Loading...
04-03-00 Town Council Packet 104- 0/' 0`Z-zi32 r SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION 04-03-2000 1:00 -2:00 P.M. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA -- Joe Kracum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No Packet Information 2:00 - 2:30 CORE - ENERGY RELATED ISSUES -- Randy Udall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 1 2:30 - 3:15 HOLY CROSS FRANCHISE DISCUSSION -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 2 3:15 -4:00 JOB GENERATION RATES -- Leslie Klusmire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 11 4:00-4:15 BREAK SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 04-03-2000 CALL TO ORDER AT 4:15 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Item No. 3: MAYORAL PROCLAMATION NO. 01, SERIES OF 2000 PROCLAIMING APRIL 9 TO 15, 2000 AS SNOWMASS VILLAGE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK -- Mayor T. Michael Manchester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16 Item No. 4: PUBLIC HEARING -ATUP/SUMMER CONCERT SERIES TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT ON FANNY HILL AT THE MALL WITH ACCESS FROM ELBERT LANE, BY THE SNOWMASS RESORT ASSOCIATION TO ALLOW A FREE SUMMER CONCERT SERIES -- Victoria Giannola. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 17 Item No. 5: PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 15, SERIES OF 1999 TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 15, SERIES OF 1999, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO HOLY CROSS 04-03-00tc Page 2 ENERGY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN FOR LIGHT, HEAT, POWER AND OTHER PURPOSES AND FIXING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 19 Item No. 6: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 03, SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SNOWMASS CLUB FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT -- Leslie Klusmire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21 Item No. 7: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 05, SERIES OF 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 5, SERIES OF 2000, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, FOR A 3.201 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL F, LOT 3, EAST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF A SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER, INC. TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER EDUCATIONAL FACILITY (Public Hearing continued and Ordinance tabled from 03-06-2000) -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 26 Item No. 8: DISCUSSION/ACTION BRUSH CREEK FIELD GUIDE -- Dawn Keating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 48 Item No. 9: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 06, SERIES OF 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 6, SERIES OF 2000, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS, LLC. CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO COMMENCE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN PARCEL K, FARAWAY RANCH GROSS PARCEL PLAT. -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 54 Item No. 10: RESOLUTION NO. 15, SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- Tom Newland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 65 Item No. 11: MANAGER'S REPORT -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 87 04-03-00tc Page 3 Item No. 12: APPROVE COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 03-13-2000 AND 03-20-2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 97 Item No. 13: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 103 Item No. 14: CALENDARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 111 Item No. 15: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923-3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. CURL COMM UNITY OFFICE FOR RESO URCE EFFICIENCY P.O. BOX 9707, ASPEN, CO 81612 1970/ 544 9808; fax 544 9599 To: Snowmass Town Council From: Randy Udall, Director, Community Office for Resource Efficiency I am scheduled to make a brief presentation at your April 3, 2000 meeting to discuss some energy issues and to present you with a framed poster celebrating the success of the Colorado wind power program, which Snowmass joined three years ago. The theme for Earth Day 2000 is "Clean Energy Now." Here in the Roaring Fork Valley, citizens, governments, and utilities are leading the country in the move to clean power. More than 1,000 local residents, six local governments, three local utilities, and numerous businesses are now buying wind power. Holy Cross Energy, Aspen Municipal Electric, and Glenwood Springs Electric are all national leaders on wind power. Holy Cross is also leading the nation's 930 rural electric cooperatives in grid-connected solar systems. The wind and solar power purchased here in the Roaring Fork Valley will keep 480 million pounds of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, out of the air over the next 20 years. CORE would like to recognize the Town of Snowmass Village for your part in creating a clean energy future with this poster of Colorado's first wind farm. Since our Valley is leading the clean energy movement, CORE would also like the council to consider upgrading the Town's energy code. Currently, Snowmass operates under the 1989 Model Energy Code, which has since been updated in 1993, 1995, and 1998. The commercial energy code has also been updated recently in ASHRAE 90.1, 1999. Improved energy codes are good for the homeowner, the community and the environment. In the past few years CORE has helped building officials in Eagle, Carbondale, and Aspen review and upgrade their energy codes. With your permission, we'd like to undertake a similar effort in Snowmass Village. I look forward to meeting with you on Monday. Sincerely, 'games R. Udall 0512 Handy Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963 0517 rudall @aol.com "taking the long view..." COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: April 3, 2000 BY: Gary Suiter STAFF: Steve Connor SUBJECT: Holy Cross Franchise Discussion OVERVIEW: Attached are letters from Steve Connor, Town Attorney and Steve Casey, representing Holy Cross. You can see that the remaining issues pertain to overhead lines, visual mitigation of the "green boxes", fee waivers and the Community Enhancement Fund. In staffs opinion, the only major issue remaining is overhead lines. The other issues can be discussed and resolved with some language modifications. A public hearing is scheduled for later in the regular meeting. Second reading is scheduled for the April 17`n regular meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss remaining issues with Holy Cross representatives and provide staff direction as to any desired final modifications to the franchise agreement. p:/sha red/cle rk/ma nager.xsctcmq.2000/ �� �� MAR 29 '00 05:O4PM WEST MAIN STREET LAW OFFICES P.1 STEPPEN R. SONOR, FAX C- 0 V E R S H E E T To: Stephen B. Casey, Supervisor of Contract Services Fax#: 945-4081 Subject: Snowmass Village Franchise i File NO.: TOW-10-28 MAR 9 2000 Date: March 29, 2000 Pages: 7, including this cover sheet. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This facsimile is for the receipt and use by the named recipient only,as it may contain privileged and confidential information and material that is protected by the attorneyclient privilege. If you are not the named recip:en6 or are not outhodzed to receive this facsimile on behalf of the named recipient, you are prohibited from distribution or copying i!, or use or dissemination of Its contents. In such instance,please contact Stephen R.Connor Immediately. Steve: As we discussed today, the Town Council has agreed to waived all fees that are stated in the Municipal Code, including the review and processing of the franchise renewal, and will grant an 20 year franchise. The Town Council was adamant that all power lines, whether distribution or transmission, be underground. I am enclosing the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code that mandate underground lines and the procedure for approval of an installation. As we discussed, if an appropriate situation exists, the Town Council could waive t,ie underground line provision, as it is willing to do with the fees. It seems to me that the issue of underground power lines is really moot due to the Municipal Code provision. The Holy Cross Extension Policy Governmental Mandated Underground Extension cost allocation seems to take care of the concern about any added cost versus above ground power lines. I am revising Ordinance 99-15 to incorporate final revisions and will e-mail a copy to you tomorrow or Friday morning at the latest. . As we discussed you will be providing John Kemp with copies of this fax and my e-mail so I do not need to send copies to him directly. From the desk of... Stephen R.Connor Attorney at Law Stephen R.Connor,P.C. 323 West Main Street.Suite 301 Aspen,Colorado 61611-1661 (970)925.1275 Fax:303.265.9076 E-mail:sconnoraoompuserve.00m 3 - MAR 29 '00 05:05PM WEST MAIM J,rnEET LAW OFFICES P.2 Art.1V,Div.2,Improvements Standards §16A4-220(b)(6) (6) Drainage. To ensure that surface (c) Utilities. water and debris do not accumulate on paved trails, a two- to three-percent (2 0/o-3%) cross (1) Underground placement. All utilities pitch should be provided on Class I paved shall be placed underground. Any areas exca- trails. A drainage ditch should be placed on vated to place utilities underground shall be the high side of the trail where a trail is cut into revegetaled within one (1) growing season a hillside. after installation, to stabilize and restore dis- turbed,areas. (7) Materials. A Class I paved trail shall be constructed with a minimum of six (6) (2) Exception. Transformers, switching inches of base course and two (2) inches of boxes, terminal boxes meter cabinets, pedes- asphalt. (Ord.4-1998 §l) tals, ventilation ducts and other facilities appurtenant to underground utilities may be Sec. 16A4-230. Water supply,sewage placed above ground when the utility company disposal,solid waste disposal demonstrates to the Town Engineer that the and utilities. facilities cannot reasonably be placed under- ground. The Town Engineer shall review the (a) Water Supply and Sewage Disposal. No location and design of such above-ground development shall be approved without the appurtenances to ensure they do not block the applicant submitting competent evidence that a visibility of motorists and pedestrians, and do water supply of adequate quantity, pressure and not hinder road maintenance and snow dependability is available to support the use removal activities. Such facilities shall be intended and to provide for protection from fire, landscaped to reduce their visibility and shall and that facilities to collect, treat and dispose of be maintained, including painting, so they do anticipated types and quantities of wastewater and not become an eyesore. sewage are available or can and will be provided with suitable capacity, quality of discharge, suit- (3) Other utilities. Other utilities not able point of discharge and dependability and that specifically mentioned shall be provided in any such proposed system is financially feasible. accordance.with the standards and regulations All water lines, sewer lines, fire hydrants and of the respective utility department or com- appurtenances shall meet the standards,specifica- pany. (Ord.4-1998 §1) lions, rules and regulations of the applicable fire Protection and water and sanitation district, or Sec. 16A-4240. Fire protection. shall be as approved by the Town Engineer. (a) Service by Fire Protection District. (b) Solid Waste Disposal. No development Developments shall be located and designed in a shall be approved without the applicant submitting manner that enables them to be served by the a solid waste disposal plan that includes enough Snowmass-Wildeat Fire Protection District and container capacity to accommodate three(3)times that complies with the adopted standards of said per week pickup or less. All solid waste disposal district. containers shall be bear-proof, conforming to the specifications for such facilities promulgated by (1) Unusual fire hazards. No develop- the Colorado Division of Wildlife. ment shall be approved that,due to design,size (including height) or building materials, could present unusual fire hazards that are beyond the fire-fighting capability of the Snowmass- Wildcat Fire Protection District. ,J 16A-62 Supp.5 LpOSS F �F P Z < 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • PO. DRAWER 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 r 2 (970)945-5491 • FAX(970)945-4081 J O dF T SS00 March 29, 2000 Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village P. O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81 61 5-501 0 RE: Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1999 Renewal of Holy Cross Energy Franchise Dear Town Council Members: Attached, please find a copy of the Town of Snowmass Village, Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1999. This document is submitted for your consideration to approve the renewal of Holy Cross Energy's electric franchise. Through a cooperative effort, members of your Town staff and Holy Cross staff have worked diligently to prepare an Ordinance document that addresses the unique needs of the Town while preserving our rights and abilities to conduct a consumer owned business as an energy provider to the Town and its residents. Countless hours have been spent refining the conditions, provisions, and terms of the Ordinance. Fortunately, both the Town and Holy Cross have benefited from exceptional legal counsel offered by Mr. Stephen R. Connor and Mr. John L. Kemp. Because of existing ordinances codified in the Snowmass Village Municipal Code, certain elements in the proposed Ordinance actually conflict with current Town regulations. Since Town staff does not have the authority to overrule Code requirements, they recommended that Holy Cross bring these key issues before Town Council for consideration. Rather than springing these issues on you during our Council appearance, we wanted to take this opportunity and share what we understand the Town's position to be along with explaining what our position is on these issues. When considering the Ordinance as a whole, and the benefits derived by the Town, we believe the Town Council will recognize the reasonableness of our requests and grant the necessary waivers and exemptions from established Code requirements. The key issues are as follows: Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village March 29, 2000 Page two I. Overhead Lines - Distribution Facilities. This issue has been a focal point of significant discussion. From the beginning, Town staff has made it clear that the Town will not tolerate any new construction of overhead distribution power line facilities. Other than maintaining, operating, and replacing our existing overhead distribution line serving the Ski Area, we have no intention of constructing any new overhead distribution power line facilities. It is our understanding that there is no formal ordinance prohibiting overhead construction. The Town's controlling mechanism, to restrict overhead construction, is established by subdivision covenants that require the installation of underground facilities. We further understand that the Town is concerned about the possibility of overhead lines being constructed along Brush Creek and Owl Creek Roads because these areas are not governed by said subdivision covenants. From a historical perspective, the last time Holy Cross built an overhead line was in 1967. Underground facilities along the Brush Creek Road corridor were originally installed in the early 1970's. In 1997, we completed a rebuild of our conduit and vault system along this corridor to accommodate future enlargements to our distribution facilities. The overhead facilities along Owl Creek Road were originally installed in 1941 . In 1998, we finished the last section of underground thereby completing the overhead to underground conversion of our power line facilities along this corridor. II. Overhead Lines - Transmission Facilities. Of critical importance to Holy Cross is our ability to provide the necessary facilities for electrical service to the area, such as, construction of future overhead transmission line facilities. This Ordinance or future Town ordinances cannot restrict or impair such rights. Since visual impacts are a sensitive issue to the Town, underground transmission lines may represent a feasible alternative; however, the cost component of "who pays" for such underground facilities becomes the issue. The franchise Ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing transmission lines. When future electrical needs of the Town warrant entering into discussions about transmission lines and substations, the required review processes for Special Use Permits, Environmental Assessments, and County, Town & Public input will take place. i to rw� Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village March 29, 2000 Page three Ill. Location of Company's Facilities. Town staff has done an effective job on reiterating that Town Council has a strong aversion to the "ugly green boxes". The Town's land use and development regulations should adequately address the installation of pad mount facilities associated with new development. In regards to pad mount facilities, we have had "visual mitigation" policies in place for twenty-five years that have been available to both the Town and developers. Furthermore, we have been required to obtain Town approval for the location of such pad-mounted facilities. Case in point is the switchgear along the north side of the golf course. The Town approved the location of such switchgear to a site below the bike path. Again, the components of "who receives the benefit of and "who pays" for the cost of such visual mitigation becomes a primary issue. The Town Council must understand that Holy Cross cannot be required to adhere to regulations that would ever compromise access, operation and maintenance of our system or, more importantly, expose our personnel to any unsafe working environment. Weather related conditions also impose constraints on our pad-mounted facilities that are not encountered by utilities in warmer climates such as Florida. The Community Enhancement Fund program, refer to Article 11 of the Ordinance, provides a unique opportunity for the Town to pay for mitigating the visual impacts of the "ugly green boxes" without reducing the Town's general fund. Rather than offer a lengthy narrative on this program, we would be happy to provide an expanded explanation when we appear before you. IV. Waiver of Permit Charges, Inspection Fees, Etc. As explained by Town staff, provisions exist within the Municipal Code that require the payment of fees regarding curb and pavement cuts, excavating, digging and related construction, maintenance and operational activities, and land use and development application and review. We are requesting that Town Council waive and exempt Holy Cross from these fees and charges for the following reasons: a. The two primary benefits we derive from a franchise are: 1) continuation of the statutory consent required to serve the Town and its residents; and 2) waiver of certain fees typically assessed upon companies doing business within the Town. If the Town does not waive such fees, we have a significant benefit taken away, one that we have benefited from the Town for the past twenty years. Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village March 29, 2000 Page four b. We believe it is vital to have uniformity of terms and conditions in all of our franchise renewals. We recognize that "word" does get around if one municipality is afforded a benefit not extended to another. The amendment provision, established in all of our recent franchise renewals, allows an "equal playing ground" to exist at all times. If the Town does not waive the fees mandated by the Municipal Code, other municipalities may want to amend their franchise to enjoy a similar benefit. Unfortunately for us, the cost of compliance is not isolated to the Town of Snowmass Village but could be magnified as much as six times if other municipalities request a similar benefit. C. Based on 1999 electric revenues collected within the Town, the corresponding Community Enhancement Fund payment would have been approximately $45,000.00. This represents a far greater monetary benefit to the Town in contrast to the funds generated by fees and miscellaneous charges imposed by the Municipal Code. V. Exemption From Reimbursement of Processing Costs. Pursuant to Section 5-3 'Reimbursement of Processing Costs" in the Municipal Code, we are responsible for reimbursing the Town "for all costs and expenses actually incurred by the Town in processing, reviewing, negotiating and considering an application for a franchise". Again we are requesting that Town Council exempt Holy Cross from reimbursement of certain expenses for the following reasons: a. The standard language contained in all of our recent franchise renewals has essentially limited our reimbursement to "expenses incurred in publication of notices and ordinances and for photocopying of documents arising out of the negotiations or process of obtaining this franchise". We believe this is fair and reasonable. b. We believe the intended purpose for Section 5-3 should apply more vigorously to an applicant seeking approval of its first franchise with the Town. A distinction should be made between a company seeking a renewal of an existing franchise and a company trying to secure its first franchise. Typically, the Town has received substantial monetary benefit from the existing franchise, whereas, there is no assurance that the "first time franchise" will ever be successfully negotiated. From our viewpoint, each party should absorb their respective expenses as a "cost of doing business" when negotiating a renewal franchise. Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village March 29, 2000 Page five C. For the past twenty years, Holy Cross has returned to the Town hundreds of thousands of dollars collected via the franchise fee. When one considers the interest income generated or the cost of money, either would offset the expenses the Town incurs for the franchise approval process. d. As stated above, the cost of compliance will not be limited to just the Town of Snowmass Village. With several other franchise renewals on the horizon, the magnitude of dollars associated with reimbursement of municipal "approval" costs could be significant. e. Again, we would like to reiterate the Community Enhancement Fund provision. No other utility provides a one percent (1 9,G) gift to the Town. Similarly, what other utility has offered an initial payment of $2,000.00 upon the approval and adoption of its franchise Ordinance? VI. Community Enhancement Fund Program. The Community Enhancement Fund represents a new provision that has been incorporated in all of our recent franchise renewals. The purpose of this program is to provide the Town with funds to pursue beautification or conservation projects, finance equipment and technology upgrades for schools, establish scholarship funds, sponsor special community events, acquisition of open space, or underground existing overhead lines. Funding for this program is based on one percent (1%) of the gross electric revenues received within the Town boundaries. Unlike the franchise fee, which is a surcharge passed on to each customer, the 1% reflects a voluntary gift by the Company to the Town. Given the interest Town Council has in minimizing visual impacts of our pad- mounted equipment, this program includes the ability to advance anticipated fund payments for up to three years. This means the Town could be advanced approximately $135,000 to be spent on mitigating the visual impacts of the .,ugly green boxes". In closing, we would ask that the Town Council carefully evaluate the favorable working relationship that has been developed over the past twenty years. As a consumer owned electric cooperative, each of the Town's residents receiving electric service from Holy Cross is a member. Collectively, you are a strong voice. Dating back to our initial meeting with Town staff on July 20, 1999, it has been our desire to fashion a franchise Ordinance that, while maintaining consistent, reasonable, and uniform terms/conditions, reflects language that "we have heard your concerns" and effectively addressed your unique needs. 4� 17 any Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village March 29, 2000 Page six We remain confident, that even if further negotiation is needed with Town Council, both parties have the capacity to reach accord and finalize a franchise Ordinance that will ultimately provide significant benefits to the Town as well as Holy Cross. If, prior to our presentation before Town Council, any of you have concerns or questions, please contact either me @ 947-5430 or Mr. Richard D. Brinkley, General Manager - Regulated Services @ 947-5440. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY Stephen B. Casey, Supervisor of Contract Services SBC cc: Mr. Gary Suiter, TOSV Mr. Stephen R. Connor, Esq, Mr. Richard D. Brinkley, HCE Mr. Craig Murray, HCE Mr.John L. Kemp, Esq. M'.\Word\franchise Documents\Cover Letter to Town Council(3 29 2000).doc / p don- TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: March 31, 2000 Presented By: Victoria Giannola, Director; Leslie Klusmire, support staff. Subject: Employee Generation Rates Overview: The previous job generation rates generated by RRC proved to be unreliable for the purpose of constructing legal housing mitigation assessments. RRC has provided the attached report recommending job generation rates based on actual employment in Snowmass Village and employment characteristics of resort areas in general. Both factors are important because Snowmass Village does not have enough employment on its own to depend on the employment habits of Snowmass Village jobs alone. Please review David Becker's report. Staff is requesting that you approve these as a basis for reconstructing the housing section of Article 4 to reflect current Council desires for housing mitigation requirements for new development. Recommendation: Please direct staff to use these figures or give other direction on how to construct housing mitigation for new development. h'./shereWmn council communqu shell (mestor on deputy town dark canlwterMWh (general) IMR-31-00 03:02PM FR061-RRC ASSOCIATES 3034486567 T-463 P.Oi/Ci F-026 i Preliminary Findings Regarding Multiple Jobholding In Support of the Town of snowmass Village Restricted Housing Regulations Prepared by RRC Associates, 3131100 introduction This memo addresses certain issues with respect to employment generation rates and multiple jobholding,as they pertain to the Town of snowmass village(TOSV)restricted housing regulations. TOSV's restricted housing regulations establish employment generation rates for specified types of development. For commercial,office,restaurant,and certain other types of development,the employment generation rates are expressed as the number of jobs generated per 1,000 interior square feet. RRC Associates conducted a survey of Snowmass Village employers on behalf of the Town of Snowmass Village in 1999 for the purpose of establishing these figures. I The regulators then translate the i&generation rates into err_ pt lair& aeration rates by laying multiple jobhoidin Into account Currently,TOSV uses a blanket average of 1.3 jobs per employee to make the conversion between job generation rates and employee generation rates. However,it has been recognized that multiple jobholding rates vary by business sector. indeed,a brief dazussiortof multiple jobholding patterns by sector was included in the'Srowmass Village Employer Survey—Final Report,' l produced by RRC Associates for the Town of Snowmass Village in June 1999. When considered in aggregate, sectors which employ a high proportion of fulhtime workers will tend to bring more employees into the community than sectors which have the same number of job slots but a high proportion of part-time workers. To the extent thft different sectors have different proportions of full-timelpart-lime jobs(and,in a closely related pattem,different rates of muhiplejobhokiing), it maybe appropriate to revise the TOSV regulations to be sensitive to these differences. ; The primary focus of this memo is to identify how rates of multiple jobholding differ by sector. The memo reviews multiple jobholding data by sector for the AsperdSnowmass area as well as other mountain resort communities in aggregate,based on household survey data collected by RRC Associates. In addition,the memo examines the Town of Snowmass Village Business license database for further indications of employment patterns by sector, apd reports on efforts to locate additional third-parry data sources pertaining to these issues. t Estimags of Multiple Jobhokdinp by$ector The following table provides a rough estimate of rates of multiple jobholding by sector. Merged data for a variety gf mountain resort communities is compared to a smaller dataset for the AspeivSnowmass area The resort areas survey dates that comprise the merged resort dataset are the Roaring Fork valley.CO(1998), Eagle County.C05 (1999),Estes Park,CO(1999),Gunnison County,CO(1999), San Miguel County,CO(1996),and Blaine Counryi ID (Sun Valley j Ketchum area, 1996). The AsperdSnowmass data is a subset of the 1998 Roaring Fork Valley datal mentioned previously,in that it has been narrowed to focus on just those persons working in the AsperVSnowmaT area' I TM 1996 Roaring Fork am canes hen a househda survey sponsaeo Dy the Aspen Valley Improvement Asspaauon RRC Associates 1 MAR-31-00 03:02PM FROM-RRC ASSOCIATES 3034486567 T-463 P.0'a/C5 F-026 Draft Memo on Multiple Jobholding—3/31/DO The data show the average number of jobs held in the peak employment season(winter for the ski ooun6nS and i summer for Estes Park)by the respondents'primary source of income. As such,it provides an approximate esbroate of the rates of multiple jobholding by sector. i Overall,the data show that the highest rates of multiple jobholding are by persons whose primary income is from; bars/restaurants. Such workers average approximately 1.36 jobs,based on 281 respondents in the merged resprt database. The figure may be somewhat higher in the Aspea Snowmass area(1.53 jobs per restaurant/bar worker), although the sample size(15 eases)is likely to be too small to draw firm conclusions. Job generation rates for other sectors are similarly illustrated. Table 1 Average Jobs per Employee by Primary Source of Income MERGED RE60RT DATABASE ASPCNISNOWMASS 1998 Average 0 of Survey Average 0 of Survey C Primary Source of Incom Jobs Held Responses Jobs Held Responses Bar/restaurant 136 281 1.53 15 RelatigroceryAiquor 122 264 125 32 Reareationlattractions 1.21 229 1.33 39 Education 1.19 230 1.07 14 same& 1.19 320 126 34 Lodgift"01eUBBB 1.17 218 1.16 25 Real estavuproperty management 1.14 175 1.08 13 Government 114 328 100 24 Professional services *114 850 1.21 72 Constructionarades 1.10 481 1.16 37 Total 1.17 3,376 1.21 305 Source: RRC Associates For purposes of the TOSV code,the multiple jobholding rates illustrated above might be used to convert job generation rates to employee generation rates on a sector-by-sector basis. The bar/restaurant and retail/grocery/liquor figures might potentially be applied for the corresponding use types in the TOSV code,while professional services category above might potentially be applied to the office uses category in the TOSV code Full-Time and Part Time Jobs bi Sector.. TOSV Business License Database TOSV's Business License database provides another means of examining differences in employment patterns between sectors. The TOSV database tracks the number of full-time and part time employees in both winter and summer by sector Figure 1 below illustrates the number of full�time and part-time jobs by sector in winter,as waltz$ the proportion of jobs in each sector which are part-time. Figure 2 illustrates similar data for summer. i Overall,the data reconfirm[hat different sectors have differing ratios of full-time and part-time jobs. Moreover,the sectors which tend to have the highest levels of part-time tops in the Business License database are the same sectors which tend to have the highest levels of multiple jobholding in the survey data described earlier. For t example,in both data sets,restaurants have among the highest levels of multiple jobholding(or percent part-bme workers);commercial(primarily retail)is at an intermediate level:and office uses have relatively lower ratios (particularly in winter). The similarity between the sources provides additional confidence in the findings. ; RRC Associates 2 I MAR-31-00 03:02PM FROM-RRC ASSOCIATES 3034496567 T-403 P.04/05 F-026 Draft Memo on Mulitpla,Jobholding-3/31100 Figure 1 Full-Time and Part Time Jobs by Business Category in Snowmass Village: Winter ; - • ---- --:. .. 709:'. 3.000 1— 626% t-' ' Pert-ww emPDy666-wYIDet--- j I __ — —�FuIFan6ertpwyeas•rrter 60% 2.500 ..— . winter -� PWoMpan�nteemptoyaes- +x2.000 t.. —. - •-- tj 51.500 .__ •-• --- .... — �I 272% 271% 30% 23.5% i -20�-- 1as% . 61.. 11.2% �i - 500 111- — - 73 4 - 10% 5g 39 11 .® .-a 71 OU96 0 0% ' Sw bra Restaurants Mami Club TOTAL Commercial Semoes Olfice MoWU09e Commercial resre42ms WINTER Ream wn 4 Source. TOSV Business License Database. Note. No data provided for the'Ski Areas'category. Figure 1 Full-Time and Pan-Time,lobs by Business Category in Snowmass Village: Summer 3000 — •- --- -- -- -- - _ ---• -••---•-- - --• i 30%'- 26.5% L Part-wra empoyeas•surttttter 2,500 - —.-'-" ��Ful"m:effOoym-summer 1 25W ---- --o-Perant part-we anployas-ammer - 0.6% 2.000 ____ 20961 ---- 766% - - -- ------- ------ i 1� 1Soo --'--' 64 114% 111% 1.000 916. ---- - — Ed S00 -- ---- - _.__-. . .. ---- --'- -----r 5%I gF.- 34 70 29 ��ttss�� 0% 00% MOMM Club Restaurants Otfite Commerce TOTAL Mawwar Samos Conlme10at Su area SUMMER Reaailon resteunnts Source: TOSV Business License Database. NOW No data provided for me'Ski Areas'category. r i f RRC Associates E 3 IAAR-31-00 03:03Pd FROM-RRC A53OClAic3 3034486597 T-483 P.05/05 F-026 Draft Memo on Multiple Jobhol0ing—3131100 f 1 Oiw Data Sources A brief effort was made to identify other data sources pertaining to rates of multiple jobholding by sector,for additional checking of the patterns. National data on multiple jobholding is recorded,but n appears difficult to apply those standards to TOSV,due to the fact that multiple jobholding rates tend to be signifieandy higher in resort ; communities such as TOSV(witty typically roughly 20 percent of employees working multiple jobs)than is the case natonally(5.8 percent of employees working multiple jobs in 1999,according to the U.S.Bureau of Labor Stabs, ). Additionally.the tourism-oriented nature of resort economies differs significantly from national averages,with a muPh higher proportion of employment in retail,restaurants,and services such as hotelsAodging and recreationlattractio s. it would thus appear that only data specific to mountain resort communities would be relevant,but such third-party data—if it exists outside the sources previously discussed—has yet not been located. i xMG&AV9enpaK.semWpwwSSV++avvr FM4 RW OM MsvA pawwa� i Y i I F i i f r t l r f t f i r 4 RRC Associates TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION NO. 01 SERIES OF 2000 PROCLAIMING APRIL 9 TO 15, 2000 AS SNOWMASS VILLAGE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK WHEREAS, year 2000 marks the twentieth anniversary of the commemoration of National Crime Victims' Rights Week; and WHEREAS, the victims' rights discipline in America has, for nearly three decades, dared to dream of a nation that is free from violence and an America where crime victims are consistently provided supportive services to help them cope with the trauma of crime and victimization; and WHEREAS, while the rate of most crimes continues to decrease, U.S. residents still experience nearly 31 million criminal victimizations, including nearly 8.1 million violent crimes annually; and WHEREAS, over 30,000 federal and state laws have been passed that define and protect the rights of crime victims, Colorado has passed a Constitutional Amendment that affords victims important participatory rights throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems; and a Federal Constitutional Amendment is currently pending in the U.S. Congress; and WHEREAS, important partnerships have been formed among criminal and juvenile justice agencies, allied professionals, and victim services to ensure that crime victims are treated with dignity and respect; and WHEREAS, our nation's commitment to victim assistance, crime prevention and public safety has resulted in countless individuals and collaborative initiatives that truly do our community justice; and WHEREAS, the new millennium affords us the opportunity to continue to dare to dream of a nation where liberty and justice for all includes each and every person who has been touched by crime. NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED by Mayor T. Michael Manchester of the Town of Snowmass Village that the Snowmass Village Town Council designate the week of April 9 to 15, 2000 as Snowmass Village Crime Victims' Rights Week; and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Snowmass Village Town Council reaffirm a commitment to respect and enforce victims' rights and address their needs during Snowmass Village Crime Victims' Rights Week and throughout the year; and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that this official proclamation be presented to the Victim/Assistance Program during the 2000 Snowmass Village Crime Victims' Rights Week. ATTEST: TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO T. MICHAEL MANCHESTER, Mayor TRUDI WORLINE, Town Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND AND COMMENT. DATE: April 3, 2000 (Continued from March 20, 2000) TIME: During a meeting which begins at 4:00 P.M. WHERE: Town Council Chambers 2v' Floor, Snowmass Center 0016 Kearns Road Snowmass Village, CO WHY: To Receive Public Comment on an application, for an Administrative Temporary Use Permit, on Fanny Hill at the Mall with access from Elbert Lane, by the Snowmass Resort Association, to allow a free Summer Concert Series. CODE: The application will be processed as an Administrative Temporary Use Permit pursuant to Section 16A-5-260 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code. INFO: Additional information regarding the proposal is available for inspection at the Town of Snowmass Village Community Department or by phone at (970) 923-5524 during normal business hours. Written comments may be submitted to the following address: Snowmass Village Community Development Department P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Attention: Victoria Giannola Printed in the Snowmass Sun on 15 March, 2000 Continuation Posted and Published in the Snowmass Village Sun on 03- 29-2000 ' 17 "� COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: 3 April 2000 4:00 PM in a Regular Meeting Presented By: Victoria Giannola Subject: Administrative Temporary Use Permit on Fanny Hill at the Mall with access from Elbert Lane by the Snowmass Village Community Fund to allow a free summer music concert series. Overview: (1) The Snowmass Village Community Fund held a successful 1. Background summer concert series for the previous seven years on 2. Issues Fanny Hill at the Mall. 3. Alternatives (2) The Community Fund desires to hold another free summer concert series this year at the Mall on Fanny Hill to provide summer-time entertainment options for residents and visitors. (3) The applicant has decided to revise the application to an Annual Temporary Use Permit and has completed all of the necessary information. Annual Temporary Use Permits are reviewed by the Planning Director, forwarded to the Planning Commission for recommendation, and rendered a final decision by the Town Council. As such, the Planning Commission will review the application at their regularly scheduled meeting of 5 April 2000. Recommendation: Continuance to the 10 April 2000 Town Council Regular Meeting. COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE MEETING DATE: April 3, 2000 BY: Gary Suiter STAFF: Steve Connor SUBJECT: Public Hearing, Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1999, Granting a Franchise to Holy Cross Energy OVERVIEW: This hearing has been re-noticed to allow additional time for negotiations. In order to save paper, the ordinance was not copied as a part of the packet. We will have several copies available at the meeting, should we receive any public comment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comment and continue hearing to April 17`h regular meeting, when second reading will occur. p:/shared/cle rk/manage r.xsc/cmq.2000/ - 19 -- TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING WHEN: MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000 WHERE: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 0016 KEARNS ROAD 2ND FLOOR SNOWMASS CENTER BUILDING WHY: TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON: TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 15, SERIES OF 1999, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO HOLY CROSS ENERGY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN FOR LIGHT, HEAT, POWER AND OTHER PURPOSES AND FIXING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF TIME: AT A MEETING WHICH BEGINS AT 9 : 00 P.M. THE EXACT TIME OF THE HEARING WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE AGENDA. INFO: 923-3777 Trudi Worline, Town Clerk Posted and Published in the Snowmass Village Sun on 03-08-2000 http//www. tosv.com clerk @tosv. com TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING AMENDMENT CONCERNING PARCELS 4, 10 AND 12 WHEN: APRIL 3 , 2000 WHERE : SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16 KEARNS ROAD SNOWMASS CENTER BUILDING 2ND FLOOR SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO TIME: 4 : 00 P.M. REGULAR MEEETING INFO: 923-3777 Please note that these zoning amendments were approved with the recent application for a revised Snowmass Club PUD � PHASE I . This hearing is for the purpose of passing an ordinance to legislate the previously approved zoning amendments. Leslie Anne Klusmire, Assistant to the Town Manager Posted and Published in the Snowmass Sun on March 1, 2000 Communique To: Gary Suiter From: Leslie Klusmire RE: 2"d Reading of Ordinance 2000-03 Date: April 3, 2000 Here is Ordinance 00-03 in final form. The substance has already been approved with the approval of the preliminary and final plans for the Snowmass Club PUD Amendment (referred to as Phase 1). Recommendation: The Council should approve this ordinance in second reading. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 03 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SNOWMASS CLUB FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. WHEREAS, the Town Council approved the Preliminary PUD Plan application by adoption of Resolution No. 35, Series of 1999; and the Final Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment by adoption of Resolution No. 50 Series of 1999; WHEREAS, The Project, includes proposed changes to the Snowmass Club PUD - Parcel Four, Parcel Ten and Parcel Twelve; including a PUD amendment to allow for additional square footage and bedrooms per condominium unit, more building coverage and building height on Parcel 4 than that allowed by the PUD, to allow kitchens in units, to allow employee housing on Parcel 12, more parking than allowed by PUD and a longer than two week stay by guests. The Project contemplates demolition of existing 76 room lodge; 30 new fractional ownership condominium units; demolition, relocation and expansion of golf course maintenance facility; 61 units w/154 bedrooms employee housing, improve Lower Fairway Drive to Town standards, construct Snowmass Club Circle golf cart underpass, miscellaneous club improvements including a 9,000 sq, ft events courts, new/reconfigured pool area, outdoor kids play area, pedestrian improvements easement parallel to Highline Road and a new trail from the Club complex to Brush Creek Road; WHEREAS; the Town Council in Resolution 35, Series of 1999, found that: a. The proposal for Snowmass Club PUD as amended is consistent with the overall concept and intent of the original PUD. b. The proposal for Snowmass Club PUD as amended has no substantial adverse impacts on the neighborhood surrounding the land where the amendment is proposed and has no substantially adverse impact on the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street from the proposal site. c. The proposal for Snowmass Club PUD as amended will not substantially change the basic character of the existing PUD development or surrounding area. WHEREAS,the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. Ord.03-00 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, as follows: 1. Approval of PUD Amendment. The amended Snowmass Club PUD Parcels 4, 10 and 12 was approved as set forth in the final application submitted on October 5, 1999 in Resolution 50, Series of 1999. The final application is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth at length. 2. Approval. Parcel 4 and Parcel 12 Program Summary as incorporated into the PUD Guide as recorded by the Town Planning Director, shall be used to determine future zoning including the following amendments: a. 61 employee-housing units which include up 154 bedrooms intended to house up to 160 employees are authorized on Parcel 12. b. Up to 10%of the roof area is authorized to be no more than 48' high on the new private residence building. c. Full kitchens are allowed in any condominium units authorized on Parcel 4. d. A maximum of 500 parking spaces are authorized on Parcels 4 and 10 with approval of a preliminary plan showing the location of those spaces. e. A maximum building coverage of 1.2 acres is authorized on Parcel 4 12 with approval of a preliminary plan showing the location and configuration of any proposed buildings. f. Any restriction on how long condominium/lodge guests may stay is eliminated. g. Residential uses, specifically restricted employee housing, are allowed on Parcel 12. 3. Land Use Plan Man. The amendments granted herein shall be incorporated into a revised land use plan map as required in Municipal Code 16A-5-390(2)f, as approved by the Planning Director within 90 days of the adoption of this ordinance. READ,APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on 7' day of February 2000 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_in favor and_against. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED on this_day of 2000 by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado upon a motion made by Ord. 03-00 Page 3 Council member the second of Council member and by a vote of in favor and against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING WHEN: March 6, 1999 WHERE: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2ND FLOOR, SNOWMASS CENTER 0016 KEARNS ROAD, SNOWMASS VILLAGE WHY: TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON: ORDINANCE NO. 5, SERIES OF 2000, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, FOR A 3.201 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL F, LOT 3, EAST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF A SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER, INC. TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. TIME: AT A MEETING WHICH BEGINS AT 4:00 P.M. THE EXACT TIME OF THE HEARING WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE AGENDA. INFO: 923-3777 Trudi Worline, Town Clerk Posted and Published in the Snowmass Sun on February 9, 2000 r\ t'CJ `ikc MkAov 4-_Covnci._[ . _af_._SNOwf"Ass keaatv^o<I�+ G n►-*(2031t. AkTv✓e. Cenfer_46A.A Owl CYk. t d, Tit `si c l ;< s MA lo d K. rs aj&tcckT 7o Elk-4,Tcer C0.� vIHq aveaS ��"r110 a J'ov' e a)acckT To te vAV�c/, sevc�c W�ht�v v�+h�c, 4- w:•.fty 1 k ',Cvk. Rd, t�f does hd� 1��v� a C9s�"�ktaT;ens 'Fo►,ec ' � {{ouse Catis'('��<'4'�0� ref'. Teu't a (��['t 1 Jrf c,�av(o�.1 loc K<<J.g�.l��. R , cv. ,-h ( fir• put a IV&t VrG fiO` fie (osfi o� 4�� 1�(I �4c Nkb:fdt. COK9:4t - t he 3 ue f4t. Coles s h'vc�'�dh Two �v{'..s Tl.c 1p�� �s , WG,, was '►� �3 avtA vf� ��z tvv over 3 vtidk' s �� � al ( � cJin�"ev Srs.soc, 4&- Pipljolat: ay cove. C11loseA ff c ev`f��1 �•< s o-C xcav aet_ �rnT<r rh<v`•R�t �O fir" t�T OG. CV oSS COlflali �I� SIB a�0.�s? k. Ko be eas ; a�cc:�,�1� -t.• 1•{f -fit_ hRad� cY_1.1 1y.�I 'sO �' PwoPosc Tl1a* .I�..�te ettctie� IN/IOSt G�iSI� l�.q �pv A A&IiJr (CA 0(,e .� Cps, t�"�i Ah sl C. W�CT ai6vdt V of E P oh 14 -D;,u;vja -t�� spec ti c cod�G! af 4p(*T — a,�30 'f{1,< 0. �Cav, t tit c4 (�",0. ese �'ac1� 7`de fps S�Jf 1 jt C``c foul a (Vc4,{� so CAs � ;h (acQfiie4. . o N o rt S� (,� -A c va-f�.V. c�+cat IZ 4� {o4J OPo lose a ca, !ol tare o(m no7" WOU P �� .Is. ak pet Y-o 't.oh �e e evt (u et Op Mayeh 3, zip Dw U'o& Hcgieu, Jae-A. pleasc, rcc�. a�l� My cuss ar�d I �, greed ► ►5 n rio�k! r a ra�uri c.witer 4o 6e. bul l t ;n . a_ spot on 0iwt Cret.� a0. VJhu are no p�t�nt iovsr� 5 or iS_. W'Q' IMP4 'thou' we Can Savo a fot ypa�fs for Wllbu r 40 roam. ►fie. reaQy d�U a ^J�{vrs bpYM §%CtAJa ncY+ b&,d ,•-�- �n � arca . Wa a�-� v +hc wet C wAa a a+ � ble 414, s for +o resol ovt roa4 Wt �opk �,li. CAA catak q pl' t'7Lti,,;C.Fi Olfior rv��..sL_ A9s i1 %z �anK You �"1 COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 3, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Chris Conrad, Senior Planner Subject: First Reading: Ordinance No. 05, Series Of 2000, an ordinance concerning the Wildlife Habitat Analysis, including Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, for a 3.201 acre portion of Parcel F, Lot 3, East Village Planned Unit Development and to authorize submission of a Special Review Use application by the Snowmass Nature Center, Inc. to permit the construction of the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility. Overview: The Snowmass Nature Center, Inc. has made application for approval of a Wildlife Analysis Report, including Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan, in order to permit the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility to be located within a 3.201 acre portion of Parcel F, Lot 3, East Village Planned Unit Development. A copy of this report was provided prior to your March 6 meeting. The Public Hearing was held and concluded on March 6. First reading of the ordinance was tabled until this meeting in order to provide time for the applicant to respond to some of the questions and concerns expressed during the meeting. Their March 28 letter has been included within the packet for your review. Staff met on-site with Jonathan Lowski, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist, on March 16 to discuss some of the issues raised within his February 24 letter (See March 6 Town Council packet). The meeting proved to be quite productive as various issues relating to the applicant's proposal were discussed. We had planned to meet again following receipt of the applicant's new letter in order to then finalize our recommendations. Hopefully that can still occur and comments will be available for the meeting. Recommendation: First reading of this ordinance only requires a simple majority for approval, however, Section 16A-4-20(e)(2) of the Municipal Code specifies that the ordinance must be adopted (Second Reading) by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the members present and voting. Staff recommends first reading approval subject to the conditions contained within the ordinance or as may be provided at the meeting. PAuser\cconrad\MS Word Docs\Nature Center\Nature Center WEMP TCMemo02 j10wmass Nature Center i.O. B,,\ n,01 %u-- �,i.L;t:E.C, '.t 1615 March 28, 2000 Mr. Chris Conrad Senior Planner Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO. 81615 Re: Snowmass Nature Center Dear Chris: Please accept this letter as an addendum to the Snowmass Nature Center's application currently under review by the Town of Snowmass Village. We would like to take this opportunity to respond to the following points that were brought up by Council members during our March 6 meeting with you. 1. Parking: It has been suggested that the proposed number of spaces (14, amended from 20) are too many. We originally proposed 20 spaces because we understood there would not be Town shuttle service provided from Two Creeks to the site. We later reduced this number to 14. We are open to accepting 10 spaces for our program, although it is important to recognize that the number actually available for the Nature Center may frequently be decreased by people wishing to access the Tom Blake trail. 2. Building Square Footage: The Nature Center building, designed by Harry Teague, contains 2,337-square-feet. There is an additional 522 square feet of deck space. A major goal of the Center is to renew and foster a sense of vital kinship between people and nature, and the decks are integral to fostering this connection. 3. Hours of Operation: We would propose the hours of operation to be consistent with those hours currently in place for the Owl Creek Road closure. The closure times for Owl Creek Road were established to coincide with the dates set in the East Village Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan adopted by the Town in 1994. BOARD cF DIRECTOR; Jim Wells Gracie Oliphant Michele Diamond Sackett Chen i Morgan ['resident "'ice P,egdent Secretan Treasurer narhe Baker K.tun Uuawsun Dawn i.canne Brian Porter Mary Beth Blake John Howard Barb Moebms Jan Porter Nancy Dederer Janis Huggins .:e nowmas s Nature Center R.O. RA orol '1b 15 070) 0,,.7?:3 4. Activities: The activities, which we propose for both indoors and outdoors, are as follows: nature study and environmental education programs; retail (books and misc. educational materials); administrative office; reception; parking; interpretive signs (not to exceed 8"x 16"); identification sign (not to exceed 12 square feet); outdoor presentation area; picnic tables; seating benches; guided nature walks and hikes; and campfire ring. 5. Transportation and Parking: The Nature Center has proposed a total of 14 parking spaces adjacent to the building (but is now open to 10). Overflow parking will be permitted per agreement with the Aspen Skiing Company in the Two Creeks parking lots. Hunt Walker has informed the Nature Center that shuttle service to the site is not available at this time because this area is outside of the route's three-service area. We hope there is enough support for the program that the Council members, in conjunction with the transportation group, could find a way to provide service to the site. If it were not feasible for the Town to fund extended service to the site, then the Nature Center would consider a subsidy to the Snowmass shuttle for extending service. 6. Landscaping: The primary goal of the landscaping component of the Nature Center plan is to restore a site that has long been disturbed by human activities so that it will provide improved cover and food for wildlife. Our objective is to attract both increased numbers of wildlife and a greater diversity of wildlife to this area. We are open to undertaking whatever measures are necessary to accomplish this purpose. Our planting plan shows the required planting per the Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan. Along with this planting, we have included additional planting material to provide for screening of the building as well as the parking area. We are receptive to recommendations from the Council members and Town staff on alternative planting materials. 7. Employees: As we have indicated in our submission, no net increase of employees is anticipated as we believe that the few employees needed to staff the Nature Center will be drawn from within the local or Roaring Fork Valley community. BOARD JP DIRECT'R, Jim Wells Graeae Oliphant Michele Diamond Sackett Cheml Moran President \ice President �ecretary Tmutrer Kathy Baker Karin 6.,taison P^n Keaune Brian Porter Mary Beth Blake John Howard Barb Moebws Jan Porter Nancy Dederer Janis Huggins - 3444. - �owmass Nature Center P.O. NA n,�91 V ILLA6E.C_!.�h M v' X1615 1970)92 -T3_3 8. Timetable for implementation: Once the use has received the necessary approvals, we anticipate construction to begin in the spring/summer of 2001. The last page of our application proposes a timetable under which we would proceed with construction. This information should provide you and the Town Council some additional answers to the questions that were raised during our last meeting. Please feel free to call me if you would like more information or would like to discuss this further. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely Ji Wells BOARh OF DIRECTORS Jim Wells Gracie Oliphant Michele Diamond Sackett Cheryl Slorean President Vwe President Secremn Treasurer Kathy Baker Karin Urutatson Dawn K',tme Brian Porter Mary Beth Blake John Howard Barb Moebtus Jan Porter Nancy Dederer Janis Huegms - 33 -- TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE WILDLIFE HABITAT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING WILDLIFE MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN, FOR A 3.201 ACRE PORTION OF PARCEL F, LOT 3, EAST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND TO AUTHORIZE SUBMISSION OF A SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPLICATION BY THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER, INC. TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SNOWMASS NATURE CENTER EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. WHEREAS, the Snowmass Village Town Council previously approved the East Village Planned Unit Development ("PUD") and Land Use Plan in Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1994 ("Ordinance 6"); and WHEREAS, the East Village PUD Land Use Plan Map was subsequently recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 60 in the records of the Pitkin County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder; and WHEREAS, the Snowmass Nature Center, Inc. ("Applicant') has made application for approval of a Wildlife Analysis Report, including Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan ("WEMP") in order to permit the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility (the 'Project')to be located within a 3.201 acre portion (the "Subject Area") of Parcel F, Lot 3, East Village Planned Unit Development ("Lot 3"), as further described within Exhibit A of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, Lot 3, which is 18.63 acres in size, was conveyed to the Town of Snowmass Village (the 'Town") in 1994 as part of the East Village development agreement; and WHEREAS, the Town, as landowner, has consented to allow the Applicant to submit the Nature Center proposal; and WHEREAS, Town Council Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1999, was adopted on November 15, 1999 thereby: 1) amending the permitted uses and zoning parameters specified for Lot 3 within the East Village PUD Land Use Plan Map; 2) rezoning the 3.201 acre portion of Lot 3 from OS-Open Space to PUB-Public; and 3) removing the "Conservation Corridor" designation from the Subject Area on the East Village subdivision plat; and WHEREAS, Town Council Resolution No. 52, Series of 1999 ('Resolution 52"), which was adopted by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the members present and voting, authorized and directed the Applicant to conduct a Wildlife TC Ord. 00-05 Page 2 Analysis and prepare a Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan; and WHEREAS, said direction to the Applicant did not constitute a decision to authorize development; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has now submitted Wildlife Habitat Analysis, including Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan ("WEMP"), for the Subject Area in accordance with Section 16A-4-20(d) of the Municipal Code and is requesting approval of this WEMP pursuant to Section 16A-4-20(e)(2) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 16A-4-20(e)(2) of the Municipal Code specifies that the ordinance must be adopted by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the members present and voting; and WHEREAS, a notice was published in the Snowmass Sun on February 9, 2000 to inform the public that this item was being considered by the Town Council on March 6, 2000 and that an opportunity would be given for public comment concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was held and discussion occurred regarding this item during said meeting; and WHEREAS, first reading of the ordinance was tabled until April 3, 2000 in order to provide the Applicant the opportunity to prepare a written response to the Town Council's questions raised during the March 6 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has received public testimony, reviewed the application materials, heard a presentation by the applicant and received the report and recommendations from the Town staff during the March 6, April 3 and April 17, 2000 meetings; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: Section One: Findings. The Town Council finds as follows: 1. Lot 3 is owned by the Town and a motion to approve the use of the Subject Area within Lot 3 so that the Applicant could proceed with a "Land Use Application" was approved at the July 20, 1998 Town Council meeting. - 35-- TC Ord. 00-05 Page 3 2. The Applicant submitted the application for review of the Wildlife Habitat Analysis and WEMP in accordance with the provisions of Section 16A-4-20 of the Municipal Code. The Wildlife Habitat Analysis and WEMP contain both written and graphic materials, in sufficient detail, to deem the application complete for review. 3. The Subject Area is identified as being within an area designated "Migration Corridor" on the "Elk Season Activity 1" map within the Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"). Section 16A-4-20(c)(2) of the Municipal Code states that these maps are general in nature which need to be verified on the ground pursuant to Subsection (d), Wildlife Habitat Analysis. Based upon written testimony provided by Dr. Dan Baharav of Baharav Environmental Consulting, Randy Cote with the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW"), and Dawn Keating, the Town's Wildlife Specialist, there was sufficient reason at the time Resolution 52 was adopted to believe that the Subject Area was not within the current active migration corridor and that the proposed Project would not contribute additional negative impacts to the migration corridor's viability. 4. The Wildlife Habitat Analysis, including mitigation and enhancement plan, was referred on February 2, 2000 to the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW"), the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist and Town Wildlife Specialist for review and comment. The Town Council reviewed the comments, attached as Exhibit B, and finds that the WEMP submitted by the Applicant should be amended as follows: a. The recommendations from Dawn Keating, TOSV Wildlife Specialist, regarding seasonal closure during migration, trail closure and construction schedules should be incorporated within the final Nature Center WEMP. b. The Applicant should work with the Town's Landscape Architect and amend their final WEMP to incorporate the recommendations from the CDOW regarding revegetation and landscaping. C. The final WEMP should be amended to incorporate the recommendation(s) from Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist, regarding . NOTE: Staff met with Jonathan on-site on March 16. Additional written or verbal comments will likely be provided following his review of the applicant's March 28 letter. Comments will be provided at the meeting. -= 36 - TC Ord. 00-05 Page 4 5. The East Village Planned Unit Development Land Use Plan in Ordinance No. 6 should be amended only to the extent necessary to redefine Wildlife Management Zones A, B and C within Lot 3 in accordance with Figure III of the Nature Center WEMP. 6. The Two Creeks and The Pines Final Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan contained within Exhibit B of Ordinance 6 should be amended as follows: a. Amending the Management Zones A, B and C to be consistent with Figure III of the Nature Center WEMP. b. Amend the Enhancement Plan Landscaping requirement, which currently specifies that five (5) Blue Spruce, thirty (30) Willows, eight (8) Aspens and five (5) Chokecherry bushes be planted within Lot 3 so that the Snowmass Land Company may be permitted to provide a greater mix of trees and shrubs equivalent to or better than what is presently required, in terms of quantity and/or quality as determined by the Town, which would more appropriately enhance the existing aspen ecosystem and wildlife values within Lot 3 in accordance with the Nature Center WEMP. C. Incorporating the recommendations and guidelines contained within the Nature Center WEMP to supercede the original plan as it would apply to the Subject Area and/or Lot 3 only. 7. The Town Council has reviewed the Applicant's Wildlife Analysis and finds that the above proposed amendments to the original East Village PUD "Two Creeks and The Pines Final Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan", contained within Exhibit B of Ordinance 6, should occur by separate ordinance following adoption of the Nature Center WEMP and prior to any Special Review approval of the development by the Planning Commission. 8. The Town Council finds that, subject to the conditions within Section Three below, the Nature Center WEMP is consistent with the Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Standards specified within Section 16A-4-20(f) of the Municipal Code. Section Two: Action. The Town Council hereby: 1) approves the Nature Center Wildlife Enhancement and Mitigation Plan, as shall be amended; 2) consents to TC Ord.00-05 Page 5 the Applicant submitting a Special Review application for the Nature Center educational facility; and 3) authorizes development within the Subject Area if in accordance with said final Special Review and WEMP plans. Further, this action shall be subject to the conditions contained within Section Three below. Section Three: Conditions of Approval. Said approval is subject to the satisfying the following conditions: 1. The Nature Center WEMP submitted by the Applicant shall be amended to incorporate the recommendations from the CDOW, Pitkin County and the TOSV Wildlife Specialist as outlined within Finding No. 4 above. 2. Ten (10) copies of the amended plan shall then be submitted to the Town Community Development Department for review and approval by the Planning Director and Town Attorney, who may refer said plan to the CDOW, Pitkin County and/or Town Wildlife Specialist for further review and comments or the Town Council for further direction. 3. Following approval of the final document, a copy shall be provided to the Town Clerk and staff shall then prepare an ordinance for adoption by the Town Council which will amend the Two Creeks and The Pines Final Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan as it relates to Lot 3. 4. Authorization to proceed with development within the Subject Area shall be: 1) strictly limited to the development parameters shown in Exhibit C; 2)only as necessary to permit the Snowmass Nature Center educational facility; 3) subject to the terms and conditions of any agreement(s). between the Town and Applicant concerning the placement of improvements within or the use of the Subject Area; and 4) further subject to obtaining Special Review approval of the Project by the Planning Commission. 5. The authorization for development and approvals granted pursuant to Section Two of this ordinance shall not take effect until such time as the final Nature Center WEMP has been approved by the Planning Director. 6. No building permits may be issued or development of any kind occur without prior written authorization of the Town and/or Special Review approval of the Applicant's final design proposal. 7. As landowner, the Town reserves the right to rescind this ordinance •�J6 � TC Ord. 00-05 Page 6 should the above conditions not be satisfied within one (1) year or should the issuance of a building permit not occur within three (3) years, from the effective date of this ordinance. Section Four: Direction to Town Clerk. Upon receipt of the final Nature Center WEMP from the Planning Director, the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to attach said document as Exhibit A of this ordinance. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on April 3, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and against. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by a vote of at least three-quarters (3/4) of the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village members present and voting on Second Reading, on April 17, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE By: T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk EXHIBIT A Nature Center Wildlife Enhancement & Management Plan COUNCIL MEMBERS PLEASE REFER TO THE COPY PROVIDED FOR THE MARCH 6 MEETING OR THE PUBLIC MAY REFER TO THE COPY ON FILE WITH THE TOWN CLERK. EXHIBIT A WILL ALSO CONTAIN THE APPLICANT'S MARCH 28 LETTER INCLUDED WITHIN THIS PACKET "- A4 0r- COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE EXHIBIT B Meeting Date: March 6, 2000 Presented By: Dawn Keating Wildlife Specialist Subject: Snowmass Nature Center Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan Overview: On October 4, 1999 the Council approved Resolution No. 52 Series of 1999 directing the Snowmass Nature Center(SNC) to prepare a Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan (WEMP) for the Nature Center site. This was the first step in a three- step process that is undertaken when a development is proposed in certain mapped sensitive wildlife habitat. This process is outlined in Section 16 A —4-20 3 (e). The other two steps, which are the focus of the discussion on 3/6/00, are presentation to the Town Council of the wildlife report that was prepared by the SNC and adoption of an ordinance by'/< vote of the Town Council if they decide to authorize development in the wildlife habitat after reviewing the WEMP. Attached for your information are the review comments from staff, CDOW and Pitkin County on the WEMP. Also provided for discussion is an ordinance that, if passed, would outline the extent and nature of the development that could occur based on information provided in the WEMP. Issues: The enhancement and mitigation plan must comply with Section 16A—4— 20 3 (f), Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Standards. There are fourteen standards that the WEMP must comply with. The SNC's WEMP complies with nine of these standards. Three standards need additional discussion and two standards are not applicable. These are listed below by category. WEMP COMPLIES WITH NEEDS DISSCUSSIO N NOT APPLICABLE Building sensitively located Seasonal closure of Watering areas Maintain native vegetation facility during migration preserved Dogs and cats prohibited Noise and lighting minimized Trail closures Retaining walls No fences Construction management Access for Town & DOW Enhances native vegetation Nest sites buffered Nest sites preserved Page two SNC WEMP Staff Comments for March 6, 2000 Seasonal Closure of the SNC Facility During Mi ation - The SNC WEMP does not mention the option of limiting hours of operation or closing the facility down completely during elk/deer spring and fall migration. It has been determined that the majority of the migration occurs further east(see previous staff&Baharav comments and attached DOW& Pitkin County comments). However, regarding the comments of Kevin Wright, DOW, and Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County, if future development occurs on the Guber parcel, the migration corridor may shift back to the west towards the Nature Center site. Staff believes there is an opportunity to undertake proactive joint planning between the Town, Pitkin County, DOW and private landowners that emulates other successful endeavors to preserve this migration corridor such as Droste Ranch, Wildcat Ranch and Brush and Owl Creek Roads. Until permanent strategies are in place to preserve the migration corridor on the Guber parcel, the benefits of protecting the migration corridor under some unknown future condition should be weighed against the costs to the SNC of seasonal versus year-round operation. Fall migration occurs at this location from approximately October 31 —November 30. Spring migration occurs from April 25 —June 20. The Town currently discourages vehicles from using Owl Creek Road during migration from May 1 —June 1 and November 1 —November 30 from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. Since the SNC site is adjacent to Owl Creek Road, staff recommends that SNC activities be prohibited during the dates and hours that Owl Creek Road use is restricted during spring and fall migration. Trail Closures— Per Ordinance 6— 94, the Town currently closes the trails in East Village for spring migration from April 25 — June 20 and for fall migration from October 31 — November 30. These specific dates are not listed in the SNC WEMP, and should be added to the final Plan in order to be consistent with Town policies. Construction Schedules—The WEMP proposes to limit construction activities to the hours between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Staff reviewed the policies on adjacent properties to see if the schedule proposed in the SNC WEMP was consistent. Two Creeks and the Pines do not have any limitations on construction schedules. In the pending WEMP for Seven Star, outside construction would be limited to the hours between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. from November 15 —April 15 in order to limit impacts to elk and deer during their use of transition and winter range habitats. However, there would be no limitations on construction inside the homes during this period once the structures are enclosed. Based on these other projects, staff recommends that language be added to the WEMP to clarify that all construction activity (both inside and outside) be limited to between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. except during the Owl Creek Road closures. During these periods, the beginning time should be moved back to 6 a.m. from 7 a.m. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Wildlife Enhancement and Management Plan for the Snowmass Nature Center, and to incorporate the three staff recommendations listed above in the Communiqu6. `"� SOL STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens,Governor GOO, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �'vq John W.Mumma, Director OF 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 For Wildlife— Telephone:(303) 297.1192 For People 2-15-00 Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010 RECEIVED Snowmass Village,CO 81615 RE: Snowiness Nature Center FEB '17 2000 Dear Mr. Conrad Sno e. wmass Village Building & Planning The nature center site lies within a mapped elk and mule deer migration corridor,is adjacent to elk production area to the south,and lies adjacent to elk winter range,winter concentration area,and severe winter range across Owl Creek Road on the Droste ridge. Currently,the majority of the elk and deer migration occurs on the east side of Glendale Divide. This shift in the migration route over time has probably occurred due to the amount of disturbance and activity associated with the east village,including construction of homes in The Pines and Two Creeks. The site is a highly disturbed site located immediately adjacent to Owl Creek Road and trailhead for the various trails above the site. However,some elk still utilize the area and pass across the site. If current conditions of the area surrounding the site remain,I concur with Randy Cote that the site is far enough removed from the corridor to have no additional or minimal impact. Elk and mule deer will still continue to utilize the corridor east of the divide. Construction of the center will encroach into the west end of the corridor,expanding the zone of influence eastward into an area set aside for open space and wildlife. What happens in the future to the current area used for migration east of the divide may be questionable. This area lies within property owned by Guber and Sinclair. What is the development potential of these two parcels and how would this future development effect the migration? In speaking with Lance Clark and Cindy Houben from Pitkin County, the Guber parcel could potentially have 1-home/10 acres. However,that is unlikely and a more likely scenario would be 1-home/35 acres. If this would happen,home placement would become critical to ensure the integrity of the migration corridor. N the development would occur,what would happen to the migration comdoO Would it be shifted more toward the divide and possibly to the west of the divide where the center would be encroaching?After build-out of The Pines and Two Creeks,construction noise and disturbance will be minimized on that side of the corridor. Depending upon the development plan for the east side of the divide and the amount of disturbance and activity associated with it,elk will probably be able to find their way through Although the corridor may be much more confined than before. If the Town wishes to consider the impacts of potential future development of the Guber and Sinclair parcels,then the Town may wish to consider an alternative site for the center. If the Town maintains the current site,the following recommendations will help to minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. no dogs or fences 2. revegetate all disturbed sites with native grass and Rubs,with a weed control program 3. all trash be kept in approved bear proof garbage containers 4. maintain and enforce the trail closures and restrictions above the center 5. modify the vegetation plan outlined in the application Since the site does not contain any wetlands,I question the planting of willow. Also,blue spruce are not common for the area I would recommend planting more clumps of aspen,englemann spruce,and more native shrubs such as serviceberry,currant,snowberry,bitterbtush,etc. Also,more plantings on the east side of the building to help screen noise,activity,and disturbance. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Watcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman .Mark Le Valley,Vice Chairman .Bernard L.Black, Jr.,Secretary Members, Rick Enstrom. Marianna Raftopoulo Arnold Salazar.Robert Sh�:maker. Philip James 3 .- 6. If the town is going to monitor the success of the wildlife plan,center personnel could do this and use it as an educational experience for themselves and the public. The Colorado Division of Wildlife supports the nature center concept and believes it will be a great value to the residents and general public. We will provide any assistance that vm can. Sincerely, c Kevin Wright District Wildl' er Colorado Divi n of Wildlife `� $4 44 !sue PITKIN COUNTY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT February 24, 2000 Chris Conrad Senior Planner TOSV P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear Mr. Conrad: The proposed Snowmass Nature Center lies in an area that was vital to the local elk herds until encroaching development reduced the habitat quality by increasing human activity. The TOSV side of Sinclair Divide was historically (that is, as recently as 10-15 years ago) used by elk for migration and calving. Currently, elk continue to use the area for those purposes but to a lesser degree with calving activity being negatively affected the most. The proposed development site is in close proximity to active winter range, winter concentration, and severe winter range. Elk continue to migrate to and from the Willow Creek drainage across the Buttermilk Bowls area and the Guber, Hines, and Sinclair properties across the TOSV side of Sinclair and over 7-Star to the Brush Creek drainage. By far, the majority of the herd moves across Peter Guber's property to Owl Creek Ranch and over Peter Droste's property, yet, some still utilize the west side of the Divide. Given the current surrounding land uses, the construction of a nature center and associated human activity would probably not have a tremendous impact on the migration patterns or calving activity of the local herd. We do not, however, live in a static world. When evaluating the impacts of development on wildlife we must, unfortunately, assume the worst case scenario. That scenario would involve complete build-out of the Guber and Sinclair properties combined with the completion of The Pines and Two Creeks developments. Although animal movements are somewhat unpredictable, the scenario described above would likely cause some, if not many, of the animals currently migrating across the Guber property to shift across the Divide to the narrow corridor that remains undeveloped between the Sinclair property and The Pines across the road to 7-Star and the Droste property. I do believe that a nature center in Snowmass Village similar to ACES is a great idea and would tremendously benefit wildlife via education. It seems, however, somewhat contradictory to build a nature center where it could threaten the integrity of important wildlife habitat. When one considers development it is often the change in human activity in an area that is significant to wildlife rather than the actual structures. If the Town chooses to approve the Nature Center I have the following recommendations to minimize the impacts to wildlife: 76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD • ASPEN. CO • 91611 PHONE: 970/920.5395 • FAX: 970/920.5374 E-MAIL: JONATHAN®CO.PITKIN.CO.US - -- ,larch 2, 2000 1. Pull the building envelope away from the edge of the adjacent aspen stand. 2. Build the Center such that it is tucked up against the hillside above the proposed building envelope. 3. Establish seasonal closures during the peaks of the elk migration period. These ciosures should be from dusk to dawn October 1 -November 30 and from May 15 -June 30. 4. Use only native plants in all landscaping. 5. Create a weed management plan in accordance with the Pitkin County Weed Management Plan adopted by the Town. 6. Prohibit dogs on the property, 7. Use bear proof trash containers. s'. Prohibit all fences on the property. If you have any questions, please call me at 920-5395. Sincerely. Jonathan Lowsky,M.S. Wildlife Biologist EXHIBIT C (From Town Council Ordinance No. 12,Series of 1999) The zoning and land use parameters (Limitations) for the Nature Center: Uses permitted within Lot 3 subject to Special Review pursuant to Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code: • Environmental Educational Facility and associated uses. • Associated Parking for Nature Center. • Incidental retail, food and beverage service and sales. • Accessory office/administrative use. • Educational interpretive signs • Snowmass Nature Center identification sign • Outdoor lecture area. • Picnic tables, sitting benches, campfire ring and associated facilities. Majors Structure permitted: One (1) Educational Facility for use as Nature Center. Maximum allowed square footage (FAR): 2,800 s.f. Maximum allowed building height: 28 ft. Maximum allowed parking spaces: 14 Maximum size of identification sign: 12 s.f. Maximum number of identification signs: 1 Maximum number of interpretive signs: 12 Al 17 TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 3, 2000 Presented by: Dawn Keating Subject: Funding for Brush Creek Field Guide Overview: Staff will provide a funding scenario for the field guide for Council discussion and approval. Background: At a Town Council meeting on 11/29/99, staff presented to Council three preliminary funding options for the Brush Creek Field Guide. These are listed below from staffs previous memo to Council: FUNDING OPTIONS Staff proposes to contract with Janis Huggins to write, produce and distribute the guide for a total of$50,000. This would provide 2000 copies of a 240 page color field guide for $48,560. An additional $1440.00 is added into Janis' proposal to cover the cost of distributing the guides. Deducting the$10,000 contribution from the SLC, $40,000 remains to find funding for. Below are three funding options to consider: OPTION 1. SHARED/MATCHING COST— Staff proposed that the Town contribute $10,000 from the Wildlife Fund to match the contribution from SLC. Staff will then seek matching contributions for the remaining $30,000 from other organizations such as the Aspen Skiing Company, SRA, realtors, professionals and property management companies. This will reduce the amount that the Town contributes to the overall project. The number of guides that each organization receives for$10,000 will be 400 copies. Each organization then uses the guides as they wish. Net cost to the Wildlife Fund is $10,000.00. OPTION 2. COST RECOVERY—In this option, the full $40,000 for the guide is "borrowed" out of the Wildlife Mitigation Fund. Once the guides are printed, they are offered for sale to the above organizations, bookstores and drugstores at $15/guide. This money would then be returned to reimburse the Wildlife Mitigation Fund. The current price for field guides ranges from $16 - $25 depending on the number of pages, color pictures and depth of coverage. Thus, if the book was "wholesaled" for$15 and then sold for$25 in stores, the Town would recover approximately $30,000. The other organizations and stores would make $10/guide. Net cost to the Wildlife Fund is $10,000.00. t . OPTION 3. FULL COST - The full cost of producing the field guide minus SLC's contribution would be allocated out of the Wildlife Mitigation Fund. Once the guides are printed, the Town would offer them as an environmental education book to organizations and people who wanted one. This would not involve sharing or recovering any of the costs. Net cost to the Wildlife Fund is $40,000. The total cost of the field guide was approximately $50,000. The Snowmass Land Company has contributed $10,000 from a requirement in Ordinance 6—94. Based on a discussion of the three funding options on 11/29/00, Council allocated $20,000 out of the Wildlife Mitigation Fund. They also directed staff to conduct additional research to find funding for the remaining $20,000. Based on this research and refinement of the funding goals, staff recommends the following funding scenario. Recommendation: Staff recommends borrowing $22,650 from the Wildlife Mitigation Fund that would be paid back with the sale of the books. Doing so would then provide complete funding for the project. Attached is a memo from Janis Huggins outlining the costs for producing 4000, 3000 and 2000 copies of the guide if money is borrowed from the Wildlife Fund. Staff recommends producing 3000 copies. Based on the figures provided on page two of Janis' memo for producing 3000 copies, the retail cost of the book would be $16.95. The goals of determining the best funding option were to distribute the guide to the widest audience, minimize the amount taken from the Wildlife Mitigation Fund and to make the guide affordable to residents and tourists. Further, the cost of the guide needed to be structured to provide a profit incentive to retailers to sell it, yet discounted quantities available to property management companies, realtors, businesses and the Aspen Skiing Company so that they would purchase the book for their guests and clients. Producing 3000 copies was chosen by staff for the following reasons: I. Pays the Wildlife Fund back $22,650 with the sale of the guides. Net cost to the Wildlife Fund is the initial $20,000 allocation by Council. 2. Provides 1000 copies at a 25% price discount to property management companies, realtors, and other businesses to give to clients and visitors. 3. Provides 2000 copies at the wholesale cost of$9.95 for bookstores and other retail sales. This allows a profit of$7.00 per book for these businesses. 4. Provides a profit of$6350 to the Town to offset administrative and staff costs of the project. 5. Relieves the Town of marketing and distributing the guide by providing $1500 of additional pay to Janis or someone else for administering the distribution. 6. Provides a one-dollar per book royalty to Janis when all the books are sold. This is an incentive to market and sell the books in a timely way. This would be in addition to her $14,000 fee to write and oversee production of the guide. - Alt? 2 The total cost of producing and distributing 3000 copies of the Brush Creek Field Guide is $52,650. Funding sources would be: • $10,000 from the Snowmass Land Company. • $20,000 contribution from the Wildlife Fund. • $22,650 loan from the Wildlife Fund. At the 11/29/00 Council meeting, Council concurred with staff to hire as Janis Huggins as sub-contractor for the project. Should the Council approve the recommended funding scenario, staff will prepare a contractual agreement between the Town and Janis for the writing, production, and distribution of the guide, that includes timelines and payments schedules. See 3-page memo attached from Janis Huggins. 3 SNOWMASS FIELD GUIDE BUDGET February 29,2000 Detail of Costs Mammal/bird photos - 125 ($40/slide - normally $50 to$75/slide) $5,000 Plant photos - 150 ($15/slide) 2,250 Geology (text& diagrams) 500 Geology photos -4 @$40/slide 160 Writing, development& coordinating/Janis ($2,000/mo x 7 months) 14,000 Consulting/Ornithology 500 Consulting/Biology 500 Design Consultant 3,000 Scanning 335 slides on drum scanner and readying for 4 color printing, proofs 11,450 Printing of 2,000 by Palace Press, includes shipping and color proof 11,000 Federal Express costs/correspondence with San Francisco 200 Sub-total of Estimated Costs $48.560 The cost per book decreases significantly if a greater number are printed. Using the initial $30,000 dedicated by the Town Council to the publishing of the field guide as a subsidy, the cost of the book would become affordable for a specialized field guide of this size- $10.000 from the Snowmass Land Company, and$20,000 from the Wildlife Mitigation Fund. Following are figures that help us arrive at a retail and bulk cost for the book: $48,560 original estimated costs 2,590 extra 1,000 books (total 3.000) + 1,500 est. cost of distribution $52,650 sub-total for 3,000 books, then to add... +2.590 extra 1,000 books(4,000 total) $55,240 becomes the total for 4,000 Figuring cost per book: $55,240 est. total for 4.000 books $25.340/4.000 books= $6.31/bk- -30 000 funds available for subsidv +7.00/bk profit for retailer $25,240 cost to recover +3.64/bk orotit for town $16.95 retail cost of book Wholesale cost of book is$9.95(6.31 + 3.64) 25% discount for bulk purchases -such as lodges, Timbers, Snowmass Club, and realtors $16.95 - $4.24 =$12.71/book Estimating bulk sales of 1,500 @ $12.71 = $19.065 Estimating retail sales of 2,500 @ $ 9.95 = +24.875 $43,940 recovered from sale of books -4,000 royalty($1/bk)to author $39,940 income -25,240 payback to town for amount loaned $�4_ profit toward next printing, donation,eta 1 Budget Scenario for 3000 field guides : $52.650 estimated total for 3.000 books - 30,000 funds available for subsidy $22.650 cost to recover $22,650/3,000 books divided by 3,000 = $7.551book +7.00 profit to retailer +2_40 profit to town $16.95 retail cost of book Sales(Wholesale cost is$9.95): Bulk sales at 25%discount from retail of$16.95. Bulk sales of 1,000 @$12.71/bk= $12,100 bulk sales Retail sales of 2,000 @ 9.95/bk= +19,900 retail sales $32,000 income from sales -3,000 (1$/bk) royalty to author $29.000 income remaining -22,65 payback on mitigation fund loan profit toward next printing,donations, eta Budget Scenario for 2,000 field guides: $50,060 estimated total for 2,000 books - 30,000 funds available for subsidy $20,060 cost to recover $20,060 divided by 2,000 books = $10.03/book +7.00 profit to retailer 0 profit to town $17.03 retail cost of book Sales(Wholesale cost is$10.03): Bulk sales at 25% discount from retail of$17.03 Bulk sales of 500 @$12.78/bk= $ 6,490 bulk sales Retail sales of 1,500 @ 10,03/bk= +15.045 retail sales $21,535 income from sales -2,000 (1$/bk) royalty to author $19,535 income remaining -20.060 payback on mitigation fund loan ($ 53$ negative 2 Timeline for distribution of Field Guide Funds: Monies needed April 2000 through October 2000 for design work, geology text and drawings, photos. writing and organizing= $27,610. The remainder would not be needed until approximately spring 2001 for printing, preparation of photos for printing, and distribution= $27,630. We would hope to have the book in the stores by mid June, 2001. Note: We still need to find out when a deposit is needed for the printer to hold our spot. 3 Budget Scenario for 3,000 field guides: COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 3, 2000 Presented By: Planning Division Chris Conrad, Senior Planner Subject: Discussion and First Reading: Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000, an ordinance granting the Timbers at Snowmass, LLC. conditional authorization to commence certain construction activities within Parcel K, Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat. Topics: Description of Work Activity Proposal Lambert & Associates Comments Excavation and Drainage Construction Management Plan Monitoring and Construction Oversight Performance and Restoration Bond Overview: The Timbers at Snowmass, LLC. has requested authorization from the Town Council to commence certain construction activities within Parcel K, Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat. Specifically, the work involves: 1) mobilization and site access; 2) fencing, staging and construction trailer set-up; 3) placement of interim erosion control measures; 4) placement of and interceptor trench drain uphill of their proposed soldier pier wall; 5) installation of a combination of temporary and/or permanent creek diversion facilities; 6) installing a soil-nailing retaining wall system at Buildings J, K and A; 7) installing a soldier pier retaining wall system at Buildings K, B and C; and 8) placement of un-tapped underground utility lines to Parcel "N". Please refer to the 'Building Permit Submission" documents provided March 24 for further information. Description of Work Activity The applicant should provide a brief overview of the work activity that Proposal: is proposed to occur on site. It is staffs understanding that the design work for the extreme easterly portion (Building D) of the Lambert & shoring wall has been completed. Associates If written comments were not received in time for inclusion within the Comments: packet, staff will provide their recommendations at the meeting. Excavation, The full extent of the intended excavation work, on site dirt storage Stream Diversion and dirt removal needs to be delineated and/or described, particularly and Drainage: if excavation involves the entire garage structure area. The stream diversion involves the initial placement of above grade pipe around 4-Al &*� the perimeter of the project until actual construction of the stream channel following Final PUD approval. A contingency plan should be developed in the event the applicant is unable to receive Final PUD approval or commence construction of the entire project. More detail is necessary to better understand what will occur to the water intercepted by the trench drain uphill of their proposed soldier pier wall. It is currently being proposed that it will be collected within the sedimentation ponds shown on the Construction Management Plan map and then removed from the site via the existing 36" pipe beneath Faraway Road to Brush Creek. Again, a contingency proposal should be described as to what would be the appropriate course of action Construction should the Final PUD process not be completed. Management Please review the new Construction Management Plan site plan Plan: which identifies changes to the sedimentation ponds, staging, parking (Kiss & Ride) and fenced areas in response to direction received Monitoring and during the Preliminary PUD process. Discussion needs to focus on what will be the construction status of their project going into the next Construction ski season. Oversight: Please review the February 26, 2000 memo from Paul Broome titled "Adjacent Property Inspections" (See Page 15 of"Section 1" of the Building Permit packet), which discusses work that will be done by Sage Construction Consulting, CTL/Thompson and Sopris Engineering to document the existing up-slope condition and to monitor the hillside during and subsequent to the proposed site earthwork. The February 26, 2000 memo from Paul titled "Safety Plan during the shoring wall installation' (See Page 17 of"Section 1" of the Building Permit packet), describes their contingency plan should slope movement or failure be encountered during construction. Lambert & Associates was specifically requested to comment on these issues and conditions have been included within Performance and the ordinance regarding monitoring, amending the construction Restoration Bond: management plan to deal with unforeseen issues and establishing a specialized inspection/reporting mechanism as part of the building permit requirements. Staff has included within the ordinance some 'rough" provisions regarding the bonding obligation of the applicant. These need to be completed and defined in greater detail by the Town Attorney and will be discussed at the meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends first reading approval of the enclosed ordinance with direction regarding changes that should occur prior to second reading on April 17. PAuser\cconrad\MS Word Docs\Timbers\The Timbers ExcavPermit TCMemo0l.doc � 5�r 40� MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis D. Lambert, P.E. Norman W. Johnston, P.E. Lambert and Associates FROM: Chris Conrad, Senior Planner Snowmass Village Community Development Department DATE: March 26, 2000 SUBJECT: The Timbers at Snowmass Building Permit Submittal You have received the material submitted to this department concerning a request by the Timbers at Snowmass, LLC. to receive Town Council authorization to submit a building permit application prior to receiving their Final PUD approval. They would like to proceed with the work as outlined on Page 3 of"Section 1" of their submittal. I would appreciate your comments regarding the following: 1. Please review the February 26, 2000 memo from Paul Broome to Chris Conrad titled "Adjacent Property Inspections" (See Page 15 of"Section 1" of the Building Permit packet), which discusses work that will be done by Sage Construction Consulting, CTL/Thompson and Sopris Engineering to document the existing up-slope condition and to monitor the hillside during and subsequent to the proposed site earthwork. • Do you have any recommendations as to where the inclinometers and surveyor monuments should be placed? • 1 believe that it was indicated at the March 3 Town Council meeting that they also intended to install additional piezometers. Do you have any recommendation as to where they should be placed? • How often should readings be taken for all monitors on site during the construction and post construction phases of the wall project? I have asked the applicant to provide a diagram as to where they plan to place the monitors and how often they intend to take readings. You may wish to wait until that has been provided or generally comment on the above at this time. 2. Please review the February 26, 2000 memo from Paul Broome to Chris Conrad titled "Safety Plan during the shoring wall installation" (See Page 17 of"Section 1" of the Building Permit packet), which describes their contingency plan should slope movement or failure be encountered during construction. • Do you have any comments regarding additional precautionary measures that should be taken or questions that need to be addressed? 3. Please review the February 25, 2000 CTL/Thompson letter titled "Item 3-c Engineer's Opinion"(See "Section 2"of the Building Permit packet) and the March 9, 2000 CTL/Thompson letter titled "Clarification of"Hillside"". Section 16A-4-50 of the Municipal Code requires the following whenever any development activity involves slopes greater than thirty percent (30%): (5) Engineer's opinion. For the Town to allow development under any of the above circumstances, the applicant shall provide an opinion from a professional geotechnical engineer licensed in the State stating that the slope is not prone to instability or failure,the proposed development will not cause greater slope instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that therefore, there will be no significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction. If any risk to adjacent property is found,the geotechnical engineer shall describe the design considerations or construction techniques that will be incorporated within the development to mitigate the risk of damage to adjacent property from the proposed development. After reviewing the material that has been submitted by CTL/Thompson and Coggins & Sons, Inc. and recognizing that the scope of your review does not include a review or assessment of the correctness of the calculations, analysis or assumptions made by either engineering firm: • Do you generally believe that the mitigation measures identified, if properly designed and constructed under strict supervision of the geotechnical and structural engineers, reflect generally accepted engineering or structural design practices and standards which could be expected to be reasonably effective in mitigating the risk of damage to adjacent property? 4. Do you find anything within the documents that would indicate that the proposed construction activity and improvements, if properly designed and constructed under strict supervision of the geotechnical and structural engineers, would cause greater slope instability, increase the potential for slope failure or present a significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction? 5. Please be advised that the applicant has agreed to post a performance bond to guarantee that the shoring wall, dewatering facilities and all other work being considered at this time will be completed within the timeframe specified within their construction management plan. In addition, arrangements will be made to provide access to the monitor locations and authority to continue to take readings in the future. Do you have any recommendations as to additional requirements that the Town Council may wish to consider in connection with the applicants building permit proposal. Do you think that a project of this type should have some form of specialty inspection and reporting mechanism during the course of construction? If so, do you have any recommendations? 6. Please feel free to provide any other comments or recommendations you believe will assist the Town Council in considering the applicant's proposal. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 06 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE TIMBERS AT SNOWMASS, LLC. CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO COMMENCE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN PARCEL K, FARAWAY RANCH GROSS PARCEL PLAT. WHEREAS, the Timbers at Snowmass, LLC. (the "Applicant') has requested authorization from the Town of Snowmass Village (the 'Town") to commence certain construction activities within Parcel K, Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat; and WHEREAS, the construction activities involve what would be the initial site development phase of the Timbers at Snowmass Planned Unit Development (the 'Timbers PUD"); and WHEREAS, said work will be limited to: 1) mobilization and site access; 2) fencing, staging and construction trailer set-up; 3) placement of interim erosion control measures; 4) placement of and interceptor trench drain uphill of their proposed soldier pier wall; 5) installation of a combination of temporary and/or permanent creek diversion facilities; 6) installing a soil-nailing retaining wall system at Buildings J, K and A; 7) installing a soldier pier retaining wall system at Buildings K, B and C; and 8) placement of un-tapped underground utility lines to Parcel "N", Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2000, the Applicant submitted drawings and documentation as part of a building permit submittal package for said construction activities; and WHEREAS, Town Council Resolution No. 6, Series of 2000, which was adopted on March 20, 2000, approved the Timbers Preliminary PUD by granting authorization for the Applicant to prepare and submit the final architectural, civil, and site drawings that are customarily included as part of the Final PUD application; and WHEREAS, the subject building permit package specifically concerns only construction activities that are consistent with the Timbers Preliminary PUD development proposal; and WHEREAS, the level of design and detail in the building permit package provided would be as customarily found as part of a Final PUD application; and WHEREAS, during the course of the Preliminary PUD review process the Applicant and Town Council discussed the various geotechnical and ground 39 - Ordinance No.6,Series of 2000 Page 2 water issues relating to the project site and the advantages to being able to commence installation of the interceptor trench drain and soldier pier retaining wall system as soon as possible before the commencement of the Spring run- off; and WHEREAS, it was generally found that the subject wall and drain systems, if properly designed and constructed, would aid in the stabilization of the hillside and could be installed independent of the garage, buildings and other improvements proposed as part of the Timbers PUD; and WHEREAS, this ordinance only concerns granting authorization for the Applicant to submit the subject building permit application for the commencement of the specific construction activities listed above prior to receiving any Final PUD approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, as follows: Section One: Findings: In consideration of the Applicant's request, the Town Council finds as follows: 1. The geotechnical studies submitted during the Preliminary PUD process and within the building permit submittal have considered on- site and neighboring property conditions. The Engineer's Opinion submitted pursuant to Section 16A-4-50 of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") and supporting geotechnical and structural information describe the Applicant's design considerations and construction techniques that will be incorporated within the interceptor trench drain and soldier pier retaining wall systems to ensure that said work will occur and the improvements will be placed in a manner that will not cause greater slope instability or increase the potential for slope failure of the surrounding hillside. 2. It is the responsibility of the Applicant's professional engineers and contractors to design and construct the proposed systems such that there will be no significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction or improvements. The building permit submission includes a monitoring proposal involving Sage Construction Consulting, CTL/Thompson and Sopris Engineering in order to evaluate and document the existing up-slope condition and to monitor the hillside during and subsequent to the proposed site earthwork. The Applicant has agreed to make arrangement to provide Ordinance No.6,Series of 2000 Page 3 access to the monitor locations and grant authority for professional engineers to continue to take readings in the future. In addition, a contingency plan has been outlined should slope movement or failure be encountered during construction. 3. The Town Council finds, based upon the information provided and Applicant's representations, that the interceptor trench drain, soldier pier retaining wall systems and mitigation measures identified, if properly designed and constructed under strict supervision of the geotechnical and structural engineers, reflect generally accepted engineering, civil and/or structural design practices and standards which could be expected to be reasonably effective in mitigating the risk of damage to adjacent property. 4. The Town Council finds, based upon the information provided and Applicant's representations, that the proposed construction activity and improvements, if properly designed and constructed under strict supervision of the geotechnical, civil and structural engineers, would not cause greater slope instability, increase the potential for slope failure or present a significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed construction. 5. The Applicant has agreed to post a performance bond to guarantee that the shoring wall, dewatering facilities and all other work being considered at this time will be completed within the timeframe specified within their construction management plan. 6. The Town Council does find that it is desirable to commence this excavation and construction of the shoring wall and dewatering facilities prior to the Spring run-off and onset of the rising water tables. They further find that sufficient understanding has been gained during the Preliminary PUD review and in reviewing the building permit submission documents to allow the Applicant to make permit application for the subject construction activities in order to commence development prior to their Final PUD to the extent authorized pursuant to any building permit approval that may be granted by the Town Community Development Department. 7. Recognizing the significance of the construction activity proposed and that the work is of a nature and scale that is beyond the scope of the Town's typical building permit inspection program, the Town Council finds that a project of this type should have some form of specialty Ordinance No.6,Series of 2000 Page 4 inspection and reporting mechanism occurring during the course of construction. 8. Any such permit(s) so issued may only be exercised at the Applicant's own risk. Section Two: Authorization. The Town Council hereby authorizes the Applicant to submit and the Community Development Department to accept for review a building permit application for certain construction activities within Parcel K, Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat. Said application, as further described in Exhibit A of this ordinance, involves: 1) mobilization and site access; 2) fencing, staging and construction trailer set-up; 3) placement of interim erosion control measures; 4) placement of and interceptor trench drain uphill of their proposed soldier pier wall; 5) installation of a combination of temporary and/or permanent creek diversion facilities; 6) installing a soil-nailing retaining wall system at Buildings J, K and A; 7) installing a soldier pier retaining wall system at Buildings K, B and C; and 8) placement of un-tapped underground utility lines to Parcel "N", Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat. Further, the authorization granted shall be subject to the conditions specified within Section Three below. Section Three: Conditions of Authorization. 1. No excavation or other construction activities, including drainage trench or shoring wall, may occur until such time as the necessary Town permits have been reviewed, approved and issued by the appropriate Town departments. The Applicant and/or landowner shall be responsible for completion of the permitted work within the specified time-frame and to satisfy all other terms and conditions of any Town permits issued. 2. A non-cancelable performance and restoration bond will be required to ensure completion of the wall, drainage and stream projects once commenced. Said bond shall assure that the landowner will comply with all Town building permit requirements and applicable Municipal Code standards and specifications and shall assure completion of the permitted work if due to failure of the Applicant to comply with the provisions of this ordinance within the specified time frame and that said work will be completed without expense to the Town as a result of any stoppage of the work that is to be performed. Note: Final language for Condition No. 2 to be provided by the Town Attorney. Ordinance No.6,Series of 2000 Page 5 3. The landowner shall provide the Town documentation of the project cost at the time of application for the permit, for evaluation and approval. The bond shall be from an acceptable surety bond company licensed to do business in Colorado and shall be in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney. Note: Final language for Condition No. 3 to be provided by the Town Attorney. 4. As the improvements are completed, the landowner may submit written request for release of part or all of the bond...... Note: Final language for Condition No. 4 to be provided by the Town Attorney. 5. An agreement to the benefit of the Town and the Ridge Condominium Association shall be prepared in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney and submitted to the Community Development Department prior to any permit issuance that will grant access to the monitor sites and authorization to take readings during and after construction. 6. When readings must be taken and how information is provided to the Town... [To be discussed at the meeting.] 7. Construction and/or project management issues may arise or problems may occur during construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the permits are issued or that are not sufficiently addressed within the Applicant's Construction Management Plan. The Planning Director shall have the authority to amend the Construction Management Plan as reasonably necessary to resolve the issue or problem. The Applicant may then agree with the Planning Director's decision or appeal to the Town Council for final determination. Said appeal shall be submitted in writing to the Community Development Department within five (5) days of the director's decision. 8. The proposed work is customarily reviewed by the Town Council during the Final PUD process and conditions are specified within the final ordinance. Staff may include the conditions of this ordinance, by reference, as part of the building permit issued such that violation of the terms and conditions of this ordinance shall also be enforceable pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code. Additional conditions may also be included as necessary to ensure compliance with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Should disagreements Ordinance No.6,Series of 2000 Page 6 occur or issues arise that cannot be resolved at the staff level, the Applicant may then appeal the matter to the Town Council for final resolution. Said appeal shall be submitted in writing to the Community Development Department within five (5) days of the planning or community development director's decision. 9. The building permit application shall include some form of specialty inspection and reporting mechanism, acceptable to the Town Community Development Department, which ensures necessary oversight during the course of construction. The proposal shall specify: 1) the manner in which the inspections will be conducted; 2) who will be conducting the inspections; and 3) how the Applicant will submit reasonable and necessary reports as may be required during the construction by the Town Building Official. Section Four: 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 April 3, 2000 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and against. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on , 2000 upon a motion by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk H:\Shared\Clerk\Ord.tc\TCOrd00-06 TimbersExcavOl.doc� TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 3, 2000 Presented By: Hunt Walker, Public Works Director Tom Newland, RFRHA Executive Director Subject: Resolution No. 15, Series of 2000 approving the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority Comprehensive Plan Overview: On January 17, 2000, Tom Newland presented the draft Comprehensive Plan for your review. The Council's comments at this meeting were summarized by Tom Newland and presented to the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority Board on February 3, 2000 and to the Town Council on March 3, 2000. Since the Council's review of the Comp Plan, Exhibit "A", "the Recreation Trails Plan" and Exhibit "B", "the Listing of Utility Easements" have been updated. Two new exhibits have been added to the document, Exhibit "B-2", "Notice of Intention to Undertake Rail Corridor Activities" and Exhibit "G", "Conservation Easement/Restrictive Boundaries". Find attached a summary of the Comp Platy. If any Council Member wants to review the complete Plan, it is located in the Town Manager's office. Tom Newland will be at the meeting to answer any questions. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve Resolution No. 15, Series of 2000. RFKKA Comprehensive Flan rage A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE ASPEN BRANCH OF THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD CORRIDOR PREPARED FOR THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY Table of Contents Page I. Introduction.......................................................................... 2 II. Compliance of the Comprehensive Plan with the Requirements of the Conservation Easement........................... 4 III. Summary and Key Findings of Recreational Trails Plan............. 9 IV. Summary and Key Findings of Corridor Access Control Plan... 11 V. Summary and Key Findings of Corridor Investment Study/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement..................................... 13 VI. Changes to the Conservation Easement Required by the Comprehensive Plan......................................................... 16 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan Exhibit B: Corridor Access Plan 1) Listing of All Utility Easements Exhibit C: Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Exhibit D: Additional Technical Information as Requested by the Local Decision Making Process: 1) Project Objective matrix and Explanatory Memorandum 2) Environmental/Biologic Inventory 3) Transit Financing Options 4) Transit Oriented Design Study 5) Socio-Economic Forecasts for the Study Area 6) Performance Characteristics of Proposed Rail Vehicles n Location and Size of Retaining Walls 8) Instantaneous Noise Levels By Location and Temporal Attributes 9) Rural/Regional Transit Agency Information Exhibit E: Reading the Roaring Fork Landscape: An Ideabook for Interpretation and Environmental Education Exhibit F: City of Glenwood Springs Bypass RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 2 February 3, 2000 I. INTRODUCTION In September of 1991, eight local governmental entities resolved to purchase the Aspen Branch of the Denver & Rio Grande Western railroad right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company to preserve the corridor as a public asset. In December of 1994, the eight local governments signed an Intergovernmental Agreement to purchase the property. The urgency of the purchase was realized when the merger of Southern Pacific and Union Pacific railroads was announced. With the dissolution of Southern Pacific, Union Pacific could have abandoned the rail corridor and the land reverted to possible residential and commercial development. The result would have been the loss of the corridor and any opportunity to preserve it for recreational and transportation use. On June 30, 1997, the corridor purchase was finalized. Traffic congestion on State Highway 82 is and will continue to be a problem as the valley continues to grow and develop. Traffic congestion causes a negative impact on the economic and personal well being of the local communities. It leads to longer commute time and slower freight movements, and it reduces the convenience of travelling throughout the valley. In addition to the recreational opportunities mentioned above, one of the objectives of the purchase is to reduce the amount of traffic congestion by increasing the transportation choices within the valley. A large percentage of the Roaring Fork valley is in public domain as Bureau of Land Management (BLM), White River National Forest or state holdings. Within recent years, increases in population and resort development, and the escalation of land values have dramatically increased growth in the valley. With this growth, lands available for trail and recreational use along the valley floor are diminishing. Currently, there are numerous trails throughout the valley but there is limited continuity between these trails. In addition to the transportation ( .)ortunity mentioned above, the other major opportunity and objective of the purchase is to develop a continuous non-motorized trail ai�ng the corridor. Recreational activities define the lifestyle and economy of the Roaring Fork valley. Skiing, hunting, hiking, rafting, bicycling, and wildlife viewing are just a few of the recreational opportunities in the region. The population in the valley is more active than most regions and as the population and number of visitors grow, so does the demand for outdoor recreation facilities. Wildlife species are abundant in the valley with approximately 160 species throughout the region. All species of wildlife are important for viewing, photographing, and balancing the ecosystem of the valley. The purchase of the right-of-way provides an opportunity to develop environmental and wildlife educational programs and enhance access to public lands and the Roaring Fork River. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page .i reoruary D, �uuu The Roaring Fork River through its scenic and recreational opportunities ties the valley together. It is currently used by residents and visitors for a number of recreational activities including fishing, rafting, and kayaking. The river is designated as a "Cold Medal" resource because it is one of the highest quality aquatic habitats in the state. Over 15,000 anglers use the river annually. Proper access points to the river are important for the safe use of the resource. Currently there are six designated boat ramps for watercraft. The purchase of the right-of-way presents the opportunity to provide additional river access and parking on public land to continue and expand the use of this resource. All of these issues deal with the overall quality of life of the residents, visitors, and guests in the Roaring Fork Valley. The purchase of this corridor has presented an opportunity to develop an integrated transportation and recreation solution to future problems before they are even fully realized. As a part of the agreement to purchase the corridor in 1997, it was required that a comprehensive plan be prepared that would determine the future uses of the corridor. The specific language within the Purchase Agreement requiring the development of a Comprehensive Plan is as follows: "The Governments shall develop, consider and approve the Comprehensive Plan for the Property within twenty-four(24)months of the date this Amended Agreement is signed, unless the Governments mutually agree to extend the time period for the formulation and adoption ofsuch a Plan. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and any amendments thereto shall be consistent with the grant conditions set forth in the grant documents referenced at section 5, above. It is anticipated that when the Comprehensive Plan for the Property is approved by all participating Governments, a new Intergovernmental Agreement will be negotiated and become effective to implement the Comprehensive Plan." The specific language within the Purchase Agreement the defines the Comprehensive Plan is as follows: "The Plan shall include the following: I. A listing and description of possible uses for the property, including but not limited to such improvements necessary to place and operate a public transportation system,public trail, and/or access to public lands; 11. A detailed improvements and operations plan for the ultimate preferred uses(s) on the property, including a recommended management and funding strategy;and X. An interim plan which incorporates the interim use of the rail corridor for a temporary trail following approval from the Surface Transportation Board of a certificate of interim trail use pending the re-establishment of rail service." In addition to these specific requirements, the Conservation Easement placed on the corridor also outlines additional requirements regarding access and retention of the property's conservation values. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 4 February 3, 2000 The purpose of this document is to set out a Comprehensive Plan for the corridor that will be adopted by the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority and its member governments. This Comprehensive Plan will be used to guide all future use of the corridor and its findings will be incorporated into the existing Conservation Easement on the corridor to insure strict adherence to the uses set forth herein. II. COMPLIANCE OF THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT A Conservation Easement was placed on the railroad corridor when it was purchased in 1997. The Conservation Easement is located along the property from the terminus of the "Wye" (approximately 12"' Street in Glenwood Springs), to the end of the tracks in Woody Creek. The purpose of the easement is to assure that the corridor will be maintained as a linear, open space corridor, appropriate for recreation (including trails), wildlife, environmental and educational purposes, while permitting the construction of trails and trailhead facilities and the continuation and construction of rail facilities. The easement also prevents any use of the Property that will significantly impair the "conservation values" of the corridor. The conservation easement contemplates a change in uses, and therefore a modification to the easement once a Comprehensive Plan for the corridor is adopted. The "conservation values" of the corridor are defined in the conservation easement as follows: 'The Property possess natural, scenic, open space, historical, educational, wildlife, trail and recreational values(collectively, "Conservation Values'9 of great importance to Grantor, and, in particular, the people of Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties, the Cities of Aspen and Glenwood Springs, and the Towns of Snowmass Village, Carbondale and Basalt, and the People of the State of Colorado." Paragraph S.c. of the Conservation Easement outlines 12 requirements that the Comprehensive Plan must fulfil in order to be considered for approval by the State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDoT). Listed below are the 12 requirements and an explanation of how the Comprehensive Plan addresses these requirements: 1. "Location of both a permanent continuous public recreation trail running along the entire length of the property and the location of a continuous interim trial within the Pitkin County portion of the Property, in accordance with Ordinance 97-7, as amended, of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County and the location of an interim trail outside of Pitkin County;" -- b9 — Im nl In '.., Exhibit A, Recreational Trails Plan, provides a map and written description of a continuous, permanent trail within the corridor. In addition, an interim trail within Pitkin County is also shown on the mapping. It is proposed that the permanent trail alignment shown on the map be used to place an interim trail on the corridor outside of Pitkin County. This interim trail will consist of a 4- to 6-foot wide dirt surface and/or 10-foot wide paved surface cross-section. 2. "location and description of trailhead facilities;" Further shown on the mapping and described within Exhibit A; Recreational Trails Plan are locations for potential trailheads along the corridor. Exhibit A also depicts a typical site plan for the trailheads on page 10. 3. "identification of public access points over the Property for the purpose of gaining access to the Roaring Fork River and other public lands along the Property for public recreation;" Included on the mapping in Exhibit A Recreational Trails Plan are potential points of access to the Roaring Fork River and federal lands. Access to federal lands are depicted as green, dashed arrows on the mapping. Access to the river are depicted as fish symbol with the letter "R" on them. 4. "description of proposed wildlife and environmental education programs on the Property;" Attached as Exhibit E is a document entitled Reading the Roaring Fork Landscape: An Ideabook for Interpretation and Environmental Education. This document outlines RFRHA future efforts to conduct wildlife and environmental education programs on the corridor. Interpretive elements are also discussed within Exhibit A Recreational Trails Plan on pages 12 and 13. 5. "a signage plan for all activities to be developed within the Property;" A signage plan is discussed and presented within Exhibit A Recreational Trails Plan on pages 12 and 13. 6. "location and existence of historic structures or areas;" Within Exhibit D: 1) is a memorandum dated September 2, 1999 from MK Centennial Engineers. On page 6, paragraph 12, of this memorandum, seven potential historic sites are identified. These potential sites are: a. The old D&RGW Railroad bed (milepost 360.91 — 393.33); b. Town of Basalt (indirect, milepost 383.0 — 384.0); _ 76 - RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 6 February 3, :000 C. The Town of Catherine (indirect, milepost 376) d. The Town of Rathbone (indirect, milepost 393); e. The Satank Bridge (County Road Bridge, milepost 371.48); f. The Emma Historic District (indirect, milepost 381.92); g. The Glenwood Ditch (indirect, milepost 393-394). 7. "a biologic inventory of the Property to amend and update the Baseline Documentation;' Attached as Exhibit D: 2) Environmental/Biologic Inventory for the corridor. This information is also summarized within the Criteria matrix and explanatory memorandum found within Exhibit D: 1). The inventory discussed within these Exhibits describes potential impacts of the transit and trail systems on wetlands, wildlife movements, river crossings, noise levels, vehicle miles traveled, flora and fauna, water quality, fisheries and energy use. 8. "identification of criteria to be considered in implementing the Comprehensive Plan to protect and preserve the Conservation Values of the Property to the extent reasonable and practical," The Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority is committed to uphold the values and goals of the Conservation Easement on the property. To that end, the following criteria will be used by RFRHA for evaluating proposed plans for uses of the corridor. These criteria will take the form of a policy statement and shall government the RFRHA's Board of Director and staff in their decisions regarding the development of uses on the property: Natural Values of the Corridor: • The degree to which a proposed use disturbs or otherwise changes the natural, existing topography, vegetation and landscape of the corridor will be considered and mitigated in the area(s) where the use will be placed. • The degree to which the proposed use will enhance or improve the existing site conditions so that they better conform to the surrounding topography, vegetation and landscape of the corridor will be considered when reviewing a proposed use. Scenic Values of the Corridor: • No new above-ground structures or buildings shall be allowed on the corridor other than those proposed as a part of the rail or trail/recreational uses defined within the Comprehensive Plan. ..� Rrrcnr%wntprer ' • No new roads or other surface disturbances shall be allowed other than those proposed within the Comprehensive Plan. • RFRHA will request that future development on adjacent lands consider the scenic values of the corridor when designing development proposals for approval by local land use authorities. Historical Values of the Corridor: • New uses will consider the historical nature of adjacent properties and the rail corridor itself when final design of improvements for those uses are developed. • Interpretive and informational signing regarding historical community assets will be placed as a part of the trail and recreational improvements. Educational Values of the Corridor: • RFRHA shall encourage educational use of the corridor whenever feasible, provided that this use is passive in nature and does not leave permanent impact or change to the property. • Interpretive and informational signing regarding educational attributes of the corridor shall be pursued as a part of the trail and recreational improvements. Wildlife Values of the Corridor: • Impacts of the use of the property on wildlife habitat and migration corridors will be avoided or mitigated if necessary. Mitigation will be provided at the cost of the use that impacts wildlife sensitive portions of the corridor. • Wildlife viewing opportunities will be pursued by RFRHA and adjacent property owners agreeable to such activities. • No hunting will be allowed on the property. Non-vehicular access to federal other lands adjacent to the corridor will be allowed by written permission on a case-by-case basis. Trail and Recreational Values: • The trail plan described within the Comprehensive Plan will be pursued by RFRHA with the goal of completing a trail on the corridor by 2010. • Access to the Roaring Fork River and adjacent public lands will be opened to public use whenever practicable. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 8 February 3, 2000 9. "description of structures and facilities necessary to place and operate a rail transportation system and their location within the Property;" Exhibit C Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and Exhibit D, items 1), 3), 4), 6), 7), and 8) describe the required structures and facilities necessary to place and operate rail transit within the corridor. 10. "the identification of all areas other than Pitkin County where the Property will not support both trail and rail uses (In these areas the Comprehensive Plan will identify alternate routes for trails);" Based on Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan, it is possible to place both a trail and rail transit within the entire length of the corridor. There is a section just south of Glenwood Springs (milepost 362.7 — 363.8) where topography and proximity to Highway 82 make it difficult and somewhat detrimental to the environment to place the trail in the corridor. In this area, an initial, alternate route has been found between 23nd Street in Glenwood Springs and Garfield County Road #154 (Buffalo Valley). This alternate route would leave the railroad right-of-way and follow the Atkinson Ditch along the Roaring Fork River. The alternate route will avoid potentially adverse impacts and would provide a better trail experience. 11. identification of all utility easements and facilities, both underground and above surface, including, but not limited to, telecommunications facilities; and" Attached within Exhibit b: 1) is a listing of all utility easements and facilities currently located within the railroad right-of-way. 12. "a detailed improvements and operations plan for all uses, including a management and funding strategy." An improvement plan for the trail element of property use can be found within Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan, Sections 4. Trail System Elements, 5. Trail Descriptions and 6. Phasing Recommendations. Section 7 of this document addresses management, maintenance and operations envisioned for the recreational use of the corridor. Development and management of the valley-wide trail is both a local and regional endeavor with local segments forming the most heavily used portions. An effective operating relationship between the local participants is essential for funding and implementation of trail improvements in a reasonable timeframe. The organization of a management entity with overall responsibility for trail funding, implementation and perpetual management makes the most sense in the long term. One approach would be to extend and maintain the existing Intergovernmental Agreement authorizing RFRHA to provide this management function. Another approach would be to form a non-profit corporation with tax- exempt status and a Board of Directors. Costs for the initial, ultimate and Pitkin County interim trail are provided within Section 8 of Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan. Funding will likely come from a variety of local, state and possibly federal sources, with the local funding representing the "local match" for state or federal cost sharing. Local funding can come from general or recreation funds already established within the local entities and/or from the formation of a recreation or transportation district. The transit system selected for the corridor envisions a commuter or light rail system in the rail right-of-way from Glenwood Springs to Carbondale. At the Catherine Store Road east of Carbondale, the preferred system would leave the.railroad right- of-way and cross over to the Highway 82 alignment to more directly serve El Jebel and Basalt. East of basalt, the transit system would again connect with the railroad right-of-way and continue up the valley to the Gerbazdale area. Here, the transit system would again cross over to the Highway 82 alignment and follow it into Aspen. Nine stops are anticipated with service every half-hour throughout the day and evening. Management of a transit system in place on the corridor must be under the supervision of a regional or rural transportation authority. The state legislature has passed enabling legislation to allow for rural transportation districts that can include some or all of participating counties. If approved by the voters, a rural transportation district can generate funding through a $10 vehicle license fee and a Y,-cent sales tax. It is anticipated that overall management will be the.responsibility of a transit system will come from this rural transportation authority. Attached as Exhibit D: 9) is documentation describing the proposed rural transportation authority currently being considered by the local governments. Included within Exhibit D: 3) are two documents that describe the funding strategy for the proposed transit system. The first is a one-page listing entitled "Capital Funding for the Rail Alternative". This listing shows the a possible mix of local, state and federal funding that could be used to fund the capital costs of a transit system. Currently, the funding is in place for 85% of the capital costs. However, nearly $28 million still needs to be raised in local funding to make the project a reality. Further included within Exhibit D: 3) is a memorandum dated September 10, 1999 that discusses the various funding options available to cover this 15% capital funding shortfall and ongoing operations/maintenance costs. III. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS OF THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PLAN The overall intent of the Recreational Trails Plan is to develop a trails and recreation plan for the corridor that provides a wide range of public recreational opportunities 7 J4 - RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 10 February 3, 2000 including trails, river access, wildlife viewing, habitat conservation and educational and interpretive activities. The purpose of the Recreational Tails Plan is as follows: • To provide a continuous trail between Glenwood Springs and Aspen on the railroad right-of-way that will be environmentally cleared through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process; • To meet the expressed community recreational needs; • To develop trails programming and design principals that will provide a quality trail experience • To plan for support facilities such as trailheads and parking; • To minimize impacts on adjacent landowners; • To develop implementation costs. A summary of key findings within the Recreational Trails Plan is as follows: Design Details: The plan describes an "initial" and "ultimate" trail design along the corridor. The intent of the initial trail is to establish a 3- to 6-feet dirt surface that, will extend the length of the corridor. Establishment of this initial trail will allow for public access to the corridor in an expedient manner. The "ultimate" trail identifies what the facility may look like in the long term at final buildout. The plan envisions a 10-foot wide hard surface and a 4-foot wide soft surface as the platform for the ultimate trail. It is likely that the initial trail will be built as one project, connecting Glenwood Springs to Aspen with a multi-use recreational path. The Ultimate trail will likely be built in segments as demand warrants. For example, the ultimate trail will probably be constructed in and around the more urban areas of the valley (Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and Basalt), with the rural areas being filled in as time progresses. However, there may be some rural areas that for��arious reasons such as safety or need, are built to the ultimate trail specifications more rapidly than others. A facility investment plan has been included as a part of the Recreational Trails Plan that prioritizes various segments of the alignment in an attempt to illustrate where and when construction of the ultimate trail makes the most sense. The Recreational Trails Plan also defines the following policies with regard to trail design: • Every attempt will be made to maximize separation of trail and transit on the corridor; • Grade-separated intersections will be pursued where the trail crosses the tracks or major public road crossings; • Soft-surfaced pedestrian paths will be established from the trail alignment to public lands and the river where appropriate; - 7S- KVKHA l-omprenensive rian rage I r • A common theme for construction of trail amenities will be encouraged provided that local governments may modify these themes within their own jurisdictions; • Natural , salvaged and recycled materials will be utilized during the course of trail and facility construction; • The facilities will be designed for low maintenance and reduction of potential vandalism. Trail Use: The trail will be designed and operated for multi-purpose use. Uses include walking, running, biking, skating, equestrian and cross-country skiing. The ultimate trail will be designed and operated with the potential for commuting in mind. Local entities will have control over use of the trail in their jurisdiction. No camping or open fires will be allowed on the railroad corridor. Linkages: Every effort will be made to allow for easy, convenient and direct access to the trail. Connection to existing and proposed trails will be encouraged and coordinated. A regional recreational experience will be stressed as a part of the trail experience. Environmental Impacts/Mitigation: The overriding goal of trail design and management will be to protect the natural quality of the railroad corridor. This will be done through minimization of impacts to the natural environment through design, management and education. Sensitive areas will be identified and mitigation measurements will be implemented where appropriate. This may include seasonal trail closures on portions of the right-of-way, for example. Safety. Safety of the trail user and the adjacent landowners will be assured through design and management techniques. This will include providing adequate width to avoid user conflicts, situating trail access points so that they are sensitive to safety, and providing barrier protection where appropriate between trail and transit. Perimeter fencing is also proposed to reduce conflicts with livestock and wildlife. As mentioned above, grade-separated crossings at major intersections will be considered, as will solar-powered call boxes in rural portions of the corridor. Implementation: Implementation of the overall trail system will be a regional effort that will include the local governments, state government and possibly the private sector. A collaborative final design process including all affected parties will be completed prior to construction of any segment of the trail. This process will include the public, local governments and interest groups. IV. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS OF THE ACCESS CONTROL PLAN The overall intent of the Access Control Plan is to promote the stewardship of the corridor by the owner (RFRHA), adjacent property owners,the conservation and 17 (� RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 12 February 3, 2000 trail easement holder and the local governments. In addition, the plan strives to facilitate coordination between RFRHA and the local governments, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Colorado Public utilities Commission. The purpose of the Access Control Plan is three-fold: • To protect the health and safety of the public using the railroad corridor; • To preserve the value of the transportation/recreation facilities by minimizing new crossings, ensuring safe operation and maintenance of existing crossings and consolidating crossing wherever practicable; • To preserve the open space and trail values of the corridor by avoiding adverse impacts to the open space, recreation, scenic and wildlife values, by avoiding impacts to the public enjoyment of the corridor, and when impacts can not be avoided, mitigate those impacts to the greatest extent possible. A summary of key findings within the Access Control Plan is as follows: Policy for Existing Crossings: The plan acknowledges, to the best extent possible, all existing crossing on the corridor. It finds that there are at least 102 crossings, 37 public and 65 private. Changes to or creation of new, public crossings will be under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Public Utility Commission (CPUC). The CPUC has procedures in place to deal with proposed changes to or additions of public crossings. Private crossings under RFRHA control will be allowed by permit as opposed to easement or license, and must meet the standards for construction defined within the Access Plan. Existing private crossings shall be allowed to continue on the corridor. If the existing crossing is already licensed, that license shall be adhered to unless it is mutually determined by the licensee and RFRHA that modification of the license is warranted. If an existing crossing is currently not licensed, or a change of use of the existing crossing is requested, the user of the crossing shall apply for a license or license modification under a permitting process administered by RFRHA. Policy for New Crossings: New crossings of the railroad corridor shall be generally prohibited. There are exceptions to this policy, including: • A new public street or road crossing, which is administered through the CPUC; • A need for anew crossing to provide access to a private property that otherwise cannot be reasonably provided by an existing permitted crossing or another route (i.e. connection to an existing public road). Parties interested in pursuing a new crossing under the exceptions stated above must apply for such a crossing through either the CPUC procedures or through the permitting procedure administered by RFRHA. It is the burden of the parry proposing a new crossing is necessary under the hardships described above. -- 77 - mrnn^ k-umpeiiCUarva , nu 6� If a new crossing of the corridor is pursued, the following standards shall be followed: • A grade-separated crossing will be preferred; • The new crossing must be shown to have no adverse impact to rail operations or to the trails and open space values of the corridor. • Consolidation of existing crossings may be required as a part of any approval of a new crossing; • Coordination with local agencies will be a part of the review/approval process. Policy for Crossing Consolidation: Consolidation of existing crossings is an effective method of reducing conflicts on the railroad corridor. To that end, RFRHA will encourage the consolidation of existing crossings wherever and whenever practicable. RFRHA may also require crossing consolidations as a part of any new crossing application, proposed development activity, or in conjunction with joint railroad/other transportation facility improvements. For example, if a commuter transit improvement is conducted on the railroad property, some public road crossings may be consolidated as a part of the public works project. Opportunities for Crossing Consolidation: Opportunities for crossing consolidation will be based on the following criteria: • Minor crossings within %-mile of each other; • Major crossings within 1-mile of each other; • "Paper" crossings (i.e. crossings that are licensed but are not physically located on the corridor); • Private crossings where alternative access to public roads are available; Crossings that can be combined via frontage roads. The corridor mapping included within the Exhibit B: Access Plan shows crossings that are suitable for potential consolidation under these criteria. RFRHA will pro- actively pursue crossing consolidation by meeting with license holders individually, evaluating potential consolidations on a case-by-case basis based upon transportation, trail and open space values, conducting safety analysis where applicable, and monitoring development activity on adjacent private lands. Permit for Crossings and Consolidations: RFRHA currently requires private interests who are desirous of crossing or otherwise utilizing the corridor to obtain permission to do so from RFRHA. Attached as Exhibit B-2 is the permit form entitled "Notice of Intention to Undertake Rail Corridor Activities". This form will be used by RFRHA to review and approve/deny crossings and other uses of the rail corridor. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 14 February 3, 2000 V. SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS OF THE CORRIDOR INVESTMENT STUDY The purpose of the Corridor Investment Study (CIS) is to determine the best, locally feasible, long-range regional transportation system for the Roaring Fork valley. The CIS will also answer the questions posed in the Comprehensive Plan regarding transit on the railroad corridor. A summary of key findings within the Corridor Investment Study is as follows: Technology Alternatives: Through an intense public process, 46 technology options were considered. At the end, rail was selected as a "build" alternative for further study. The build alternative was compared to two other alternatives during the more detailed, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Process: The "No-build" alternative, which looks at our transportation future with only projects that are currently approved or budgeted (also known as the committed projects alternative); and the "Transportation Systems Management" (TSM) alternative that looks at improving the existing RFTA Bus system (also known as the Enhanced Bus alternative). Alignment Options: Five potential alignments (A through E) were developed and combined with the rail/build and bus/TSM technology options. Each of the alignments followed either the railroad right-of-way or a combination of the right-of- way and the Highway 82 alignment. All five alignments survived the Phase 1 reality check and fatal flaw screening process. As a result of the Phase 2 comparative evaluation, Alignment C (with a crossing option at Catherine's Store, the northern crossing option at Gerbazdale and the Alignment B option south of Jerbazdale) was chosen for the rail/build alternative to be evaluated for the DEIS any- .,sis. However, Alignment A, which follows the railroad corridor from Glenwood Springs to Woody Creek, will be considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement process as a possible phasing alternative. All five alignment options are fully described and illustrated within Exhibit C: Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Propulsion Options: Of the 19 total propulsion options determined, eight were selected to be continued for detailed study. They include diesel, gasoline, hydrogen internal combustion, liquid propane, natural gas, electric battery, electric overhead catenary, and electric/gas hybrid. Station Location Options: Sixteen potential station locations were determined through the initial screening process. Of the sixteen discovered, nine were carried forward into the DEIS for comparative purposes. They are: 7g - KrrcnH c-omprenensrve rian rage IZ) • West Glenwood Springs • Downtown Glenwood Springs • State Highway 133 (Carbondale) • Downtown Carbondale • El Jebel/Willits Lane • Basalt • Brush Creek Road • Pitkin County Airport • Galena & Main St (downtown Aspen) Significant Environmental Impacts: Through the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Process, The following environmental impacts were determined for the rail/build alternative: Beneficial Impacts: Reduced air pollution • Increased transportation capacity • Safer transportation • Improved quality of life • Greater potential to concentrate growth through transit oriented development • Increased transportation choices • Reduction in buses Adverse Impacts: • Relocation of or encroachment on households and businesses • Increased noise levels • Potential for encroachment on bald eagle buffer zone • New structures creating visual impacts Public Involvement: An intense public involvement process, funded and staffed over and above the work conducted within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement process, was conducted by RFRHA. In addition to a nested task force/policy committee structure, open houses, public meetings, workshops, focus groups, elected official briefings, newsletters and media outreach programs were conducted. Capital Costs: Capital costs for the rail/build alternative has been determined at $194 million. This cost was derived using Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains running on Alignment C and stopping at the nine stations listed above. This cost also includes the feeder bus routes, park-and-rides and station improvements required. �� �0 RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 16 February 3, 2000 Operation and Maintenance Costs: An annual operations and maintenance cost of $10.8 million for opening day, 2003 and $20.85 million for the year 2020 (planning horizon) was determined for the rail/build alternative. This cost is based on a transit schedule that operates every half-hour between 6:00 am and 12:00 am every day. These costs also include the feeder bus systems, stations and maintenance facilities. This cost does not include revenues obtained from fares. Next Steps: After the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is published in January, 2000, a public comment period will begin on the DEIS that will last 90 days. Work on the Final Environmental Impact Statement will begin in March/April of 2000. The HIS will respond to all of the comments brought forward during the public comment period and will also determine financing and governance for the system. As a part of the financing work, phasing of the system will also be considered. It is anticipated that a HIS will be completed and a Record of Decision issued for the project by November, 2000. If the required local financing is accumulated and a regional entity capable of managing the system is approved by the voters by November, 2000, a system can be built and begin operating by September, 2003. VI. CHANGES TO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Based on the information and definition of uses contained within this Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the following modifications, additions or deletions to the scope of the Conservation Easement be approved by the RFRHA Board, member governments and participating state agencies: Approved Uses. The following uses are determined to be appropriate for the property under the Comprehensive Plan: Trail and Recreational Use: A regional trail, with associated side trails to access the river and public lands, trailheads and signage program as defined within Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan. In addition, placement of interpretive and environmental educational facilities as described within Exhibit E: Reading the Roaring Fork Landscape: An Ideabook for Interpretation and Environmental Education. Rail Transit and Freight Use: Placement of all facilities, including trackage, stations and associated structures, for a rail transit system in some or all of the corridor, as described within Exhibit C: Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Exhibit D: Additional Technical Information as Requested Through the Local Decision Making Process. Glenwood Springs Bypass Route: On October 21, 1999, the Glenwood Springs City Council adopted Resolution #99-11 designating the Railroad right-of-way from the / ""` -crKri/C%.omprenenerve nan I C%v Colorado River to the vicinity of 23d and 27`h Street as the preferred bypass alternative for Highway 82. In addition, Glenwood Springs' participation in RFRHA had been conditioned upon the possible use of the railroad right-of-way for a vehicular bypass provided that such a bypass would not preclude the use of the right-of-way for rail or trail purposes. Attached as Exhibit F: City of Glenwood Springs Bypass is a copy of Resolution #99-11 and a copy of the conceptual study conducted by Glenwood Springs regarding the various bypass alternatives proposed. The use of the railroad right-of-way for placement of a bypass route is still in the early stages of design. In addition, no funding for the project has been determined. The cost for a bypass along the railroad right-of-way is estimated at between $55 and $100 million. Pursing the ultimate placement of the bypass is seen as a joint effort between Glenwood Springs and RFRHA. Including the Glenwood bypass within the Comprehensive Plan, although anticipated by both parties during the purchase in no way binds RFRHA to participating in any future funding of the planning or capital expenses related to construction of the bypass. As plans are refined and finalized, both partners will work together to insure that the project fulfill the mutual goals of each entity. Anticipated Future Uses Appropriate to the Corridor: There are some emerging local issues in the Roaring Fork valley that may at some point in the future require the use of the corridor. Such use of the corridor will not impact the conservation values or the approved uses of the corridor, but could enhance the nature of the corridor as a public asset. Two such uses are public telecommunication and existing transit use. It is becoming apparent that rural access to broadband telecommunications technology is to a large extent being ignored by the private sector, primarily because of it's poor economic return. As a result, rural areas may find themselves forced to provide their own access to this broadband technology if they want to keep pace with their urban counterparts. As a result of this need to stay abreast with new technology, it may be necessary for the railroad right-of-way to be available as a corridor for a future regional telecommunication system. Any use of the corridor for these purposes would likely come in the form of buried cable or fiber optic lines, and should not be undertaken unless it is a part of an overall regional telecommunication master plan. Any physical undergrounding of utilities in the corridor shall be subordinate to existing and future planned transportation and recreation uses of the corridor. Another possible future use of the property could be for placement of facilities needed under existing transit use prior to implementation of rail transit. Use of portions of the right-of-way, as designated within Exhibit D: 4) Transit Oriented Development Study, could be used for existing or enhanced transit. This use of the RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 18 February 3, 2000 property will consist of park-and-rides and/or stations for bus improvements to facilitate existing Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) bus service or to facilitate the Enhanced Bus/TSM transit alternative if this alternative is carried forward as a phasing option within the Record of Decision (ROD). Any future anticipated use of the corridor deemed appropriate by the RFRHA Board will be reviewed, discussed and considered for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan under the methodology described below. Removal of the Access Plan from the Conservation Easement: Because the Access Plan sets out policies, standards and procedures for existing and new crossings, as well as for consolidation of crossings, the oversight and approval of crossings on the corridor can now be managed by RFRHA. PhjWc-al Modification of the Conservation Easement/Restriction: The conservation values of the corridor are defined as being the natural, scenic, open space, historical, educational, wildlife, trail and recreational values. The Comprehensive Plan addresses and preserves all of these values with the exception of the natural and epea-spars wildlife values. The conservation easement, which now covers the entire corridor, is reduced in physical scope to cover only those areas where natural features, such as riparian areas, critical wildlife habitats and prime wetland areas. With this reduction in size, the conservation easement may be modified to become a restriction or coveneant on the property. The boundaries of the reduced conservation easement/restriction are described within Exhibit G. The criteria proposed to protect the conservation values on the remainder of the corridor can be used by RFRHA to govern use (or non-use) of the property in the future. Retention of the Trail Easement. It is proposed that the trail easement be retained by the easement holder. The trail easement will burden the entire property until the trail is actually placed, at which time it will be reduced to a 20-foot wide easement, 10-feet either side of the centerline of the trail. Procedure for Modification to the Comprehensive Plan: Every five years, the RFRHA Board shall review the Comprehensive Plan and make changes to it if deemed necessary. In addition, RFRHA staff or Board members may propose to initiate a modification to the Comprehensive Plan because of a perceived need to do so. The RFRHA Board must approve the initiation of the modification process before it is to proceed. After approval to proceed, any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will be initially drafted and presented to the Board. After receiving comments from the RFRHA Board, the draft will be distributed to all member governments, including Great Outdoors Colorado and The Colorado Department of Transportation, for their comments. A final draft of the amendment(s) will then be brought back to the RFRHA Board for their final acceptance. Once accepted by the RFRHA Board, the amendment(s) will be sent back to the member governments for their ratification. All member governments TT�crrnl.omprenen5rvc� .a.. � agc must approve of the amendment(s) before they are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Transferability of the Comprehensive Plan: In the Intergovernmental Agreement forming RFRHA, it is anticipated that ownership of the rail corridor may be transferred to another public agency. If this is the case, the Comprehensive Plan will be tied to the property and will transfer with property ownership to that new ownership entity. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15 SERIES OF 2000 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, On June 26, 1997, the local governments of the Roaring Fork valley approved an Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement Between Pitkin County, Eagle County, the City of Glenwood Springs, the City of Aspen the Town of Carbondale. the Town of Basalt, and the Town of Snowmass Village Concerning the Purchase and Public Ownership of the Aspen Branch of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Right-of-way (hereinafter the "Intergovernmental Agreement'); and WHEREAS, the following condition was included under paragraph 6e. of the Intergovernmental Agreement: "The Governments shall develop, consider and approve the Comprehensive Plan for the Property within twenty-four(24) months of the date this Amended Agreement is signed, unless the Governments mutually agree to extend the time period for the formulation and adoption of such a Plan. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and any amendments thereto shall be consistent with the grant conditions set forth in the grant documents referenced at section 5, above. It is anticipated that when the Comprehensive Plan for the Property is approved by all participating Govemments, a new Intergovernmental Agreement will be negotiated and become effective to implement the Comprehensive Plan"; and WHEREAS, under the same paragraph of the Intergovernmental Agreement, the Comprehensive Plan is defined as follows: "The Plan shall include the following: 1. A listing and description of possible uses for the property, including but not limited to such improvements necessary to place and operate a public transportation system, public trail, and/or access to public lands, 11. A detailed improvements and operations plan for the ultimate preferred uses(s) on the property, including a recommended management and funding strategy, and lll. An interim plan which incorporates the interim use of the rail corridor for a temporary trail following approval from the Surface Transportation Board of a certificate of interim trail use pending the re-establishment of rail service'; and WHEREAS, the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority Board (hereinafter the"Board") has reviewed drafts of the Comprehensive Plan with staff, has solicited comments from all member and local governments concerning the plan, and has completed the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan by addressing relevant comments within a final draft of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Governments to complete the Comprehensive Plan in order to satisfy the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement and the Legacy Grant Agreement entered into by the Governments with the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority voted to extend the completion date of the Comprehensive Plan to March 1, 2000; and WHEREAS, on February 29, 2000 the Board of Directors of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority approved the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan and requested that the member governments consider ratifying the Comprehensive Plan by April 30, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village approves the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority Comprehensive Plan. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 3rd day of April, 2000 with a motion made by Council Member and seconded by Council Member and by a vote of_ in favor to _ opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE: ATTEST: T. MICHAEL MANCHESTER, Mayor TRUDI WORLINE, Town Clerk TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GARY SUITER, TOWN MANAGER RE: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: MARCH 30, 2000 wwxwwwxwwwwwwxxxwww+++++++xxxxxx+xxwwwwxxwwwwwwwxwxxwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+xwwwwwwww+wwwww++++++++++ *LAND USE CODE STATUS REPORT Attached you will find an organizationaUflow chart that reflects a new approach to this project. You will note that I have shifted this project to the Community Development Department. Victoria will now be responsible for general project management and supervision, while Leslie, Steve and the Planning Staff provide support. The roles and responsibilities are clarified on the chart and the work product (the bottom 3 boxes) is intended to flow in a more linear fashion. Also attached, you will find a calendar(Time Framework), outlining tasks and deadlines for the remaining articles and a Land Use Code Progress Report that will be generated bi-weekly. I am mostly interested in Council's feedback on the proposed calendar and deadlines. We want to be realistic with the schedule, keeping in mind that we still need to resolve the discussion on community benefit, unit allocation and the build-out chart. It is important that we remain focused and committed to the schedule. Staff, too, is anxious to complete this project, as implementing an incrementally changing land-use code provides for inconsistency and frustration for both staff and the customer. Let me know your thoughts. *REPORT FROM MARCH 14TH STAFF RETREAT I have attached several pages of notes from our staff retreat held in mid-March. Staff felt the day-long retreat was worthwhile. We discussed many topics, including: budget and economic reserve fund; health of the organization; identification of major projects and issues; organizational trends; and other topics. Attached is the staff input on major and minor projects, a list of potential development applications and possible ballot issues for this November. Please let me know if you have any comments on any of the project notes. New recommendations include consideration of installation of lighting in the lower numbered lots this year (this item is not budgeted). Staff is also recommending that Town Council consider reserving a block of 2 to 4 townhomes in the Parcel N project, specifically for Town employees. We would like to discuss this with Council at an upcoming Work Session. I welcome your comments on any of the other projects. PARKING SYSTEM CHANGE Please make a note that the Town will be going to free parking on Monday, April 10'". All involved parties are in agreement with this date and Rodeo Lot bus service will end for the season. JOINT MEETING WITH WATER AND SANITATION Please be reminded that our joint meeting with the Water and Sanitation Board is scheduled for April 11'" at 2:OOpm in their Board meeting room. This will be an open discussion so bring your questions and comments. ENTRY SIGN CODE AMENDMENT Please mark your calendars for April 26 and May 10, 2000, as these are the dates that the Board of County Commissioners will be considering an amendment to their Land Use Code to allow our entry 03-30-OOMR Page Two sign at Brush Creek Road and Highway 82. We have a copy of the Staff Report for the P&Z meeting. Please let me know if you would like a copy. "TOWN MEETINGS A reminderthat the Town meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, April 4 at 12:00 Noon and Wednesday, April 5 at 5:30pm in the Schermer Meeting Hall at Anderson Ranch Arts Center. Topics will include development in Snowmass Village, including Base Village, the Rodeo, the Nature Center and the Mall Transit Plaza. Ads have run in the newspaper, the notice is posted on our website as well as throughout the Town. The format will be similar to last time, which I think worked well. Please let me know if you would like specific information provided at these meetings. p/skier UcleWman gw xsUrepWs mgrl03-30.00 �e �� _ F WN NCIL LE: makers I GARY -CEO ROLE: Arbitrator CRAIG Dep't Head ROLE: Problem Salver and Mediator I VICTORIA Div. Head ROLES: Gen'I Project Management and Supervision RESPONSIBILITIES: Directing/ Scheduling/Quality Control/Delegation/Policy Clarification/ Bi-weekly progress reports/Troubleshooting LESLIE PLANNING DIV. STAFF STEVE ROLE: Primary Support to ROLE: First draft review ROLE: Legal Review Victoria and comment. RESPONSIBILITIES: RESPONSIBILITIES: Io RESPONSIBILITIES: Review final draft/ Primary author/ Produce Review first draft/ Make Make final legal first drafts/ Minimize legal recommended changes/ changes for Council involvement Produce final draft for PacketJ Minimize leqal review policy involvement 0 TIME FRAMEWORK TASK WHO DEADLINE Article /V TC work session LAK, VG, SRC Aril 3, 2000 Staff review LAK,VG April 11, 2000 Legal review SRC Concurrent with above TC first reading VG, LAK, SRC April 24, 2000 PC review LAK, VG May 3, 2000 TC second reading VG, LAK, SRC May 30, Second Reading Article V Draft to staff LAK April 3, 2000 Staff review LAK, VG, SRC Aril 4, 2000 Legal review SRC April 18, 2000 TC work sessions LAK,VG, SRC Aril 24 & May 1, 2000 TC first reading VG, LAK, SRC May 30, 2000 PC review LAK, VG June 7, 2000 TC second reading VG, LAK, SRC June 19, 2000 LAND USE CODE PROGRESS REPORT (bi-weekly) TO: Craig Thompson FROM: Victoria Giannola CC: Gary Suiter, Town Council DATE: PROGRESS TO DATE: (narrative or bullets) - Tasks accomplished - Meetings held and outcome - Articles/Sections & stage of completion - Other PROBLEMS/ISSUES: (narrative) - Policy issues that could slow the process - Performance problems - Accessibility of Staff or Council - Work flow problems - Deadlines missed - Scheduling problems - Work Quality - Other UPCOMING: (bullets) - Meetings; Staff/Town Council/ Planning Commission - Council action - Other MAJOR PROJECTS RETT FUND PROJECT BUDGET POINT PERSON COMPLETION NOTES/ISSUES DATE Trails $605000 Craig Thompson Second or Third Guber access tied to Pitkin County Open and Hunt Walker Quarter Space Funds. Hunt Walker responsible for Brush Creek Trail. Town needs to be pro- active and act as a catalyst on these projects. Brush Creek $300,000 Bernadette Third / Fourth $20,000 will be received from the Timbers Restoration Barthelenghi Quarter for Wetlands mitigation. John McCarty will assist with this project on a contract basis. Entryway $957000 Bernadette Second/Third Political issue with Pitkin County. Not a Sign Barthelenghi Quarter slam-dunk. May need to change location. 1 5 GENERAL FUND PROJECT BUDGET POINT PERSON COMPLETION NOTESASSUES DATE Wood Run $120,000 Hunt Walker Third Quarter Politically difficult to implement. Need Dumpster (underfunded) clear direction and strong position from Town Council. Need help from SVHOA. Picnic $110,000 Bernadette Second Quarter Design has been an issue. We need to get Shelter Barthelenghi this built. Strategize with Town Council. Mall Transit $300,000 Gary Suiter Fourth Quarter Need to stick with design objectives. Plaza Need to address funding question ASAP. Should be built without going to vote if at all possible. OTHER NOTES ON PROJECTS: • Park Shelter — use the Parks Committee for a recommendation to Town Council. • Use the Trails Committee for recommendations to Town Council. • Don't forget commuter trails such as Upper Brush Creek Road (Creekside) ( and Snowmass Center to Mountain View. (Staff should include these projects in the 2001 Budget.) W 6 Other Projects (cont'd) • Lower numbered lot lighting — should be built this year. - Dependent upon funding from Road or RETT fund. - Needs to be discussed with Council ASAP. • Mall Transit Team — staff team will include Gary, Hunt, Dave and Marianne. Craig will assist Marianne with economic/financial analysis. Joe Kracum, Walter Kieser and Russ Caldwell provide consulting help. • Parcel N — staff recommendation to Town Council will be to reserve a block of 2 to 4 Townhomes for TOSV employees. The Town would take the remaining units following a lottery. This needs to be brought to Council's attention as soon as possible. • Draw Parcel — the Town Hall lease is up in three years. We need to start thinking about this project. Recommendation to Council is to remove restrictions on the Draw Parcel. Staff believes that Town Hall and Seasonal Housing seem to work at this location. �w 7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ACTUAL ♦ Snowmass Club Phase II ♦ Seven Star Ranch ♦ Timbers Final PUD ♦ Nature Center POSSIBLE ♦ Base Village (May or June?) ♦ Rodeo Parcel ♦ Conference Center Expansion ♦ East Village Townhomes / Anderson Ranch ♦ Faraway Ranch North 8 POSSIBLE BALLOT ISSUES ❖ Employee Housing on Parcels "N" and "K" ❖ RTA Formation and Possible Funding ❖ Aspen High School Renovation ❖ Transit Bonding — '/2 cent debt ❖ Rodeo Purchase ❖ Mall Parking / Transit Facility 9 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION 03-13-2000 The Work Session began at 4:10 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Doug Mercatoris, Kevin Costello, Mark Brady Council Member Brady arrived at approximately 4:40 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Hatfield STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Leslie Klusmire, Assistant to the Town Manager; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Dawn Keating, Wildlife Specialist; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; David Peckler, Transportation Manager; Bernadette Barthelenghi, Landscape Architect; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Madeline Osberger and Eric Odell COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY WILDLIFE STUDY Eric Odell, a student of Colorado State University Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, provided a slide presentation of two-year study results on wildlife communities and development in Pitkin County. He explained that the study was funded by Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, Colorado State University and the Town of Snowmass Village. The study was undertaken to determine the wildlife and plant communities as associated with varying construction and development and will assist staff in reviewing development applications as they are related to wildlife compatibility when processing wildlife values in the community. Results of the Study are included in Odell's final report on file with the Town of Snowmass Village Town Clerk's Department. Keating, Snowmass Village Wildlife Specialist, requested that Council consider cat control in order to protect the songbird population within Snowmass Village. Council suggested that the Community Development Department approach the Aspen Skiing Company to discuss a joint effort with the Town to provide a better environment for the birds. - 97 - 03-13-00ws Page 2 ENTRYWAY SIGN DISCUSSION Mayor Manchester stated that Council Members met with the Pitkin County Commissioners regarding the sign proposed for construction by the Town at the intersection of Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road. The Commissioners informed Council that the sign did not meet the requirements of the current Pitkin County Land Use Code. They explained that the language within the County Land Use Code would need to be revised in order to allow construction of the proposed sign at this location, if the application is considered appropriate. The Commissioners voted 3 in favor to 1 opposed to amend the County Land Use Code language in order to consider the application. One Commissioner was absent. Manchester offered two alternate locations for the sign: a site location off Highway 82 approaching the intersection from down Valley and the second site located farther up Brush Creek Road near the Brush Creek Village exit. He also suggested that the sign be moved back approximately 40 feet towards Snowmass Village from its currently proposed location on the island. Council also discussed the size of the sign and landscaping at the location of the sign. After further discussion, Council majority agreed to move the sign back 40 feet from its current location, stated their preference for the size of the sign to remain as currently proposed, requested specific landscaping for the area and requested that staff inform the Commissioners of the lighting plan. Council also requested that an amended landscape plan be provided to the Commissioners at their April 12, 2000 Meeting. Hunt Walker will contact the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and request that directional signs to Snowmass Village be placed at the roundabout near Aspen as well as on the Southbound lane near shale bluffs approaching the Snowmass Village exit. RURAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RTA) DISCUSSION Mayor Manchester reported that he and Council Member Mercatoris attended a recent Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) Meeting. Two Decision Briefs and a memo from Dan Blankenship of Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) were discussed at the meeting and are included in today's Council packet for review. Blankenship's memo argued against the merging of RFTA with the RTA. Of particular interest at the meeting was Decision Brief#4 "What will the RTA Do?" and a document submitted by Manchester that outlined decisions made to date. Concern about combining Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA) and RFTA was expressed at both meetings. Concerns about RFRHA consolidation include liability, risk management and whether or not RTA should be managing a rail corridor until it becomes a transportation corridor. Council agreed that the RTA should be the trunk provider of mass transit service extending as far as Glenwood Springs with the possibility of providing service to Rifle if the RTA Board feels it appropriate. The RTA Board decision-making will consist of one vote per jurisdiction of the entities involved in the _V _ 03-13-00ws Page 3 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Council discussed a concern that if the RTA takes over RFRHA before the train becomes a reality, it may damage the credibility of the RTA formation because opponents of the rail may inaccurately assume that the RTA is a means to further rail. Council agreed that the RTA should initially be the means to coordinate and manage a regional mass transit system for the Roaring Fork Valley. Mercatoris stated that however the RTA is formed, the employees of RFTA should receive the same or enhanced benefits and salary. Feeling that Blankenship's memo created a negative tone, Council requested that a letter be sent responding to the memo. Council also requested that staff contact Randy Ready of Pitkin County and request additional time on the upcoming Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Meeting to discuss consolidation of RFTA and RTA as well as Blankenship's memo. 2000 Census Mayor Manchester reminded Council that all Census Reports have been mailed to citizens. He said that the Census Bureau is requesting the forms be completed and mailed back immediately. Response may be made by e-mail, although an identification number on the individual's Census Report must be entered to avoid duplication. Public Comments/E-Mail/Hotline Mayor Manchester stated that the public is responding to Council advertisements regarding the recently installed "Hotline" which provides an avenue for the public to make comments to Council. An e-mail address is also available. After further discussion, Council requested that each day's e-mail be combined into one document and forwarded to Council Members e-mail address. Second choice was to print the e-mail and place copies in Council mailboxes located in the Town Clerk's Department. A Voicemail box will be activated for each Council Member for telephone messages received from the public. Manchester requested a weekly, boxed display advertisement in the local newspaper, informing the public of the "Question of the Week". Council also requested that the location of the advertisement be consistent within the newspaper. Council discussed the e-mail response process and requested that the question for next week's newspaper ad address the proposed sign at the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highway 82. Housing Survey Data Klusmire explained that it has been determined the Rosall Remen Cares Survey information is unusable. She further explained that information received from Business/Sales Tax Licenses and renewals could be used by RRC if the information is adjusted for ski resort activity. This will cost approximately $500. After further discussion, Council directed staff to proceed. 03-13-00ws Page 4 SNOWMASS INSTITUTE LETTER Council discussed a letter from Peter Moore of Snowmass Institute. Mayor Manchester explained that Moore's position requires that he review market trends and market research indicates the magnitude in which learning is influencing vacation choices. He suggested that Council and the Snowmass Village Resort Association (SRA) consider intellectual challenges that offer an opportunity for guests to learn that which interests them when trying to determine activities the Town should provide to our guests. REQUEST TO BAN SNOWBOARDING ON SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN Mayor Manchester introduced a letter of complaint requesting that snowboarding be banned on Snowmass Mountain. The Town Manager will write a letter of response recommending that the request be directed to the Aspen Skiing Company. ASPEN ARTS ADVISORY BOARD The Aspen Arts Advisory Board will meet at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 2000. FUNDING FOR THE SNOWMASS RODEO Council discussed financial contributions from the Town and community to help finance the Snowmass Rodeo. SRA will vote on March 29, 2000 to determine whether they will provide additional funding to help support the Rodeo. Council also discussed the possibility of conducting an audit to verify the use of contributions from the Town and the business community. GROWTH POLICIES SURVEY The Gates Family Foundation sponsored a survey concerning statewide growth and funding for open space. Results indicate that Colorado residents want more open space and are willing to pay for it. CITIZEN TASK FORCE The Town Manager summarized a letter from Shelly Roy Harper, Chairperson of the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners, asking that Council appoint an elected official or citizen to serve on the Citizens' Task Force to create a responsible growth management reform strategy. The goal of the Task Force is to establish and implement growth management reform. Appointees will participate in a three-month process and will meet every two weeks for approximately four hours. Costello volunteered to serve as Council's representative on the Task Force. All meetings will be televised by Grassroots Television. The Work Session ended at 6:28 p.m. Trudi Worline Town Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 03-20-2000 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester; Kevin Costello; Mark Brady; Douglas Mercatoris COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Hatfield STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Victoria Giannola, Planning Director; Dave Peckler, Transit Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Rebecca Harlowe, Secretary/Records Manager PUBLIC PRESENT: Jeff Tippett and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. The Work Session began at 2:07 p.m. MALL TRANSIT PLAZA— MASS AND SCALE Joe Kracum summarized various possibilities in terms of overall dimensions of specific structures with particular attention to retaining walls and structure heights in the Mall Transit Plaza project. He explained that once the ideal retaining wall and structure heights are established, architectural styles will be considered. There will be a design Work Session for the architect, roadway designers, site designers, drainage team and structural engineers on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, March 29th and 30th, to discuss schedule, standards and functional aspects of the project. Kracum and Council discussed the timeline for plans and cost estimates. The architectural meeting was rescheduled for May 1St. Final conceptual drawings along with more accurate cost estimates should be available in June, 2000. Should Council decide to proceed, the design team could begin work on the Preliminary Design (30% level) by the beginning of July. At that time, Council would proceed to either a design/bid/build phase or a design/build phase. By June, plans should be 75% complete and cost estimates should be accurate with approximately 10% variability. At that point Council could draft a bond issue for the November Election ballot, if necessary. Kracum referred Council to the Draft Design Standards in the March 16th Conceptual Design Alternatives H and I handout. They discussed retaining wall length, height and placement as well as details concerning loading and delivery. Mayor Manchester 03-20-OOws Page 2 03-20-OOWS Page 2 suggested that the plans be creative in order to break up the design and reducing the visual impact of the structures and elevator tower. Council also considered radical design alternatives and cost differences. Council concluded that Parking Lots 4 and 5 will have terraced parking structures and the details in terms of mass and scale, upper lot layout, double island and pick-up/drop- off options will be discussed during a Work Session scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2000. The Work Session ended at 4:15 p.m. Submitted by: Rebecca Harlowe Secretary/Records Manager Statt'changes April 12 2000 Status Report BY 5 P.M.!!!!! Bullets in Italics have been previously listed State of the Town April 3, 2000 Town Council/ Town Manager Act ivity/Stat]' M anager Status Mall Transit Plaza ■ Partners meeting held 3/30/2000. Gary Suiter, Town Manager ■ Moving forward o final design concept. ■ Field investigations begin April 24s'. ■ Finalizing scope of work and contract w/Walter. Entryway Planning Project ■ Awaiting memo from Town Engineer. Gary Suiter, Town Manager Offices at Snowmass ■ Victoria is reviewing the case. Gary Suiter Town Manager's Office Activities ■ Need to reschedule Council retreat. Gary Suiter ■ Conducting outstanding employee reviews. ■ Coordinating Town Meetings. Town Attorney tal'I' Manager Status Town Attorney General Activities ■ Steve Connor, Town Attorney Public Works Mitnager Status Brush Creek Transportation ■ On March 16,the EOTC passed a resolution in Corridor support of the Brush Creek Trail. Hunt Walker Wood Run Dumpster ■ Gary Ross has drawn a conceptual site plan to be Hunt Walker presented to Council on April 10. 1 Housing Activity/Staff Manager Status Housing Department Activities ■ Staff continues to check apartment smoke alarms Joe Coffey and complete apartment condition records. ■ Cathy Parks was awarded Mountain View 4914. ■ James Ingram won lottery for Creekside G-12. Jim O'Leary was other applicant in 10-15 year category. ■ 14 applications were submitted for the Mountain View and Creekside units. ■ Joe is preparing Income and Asset Guidelines for Council review. ■ Painting bids under review for Creekside Complex. ■ There are no units currently for sale. Parcel N. Employee Housing ■ Dean Gordon will prepare an engineering proposal Joe Coffey for Parcel "N". ■ Scott and Joe continue to review floor plans and building designs. ■ A Council meeting will be scheduled on April I Oh or 17'h to discuss Parcel "N". ■ Scott Smith has been informed to proceed with the project because the funding will not require voter approval in November. ■ Scott is preparing a new schedule to begin construction this summer. Scott and Joe are meeting on 3-31 to review schedule. Finance Activity/Staff Manager Status Finance and Personnel Activities ■ Closing December financial statement. Marianne Rakowski ■ Preparing annual solid waste homeowner's billings. ■ Reviewing pay classification report. ■ Input budget allocation numbers by month. ■ Reviewing year-end reports. ■ Preparing for change over from Novell server to Windows NT. ■ Preparing for January close. ..._ /40 Al - 2 Web Page Enhancement ■ Added survey question and feedback page. Nick Tucker ■ Updated transportation (Phase 1) to include large map w/hot buttons to individual maps. ■ Updating community development web site w/maps/closure/wildlife, etc. ■ Updating public works to include recycling information brochures. ■ Updating entire interface. Town Clerk Activity/Staff Manager Stattis Town Clerk's Office Activities ■ Cross checking all 1999 documents with Trudi Worline computer files and council packets. • Organizing 2 town meetings at Anderson Ranch. • Training new front desk secretary. • Updating central file computer program. Police Police Department Activities 0 A job offer has been extended to long-time local" Art Smythe,Police Chief Paul "Huff'Hufnagle to fill police officer position. He will be attending the next session of the State certified police academy beginning May 15'h. Community Development Department Activity/Staff Manager Status Community Development Director ■ Sign Code amendment will go to Pitkin County Activities Planning and Zoning Commission on 4/4 and to Craig Thompson BOCC on 4/26 and 5/10. ■ 3 Environmental and Wildlife Activities Activity/Stall' Maiiager Status Brush Creek Field Guide ■ Staff to present funding recommendation at Dawn Keating 41312000 TC meeting.Snowmass Sun article on 3115 had numerous errors that staff will clarify with Council on April 3. SLC and ASC WEMPS • April 17 meeting scheduled for Council to review Dawn Keating annual WEMPS. Staffwill provide comments. Community Enhancement Projects Activity/Staff Manager Status Brush Creek ■ Project coordinating Bernadette Barthelenghi ■ Wetland delineation done. ■ Permit has been submitted to Corp of Engineers. ■ Searching for a stockpile location. Owl Creek Trail ■ Appraisal completed. Dean Stahman ■ Dave Will(PitCo Open Space)preparing letter with offer for Peter Gruber. r Letter'Co Be sent within next trvo"tiveeks. Picnic Shelter ♦ Scoping for ideas. Bermadette Barthelenghi Plans & Policy Development Activity/Staft' Manager Status Affordable Housing Mitigation ■ Draft employee figures for land uses in mitigation Leslie Klusmire/Joe Coffey formula to be presented to Council April P. Census 2000 ■ Placed posters in Town to remind residents of the Victoria Giannola importance of completing the Census. Census forms due March 31, 2000. Environmental Foundation Grant ♦ Preparing a grant application for Brush Creek. Bernadette Barthelenghi ♦ Writing grant application for Four Seasons project. Floor Area Excise Tax ■ Series of policy questions for Council Victoria Giannola consideration. 4 GOCO Grant ■ GOCO grant application due 3/3 for stream Dean Stahman restoration trail/park at Seasons Four condos. ■ Grant pending. ■ Need easement agreement with Seasons Four. ■ Seasons Four board meeting 4/4. Greenway Master Plan ■ Consultant is working on a conceptual map of the Bernadette Barthelenghi Greenway. ■ Draft text has been completed. ■ Plan will incorporate the Mall area. Land Use Code Amendments ■ Oversee staff and planning commission comments Victoria Giannola on Article V and Article IV. Pre-Sketch Plan ■ Directed to Planning Commission on 3/5 for Victoria Giannola recommendation to Town Council on 3-17. Trails Planning ♦ Committee met March 21st. Bernadette Barthelenghi ♦ Working on a trail improvement program for construction this summer. ♦ Working on a signage implementation program to be installed this summer. ♦ Cost estimating for map printing this June. Watershed Management Plan ■ Scoping for Phase 11 of project has been completed. Bernadette Barthelenghi ■ Final sampling event will occur in April. Major Development Review Update The Timbers at Snowmass ■ Town Council adopted preliminary plan March 20. Chris Conrad ■ Geotechnical info for shoring wall distributed to Council March 17"'. Ordinance I" reading April 3. Seven * Ranch ■ Extension granted to March 20'h. Council action Gary Sulter/Steve Connor needs to be taken on 20s' on another extension. Snowmass Club Phase II Sketch ♦ Scheduled joint meeting between Town Council Plan and Planning Commission on April 10 at 5 p.m. Victoria Giannola �0 7 tow 5 Minor Development Review Update OWWWWAilm ASC Ski School Building ■ SPA Amendment; Dave Ellis ■ Application received& deemed incomplete 8119199. ■ Waiting for title certificate and owner consent. ■ No response to TOSV follow-up 1/19 and 2/29. Nature Center ■ 1"reading of ordinance accepting the wildlife Chris Conrad report and adopting mitigation and enhancement plan to occur April 3. Tamarack Minor • Minor addition to create new office space and Chris Conrad improve pool locker rooms. Pre-application conference occurred. Application to be submitted shortly. Woodrun Place#34 Preparing ordinance of Council action for I`and Victoria Giannola 2nd reading. Administration Modification, SUP, TUP, Variance Administrative Modifications PRO 47 ,;Pines "7,k IN Lot 36,Two Creeks. ■ Lot 95,Wood Run.1- completed. 0 Lot 31,Two Creeks—'completed. ■ Snowmass Water Sanitation District Employee Housing, Governmental SPA. Administrative TUP ■ IMAX ski film-conditionally approved. Special Review • Sprint Spectrum Cells Site at Rodeo Grounds special review app for outdoor transmitter equipment area and arena light pole antenna attachment scheduled for PC April 5. • TOSV Public Works Building expansion. Variances ■ Lot 64,Horse Ranch Notice published for public hearing on a building envelope adjustment. • Lot 24, Ridge Run IV—continued to 4/5. • Lot 44, Two Creeks—on hold. • Lot 44,'Pines—Planning Commission 4/19. • Lot 50, Ridge Run III-Planning Commission 4/5. 6 Enforcement Update Project / Manager Update ASC Control Building Compliance ■ SPA amend. Application is incomplete. Dave Ellis Brush Creek Offices ■ Draft an agreement to resolve the land use disputes Victoria Giannola between Brush Creek Offices and Woodbridge Homeowners. Gracie's Cabin PUD & Plat ■ Preparing final Subdivision Improvement Victoria Giannola Agreement with extension of vesting date. Research • Determine zoning status of Cafe Inc. cart on mall. Chris Conrad • Determine Zoning status of popcorn wagon and service area on mall. • Determine outstanding PUD's & Building Permit matters regarding Snowmass Chapel. / 09 - 7 Pending Update _Pmject / Manager Update AT & T Cell Site @ Timberline ■ Pre-application conference held. Maintenance Building ■ Amended lease required, Town-owned land. Chris Conrad ■ SPA modification. ■ AT&T will submit app when survey is completed. Snowmass Real Estate Expansion ■ No application received at this time. Chris Conrad ■ Applicant considering whether to submit sketch plan application. Snowmass Water& Sanitation ■ Possible re-zoning of all Water& Sanitation Chris Conrad parcels to PUB—Public along w/possible employee housing project ■ Preliminary discussions occurred—No application received at this time. Timberline Meeting Room & Pool ■ Below grade facility adjacent to pool. Facilities Building ■ Staff researching past approvals and establishing Chris Conrad correct process for review—no application received at this time. Wildcat Ranch a. Preliminary-discussions occurringdrov©iving - Chris Conrad employee housing and maintenance facilities within ranch manager's parcel ■ No application received at this time. Project Update Coordination-Gary Suiter 913-3777 ext.206 Public Works-Hunt Walker 923-5110 Housing-Joe Coffey 923-2360 Community Development-Craig ThompsonNictoria Giannola/Chris Conrad/Dawn Keating/Dave Ellis/Kaye Gaunt 923-5524 Town Clerk -Trudi Worline 923-3777 Finance-Marianne Rakowski 923-3796 Police Chief-Art Smythe 923-5330 8 Sunday I Monday I Tuesday I Wednesday I Thursday Friday Saturday April 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOWN 2:OOPM-TC MEETING TOWN WS 12:00 NOON- MEETING 5:30 Schermer Mtg. P.M. - 4:OOPM -TC Hall-Anderson Schermer Mtg. Reg. Ranch Hall- EOTC-4pm- Anderson TOSV Ranch 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2:OOPM -TC 2:OOPM-W&S WS AND JOINT MTG. SPECIAL @ WATER& MEETING SAN. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2:OOPM-TC WS 4:OOPM- JOINT MTG 4:OOPM-TC W/PLANNING Reg. COMMISSION 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2:OOPM-TC WS 30 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday May 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 2:00 TC W.S. 4:00 TC REG 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 i i j 28 -r 29---- ---- 30 31 I, MEMORIAL 2:OOPM- DAY TC REG I I I I Page I of 1 Dawn Kea ting cs--� From: Jonathan Lowsky <jonathan @ci.aspen.co.us> To: Dawn Keating <dkeating @tosv.com>; <cconrad @tosv.com> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:31 PM Subject: RE: nature center Dear Dawn and Chris, Let me begin by saying that my primary recommendation is to locate the Nature Center to an area less important to wildlife. If the Council decides to approve the proposed location I have the following recommendations above and beyond my letter dated February 24, 2000: 1. Restore the entire property to native vegetation that will serve to screen human activity from the aspen stand. 2. Require seasonal closures as follows: Elk Migration -All activity and/or use, Dusk to dawn,April 15th- May 15th and October 15th-November 15th Elk Calving and Songbird breeding season-Trail closure, 24 hours/day, May 15th -June 30th 3. A weed management plan should be submitted to the Pitkin County Weed Board for approval as per the Pitkin County/TOSV Weed Management Plan adopted by the TOSV Council. Jonathan Lowsky Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist 03/30/2000 -r-C�..TZLV-� .-GV/.n� - T(lry �"u w..�r n .v �rr...ra...r-.• r c.a. v.+c vc - -.. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND MATERIAL TESTING March 30, 2000 Town of Snowmass Building Village DRAFT Planning and Building Department P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 PN: M99262GE Attention: Mr. Chris Conrad, Senior Planner Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of the Timbers at Snowmass in Snowmass village, Colorado. Mr. Conrad: This letter is in response to your March 26, 2000 letter. As requested we have reviewed the February 26, 2000 memo from Mr. Paul Broome titled "Adjacent Property Inspections In consideration to your request for recommendations as to the locations for inclinometer and surveyor monuments and additional piezometers we have the following comments. We suggest that the geotechnical engineer for the project determine locations to best suit his needs for monitoring. Philosophically the most useful locations for inclinometer and survey monuments would include the locations which demonstrated the lowest factor of safety for slope stability during the slope stability analysis. Prudent locations for inclinometer and survey monuments would include inclinometer and survey monuments located in areas most likely to experience movement such as near the toe of the critical slope, near the midpoint of the critical slope and near the top of the critical slope. The critical slope location is best determined by the slope stability analysis and therefore identified by the geotechnical engineer performing the slope stability analysis. Consideration may be given to locating inclinometer and survey monuments downhill from existing structures, between the proposed Timbers Club excavation and the existing structures, to help monitor slope responses to excavation below the existing structures . A location near existing structures would help future assessment of construction movement. P.O.BOx 7996 P.O.BOX 006S 216 111000 OR. GRAND JUNCTION,CO 91602 MONfROSB.CO 91602 DURANGO.CO 11701 (9701269-0906 (970)269."66 (970)tf!•6095 u Yl3-GU'b 11 :G/AM tKUM LAMbtLKI INU AbDUU1NI M99262GE 3/30/2000 Page Two We understand that additional piezometers may be installed as part of the construction monitoring. It may be beneficial to monitor ground water levels near the locations of the inclinometer and uphill from and downhill from the planned drain system above the proposed building site. As indicated in the CTL/Thompson, Inc. report we understand that two levels of free subsurface water may exist on the proposed site. it may be prudent to install piezometers in pairs to help identify the free subsurface water response to draining at each of the anticipated free subsurface water levels. This determination is best made by the project geotechnical engineer. Measurements of the inclinometer, survey monuments and piezometers typically are conducted often prior to and at the onset of the project to help identify initial characteristics and during construction responses. This may be done an a weekly basis, however at the onset of excavation you may wish to consider daily readings until a pattern is established in the. measured soil responses. Once construction is nearly complete and the measurements indicate a predictable pattern it may be possible to reduce the frequency of measurements to once or twice per month. You may want the measurements be conducted often enough to help identify any sudden changes in slope characteristics during construction and for a period after construction sufficient to allow a new equilibrium from soil stress changes from construction to be reached. A monitoring time frame can best be determined by the geotechnical engineer for the project. we have reviewed the February 26, 2000 memo from Mr. Paul Broome titled "Safety Plan during the Shoring Wall Installation" . Based on our review we have provided the following comments. Construction initiated slope movement may be observed either as slow creep type movement or with the rate of movement increasing to a spontaneous slope failure. The first measure presented provides a drill rig on site during construction to allow additional tiebacks to be installed to increase the resistance to slope movement. This technique will be viable only if the observed slope movement is slow creep type movement. If spontaneous slope failure occurs there may not be sufficient time to install additional tiebacks. If spontaneous slope failure occurs it may be necessary to place material into the excavation to slow or stop movement. It will be important to maintain a very convenient nearby source of material of sufficient volume to provide the necessary stabilization. The geotechnical engineer should provide recommendations for the volume of soil needed to backfill the excavation in case of spontaneous.. failure. Aambm anb 2,000datea GON. T."O QGOTAG„MA:Ak eMan[CAS AND .A"A.AL TCCTiAC �SLYJb-TTL%TPr -rK1J1.1-CT.T'I(�LICI-.[ivV-a:l�GG1a'� .!/-VCr.:..ic.ciz - - M99262GE 3/30/2000 Page Three As you requested we have reviewed the February 25, 2000 letter from CTL/Thompson Inc. titled "Engineers Opinion" . The engineers opinion states on Page 2, third paragraph, "Our Analysis indicates the FOS for the anchored slope will be equal to or greater than the existing condition for the parameters used to model the slope. " Based on this statement and assuming appropriate analysis and strict supervision by the geotechnical and structural engineers during construction we feel that the design and construction techniques reflect generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice which could be considered effective in maintaining the current, as is, risk for damage from slope movement to adjacent property. We suggest that construction include strict supervision by the geotechnical engineer and structural engineer to help identify any adverse effects during construction and that mitigation measures are efficiently implemented if adverse conditions develop to reduce the impact of the adverse conditions. The documents reviewed provide construction techniques to help reduce the influence of the excavation on the slope stability and to provide measures to monitor uphill- slope and structure conditions. These techniques should help reduce the risk to adjacent properties if appropriately designed and supervised. We suggest that reports be submitted on a regular basis identifying the results of the monitoring and any unexpected conditions encountered and recommendations to address those unexpected conditions. if you have any questions concerning the geotechnical engineering aspects of your project or if we may be of further assistance please contact us. Respectfully Submitted: LAMBERT AND ASSOCIATES Reviewed By: Norman W. Johnston, P.E. Dennis D. Lambert, P.E. NWJ/nr lambert ana %soodates Co WkTn"0010Te"WCAL 1«01.66+4 ww0 MATERIAL TESTING Page I of 1 Chris Conrad ct � H- ss - a From: Jonathan Lowsky<jonathan®ci.aspen.co.us> r To: Dawn Keating<dkeating tosv.com>: <oconrad@tosv.com> G Sent: Thursday, March 30,2000 2:31 PM Subject: RE:nature center Dear Dawn and Chris, Let me begin by saying that my primary recommendation is to locate the Nature Center to an area less important to wildlife. If the Council decides to approve the proposed location I have the following recommendations above and beyond my letter dated February 24,2000: 1. Restore the entire property to native vegetation that will serve to screen human activity from the aspen stand. 2. Require seasonal closures as follows: Elk Migration-All activity and/or use.Dusk to dawn,April 15th-May 15th and October 15th-November 15th Elk Calving and Songbird breeding season-Trail closure,24 hours/day,May 15th-June 30th 3. A weed management plan should be submitted to the Pitkin Counttyy Weed Board for approval as per the Pitkin County/TOSV Weed Management Plan adopted by the TOSV Council. Jonathan Lowsky Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist ,,. 7 04/14/2000 WHEN WILL THE 10Y RIDE END? BLACK MAGIC During the last century oil THE OIL AGE: has transformed the world. British coal A BRIEF FLING IN HUMAN HISTORY launched the Industrial Revolution, but American petroleum put the pedal to the metal. No other material has so profoundly changed the face of the WE:72220 world in such a short time. Petroleum is black magic, the lifeblood of our civilization. The petroleum industry provides 40% of the globe's energy and is humanity's largest commercial enterprise. Oil is our most concentrated, flexible, and convenient fuel. Without petroleum there would be no automobile industry, no tourism. Without petroleum 2% of Americans could not feed the remaining 98%. But oil is more than energy. It's the key feedstock for plastics, medicines, clothing, pesticides, paint, and 1820 thousands of other products. Fueling Toyota or fabricated into Tupperware, petroleum is the world's premier commodity. Soon, experts say, world oil production will reach an all-time high, an apex, a peak. Then, after a short plateau, it will decline forever. What historians will someday call the Oil Era will last only about 250 years. In 2000 we are closer to the Era's end than to its beginning. THE OIL TRIBE In 1859 oil was struck in Pennsylvania. The magic fluid unleashed Yankee ingenuity, put America on wheels, and helped to create the world's richest superpower. The transformation was unimaginably swift: In 1859 Americans traveled on horseback; in 1969 they drove Mustangs and flew to the Moon. Today it is difficult to overstate oil's importance to our economy. Four percent of the world's people, we use 25% of the world's oil—nearly 20 million barrels per day. We are an Oil Tribe, the Petroleum Clan, imbibing about 3 gallons per person per day. The automobile is our most cherished icon, a new car our symbol of success. The local gasoline station is our secular temple where each week 150 million Americans "fill 'er up." An average American drives 1,000 miles a month, 12,000 miles a year, the distance to the Moon every 20 years. The Oil Tribe numbers 270 million. Hungry for speed, addicted to motion, we consume our weight in petroleum every 7 days. BLESSED BY GEOLOGY Cheap oil has always been an American birthright. Through fate and geology, the United States was extravagantly blessed. Our original cargo was about 260 billion barrels; only one country, Saudi Arabia, had more. Oklahoma alone possessed more oil than Germany or Japan. California had more than Germany, Japan, France, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Italy combined. The U.S. has—or rather had-20 times as much oil as India, 10 times as much as Brazil, 3 times more than China. Up to 1940 the U.S. produced two-thirds of the world's oil. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in oil-starved desperation and Hitler failed to capture Russia's Baku oil field, American petroleum, and the industrial output it nourished, triumphed in World War 11. This Petroleum Primer is published by the Community Offrce for Resource Efficiency. It was written by Randy Udall, CORE'S Director, with the able assistance of Steve Andrews, a Denver energy analyst.'Three years ago, when the first edition appeared, oil was $12 barrel and gasoline was 89¢per gallon. Today, with oil at $30 and pump prices pushing $1.80, newspapers are full of irate letters to the editor excoriating Exxon's "price gouging"and urging President Clinton to "show OPEC who's boss." This jingoistic chest-thumping, our typical response to gas hikes, is based on falsehood and ignorance. What's the real story?Read on. U.S.OIL PRODUCTION 1900 TO 2050 STRENGTH THROUGH EXHAUSTION In 1950 the U.S. produced half the world's oil. Fifty years PEAK 1970 HEADED later, we don't produce half our own oil. Domestic DOWN production peaked in 1970, 30 years ago, and today we 1997 THEOIL produce just 45% of the crude we consume. To fuel our -.0 economy we've drilled more and pumped longer than RAMP" any nation on Earth, pursuing a policy that's been GONE:65%OF U.S.OIL HAS 5. called "Strength Through Exhaustion." The U.S. BEEN USED. Yo remains the world's third largest producer, but 65% of IT'S HISTORY. ZFNM S IiF.FTiQNS our oil has been burned. It's downhill from here.' IKE DEATH AND TAXES Perhaps for the same reason that State Farm sells life insurance rather than death insurance, oil companies shun words like extraction and depletion. Instead they prefer production, as in "Chevron produces oil." This implies that we can manufacture oil at will, the way we do jeans or computers. In truth, petroleum reserves are finite and depletion is a reality like death and taxes. To grasp this concept, consider PENNSYLVANIA OIL PRODUCTION 11159-1995 Pennzoil. Our most famous motor oil honors the state where the Oil Age began in 1859. For the first 25 years of ♦PEAK 1891 the Oil Era Pennsylvania was the world's leading producer. In 1891 the Quaker State produced 60% of America's oil Today, it provides just 0.1%. The brand names live on, but NDPEAK 1937 the state's oil is history. ,t GUSHERS IN TEXAS As 19th century oil prospectors, some of them retired whalers, continued" to harpoon the Earth, strikes were made in New York, t' ,as, IaA NH 'Blf Ifl9 IfN 17)1 If4 TEXAS OIL PRODUCTION 1900-2050 A Pennsylvania oil well produces 15 gallons per PEAK 1972 day;an average well in Saudi Arabia,231,000. Ohio, and then Texas, America's first world-class find. If Texas had been a sovereign nation, its oil riches would have placed it in the world's top ten. The state's original reserves were 6 times greater than those of India, twice as large as 1998 IT'S Brazil or Norway. For the last 70 years Texas has been IGONE:80% DOWNHILL America's leading il producer. But production peaked in FROM HERE g P p p xAS' ' , 1972 and has been declining rapidly since. According to the AS USED �, " American Petroleum Institute, about 80% of all the oil that F will ever be produced in Texas is gone. Indeed, the state now imports about $5 billion worth of oil each year. Texas is not Texas is gradually going out of the oil an anomaly. Thirty-one states produce oil and all are past business. their peaks. Oklahoma peaked in 1927, Colorado in 1956, Wyoming in 1970, Alaska in 1988, California in 1985. SWISS CHEESE Well, if Pennsylvania and Texas are played out, why not drill more wells somewhere else? In fact, the U.S. is already one of the most thoroughly explored and drilled countries on Earth. Of the 4.6 million wells worldwide, 3.4 million have been drilled in this country. Very few prospects remain. With the exception of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, we've been there and done that. From the oil industry's perspective, the U.S. is Swiss cheese. Indeed, tiny Kuwait has twice as much oil left as does the Lower 48. THE LAST HURRAH The oil industry employs hundreds of thousands of smart, inventive, and creative people. Many of their new exploration techniques, computer software programs, and drilling methods are being put to good use in the Gulf of Mexico. There, the oil majors are drilling in an astounding 5,000 feet of water, with 10,000 feet soon to come. Analysts expect the Gulf to be America's last great bonanza. A mile under the ocean floor may lie 15 billion barrels. It's a lot of oil, but only as much as the nation uses every 2.5 years. I MORE INFO?See The Coming Oil Crisis by Colin Campbell,GeoUeevinie.s by Walter Youngquist,and The Prize, in text or video at libraries.Also: http://ccotopia.com,www.dieofT.org,www.BPamoco.com/woridenergy,hop://hubbert.mines.edu,and h(tp://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/papers/world_oil CAR BOMB In 1900 oil married the automobile. Together they gave birth to a century of travel. Today most of the world's oil is consumed by cars, which are breeding like (VW) rabbits. In the last fifty years the human population has doubled. In the same period, car numbers have grown tenfold from 50 to 500 million. Autos are reproducing five times faster than people. A new car is born each second, and the global automobile population now consumes three times more energy in the form of oil as humans consume in the form of food. THE COMING PEAK The global economy uses 75 million barrels of oil per day. That oil propels every car in Canada, China, and Chile. A GREAT TURNING POINT Every Boeing, every Airbus. By 2010 experts say the world will consume 90 million barrels a day, 20% more than today. Sometime around 2010, PEAK: 2010-20 �► world oil production will reach an all-time high, a peak. A plateau in production will be followed by a relentless inexorable decline. The exact year of the world peak can't be predicted, since it will depend as much on economic and political factors as on geology. The biggest wild card? Saudi Arabia, the WE ARE HERE world's most prolific oil province. If the Saudis invest hundreds of billions of dollars they could double their output to meet growing demand. But they may decide not to double production, choosing WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: 1930-2050 instead to produce less oil and charge more for it. Although predicting the peak is impossible, this momentous event is near. COLLISION IN SLOW MOTION A decline in oil production? After a century of increases, what seems unlikely is now inevitable. The next crunch may arrive suddenly. Or in slow motion. As former Energy Secretary Don Hodel says, "We're sleepwalking to disaster." When it happens, journalists will shout, "We're running out of oil." That's not true. Rather, we are running out of cheap oil. After production peaks oil will be readily available at a higher price, though in declining amounts, for 50 years. No one will freeze in the dark (America's reserves of natural gas and coal should last 60 years and 150 years respectively), but the transition to expensive oil may be bumpy. PEC'S RETURN American production has been declining for 30 years. As we produce less oil, we must import more. Indeed, America imports more oil than any other nation uses. Uncle Sam's appetite is gargantuan. And why not, because at $20 or $30 a barrel, imported oil is a steal. The tab for 2000 will be about $100 billion, about 1.2% of the gross domestic product. But this bargain may not last. As population rises, more people will be competing for less oil. By 2015, only a handful of nations will be exporting significant quantities, and a revitalized Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, our old OPEC nemesis, will be in driver's seat again, able to control prices at will. Since Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait can sustain their projected production past 2020, the world will not suddenly run out of oil. But $20 a barrel will be a thing of the past. THEY GOT IT, WE WANT IT Fully two-thirds of the GOT OIL USE OIL world's remaining oil is in five Muslim countries. This chart explains why Iraq's Saddam Hussein gets press, • SAUDI ARABIA 26% • U.S. 25% why the State Department frets about Iran, and why . IRAQ 10% • JAPAN 8% the U.S. fought the 1990 Gulf War. (President Bush: . KUWAIT 10% • CHINA 5% "Our way of life is at stake.") The energy future of . ABU DHABI 9% • RUSSIA 4% America, Japan, Europe, and China are inextricably . IRAN 9% • GERMANY 4% linked to the Middle East. In the Saudi deserts the U.S. military has built fortified air bases. Ostensibly we are • VENEZUELA 6% • S. KOREA 3% there to protect our Saudi friends. In reality, we are an • RUSSIA 5% • ITALY 3% occupying force protecting our access to their oil. • MEXICO 5% • FRANCE 3% Some Saudis are resentful of our presence, as we would • U.S. 3% 1• ENGLAND 3% be if they had air bases in Nevada. Would we leave Saudi Left, five countries in the Mideast have two- Arabia if asked? Good question. thirds of the world's oil. Right, the U.S.. uses three times more than Japan, eight times more than England. ROAD WARRIORS Fish don't worry about water ANNUAL GASOLINE CONSUMPTION: and Americans don't worry about oil. Instead we GALLONS PER PERSON swim in it. Think of your life: skiing on the weekend, Soo 0 Thanksgiving at mom's, a conference in Chicago. Middle- <oo class Coloradans do their Christmas shopping in Minnesota 350 at the Mall of America. Texans drive 1,000 miles to shoot 300 a Colorado elk, hunting-and-gathering taken to new 200 extremes. Of course, petroleum doesn't just propel us. It 150 feeds us too. Oil is absolutely fundamental to agribusiness: 150 lj r II the average potato travels 750 miles. o UNITED SWEDEN FRANCE JAPAN CHINA INDIA AMERICA'S OIL:DIVIDING THE PIE T STATES U.S.OIL THAT lJ'ROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE More than half CONSUMED 1�1 the world's oil—and 70% of U.S. oil—will be consumed RETW EEN 1950 during the Baby Boomers' lifetime. The Boomers were AND 2023 conceived as auto culture kicked into overdrive. As teens they AFTER 3035 grooved on Mustang Sally and Little GTO. Getting a driver's THIS MUCH WILL REMAIN license was their rite of passage. During their lives many Baby OIL USED GFOR THE DS Boomers will drive and fly a million miles, equal to 40 trips FROM 1959 TO globe.around the lobe. M ellan and Amelia Earhart were the famous 199 circumnavigators of their day. Now every man is Magellan, eve.y woman Amelia. WHO WILL FUEL CHINA? From Asia to Africa, three billion people crave an automobile lifestyle and who can blame them? Mobility is wonderful. But India has little oil and China's hopes for new discoveries have not been realized. If India and China imported as much oil per person as we do, world production would have to triple. It can't; there's not enough oil. Looking ahead, the tremendous inequities in oil distribution—and consumption—are morally troubling and militarily worrisome. As Americans continue to guzzle and more Asians take to the road, oil demand will eventually outstrip oil supplies. Prices will rise. Economic jousting for oil—who can pay most—is certain. Military confrontation can't be ruled out. With the U.S. using three times more oil than any other nation, future generations of young Americans may be forced to take the battlefield once more for oil. LIFE IN 2050 Each year the relentless aging of existing oil fields removes 2 million barrels/day from global production. Is there a miracle cure? Exciting advances include horizontal drilling and 3D imagery to recover more oil from aging fields; technology to convert natural gas to a diesel-like fuel; innovative autos powered by hybrid drives and fuel cells; telecommuting, the Internet and other social changes that may reduce oil consumption. All buy us time. But depletion remains a powerful foe: Every day the world uses 75 million barrels while finding 15 million. By 2050 nine billion people will have only as much petroleum as three billion did in 1950. Oil will be more expensive, perhaps dramatically so. Is this a Doomsday message? No. A more sustainable world may be a better place in which to live. The challenge is getting from here to there. The longer we wait, the harder the transition. EASING THE TRANSITION Exxon, Shell, and British Petroleum own less than 10% of the world's remaining crude. This means that future prices will be largely determined not by CEOs in Houston but by Iraqi dictators, Saudi sheiks, and the leaders of Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia. This does not mean we are powerless. Indeed when America gets serious about safeguarding its energy future, there are many things we can do. First, we need much more efficient cars. The physics of today's Pontiac (or pickup) are absurd. We already know how to build safe 35 mpg SUVs and roomy 50 mpg family sedans, let's do it! Congress must tighten federal fuel standards and close loopholes the size of a Ford Excursion. Let's invest in mass transit and stop designing cities and suburbs around the car. Consumers need accurate signals about the true cost of driving. Pay-at- the-pump auto insurance, where liability coverage is rolled into the fuel cost, is one approach. Hiking gas taxes by 10¢/gallon each year for the next ten years is another. (This tax could be offset by tax credits for low-income families.) Our half-hearted efforts to promote natural gas and other alternative fuels could be strengthened. Of course, before such bold policies can be adopted, Americans must first come to recognize that petroleum is among the world's most valuable resources, a gift of geology, a precious one-time windfall...which we are wasting as if there's no tomorrow. 'To contact the authors: rudall @aol.com, sbandrews @worldnel.atl.net. Or write CORE, Box 9707, Aspen, CO $1612 x055 0: 3799 HIGHWAY 82• PO. DRAWER 2150 `7 d GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 r 2 (970)945-5491 • FAX(970)945-4081 0 d� r ssOaD Correction Of Letter April 3, 2000 Dated March 29, 2000 Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village P. O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81 61 5-501 0 RE: Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1999 Renewal of Holy Cross Energy Franchise Dear Town Council Members: Attached, please find a copy of the Town of Snowmass Village, Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1999. This document is submitted for your consideration to approve the renewal of Holy Cross Energy's electric franchise. Through a cooperative effort, members of your Town staff and Holy Cross staff have worked diligently to prepare an Ordinance document that addresses the unique needs of the Town while preserving our rights and abilities to conduct a consumer owned business as an energy provider to the Town and its residents. Countless hours have been spent refining the conditions, provisions, and terms of the Ordinance. Fortunately, both the Town and Holy Cross have benefited from exceptional legal counsel offered by Mr. Stephen R. Connor and Mr. John L. Kemp. Because of existing ordinances codified in the Snowmass Village Municipal Code, certain elements in the proposed Ordinance actually conflict with current Town regulations. Since Town staff does not have the authority to overrule Code requirements, they recommended that Holy Cross bring these key issues before Town Council for consideration. Rather than springing these issues on you during our Council appearance, we wanted to take this opportunity and share what we understand the Town's position to be along with explaining what our position is on these issues. When considering the Ordinance as a whole, and the benefits derived by the Town, we believe the Town Council will recognize the reasonableness of our requests and grant the necessary waivers and exemptions from established Code requirements. The key issues are as follows: Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village April 3, 2000 Page two I. Overhead Lines - Distribution Facilities. This issue has been a focal point of significant discussion. From the beginning, Town staff has made it clear that the Town will not tolerate any new construction of overhead distribution power line facilities. Other than maintaining, operating, and replacing our existing overhead distribution line serving the Ski Area, we have no intention of constructing any new overhead distribution power line facilities. It is our understanding that there is no formal ordinance prohibiting overhead construction. The Town's controlling mechanism, to restrict overhead construction, is established by subdivision covenants that require the installation of underground facilities. We further understand that the Town is concerned about the possibility of overhead lines being constructed along Brush Creek and Owl Creek Roads because these areas are not governed by said subdivision covenants. From a historical perspective, the last time Holy Cross built an overhead line was in 1967. Underground facilities along the Brush Creek Road corridor were originally installed in the early 1970's. In 1997, we completed a rebuild of our conduit and vault system along this corridor to accommodate future enlargements to our distribution facilities. The overhead facilities along Owl Creek Road were originally installed in 1941 . In 1998, we finished the last section of underground thereby completing the overhead to underground conversion of our power line facilities along this corridor. II. Overhead Lines - Transmission Facilities. Of critical importance to Holy Cross is our ability to provide the necessary facilities for electrical service to the area, such as, construction of future overhead transmission line facilities. This Ordinance or future Town ordinances cannot restrict or impair such rights. Since visual impacts are a sensitive issue to the Town, underground transmission lines may represent a feasible alternative; however, the cost component of "who pays" for such underground facilities becomes the issue. The franchise Ordinance is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing transmission lines. When future electrical needs of the Town warrant entering into discussions about transmission lines and substations, the required review processes for Special Use Permits, Environmental Assessments, and County, Town & Public input will take place. Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village April 3, 2000 Page three Ill. Location of Company's Facilities. Town staff has done an effective job on reiterating that Town Council has a strong aversion to the "ugly green boxes". The Town's land use and development regulations should adequately address the installation of pad mount facilities associated with new development. In regards to pad mount facilities, we have had "visual mitigation" policies in place for twenty-five years that have been available to both the Town and developers. Furthermore, we have been required to obtain Town approval for the location of such pad-mounted facilities. Case in point is the switchgear along the north side of the golf course. The Town approved the location of such switchgear to a site below the bike path. Again, the components of "who receives the benefit of and "who pays" for the cost of such visual mitigation becomes a primary issue. The Town Council must understand that Holy Cross cannot be required to adhere to regulations that would ever compromise access, operation and maintenance of our system or, more importantly, expose our personnel to any unsafe working environment. Weather related conditions also impose constraints on our pad-mounted facilities that are not encountered by utilities in warmer climates such as Florida. The Community Enhancement Fund program, refer to Article 11 of the Ordinance, provides a unique opportunity for the Town to pay for mitigating the visual impacts of the "ugly green boxes" without reducing the Town's general fund. Rather than offer a lengthy narrative on this program, we would be happy to provide an expanded explanation when we appear before you. IV. Waiver of Permit Charges, Inspection Fees, Etc. As explained by Town staff, provisions exist within the Municipal Code that require the payment of fees regarding curb and pavement cuts, excavating, digging and related construction, maintenance and operational activities, and land use and development application and review. We are requesting that Town Council waive and exempt Holy Cross from these fees and charges for the following reasons: a. The two primary benefits we derive from a franchise are: 1) A better overall relationship with the Town and its residents; and 2) waiver of certain fees typically assessed upon companies doing business within the Town. If the Town does not waive such fees, we have a significant benefit taken away, one that we have benefited from the Town for the past twenty years. Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village April 3,2000 Page four b. We believe it is vital to have uniformity of terms and conditions in all of our franchise renewals. We recognize that "word" does get around if one municipality is afforded a benefit not extended to another. The amendment provision, established in all of our recent franchise renewals, allows an "equal playing ground" to exist at all times. If the Town does not waive the fees mandated by the Municipal Code, other municipalities may want to amend their franchise to enjoy a similar benefit. Unfortunately for us, the cost of compliance is not isolated to the Town of Snowmass Village but could be magnified as much as six times if other municipalities request a similar benefit. C. Based on 1999 electric revenues collected within the Town, the corresponding Community Enhancement Fund payment would have been approximately $45,000.00. This represents a far greater monetary benefit to the Town in contrast to the funds generated by fees and miscellaneous charges imposed by the Municipal Code. V. Exemption From Reimbursement of Processing Costs. Pursuant to Section 5-3 "Reimbursement of Processing Costs" in the Municipal Code, we are responsible for reimbursing the Town "for all costs and expenses actually incurred by the Town in processing, reviewing, negotiating and considering an application for a franchise". Again we are requesting that Town Council exempt Holy Cross from reimbursement of certain expenses for the following reasons: a. The standard language contained in all of our recent franchise renewals has essentially limited our reimbursement to "expenses incurred in publication of notices and ordinances and for photocopying of documents arising out of the negotiations or process of obtaining this franchise". We believe this is fair and reasonable. b. We believe the intended purpose for Section 5-3 should apply more vigorously to an applicant seeking approval of its first franchise with the Town. A distinction should be made between a company seeking a renewal of an existing franchise and a company trying to secure its first franchise. Typically, the Town has received substantial monetary benefit from the existing franchise, whereas, there is no assurance that the "first time franchise" will ever be successfully negotiated. From our viewpoint, each party should absorb their respective expenses as a "cost of doing business" when negotiating a renewal franchise. Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village April 3, 2000 Page five C. For the past twenty years, Holy Cross has returned to the Town hundreds of thousands of dollars collected via the franchise fee. When one considers the interest income generated or the cost of money, either would offset the expenses the Town incurs for the franchise approval process. d. As stated above, the cost of compliance will not be limited to just the Town of Snowmass Village. With several other franchise renewals on the horizon, the magnitude of dollars associated with reimbursement of municipal "approval" costs could be significant. e. Again, we would like to reiterate the Community Enhancement Fund provision. No other utility provides a one percent (I%) gift to the Town. Similarly, what other utility has offered an initial payment of $2,000.00 upon the approval and adoption of its franchise Ordinance? VI. Community Enhancement Fund Program. The Community Enhancement Fund represents a new provision that has been incorporated in all of our recent franchise renewals. The purpose of this program is to provide the Town with funds to pursue beautification or conservation projects, finance equipment and technology upgrades for schools, establish scholarship funds, sponsor special community events, acquisition of open space, or underground existing overhead lines. Funding for this program is based on one percent (1%) of the gross electric revenues received within the Town boundaries. Unlike the franchise fee, which is a surcharge passed on to each customer, the 1% reflects a voluntary gift by the Company to the Town. Given the interest Town Council has in minimizing visual impacts of our pad- mounted equipment, this program includes the ability to advance anticipated fund payments for up to three years. This means the Town could be advanced approximately $135,000 to be spent on mitigating the visual impacts of the "ugly green boxes". In closing, we would ask that the Town Council carefully evaluate the favorable working relationship that has been developed over the past twenty years. As a consumer owned electric cooperative, each of the Town's residents receiving electric service from Holy Cross is a member. Collectively, you are a strong voice. Dating back to our initial meeting with Town staff on July 20, 1999, it has been our desire to fashion a franchise Ordinance that, while maintaining consistent, reasonable, and uniform terms/conditions, reflects language that "we have heard your concerns" and effectively addressed your unique needs. Members of the Town Council Town of Snowmass Village April 3, 2000 Page six We remain confident, that even if further negotiation is needed with Town Council, both parties have the capacity to reach accord and finalize a franchise Ordinance that will ultimately provide significant benefits to the Town as well as Holy Cross. If, prior to our presentation before Town Council, any of you have concerns or questions, please contact either me @ 947-5430 or Mr. Richard D. Brinkley, General Manager - Regulated Services @ 947-5440. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY C Stephen B. Casey, Supervisor of Contract Services SBC cc: Mr. Gary Suiter, TOSV Mr. Stephen R. Connor, Esq, Mr. Richard D. Brinkley, HCE Mr. Craig Murray, HCE Mr. John L. Kemp, Esq. M:\Word\iranchise Documents\Coriected Cover Letter to Town Council(4 3-2000).doc i i `\ ,lit CL r. Sn� Q�9a/L V„'-"?p v�f f a�,� Q� { APR-03-00 12:3TPU FROM-RRC ASSOCIATES 3034496SET T-496 T02/2.F-�6 Q r IWYtMMLUTMCNIUCHCHAIIUHHAltt,11MAIrZ-4P31WUHA1'1Aji� � �S tjClIL PICI. GENERATION RATES BY USE TYPE r rged Empoyer Survey Ualabase(I over Survays):or 2114/00 T0SV craft ocoe(if survey ca 1999 TOSV Survey;or 2/14/00 draft TOSV 4oae if unava lade) survey cats unavailable) E USe Jobs 11000 ad III Sample Sot Jobs/1000 sq Samble Size General rew grocery/liquors amentericeP 236 b, 604 1 Office 4.03 A 4.442111 6 Mulo•tamiyllraaionaUl mashare 0.66 jobstunt ffr TOSV draft code,2114/0D 0.66OWunit&r TOSV draft code.p4/00 Single tamiy/duplex up m 3500 at 031 jowicit p#TOSV draft code,2/14N0 0.31 jobsW TOSV draft code?/14100 Si gwtamiy/dupiex MOO st and over 1.7 jdWM Fir TOSV draft code,2/14100 1.7IeOS4ol ger TOSv draft cooe,7m/00 Ilola llocv foom•• 90lobsnoan 25 0.75Idtia/rodm S Ski area twAurants•cafeteria style 5.50 jobsn 000 sq h l TOSV draft code,2/14/00 5.60 j0bs/1000 sq ft r TOSV draft eode,17114100 Buftestatram 7.37 1 7.91 " Sid areas 62.6 jobsnow SHOT �r TOSV draft code,211 82.6 joWIODO SAOT TOSV draft code.¢/1 Camara=center 0.97 jobs11000 sq h 1§r TOSV draft code,211 0.97 jobsll000 sq h TOSV draft code,;? 40 Health dub 1.47 1000 m TOSV draft code.?/14/00 147 1000 h TOSV draft Mae.+?/14 Note. Oats tram IN respacove survey source u amdrealed m Irk n heaamli,or from TON 2n4/00"code(d ed"such nn the' e s ze'columns -Nola: TOSV survey data for general revel(6 04)excludes one ouaytrty case:If mat case rs Included,job generation raze)*nps to 6.94 jobs I IWu sq h. -Note: HoWoage room dam from merged employer database may whect employment restaurants and over services omaaed and operated Minn of the hotels. (Note that TOSV 2114/00 draft code uses 0.44 jobs/Iwlel room)all as m U RATES OF MULTIPLE JOBHOLDING BY PRIMARY SOURCE OF WOME Milk Merged gmipiorae SZ �� Srawmassl ployee Survey(1988) verage I of r verage 0 01 JOD86 Prima Source of Income Survey R Survey Vgroeeryilliquor 1.22 264 125 32 Pmtessiorial AMOK 1.14 121 7 Rest eAapNprdpeny managernem' 114 g 17 1.06 1 Rail eslawptoperly managemem' 1.14 175 1.08 1 Real eftate/propeny managemem' 1.14 sa 175 1.06 1 Lddgnryhot us 1.17 rot 218 1.16 Sim area resmuwW' 1.96 ,a rum 1.59 Barneauuara 1.36 281 1.53 1 Recromwatvacooru 121 M 2291 1.33 Conference center Not ■ rVa N HGM dub" 1.36 O N 153 Na rva■not available rY SnowmasmAspen employee survey datalmm 1996 study sponsored(y/Aspen Valley Improvement Association. a 'Assumes mat multiple jobadaing rates for'real emleiproperty,mingp rienr is the same u rates for mulb-fermly/fracti0rail units end single lazilly units. "Assumes multiple jobfglding rue lot'Ski area restaurants'a the se,�e u Yeslsuranls'Oeneraay. [A ff -Assumes multiple jobholding rate for'HGW dub'is CIA same as 1%restaurants ,e (based on TOSV business license database showing similar ratidgiot full-and pan-lane lobs for heats dub and r ) DERIVED EMPLOYEE GENERATION RATES BY USE TYPE Mesuas worn merged yen and rmPmYO* Results WOM m area tMor an Surveys(or 2/14100 draft TOSV code figures,it new Employee Surveys for 2114W arm TOSVWde survey care unavailable) loures,a new survey Gaza unavuatil Pnma Source of Income Employees/IODD SQ h nes 11 m General romV grocery/hquw convenience 2.43 4. Once 354 3.68 Mulu•tamiy/fracconaMmeshars 0.511 0.61 Single lamiy/auplex up to 35M of 027 0.29 Sngie4anity/duplex 3500 at and over 1.49 158 1lotevow room 0.77 038 Ski area restaurants•cafeteria We 4.03 359 Bar/restaurant 540 5.16 Slu Areas 6829 6195 Conference center Na N8 t Heats club 1.0B 0.96 APR-03-00 02:36PIA FROM-RRC ASSOCIAic3 ]034486587 t` . 7h. t rfr�t Draft Memo on Employee Generator Rates ar9/00 �y other D a Sources on Multiple Jobholding A briet effort was made to identify other data sources pertaining to rates of multiple jobholding by sector,for additional checking of the patterns. National data on multiple jobholding is recorded,but it appears difficult to apply those standards to TOSV,due to the fact that multiple jobhodmg rates tend to be significantly higher in resort communities such as TOSV(with typically roughly 20 percent of employees working multiple lobs)than is the casij nationally(5.8 percent of employees worked multiple jabs in 1999,according to the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistic;). Additionally,the tourism-oriented nature of resort eoonomies differs significantly from national averages,with a mach higher proportion of employment in retail,restaurants,and services such as hotels/lodging and recreatioryamad s. It would thus appear that only data specific to mountain resort communities would be relevant,but such third part data—if it exists outside the sources previously discussed—has yet not been located. ; Derivation of Employee Generation Rates Table 2 on the following page derives employee generation rates from the job generation rates and the multiple jobholding rates described earlier. Two sets of figures are provided, figures based on merged survey data from a variety of mountain resorts(the left set of columns),and for Snowmass Village combated in some cases with ASM (right set of columns). The merged dataset has the advantage of being wm�area(although the sample saes the tt Snowmass/Aspen data has the advantage of being specit often quite small). I The table consists of three parts. The top section,entitled-Job Generation Rates by Use Type,"illustrates job ; generation ta s not different job generation uses,ures n the from 00 TOSV draft r de a e where available.used instead, mere survey; The second section,entitled'Rates of Multiple Jobholding by Primary Source of Income;lists the average n�r�n�p�er of jabs held per employee by sector. These figures are largely the same as those described to Table 1 above. ""T` specific survey data on multiple jobholding within a given sector are unavailable,assumptions are made about the appropriate multiple jobholding rate,as detailed further in the table. P The third and final section,enwed'Derived Employee Generation Rates by Use Type:is derived from the prior Iwo sections of the table. Specifrcal y,within a given sector,the employee generation rate is calculated by dividing tip job generation rate by the multiple jobholding rate. Subject to any further conditions Oaf TOSV may wish to corn ider, it is anticipated that these figures would be incorporated in some way into the restricted housing regulations. Th choice remains whether to use figures from merged,multiple-resort data or to use figures more specific to Snowmass/Aspen(albeit based on a small sample sac),or to use some combination or average of the two. s�i�+a,+r.•axes t r 4 RRC Associates i