (OON NANO O'.i0)h(OfM— f�7f­(O0 d OCO V aOr .d d'O *M�mM co (o Q' *ct (OM V h V CO C d' A L N M r Q NMOr Q I N N (o N O L0 'IT Nr Q Cl) NM V C14 r Cl) cn N M N to 0 N r to N r N r co 3 W w p )l7 '6 O X N w y Q 0) N E 2 ar ar E o L y c (D° 0 a> 3 c s w y 3 c m 3 w E 0). m Eo 0)._ �m i N N O- o C 0) C m w p (1 0 5 M C N d@ O O o U) -p O E U O N O —p (n E O 0 O 0 p m w N d O N 'O G o '6 0 U C N_ 0 O N 'a>. 00 U@ N 0 C m 0 U@ 4) O 2' O_ N O. a) O p) H C O a C1 y Q O t 0 y 4-- a) oo c c� 3O� m co a) a u c 0 rn ai m U g w E (n N d Ln m U w E 0 a 0 3 3 i: m E a; 'c w �ss E m '2 p o a) a 0 O Q to a) O CO a) a) X 0 O m 0) C O@ d i a1 E Q L 0 0 i 0 j m co �0 N C Q 0= d U. m C@ 0 O Q@ m C'• E o (n o o' (n o C7 s O o' N m o E d 06 C 5 2 N o rn ai u 2 US r y 2 w (n o N CD ID 1 m O C? L@ O r i to O 2 m O. 4) L O w t O 2 m O 2 O) (1 0 p V7 E aio� �oa ��m�•� ��rn� ao y 0 f °o: Ln r c_Eo m�LLo�LU r- Eo�'�. >`M :3 r w G 0(n(n0H IL r UQ U( IL zOO N (n> o L) (D aoa zOOH )��QYy dl ��a i J; t) i �,S s.^`t.,: -t •,v �j a.� d� r �i� m w o O d C 3 o u1 N S o 2 E o a O O Q w E o c w d m= E o m> 3 o E t N O C O E C r O E N P: E O N C C O a N O 'y t_. O N c 0 3 .c o m o CO .y o C N 'q U) C tq Vl C N N s c 3 0. E D o t E y o m o m a E E w CL a n 3 o E w u) a m N O L O d L E N C N N m v. y y i y Llcl c c 0 0=- o o c c No >mo m 0 0 w o o a o o� a o .oeo 0000C C j O tiff' t. N P- O :0� V N O N F O UO 0 o O rCD d O M O 1-- O N aO CJ M N *J l Lo d C. LO 0) r- N C. M"T r M r C. LO O CD N y N O N N co LO N NN w N y N D (C d n s rn c c w x m 0 m 0 N N (U (n d V u) ..L.. N 7 w w N w H 0 O O N L 0 p d) 2 N O O •V N m O 4' E m T 3 m N .r 3 E O O O m j M C 0 N w c O. O T(n C�• Q N C� m w d E c p m C d o c L C m T .0 w m fl. N O p c O O i U) O •p p 0 m X m w 3 O u) N c 3=>- m Cl) O C O. a) C -p O C' L L O V .0 J w E 0 p N 0 m N d d m p C [u C F E o M 7 v a c 'O O m 3 Q O C 07 y N c O .c p a°)i m s o w w c O 0 U) u d c m 3 w v O 0 c Mn .O-. 2 m .n u) 2 N l9 C L i1 m U) m= 4) C N N g U) �a m3o. r- E •Nn m t5 ;Ec 'jy tT E v! 7 C. H CU A m CD 3 O O Q) 0 0a�0o m m— 3 p r D o m y m o.4 •a) Lr n N O w m u, m m rnE c c m a� c u) u) N p d p it N O V) L w tl) v) CU N N 0 3 m m u! f0 3 d N 0 O N rn N N O 0) Cu c 1 0 O a m m c L) u 0 N$ -'-"'H N w O >OJ�1 N N w 2 W r C H t cl #aty"eP S 3�r 1 k¢t E f air �Y 't�r1F.k N v m c m p o v m O a p v c O to Q T d o w d v O w E c -E U o c L@ y o c N N O) U L (6 O n N C w l0 U O) 2 {p O T C 9 N N N p O 0 0 w o re +S a "O,0000 o LO:c o00 0 O N O O NC (O NCO O C C C V (O M O. 00 (D L 0) CV O. V (O N N h r U) N l0 N N r Co U) t0 N to R y 3 y A W 0 0 C O O CA 41 N w (n N C w w N N O L) 'd O O) N O l6 m 0) U C CA N CL V L U 0) C U (U 5 C O 5 O 4 O N C O U O C O. 7 l0 V •O 0) E •3 O U V A O 10 5 w O N w _O O Cc f6 to w O U U -5 'N m s 'a c s v w E o A E a) O 10 rnw Ut p cl• m ow EmE- t N5 m-5 st C) O Z C N N Q v 0 C m y O V O O O m peon L 0. 0) L a� 03�airn d a t Q 3 3 3 a U U= C O 00 N 0 N O •.E o L N N 0) C 'O Q 3 0 CL O) L N C T y N O C T R to U) 3 uj m 0 0 N 0 fC 0 w O O A C C m m a» O N w ZCOQQ F- N 3> W— —H N 3 N W H ty I jf �sys2r� m a c .N O UC m o 3 o 'O m 'm m N O "O U O c0 a A O N O O 3 wr: C O 0 CL O a> o n w@ k N C L o E o E£ C p ID O a 0 2z Fs o o i o o i L- LLJ o o o s N m EL 0 co r o o Lo 0 0 a .`;L a e o M M N:�N LOO lD Lp Cl) O M Cl) tOjCO Cl) O N N O M CO "Q N N O d M M (fl NaON� CD COMaO� NN w Cl) N co w N's M C C k C O. h 't O C. M LO O r C, M .V N V' N w N t0 w N to w N Co a) t6 C/) FA C C 3 C C O O a) 0 C a) U 41 C O Q w w M T O C w to 'O a) w a3 a) �7 C Cu 0 OL o C 0 Oz m -2 Ot m> m 0) t) L6 0 O O U 0 O—O N 81 Q �O)N N L O 0 L 3 cm iy>,w cm a> c o w p L °f6 La c c o> N c CLm5 C 0 a m c w o ma o (D 0-131 o �.g o' CD L Cl TOD O L N O 'L' d �,O N cr, a) V Q. C m L N w V C. (p L 2 O U C C L Co O L D M Q 0 3 2 a) m L o. 3 rn t G 3 m m rn 3 3 a) U 3 3 N U 3 3 a) U 0 L y •O E .0 O O L y •C E O L w C E .0 •V O d Q d 3 O Q y O N O p N N' d N CO CO O_ C w N N= N C j r• w w N ,=w. C j, w N co a E 'O "O O N 'a N U 0 O N 'O E -0-0 o N C C 103 2 10 O w C <0 (6 f6 'O C O w G C t6 t6 "p N O w r 3m w_ N 3> r Sin =w -12 d y (0 N N G1 N C N N O N t u U t0 c E a o n U N N 0 0 w rn m CL 0oM =o N N M M ,tO'O N OO,> N N' 0 O Q N OD f-- M 0 d N N l6 N v, 0 (D `o 0 c w N 0 O c CL ai 3 v V co 0 co .0 a� O vm a�i O jp 0 0 r m m a) w O Q 0- 0 m w (D Q O m NCO m� L O U m 0 C t t Q N N L y m E 0 0 0 0_ '0 0 U co L O_ 0 7 'O 0 -O N O c 3> O�t00 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hanukkah Hanukkah Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15TOSV Holiday Party 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 0 C::, o Christmas TOSV offices closed 30 31 New Year's Eve Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 Town offices closed NEW YEARS DAY! 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TC Meeting Move to Move to Move to 4:00 p.m. Town Hall Town Hall Town Hall 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Town Offices TC Meeting Closed 4:00 p.m. MARTIN LUTHERS KINGS DAY 27 28 29 30 31