Loading...
04-02-01 Town Council Packet kill, P,q�c�rET SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 04-02-01 CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 2: 4:00—4:05 P.M. - GUEST— PAUL FEE PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 13, SERIES OF 2001, STATING APPRECIATION TO PAUL FEE FOR SERVICE ON THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD -- T. Michael Manchester. . . . . . . . Page 1 (Tab A) Item No. 3: _APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION SUMMARIES FOR 12-20-01, 02-15-01 AND 03-01-01. . . . . . . .Page 2 (Tab B) REGULAR AGENDA Item No. 4: DISCUSSION CONFERENCE CENTER LEASE DISCUSSION -- Mayor T. Michael Manchester. . . . . .No Packet Information Item No. 5: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Item No. 6: FIRST READING AND DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE NO. 11. SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE BRUSH CREEK CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY (BCCTS) AND THE BRUSH CREEK VALLEY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. -- Jim Wahlstrom. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 19 (Tab C) Item No. 7: RESOLUTION NO. 15, SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY ROSE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WILDCAT RANCH, LTD., HOMESTEAD10, WILDCAT, INC., AND MICHAEL A RUBEL, TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE- ANNEXATION AGREEMENT -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31 (Tab D) 04-02-01 tc Page 2 Item No. 8: RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY MICHAEL A. RUBEL, TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE- ANNEXATION AGREEMENT -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 31 (Tab D) Item No. 9: INFORMATIONAL ITEM TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE OFFICIAL - DISCLOSURE -- Trudi Worline. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 40 (Tab E) Item No. 10: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41 (Tab F) Item No. 11: CALENDARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 47 (Tab G) Item No. 12: 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. TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 2, 2001 Agenda Item: PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 13, SERIES OF 2001, STATING APPRECIATION TO PAUL FEE FOR SERVICE ON THE FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD Presented By: Mayor T. Michael Manchester Core Issues: N/A General Info: This resolution was approved at a previous meeting that Paul Fee was unable to attend. Mayor Manchester asked this be placed on an agenda when Paul would be able to attend as to present the resolution in person. A framed copy of the Resolution will be presented to Paul at this meeting. Council Options: Staff Recommendation: N/A P:shared/c1erk/manager.nc/cmg2001/f"cnq.dm Of SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 19, 2001 Mayor T. Michael Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, March 19, 2001 at 2:07 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester; Robert Purvis, Richard Virtue, Arnold Mordkin COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; David Ogren, Sanitation Department; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney, Robert Voigt, Senior Planner, Bernadette Barthelenghi, Landscape Architect; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Wayne Floyd, Barbara Lucks, Jim France, Gary Ross, Jack Hatfield, Bill Burwell, Lance Burwell, John Dresser, Doug Faurer, John Michaelman, Rick Griffin, Alan Richman, John Meckling, Bill Boineau, George Huggins, Madeleine Osberger, Scott smith, Gideon Kaufman, Brent Gardner Smith, Todd Grange, Dean Derosier, Paul Broome, Deidre Boineau and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. DISCUSSION AGENDA Item No. 2: 2:00 P.M. — DISCUSSION WOODRUN RESIDENTIAL TRASH ISSUE Hunt Walker, Public Works Director and Gary Ross of Ross Partnership, provided a slide presentation and conceptual site drawings of the dumpster shed location preferred by Council, as well as an optional site on the Northwest corner of Wood Road and Village Run Circle. Both sites are located on Woodrun V property. Walker explained that staff conducted a preliminary analysis for instituting curbside trash collection within the Woodrun subdivision and concluded that the area could be a _ 03-19-01 tc Page 2 served using existing Town equipment. He provided a revenue and cost projection for the curbside service. John Michaelman, President of the Woodrun V Homeowner's Association, stated that the Homeowners were opposed to an on-site dumpster location and requested curbside trash pick up. After further discussion, Council majority requested meeting time be set at the April 9, 2001 to further discuss the issue of curbside service versus condemnation of property located at one of the two optional sites for construction of a dumpster shed. Council requested that a representative of the Colorado Department of Wildlife be invited to the Meeting to discuss the affect of curbside trash pickup on wildlife. Council also requested that the neighborhood be invited to the meeting to comment on the issue. Item No. 3: 2:30 P.M. - DISCUSSION REQUEST FOR FUNDING COMMUNITY PICNIC/ SUMMER RODEO Bill Burwell of the Rodeo Company, was present at the Meeting and explained that the Fourth of July falls on Rodeo event night once again in 2001 and suggested a combination community barbeque, rodeo and fireworks display. He requested funding in the amount of $20,000 from the Town to help fund the event. Burwell also requested funding in the amount of $30,000 from the Town to support the 2001 Rodeo season, and an additional $10,000 in in-kind services for necessary upgrades. He explained that he would provide the Town with an ad in the published event Program and an itemized statement of expenditures at the end of the season. The Public Works Director suggested that if Council chooses to provide the requested funding, an additional amount be granted in lieu of providing in-kind services. He explained that providing the in-kind services has caused a disruption to the workload of the Road Department in the past. Burwell confirmed that the only revenue to be realized by the Town through this event would be sales tax on food sold at the barbeque. Jack Hatfield stated his opposition, explaining that the Town would be funding a private enterprise. Council verified that there are no monies set aside in the Town budget for this request. Doug Faurer stated his support for the Town to help fund the Rodeo. Council Member Mordkin disclosed that he has previously been employed by the Rodeo, has represented the Silvertree Hotel as Counsel in the past, is a personal sponsor of the Rodeo and is a business tenant of the Silvertree Hotel. After further discussion, Council majority agreed that the Rodeo is an important amenity for the Town. Council also agreed to support the Rodeo in order to provide additional time for discussions regarding purchase of the Rodeo area by the Town. Council requested that the Town Attorney develop a contract for purchase of the Rodeo property for discussions at the April 9, 2001 Council Meeting. Council discussed the Fourth of July Community Picnic as a combination event with the Rodeo and barbeque. The Town Manager stated that the Town has budgeted $6,000 for the 2001 Community Picnic. Deidre Boineau provided a history of the Community Picnic. Mayor Manchester stated his support of the free Community -3 - 03-19-01 tc Page 3 Picnic and entertainment as provided when the event first occurred and requested that Burwell assist with funding to support the event as it originally occurred. After further discussion, it was determined that this issues would be further discussed at the April 9, 2001 Town Council Meeting. Item No. 4: 3:00 P.M. - DISCUSSION PARCEL "N" OWNERS DISCUSSION Joe Coffey, Housing Manager and Owner's Representative for the project, informed Council of a recent meeting held with potential purchasers of the proposed Parcel "N" units. He reported a high interest indicative of a large market for the units. Coffey stated that he felt approximately 40-percent of those attending could be pre- qualified to purchase a unit. He explained that this project could bring employees who have moved down valley, back to Snowmass Village, as well as provide smaller for-sale employee housing and rentals as employee housing owners upgrade to the new employee housing project. Coffey reported that sixteen attendees at the meeting currently own deed-restricted housing and 11 attendees own free-market housing. Coffey recommended that construction begin in April of this year while ground conditions provide the opportune time. He explained that to delay the project would not be cost-effective, whereby construction may incur additional winter condition expenses. Council discussed funding sources and the ability for construction costs to remain with the proposed budget amount. Coffey provided an update on the neighboring Timbers project construction relating to site difficulties and informed Council that John Meckling would provide further information on this issue later in the Meeting. Total estimated construction costs for the project are $5,541,597. Council majority agreed to direct the Owners Representative to move forward and begin construction as soon as possible in advance of receiving the maximum price quote. In response to an inquiry from Todd Grange, Council agreed to address the issue of handicap accessibility for the units. Mayor Manchester stated that discussion of this Item would be continued later in this Meeting in order to receive a report from the Site Engineer. NOTE: The Meeting was convened for a five-minute break. The Meeting reconvened at 4:47 p.m. Item No. 5: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no Public Non-Agenda items. i# a 03-19-01 tc Page 4 REGULAR AGENDA Item No. 7: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 10, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY CARETAKER UNITS, ACCESSORY EMPLOYEE UNITS AND CERTAIN DEFINITIONS. The Planning Director stated that all submittal and Public Notice requirements have been met for amendments of this type in accordance with the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. He outlined recommendations made by the Planning Commission and explained that the Ordinance includes changes as requested by Council at First Reading. Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 4:52 p.m. Mordkin made a motion to approve Second Reading of the Ordinance, seconded by Virtue. Council reviewed the Ordinance and requested necessary changes. After further discussion, Mordkin made a motion to amend the Ordinance to include the changes requested by Council. Virtue seconded the motion. The Planning Director summarized the amendments. The amendments were approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. A roll-call vote was taken and Second Reading of the Ordinance was approved as amended, by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. Mayor Manchester closed the Public Hearing at 5:19 p.m. NOTE: Mayor Manchester explained that Agenda Items would be heard in an order to accommodate members of the public who were in attendance for specific Items. Item No. 9: SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 03, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE HOUSING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO COMMENCE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN PARCEL N, FARAWAY RANCH GROSS PARCEL PLAT The Planning Director stated that all submittal and Public Notice requirements have been met in accordance with the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. He reviewed amendments made to the Ordinance as requested by Council at First Reading on March 5, 2001. Alan Richman, acting as Land Use Representative, stated his support of Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2001, explaining the urgent need for this product in the community, which he felt was an upper-end product not currently available in Snowmass Village, and the efficiency that would be gained by beginning _S 03-19-01 tc Page 5 construction simultaneous with the Timbers project. John Meckling, Branch Manager for CTL Thompson, stated that he began work on this site in June of 1999. He explained that Geotechnical concerns with the site, which he was requested to address, were the high groundwater level and ground stability. He explained that site excavation at the Timbers project adjacent to Parcel "N", is not adversely affecting the existing hillside stability. He further explained that he recommended and assisted in the design of a retainage system to eliminate adverse affects to the properties located uphill from the site. He explained the plan for retainage and stabilization of the hillside and recommended that construction of the retaining walls and ground stabilization begin as soon as possible before the groundwater level rises, or wait until much later in the year when the ground water has once again receded. Paul Broome, Contractor, stated that he would be ready to construct building foundations in June of this year if site construction is allowed to begin immediately. Council discussed necessary easements through the Timbers project, potential cost overruns, the timeline when trucks would create an impact on Brush Creek Road, increments for reading site stabilization detecting instruments and related costs. At the request of the Owner's Representative, Council agreed to amend the Ordinance to allow changes to amend the required number and increments of site instrument readings if good cause is shown to the Building Official. The readings shall not be less than once every two weeks during the first two months. After further discussion Virtue made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 03, Series of 2001, seconded by Purvis. Rick Griffin questioned potential increased cost due to spring runoff and road damage. John Dresser, representing the Ridge Homeowners requested that Council proceed to final review and approval of this project for continuity and completion of the entire project in a timely manner. Manchester requested that the applicant's team include handicap accessibility for the units for discussion during Final Review of this application. In summation, Mayor Manchester explained that in the best interest of the community, and in order to take advantage of the community benefits outlined by the applicant Council was in agreement for site construction to begin. A roll-call vote was taken and the Ordinance was approved as amended, by a vote of 4 In favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. Item No. 10: DISCUSSION MALL SIGNAGE Mayor Manchester stated that off-premise real estate signs would also be discussed with this Item. The Town Manager reported that the Town has received a complaint on the proliferation of sandwich boards and banners on the Mall and slope side, which violate the historic zoning of the Mall properties. He provided Council with copies of a document relaying a complaint on the same subject from Phyllis McFillin of Shell Properties, in which McFillin requested that the Town enforce the sign Codes. Mordkin stepped down from the Council table, explaining that he owns a business in the Mall and displays a sandwich board. Rick Griffin, Mall business W-40 mom 03-19-01 tc Page 6 owner, stated opposition for a business owner to place a sandwich on a neighbor's property. Tom Setre stated his opposition to the signboards, banners and awnings, and requested that Council enforce the restrictions on signage in the Mall area. After further discussion, Council requested that staff suspend enforcement on illegal sandwich boards, banners and off-premise real estate signs until June 1, 2001. He requested that the Planning .Commission review this issue and make a recommendation to Council. Council also requested public comments and Council review of the Planning Commission recommendation by the end of the summer season. Council directed staff to mail a letter of response to McFillin and to notify all the property owners and businesses in the Mall area, as well as the real estate community of Council's plan for review and encourage their participation. Purvis requested that Council address outdoor lighting issues in the near future. Item No. : DISCUSSION DROSTE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (Memo from Steve Connor to be e-mailed and distributed at the meeting) Mayor Manchester reported that he recently requested a memo from the Town Attorney addressing comments made by Mr. Droste in a recent Armen Time article. The comments were regarding the Conservation Easement recently purchased from Mr. Droste by the Town. The Mayor advised Council Members to discuss the memo with the Attorney if they had questions. Item No. 6: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 05, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THIRTY PERCENT (30%) SLOPES, RE-APPLICATION RESTRICTIONS AND GARAGE DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS. Planning Director Chris Conrad, explained that on February 19, 2001, Council considered an Ordinance amending Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code, which included consideration of amendments to issues relating to Accessory Units. At Council's request, Accessory Unit amendments were separated from that Ordinance and were then included in Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2001, approved by Council as Item No. 7 on the Agenda for this Meeting. The remaining LUC amendments are included in Ordinance No. 05, Series of 2001, as presented to Council at this time. The Planning Director stated that the Public Hearing has been noticed for this Meeting in accordance with the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. Conrad explained that during previous discussion, Council stated their desire to amend the size allowed for garages. Council discussed restrictions related to development on 30-percent slopes, whereby a decision on this issue currently 03-19-01 tc Page 7 requires a % majority vote of Council. After further consideration Council determined to leave the current language relating to 30-percent slopes as written, and agreed to the change included in this Ordinance regarding re-application. Purvis made a motion to approve the amendments, seconded by Virtue. Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 6:47 p.m. There being no comments from the public, the Public Hearing was closed at 6:47 p.m. Conrad stated that all requirements have been met to amend Chapter 16A as outlined in the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. The Public Hearing was noticed in the Snowmass Village Sun on February 21, 2001, stating the time, date and place. Manchester made a motion to amend the Ordinance, seconded by Mordkin. The motion to amend was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. A roll-call vote was taken and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 05, Series of 2001 was approved as amended, by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. Item No. 11: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT - AND - Item No. 12: CALENDARS Transportation Sales Tax IGA The Town Manager stated that the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding distribution of Transportation Sales Tax and the one-year Operating Agreement would be brought before Council simultaneously at the second and third Council Meetings in April, 2001. Manchester explained distribution of the '/z Cent Sales and Use Tax. Council discussed issues addressed at the recent Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) including Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) future plans, Entrance to Aspen and the functions of the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA). Traffic and Parking Survey Mayor Manchester reported that traffic and parking counts would be conducted in the numbered parking lots on March 20, 2001. Brush Creek Trail Manchester requested that staff arrange a meeting with Council and the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners to discuss the proposed Brush Creek Trail. Easements still remain to be obtained from the Seven Star Ranch and Cozy Point Ranch South for two pieces of property on either end of Brush Creek Road. He expressed the desire to complete the trail by the end of the 2001 Summer season. Manchester directed staff to contact the property owners and arrange for meetings in an attempt to obtain easements on the Cozy Point South property. He proposed that construction could be underway on the easement-approved sections, while negotiating for easements with landowners on the two remaining sections. 03-19-01tc Page 8 Highway 82/Brush Creek Road Sign Manchester reported that a necessary Code amendment to allow a proposed Town sign at the intersection of Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road would be addressed by the Pitkin County Commissioners on April 3, 2001. After Code amendments are approved to allow the sign at this location, the Commissioners will then address the particulars related to the sign. Manchester stated a desire for constructing the sign during the 2001 Summer season. Excise Tax Manchester requested that staff notify architects throughout the valley to remind them of the Snowmass Village Excise Tax, which could allow homeowners to purchase additional square footage to expand the floor area of their homes. Council Resort Tour Manchester reported that Council Members, Aspen Skiing Company representatives, Planning Commission Members, members of the press and members of Town staff are scheduled to tour the Beaver Creek, Bachelor Gulch and Copper Mountain resort areas. Council will meet at the Rodeo Lot at 7:30 a.m. on March 15, 2001 to board a Town Shuttle bus for the trip. Council discussed the agenda for the tour. VLF Aspiration Statement Purvis stated his appreciation for the top ten priorities for March and the status of each, as provided by the Town Manager. Purvis also requested that Council review the Aspiration Statement developed by Purvis, the Town Manager and Assistant to the Town Manager, as a result of the Village Leadership Forum (VLF) Meetings. Operating Indicators Purvis requested that staff provide him with a copy of the Operating Indicators recently compiled by Town staff. MEETING CONTINUED At 7:35 p.m. Manchester stated that this Meeting would be continued to Tuesday, March 20, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. CONTINUATION OF 03-19-00 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MEETING MINUTES 03-20-2001 Mayor Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council, continued from Monday, March 19, 2001, on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. 00-1 - 03-19-01tc Page 9 (Con I'd. to 03-20-01tc) COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Michael Manchester, Richard Virtue, Robert Purvis, and Arnold Mordkin COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Douglas Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence STAFF PRESENT: Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Gary Suiter, Town Manager; and Donna J. Garcia, Secretary/Records Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Bill Boineau and Madeliene Osberger NOTE: The following item was not included on the 03-19-01 Meeting Agenda Item No. 12A: EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY/CLIENT DISCUSSIONS REGARDING PURCHASE OF THE RODEO PROPERTY At 11:26 a. m., Virtue made a motion to convene to Executive Session for the purpose of privileged Attorney/Client discussions regarding purchase of the Rodeo property. Purvis seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. At 11:55 a.m., Purvis made a motion to reconvene the Regular Meeting. Virtue seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. NOTE: The following item was not listed on the agenda for this Meeting- Item No. 1213: RESOLUTION NO. 12, SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE NEED OF THE PUBLIC TO USE AND ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE RODEO PROPERTY Virtue made a motion to approve Resolution No. 12, Series of 2001, seconded by Mayor Manchester. Council requested that "government activities" be added to the list included under the second WHEREAS paragraph on Page 3 of the document. Council requested that a copy of the survey be obtained by staff. Mayor Manchester summarized the contents of the Resolution language. He explained that the Town is negotiating with the landowner for purchase of the property at this time. Purvis 03-19-01 tc Page 10 (Cont'd. to 03-20-01tc) made a motion to amend the Resolution, seconded by Virtue. The motion to amend was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. There being no further discussion, the Resolution was approved as amended, by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. COUNCIL COMMENTS Old-Fashioned Community Picnic Bill Boineau reported that the cost for the Community Picnic during its iniatiated years was approximately $10,000. He stated that $5,000 of the $10,000 amount funded the fireworks display. Boineau volunteered his services to assist Council with the fund-raising and organization for the event. The event will be schedule for July 4, 2001. Purvis offered to request funding assistance from the Rotary Club. Council discussed possible events to be held at the picnic and a combination fireworks display with the Rodeo Company. Clean Sians Purvis requested that the Town road signs be cleaned. Mayor Manchester reported that the annual Town Clean Up Day has been scheduled for Friday, May 18, 2001 and provided a description of the events planned for the day. Land Purchase Offer In response to an inquiry from the Town Manager, Council requested that the Town's offer to purchase the Rodeo land from the Snowmass Recreational Land Company include a cover letter to be approved by the Mayor before finalization. In response to an inquiry made by a member of the press regarding the funding for the Town to purchase the Rodeo land, Council stated that the voter's approved a bond amount of $3.590M for purchase of the land at the November 7, 2000 Regular Election. Council discussed the issue of sales tax as it relates to ticket sales. Item No. 13: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Purvis made a motion to adjourn the Meeting, seconded by Virtue. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. The Meeting adjourned at 12:47 p.m. Council Member Mercatoris was on approved leave of absence. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk 041 - SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 12-20-2000 COUNCIL PRESENT: T. Michael Manchester, Richard Virtue, Arnold Mordkin, Robert Purvis, Douglas Mercatoris COUNCIL ABSENT: All Council members were present STAFF PRESENT: Dave Peckler, Transportation Manager; Hunt Walker, Director of Public Works; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Gary Sutier, Town Manager; Bernadette Bathelenghi, Landscape Architect; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Gerd VanMoosel The Work Session began at 2:13 p.m. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Dave Peckler and Hunt Walker reviewed transportation issues related to Traffic, Parking and Transit. Attached is a detailed agenda and summary of all items discussed, which will reflect as the minutes. SCHEDULING DATES FOR ASC's BASE VILLAGE WORK SESSION Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager, reviewed meeting dates for Aspen Skiing Company Base Village Works Sessions. REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX (RETT) PROJECTS Council discussed the intent of the RETT Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1986. Council Member Mercatoris reviewed items A through E listed in the ordinance and the history of RETT. Barthelenghi requested Town Council provide comments, and staff direction on the proposed projects. Barthelenghi informed Council that staff has scheduled a field trip to all the project sites to review and become familiar them. Council decided not to tour the projects at this time. RETT Fund Projects discussed are: 1. Benedict Trail/Detention Pond 2. Numbered Parking Lots •ra wo 12-20-00ws Page 2 3. Woodbridge Park 4. Seasons Four Restoration 5. Golf Course 6. Highline Road Tail 7. Highway 82 Median and Sign Staff requested Council direction in prioritizing projects for the years 2001 and 2002. Council reviewed the RETT and suggested some changes. Council discussed and requested changes for funding for Bus Stops, Benedict Park, Drainage Control, Employee Housing Trees. This meeting ended at 4:40 p.m. Submitted By: Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk r13 400 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY FEBRUARY 15, 2001 The Work Session began at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Robert Purvis, Richard Virtue and Arnold Mordkin COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All Council Members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Robert Voigt, Senior Planner; Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; David Peckler, Transportation Manager; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: George Huggins, Doug Faurer, Bill Boineau and Bob Fridstein PUBLIC PRESENT: Bill Kane, David Bellack, Doug Mackenzie, Madeleine Osberger, Richard Shaw, Don Schuster, Steve Stay and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. Bill Kane of the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) stated that the purpose of this Work Session is to discuss planning issues as they may affect the anticipated submission of a new village center at the Base Village area. He recapped the discussions held at a previous pre-sketch plan meeting on this topic. Planned discussions for this meeting included the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code as they affect the design process of Base Village and included transportation, parking, traffic analysis and history, the road network and intersection improvements. Kane requested that Council comment and provide direction at the end of the presentation, to assist the Aspen Skiing Company with a design for the site appropriate to the expectations of the Town and developer. 04 y - 02-15-01 ws Page 2 Senior Planner, Jim Wahlstrom provided a slide presentation and maps depicting the Base Village site, surrounding areas, and also provided research information derived from the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Code and previous applications specific to the Base Village area. He outlined related concerns derived from staff as well as from previous application reviews for the Base Village site. He also outlined desirable amenities and design concepts expressed by Council during previous application reviews for this same area. Kane outlined alternatives to be considered for the Town shuttle and public bus service movements and expressed the need to provide and improve the quality of service and transportation experience for the arriving skier. He explained that development at the Base Village area will displace current parking spaces and he proposed 200 day-skier parking spaces in Base Village. Kane identified a plan to expand the Rodeo Parking Lot in an effort to reduce the number of vehicles arriving in the core area. David Peckler, Transportation Manager, stated concerns that the development would be an additional trip-generator and possibly a new hub for transportation. A Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) representative provided the current and future bus ridership numbers for Snowmass Village. He explained that the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) plans would increase frequency of buses and enhance upper valley service from Glenwood Springs to Aspen, benefiting skier arrivals in Snowmass Village. Kane outlined an envisioning of the Base area as a center of skiing activity, providing all skier services at one location. He stated that the economic impact on Mall area and Center area businesses resulting from the full-service location at the Base is unknown. He explained that a transportation center would require approximately two acres of land, which could not be accommodated at the Base Village site, and recommended that the transportation center remain in the Mall area. Don Schuster of the ASC reported that research is being conducted during the month of March to identify what skiers do at the end of their ski day in Snowmass Village. The group discussed the most appropriate drop-off location for skiers and visitors arriving in Snowmass Village. Hunt Walker, Public Works Director, provided an overview of parking requirements as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, which allows 1200 parking spaces in the core area. The Town currently has 1,525 parking spaces included in the numbered parking lots and parking lots A, B and C. Base area development will displace current parking spaces in Parking Lot A, but plans include 200 sub-surface spaces in the new development plan, particularly to accommodate the children's center. The Snowmass Mountain operations building is also planned for construction in this area and a limited number of parking spaces will be provided for that operation. Kane requested further discussion with Council regarding the Entryway Project Plan, which proposed an 02-15-01 ws Page 3 area for additional parking spaces. He suggested a consideration of on-street parking within the Base Village development. Richard Shaw of Design Workshop, addressed the intersection difficulties that previously discussed round-abouts have presented, requiring a significant amount of land. He recommended further consideration of realigning the Snowmelt Road/Brush Creek Road intersection to provide a true 'T" intersection. Kane summarized conclusions reached by the applicant which included that the transportation hub remain at the Mall area, the need to expand the Rodeo parking lot, the proposed connection between the Mall and Base Village remain a consideration, continuation of research on a fixed guideway system, that a 90- degree intersection would be the most appropriate solution for the intersection of Snowmelt Road and Brush Creek Road, and to continue dialogue with the RTA to increase the number of parking spaces at the Intercept Parking Lot. Mercatoris requested that ASC consider the increasing down valley growth when addressing transportation issues. Mayor Manchester asked that ASC consider a mobile vehicle such as a monorail system, etc., to move skiers and guests from lower parking lots to the core area. He stated that the next meeting of the pre- sketch discussions is scheduled to be held on March 1, 2001. The Work Session ended at 7:25 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk rf � � SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION SUMMARY 03-01-2001 The Work Session began at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Arnold Mordkin, Robert Purvis, Richard Virute, Douglas Mercatoris COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All Council Members were present. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; PUBLIC PRESENT: Ford Frick, David Bellack, Bill Kane and other members of the Public interested in today's Agenda items. Public/Private Partnership Finance Mechanisms Ford Frick, a consultant representing the Aspen Skiing Company, provided an overview of information related to findings on the trends of mountain resorts. He also provided information related to what competitors are doing and financing options available to them. Frick explained the changing relationships between public entities and ski area developers in an effort to provide development upgrades for resorts and meet the needs of the community. He outlined some of the changes occurring in other resort areas as a result of public/private partnerships. He further explained that the partnership process allows governments more control in respect to their community's future by gaining the ability to maintain the quality of the community and accommodate change. Addressing Snowmass Village, he stated that a partnership would allow the Town to take control of its future and address some of the issues it is currently facing as this community reaches buildout. Frick explained how other resorts are partnering financially with developers and the process being used to address the issues. He stated that the current thinking of ski resorts is different from ten years ago and the markets are changing. Partnerships allow utilization of government funding sources that are unavailable for private developers such as Special Improvement Districts, Business Improvement Districts and Sales tax associated with the new development. Mountain resorts are now facing problems that did not exist in the past, such as the commonality and effect of people migrating from mountain resorts to a down- *Owlo . 03-01-01 ws Page 2 valley area, as well as development of down-valley businesses, golf courses and other amenities. This migration equates to a loss of sales tax to the traditional core resorts. Also, new resorts are developing in other areas, creating pressure, competition, and competitive advantage or disadvantage, to resorts such as Snowmass Village. He explained that privately owned resorts have financing vehicles such as special districts and regulatory powers to manage their ski resort environments and are not bound by the same rules imposed on county and town governments. They have the power to make their own decisions and can make decisions quickly. In private/public partnerships the public sector can take part in the advantages of ski resort development as well as provide the use of the public financing pool and municipal rates to accomplish community goals. The group discussed current trends, which included that 80 to 90 percent of the mountain resort competition, is under some type of major effort to revamp, revitalize or start over from scratch. Examples given were airport expansion programs, constructing gondolas along with a bed base in the town core, creation of new lodging taxes, sales taxes on new development and special improvement districts. Also discussed were comparisons of the skiing mountains, the combination of other amenities with the skiing experience, growth in interval ownership and current construction of 35,000 additional beds within the state. The Work Session ended at 7:30 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk 00-1 • TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 2, 2001 Agenda Item: DISCUSSION AND FIRST READING: Ordinance No. 11. Series of 2001,an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan. The addendum is specifically for the incorporation of the Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study, and the Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Presented By: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Core Issues: According to the Strategic Plan of Action,Chapter 9, of the Comprehensive Plans' Future Transportation Plan, one of the strategies states to, "evaluate alternative transportation technologies appropriate for Brush Creek Valley." There should be a determination made whether or not the BCCTS and the supplemental trails study serve this strategic purpose despite any inconsistencies between these studies and the Comprehensive Plan. • The Comprehensive Plan should be subsequently revised for consistency with the BCCTS and the trails study at the time the entire Comprehensive Plan is updated. General Info: The most recent Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 22, Series 1999. Since that time, a Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study(BCCTS)was completed September 15, 2000 and a supplemental Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan was Completed December 21, 1999. Staff conducted an analysis of these studies against the current Transportation Plan,Chapter 7,of the Comprehensive Plan(see attachment). Staff found conflicts in the policy statements, recommendations, and figures between the Comprehensive Plan and the transportation/trails studies. However, staff believes the BCCTS and the supplemental trail study(see separate handout)provides the most current and accurate information concerning Transportation findings and elements within the Town, and as a result, should be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan despite any current inconsistencies. aim`q as ATTACHMENTS/HANDOUTS • Staff analysis of differences between the Comprehensive Plan and the mentioned transportation studies. • Executed Planning Commission Resolution 06, Series 2001 • Draft Ordinance • The Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study • The Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan Council Options: 1. Approve the first reading of the ordinance and schedule public hearing and second reading for the April 91h Town Council meeting; or 2. Table the Ordinance for further study and evaluation. Staff Recommendation: Approve the first reading of the ordinance and schedule the public hearing and second reading for the April 91h Town Council meeting. Comprehensive Plan — Chapter 7, The Transportation Plan Inconsistencies with The Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study and The Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan December 2000 (Revised January 2001) Below are statements, policies and recommendations per the following order: Italicized language--Affected policies and recommendations from Chapter 7 of Comp Plan; • Bulleted items--Language in the BCCTS and the Trails Study which show potential conflicts; Bold print-- Recommended modifications for Transportation Plan policies or other recommendations from staff. ............................................................................................................... Policies Section — Chapter 7: "Make land use decisions which result in a reduction of automobile traffic..." • Accordingly to the BCCTS, page 9, "peak population is forecast to increase by 19.9% between 1998 and 2020, and employment is forecast to grow by 48% over the same time period." • On same page it states, "peak population of the town is expected to grow by approximately 19.9% by 2020." • "Overall traffic growth in the corridor is estimated to average about 30% over the next 22 years to 2020." Summary note: When population and employee Increases over the next 20 years, it will be difficult If not Impossible to enforce the policy of reducing automobile traffic. Perhaps the policy should state that mitigation techniques and alternative forms of transportation should be utilized to discourage automobile use. "Maintain Level of Service (LOS) 'Con roadways and at intersections." According to the Traffic Operations Analysis on page 18 of the BCCTS, the summer and winter peak period on Brush Creek Road will have a level of service E by 2020. The intersection of Brush Creek and Owl Creek Roads will be at a level of service F. • According to the Conclusions section on page 19 of the BCCTS, it states,"The level of service analysis indicates that there will be significant congestion problems in the evening peak hour on Brush Creek Road." Summary note: According to the growth projections noted, it will be difficult if not impossible to maintain LOS 'C' on roadways and intersections in the future. According to the Comprehensive Plan, page 14 of Chapter 7, It states that, "improvements are necessary at the major Brush Creek Road Intersections to achieve a LOS "C" or better. Recommendations include the construction of three modern roundabouts at the intersection of Brush Creek Road with Highline Road, Owl Creek Road and Wood Road." Following the Comprehensive Plan,there should be a stated policy to implement the traffic circle construction within a given time period, if desired. "Maintain Brush Creek Road as the primary entry into Snowmass Village. Maintain the rural image and character of Brush Creek Road from SH 82 to the Town Core." • According to the Conclusions section on page 19 of the BCCTS, it states, "Brush Creek Road does not currently provide the needed capacity for future traffic volumes. All locations on Brush Creek Road will be at capacity unless traffic patterns are changed or capacity is added to the roadway." • Per the Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan, two trails are recommended (one for pedestrian/recreational use near the creek, and one paved trail along Brush Creek Road for more experienced commuter bikers)along with a planned future fixed guideway system. Staff's opinion is that this would not necessarily preserve the rural image and character of Brush Creek Road. • The Implementation Considerations on page 70 of the BCCTS state, "The TOSV Council and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)believe that the County should adopt the fixed guideway corridor up to the rodeo lot as a part of its transportation plan and incorporate corridor preservation into any land use action along the route." • On the same page of the BCCTS Implementation Considerations, "There was general agreement that, given the multi-use trail (near Brush Creek) and the desire to minimize paved surface in the corridor, there was little need for striped bicycle lanes on Brush Creek Road." Summary note: Per the conclusions above, It will be difficult to main the rural Image and character of Brush Creek Road from SH 82 to the Town Core with any road widening (for passing lanes and/or pull-out areas), similar improvements, and the appearance of a fixed guideway system (anticipated to be 10+ years away). If additional capacity Is needed for Brush Creek Road, perhaps a native landscaped median (planted with native grasses and indigenous trees and shrubs) along Brush Creek valley and a finished landscaped median within the Town limits could be designed Into an expansion of the road to lessen the impacts of asphalt widening. "Maintain a total of 2,250 spaces for public parking with 1,200 spaces in the Town Core, 400 spaces at Two Creeks. and 650 spaces at the Rodeo."(page 1); "The Town limits the use of public access spaces to 2.150." • According to the Traffic Operations Analysis of the BCCTS, it shows the following: a) Town Core Parking Lots— 1,314 existing spaces, but the Town Plan calls for the removal of approximately 100 spaces from the Town Core Parking Lots. ^� b) Rodeo Lot—300 existing spaces—A growth rate of 30% suggests that 90 new spaces are needed to keep up with existing trends. The Comp Plan calls for adding 350 parking spaces to the Rodeo Lot—a growth of over 100%for an excess of 260 spaces over existing demand. c) Two Creeks Lot—200 existing spaces—A growth of 30% suggests that 60 new parking spaces are needed to keep up with existing trends. The Comp Plan calls for adding 200 parking spaces to the Two Creeks Lot-a growth of 100% for an excess of 140 spaces over demand. Summary note: Not knowing the scale and parking demands of Base Village,the Town may want to reconsider the parking space limits within the Town. See Section E— Recommendations section toward the back of the this report for further related comments. "Limit 200 of the 1,200 spaces in the Town Core to day skier parking." Considering the attractiveness and "pull" of a Base Village, the Town may want to reconsider the parking limit for day skier parking in the Town Core. Section A — History of Past Transportation Plans: This section of the Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan should probably be retained and supplemented with the introductory language of the BCCTS. The objective in the last paragraph to maintain peak hour traff ic below 1,075 cars along with the objective to achieve 85% use of day skier lots in Base Village,which increases traffic on Brush Creek Road, may need to be reconsidered based on stated past Inconsistency of these policies. Section B — Existing Transportation System: "Per the existing system, the Town limits the use of public access spaces to 2,150." (page 8) However, the future parking supply is noted as 2,250 spaces (page 15). This particular section of the Chapter should remain the same. Section C — Transportation Goals and Objectives: "Extensive roadway widening should be minimized if not avoided." (page 10) • According to the Conclusions section on page 19 of the BCCTS, it states,"Brush Creek Road does not currently provide the needed capacity for future traffic volumes. All locations on Brush Creek Road will be at capacity unless traffic patterns are changed or capacity is added to the roadway. • The Implementation Considerations on page 70 of the BCCTS state,"A three-lane roadway in the Brush Creek Valley is a major concern to both the TOSV Council and the (EOTC). It was agreed that a plan for road expansion is valuable, but elected officials and stakeholders hope that the expansion will never be needed. Some elected officials desire further la3400 exploration of slow moving vehicle pullouts. Concern was expressed by others about the cost of enforcement and the effectiveness of the pull outs." Summary note: Per the conclusions above, it will be difficult to main the rural image and character of Brush Creek Road from SH 82 to the Town Core. If additional capacity Is needed, a native landscaped median (e.g., of native grasses, Indigenous trees and shrubs), and a finished landscaped median appearance within the Town limits,could be designed into an expansion to lessen the Impacts of asphalt widening. Perhaps the policy should read as, "Extensive roadway widening should be minimized If not avoided to the greatest extent possible." "Traffic signals are unacceptable." (page 10) • According to the Conclusions section of the BCCTS on page 19, "The Brush Creek Road intersections with Owl Creek Road and Wood Road will no longer function properly using only stop sign control with respect to the minor street approaches. Intersection modifications such as roundabouts, traffic signals, or traffic pattern changes should be considered at these locations to provide acceptable levels of service to the minor street approaches." Summary note: If this policy is to remain, implementation of the traffic circle construction within a specific time frame should be noted in the Comprehensive Plan, If that Is what Council desires. "Make land use decisions which result in a reduction of automobile traffic..."(page 11) Summary note: As stated previously,when projected population and employee increases over the next 20 years, It will be difficult If not impossible to enforce the policy of reducing automobile traffic. Perhaps the policy should state that mitigation techniques and alternative forms of transportation should be utilized to discourage or lessen automobile use. Another optlon would be to reword the policy to read, "Make land use decisions which result in a reduction of automobile traffic from the typical traffic volume generated from developments." "Minimize road improvements, limit traffic congestion, and promote safe streets..." (page 11) Summary note: According to the growth projections noted, it will be difficult if not impossible to maintain LOS V on roadways and intersections in the future. According to the Conclusions section on page 19 of the BCCTS, it states, "Brush Creek Road does not currently provide the needed capacity for future traffic volumes. All locations on Brush Creek Road will be at capacity unless traffic patterns are changed or capacity Is added to the roadway." This seems to be against the current policy of minimizing road improvements, limiting traffic congestion, and promoting safe streets. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan, page 14 of Chapter T, states, "improvements are necessary at the major Brush Creek Road Intersections to achieve a LOS "C" or better. Recommendations Include the construction of three modern roundabouts at the intersection of Brush Creek Road with Highllne Road, Owl Creek Road and Wood Road." Following the Comprehensive Plan, there should be a stated policy to Implement the traffic circle construction within a given time period, if desired. But again, this seems to go against current policy. Now "The Town of Snowmass Village establishes LOS 'C'as its traffic threshold. In the past, LOS 'C' was defined as falling below 1,075 vehicles per peak hour, regardless of how many vehicles are traveling in one direction or the other." (page 11) See comments above. Also, the BCCTS should be revised for consistency to show one- way traffic volume figures. "The measure of LOS 'C'along Brush Creek Road is proposed at 925 vehicles per hour in one direction..." (page 12) The worse-case vehicle volume on Brush Creek Road per the BCCTS, is anticipated to be 1,580 for two way traffic during PM peak period in the winter, which is viewed as a level of service (LOS)'E.' The above two statements don't necessarily conflict with each other, but again, the BCCTS should show the one-way traffic volume figures. Section D — Future Transportation Plan Elements: "Traffic along Brush Creek Road at the Woodbridge Pedestrian Bridge would increase from 12,300 to 14,100 vehicles per day." (page 13) The BCCTS indicates that Brush Creek Road south of upper Woodbridge Road will be at 14,400 ADT by 2020. A traffic engineer should review the tables,figures and traffic counts In the main body text of Chapter 7 to amend for consistency with the BCCTS or vice versa. "Peak hour directional traffic on Brush Creek Road will increase from 675 to 775 and will still be below LOS 'C'." (page 13) Similar comment: It appears that the BCCTS (tables on pages 14 and 15) disputes some of the findings and figures In the Comprehensive Plan, and a traffic engineer should be consulted to amend the language or figures so the documents are consistent. "Improvements are necessary at the major Brush Creek Road intersections to achieve a LOS 'C' or better. Recommendations include the construction of three modern roundabouts at the intersection of Brush Creek Road with Highline Road, Owl Creek Road, and Wood Road. Modern roundabouts provide excellent levels of service for all traffic movements, create safer traffic conditions along Brush Creek Road, help visitors find their way,and beautify the intersections." (page 14) • The Conclusions section on page 19 of the BCCTS, states, "The Brush Creek Road intersections with Owl Creek Road and Wood Road will no longer function properly using only stop sign control with respect to the minor street approaches. Intersection modifications such as roundabouts, traffic signals, or traffic pattern changes should be considered at these locations to provide acceptable levels of service to the minor street approaches." However, the Implementation Considerations on page 70 of the BCCTS state,"TOSV officials agree that it is good to have a plan for improving the intersection (Brush Creek/Owl Creek) if necessary. The Council would prefer not to construct the facility." Summary note: The recommendations seem similar but yet conflict to some degree, plus the BCCTS offers two other options (traffic signals or traffic pattern changes). A more specific decision should be reached concerning the type and timing of Improvements. The preference of not constructing the roundabouts should be re-examined. "As future traffic increases to where LOS 'D'is reached, further mass transit improvements will be needed and the role of transit must be expanded." (page 17) Again, the BCCTS indicates that future traffic projections will produce LOS E or worse. Note: LOS 'C' doesn't appear realistic for the future. See previous summary comments. "More immediate transit improvements to consider include the use of larger 40-passenger buses from Highway 82 into the Town." The BCCTS seems to support this policy as it states on page 33, "Winter ridership variation by hour indicates a high level of passenger trips up Brush Creek Road in the morning hours (from both Downvalley and Aspen origins) and a corresponding peak in passenger activity down Brush Creek Road in the late afternoon" A blending of these two recommendations should be provided. Section E — Recommendations Section: "Prepare engineered improvement plans and construct intersection modern roundabouts or other major intersection improvements, excluding traffic signals." (page 18) See previous summary comments concerning recommendations from the BCCTS which conflict with this policy. However, the Implementation Considerations on page 70 of the BCCTS state, "TOSV officials agree that It is good to have a plan for improving the intersection if necessary. The Council would prefer not to construct the facility." A determination should be made whether this preference should be changed. "Limit day skier parking to 200 spaces within the Town core, 400 at Two Creeks, and 650 at the Rodeo/Entryway." (page 19) The BCCTS indicates that the proposed parking for two of these areas is over the demand that is needed (page 13 of the Traffic Operations Analysis). However,the Transportation Management Conclusions on page 40 of the BCCTS state that"implementing a transportation management policy in the Brush Creek corridor will require investment in parking facilities and transit services. The investment may be preferred by the citizens of Snowmass Village as an alternative to highway improvements that add automobile capacity to Brush Creek Road and increase parking demands in town." It states further that, "the addition over time of as many as 1,000 additional spaces at the Rodeo Lot or 1,200 additional spaces at the Brush Creek Transit Center may be required. Further study may indicate that a a0- combination of parking improvements at both facilities achieves the optimum balance of parking and transit service impact." Comment: It seems that further study is warranted to determine an appropriate number of parking spaces for affected areas within the Town, especially if LOS 'C' Is to be achieved on roadways and at intersections in the future. The increase of public parking space limits should be considered. "Redevelop the Mall Transit Center,"and "Support the development of a multi-modal transit and parking facility at SH 82 and Brush Creek Road." (page 19). • According to the Implementation Considerations on page 70 of the BCCTS, "TOSV Council considers moving the Transit Center to the Cozy Point South property to better accommodate a rail connection to the Rodeo Lot to be worthy of further discussion with the EOTC, RFRHA, and CDOT" "The TOSV Council was not supportive of the gondola alignments to Two Creeks and the Snowmass Mail. The detachable funicular was supported as a viable option" Summary Note: Perhaps a Town transit/transfer center combined with a mixed-use/ municipal government facility located somewhere between SH 82 and the Snowmass Mall should be considered (such as the Rodeo lot area), where a fixed guideway could connect from SH 82 to the Rodeo grounds area and a detachable funicular guideway from the Rodeo grounds area to Base Village and Snowmass Mall (Town Core area). This would be in addition to providing other multi-modal transportation options (buses, shuttles, etc.) from this center to other destinations, such as accommodations,Two Creeks, Snowmass Center, Community Center, etc. Overall Summary Note: It seems that a majority of the text in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan should be supplemented and/or replaced with the text of the BCCTS and the Trails Study, or vice versa, together with an updated list of policies and recommendations for Chapter 7. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 06 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN ADDENDUM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, Section 16A-1-50(d) of the Municipal Code permits periodic review by the Planning Commission and Town Council of the Comprehensive Plan to conduct additional hearings and investigation as they deem appropriate; and WHEREAS, Section.16-1-50(d) of the Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission and Town Council to recommend amendments to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission may submit its comments and recommendations in writing to the Town Council prior to the first reading of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: Section One: Findings and Recommendations 1. Owl Creek Road Improvements. Planning Commission is in favor of improving and paving Owl Creek Road as an alternative access route to Snowmass Village as long as it is limited to passenger vehicles and school buses only and which excludes public transit routes and delivery trucks as a means to access Snowmass Village from Aspen or vice versa. Planning Commission finds that the improvements to Owl Creek Road would lessen the necessity for the widening of Brush Creek Road. 2. Parking and Alternative Transportation Options. Planning Commission finds that other parking and alternative transportation options should be considered rather than being confined to absolute parking numbers and/or minimum/maximum figures outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Easement/Right-of-way for Fixed Guideway System. Planning Commission encourages the reinforcement of efforts by Pitkin County pertaining to pursuing an easement and/or right-of-way along Brush Creek Road for a future fixed guideway system. lox 40 PC Reso 01-06 Page 2 4. Easements for Trails along Brush Creek Valley. The Planning Commission recommends that Pitkin County continue to strive to obtain easements for all the recommended trails in the Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan. 5. Comprehensive Plan Addendum. The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council adopt the Brush Creek Corridor Transportation addendum which consists of the Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study (BCCTS) along with the Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan as being part of the evaluation of alternative transportation technologies appropriate for Brush Creek Valley as outlined in the Strategic Plan of Action, Chapter Nine (Page 6), for the Future Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Further Comment and Recommendation. Prior to the final adoption of the above noted Addendum, including the BCCTS and the referenced supplemental study, to serve as part of the evaluation of alternative transportation technologies appropriate for Brush Creek Valley, the Planning Commission requests that it be given the opportunity to provide further comments and recommendations on any proposed addendum to the Comprehensive Plan, within the scope of Section 16-1-50(d) of the Municipal Code. 7. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, as amended, by the Planning Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village on March 14, 2001 upon a motion by Commission member Boineau, the second of Commission member Faurer, and upon a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against (Commission members Benson and Fridstein absent). TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION George Hdggins, Chairp6ison ATTEST: 7t�11 SheryMcl tire, Secretary TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 11 SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE (APPROVINGIDENING) AN ADDENDUM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE BRUSH CREEK CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY (BCCTS) AND THE BRUSH CREEK VALLEY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, Section 16A-1-50(d) of the Municipal Code permits periodic review by the Planning Commission and Town Council of the Comprehensive Plan to conduct additional hearings and investigation as they deem appropriate; and WHEREAS, Section 16-1-50(d)of the Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission and Town Council to recommend amendments to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan. The Town Council adopts the Brush Creek Corridor Transportation addendum which consists of the Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study (BCCTS) along with the Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan as being part of the evaluation of alternative transportation technologies appropriate for Brush Creek Valley as outlined in the Strategic Plan of Action, Chapter Nine (Page 6), for the Future Transportation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on 2001 upon a motion by Council member the second of Council member and upon a vote of_in favor and _against. (Council member[s] absent). TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 2, 2001 Agenda Item: Item No. 6- Resolution No. 15, Series of 1997 Item No. 7—Resolution No. 17, Series of 1997 Presented By: Trudi Worline\Steve Connor Core Issues: All three Resolutions require Council action for finalization. General Info: Resolution Nos. 15 and 17, Series of 1997 were tabled by Council at the March 17, 1997 Regular Town Council Meeting due to a letter having been received from the Pitkin County Commissioners. The letter stated that this annexation was in violation of a 1984 Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and the Town. Council voted to table the Resolutions until after Council could meet with the Commissioners to discuss this issue. No further action has been taken to date. I spoke with Bill Hegberg, representative of this Wildcat annexation issue, and he agreed with my recommendation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council deny both Resolutions since no further action has occurred by either the proponent or Council since 1997, also this will enable the Town Clerk to clear the record. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15 SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY ROSE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WILDCAT RANCH, LTD., HOMESTEAD 10, WILDCAT, INC., AND MICHAEL A. RUBEL, TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, on October 18, 1996, a petition for annexation was filed by the owners of 100% of the territory described in the petition, which territory is more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, comprising a portion of an area known as Wildcat Ranch, hereinafter referred to as the OPetitionO; and WHEREAS, the Town Council passed and adopted Resolution No. 7, Series of 1997, finding that the Petition was in substantial compliance with 31-12-107, C.R.S. on January 20, 1997, and established a date and time for a public hearing to determine the eligibility of the area described in the Petition to the Town; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the March 17, 1997, following notice thereof as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds as follows: 1. That not less than 1/6 of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed for annexation and the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. 3. That the area proposed for annexation is urban in character as that term is used in the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act. 4. That the area proposed for annexation is capable of being integrated into the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. Res 97-15 Page 2 of 3 5. That in establishing the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate tracts or parcels nor has any tract or parcel of real estate comprising twenty (20) acres or more with an assessed valuation, including buildings and improvements, in excess of two hundred thousand ($200,000) Dollars for ad valorem taxes (for the next year preceding the annexation)shall be included without the written consent of the landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of the annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation. 6. That the proposed annexation will not have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of the current municipal boundary except with the respect to a parcel of property held in identical ownership at least 50% of which is within forgoing three mile limit. 7. That the annexation petition has been signed by the owners of 100% of the area proposed to be annexed. 8. That, based on the foregoing findings, an annexation election is not required and the Town is authorized by 31-12-115, C.R.S. to annex the area described in the Petition by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado as follows: 1. Eligibility for Annexation. On the basis of the evidence submitted at the March 17, 1997 public hearing and the record of proceedings in this matter, the Town Council hereby finds and determines that the applicable requirements of 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. have been met, that the area proposed for annexation as described in the Petition is eligible for annexation. 2. Pre-Annexation Agreement. The Pre-Annexation Agreement presented to the Town Council, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved and accepted on behalf of the Town. Res 97-15 Page 3 of 3 3. Direction to Town Manager. The Town Manager is hereby directed to execute the Pre-Annexation Agreement on behalf of the Town and to direct Town Staff to perform the obligations of the Town set forth therein. INTRODUCED, READ AND TABLED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, on this March 17, 1997, with a motion made by Councilmember Hatfield and seconded by Councilmember Burwell and by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. ATTEST: TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO By: Ted Grenda, Mayor Trudi Worline, Town Clerk TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17 SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY MICHAEL A. RUBEL, TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, on October 17, 1996, a petition for annexation was filed by the owners of 100% of the territory described in the petition, which territory is more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, comprising a portion of an area known as Wildcat Ranch, hereinafter referred to as the OPetition[l; and WHEREAS, the Town Council passed and adopted Resolution No. 7, Series of 1997, finding that the Petition was in substantial compliance with 31-12-107, C.R.S. on January 20, 1997, and established a date and time for a public hearing to determine the eligibility of the area described in the Petition to the Town; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the March 17, 1997, following notice thereof as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds as follows: 1. That not less than 1/6 of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed for annexation and the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. 3. That the area proposed for annexation is urban in character as that term is used in the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act. 4. That the area proposed for annexation is capable of being integrated into the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado. 5. That in establishing the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate tracts or parcels nor has any tract or parcel of real estate comprising twenty (20) acres or more with an assessed valuation, including buildings .as� asp Res 97-17 Page 2 and improvements, in excess of two hundred thousand ($200,000) Dollars for ad valorem taxes (for the next year preceding the annexation)shall be included without the written consent of the landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of the annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation. 6. That the proposed annexation will not have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of the current municipal boundary except with the respect to a parcel of property held in identical ownership at least 50% of which is within forgoing three mile limit. 7. That the annexation petition has been signed by the owners of 100% of the area proposed to be annexed. 8. That, based on the foregoing findings, an annexation election is not required and the Town is authorized by 31-12-115, C.R.S. to annex the area described in the Petition by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado as follows: 1. Eligibility for Annexation. On the basis of the evidence submitted at the March 17, 1997 public hearing and the record of proceedings in this matter, the Town Council hereby finds and determines that the applicable requirements of 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S. have been met, that the area proposed for annexation as described in the Petition is eligible for annexation. 2. Pre-Annexation Agreement. The Pre-Annexation Agreement presented to the Town Council, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved and accepted on behalf of the Town. 3. Direction to Town Manager. The Town Manager is hereby directed to execute the Pre-Annexation Agreement on behalf of the Town and to direct Town Staff to perform the obligations of the Town set forth therein. Res 97-17 Page 3 INTRODUCED, READ AND TABLED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado, on this March 17, 1997, with a motion made by Councilmember Hatfield and seconded by Councilmember Burwell and by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO By: Ted Grenda, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk RRESOM97-17 -37 - COUNCIL: PAGES 5 and 6 OF TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 17, 1997, 03-17-97.TC Page 5 Item No. 8: PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 15, SERIES OF 1997 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY ROSE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WILDCAT RANCH, LTD., HOMESTEAD 10, WILDCAT, INC., AND MICHAEL A. RUBEL, TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Grenda requested that Item Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11 be tabled due to a letter received by Council from the Pitkin County Commissioners. The letter stated that action on the Wildcat Serial Annexation is in violation of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Snowmass Village and the Pitkin County Commissioners, and precludes any further annexation into Snowmass Creek. The Town Attorney explained that it is necessary to conduct the Public Hearings as advertised. He also explained that Resolution Nos. 15 and 17 do not approve the annexation. The Resolutions state that all statutory requirements have been met and declares the property to be eligible for annexation. Mayor Grenda opened the Public Hearing at 6:01 p.m. Bill Hegberg,representing the Wildcat property owners, stated that the Resolutions are a finding to determine the annexation to be in compliance with statutory requirements for annexation. He stated that there has been some opposition to the annexation by the Snowmass Creek Caucus who have met with the Pitkin County Commissioners. He suggested the issue be addressed with the Commissioners and try to resolve the concerns. Manchester spoke in favor of Council action on Resolution Nos. 15 and 17. Heidi Routt questioned the need for any action in light of the Intergovernmental Agreement of 1984. Rebecca Sparks stated opposition to the annexation. Leslie Lamount requested that the Town Attorney explain portions of the Resolutions and a statement included in the letter to Council from the Commissioners. She stated that an Intergovernmental Agreement to aid in the joint planning of the Droste property is being drafted between Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Town of Snowmass Village. There being no further comments, Mayor Grenda closed the Public Hearing at 6:12 p.m. Item No. 9: RESOLUTION NO. 15, SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY ROSE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WILDCAT RANCH, LTD.,HOMESTEAD 10, WILDCAT, INC., AND MICHAEL A. RUBEL, TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE- ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 03-17-97.TC Page 6 Council discussed a letter from the Pitkin County Commissioners stating that this annexation is in violation of an 1984 Intergovernmental Agreement between the County and the Town of Snowmass Village. The IGA concerns annexation of land in the Snowmass Creek Valley. After further discussion, Hatfield made a motion to table both Resolution Nos. 15 and 17 until Council after meets with the County Commissioners to discuss this issue. Burwell seconded the motion. The motion to table was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 10: PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 1997 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY MICHAEL A. RUBEL, TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Mayor Grenda opened the Public Hearing at 6:16 p.m. There being no public comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 6:17 p.m. Item No. 11: RESOLUTION NO. 17, SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING THE ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY MICHAEL A. RUBEL,TRUSTEE OF NORTH ENTERPRISES 1996 TRUST AND APPROVING A PRE- ANNEXATION AGREEMENT TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: April 2, 2001 Agenda Item: Item No. 9, Informational item regarding Town of Snowmass Village Public Official disclosure. Presented By: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk Core Issues: Planning Commissioner performing contract work for the Town. General Info: Bill Boineau, Snowmass Village Planning Commission Member,has contracted with the Town to install conduit for wiring in the General Admin/Town Clerk offices. The contract was accepted on December 31, 2000,before Boineau was appointed to the Planning Commission. Due to a delay and incorrect product mailed from the manufacturer, the project is still ongoing. I spoke with the Town Attorney, who recommended I provide this information at a Council Meeting for disclosure purposes. Staff Recommendation: Since the contract with Boineau existed before he was appointed to the Planning Commission, at the direction of the Town Attorney I am disclosing this information as a part of the record. W"* eva Please Turn in Your Status Report Updates to Donna J. Garcia by April 16 2001 at 5 P.M. Status Report Bullets in Italics have been previously listed April 2, 2001 Town Council / Town Manager Activity/Staff Manager Status Mall Transit,Pla7r� �r� Gary Surfer' 4, ? a?4 � a. Entryway Planning Project ■ Pool on hold pending site resolution. Gary Sutter ■ Road Design continuing. IN Rodeo Negotiations continuing. Town Manage r's`Oftice Activrties;� `. ! Little Red School House lease renewal this March. Gary Suitar . V Assisting with VLF and Forward Plan. Developing information for economic sustainability" sf odo Divide home letter being draftee iPrep'ahn 2001 speafic,oblQct es and pertprmnanc9 .. standaiNFF € >s ■ ; Draftrn Whistler repo it` Town Attorney Manager Status Town Attorney Gen' Actlwties �L ' r �' a ,,b Steve Conroy ' ­e Housing Manager Housin De artment Ac W ttg ra i f CCTH tE2 was put oq market,fgr$252,,179 09 until Joe C Q Ss Mared }` ' Calling applicants to update the Housing rental wait list. Apartment turnovers have begun and the staf l re arrri tliesea artments(orni3a�(enahts��-, p P. 9 P, ? k Staff is checking all sm6ke detectors and completing ## pa'rlment condition records for each a artment: Parcel N. Employee Housing ■ CTL Thompson is installing the inclinometers and Joe Coffey piezometers on the Parcel 'N' hillside. • Installing the instruments on the Ridge property was not possible due to the wet soil conditions and the equipment used for drilling. • April g1" is the anticipated start date for Weitz-Norris on the work approved with the excavation ordinance. Finance Activity Sta Manaq!�� Status { F�narice a d tiv _ Q .0 OSit) MafG ,z . .ar1plS alp I.S. Update ■ Added AutoCAD maps viewable by browser. Nick Tucker ■ Reviewing BID for web page. ■ T-11WAN configuring and testing in progress. Public Works Activity/Staff Manager Status Snowmelt Road , ' E ! Conducted scooping meeting on 3116101. Hunt waleY"'s � a `�; ,t; "� r ■ Will hold meeting with adjacent property owners on k 4/3�p1 Brush Creek/Highline Roundabout ■ Conducted scooping meeting on 3/15/01. Hunt Walker ■ Resolved stream and Highline trail issues. ■ Need to coordinate with Brush Creek Trail. ■ Will continue design process. Public Safety Manager Poltce Depa me �Actlwtles Ou Animal Control Department participated in a Public Art. my�k 'y °rf ` : ;x »`M1 ry Bearing beiole the Pdkin County Board of County $ pp Co Isslonei re arp7ng adoption of their Bear � ,r;� '�,•2 .< � ' '.. n ' ,n�Fr PloteCtlO%1 Ordl%IalIC9 � Town Clerk er Status r ' f i i"�' � j gI tsp al e)nstipg files mto ge o f tl 4 da a of t en:Any �.,�, 'c`GW'� a'c°'++C"B� #� Fa {�4�, a r !U 1 OrI ,,QQ , e o vatb sC� o Dena 1TeAk o�ou s a tng 200 esoluNons A d and di❑❑g ce$and ti p S ` t s ■y ,Malling LVkSupplemen I porppilin tr f#'and ma�Im yltallons fo�AAB 2001 4 tF � 4a s a ff'nlUa(Cultur�l�DlU7 k 1 ��,� lecttn dvcurftentation for anothef Myrnlapa(Code y Nla c n [e a s n$ or is /y a "u a u�bem�q�al(edfor�or p win &I G gf{I fps�ositl�Ropesa'n� QQ�� e au a y (3`p.�ate LUC ,s n C oh Internet 1 Ve P A Le �arss.t RYF u D Ia ,.Ail k n e araClons,fog Yow1t�ea � � Lette en r esting'donation&for7ow, Clean up Yk.f,¢4i i Community Development De partment Activity/Staff Manager Statl:us a Actly t z ', s a 2 Community Enhancement Projects Manage r Status Brush Creek Seasons 4Nt a� 1"' May i 1s the Brush Creek Volunteer P�anting'date. Bernadette Barlhelen hl* Park Shelter ■ Construction is scheduled for April due to weather Bernadette Barthelenghi conditions. Contractor is getting licensed. ■ Putting a contract together for construction. Golf Course,Creek nhancements ■ Staff is writing a work program for Ski-Co to review and Bernadette BP 'e kj sign on on Once this occurs Bernadette will start to work \< a oh the Grant which 1s due 1n Ma . If the goals and oboe'coves are similar fo Mast pro ecis t"n the EPA feels Rk �tSta�c �l at #m L G t rdid $ 0 Marc 8 9 r 4 P�on ti t Watershed Plan ■ As a solution staff is going to request help for water quality testing from the Roaring Fork Conservancy- River Watch, since bids from outside to sources have been over$50,000. ■ Three sites along Brush Creek have been set up for sediment- stream discharge. Creekside, Wood Bridge, and Upper Brush Creek. Bwlding Het eve ' "` _ V-*4 Cont acting local architects for their comments; yp„evict Co i to mad be for a vSy�k� YAt r'yy, h,Gur„Src,'9dF{4 - J +F'�;kt �yi �;:',i a� rx _ �e.,=ri•, ,> >intici ate P annin Commissio Review n Sign Code Review ■ Commercial Planning Commission Review in April. Chris Conrad ■ Town Council should Receive Planning Commission recommendation on May 7`”or May 14". Plans & Policy Develo ment Manager Status Ilfiree'"'w" ■'"Stl(w11 b�tot d o I d o *rin , p t e„ e , de a t{eS suRan[need�/�0 Surve"n[� ^y@�i � Ty - Bio-Water Assessment ■ Set up as on-going study all seasons with updates on Bernadette Barthelenghl progress. Greenwayy Master Pla' sS� aSy{eceived ported copses arf{iiQ B medette 6arthelengll) Co rplsslo ro onsul �)and w111,fo erd tier revleW y.� � a Fig nd ,o � ` °" tF�•r �ti er � ♦�� tq w�u ",i4 ��• S IIIIp�y�i rierls�y/p��,. �k rM1n::k: �ra�opentng�mor�t(onngrhi(dn� an,,�cro �country skliRg ,� _ 2-area tq,leafrf abiou�wlldhfe'an�Llhe�ha4dataf�*s-'+ -=sx i Land Use Code Amendments ■ Other miscellaneous amendments to LUC (30% Slope, Chris Conrad garage exemption) adopted 03-19-01. ■ LUC Amendment for accessory units adopted 03-19-01. Eli C }S.". b ' �S Trails Piapn n l� �dl�1� �, � ,*� �Di�' �' rre7 o e9 e ` 60 j` trailrclosuto Ber adt�(il ' ti`I em edu 1 3 1' t �dert ) orrng tq be a 1 s ell a a . ' ;e 'we im a Pe> .E i X. , I TA «5 w Trail Meeting y' Sxn hM� y& tom ^t,,in+ A _ S'C, 4r r _ ty,� Next Tra"s Me�tingg wail be Apnl 10 ,at 3 00 p,m This �� r4 1 r iG ♦1 �.W.xi6' `i` pfOfectwllk�Cl(ell ��� ■ The�tr�ajl Cl sure posters,are readof distnbujion Making r vslons tp summer trail map a proof will be: reaif y fob reweW by[ylprph.3R�' � - Unit Equivalency Assessment ■ Drafting a series or charts to clarify the relationships Robert J. Voigt between various floor space ratio calculations.11 Desi n &8�te Jig'Yiew Re even J� Creattn rfefenge docurnentsJot use during Vpprk. g sar' tx ar+ Sessions` regarding: UrCan Design Principle's site. ` Material` #r- Robert J Votgt r y ' planning checklists strategic planning, and compre hensive plan directioh b u.et' °� � �n"`�Y` ' _ ■ Develo m slide library and presentations fpr Work $eSs' �S rBviewing ma(di deVeiopmenis 1 other resort 2 'WY1, w.' W 3 ++, x d �. :^r co ndtes,(Vv isi er mackcomb Bi Wpd�e# Srlver Stet g're(erence,maenal and�resenta�ons � +- re ardi� KI the desiJ an (oeve/opr nt of the'pub(ip , ,�< Sustainable Development ■ Presentation for Council on sustainability will be Presentation rescheduled. Robert J. Voigt Village Entryway Sig �, ft,6sedkdesign isybeing(tevised. 2 > t, Robert J..Volgf s �"•`. ,tia'', .�rX' " ., Maior Development Review Update Project Manager �qate Seven Star�Ra(nc e g Ex S9 gra{te �,4A x + Gary Suit"e`r%Stei a m � Su o ae fa urf a ea n reg rd(n , ros Snowmass Center Expansion ■ Applicant considering amending application. Sketch Plan ■ Work with applicant's consultant regarding sketch plan Jim Wahlstrom admission is done. ■ Anticipate new application in April "� a Wi7i' raid su'lemen infor`at1' as need d r Base VIII g�P.r Scexci Plar� xr L Pn PP , � r X R �tmY4ehi trkin (tdra(�dAsigfi,staltd A Divide/Krabloonik Land Exchange ■ Follow-up Pre-Sketch application/discussion with Jim Wahistrom applicant as needed. Minor Develo ment Review Update Update Project / Manager — Snowmass Chapel Pre Sketch Sri W Workin^q rm with applicant,conceng sketch plap Jim Wahistiom, 'Xa^* 3i fir.. �- SnOmIS$i017 .3ik€+ '�v?' v, ?3 r' Woodrun Place, Unit 51 ■ Received revised information from applicant March 26"'. Currently scheduling for re-review by Planning Commission on April 4`". ■ Tenlativel�scheduled for First Reading by Town Council on April 9' with Public Hearing and Second Reading on April 16i". r 4 W 00P 4 Administration Modification, SUP, TUP, Variance Update Project I Manager Administrative ?Cpw w W.aler�I S�¢aHnw itca.t.it o n Dise td.ct m Io Yee. Housing, Lot 68, Woodrun I ■" Building height constant outside envelope. Special Revi"lnr/ hor PU�t ■ SprinUSilvertree cell site Planning Commission Meetin� Amend e A it 4 and o v Cou{tcjl vleetmgs on April 9h and 16 Pines Lot 45 ■ Variance, P.C. Meeting 04-04-01. Stoneb�ldge`Condominiuois`, ,r ,. ., t. ■ Admilnstfatfie m6di0cation fqr Interim SPA plan. Lot 38, Two Creeks ■ Floor area excise tax application. Pending Update Update Project I Manager Administrative �� Colo�a�lo Municl al LeaaCJ � > ' + ,. :c w;z . 1� t, AVID Yr a •1 r: '.'d " Fun RunlWalk=T 6rsda�;"June 28 Enforcement Update Update Signs of the �It Photo rap eawsi� 01,the',f?� �t� r� Jim Wai s d r „ , t a t coin rahensytvg sf ,p(ilps and o n e e Dgra�K t",. . gr. . dI41,q Folwin P �eI ■ �Prepafin summ presemqu no sign pars"meters'�� ,along°with,examples of existin g signs at th all. Entry Columns at Divide ■ Individuals or associations may apply for variance(s), or Chris Conrad Minor PUD Amendment. ■ Owners of lots where Entry Columns exceed permitted height to receive letter. 13an ers a al ' T Slope k ° r Ntl to ° a lit bpineS�ses aeiyr7&I$ A ,l P'an�Sls Chris"! on . Real Estate "Open House" Signs ■ Real Estate Companies and Board of Realtors are Chris Conrad invited to participate in discussions regarding possible amendments to sign code. Trans ortation U date v' S •' al: f�maetl'n9et•t 'end 0 . a ich.=:. . 5 Project Update Coordination-Gary Suiter 923-3777 ext.206 Public Works-Hunt Walker 923-5170 Housing-Joe Coffey 923-2360 Community Development—7Rompson/Conrad/Barthele nghilEllis/Stahman/GnunUMclntire 923-5524 Town Clerk -71,vdi Worline 923-3777 Finance-Marianne Rakowski 923-3796 Police Chief-Art Smythe 923-5330 - I6- 6 'April Packet Caleindar Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2:00 P.M. T.C. Mtg. Town Ski Day 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2:00 P.M. 4:00 EOTC T.C. Mtg. In Aspen 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2:00 P.M. T.C. Mtg. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 --#7 so 'May Packet Calendar F Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. Town Clean-up Day 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 27 28 29 30 31 HOLIDAY 1 I 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study yi4,u" ..WWaaaM. ROCK in association with GREEK MK Centennial LSC, Inc.. EM5TU)IG Cogan Owens Cogan ' September 15, 2000 1 1 Table of Contents Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Stud, Page Section I—Project Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2— Traffic Operations Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 3— Transit Operations Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Section 4— Transportation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Section 5—Short-Term Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Section 6—Fixed Guideway Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 ' Section 7—Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1 ' Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study i 1 List of Tables Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Page 1. — Snowmass Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. — Traffic Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. — Annual Traffic Volume Growth Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. — Traffic Forecasts: 2020 Peak, 10-day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 S. — 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes-Peak 10-Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. — 2020 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements- Winter Peak 10-Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. — 2020 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements- Summer Peak 10-Day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. — Description of Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. — 2020 PMPeak Hour Roadway Level of Service- Winter Peak, 10-Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. — 2020 PM Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service- Summer Peak, 10-Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. —2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service- Winter Peak, 10-Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. —2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection Level ofService- Summer Peak, 10-Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. —Existing Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 14. —Brush Creek Transit Ridership Growth Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 15. —Forecast 2020 Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 16. —Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 L' 1 ' Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study ii List of Figures Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Page 1 1. — Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.— The Bus Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. —Buses Goin'By . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. —Buses Goin'By 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 S. —Brush Creek Road Design Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6. —a. Brush Creek Road Passing Lane(Option A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 b. Brush Creek Road Passing Lane(Option A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 c. Brush Creek Road Passing Lane (Option A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 d. Brush Creek Road Passing Lane (Option A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 I 7. — Owl Creek Rd./Brush Creek Rd. Roundabout . . 50 8. —Owl Creek RdJBrush Creek Rd. Roundabout Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 9. —Entrance to Aspen Light Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 10. - Glenwood Springs to Aspen Commuter Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 11. -a. Fixed Guideway Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 b. Fixed Guideway Alignment(Option A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 c. Fixed Guideway Alignment (Option A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 d. Fixed Guideway Alignment (Option A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 12. - Doppelmayr CABLEliner system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 13. -Brush Creek Transit Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 14. - Gondola Alignment-Base Village, Mall, Two Creeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 15. -Detachable Funicular-Alignment to Base Village, Mall, Two Creeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 I Brush Creek Corridor rransporialion Study iii ' Introduction Project Summary Statement of purpose and scope With the release of the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision and impending release of the Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor Investment Study, the Roaring Fork Valley is nearing a comprehensive strategy for regional transportation investment. One critical piece of the puzzle is missing- a strategy for regional transportation investment in the Brush Creek Valley and in the Town of Snowmass Village (Figure One). This piece is especially important since much of the travel in the upper valley is currently between Snowmass Village and Aspen. In 1998 both the Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan and the report of the Snowmass Village to Aspen Linkages Task Force determined that the Brush Creek Valley was the appropriate location for any mass transit system between Colorado Highway 82 and Snowmass Village. Currently the transit system in the Brush Creek Valley consists of buses operated on Brush Creek Road by the Roaring Fork Transit Agency(RFTA) and the Town of Snowmass Village(TOSV). The Elected Officials Transportation Committee(EOTC) working with the Snowmass Village Town Council initiated the Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study(CTS) in order to better understand the interface between the Entrance to Aspen project and transit service to Snowmass Village. In the near-term it is anticipated that transit service will continue to be provided using buses. This report therefore identifies needed capital and operating improvements for the bus system. yAt some point, the limited carrying capacity of Brush Creek Road and the TOS V street system may necessitate the construction of fixed guideway transit system between Highway 82 and Snowmass Village. This study develops the fixed guideway system in sufficient detail that the EOTC and TOSV can incorporate the system into land use and transportation investment decisions in the Brush Creek Corridor. The purpose of the CTS is not to design a fixed guideway transit system, rather to identify the right-of-way needed to be preserved and/or acquired for the future system. This report summarizes the findings from extensive analysis of existing and future demands on the Brush Creek Corridor transportation system and makes recommendations for mitigating the negative impacts that future growth will have on the existing network. r Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study otak H f l�3 hN'.I F 4+ Snowmass Village 'low gee ol CP Study Area k k � TW CAeiof v . Base Pillage snowmass Pillage Mall 1 i ' 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 Miles SOCK GPEEK I 4 ''='0°°' 57UDI0 1 Introduction Project objectives The following project objectives were developed through a series of scoping meetings held with the project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Stakeholders Group, TOSV Town Council, and the public: Transportation Objectives ' • The proposed transit system should provide needed capacity for transit trips projected in the Brush Creek corridor between Highway 82 and the Snowmass Mall in the year 2020. The system should take into account the seasonal nature of transit use and the variety of ' transit user types anticipated in the corridor. • The proposed interim transit system should provide the optimal combination of service by the Roaring Fork Transit Agency and the Town of Snowmass Village • The proposed fixed guideway transit system should be compatible with, and able to leverage opportunities provided by the transportation system proposed in the Emir mce to Aspen Record of Decision and the Glenwood Springs improvements to Aspen Corridor Investment Study. Land Use Objectives • The proposed transit system should complement the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan, and serve as a catalyst for implementation of the Plan. • Planning for the proposed transit system should be integrated with planning for the Entryway,Two Creeks, Snowmass Center,Base Village, and Snowmass Mall in order to optimize opportunities for transit ridership and alternative modes that reduce reliance on the automobile. Environmental Objectives • The proposed transit system should minimize wildlife conflicts in the Brush Creek Valley. ' • The proposed transit system should minimize impacts to Brush Creek and its riparian and wetland systems. • The proposed transit system should minimize visual impacts from Brush Creek Road, Snowmass Village homes, and Brush Creek Village homes while optimizing transit rider views of the Brush Creek Valley and Snowmass Village. Brush Creek Corridor Transportaiton Si udy 7 otak Introduction Economic Objectives • Operation and maintenance costs of the proposed transit system should be within the resources projected to be available to RFTA and TOSV. ' • The capital cost of the proposed transit system should be financially realistic with respect to federal, state, and local resources currently or potentially available to the community. • The proposed transit system should be examined to determine if construction can occur in meaningful phases in order to spread capital costs over a longer time period. ' Summary of Findings The following are preliminary findings from the technical analysis documented in this report: Transportation Findings • The projected need through year 2020 for transit trips can be met by the proposed bus system between Highway 82 and the Snowmass Mall. • Without some form of automobile traffic mitigation or transportation demand management, the proposed bus system will be negatively impacted by traffic congestion along the entire ' length of Brush Creek Road. Delays will increase the cost of bus service and lessen its attractiveness to residents, workers, and guests. • System demand is seasonal in nature, with a high winter demand driven by Aspen Skiing Company skier shuttle service. Demand for summer transit service is increasing faster than winter demand but does not exceed winter demand during the twenty year planning horizon of this report. • Growth in peak system demand is dependent upon the number of skier days at Snowmass Ski Area. The analysis in this report uses skier visit data from the Burnt Mountain Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). Skier visits anticipated in that study were reduced by 25 percent to account for skier visits that the Aspen Skiing Company believes will be ' diverted to the Aspen Highlands and Buttennilk Ski Areas, anticipating that these areas will be interconnected. • Skier visit tracking by the Aspen Skiing Company since the Burnt Mountain EIS was released indicate a lower rate of growth than was projected in the Burnt Mountain EIS. The peak system demand through the year 2020 presented in this report is thus a "best case" or"worst case"scenario, depending upon the perspective of the reader. The improvements proposed in this report are incremental in nature, and can be implemented over time as the need arises. Brush C ek Corridor Transportation Study d otak Introduction • The proposed bus system provides the same route coverage as today's RFTA and TOS V service. Modification and enhancement of TOS V shuttle routes 3 and 8 are proposed to provide connections between the Rodeo Lot, Snowmass Club, and Two Creeks. • Mitigation of increased traffic between Highway 82 and Highline Road is possible by ' constructing a southbound passing lane and/or by limiting the number of automobile trips above Highway 82 to today's levels. Limiting the number of automobile trips would require the construction of as many as 1,200 parking spaces at the Brush Creek Transit ' Center. • Mitigation of increased traffic above Highline Road is possible by limiting the number of ' automobile trips above Highline Road to existing levels. This could be accomplished by constructing a roundabout at Brush Creek and Owl Creek Roads to facilitate bus turning movements, and by constructing an improved transit center at the Snowmass Mall to accommodate additional buses and improve transit vehicle flow through the Mall area. Limiting the number of automobile trips above Highline Road, absent a strategy to limit traffic from Highway 82 to Highline Road, would require the construction of as many as 1,000 parking spaces at the Rodeo Lot. • Two options exist for a future fixed guideway system: a combination of rail service from Highway 82 to the Rodeo Lot, and gondola or other cable technology from the Rodeo Lot to Snowmass Mall; or a detachable funicular or other cable technology from Highway 82 ' to Snowmass Mall. • Both potential future fixed guideway transit options are highly compatible with, and would 1 • create leverage opportunities with the systems proposed in the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision and the Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor Investment Study. ' • In order to preserve the opportunity for the Town of Snowmass Village to connect with the fixed guideway rail system proposed for serving the Roaring Fork Valley, the Brush Creek Transit Center would have to be moved from the Mills Ranch property to the Cozy Point South property. • The detachable funicular technology can serve the existing Brush Creek Transit Center. Land Use Findings ' The proposed transit system complements the Town of Snowmass Vi/loge Comprehensive Plan, and will serve as a catalyst for implementation of the Plan. Brush Creek Corridor Tro nsporiai ion Si udy y ' otak 1 ' Introduction • Planning for the proposed transit system has been integrated with current planning activities for the Entryway, Two Creeks, Snowmass Center, Base Village, and Snowmass ' Mall in order to optimize opportunities for transit ridership and other alternative mode options that reduce reliance on the automobile. ' Environmental Findings • The proposed transit system minimizes wildlife conflicts in the Brush Creek Valley. The potential future fixed guideway transit alignment includes several grade separated elk crossing locations. ' • The proposed transit system minimizes impacts to Brush Creek and its riparian and wetland systems. With the exception of stream crossings adjacent to Cozy Point South and the Entryway,the transit system avoids the riparian corridor. • The proposed transit system minimizes visual impact as seen from Brush Creek Road, Snowmass Village homes, and Brush Creek Village homes while optimizing the transit rider and trail user views of the Brush Creek Valley and Snowmass Village. In the Brush Creek Corridor the potential future fixed guideway would be below the level of Brush Creek Road. In town the potential future fixed guideway could have a visual impact. This impact could be minimized through appropriate design and seasonal closure of the system. Economic Findings • Operation and maintenance costs of the proposed transit system should be within the ' resources projected to be available to RFTA and TOSV. Aspen Skiing Company skier shuttle operation is assumed to be covered by contract with the Aspen Skiing Company. Any needed growth in skier shuttle service should result in growth in the contract between RFTA and the Aspen Skiing Company. Growth in RFTA fare bus and TOSV shuttle service(s)are linked to RFTA's system-wide strategic planning and the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) initiative. • The capital cost of the proposed transit system is financially realistic with respect to federal, state,and local resources currently or potentially available to the community. Bus service through the year 2020 will rely on buses purchased with resources available or potentially available to RFTA. ' • Construction of the potential fixed guideway transit system can occur in meaningful phases to spread capital costs over a longer time period. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Stud- g ' otak Introduction Process and Participants ' Stakeholders Group The Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study utilized a Stakeholder Group appointed by ' the Town of Snowmass Village Council. The stakeholder group met with the project team three times during the course of the study: • To review the project scope and assist with developing transportation, land use, environmental, and economic decision criteria; • To review the system concepts developed by the project team prior to detailed analysis; and • To review and comment on the project team's draft findings. The purpose of the stakeholders group was to serve as a mechanism for focused public input and to provide information to stakeholders so that they might better inform fellow citizens during the study. As such, the group was not asked to vote on or otherwise endorse the study ' and its findings. However, stakeholder expertise and opinions certainly influenced the course of the study. ' The Stakeholders Group consisted of the following individuals: ' Neighbors/citizens Brush Creek Village—Jim Crowley "Mid-Valley" interests— Peter Droste Snowmass Village Homeowners Association— Bill Burwell Resort interests Aspen Skiing Company—Doug McKenzie Snowmass Lodge& Club—Don Schuster Snowmass Resort Association—Jeff Tippett Property owners Rodeo—Bill Burwell Snowmass Shopping Center— Robert Goldstein Snowmass Land Company—Jim Wells ' Environmental/recreational interests Bicycles—John Wilkinson Equestrian — Marlene Christopher Aspen Wilderness Workshop— Sloan Shoemaker Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 7 ' otak ' Introduction Technical Advisory Committee: A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was convened to oversee the technical aspects of the study. The TAC met several times during the course of the study to review the work plan and study findings. TAC members included: Hunt Walker, Town of Snowmass Village Dave Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village Stan Berryman, Pitkin County Bud Eylar, Pitkin County Mike Davis,RFTA Chris Kiley, Aspen Skiing Company Randy Ready, City of Aspen Tom Newland, RFRHA 1 Ralph Trapani, CDOT Tempel Glassier, Pitkin County John McCarty, Town of Snowmass Village Dawn Keating,Town of Snowmass Village Kathy Honea,Cozy Point Brush Creek Corridor Tra nspo ria r ion Sl udy li ' olak Traffic Operations Analysis Introduction The project team conducted an analysis of current and future traffic volumes and levels of service. This traffic operations analysis was based upon observed traffic counts and origin/destination studies made available to the project team by the Town of Snowmass ' Village and the growth assumptions and policy guidance of the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). ' The traffic operations analysis was conducted to provide information for calculating future transit demand and to determine the type of traffic environment in which future transit service would operate. Growth Assumptions 1 Demographic and Employment Forecasts Existing year-round population estimates for the Town of Snowmass Village range from ' 1,876 residents in the Glenwood to Aspen Corridor Investment Study (CIS)to 2,0q I residents estimated in the Comp Plan. The 205 person difference between these two estimates is attributed to counting all dwelling units approved (but not necessarily built) as of April 6, 1998 in the Comp Plan estimate. Depending upon the 1998 estimate used, year-round population in TOSV is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 1.3%(Comp Plan)to 1.8%(CIS). This rate of growth compares to 1.7 % for all of Pitkin County and 1.4% for the City of Aspen. Future 2020 population ' projections assumed by the Comp Plan and the CIS are essentially the same at 2,771 and 2,778 person, respectively. The Comp Plan forecasts future development buildout of all residential dwelling units to be 4,353 units. This forecast is slightly below the mandate of Snowmass Village Town Council Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1997, which governs the maximum amount of residential development in the town limits at 4,447 units. The vast majority of future dwelling unit growth is expected to be in multifamily and ' employee housing. New residential development is anticipated to occur throughout the town, with the greatest concentration expected at West Woodbridge (502 units) and East Woodbridge (133 units). ' Although peak population is forecast to increase by 19.9% between 1998 and 2020, employment is forecast to grow by 48% over the same time period (Table 1). It should be noted that employment forecasts are not included in the Comp Plan, but are part of the CIS socioeconomic projections. The CIS projections were tested against the Town's employment ' capacity as characterized in the Comp Plan. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 9 ' otak ' Traffic Operations Analysis ' Table 1 Snowmass Employment Winter 1997 2020 Jobs % ' Basic 249 311 62 25% ' Retail 726 944 218 30% Service 1,331 2,156 825 62% Total 2,306 3,411 1,105 48% Summer 1997 2020 Jobs % ' Basic 292 365 73 25% Retail 612 796 184 30% ' Service 1,124 1,820 696 62% Total 2,028 2,981 953 48% The leading job growth sectors in TOSV are "service sectors" followed by retail then by ' "basic sectors'(e.g., wholesale trade/distribution, transportation, communication and utilities). Traffic Volumes ' Existing conditions Existing traffic volume conditions in the corridor were established using count data from several sources: • 1994 Origin and Destination Survey Report (Draft) Comp Plan, January 1999 Public Works Department traffic counts Traffic information was available only for the winter season and reflects the traffic volume average of the 10 highest traffic volume days. However, the Comp Plan indicates that the summer traffic volumes are generally 15% less than winter volumes. This assumption was carried forward to the calculations of the existing summer volumes. Brosh Creek Corridor Transportation Study 10 ' otak Traffic Operations Analysis Forecast development The development of the forecasts is broken down into three elements. • Identification of the traffic mix on the roadway network. The traffic mix was identified by trip type and mode before applying growth factors. ' Growth rates were identified through existing land use planning documents and other studies. The rates used include growth estimates for population/recreation and employment ' Adjustments were made to the base 2020 forecasts to account for improvements in parking and transit service. Traffic mix by trip type and mode The existing traffic volume information for winter and summer was broken down by work trips versus recreational/personal trips and auto trips versus bus trips. From the 1994 winter ' origin/destination survey data, personal autos account for 50% of recreational trips and 38% of work trips, while buses account for 8%and 4%,respectively (Table 2). Discussions with staff indicate that the summer breakdown for recreational/personal versus work trips is ' roughly opposite those for winter. Table 2 Traffic Breakdown ' Location Winter Summer Rec/Other Work Ree/Other Work ' % % veh a/o bus % veh % bus % veh % bus % velt bus Brush Creek s/o Wood Road 8% 1 50% 4% 38% 4% 38% 8% 50% ' Snowmelt Road s/o Wood Road 10% 50% 6% 34% 6% 34% 10% 50% Wood Road e/o Snowmelt Road 1% 60% 1% 38% 1% 38% 1% 60% Brush Creek Road s/o Upper Woodbridge Road 8% 50% 4% 38% 4% 38% 8% 50% Brush Creek Road n/o Highline Road 8% 50% 4% 38% 4% 38% 8a/o 50% Owl Creek Road s/o State Highway 82 40% 60% Z4% 60% 40% Owl Creek Road n/o Highline Road - 40% - 60% 60% - 40% Highline Road s/o Brush Creek Road 9% 60% 4% 27% 27% 9a/o 60% Brush Creek Road w/o State Hi hwa 82 8% 50% 4% 38% 38% 8% 50% Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study �I ' olak Traffic Operations Analysis ' Growth Rates The traffic volume forecasting methodology was based on employment and peak population growth in the Town of Snowmass Village. Employment growth forecasts are outlined in Table 1. Employment is expected to grow by approximately 47% in the next 22 years (1998- 2020). This is equivalent to 2.1% annually, assuming a straight-line growth model. This ' growth estimate was used to factor work-based auto trips in the corridor. The peak population forecast from the Comp Plan includes an assumed growth in both ' residential and lodging units. The peak population of the town is expected to grow by approximately 19.9% by 2020. This is an annual rate of 0.9% for the next 22 years. This growth estimate in peak population is used to factor recreation/personal auto trips. ' The Comp Plan identifies existing and future traffic volumes at three locations. The growth rates for each of these locations is different. The highest growth in traffic volume occurs on Brush Creek Road between State Highway 82 and Highline Road, followed by Brush Creek Road near the Snowmass Town Center, and Owl Creek Road east of Highline Road. To be consistent with the Comp Plan, different traffic volume growth rates(based on the above population/recreation/employment rates) were developed with respect to the location of the roadway segment in the project corridor(Table 3). ' The following annual traffic volume growth rates for population/recreation and employment were used: ' Table 3 Annual Traffic Volume Growth Rates, 1998-2020 Population/Recreation Employment Lower Brush Creek Road 0.9% 2. % ' Upper Brush Creek Road 0.7% 1.7% Owl Creek Road 0.5% 1.2% Adjustments Adjustments can be made to decrease the base traffic volumes in town if the assumption is made that satellite parking facilities are available and utilized as a result of increased transit service. Overall traffic growth in the corridor is estimated to average about 30% over the next 22 years(to 2020). Assuming that traffic patterns do not change, the parking increases at the Rodeo Lot and the Two Creeks Lot provide parking in excess of the expected need. 1 However,the assumption for this analysis is that the traffic patterns will change as a result of enhanced transit services and the extra parking spaces will be utilized. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 12 ' otak 1 ' Traffic Operations Analysis ' Existing Parking Facilities Town Core Parking Lots– 1,314 existing spaces–The Comp Plan calls for the removal of approximately 100 parking spaces from the Town Core Parking Lots. Assuming an existing utilization rate of 85% and a turnover rate of 1.2, this reduces the traffic on Brush Creek Road and the town core by approximately 200 vehicles per day (two-way). ' Rodeo Lot– 300 existing spaces— A growth rate of 30% suggests that 90 new spaces are needed to keep up with existing trends. The Comp Plan calls for adding 350 parking spaces ' to the Rodeo Lot - a growth of over 100% for an excess of 260 spaces over existing demand. Assuming a utilization rate of 95% and a turnover rate of 1.25, this parking could result in the removal of approximately 620 vehicles per day from Brush Creek Road south of Highline Road and from the town core. The reduction reflects a winter scenario. Summer parking problems are expected to be less and the utilization will diminish. Additionally, transit use will not be as high. This evaluation assumes that the summer traffic reduction will be 85% of the winter scenario. Two Creeks Lot– 200 existing spaces–A growth of 30% suggests that 60 new spaces are needed to keep up with existing trends. The Comp Plan calls for adding 200 parking spaces to the Two Creeks Lot - a growth of 100% for an excess of 140 spaces over demand. ' Assuming a utilization rate of 95% and a turnover rate of 1.25, this parking would result in the removal of approximately 330 vehicles from Brush Creek Road south of Highline Road and from the town core. Summer parking problems are expected to be less and the utilization ' will diminish. Additionally, transit use will not be as high. This evaluation assumes that the summer traffic reduction will be 85% of the winter scenario. ' Traffic Forecast Based on the above-outlined growth, parking and transit assumptions, the existing traffic volumes were increased to forecast expected 2020 traffic volumes. The following table summarizes expected 2020 traffic forecasts for roadway segments in the project corridor. 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 13 ' otak 1 Traffic Operations Analysis Table 4 Traffic Forecasts-2020 Peak ]0-Day LOCATION 1998 ADT 2020 ADT 2020 PM Peak Hour ' (One-way) Winter Summer Winter Summer W S_ Brush Creek s/o Wood Road 4,900 4,170 4,600 3,910 260 220 ' Snowmelt Road s/o Wood Road 6,100 5,190 6,100 5,190 440 370 Wood Road e/o Snowmelt Road 4,700 4,000 5,500 4,680 330 280 Brush Creek Road s/o Upper 12,300 10,450 14,400 12,240 1,030 880 ' Woodbridge Road Brush Creek Road n/o Highline 9,300 7,900 12,200 10,370 840 710 Road Owl Creek Road s/o State 1,900 1,620 2,300 1,960 160 140 Highway 82 Owl Creek Road n/o Highline 2,850 2 420 2 800 2 380 190 160 g , ' Road Highline Road s/o Brush Creek 2,100 1,790 2,900 2,470 170 140 Road ' Brush Creek Road w/o State 12,100 10,290 15,400 13,090 1,050 890 Highway 82 Brush Creek between Highline 8,600 7,340 10,650 9,050 760 650 ' and Owl Creek ' Traffic Level of Service Traffic levels of service in the Brush Creek Road corridor were projected for further ' analysis. This analysis evaluates three roadway sections of Brush Creek Road and two major intersections as follows: • Brush Creek Road between State Highway 82 and Highline Road (Lower Brush Creek Road) ' Brush Creek Road between Highline Road and Owl Creek Road(Middle Brush Creek Road) • Brush Creek Road between Owl Creek Road and Wood Road (Upper Brush Creek • Road) Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road • Brush Creek Road and Wood Road Brash Creek Corridor Tr an s p or r a i i on Si add 14 olak Table 5 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes-Peak 10-Day Brush Creek 2020 Peak Hour Volume Peak Hour Percentage Peak Hour Splits Winter Summer UPPER 1,580 1,340 11% 35/65 MIDDLE 1,170 990 11% 35/65 LOWER 1,220 1,040 10% 30/70 Table 6 2020 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements—Winter Peak 10-Day Brush Creek Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left I Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Owl Creek - 770 260 20 1 370 - 100 10 Wood Road 25 50 600 40 40 25 5 220 20 340 200 10 Table 7 2020 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements—Summer Peak 10-Day Brush Creek Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Owl Creek - 650 220 15 315 85 8 Wood Road 20 40 510 35 35 20 4 1 190 15 290 170 8 Brush Creek Corridor rronsportatton Send.v �S otak 1 ' Traffic Operations Analysis ' Turning Movements Turning movement data for the Brush Creek Road intersections with Wood Road and Owl ' Creek Road were provided by the Town of Snowmass Village. The turning movements were developed using the traffic volume forecasts generated for the project. The analysis was prepared for both winter and summer traffic volumes for evening peak hours and reflect the ' volumes for the peak 10 days of the winter and summer. Tables S-7 represent the traffic volumes at the three Brush Creek Road locations and the turning movements at the two intersections, respectively. ' Level of Service Analysis The level of service for the roadway sections and the intersections was evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual and Software. The analysis was conducted for the evening peak hour for both winter and summer traffic volumes. Level of service is defined differently for roadway sections and intersections. Roadway level of service is defined by the vehicle density and flow rate. Intersection level of service is defined by the average delay per vehicle at the intersection. Because the measures are different, the two level of service calculations do not necessarily reflect the same congestion condition. The results of the level ' of service analysis are shown in Tables 8-12. 1 1 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 16 ' otak 1 Traffic Operations Analysis Table S Description of Level of Service Level of Description of Condition Service Roadwa Unsi nalized Intersection ' A Vehicles operate under free-Bow conditions with The intersection operates with very low virtually no impedances;High levels of physical and delay,up to 5 seconds per vehicle for the psychological comfort for the driver;Vehicle density is unsignalized intersections. ' less than 10 cars/mile(26 car lengths). B Slightly less than ideal operating conditions with free- Operations at the intersection are Bow speeds maintained;Driver comfort is still high; characterized by delays from 6 seconds up to Vehicle density is about 18 cars/mile(18 car lengths). 10 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. ' C Free-Bow speed is noticeably reduced;Driver comfort Vehicles may be delayed from 1 I to 20 is reduced; Minor incidents are absorbed by the seconds for an unsignalized intersection. system,but queues will form behind major blockages; ' Vehicle density is about 24 cars/mile(I 1 car lengths). D Speeds begin to slow with increasing volume;System The intersection operates with delays is becoming unstable with increased volumes and between 21 and 30 seconds per vehicle for minor incidents create queuing and delays;Driver unsignalized intersections. ' comfort is noticeably reduced; Vehicle density is about 32 cars/mile(9 car lengths). E System is operating at capacity and has become Delay at the unsignalized intersection is ' unstable;Any incident in the traffic Bow creates a approaching 30 to 45 seconds per vehicle wave of disruption that propagates upstream;Queuing This LOS indicates that the intersection has and delays are not dissipated because there are no reached the maximum capacity of vehicles usable gaps in the traffic stream;Driver comfort levels that the intersection can accommodate. ' are extremely poor; Vehicle density is up to 44 cars/mile 6 car len the . F A complete breakdown in the Bow of traffic;Traffic Operations of the intersection have failed. ' Bows into the system are greater than Bows out of the Delay at the unsignalized intersection is system; Driver frustration is high; Vehicle density is greater than 45 seconds. This situation is "bumper to bumper". characterized by the arrival of more vehicles at the intersection than the intersection can ' handle.This level is considered unacceptable by most drivers. 1 8r ush Creek Corridor Tr a n p r i a i i on Study 17 ' otak ' Traffic Operations Analysis ' Table 9 2020 PM Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service—Winter Peak 10-Day Brush Creek Road Vehicle Volume Percent Buses/ Average Level (two-way) Percent Trucks Percent of ' Grade Service UPPER 1,580 5%/3% 4% E MIDDLE 1,170 5%/3% 4% E ' LOWER 1,220 5%/5% 7% E ' Table 10 2020 PM Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service—Summer Peak 10-Day ' Brush Creek Road Vehicle Volume Percent Buses/ Average Level Percent Trucks Percent of Grade Service UPPER 1,340 5%/3% 4% E MIDDLE 990 5%13% 4% E LOWER 1040 5%/5% 7% E 1 Table 11 ' 2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service— Winter Peak 10-Day ' Brush Critical Movements Overall Intersection Creek Level of Service/Average Delay Road ' LOS Delay Owl Creek Westbound Westbound Southbound F >45 sec Road* Left Turn Right Turn Left Turn ' F/>45 sec B /7 sec C / 14 sec Wood Northbound Southbound Westbound F >45 sec Road** Left Turn Approaches Left Turn ' F/> 45 sec I F/>45 sec I A /sec * Owl Creek Road is assumed to be the East/West direction. Wood Road is assumed to be the North/South direction. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 18 ' otak tTraffic Operations Analysis ' Table 12 2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service— ' Summer Peak 10-Day Brush Creek Critical Movements Overall ' Road @ Level of Service/Average Delay Intersection LOS Delav Owl Creek Westbound Westbound Southbound A 3 sec ' Road* Left Turn Right Turn Left Turn E/36sec: B /6 sec B /6sec Wood Northbound Southbound Westbound B 6 sec ' Road'" Left Turn Approaches Left Turn C/ 16 sec E/35 sec A /4 sec ' Owl Creek Road is assumed to be the East/West direction. '• Wood Road is assumed to be the North/South direction. Conclusions 1 The level of service analysis indicates that there will be significant congestion problems in the evening peak hour on Brush Creek Road. ' Brush Creek Road does not currently provide the needed capacity for future traffic volumes. ' All locations on Brush Creek Road will be at capacity unless traffic patterns are changed or capacity is added to the roadway. ' The Brush Creek Road intersections with Owl Creek Road and Wood Road will no longer function properly using only stop sign control with respect to the minor street approaches. Intersection modifications such as roundabouts, traffic signals, or traffic pattern changes should be considered at these locations to provide acceptable levels of service to the minor street approaches. 1 1 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 19 ' otak ' Transit Operations Analysis Introduction There are two major elements of transit service in the Brush Creek Corridor: regional services, serving the valley, operated between the Highway 82/Brush Creek Road intersection and the Snowmass Mall by a combination of RFTA and Town of Snowmass ' Village services, and local Village Shuttle services operated by the Town. Existing Regional Services ' Aspen—Snowmass service This service is provided during the winter season half-hourly between 6:15 a.m. and 4:45 ' p.m., and every 15 minutes between 4:45 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. Using this service normally requires riding a downvalley bus and transferring at the Brush Creek Transit Center during the day, while direct service from Aspen is provided after 4:45 p.m. During the other seasons, service is provided half-hourly from 6:15 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. through a combination of RFTA service (hourly during the summer)and Town of Snowmass Village service(hourly during the summer, and half-hourly during the spring and fall). Downvalley service During the winter, a total of six direct runs operate between Snowmass Village and Basalt/El ' Jebel, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs. In addition, Snowmass passengers can transfer at the Brush Creek Transit Center to approximately 44 round-trips per day provided between ' Aspen and El Jebel, 20 round-trips between Aspen and Carbondale, and 13 round-trips between Aspen and Glenwood Springs. Upvalley service starts at 4:35 A.M. in Carbondale, while the last downvalley trip from Aspen to Carbondale departs the Rubey Park Transit Center at 2:15 A.M. The spring/summer/fall schedule provides a slightly lower number of runs downvalley and upvalley, with a few differences in time; no direct Snowmass services are provided in the non-winter seasons. Aspen Skiing Company contract service Service is provided to Snowmass Ski Area (both Mall and Two Creeks Base areas) from ' Rubey Park in Aspen, Buttermilk Ski Area, and Highlands Ski Area from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. during the ski season. Aspen— Snowmass service is provided at 15-minute headways over the midday, and on a"continuous departure"basis during the morning and afternoon skier peak periods. During the peak periods buses depart as quickly as they can be loaded. Aspen—Two Creeks service is provided every 20 minutes during peak periods and every hour during the mid-day. Finally, limited services are also provided between the ski base ' areas throughout the day. 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 20 otak Figure 2 - The Bus Alternative ■ Skier Shuttle ■ RFTA Fare Bus ■ TOSV Shuttle eMw Rock Meadow O�� G Road Two Creeks Snow mass Club Modlfy/Enhance �a #3 and#8 �gNN ' Rodeo Lot Stables Brush Creek Village SH 82 OL ' Brush Creek Transit Center Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 21 otak t 1 Transit Operations Analysis Existing Village Shuttle service The Town of Snowmass Village's Transportation Division operates a free, nine-route shuttle system, as well as connecting service to the Brush Creek Transit Center in the off-seasons. Primarily a demand-response/point deviation system, the"Village Shuttle" serves intercept parking lots, private residences, employee housing, hotels, ski lifts, and commercial/retail areas, including the Mall. Depending on the route, service begins between 7:00 and 7:30 A.M. and ends between 12:30 and 12:45 A.M., with a subsidized phone-in dial-a-ride service provided by a local taxi company available until approximately 3:00 A.M. All routes operate seven days per week during the winter. During the summer, demand is lower and the Village Shuttle service is reduced accordingly. In place of skier service, the summer Shuttle serves hikers, conference attendees, mountain bikers, and special events' attendees. The Village Shuttle continues to serve many of the 1 same locations. It also serves special summer events, such as concerts and bi-weekly evening rodeo activities. Services are provided seven days a week, between 7:15 AM and Midnight, with point deviation service on Routes 3 and 8, and demand-response service on Routes 1,2,5,6 and 7. During both off-seasons, the Shuttle operates a connection service, meeting RFTA buses at the Highway 82/Brush Creek Road intercept stop. This both enhances RFTA's service and provides wider-ranging access to Snowmass Village residents and visitors. Limited charter services are also provided. Existing Transit Service Statistics A total of 1,048,463 vehicle-miles and 71,733 vehicle-hours of transit service are provided annually on routes serving the Brush Creek Corridor. These services incur a total cost of approximately $3,190,000 per year, partially offset by $1,360,700 in passenger revenues and contract revenues. These figures reflect the portion of RFTA and Town of Snowmass Village routes operated outside of the corridor, but do not include service operated for ' training purposes. A total of 285 one-way daily bus trips pass along Brush Creek Road immediately upval ley of Highway 82, while a total of 653 bus trips pass the Woodbridge control point at the Village Center during peak winter season. These figures are substantially lower in other seasons: 77 and 219 during the summer, respectively, and 77 and 95 during the off-seasons. Peak-hour transit trips are as high as 49 during winter months immediately upval ley of Highway 82,and 71 at the Woodbridge control point(Figure 3). 1� Brush Creek Corridor Tlansportalion Study 22 ' otak Transit Operations Analysis The following table summarizes the total number of daily buses currently serving the Town of Snowmass Village. Table 13 Existing Daily Transit Service Service Winter Summer Shoulder Provider Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Hour Hour Hour Skier Shuttle 166 34 0 0 0 0 ' RFTA Fare Bus 124 15 80 4 0 0 TOSV Shuttle 400 28 83 8 116 6 Total 690 77 163 12 116 6 Existing Ridership A total of 1,540,726 one-way passenger trips are carried on these routes per year (including a relatively small proportion on RFTA routes that occur outside of the corridor). Of this total, 652,773 passengers are provided service by the Village Shuttle service, 154,781 are on other Town services,439,658 are on RFTA skier shuttle services, and 293,514 passengers are on RFTA fare services. Identifying peak-day and peak-hour ridership for specific segments of the corridor requires a detailed analysis of ridership by route, time of day, and day of year. This analysis incorporated the following factors: • Seasonal variation in ridership was identified from a day-by-day review of passenger activity on RFTA routes serving Snowmass Village. A 95"percentile figure was identified as a reasonable"design day" for three periods: winter, summer, and off-season. • Variation in ridership by time of day was identified based upon RFTA and Town of ' Snowmass Village records. • Variation in ridership by route segment was identified from a survey of boarding and alighting by stop for RFTA services, and a route-by route analysis for the Village Shuttle services. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Tronsporration Study 23 ' otak ' Figure S - Buses Goin' By During Peak Hour Winter Summer Shoulder ......•••••.......•..... �SkiCo 28 p p RFTA 15 2 0 Tosv 28 12 6 Faraway Road 71 14 6 1 C.04 Meadow G Road 1 m c da r 1 SH 82 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 24 otak 1 1 Transit Operations Analysis Ridership Summary • A total of 8,150 transit passengers pass the Woodbridge control point(in either direction) ' over a peak (951"percentile) winter day, with 6,512 traveling along Brush Creek Road immediately west of SH 82. Total two-way peak-hour volumes reach as high as 1,100 and 1,278, respectively. • Over a peak winter day, Skier service generates 47 percent of total ridership, the Village Shuttle service carries 33 percent of total ridership, and RFTA fare services generate 20 percent of total ridership. IRidership Trends Before considering the future, it is worthwhile to assess recent trends in ridership on the various transit routes and services in the Brush Creek corridor. The available data indicates the following: • The Village Shuttle system ridership has grown by slightly less than 5 percent per year, due in part to an expansion in services. • Ridership on the Town of Snowmass Village services to the Brush Creek Transit Center transfer point has almost quadrupled. A large proportion of this growth, however, is due to the shift in non-winter-season services from RFTA to the Town of Snowmass Village. I • Ridership on RFTA's Aspen-Snowmass Fare Service and Skier Service has been essentially Flat overall,though there has been substantial year-to-year swings in the Aspen- , Snowmass figures. • RFTA Downvalley Service ridership has generated a moderate level of growth over this period, though this ridership has essentially tracked the increase in service. It should be noted that 1995 marked the end of a rapid increase in Downvalley ridership(roughly a doubling from 1991 to 1995)that coincided with a substantial effective increase in fare levels. This capping of Downvalley ridership and the substantial overcrowding on peak- period buses indicates that there is substantial potential ridership that would utilize RFTA Downvalley services if the agency was financially able to expand service and reduce fares. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 25 ' otak 1 1 Ridership Forecasts 1 Downvalley Services (including Snowmass—Brush Creek182 Service Provided by the Town of Snowmass Village) A passenger survey conducted on the Downvalley Service in Winter, 1996 indicated the following trip purposes(multiple responses were allowed): Work: 87.6 percent Social/Recreational Activity: 17.4 percent Shopping: 4.7 percent Personal Business: 4.5 percent Medical: 1.7 percent School: 1.0 percent Based upon this data, roughly 80 percent of ridership can be assumed to be generated primarily by employment, and the remaining 20 percent by other resident trip purposes. Accordingly, the ridership forecasts for this service is calculated based upon the following equation: Future Ridership= Existing Ridership x ((80% x percentage change in Snowmass Village employment)+(20%x percentage change in Snowmass Village population)) These forecasts are made discretely for the individual seasons(winter, summer, and off- season)and presented in Table 14, with the assumptions as follows:. Aspen—Snowmass Service Ridership Forecast Existing passenger trip purpose information solely for the Aspen-Snowmass fare service is not readily available, as the survey data was combined with that for the other Downvalley service, as presented above. Based upon discussions with transit staff and the available data, it can be estimated that the total ridership is comprised of the following components: Visitors(lodged in Snowmass): 70 percent Snowmass Residents: 15 percent Snowmass Employees(non-Snowmass residents): 15 percent Applying these proportions, growth in Aspen—Snowmass ridership can be calculated using the following formula: Future Ridership= Existing Ridership x ((70% x percentage change in Snowmass Village seasonal population)+ (15%x percentage change in Snowmass Village year-round population)+ (15% x percentage change in Snowmass Village employment)) Ridership forecasts based on these equations are depicted in Table 14,yielding an overall increase of 24%by the year 2020. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 76 ' olak 1 ' Transit Operations Analysis Forecasted Skier Services Growth in ridership on skier shuttle services is estimated based upon a series of growth assumptions provided by the Aspen Skiing Company. The analysis in this report uses skier ' visit data from the Burnt Mountain Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). Skier visits anticipated in that study were reduced by 25 percent to account for skier visits that the Aspen ' Skiing Company believes will be diverted to the Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk Ski Areas, anticipating that these areas will be interconnected: • The total annual skier-days is assumed to increase at an average of 1.5 percent per year, over the estimated existing level of roughly 884,000. With compounding, 2020 annual skier-days is estimated to be 1,227,000, or an increase of 343,000. Factoring by the current ratio of daily to annual skier activity, peak daily skiers would increase by approximately 2,964. • Some of this increase in Snowmass skier-days will be created by additional skiers lodged in Snowmass Village. Peak non-year-round population is forecast to increase by 1,723 persons. • The additional growth in peak daily skier activity—or 1,241 skiers—will need to be served by expansion of skier transit services, as parking in Snowmass Village is capped by the Snowmass Comprehensive Plan. Converting this figure into one-way passenger-trips, skier shuttle services will have to carry 2,482 additional passenger- trips over a peak winter day than they do at present. • In comparison with the existing peak day ridership level of 3,804, skier shuttle ridership will need to increase by 65 percent over current levels by 2020. The forecasts suggest that the bulk of this growth will occur between Downvalley communities and Snowmass Village, as the bed base capacity of Aspen will not materially change. Based on discussions with Aspen Skiing Company staff, the existing split between transit ridership accessing the mountain through the Two Creeks portal(1 I percent)and ' those accessing through the Mall/Base Village area is assumed to remain the same. Skier visit tracking by the Aspen Skiing Company since the Burnt Mountain EIS was ' released indicate a lower rate of growth than was projected in the Burnt Mountain EIS. The forecasts through the year 2020 presented in this report are thus a "best case"or"worst case" scenario, depending upon the perspective of the reader. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 27 ' otak 1 Transit Operations Analysis Village Shuttle services During the winter, Town of Snowmass Village staff indicate that approximately 90 percent of the Village Shuttle passengers are visitors,while the remaining 10 percent are local residents. During the remainder of the year,the ratios are approximately 60 percent local residents and 40 percent visitors. These proportions as the basis for our forecasting ' procedure for the Village Shuttle, in the following equations: Future Winter Ridership=Existing Ridership x ((90%x percentage change in Snowmass Village seasonal population)+(10%x percentage change in Snowmass Village population)) yielding a total forecasted growth in ridership of up to 18.8%by 2020. I Future Non-Winter Ridership=Existing Ridership x((60 %x percentage change in Snowmass Village seasonal population)+(40%x percentage change in Snowmass Village population))yielding a total forecasted growth in ridership of up to 26.8%by 2020. Other Assumptions It should be noted that all of these ridership projections assume the following: • Ridership in the Brush Creek Corridor is essentially a function of development of ' Snowmass Village and the Snowmass Ski Area. • The capacity of transit services carving passengers to and from the Brush Creek Corridor(notably the Downvalley Services)expands to adequately accommodate growth in the corridor. ' There is no substantial change occurring outside of the Snowmass Village/Brush Creek Corridor area that will significantly impact the demand for public ' transportation services in the corridor(other than the impact of Buttermilk expansion on Aspen Skiing Company service ridership). For instance, it is assumed that controls on the growth in traffic volumes entering Aspen do not substantially shift ' existing travel mode splits, or that new gondolas impact the need for skier shuttle bus services. ' There are no policy changes in Snowmass Village(such as the relative proportion of skier access at the Mall and Base Village versus Two Creeks,or parking control strategies)that change the transit ridership patterns beyond those shifts identified in ' the assumptions above. This growth analysis should be considered to be a base case; future changes in transit services or transportation control strategies identified through subsequent elements of the Corridor Study would need to be reflected in modifications to these ridership forecasts. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 28 ' olak 1 Transit Operations Analysis ' Table 14 Brush Creek Transit Ridership Growth Forecast ' Growth Projections Transit Ridership Growth Factors Downvalley Service Aspen-Snowmass Village Shuttle Population 1998 2020 % Winter Other Winter Other Winter Other Change Yr.Round 2,081 2,771 33.16% 0.0% 20.0% 15.0% 15.0% 10.0% 60.0% Population Other Peak 10,034 11,757 17.17% 0.0% 0.0% 70.0% 70.0% 90.0% 40.0% Population Total Peak 12,115 14,526 19.92% 20.0% 0.0% Population Employment Winter 2,306 3,411 47.92% 80.0% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Summer 2,028 2,981 46.99% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Skiers on 6,517 8,972 37.67% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Skico Overall - - 42.3% 44.2% 24.2% 24.0% 18.8% 26.8% Change Projected Transit Trips Needed ' The existing and forecast figures and existing transit service schedules were then used to assess the number of bus trips required to serve existing and forecast demand. This analysis is based upon the following assumptions: • At a minimum, existing transit runs will be operated. rYear-round service is assumed to be provided on Route 3 of the Village Shuttle service. • The number of required buses in each half-hour can then be calculated as the greater of either the scheduled number of buses or the number of buses required to accommodate the forecast passenger load. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 29 olak 1 Transit Operations Analysis • It is assumed that by 2020 regular transit coaches(with a total comfortable standing plus sitting capacity of 51)are used on the Aspen -- Snowmass, Mall -- Brush Creek ' Transit Center, and Aspen Skiing Company services), and that small buses with a comfortable standing plus sitting capacity of 25 are used for Village Shuttle service. • For any increase in required bus trips over the number of trips operating presently, transfers of passengers are assumed between buses operating along Highway 82 and buses operating along Brush Creek Road. The operational decision to provide direct services between Snowmass Village and downvalley or upvalley destinations is a matter of policy. • The"split"between Town of Snowmass Village and RFTA service between the Mall and Brush Creek Road/SH 82 in 2020 is also a matter of policy (and negotiation), rather than operations. Total bus movements generated by this service are therefore identified,rather than movements by provider. Summary The maximum number of 2020 directional peak-hour bus trips at the Woodbridge control point is forecast to equal 85 during the winter, 14 during the summer, and 8 during the off-seasons (Figure 4, Table IS). The daily number of bus trips in the corridor(total of both directions) is forecast to reach 762 in the winter, 204 in the summer, and 143 in the off-seasons. ' The total number of daily bus-trips during the winter is forecast to increase by 72 buses, or about 10 percent. The relatively low increase in bus trips (compared to the increase in daily ridership levels)reflects the existing unused capacity that can accommodate some of the increased ridership without requiring additional bus runs. Daily increases in service as measured at Highway 82 will be relatively low during the other seasons,with an increase of 6 percent during the summer and 3 percent during the off-seasons. The daily increases in service at Woodbridge will be relatively high, however, equaling 25 percent during the summer and 23 percent during the off-seasons. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 30 otak ' Transit Operations Analysis ' Table 15 Forecast: 2020 Daily Transit Service ' Winter Summer Shoulder ' Service Day Peak Day Peak Day Peak Hour Hour Hour Skier 216 43 0 0 0 0 Shuttle RFTA 142 15 85 5 0 0 Fare Bus TOSV 404 34 119 9 143 8 Shuttle Total 762 92 204 14 143 8 ' +72 +15 +41 +2 +27 +2 Brush Creek Corridor Tronsporlalion Sludy 31 ' olak ' Figure 4- Buses Goin' By: 2020 ■ Winter Summer Shoulder ........................loo. 0 ' SkiCo 36 0 0 RFTA 15 5 0 'TOSV 34 9 8 Faraway 85 14 8 Road l ee`t' Meadow 6 Road o dQ r600, CJg ' SH 82 Bruck Creek Corridor Transportation Study 92 ' otek ' Transit Operations Analysis ' Forecast Daily Ridership Summary • Winter ridership is substantially higher than that in other seasons: peak Summer daily ridership is only 17 percent of the peak winter figure, while off-season ridership is only 4 percent of the winter peak. ' Winter ridership variation by hour indicates a high level of passenger trips up Brush Creek Road in the morning hours (from both Downvalley and Aspen origins)and a ' corresponding peak in passenger activity down Brush Creek Road in the late afternoon. • Summer and off-season ridership variation is much less peaked, and less directional. ' While there is a peak up Brush Creek Road in the early morning hours, the afternoon peak down Brush Creek Road is less pronounced. 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 33 otak Transportation Management ' Introduction Traffic operations analysis shows that,without some form of automobile traffic mitigation, the proposed bus system serving the Town of Snowmass Village will be impacted by traffic congestion along the entire length of Brush Creek Road. Delays will increase the cost of bus ' service and lessen its attractiveness to residents,workers, and guests. Increased traffic in the Brush Creek corridor will also impact the quality of the corridor for automobile users, bicyclists, trail users, residents, and wildlife. A later chapter explores the feasibility and cost of capital improvements to Brush Creek Road that would provide additional capacity to accommodate traffic growth. Another way of ' avoiding traffic growth would be to set Town of Snowmass Village and/or Pitkin County policy limiting traffic volumes to current levels. This policy would be accomplished through a combination of controlling the availability of parking and increasing transit capacity. These transportation management techniques could make expensive and physically intrusive capital improvements unnecessary. Two scenarios for transportation management policy in the Brush Creek corridor were analyzed: a • #1: Limiting the number of automobile trips above Highway 82 (the Brush Creek Transit ' Center)to today's levels; and • #2: Limiting the number of automobile trips above Highline Road(the Rodeo Lot)to today's levels ' Parking Management Scenarios ' Limiting traffic on Brush Creek Road by limiting the construction of new parking in town would require the construction of new parking spaces outside of town (for the vehicles taken off of the road). Two locations were considered for new parking spaces: • the Brush Creek Transit Center at the Highway 82 intersection; and ' • the Rodeo Lot at the entrance to The Town of Snowmass Village. The maximum number of spaces needed to meet proposed transportation management policies is discussed below. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 34 ' otak ' Transportation Management ' Parking Space Evaluation The following assumptions were made to determine the required number of parking spaces: • Transportation management policy would hold the number of vehicles on the road to existing(1998)peak 10-day (P-10)traffic volumes. P-10 volumes are peak season traffic ' volumes and represent the most reasonable expectation of required parking spaces. • Growth in P-10 volumes is dependent upon the number of skier days at Snowmass Ski Area. The analysis in this report uses skier visit data from the Burnt Mountain Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). Skier visits anticipated in that study were reduced by 25 percent to account for skier visits that the Aspen Skiing Company believes will be diverted to the Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk Ski Areas, anticipating that these areas will be interconnected. • Skier visit tracking by the Aspen Skiing Company since the Burnt Mountain EIS was released indicate a lower rate of growth than was projected in the Burnt Mountain EIS. The peak system demand through the year 2020 presented in this report is thus a "best case"or"worst case" scenario, depending upon the perspective of the reader. • The utilization rate of each parking lot is 90 percent. Practically speaking, a parking lot is ' full when it reaches 90 percent of its capacity. This practical capacity refers to the fact that parking lots are rarely completely full due to the turnover and difficulty in finding the last 10 percent of the parking spaces. • The turnover rate for each parking lot is assumed to be 1.25, meaning that 25 percent of the spaces"turnover"and are occupied by more than one vehicle on an average day. This ' turnover rate is representative of mostly day-skier and worker use of the parking lots. A parking lot used by short-term shoppers would have a higher turnover rate. • Twenty percent of the would-be forecast vehicle volume is coming from Aspen and already on using transit. These trips will be assumed to be making a transfer from the Valley trunk transit system to the Brush Creek corridor transit system. The Brush Creek Transit Center A policy limiting traffic to today's levels above Highway 82 would intercept any additional automobiles at the Brush Creek Transit Center. Electronic signs on Highway 82 would inform drivers of the availability and cost of in-town parking and the availability of transit service from the Brush Creek Transit Center. Excess autos would park at the transit center and auto occupants would transfer to buses for the trip up the Brush Creek corridor. 1 The 1998 P-10 volume at the base of Brush Creek Road was 12,100 vehicles per day. By the year 2020 the traffic volume is projected to increase to 15,400 vehicles per day. The difference between 1998 and 2020 P-10 volumes is 3,300 round trips, or 1,650 automobiles per day. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 35 otek ' Transportation Management ' Using the assumptions above,the parking space requirement would be approximately 1,200 spaces. The calculation is as follows: ' 1,650 automobiles per day/(90%occupancy x 1.25 turnover) X (1-20% already on transit from Aspen) _ ' 1,200 parking spaces The Colorado Department of Transportation is currently constructing a parking facility at the Brush Creek Transit Center with a capacity for 400 automobiles. Implementing a parking policy limiting traffic on Brush Creek would not require the immediate construction of 1,200 additional spaces of the total 1,600 spaces estimated for this scenario. This study does indicate that a worst case scenario of a 1,600 space facility should be anticipated in long range planning for the transit center. An incremental approach to parking management would likely require monitoring of traffic levels on Brush Creek Road and the construction of additional spaces as traffic levels increased. The Rodeo Lot A policy limiting traffic to today's levels above the Rodeo Lot would intercept all additional automobiles at the Rodeo Lot. Electronic signs on Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road would inform drivers of the availability and cost of in-town parking and the availability of transit service from the Brush Creek Transit Center and the Rodeo Lot. Excess autos would park at the transit center and Rodeo Lot and auto occupants would transfer to buses for the trip up ' the Brush Creek corridor. There is an observed decrease in traffic on Brush Creek Road of about 20 percent between the State Highway 82 intersection and the Highline Road intersection. The reduction results from traffic leaving Brush Creek Road to access residential areas to the north of Brush Creek Road. Therefore the 1998 P-10 on Brush Creek Road just north of Highline Road is 9,300 vehicles per day. The projected 2020 volume is 12,200 vehicles per day. The difference between 1998 and 2020 P-10 volumes is 2,900 round trips, or 1,450 automobiles per day. ' Using the assumptions above, the parking space requirement is approximately 1,000 spaces. The calculation is as follows: ' 1,450 automobiles per day/(90% occupancy x 1.25 turnover) X (1-20%already on transit from Aspen) _ 1,000 parking spaces 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Tronsporlalion Sludy 36 ' otek Transportation Management ' The spaces calculated for this analysis are in addition to a total of 650 spaces currently planned for the Rodeo Lot. implementing a parking policy limiting traffic on Brush Creek ' would not require the immediate construction of 1,000 additional spaces of the 1,650 spaces estimated to be needed at the site. This study does indicate that a worst case scenario of a 1,650 space facility should be anticipated in long range planning for the transit center. An incremental approach to parking management would likely require monitoring of traffic levels on Brush Creek Road and the construction of additional spaces as traffic levels increased. Transit Ridership Increases iHolding to the current peak daily traffic level at Highway 82 would yield a reduction of 3,300 one-way vehicle-trips up Brush Creek Road on a winter busy day, and 990 vehicle- ' trips on a summer busy day. If the control point is at the Rodeo Lot, however, vehicle trips would only be reduced by 2,100 vehicle-trips on a winter day,with no real reduction occuring on a summer day. These auto trip figures can be multiplied by estimated vehicle occupancy(by type of trip) rates to identify the number of person-trips to be accommodated on transit services. Setting the traffic control point at Highway 82 would lead to an increase in total transit ridership past this point of 5,623 one-way transit passenger-trips on a winter day, and 1,687 on a ' summer day. If the control point is the Rodeo lot, an increase of 3,578 transit passenger-trips would need to be accommodated on a winter day, with no real transit ridership increase on a summer day. Part of this ridership increase can be expected to naturally occur as a result of increased trip- making in the region. A policy limiting traffic above Highway 82 would lead to substantially greater increases over natural ridership growth than would a policy limiting traffic above the Rodeo Lot. With the lower control point, natural growth would increase riderships by an additional 62 percent in the winter and an additional 412 percent in the summer, indicating that very strong transit incentive/auto disincentive programs would be required. In comparison,the 9 percent increase in winter transit ridership for the Rodeo Lot control point appears minor. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 37 ' olek ' Transportation Management ' Ridership and Required Bus Service by Time of Day These increases in transit ridership were allocated to the various transit services currently in ' the corridor, and allocated over the course of the day for each season. This allocation procedure incorporated the following assumptions: ' • The natural growth in ridership for each of the services was increased by an equal factor. This effectively allocates a higher proportion of ridership growth to those services identified in previous analyses to have a relatively high potential for growth. • For each service, ridership over the course of the day was increased uniformly. No"peak- spreading"was assumed. ' The ridership demand by time of day and direction can then be compared against the assumed transit vehicle occupancy(51 passengers on RFTA vehicles and 25 passengers on ' Village Shuttle vehicles)to identify the number of individual vehicle runs required to accommodate the forecast ridership. Table 16 presents a relatively simple summary of the impacts of the two potential traffic ' control policies on the number of required bus movements. In comparison with the growth in transit service required to accommodate the natural increase in transit ridership, setting the transportation management policy at Highway 82 would require the operation of an additional 30 one-way bus trips along the corridor over a winter day, as well as 22 additional bus trips over a summer day. The number of peak-hour trips that would have to be operated ' —which is roughly comparable to the number of additional buses that would be required to operate the increased service—would increase by four in the winter, and three in the summer. Additional services required for a transportation management policy based upon limiting traffic above the Rodeo Lot would be very minor,consisting of two additional RFTA runs ' and one additional Village Shuttle run over the course of a winter day. One additional peak- hour Village Shuttle run would be necessary,which might require an additional vehicle in the fleet. In comparison with the overall scope of transit services in the corridor, the impacts ' of a traffic control strategy at the upper control point would be negligible. The operational impacts of the upper control point in particular are relatively small, for two reasons. First,there is substantial existing seating capacity available to accommodate some increase in demand. More importantly, services are expected to increase substantially to serve the natural forecasted increase in ridership: daily winter bus trips, for example, are ' forecast to increase by up to 68 trips per day by 2020. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 38 olak ' Table 16-Sensitivity Analysis: Impact of Alternate Traffic Control Policies on Required Number of Bus Trips ' on 95" Percentile Days in 2020 Add it ions Bus Trips Required to A Yin Kfl le.Gout ' Base Case 0 W'or SH82 Control Point N'or Rudro LolControl Point W of SH 82 Woodbridge W of SH 82 Woodbridge W of sll 82 I W'aodbridge ' Winter Peak Hour.Peak Direction intercept(RFTA and/or TOSV) 10 10 2 2 0 0 Skico-Snowmass 20 20 4 4 0 0 Skico-Two Creeks 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 Village Shuttle 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total(2) 26 38 4 4 0 0 ' Daily(Total 2-Way) Intercept(RFTA and/or TOSV) 142 142 B 8 0 0 ' Skico-Snowmass 167 167 22 22 2 2 Skico-Two Creeks 49 0 1 0 0 0 Village Shuttle 0 404 0 0 0 1 Total 358 713 31 30 _ 3 Summer Peak Hour,Peak Direction Intercept(RFTA and/or TOSV) J 3 3 3 0 0 Village Shuttle 0 5 0 0 0 0 Total(2) 3 8 3 3 0 0 Daily/Total 2-Way) ' Intercept(RFTA and/or TOSV) 85 85 22 22 0 0 Village Shuttle 0 119 0 0 0 0 ' Total 85 204 22 "_ 0 0 Offseason ' Peak Hour.Peak Direction Intercept(RFTA and/or TOSV) 2 2 0 0 0 0 Village Shuttle 0 2 0 0 0 0 ' Total(2) 2 4 0 0 0 0 Daily(Tara/2-Way) Intercept(RFTA and/or TOSV) 82 92 0 0 0 0 Village Shuttle 0 61 1 0 0 0 0 ' Total 8_' 143 0 0 0 0 Note 1:Natural growth in ridership,absent a traffic limitation policy. Note 2: May not equal sum of peak hour ridership for individual services,as peak hours may differ. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 39 ' olak 11 Transportation Management ' Conclusions Implementing a transportation management policy in the Brush Creek corridor will require investment in parking facilities and transit service. This investment may be preferred by the citizens of Snowmass Village as an alternative to highway improvements that add automobile capacity to Brush Creek Road and increase parking demands in town. ' Depending on the strategy pursued, the addition over time of as many as 1,000 additional spaces at the Rodeo Lot or 1,200 additional spaces at the Brush Creek Transit Center may be ' required. Substantially greater investment will need to be made in transit service to move riders from the Brush Creek Transit Center than from the Rodeo Lot. An incremental approach to parking availability and transit improvements will allow Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village to manage the rate of investment. Further study may indicate that a combination of parking improvements at both facilities achieves the ' optimum balance of parking and transit service impact. 1 1 8rush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 40 otek 1 ' Short-Term Projects Introduction While it is apparent from the transit analysis discussed earlier in this report that an expanded bus system would have the capacity to serve the Brush Creek Valley corridor into the future, this capacity only exists if traffic congestion does not worsen. Traffic analysis indicates a ' significant decline in transportation level of service in the corridor absent additional roadway capacity or transportation management measures. ' The project team analyzed "short-term" capital projects that would provide additional traffic capacity in the corridor. These projects included adding a passing lane to Brush Creek Road between Highway 82 and the Rodeo Lot and improvements at the Owl Creek Road/Brush Creek Road intersection and at the Wood Road/Brush Creek Road intersection. Brush Creek Road Widening Design Options t Three alternatives were considered for improving Brush Creek. While the basic alignment is the same for each option, the nature and width of the improvements vary (Figure S). ' • Option A includes a 12 foot driving lane in each direction with adjacent 6 foot wide shoulders(which also double as bike/pedestrian lanes). This option also includes an additional 12 foot wide passing lane (adjacent to the 12 foot upvalley driving lane) beginning at Medicine Bow Road and extending about one mile up the valley (Figures 6a- d). The passing lane would improve the carrying capacity of the road by allowing traffic ' turning off of Highway 82 to pass slower vehicles at the beginning of their ascent to Snowmass Village. ' Initially a passing lane for the entire length of the improvements was considered, but due to visual impact to the valley this was reduced to the minimum safe and effective length for climbing lanes of 1 mile. • Option B is the same as Option A except that it does not include the climbing lane. A slight capacity improvement would be seen from straightening curves and improving sight distances to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. Adequate shoulders would allow for an on-highway bicycle lane in each direction. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 41 ' otak Option A Three Lane Road with Bike Path Option B Improved Two Lane Road with Bike Path / u^ I Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure 5. Brush Creek Road Design Options Option C Improved Two Lane Road i rr NN Ci'!s„rv�n. Il a11M J IiV- eaBgned Medicine Bow Road Proposed Brush Creek Existing Ahngment Alignment with C emer line •m - Brush Creek Co 2 x r n� y u+ Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure 6.a. Brush Creek Road Passing Lane (Option A) Bike Pa 1 % \Bike Path 0.1 0 0.1 Miles 1:3000 1" = 250' Propo:ea Climbing lsnc Nike P ath V/ cur POCK CPEF.K STUDIO MR C[v1[v vine u Bike Path 4r 4 y - , "App VA v, Bike Path / Brush Creek Road Brush Creek Mg=ent Climbing L. w� Brush Cr«k Contour Rety g Wall Flk r. q �-,- c Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure 6.b. Passing Lane (Option A) P, i Retaining Walt I � Pmposcd Rik k, /,P ath V J339Ng 0.1 0 _ 0.1 Miles P,OLK CREEK 1:3000 1" = 250' STUDIO MK C[viEVVwI L pq � Proposed Brush Crcd Prop Brush Creek Rmd Alignment wtih C tcrLinv Bikr Brush Creek Comour Reuirung WA PJk Crn AMIM Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure 6.c. Passing Lane (Option A) dke Path Retaining Wall Bike Path A h 3i% w l ROCK CREEK 0.1 0 0.1 Miles =5TUVO -K GENTCN Uiwi 1:3000 1" = 250' Bike Path i Bik Retaining Wall A�!i�1��li '�` k Exiasing�Aligsunent Brush Creek Conrour Elk Cross Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure 6.d. Passing Lane (Option A) 4 Higl*ne Road _ J 1 Path 1 T o J, Oo 1 Rodeo Parking Lot Retawng Wall N 0.1 0 0.1 Miles ROCK CKEEK -- 1:3000 1 = 250' =405TUDIC MK M 1 Short-Term Projects ' Option C is a minimum improvement option for the corridor, consisting of 12 foot wide driving lanes in each direction with an attached 3 foot wide shoulder. Improvements to ' AASHTO standards would provide a slight capacity improvement. Bicycles would be in mixed traffic. 1 All options include a median at the upper end of the improvements (near the Rodeo Lot)to tie into the planned Town of Snowmass Village entryway project. In this area the lanes are separated by an open median approximately 60 feet in width. Both lanes in this area have a ' three foot shoulder on each side. The overall project length is approximately 2.5 miles. Design Criteria ' The proposed roadway improvements are based on a 40 mile per hour design speed. This design speed allows a minimum horizontal radius of 509 feet with a maximum superelevation of 0.06 ft. per ft. The vertical grades vary from a minimum of 0.5%to a ' maximum of 7%. Driving lanes in all options are based on a minimum width of 12 feet. The minimum stopping sight distance required for 40 mph is 275 feet. ' Improvement/impacts The different improvement widths for the three options result in different slope impacts and ' retaining wall quantities. Where possible, the horizontal alignment for each option was shifted to the downhill side to avoid large uphill cuts or walls. As a result of shifting the alignment to the downhill side, the road typically overhangs the existing slope which dictates the use of downhill walls to avoid long fill slopes or impacts to existing riparian areas. Where walls are constructed or steep slopes occur a barrier system (guard rail) will be needed along the down valley roadway for safety reasons. The quantity of downhill wall is comparable in each alternative. The amount of uphill wall differs greatly between alternatives because of the different improvement widths. Uphill walls were generally used to avoid large amounts of excavation. Most cut slopes were kept at a 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope to ensure successful revegetation. Existing Accesses Existing driveways tie into the proposed improvements at approximately the same grade as exists today. This is achieved by shifting of the roadway and by adjustments to the Brush Creek Road profile. ' The Medicine Bow Road intersection has been shifted approximately 400 feet upvalley in order to provide a standard T-intersection. The new intersection provides improved sight- ' distance and safety. Two driveways that intersect with Medicine Bow Road were also reconfigured to reflect the changed Medicine Bow Road alignment. Brush Creek Corridor Transportalion Sludy 47 otak 1 ' Short-Term Projects ' Costs A conceptual cost estimate was generated in line item detail for each option. These estimates ' are contained in the appendix to this report. The unit costs for line items were based on prices currently being used on State Highway 82 construction projects. Costs include construction, design engineering, and construction management. No estimate for right-of- way acquisition or utility relocates have been included. The conceptual cost estimate of Option A (which includes the climbing lane and ' bike/pedestrian lanes) is $11.4 million. Option B, which does not provide a climbing lane, was estimated at approximately $10 million. Option C, which proposes the minimum improvements, will approach $8.8 million. Brush Creek Road/Owl Creek Road Intersection ' Introduction The project team studied the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road to determine if improvements to this intersection are needed and/or feasible. As TOSV has eliminated the use of traffic signals from consideration, the improvement type that can be ' analyzed is the modem roundabout. Existing Conditions ' The intersection of Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road experiences high daily traffic volumes. Owl Creek Road is an alternative route between Aspen and Snowmass Village and, as such, carries a significant amount of commuter, tourist, and resident traffic. Brush Creek ' Road is the major through road and Owl Creek Road forms the westbound minor leg approach to this stop sign-controlled T-intersection. Downvalley (northbound) Brush Creek Road provides a through lane and a right-turn lane, while the other approaches provide only one lane each. Traffic counts obtained for the peak PM hour at this intersection include 280 through ' movements and 10 left turn movements on the upval ley(southbound) Brush Creek Road approach, 539 through movements and 118 right turn movements on the downvalley (northbound) Brush Creek Road approach, and 107 left turn movements and 12 right turn ' movements on the Owl Creek Road approach. 1 Br u .sh Creek Corridor Transpo riai ion Study 48 ' olak ' Short-Term Projects ' Traffic Analysis The existing traffic volumes described above were analyzed to identify needed intersection ' improvements. The following conclusions were reached: • During both peak hours(AM and PM) the right-turn volume from Owl Creek Road is low ' enough that a separate left-turn lane on the Owl Creek Road approach is not needed. • The left-turn volume from Brush Creek Road onto Owl Creek Road is so low that, while a left-tum lane would probably be required by CDOT(Colorado Department of Transportation)guidelines if this were a CDOT facility, such a lane is probably not merited on a local street. • The separate right-tum deceleration/turn lane from Brush Creek Road to Owl Creek Road ' is beneficial to both right-tuming traffic and through traffic in this direction. Standard design of this lane would include a 150 foot full width section for deceleration and turning, and a 100 foot taper into the lane. The dimensions of the existing lane are somewhat less than these prescribed dimensions. Evaluation of Potential Improvements ' Two alternatives exist to address the left-turn movement from Owl Creek Road to Brush Creek Road; a traffic signal and a roundabout. Conditions at this intersection may or may not meet the technical criteria for warranting installation of a traffic signal, but the Town has a policy against the installation of signals; therefore, this alternative was dropped. ' The one-lane roundabout considered for this intersection is shown in Figures 7 and 8. This improvement would require considerable widening on all sides of the intersection and approximately 330 feet of retaining walls on the west, southeast, and east sides of the ' roundabout. The cost of this improvement has been estimated at between $1 million and $1.1 million. This includes design and construction management, but not right-of-way acquisition or utility relocation. The appropriate location of bus stops should be addressed in ' preliminary design. Summary Construction of a roundabout would address both the northbound right-turn and the westbound left-turn needs, would likely require most of one full construction season to complete, and would be estimated to cost between $1 million and $1.1 million. 1 1 Drush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 49 ' otak 1 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor 1 Transportation Study Figure 7. Owl Creek Road,Brush Creek Road 1 — Proposed Roundabout PruPo.cd B M. u, 1 wa B..h Ged ek V 'u5 1 4 1 1 oulCreeE i 1 1 � 0 1 Ao ROCK 1 CREEK w 0 20 40 Pmt IT.TO I/d 1o20 t°=ca N 1 1 1 8,220 _ 8,2 f 5 B 210 8,205 8,200 8,195 Pr posec Profi e 8.185 8,180 5 294 2 5 2 6 2 7 298 2 9 8,170 8,165 ` 8,160 ` -B,f55 _ 113rus Creek C rrid r Transportation Study s o a Roun0about Profile s � 6 � � 4 4 k � J pl. k r --- 30 1 3402 3&3 3G4 MK L[•+i[.�raia� oYA 1 Short-Term Projects ' Brush Creek Road/Wood Road Intersection Introduction ' The project team studied the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Wood Road to determine if improvements to this intersection other than signalization are needed and/or feasible. Existing Conditions Wood Road and Brush Creek Road each provide access to the retail/restaurant/lodging area ' at The Snowmass Mall as well as to skier facilities. The intersection of Brush Creek Road and Wood Road experiences high daily traffic volumes including a vehicle mix of buses, passenger vehicles,and delivery vehicles. Brush Creek Road is the major through road and ' runs generally east/west at this intersection. Wood Road forms the northbound minor leg approach and a driveway forms the southbound minor leg approach to this stop sign- controlled intersection. Downvalley(eastbound) Brush Creek Road provides a through lane ' and a very abrupt right-turn lane. Upvalley(westbound)Brush Creek Road provides a left- turn lane, a through lane, and a wide area used for right-turning vehicles. Northbound Wood Road provides a shared left/through lane and a channelized yield-controlled right-turn lane. ' The southbound driveway approach provides a left-turn lane and a through/right-tum lane. The driveway serves traffic from a retail area and the Town offices. The Wood Road and driveway approaches are not aligned across from one another, resulting in cross traffic traveling diagonally through the intersection in the northbound and southbound directions. This is an undesirable and generally unsafe condition. Evaluation of Intersection The existing configuration of this intersection was evaluated and the following conclusions were reached: ' • If possible,the Wood Road and driveway approaches should be adjusted so that they are properly aligned directly across from one another. Movement of the Wood Road approach is constrained by the bridge over Brush Creek, curvature of the road, and adjacent development. It would make more sense to move the driveway approach. Unfortunately this would require excavation into the hillside along the west side of the driveway and retaining walls. • The right-turn area provided for eastbound Brush Creek Road traffic would be of much more practical use if an approach lane to it were provided. This would require encroaching on the bank above Brush Creek. ' • This is a wide and offset intersection and as such clearly delineated striping must be maintained (a goal made difficult to attain when snow is on the ground or striping is worn away by traffic and snow removal efforts). This is further reason why improving the ' intersection alignment and providing an actual eastbound right-turn lane would be beneficial. Brush Creek Corridor Tr an sp or l a l i on Study 52 ' otek 1 ' Short-Term Projects ' Evaluation of Other Potential Improvements In addition to the recommended improvements listed above, a roundabout was also considered for this location. However, due to the steep vertical grades through this location ' (almost seven percent on Brush Creek Road) a roundabout cannot be made to work. It should be noted that the policy of the Town of Snowmass Village precludes the consideration of a traffic signal at this location. Absent a traffic signal or roundabout, the remaining option available to the town is a combination of minor geometric improvements ' and limitations on traffic volumes. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 53 ' olak ' Fixed Guideway Transit ' Introduction ' At some point the limited carrying capacity of Brush Creek Road and the Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV)street system may necessitate the construction of a fixed guideway transit system between Highway 82 and Snowmass Village. The project team developed the fixed ' guideway system in sufficient detail that the EOTC and TOSV can incorporate the system into land use and transportation investment decisions in the Brush Creek Corridor. ' The purpose of the study is not to design a fixed guideway transit system,rather to identify the right-of-way to preserve and/or acquire for the future system. To identify right-of-way requirements,the project team studied a combination of traditional rail and cable(gondola) ' technologies and a new detachable funicular technology. ' Technology/Design Assumptions While the actual technology(mode of fixed guideway transit)that would be used on the corridor has not been identified at this point,there was a desire to explore systems that were compatible with the proposed Entrance to Aspen light rail system (Figure 9) and the proposed Glenwood Springs to Aspen commuter rail system(Figure 10). Therefore, the ' project team used design assumptions for rail technology in laying out the corridor(Figure ]]a-d). These assumptions included the following: ' • A maximum vertical grade of 6 percent; • A minimum horizontal radius of 200 feet; ' A vehicle platform width of 10 feet; • A minimum distance of 40 feet between the centerline of Brush Creek Road and the centerline of the fixed guideway corridor; and ' A minimum vertical clearance of 26 feet from the corridor to the bottom of any roadway bridge crossing over the corridor. ' Steep terrain and restricted transportation corridors preclude the possibility of using conventional rail technology to access locations above the Rodeo Lot. To complete the connection to Snowmass Mall and Two Creeks, the project team developed a concept for transfer from rail to gondolas at a Rodeo Lot transit center. Separate gondola systems would connect the Rodeo Lot with Snowmass Mall and with Two Creeks. The possibility exists to serve the Base Village and/or Snowmass Center using the Snowmass Mall gondola system. ' Some Neighborhoods in Snowmass Village would be served by bus from the Rodeo Lot. 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 54 ' otak Figure 8 - Entrance to Aspen Light Rail 1 1 Aspen 4 y Aspen n )r Scale.1:45.000 g •,;I ...e Meepeh sum r `YE' Q 1 Il ke Rokry Pak r Legend: Thud S r sti.er Aspen City Limits . Transit Stations sow eve, Seneeb rYml Moms Popeny I tiR tButs Ilk Ski Area Cnaly6e open AlepanEadeed Reeeh Creek Cemer/Aepe.Akpm ' Brush Creek Road 1 1 Brush Creek Transportation Corridor Study 55 ' otak 1 1 ' Figure 10 - Glenwood Springs to Aspen Map � 5^ RD.w..FO K R.11.... ND L. .Ru a -Q NWOOD SPRING A m � s 4 , r 21, a w r�b f 1 1 Brash Creek Transportation Corridor Study 56 ' Otak d� 5 y e h s.;st�g r%MGujdM2y AliRrunen� Alignment B I 4 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure l l.a. Fixed Guideway Alignment Bridge Possible Cut and Cover Tunnel III� 0.1 0 0.1 Miles 1:3000 1" = 250' -h Creek COnIOW POCK CKFFK STUDIO CI ttt E"tr°ng Fixed Guideway Brush Creek Conrour Alignment Alignment w .wh Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure 11.b. Fixed Guideway Alignment 7 Elk Crossing V 0.1 0 0.1 Miles ROCK 1:3000 1" = 250' CREEK 57U DIO Y W Existing Aligrvnent Brush Creek Facd Guideway Contour Algnment MFwllFFp� ET r w... Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Figure 1l.c. Fixed Guideway Alignment V I �k Csosifing MKOCK CREEK 0.1 0 0.1 Miles STUDIO Immi M K' 1:3000 ]" = 250' d rExisung e nt Brush Creek Fined Guid Contour 6 �p y Z � •4 A Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study _ Figure 1l.d. Fixed Guideway Alignment 4 Highline Road off, Rodeo Lo Transit Center 9y {YI.C.S951I1 ROCK 0.1 0 0.1 Miles GREEK - - - — — STUDIO 1:3000 1" = 250' MK CEwr En ninE b Fixed Guideway Transit An alternative to a rail/gondola system is the use of a detachable funicular system such as the Doppelmayr CABLE1iner system (Figure 12). The detachable funicular would allow a trip from the Brush Creek Transit Center to the Snowmass Mall without a transfer. ' The current state-of-the-art for this technology is a travel speed of 28.8 kilometers per hour ' (17.28 miles per hour), which is significantly slower than rail or bus technology. The absence of a Rodeo Lot transfer and delay caused by automobiles, the avoidance of conflicts with driveways and elk crossings, the ability to more closely follow the Brush Creek Road alignment, and the experience of travel by funicular may make the technology preferable. The state-of-the-art may also advance between now and the time a fixed guideway is implemented, allowing for higher speeds. 1 Brush Creek Transit Center The Brush Creek Transit Center is being constructed by the Colorado Department of Transportation immediately north of the Brush Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection. The Entrance to Aspen light rail system and the Glenwood Springs to Aspen commuter rail system have both been designed to serve this location. A rail connection to the Rodeo Lot from Highway 82 would be very difficult to operate from the current site of the Brush Creek Transit Center(Figure 13). Trains coming from either ' Aspen or Basalt would have to be reversed to go to Snowmass Village or would have to be direct-routed without a stop at Brush Creek. An alternative location for the Transit Center would be the Cozy Point South property in the southeast quadrant of the Brush Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection. This location would allow an Aspen-Snowmass Village connection without crossing Highway 82. The connection to Basalt would be on an alternative alignment on the south side of Highway 82, crossing to the north side in the vicinity of Aspen Village. ' The detachable funicular technology would cross above Highway 82 and access the existing Brush Creek Transit Center. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 61 ' otak 1 ' Figure 12 - Doppelmayr CABLEliner 1 1 r 1 1 r r r r r r r Brush Creek Transportation Corridor Study 62 otek 1 �a a �a a a a �■ a a■ �a a a a a s a a �a a� Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Fved r Figure 13,Brush Creek „° Transit Center A/ 100 0 100 200 Fat Q ® N Ahe iwe Sme for 12400 1'=200' m Tramit Cer�r v°a s Creek Road — - -- � 0 ��moq Fixed Guideway Transit ' Lower Brush Creek Corridor ' Brush Creek flows in very close proximity to Brush Creek Road in the portion of the corridor directly adjacent to Brush Creek Village. Much of the land between the road and the creek appears to be wetland and would be difficult to cross with a rail technology. As can be seen from Figure /la, the fixed guideway corridor is proposed on the east side of Brush Creek for the first quarter-mile above Highway 82. The alignment would cross Brush ' Creek on a bridge at a narrow point in the riparian corridor and closely parallel Brush Creek Road the rest of the way up to the Rodeo Lot. ' A detachable funicular technology could more closely follow Brush Creek Road through this area, as the system is aerial. Support columns could be carefully placed to minimize riparian impacts. Driveway Crossings The identified fixed guideway corridor crosses two existing driveways. At the first existing driveway to be crossed, rail technology would use a box culvert to provide grade-separation, with the fixed guideway corridor passing under the driveway. The second existing driveway is crossed at grade. In addition, the driveway to the proposed Cozy Point South subdivision will also be crossed at grade. This driveway has been permitted, but does not yet exist. The detachable funicular technology would cross above all of these driveways. Elk Migration Four grade-separated elk crossings are planned for a rail technology in areas where elk are known to cross the corridor. Although the elk currently cross Brush Creek Road at grade, ' wide box culverts or bridge structures are proposed under the fixed guideway corridor to allow the elk to cross this corridor without conflicting with transit vehicles. In order to allow space for the elk to transition from the elevation of the road to the lower elevation of the crossings, the guideway corridor is pushed out away from the roadway. In areas where the surrounding topography does not allow the box culverts to be placed in the ' exact path expected to be used by the elk, fences will be used to funnel the elk to the location of the crossing(400 feet or less from existing crossings). ' The detachable funicular guideway would be above the existing terrain. The only conflict with elk migration would be during construction, which could easily be timed to avoid ' migration periods. Rru., It Creek Corridor Transporta Pion Study 64 ' olek Fixed Guideway Transit ' Grade-Separated Crossing of Fixed Guideway and Brush Creek Road ' A grade-separated crossing of Brush Creek Road is planned at the location where Brush Creek currently crosses the road. At this location, the fixed guideway for rail technology would pass under the road. The fixed guideway will have to be at an elevation higher than the Flood zone, with the bottom of the roadway bridge to be no less than 26 feet above the guideway platform. This will require the construction of a large bridge on Brush Creek Road at the time of the construction of the fixed guideway. This bridge could also be used for trail crossings and would elevate the roadway immediately below the Rodeo Lot, providing a more dramatic view of the upper valley. ' A detachable funicular technology would cross above the existing Brush Creek Road. Both technologies can be configured to serve modifications to the street system and other ' facilities in the Entryway area at the intersection of Brush Creek and Highline Roads. Options Above the Rodeo Lot ' The rail technology alignment for the Brush Creek corridor would connect Highway 82 to a ' future transit center at the Rodeo Lot. A journey to Snowmass Mall, Base Village, or Two Creeks would be completed by transferring from rail to a gondola system at the Rodeo Lot. The gondola systems would also serve the park-and-ride facility at this location. ' A conventional gondola alignment from the Rodeo Lot to Two Creeks requires only one turn station (in addition to the stations at each end of the line). The turn station is needed to avoid the Snowmass Club, private homes and the golf course that are between the two end points. There are two basic options for a gondola alignment from the transit center to Base Village ' and The Mall (Figure 14). A "least right-of-way impact"'alignment would avoid the golf course, resulting in six turn stations. This alignment is probably not economically feasible, as turn stations are expensive and slow the gondola system significantly. A "least turning station" alignment can access the Mall with only two turn stations, but would cross above five holes on the golf course. 1 1 Brush Creek Corridor Trans portal ion Study 65 otak _ � r A r1i� s - f� J r r �(AV F4 H a_ II J zl. 4 n c ---- i Video ,ot - . ``Z ]a e 1 c U Brush Creek Corridor o a Transportation Study o �> Q Figure 14. Conceptual Gondola Alignment to Two Creeks Base Village and Mall � l 1 \A 7bo cwk.Ngnmw, p � � � leuc 0.gAC Or Wey lmpett Nxnuc.c f> ) 7uwng sudon O O G p "dingSmwn seUh Q . K u 1 :1 cwrcoun<r..n� ' V (.P.c CK. u N c� guu J LZ n ` c, ��1 �� � �_—iii /� �o a „r � vn �� !•� r. �I r-- _, ������ ` ��'� � �';1 C �` >`� �--� � �••� � ���:A°o �� ,l�= � s��e� all ���I ;;G /; �� or'1 - � d Q � / �, � � '�. tj•�u o°1�. , °� .ti i li '7 1 ' 'i s CD it CD jo 1 <2 'K. L7' '2 I r]age II LI 7_7 A L L D fa Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study , Figure 15. Conceptual Detachable Funicular and Gondola Alignment to Two Creeks, Base Village and Mall DetwJwbk PunK Alg mt TurrmN Suton \A sb tjft Golf Cwu¢PUwc tlM ' Fixed Guideway Transit Because the detachable funicular technology can negotiate a 45-meter radius turn, the alignment can essentially follow Brush Creek Road without turn stations (Figure /S). There would be a station at the Rodeo Lot to access the park-and-ride, and perhaps stations at Owl ' Creek Road and the Snowmass Center to provide access to activities at these locations. Under a detachable funicular scenario Two Creeks would be accessed by either bus or ' gondola from the Rodeo Lot. Conclusions A fixed guideway connection between Highway 82 and Snowmass Village may be needed or preferred over the bus system at some point in the future. This connection can be accommodated using either a combination of proven rail and gondola technologies or a relatively new detachable funicular technology. ' The detachable funicular technology avoids or mitigates many of the impacts identified for a rail/gondola system, including: ' • Brush Creek Transit Center operations; • Impacts to Cozy Point South property; ' Driveway crossings; • Elk migration; • Brush Creek Road Crossing; and ' Turn station or golf course impacts. The detachable funicular eliminates the need for a transfer at the Rodeo Lot, but necessitates t a transfer from rail at the Brush Creek Transit Center. The technology is also significantly slower than rail for the trip from Highway 82 to the Rodeo Lot. ' The operation of a park-and-ride at the Brush Creek Transit Center would favor the detachable funicular option. Passengers parking at Brush Creek would have to board a train and transfer to a gondola or bus at the Rodeo Lot under the rail scenario. A direct ' connection to the Rodeo Lot, Base Village, and Snowmass Mall would be possible with the detachable funicular. Some period of time may pass before the community is faced with a decision to implement a fixed guideway. TOSV and Pitkin County should preserve the corridors identified for each technology where possible to provide the community with the flexibility to pursue the ' appropriate technology when the time is right. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 68 ' otak ' Implementation Considerations ' Introduction The Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study was developed as a strategy for regional ' transportation investment in the Brush Creek Valley and in the Town of Snowmass Village. Traffic and transit operations have been analyzed based upon existing and forecast conditions. Concepts for managing traffic in the Brush Creek Valley, for improvements to Brush Creek Road, and for possible future fixed guideway transit have been developed. This chapter documents the review of these concepts with the Technical Advisory Committee,the Project Stakeholders Group, the TOSV Town Council, the Elected Officials Transportation Committee, and the public. From this review came guidance for ' implementing the concepts contained in this report ' Project Review and Oversight The project was reviewed by the TAC, the Stakeholders Group, TOSV Council, and the ' EOTC at critical points in the process. Scoping ' We scheduled and conducted Scoping sessions with the TAC on November 3, 1998, December 15, 1998, and January 5, 1999. The draft Statement of Purpose and Need and draft Project Objectives were developed based upon TAC input. The project team reviewed the draft Statement of Purpose and Need and draft Project ' Objectives with the Stakeholders Group at a meeting on January 13, 1999. The draft Statement of Purpose and Need and draft Project Objectives were revised based upon stakeholder input. The stakeholders also reviewed and commented on the proposed scope of ' work. The project team conducted a public Scoping session on January 13, 1999 to solicit public input at the start of the project. A Final Draft Statement of Purpose and Need and Project Objectives and a scope of work for the rest of the project were reviewed and adopted by the Snowmass Town Council at a meeting on February I, 1999. Project Development The project team met with the TAC on March 1, 1999 and with the TAC and the Stakeholders Group on March 13, 1999 to review the system concepts developed by the project team prior to detailed analysis. We reviewed draft findings at TAC meetings on May 11,July 8, and August 26, 1999 and at a ' Stakeholders Group meeting on August 26, 1999. 1 Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 69 ' otak ' Implementation Considerations ' Review of Preliminary Findings The project team held Work Session with the TOSV Town Council on September 13, 1999, October 11, 1999, and January 4, 2000 to review preliminary findings and obtain Council ' guidance. Project findings were also reviewed with the Elected Officials Transportation Committee on November 11, 1999 and January 13, 2000. The Trail Development Plan for ' the Brush Creek Corridor was reviewed with the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board at their meeting on February 8, 2000. ' Implementation Considerations Project team discussions with the TOSV Town Council, the Elected Officials Transportation Committee, and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board provided guidance as to the implementation of the study findings. Transportation Management Transportation management solutions were greatly preferred over any road widening in the Brush Creek Corridor. The development of a primary park-and-ride at the Brush Creek Transit Center should be the subject of discussions between TOSV, the EOTC, and CDOT. ' Once the primary park-and-ride location is determined, TOSV should adopt a policy limiting traffic above the park-and-ride to today's levels. Implementing this policy will involve parking pricing, increased transit service,and real-time information to motorists traveling to TOSV. As a means of getting timely information to motorists seeking parking options, TOSV should discuss changeable message signs on Highway 82 with the EOTC and CDOT. ' Passing Lane A three-lane roadway in the Brush Creek Valley is a major concern to both the TOSV ' Council and the EOTC. It was agreed that a plan for road expansion is valuable, but elected officials and stakeholders hope that the expansion will never be needed. Some elected officials desire further exploration of slow moving vehicle pull outs. Concern was expressed by others about cost of enforcement and the effectiveness of the pull outs. Roundabout at Owl Creek Road TOSV officials agree that it is good to have a plan for improving the intersection if necessary. The Council would prefer not to construct the facility. TOSV should monitor the intersection from the perspective of bus operations and fire station access and take action to limit traffic or construct the roundabout as appropriate. Fixed Guideway The TOSV Council and the EOTC believe that the County should adopt the fixed guideway corridor up to rodeo lot as a part of its transportation plan and incorporate corridor ' preservation into any land use action along the route. B r u .sh Creek Corridor Tro nsporia lion Study 70 ' otak ' Implementation Considerations ' Because of aesthetics and cost, the TOSV Council was not supportive of the gondola alignments to Two Creeks and the Snowmass Mall. The detachable funicular was supported t as a viable option. TOSV should adopt a fixed guideway corridor consistent with the design constraints of detachable funicular technology between the Rodeo Lot and the Snowmass Mall. Corridor preservation and/or implementation of the technology should be incorporated ' into any land use action along the route. TOSV Council believes that the likelihood that a fixed guideway transit system would only ' be implemented in the long-term (10 years +)adds to the importance of a Snowmass Mall Transit Center as a more immediate solution to transit problems in the community. ' Brush Creek Transit Center location TOSV Council considers moving the Transit Center to the Cozy Point South property to ' better accommodate a rail connection to the Rodeo Lot to be worthy of further discussion with the EOTC, RFRHA, and CDOT. This is an issue that could be explored in further detail in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor, slated to begin later this year. Trail Plan The Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan, contained in the appendix of this report, was the subject of discussion at the TOSV Town Council, the EOTC, and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board. Discussion was generally very positive, and all three bodies favored moving forward to implement this element of the study as soon ' as possible. Agreed to next steps include a more detailed analysis of existing easements along the corridor, discussions with adjacent property owners, and design and construction of the multi-use trail. There was general agreement that, given the multi-use trail and the desire to minimize paved ' surface in the corridor, there was little need for striped bicycle lanes on Brush Creek Road. Discussion of the equestrian trail and single track alignments was longer-range and more general in nature. There was general agreement that a long-range plan for the corridor was a positive step, but little interest in moving forward to implement these recommendations soon. Equestrian interests may elect to move forward with the equestrian connection as a public- , private partnership, linking equestrian-oriented properties with extensive trait systems in the National Forest and the lower valley. Brush Creek Corridor Transportation Study 71 ' otek 1 9y- a -oi 7 C� 1 1 Brush Creek Valley 1 Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 in association with Cogan Owens Cogan MK Centennial 1 1 December 21, 1999 1 ' Table of Contents ' Brush Creek Trail Development Plan ' Page ' Section I —Development Plan Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' Section 2 — Development Plait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3 — Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ' Section 4 — Trail Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Section 5 —Development Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1 1 1 ' Section I — Development Plan 1 Summary 1 1 1 1 1 1 tDevelopment Plan Summary 1 As part of the Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study, a Trail ' Development Master Plan was prepared. The master plan is intended to expand the trails network of Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County by adding non- motorized travel opportunities between the planned Gateway to Snowmass Village ' (Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road) and Snowmass Entry (Highline Road/Rodeo Lot area). Currently, there are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the valley that connect those locations. The recommended facilities will also connect users to the Highline Trail, Brush Creek Trail to the Village Mall, Rio Grande Trail, and Highway 82. ' The master plan also recommends development of an equestrian trail that will link the Cozy Point and the White Star equestrian stables to destinations in the Hidden ' Valley Open Space and Maroon Bells-Snowmass wilderness areas beyond. ' Purpose of the Plan ' The Trail Development Master Plan is a framework plan for adoption by the Town of Snowmass Village City Council. The plan establishes the generalized locations, trail types, and management recommendations for three trail alignments within the ' Brush Creek Valley. Development can occur as independent projects or in concert with highway improvement projects for Brush Creek Road, new transit options, open space acquisitions, or funding opportunities for multimodal transportation or ' environmental enhancement of natural resource areas. Specific proposals for trail development should meet the following objectives: • Consistency with the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan, particularly conservation and protection of environmental resources. • Consistency with Trail Design and Management Standards established by the ' Pitkin County Open Space Program. Alleviation of traffic congestion by providing safe and comfortable alternate transportation routes. ' • Increased awareness of visual resource, ecological, and historic values of the Brush Creek Valley. • Year round recreational opportunities to a variety of user groups. ' • Safety for users of all ages and skill levels. ' Elements of the Plan The master plan includes four basic elements: B r u s h C r e e k T r a i l D e o e l o p m e n l Plan 1 otak N:WROIEfTBS00V5YTUn'aYgsnnRn\ur�pE 019.90W 1 Development Plan — Illustrative plan of the recommended trail alignments, ' conceptual design cross-sections, and diagrammatic illustrations of roadway crossing and access points for trail users. The illustrations are supported by recommendations for trail surfaces, seasonal use, and identification of key design issues. Environmental Evaluation —A preliminary "scan" of potential environmental ' impacts based on available data supplied by Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin ' County. An exhaustive environmental assessment was not prepared. Trail Management — Recommendations for permitted uses, rules of use, and ' maintenance and management responsibilities for developed elements of the trail system. Cost Estimates—Preliminary development cost estimates for planning purposes ' only. A yearly construction cost escalation factor was included for a 5-year period. This document is not intended to provide site specific design, final design plans, or a ' specific funding strategy for any of the potential trail development elements. As ' final trail development occurs, the Trail Design and Management Handbook prepared by Pitkin County Open Space Program should be the guiding document for design standards and specifications. ' 1 1 I 1 1 1 2 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan otak ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Section 2 — Development Plan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Eques lan Valley Troll * ,� . Riparian Loop a c It J .. JI l r _ . •y H®rse Ranch Trail Valley Trail F Single Trook multiuse Road aI Brush c = a- �,. � 3 s A 4 ` Colorado Town of Snowmass Village, C - • 1 ' Development Plan ' Plan Overview ' Recommended trail development includes two multiple use trails, one soft surface and one hard surface, and two single track bike trails (Figure 1). The hard surface trail will be developed in association with improvements to Brush Creek Road and a ' potential fixed guideway transit corridor parallel to the roadway. It will primarily be a transportation trail and not subject to seasonal closure. The soft surface trails will be available during all seasons to mix recreational and transportation uses. t However, they will be subject to closures for elk and deer migration or protection of the surrounding landscape under certain seasonal conditions. Expected recreational uses of the trail network include bicycling, walking, in-line skating, skiing, and jogging. Trail users can be expected to make occasional stops to ' appreciate scenic or ecological features of the valley. The most appealing aspects of the proposed soft surface trails will be: • Mix of users along the trail. ' • Experience a variety of environments, from creekside to hillside. • A comfortable focus on the mid-range and distant vistas. • Relative freedom from conflict with vehicles. ' • Safety and psychological comfort for users with less advanced skills. The multiple use trail associated with the fixed guideway corridor will be the ' quickest and most direct route for bicycle commuters. It can be expected to have less recreational appeal than the soft surface trails because the "trail site" will be ' less interesting. In addition to the trails, on-road bike lanes have been included in the recommended ' Brush Creek Road improvements described and illustrated in the Corridor Transportation Study. The bike lanes will appeal to commuters who are experienced bicyclists. Recreational and less experienced cyclists will likely prefer ' the off-road trails. They will find limited appeal in the roadway bike lanes for two fundamental reasons: • A significant speed differential between bikes and autos, especially for cyclists ' on the uphill grade (Highway 82 to Snowmass Village). This speed differential can be discouraging to inexperienced and leisure riders; and ' • The "trail site " (roadway right-of-way) will be the least interesting of the potential routes with regard to scenic and environmental experience. 1 B r u s h C r e e k Trail D e v e ! o p m e n i P l a n 5 otak N.WPaCCnVfAT•S1f�M1•.br..m n.nV.a wp! on YtB9 1 Equestrian Trail t The preferred equestrian trail will link both the public equestrian facility at Cozy ' Point and the White Star equestrian stables to established trails and destinations in the public lands of the Hidden Valley Open Space and Maroon Bells-Snowmass ' wilderness area. The trail should be separated from the multiple use/bike trails except for a shared bridge crossing and short trail segment near the stables. For much of the route south of Brush Creek Road, trail alignment would follow an ' existing drainage ditch (Wiese Upper Ditch) across the face of the slope (Figure 3). It is recommended that an alternative equestrian alignment be identified in ' addition to the proposed and preferred one already listed in the document. One simple alternative is a 4-foot natural/crusher fine surface trail extension of the ' paved Valley Trail (contiguous to and parallel with the paved multi-purpose alignment). If construction of the preferred alignment does not occur or is delayed, a an alternative equestrian route would be a soft shoulder extension of the paved ' Valley Trail Multiuse Pathway (Figure 2). Trail Type ' Natural surface with optimal gradient of less than 10 percent and cross slope of 15 to 20 percent. If portions of the trail are on sandy soils or cross slopes less than 15 ' percent crusher fines may be required. Maintain a minimum width of three to four feet and vertical clearance of 10 feet. Design/Construction Considerations ' Sensitive Areas— In sensitive areas such as hillsides and riparian zones, equestrian use should be confined to designated areas to minimize damage to riverbanks, steep slopes or other sensitive natural areas. Trail location should also ' minimize impacts to habitat and migration corridors for big game wildlife. Roadway Crossings—Users departing from the Cozy Point equestrian facility ' must cross Brush Creek Road, unless an adequate underpass is constructed to accommodate a safe and separated crossing. Trail Bridges—A trail bridge across Brush Creek will be shared by equestrians I and other trail users. The shared bridge should be a clear span wooden structure I with glued-and-laminated beams. Other bridge design considerations include: • width and structural design that will accommodate light-weight maintenance vehicles; ' • surfacing such as rubber matting for horses; and • design and materials that reflect the agricultural history of the valley. 6 B r u s h C r e e k T r a i l D e v e l o p m e n t P i o n I otak Development Plan ' Continued Seasonal Use Considerations Portions of the trail passing through elk and deer migration corridors (illustrated in Figure 1) should be closed during peak migration seasons for elk and deer. In the ' fall these are approximately November 1-30, and in the spring migration is from May 1-30. Restricting trail use during periods of extended soil saturation should also be considered. Valley Trail The Valley Trail is intended to provide a multiple use link between the planned ' Gateway to Snowmass Village at Highway 82 and the planned Snowmass Entry at the existing Rodeo Lot. The trail would consist of two distinct but linked alignments, involving both hard and soft surfaces. The hard surface alignment ' would be associated with the planned fixed guideway corridor adjacent to Brush Creek Road and function primarily as a transportation trail (Figure 2). As an interim facility, the trail could be constructed within the existing utility easement ' along the south side of Brush Creek Road until roadway improvements and the development of the transit corridor begin. ' The soft surface alignment would follow selected portions of the riparian zone of the creek and function primarily as a recreational trail (Figure 3). Access to waters tedge should be limited to trail spurs at selected locations. Near the Snowmass Entry, the hard surface trail divides into two segments. One segment will pass under a proposed bridge crossing of Brush Creek (see roadway/fixed guideway plans) and connect trail users to various facilities within the Snowmass Entry development. There will also be connections to the existing ' paved trail leading to the Village Mall at a designed at-grade crossing point or pedestrian underpass developed as part of the Snowmass Entry improvements. A second segment of the Valley Trail will parallel the realigned section of Brush Creek ' Roadway and connect to the Highline Trail (Figure 4). ' Trail Type The trail associated with the fixed guideway corridor should provide a multiple use ' asphalt surface. The recommended width is 10 feet. Design of the trail should meet accessibility guidelines for a Roaded Natural trail as characterized in the Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation Guidelines. Since the trail will be used as access to ' urban areas, parks, and a transit center, design to a less rigorous standard is not B r u s h C r e e k T r a i l D e a e l o p m e n i P l a n 7 olak II:�YPQIErnttWVri9Y\0..elgnen PLnVm.pd oIY.Po.K recommended. Final design of the alignment should avoid gradients over five percent except for short ramp sections at bridges and underpasses. Ramp sections may be at eight percent for distances not longer that 30 feet and should include ' handrails for the physically challenged. Trail surfaces for the riparian loop may be natural surface single track trail 3-5 feet ' wide or crusher fines with a geotextile underlayment up to six feet in width. A potential development strategy is initial construction of the single track trail. If the , level of use becomes moderate to high, or significant rutting or other ground damage is observed, the trail surface should be upgraded to crusher fines. For a crusher fines surface, compaction and structural depth should support occasional use by ' physically-challenged individuals. However, the paved multi use segment is intended to be the fully accessible route between the transit center and the planned Town of Snowmass Entry Park. ' Surface selection should also conform to cross slope and level of use guidelines in ' the Trail Design and Management Handbook (Pitkin County). Design/Construction Constraints ' Sensitive Areas—Absent constraints such as topography, roadway embankments, and bridge structures, the trail location should maintain a minimum 10-foot setback ' from the edge of the riparian zone (Figure 2). The edge of the riparian zone can be generally defined as a contiguous plant community in which 50 percent of the plant species are recorded on the National List of Plant Species occurring in wetlands and identified as facultative and obligate wetland plants. Trail location should avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands delineated as part of ' any final design process. Where impacts cannot be reasonably avoided mitigation measures must conform to local, state, and federal standards. ' Roadway Crossing —Roadway crossings at Highway 82 and Highline Road should be carefully planned and designed (Figure 4). This is especially important for bicycles commuting to Aspen and down valley destinations. Conflicts between bikes and cars must be minimized and the access movements into the planned transit center at the Gateway to Snowmass Village clearly understood by riders. ' Accessibility— If trail gradients conforming to ADA guidelines cannot be achieved by an alignment associated with the fixed guideway corridor, consideration should ' be made to pave all or part of the creekside alignment in order to provide a fully accessible trail linkage. ' a Brush Creek Trail Development Plan I olsk 1 ' Development Plan tContinued Seasonal Use Factors ' Soft surface trails passing through elk and deer migration corridors will subject to closures during peak migration seasons for elk and deer. Fall closure will be ' approximately November 1.30 and spring closure from May 1-30. Subject to above restrictions, the Valley Trail system will provide year round use. ' During winter months paved, multiple use sections can be plowed for bicyclists, pedestrians, and joggers. The soft surface portions can be maintained for use by ' nordic skiers. Maintenance of the trails for winter use will be subject to available operations budgets. ' Horse Ranch Trail ' The Horse Ranch Trail, beginning in the Town of Snowmass Entry, is intended to enhance an establish pattern of use of an informal "trail" through the hillsides above Brush Creek Road. The trail utilizes a combination of an old ditch alignment ' and relatively flat land not presently constrained by development barriers. Development of a single track bike trail will provide an alternate bike route. Bicyclists are expected to be the primary trail users, although trail characteristics might also appeal to short distance hikers. The trail will begin at Horse Ranch Road, redeveloped as part of the Snowmass Entry, and travel down the valley until ' it intersects with Brush Creek Road bike lanes approximately three-quarters of a mile from Highway 82. ' Trail Type Natural surface or crusher fines with optimal gradient of less than 10 percent, ' suitable for some physically-challenged individuals. If crusher fines are used for all or part of the alignment the surfacing should include a geotextile underlayment. ' The preferred width is five feet, with three feet being the minimum in constrained areas. ' Design/Construction Constraints Sensitive Areas— Hillsides are sensitive areas and bicycle use should be confined ' to the designated trail. Trail location should also minimize impacts to habitat and migration corridors for big game wildlife. 1 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 9 olak H'.\PPOIPCIVB]O�PSK\6nl.pnanr Mnn\r.n.pG OIPVN Road Crossings—The intersection with Brush Creek Road should be clearly ' signed and located with a sight distance of 85 to 130 feet for the safety of cyclists wishing to cross over to the downhill bike lane on the roadway. ' Seasonal Use Factors ' Since the majority of the trail passes through elk and deer migration corridors, it should be subject to the same seasonal closure as the soft surface portions of the Valley Trail. ' Subject to above restrictions, the Horse Ranch Trail can provide year round use that includes nordic skiing. However, its termination at Brush Creek Road may limit its ' appeal to those users. 1 I 1 I I I 10 Brush Creek Trail Deuelopinenl Plan ' otak Valley Trail Multiuse Pathway I I i I Brush Creak rii..i.iyss„i.i: 1O' Varies Fixed and Surfaoa Buffer Guideway � ����arteg Riparian Conservation Relooated Zone t ty seamen Alternative Equestrian IU461ML ° Route L 1 4' 8-10' 10' varies Min. Hard Surfaoe JL Riparian Conservation Zone 28' Trail J Easement qr 1Poad*w Slop” Folfowlryr o'.&..".grpka ad hnprow'neib Valley Trail 7*0P0AIgPWaaf2h.vlwft"".laf co,..nnfnrs on 41,alf Multiuse Pathway '. I ' I Brush ..� Creek 8-10' 10' varies varlea Fixed Hard Surfaoa Riparian Conservation Riparian Guideway Conservation Zone Zone I Brusl Tr-�wn of SnnwrY za CYOminvf Slope Relentl n Coneivte B LW7verY I Some Annie ON Selected nr I Bike Brush Creek Road Bike Lane Lane Roadway/Transit Improvements Slope Retentlon� Some ttar A Slope RpenROn Some A. \ 3_6' Soft Surfaoe Horse Ranch Trail Brush Creek Road Single Track l� Slope ReanHOn Some Anear 6' 12' 12- 12' 6' Ot Bike Brush Creak Road , Bike Lane Lane Roadway/Transit Improvements Figure 2 � Cr®eK Va � �ey CTS asv% VIIIAAA_ nninracin Trail Devaloomant Plan A.,b Sora:n Bank Seasonal Cioswr. L4nild ro Spw 7Yal4 at IJari.8 RAID",Al [it I 11ill I SslectdLomHOns .$+iLff+.�4ftS BOq[Z v � l � Brus Varies L 10, L Soft Surface I,I Creak par an 1 Conservation 26' Trall asement 1 , Valley Trail Riparian Loop (SLlt/acr ro Saarofwf Cfarvre) . I I)stlgn 5lrbsnvolnrr Dar{gn IJSOkptg ro roalms m odon LI w Aoaofnldo Sh Rpoasr ll Nalntsnanoe Yekrolat Use Undo Skorvd TYnl7 CondiHOro To Rio Orande 7Ynil Brun reek Valley Trail Bridge Crossings Fixed Quldeway - I Spa W 7Mllslda Sirpwda at 6fk CnI~Il gs ZZI Valley Trail Multiuse Pathwa 11 -- - - - - Rik C.asiag, - - - - C.n"r Ras LYlwrf $/laCfd LOCaf/0/Y Hard Surface Br-usl a Q �Wlon \ Jnowlon Into R(parbn Q Cowce tlon Area Under C . Med cb,aVdow as b Selected Lo Hp" 10, Min. Clearance Mln. 10' Min. From Top of Bank Equestrian Trail (S1,4fecf b Seasonal Closure) .........di Brush Creek Note. See Fixed Guideway Plans for Design Concepts for Elk Crossings varies L Road Flours 3 goo \ /Illaru (�r+lr�rc rir� ..__.__.. .,,.... Trail 1'la�iclr�r�mant Plar� Valley 1 Future TOSV Ill a D avelop, 11 ` Brush d GreH Road (J Existing �.I Trail IIII' Pa/Bike Q� Crossing Tralw Eli I Schematic Intersect Brush Creek/Hig II o IOn-Street Bike Lanes Y Trail —y L Trail m Potential Equestrian Trail —� ExistinO —Acoess from-Cory-Point - - Pedestrian �, , II" Underpass State Highway 82 To Dawn valley LOOOHON Trail Gateway to Snowmass Village A 1l Accessto Transit Cantor To nro am d.7Yufl Schematic intersection Movements Brush Creek Rd/Hwy 82 BKim erasl rNf P nr � lr7 "rail 'own Entry nent �—Roadway Improvements k (TOSV Town Entry Development) ffey Trail Pathway on Movements cline Roads Valley Trail Y 1 Trolley _y ND Potential Equestrian- -�-Trell Access from - Existln Cory Point underpass To.ft , State Highway e2 ro m»,. vmry ' Gatewmaay to Snowse Village Access to Trait Tranelt Center To Rio Ora dv DWI Schematic Intersection Movements Brush Creek Rd/Hwy 82 Figure 4 cc \/Illar�a C�r�lnrarin ..«...e. .� Trail r)a�iAlr�nmAnt Plan I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Section 3 — Environmental Impacts 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Environmental Impacts ' Introduction ' This section of the report summarizes available information, existing conditions, potential impacts and effects, mitigation and monitoring to be considered, and process issues related to the surrounding environment. Impacts to watershed ' values, wildlife, cultural resources, scenic quality, air quality, recreational use, noise, energy and other environmental issues are assessed. Limited information was available for use in this analysis. Consequently, it should be considered to be a ' limited environmental scan rather than an exhaustive or comprehensive environmental assessment. Key issues and impacts related to the proposed trail alternatives are identified, as well as potential mitigation and monitoring measures and next steps that should be taken to address the impacts and issues in more detail. 1 Scope of Analysis and Information Sources ' As mentioned above, this analysis is by no means comprehensive and is based on the limited information available to the consultants. For example, the lack of usage projections limited the assessment of recreational use effects. The following topics and subtopics are considered: ' Watershed Values n Soils and natural hazards Vegetation Stream course n Wetlands t • Fish and aquatic wildlife ' Wildlife (excluding fish and aquatic wildlife) Big game n Other species Cultural Resources Scenic Quality Air Quality ' Recreational Use Noise B r u s h C r e e k T r a i l D e v e l o p m e n t Plan 17 olak N:�PF�IeLTi'fI0VCl9VlnvWrm Rnnvnn.�yA 0I2.W.W Energy ' Other Environmental Issues • Hazardous Materials • Fire Hazards Socioeconomic and transportation system issues are not assessed. The following areas are addressed for each topic: ' • Existing conditions —What do we know about this resource based on previous studies or other information provided? , • Issues — What are the primary concerns related to each topic area that should be addressed when assessing development of a trail? • Impacts/Effects—What specific effects would be expected due to construction or use of each alternative? Both impacts common to all alternatives and impacts related to specific alternatives are addressed. • Mitigation —How can impacts/effects by addressed? • Process Issues —What are the next steps or key issues that need to be resolved? Suggested research as well as compliance with federal, state and local standards , and guidelines is discussed. Information sources used for this assessment include: • Maps of the corridor indicating trail alignments, crossings, connections, deer and elk migration routes and other features. • Photographs showing views of the road and surrounding landscape taken from several locations along Brush Creek Road. • Sections of the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan related to environmental resources, including maps of elk and mule deer seasonal activity, soils, geology and trails and open space in the area. 1999. • Links Task Force Environmental Presentation. 1998. Prepared by Cogan Owens Cogan. • Snowmass Ski Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1994. Prepared by Cogan Owens Cogan for the White River National Forest, Aspen Ranger District. Assumptions This evaluation was predicated on a number of assumptions, including: ' • New or rebuilt bridge crossings over Brush Creek would be constructed at two locations— west of Highway 82 and approximately one-half mile east of the planned Town Entry to TOSV. • Brush Creek Road would be realigned east of where it enters Snowmass Village, shifting the entry northwest by more than one hundred feet. A number of other la B r u s h C r e e k T r a i l D e v e l o p m e n t Plan olak 1 Environmental Impacts Continued transportation improvements would be undertaken in conjunction with this realignment. The bicycle/pedestrian trail would be lighted only near its intersections with Highway 82 and the TOSV entry for all three alternatives. ' . No additional private land development would occur south of Brush Creek Road. Future development north of Brush Creek Road would have no significant impact on the trail, except for potential increased conflicts with automobile traffic on the road. . There would be future connections from the proposed bicycle/pedestrian trail to the existing trail network in TOSV. • Other than grooming equipment and maintenance and emergency vehicles, there would be no vehicular access to trails. ' • With highway realignment and/or widening, the paved multiuse trail alignment will be associated with a fixed guideway corridor. Environmental Scan Watershed Values ' Soils and Natural Hazards Existing Conditions The Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan indicates that soils in the area are Cochetopa-Jerry-Adel MU soils. The Snowmass Ski Area FEIS (FEIS) indicates that soils in the area typically are deep to shallow, well-drained loamy-skeletal soils. Mass movement potential is low and no known unstable slopes or other ' geological hazards have been identified in the proposed trail development areas. Erosion potential is relatively low and revegetation potential varies. Issues • What are the risks for and potential impacts of erosion and geological hazards, ' e.g., mass movement? What is the ability to promptly and successfully revegetate following disturbance? Impacts/Effects Common to All Alignments Construction of any of the alignments would increase the potential for erosion to ' some degree, either from construction or off-trail activities that disturb or compact the soil; soil removal or deposit adjacent to slopes and banks; or removal or disturbance of vegetation during construction or use of trails. Such activities could alter soil productivity and stability. All alignments would have some impact on B r u s h C r e e k T r a i l D e v e l o p m e n t Plan W olak II:WPNC(TVOOTe�e�.wM�IA.nV.n.�.a OIf 10.so revegetation potential, though impacts would be expected to vary substantially. A potential effect of erosion and soil compaction would be to increase sedimentation in Brush Creek. The greatest impacts would be adjacent to new or rebuilt stream , crossings because of the degree of associated construction and soil disturbance activities. Impacts of Specific Alternatives , The Valley Trail would require soil removal, compaction and alteration to construct , the both paved and soft surface segments of the trail. Bicyclists and pedestrians straying off of the trail also would cause compaction which could lead to erosion, particularly where the trail is relatively close to the stream bank or other sloped areas. The creation of informal trails to access the creek would have the greatest potential to result in sedimentation effects. No significant impacts on revegetation potential would be expected. The paved segment within the fixed guideway would cause the most significant ' impacts to soil and potential hazard areas given that a significant amount of soil would be disturbed and deposited to widen the road, particularly on its south side where the shoulder is relatively narrow and the area adjacent to it slopes downward. Impacts on revegetation also would be more significant given typical difficulties in revegetating slopes adjacent to extended roadways. Alternative 2 would have the greatest potential impacts, given that more area on the south side of the road would be affected, where the land frequently slopes away from the road. Equestrian and single track bike trail impacts on soils would be relatively limited, given that existing drainage ditches and established informal trail routes would be used. Construction activities would be minimal. Compaction of the soil from frequent use could cause rill and gully erosion on and adjacent to the trail. Given the distance from the equestrian trail to Brush Creek, sedimentation impacts would not be expected. Impacts on revegetation potential would not be expected to be , significant, although horses venturing off of the trail could have some impacts. Mitigation and Monitoring • Implement best management practices (BMPs) and standard construction practices to control erosion, reduce sedimentation, minimize and mitigate impacts on soils and vegetation, and minimize other effects related to , construction and use in designing and constructing any of the trail alternatives. Target BMPs to site-specific conditions. • For the Valley Trail, design sufficient access points to the creek to minimize the creation of informal trails. Process issues , More detailed soils and geologic hazard information will be needed to determine site-specific impacts. 20 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan otak 1 ' Environmental Impacts ' Continued • It is unknown whether an erosion and sediment control plan per National ' Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements will be required. ' Vegetation Existing Conditions The vegetation of the Brush Creek Valley study area is most characteristic of the ' transitional/foothills zone with the exception of the valley floor. The natural character of the valley floor is modified for agricultural pasture purposes and is mostly composed of introduced pasture grasses including smooth brome, orchardgrass, and timothy. ' The hillsides being characteristic of the upper extremity of the transitional/foothill vegetative zones include a composition of Gambel Oak (Quercus gambellii), Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), Mountain ' Snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus), Mountain Sagebrush (Artemesia tridentate vaseyana), True Mountain Mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) and Rocky. Mountain Juniper (Juniperus scopulorum). The north facing slopes are more densely vegetated and include pockets of Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziessii) concentrated within the drainage ways. The ground cover composition is made up of the native grasses and forbs, a sampling which includes Bluebunch Wheatgrass, Slender Wheatgrass, Idaho Fescue, Mountain Brome, Indian Ricegrass, Canby Bluegrass, Sulphur Buckwheat, Penstemon, Pussytces, Lupine, and Fireweed to name a few. The riparian zone along Brush Creek is comprised of willows, alders, cottonwoods, aspens, birches and sedge meadows. Issues • How significant would the loss or disturbance of vegetation be in terms of biodiversity? Impacts Common to All Alignments ' All alignments would result in some removal or disturbance of vegetation, although the amount would vary. Clearing and disturbance of vegetation could result in increased erosion and runoff, ultimately affecting water quality in Brush Creek. Other effects include potential introduction of noxious weeds resulting from construction activities, as well as from horses on the equestrian trail. The most significant impacts would occur in the riparian areas near stream crossings where construction impacts and the amount of vegetation removal would be the greatest. Bruck Creek Trail Deoelopmenl Plan 21 otak H:VLdLtTBe�VJO.0..Jir14eVM.rd OILYY In all alignments, the amount of vegetation to be removed would be minimal and no effects on the viability of plant communities or biodiversity would be expected. Impacts of Specific Alternatives A fixed guideway corridor and trail would result in permanent removal of vegetation. It also would result in temporary impacts to vegetation during construction and some impacts to adjacent vegetation by pedestrians or bicyclists who stray from the trail. However, there would be no significant impacts to overall , plant communities and vegetative biodiversity would be maintained. If the trail were plowed during the winter, vegetation adjacent to the trail could be crushed by snow deposited there. Widening of the roadway itself would result in removal of vegetation, with or without trail construction, including vegetation on areas sloping away from the roads. Assuming revegetation efforts would be successful, some of these impacts would be temporary. Vegetation adjacent to the trail also would be impacted by ' construction activities and to some degree by off-trail travel, though off-trail impacts would be minimal, given slopes adjacent to the road in most areas. Assuming the trail is plowed in the winter, vegetation adjacent to the trail could be , crushed by snow deposited there. Equestrian and single track bike trail impacts on vegetation would be relatively minor given that an existing drainage ditch that presumably is already substantially clear of vegetation would be used for the trail. There would be some impacts to vegetation from horses that venture off of the trail. Mitigation/Monitoring In addition to the BMPs identified above for soils: • Develop a vegetation protection plan to be used during construction that includes specific safeguards against accidental or unplanned destruction of vegetation. • Require prompt reclamation after disturbance pursuant to an approved vegetation management plan. Process Issues • Surveys will need to be conducted for special status plant species pursuant to state, county and TOSV standards. • Vegetative protection measures will need to be defined prior to construction. HydrologyMater Quality Existing Conditions , Brush Creek in the project area is relatively shallow, with maximum depths of 12 inches, and varies in width from three to 12 feet. Water quality is characterized in the FEIS as"diminished" due to degradation, including sedimentation, from past 22 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan , otak ' Environmental Impacts ' Continued grazing in the area and impacts from Brush Creek Road. Fish and aquatic wildlife ' are present in the stream, though wildlife habitat is considered marginal. The stream is culverted in at least two locations between Highway 82 and the TOSV entry. Issues • What are the potential effects on streamflow, water quality, and water ' temperature? What is an appropriate setback from Brush Creek to avoid or minimize water quality impacts? Impacts Common to All Alignments ' All alignments would cause soil erosion and disturbance, as discussed previously, that could increase sedimentation in the creek and degrade water quality. The degree of impact would vary by alternative, with the most significant effects near ' stream crossings for all alternatives. All alternatives also would cause increased runoff either from paved surfaces or from compacted areas adjacent to the trail, also potentially increasing sedimentation and affecting water quality. Again, the degree ' of impact would vary by alignment. Impacts of Specific Alignments The soft surface portions of the Valley Trail could increase runoff by adding lees pervious surface material and removing vegetation in close proximity to Brush ' Creek. Clearing and grading activities during construction also would cause runoff impacts. The removal of vegetation near the creek could increase soil temperature and potentially water temperature. However, given the relatively small amount of ' new surface introduced, i.e., a 10 foot wide path, impacts to water quality due to vegetation removal and associated runoff and temperature effects would not be significant. There also would be no expected measurable changes in water yield ' from the creek. The hard surface portion of the Valley Trail would have similar impacts, i.e., vegetation removal and increased impervious surfaces that would affect runoff and water temperature, as well as impacts from clearing and grading. While runoff impacts would be greater, there would be fewer direct impacts on the stream due to the distance of the road from the creek for much of the trail alignment. Where the road is close to the stream, runoff would carry more pollutants from the road to the stream, potentially causing more significant impacts on water quality. The equestrian and single track bike trail would have minimal impacts on water quality given its distance from the creek for most of its length. In those areas where Brush Creek Trail DeuelopmenI Plan 23 Wek N.VPOIpRVtl1V %DriV�IMDMW.nd MOO 1 the equestrian trail or connections to stables cross the creek or are adjacent to it, water quality could be degraded by horse manure. Mitigation and Monitoring ' In addition to the BMPs cited above under Soils: • Incorporate runoff control measures into design of trails. • Minimize the area impacted by stream crossings. Construct trail crossings during low streamflow and/or outside fish spawning periods. ' Process Issues • Existing baseline water quality data for those portions of Brush Creek in and , above TOSV should be supplemented with information for that stretch of the creek adjacent to the proposed trails. This data will be needed to determine current and future water quality trends. • A minimum setback from Brush Creek will need to be established prior to initiating detailed trail design. According to a national survey of 36 local , jurisdictions, urban stream buffers range from 20 to 200 feet in width on each side of the stream, with a median of 100 feet. (Heraty, 1993; Center for Watershed Protection, 1999). Work that Cogan Owens Cogan is currently , engaged in on riparian corridor protection programs for the Portland metropolitan area includes recommended buffers of 150 feet from the top of the bank on each side of stream mid-sections (versus headwaters or floodplains). , Stream buffers with a median width of 100 to 150 feet should be preserved wherever possible once a functional definition of the riparian conservation zone has been established (see Page 6 and Figure 3). Where intrusions of a desirable trail alignment into the conservation zone are unavoidable, the trail should be , located a minimum of 10 feet from top of bank. Wetlands , Existing Conditions No formal wetland delineations have been performed in this area and National Wetland Inventory maps for the area were not provided to the consultant. , However, visual inspection of topography and vegetation indicates that there likely is a seasonal wetland in the area north of Brush Creek Road and east of the TOSV Town Entry area. There also is a created wetland (pond) south of Brush Creek Road near its intersection with Highway 82. Issues , • What are the potential impacts, including fill or other disturbances to wetlands? • How can wetlands impacts be avoided, minimized or mitigated pursuant to state , and federal standards? Impacts Common to All Alignments 24 Brush Creek Trail Deoelopmeni Plan , otak 1 Environmental Impacts Continued There are no impacts common to all alternatives, as the equestrian and single track ' bike trail would be expected to have no wetland impacts. Impacts of Specific Alternatives ' The Valley Trail could impact the suspected wetland near the TOSV entrance if this section of Brush Creek Road is realigned, as assumed for the purposes of this report. The realigned road would go directly through the suspected wetland area ' and construction of the road and trail due south or north of the road likely would necessitate fill or other disturbance of the wetland. Vegetation removal and soil compaction and removal also would cause erosion, sedimentation, and increased runoff, which also would likely effect the suspected wetland. ' In addition, this alignment also could impact the created wetland near the intersection of Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road. However, impacts on this wetland would be of less concern as they would be easier to avoid than those near ' the TOSV Town Entry. Mitigation and Monitoring ' • Realign the trail to avoid physical impacts, i.e., excavation, cut and fill, to any delineated wetlands. • If wetland impacts are unavoidable, locate sites for compensation, preferably ' within the project area vicinity. Process Issues ' • Wetlands in the area potentially impacted by the trail alternatives will need to be delineated. ' • If wetlands are expected to be impacted, a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers may be required. A 401 Water Quality Certification permit from the Colorado Health Department also may be needed. Fish and Aquatic Species Existing Conditions Surveys conducted for the ski area FEIS indicate that brook and brown trout are present in Brush Creek. Also, according to the FEIS, midges, burrowing mayflies, stoneflies and filter-feeding caddisflies inhabit the creek. No known special status ' fish or other aquatic species have been identified in Brush Creek. Issues What loss or disturbance of habitat for fish and aquatic species could result from trail development? 1 Brush Creek Trail Deuelopmeni Plan 25 olek x:.rxolernoaoowe�n..�... w.�w..W ou.ro.w Impacts Common to All Alignments Impacts are essentially those discussed above for hydrology/water quality. ' Degradation of the stream course due to sedimentation, increased pollutants carried by runoff and potential increases in water temperature could affect the quality of the habitat for fish and other aquatic species, although impacts would be expected ' to be relatively insignificant for aquatic insect species. Another impact common to all alternatives, but most significant in the Valley Trail, would be increased pressure on fishing resulting from improved access to Brush Creek. , Impacts of Specific Alternatives As noted in previous sections, the Valley Trail would have the highest degree of direct impacts on water quality. Impacts from the equestrian and single track bike trail would be minimal. Mitigation and Monitoring Mitigation and monitoring measures would include those identified for all of the ' preceding sections. Process Issues Surveys should be undertaken to determine the presence of fish and other aquatic species, particularly near the proposed stream crossings. Wildlife 1 There are no known federally-listed threatened or endangered species or state sensitive species within the affected area. Species assessed for this report have been categorized as (1) big game and (2) other species, primarily birds and small mammals. Big Game , Existing Conditions The Brush Creek Valley contains habitat for elk, mule deer and bear. Much of the undeveloped area on both sides of Brush Creek Road between Highway 82 and the Town of Snowmass Village serves as winter range for deer and elk. The foothills and higher elevations south of the road and the hills and connecting ravines north of the road are identified as severe winter range for elk. A herd of approximately ' 350 elk uses the winter range in and around the Brush Creek Valley. Areas farther to the northeast also are severe winter range for mule deer. There are three primary migration routes for deer and elk in this area, crossing Brush Creek Road near the Droste and Seven Star properties. Elk also use mature and old growth Douglas fir and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir , forests in the area for cover in summer and fall seasons. Aspen forests are used for feeding, resting, calving and breeding. Calving takes place predominantly in the , 26 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan olak ' Environmental Impacts ' Continued adjacent Owl Creek Valley, rather than near Brush Creek. Spring migration through the Brush Creek Valley generally takes place from mid-April through early May, with the herd returning to winter range in early November. Migration corridors have been and continue to be constrained by traffic, fences, guardrails and grazing. Issues • What effects would trail construction and use have on winter range habitat for deer and elk? ' • How would use of established migration routes for deer and elk through the area be affected? ' Impacts Common to All Alignments Impacts vary but would commonly include short-term construction impacts, including noise from construction equipment, and increased human presence. ' Construction impacts would include avoidance of construction areas, especially during periods of activity. Migration could be disrupted if construction occurs during migration periods. All alignments increase the human presence to varying degrees. Impacts of Specific Alignments The Valley Trail would have the greatest impacts as it would introduce a new man- made feature and additional people into the winter range and migration areas of elk and deer. There also would be very limited impacts to habitat resulting from vegetation removal. Impacts would be both temporary—due to construction activities—and permanent—resulting from introduction of the trail. Although elk ' readily habituate to constant movement, e.g., cars moving on a road, they can easily become startled by changes in movement, e.g., periodic trail users. Various studies report that big game avoid trails during daytime periods of human use. With increased human presence in the area, elk and deer would be expected to move more quickly through the migration corridors. Reduced use of the area as winter range would also be expected, mitigated somewhat by lower trail usage during this period. Widening of the roadway and the associated fixed guideway/trail corridor also would ' have some impact on migration of elk and deer through the area but minimal impact on habitat and the use of the winter range. Widening the road would increase the size of the existing barrier to road crossings. However, given the ' nature and relatively small expected volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic compared to existing automobile traffic, these impacts would be relatively minor. Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 27 olek H:Ved[CTBLOPte�M•lyw rW�na.•p olttO.W 1 Impacts from the equestrian trail would be similar to those for the Valley Trail. ' Although this trail does not represent a new man-made feature in the winter range ' area and migration corridors (since it utilizes an existing drainage ditch), it would introduce more people and horses and, hence, disturbance. Mitigation and Monitoring , Key mitigation measures are already in place or have been integrated in proposed trail design. Most significantly, portions of the Valley Trail that cross migration areas would be closed during the winter and migration periods, with users directed to the portion of the trail that parallels Brush Creek Road. It also has been proposed that the equestrian trail be closed during the winter months and migration seasons. Other mitigation measures would include: • Design trails to minimize disturbance or other impacts on elk, deer, and bear; • Apply appropriate restrictions and requirements related to fencing, vegetation removal, revegetation and construction schedules; and • Bear-proof trail facilities to the extent feasible. ' Process Issues • It will be necessary to more precisely identify the locations of the three deer and elk migration routes where they cross Brush Creek Road. • For those portions of the trail within the Village limits, compliance with Town of Snowmass Village Municipal Code Section 16-223 related to protection of elk ' habitat will be required. Compliance with Pitkin County land use code and other provisions related to protection of critical elk habitat will be required for the remainder of the trail. • Consultation will be necessary with the Colorado Department of Wildlife about potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with trail design, ' construction, and use. Other Wildlife , Existing Conditions A variety of other wildlife species are found in the Brush Creek Valley, primarily birds and small mammals, including species common to west central Colorado. Issues What effects would trail construction and increased human disturbance have on , species viability? Impacts Common to All Alignments , All trail alternatives would increase human disturbance to other wildlife species, although the degree of impact would vary. All alignments could affect the activities of neotropical birds. Although no species of concern have been specifically identified in the area, there has been increasing scrutiny of this issue in recent years due to elevated concern about reduced numbers of songbirds and compliance with the gg Brash Creek Trail Development Plan , otak 1 Environmental Impacts Continued Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Overall, impacts to other wildlife species would be expected to be minimal. Impacts of Specific Alignments ' Construction of both segments of the Valley Trail would destroy wildlife habitat and disturb wildlife, resulting in some displacement. Impacts from the creekside segments would be more significant than a trail that closely parallels the roadway. Creekside alignment would introduce a new constructed feature into the natural environment, destroying some habitat for both birds and small mammals. Trail activity in this area also would result in more human disturbance to wildlife, particularly in the riparian area, which the FEIS indicates is the most significant habitat for birds in the area. In addition, disturbance of small mammals could ' effect the prey supply of birds in the area. A trail within a fixed guideway corridor would result in less significant impacts to ' wildlife. The habitat value of vegetation immediately adjacent to the road that would be removed is lower than that in closer proximity to the creek. The disturbance to wildlife caused by trail users in this alternative would be relatively minor in comparison to existing disturbances from automobile traffic. The equestrian and single track bike trail likely would result in the least impacts on ' wildlife since they would utilize an existing routes to a larger degree. There would be relatively less construction impacts or removal of habitat. It would cause some periodic human disturbance to wildlife, but no expected effects on species viability. Mitigation and Monitoring ' • Implement best management practices and other measures previously identified to minimize habitat loss and construction impacts. • Apply strict animal control measures, including closure of the Valley Trail and equestrian trails to pet use. Process Issues • Additional wildlife surveys will need to be conducted to supplement limited existing information about habitat values and the species present. ' Cultural Resources Cultural resources includes both archaeological resources (prehistoric, proto- historic, and historic) and traditional cultural uses and values. Existing Conditions Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 29 olek H:VPWIXRV600H0�0.wL•rrlWVm.•p 011.10.W No project-specific information has been provided and there are no known cultural resource studies of the project area. However, it is known that the Roaring Fork ' Valley was inhabited by ancestors of the Ute Tribe (Metcalf, 1981). There is a high probability of traditional Native American use of the area, particularly in proximity to Brush Creek. The abandoned drainage ditch (Wiese Upper Ditch) proposed for the equestrian trail may qualify as a cultural resource site representative of ranching and lumbering activities dating to the late 1880s/early 19008. Due to past disturbance activities, it is assumed that if they were ever present, no cultural resources remain in the alignments for the Valley Trail. Issues • What cultural resources are present in the project areas for the Valley Trail and the equestrian trail? • How will impacts to archaeological and historic resources, if present, be avoided or mitigated? , • What opportunities for resource and traditional use interpretation can/should be provided? Impacts Common to All Alignments No impacts would be common to all trail alignments. Impacts of Specific Alignments If archaeological and historic resources are present within the creekside areas of the Valley Trail it is assumed that the trail will be designed to avoid or mitigate any , direct impacts pursuant to regulations (see below). Off-trail use would have the potential to affect other sites in the vicinity that have not been protected through , project design and mitigation. Given that the Valley Trail would traverse the area with the highest probability for the presence of cultural resources, opportunities for interpretation would likely be available. No effects would be anticipated for the equestrian and single track bike trail. If the drainage ditch proposed for use as an equestrian trail is determined to be a historic resource, direct impacts would likely be unavoidable and, potentially, that trail alignment would be infeasible. , Mitigation/Monitoring , The preferred mitigation measure is avoidance; if avoidance is infeasible, site- specific mitigation and monitoring will need to be developed in conjunction with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the County. If archaeological , resources are affected, Tribal consultation will be necessary. Other measures include: 30 - Brush Creek Trail Development Plan otak ' Environmental Impacts ' Continued Conduct field inventories of trail alignments pursuant to SHPO and County/TOSV guidelines for fieldwork and reporting. . Immediately bring to the attention of the County/TOSV any and all objects of historic or scientific interest encountered during construction. Leave such ' objects intact until authorized to proceed by SHPO. Integrate cultural resource interpretive opportunities into trail design. ' Process Issues • Pursuant to federal, state and local standards, surveys for cultural resources will be required prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Consultation with ' SHPO also will be required. Protection and management of cultural resources is provided by a wide variety ' of federal regulations (which are not repeated here). Most notably, the National Historic Preservation Act requires review of any undertaking that could affect historical properties which are included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. If present, the values of historic properties will need to be protected or preserved by designing the project to avoid impacts altogether or collecting data about the attributes contributing to a site's significance. Scenic Quality Existing Conditions As indicated in the Snowmass Ski Area FEIS, Brush Creek Road provides one of the ' best overall views of the surrounding area. The area south of the road has relatively few man-made features in the natural landscape, with the exception of a horse outfitting stable about midway between the Town of Snowmass Village and ' Highway 82 and the East Weise drainage ditch alignment which is the proposed route for the equestrian trail. ` Issues • How will the area's scenic quality be affected by additional man-made intrusions on the natural landscape? • What are the potential impacts of trail lighting? Impacts Common to All Alignments ' There are no impacts common to all alignments as the proposed equestrian trail would have no noticeable visual impact. ' Impacts of Specific Alignments The Valley Trail would introduce a man-made feature into the natural landscape ' causing some effects on scenic quality. However, the existence of other man-made Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 31 otak M.VPOIF%T��Prvgwm floWV.M OItiM 1 features (e.g., ski area runs, the Town of Snowmass Village and development north , of Brush Creek Road near Highway 82) would lessen the visual impact of the trail from many viewpoints in the area. If the trail were lighted at both ends, there ' would be additional impacts on people viewing the area. In the long term, a trail alignment adjacent to the roadway would have relatively r little visual impact, as distant views of the expanded roadway would not vary significantly. However, in the short term, there would be impacts to scenic quality , due to slope cuts/fills, grading, vegetation removal and other construction activities. The equestrian trail would have no measurable impact on scenic quality as it would utilize an existing man-made feature which already is visible. Mitigation and Monitoring Most impacts to scenic quality can be mitigated through design techniques. Timing of construction and other standard construction best management practices also can ' reduce construction-related visual impacts. Process Issues , Applicable County or City viewshed standards will need to be satisfied. Air Quality , Existing Conditions Substantial air quality data has been collected for the State Highway 82 and TOSV areas, but minimal information is available specific to the Brush Creek Valley between these trail endpoints. Air pollution levels in the area show seasonal , patterns, with much higher levels of carbon monoxide and particulates in the winter than in the summer, while ozone levels are the reverse. Because of prevailing southwesterly winds, pollutants generally drift away from TOSV down the Brush , Creek Valley and into the Roaring Fork Valley. When the air is very stable and winds are light, pollutants may concentrate in the Rodeo Lot area. Issues • What air quality impacts would be associated with trail construction and use? Impacts Common to All Alignments Potential air pollution sources would include emissions from snowcat trail grooming operations, dust and equipment emissions from construction, and dust from trail use (with the highest levels from equestrian use). These would all be short-term impacts at levels considerably lower than that associated with current automobile , use of Brush Creek Road. Because trail development provides opportunities for travel by alternative (to auto) modes, they would have positive cumulative air quality impacts. 82 Brush Creek Trait Development Plan otsk Environmental Impacts ' Continued No effects on compliance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the ' Aspen/Pitkin County nonattainment area and with federal Clean Air Act standards nor on air quality within the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, a Class I airshed, would be expected. ' Mitigation/Monitoring • Employ standard construction practices to minimize dust from construction activities. . Monitor dust created by equestrian trail use during dry periods to determine the need to temporarily curtail or limit trail use. Process Issues ' Consultation with the State Air Pollution Control likely will be required to demonstrate no effect on compliance with the SIP. Recreational Use Existing Conditions There are over 200 miles of improved and unimproved biking trails within the area around the Town of Snowmass Village, including approximately 47 miles within the Town. There also are 34 hiking trails, comprising about 200 miles of trail, accessible from the Aspen-Snowmass area. In 1993, there were 13,900 recreational visitor days (RVDs) of bicycling, 35,100 RVDs attributed to hiking and walking and 2,100 RVDs related to horseback riding in the Aspen Ranger District. The Snowmass Ski Area FEIS reported nominal growth in day hiking and rapid growth in bicycling in the early 1990s. There are at least two horse outfitters or stables ' within one mile of the proposed equestrian trail and approximately 40 outfitters in the entire Aspen Ranger District. ' Issues Is proposed trail development responsive to recreational demand? • What are potential conflicts among different recreational users and how would they be resolved? Impacts Common to All Alignments ' All trail alignments would respond to a demand for bicycle, hiking, and equestrian facilities from new and existing residents, as well as visitors. All alignments also ' would provide connections to other trails and trail systems. All alignments would impact existing users by increasing the amount of activity on existing roads and trails, including current use of Brush Creek Road for bicycling and informal use of the proposed equestrian trail alignment. However, these impacts would be Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 83 otak H:VM16'(TMJTY4.M1M�P4nV.n.A1 OIIMM relatively minor because current usage of these facilities is minimal. There would also be increased participation in other recreational activities in the area by people , drawn to the area to use the proposed trails. Impacts From Specific Alignments ' The creekside portions of the Valley Trail would be expected to attract more users than a trail linked to the roadway or a fixed guideway corridor given its separation from the road, more scenic setting and greater potential for viewing wildlife and ' other natural resources. There could be some conflicts on this trail among recreational bicyclists and commuters, as well as conflicts among bicyclists and pedestrians. The Valley Trail, along with on-road bike lanes, would provide a more direct commuting connection for bicyclists between Highway 82 and the Town of Snowmass Village. Along the Valley Trail, there would be the potential for conflicts between automobiles and bicyclists or pedestrians at the road crossings and ' driveway access into private property. Conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists within the fixed guideway corridor would be fewer than the soft surface alignments because pedestrian usage likely would be lower. ' The equestrian trail would help connect the stables north of Brush Creek Road to wilderness horse trails in the foothills and mountains south of the road, assuming a spur trail to the stables is developed. Demand for equestrian trails is evidenced by the large number at horse outfitters in the area. Assuming that bicycle and pedestrian use would be restricted on the equestrian trail, the conflicts would be limited to the short section leading to the shared bridge crossing. Mitigation and Monitoring , The following measures are recommended: • Design trails to minimize conflicts among different types of users. , • Design road crossings to address safety issues and minimize conflicts with automobiles. • Restrict use of the equestrian trail by bicyclists and pedestrians. • Develop monitoring criteria and monitor trail use to ensure that capacity is not exceeded. Process Issues • Trail demand will need to be determined for each alternative based upon type of use, e.g., hiking vs. equestrian. • Determine whether trails will be plowed or groomed in the winter. • Whether users would pay a fee to use the trails needs to be determined. , • The viability and projected winter use of the trails needs to be assessed. • Potential impacts to and conflicts with trail users from winter snowcat tours at an existing ranch need to be addressed. 94 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan , otak ' Environmental Impacts Continued • The inclusion of recreational amenities such as viewpoints needs to be addressed ' in the trail design. • Spur trails for access should be included in designing the trail system. ' Noise Existing Conditions No noise level information for the existing area or projections for the trail have been ' provided. Issues • What noise impacts to wildlife, residents and visitors to the area would be expected? ' • How would noise impacts to trail users from automobile traffic and other sources be avoided or minimized? Impacts Common to All Alignments There are no impacts common to all alternatives. Impacts of Specific Alignments Trail construction activities would result in noise impacts to wildlife and other nearby land uses. The Valley Trail would have the highest level of noise impacts on wildlife from trail users. However, noise impacts on wildlife would be relatively low as most use would be spread out, without large numbers of people on the trail at any one time. At the same time, noise from users would carry farther, given the open terrain, with less muting by vegetation or automobile noise from the road, causing greater impacts on non-trail users than the other alternatives. Potential noise from winter plowing would impact wildlife, trail users and other land users. Trail development adjacent to the roadway likely would have relatively minor noise ' impacts on non-trail users and wildlife as noise from trail users would be muted by noise from automobile traffic. The equestrian and single track bike trail also would have few noise impacts. Noise impacts from horses tend to be relatively low and vegetation adjacent to the trail ' would likely mute what little noise there would be. Mitigation and Monitoring • Comply with state and local standards to limit noise (e.g., limited hours of operation). • Design the trails to reduce noise impacts through use of vegetative barriers and other means. Brush Creek Trait Deoelopmenl Plan SS otek x vadscraam.eer.w..yr M�wa.N aim" 1 Process Issues , • Additional information on existing and projected noise levels should be obtained. • It will be necessary to comply with city, county, and state noise standards. Energy , Energy issues are not addressed here as they relate primarily to the amount of ' energy saved by the use of alternative (to auto) travel modes and thus are more appropriately a transportation system issue. As with air quality, all alternatives would have overall positive energy impacts in comparison to current automobile ' use. Other Environmental Issues Hazardous Materials ' Hazardous materials in the form of petrochemical fuels and construction materials would be present during trail construction in all alternatives. Spills of such materials would have the potential to affect riparian habitat, aquatic species and ' water quality, especially in the creekside segments of the Valley Trail due to the trail's proximity to the creek. Standard construction practices would be expected to minimize such risk. ' Mrs Hazards An increased risk of human-caused fires would be associated with both trail construction and use. The potential for fire damage would be greatest with the equestrian trail due to lack of access for emergency vehicles. State and ' County/TOSV fire regulations would be followed during trail construction. Fire prevention and suppression programs would need to be instituted in conjunction trail development to reduce the risk of human-caused fires. 86 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan , otsk 1 1 1 1 Section 4 — Trail Management 1 1 1 1 1 Trail Management ' Management Plan ' The following responsibilities and rules for use are recommended for all areas and permitted uses designated as part of the Brush Creek Valley Trail Development Plan. Management Objectives The primary objectives for the management of future trails developed in the Brush ' Creek Valley are: Allow controlled public use; • Encourage alternate forms of transportation to local business centers, ' employment, and recreational areas; Balance public access, limited private access, and protection of the natural environment throughout the trail system; and ' • Provide physical improvements only to ensure the safety and reasonable comfort of pathway users, protect the natural environment and to minimize conflict between public use and adjacent landowners. ' Upon its completion, the network of trails should include continuous routes accessible to wheelchair users and others with mobility impairments. Accessible features should include ramps, surfaces, signage, stream crossings, and parking at trailheads, parks, transit centers, and other significant destinations linked by the ' trail system. Uses Allowed • Walking • Jogging • Bicycling • Wheelchair users • Skiing and wheel skating ' Horseback riding on equestrian trails or portions of a multi-use pathway designated for equestrian use and constructed with a adjacent soft shoulder • Picnicking allowed in designated areas • Motor vehicle parking only in parking areas of trailheads • Creek/river access allowed in designated areas ' Uses Not Allowed • Unauthorized motor vehicles Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 97 ' Mak x:vPaemawoNm.d.Wr... v1�v.a.M Oltww 1 • Hunting and trapping ' • Firearms or other weapons • Fireworks or explosives , • Fires • Alcohol • Pets off leash ' • Loud music • Camping ' Pathway Use Rules • Do not operate or park any vehicle, or ride or lead a horse, except in areas so ' designated. • Do not throw, dump, or deposit any kind of rubbish, trash, debris, refuse, or any , substance that might mar the appearance or detract from the cleanliness or safety of the multi-use pathways or equestrian trails. ' • Do not deface, destroy, or damage any public facility. • Do not leave the designated public boundaries of the trail system to enter, cross, or obstruct any adjacent privately owned property without consent of the landowner. • No person shall discharge a firearm, weapon, fireworks, or explosives of any type. ' • Hunting, trapping, pursuit, or capture of any wild bird or animal is prohibited. Fishing is allowed in creeks and rivers for recreational purposes. • Drinking of alcoholic beverages is not allowed. • Overnight camping is not allowed without permission of the managing agency. • Dogs allowed only on a leash and if accompanied by owner. ' In addition to the above rules, the following rules of trail etiquette shall apply: • Every person using the pathway shall stay as near to the right side as possible ' except when turning or overtaking and passing another user. • Every pathway user shall be courteous, cautious, and move in a predicable manner. , • No group, including their animals, shall occupy more than one-half of the pathway, or in any way impede the normal movements of other users. • Every user shall give an audible signal before passing. The signal may be given , by voice or by bell and must allow adequate time for response. • Passing another user moving in the same direction shall be done only to the left. • All bicyclists using the pathway from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour , before sunrise shall have lights and reflectors on their bicycles. • Pets must be on a leash at all times. , • Pathway users should not damage or remove any plants. 98 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan , otak 1 ' Trail Management ' Continued Lessees and Easement Holder Regulations • Keep all privately owned vehicles off trail surfaces except locations where trail easements or rights-of-way are crossed by a legal driveway. ' . Do not remove vegetation or limbs without the managing agency's permission. Do not remove any soil or rock. Repair any damage to trail surfaces, amenities, or vegetation within the public ' corridor. Report any violation of the trail use rules to the managing agency. ' Land Management ' This project will provide non-motorized access through both public and privately owned lands. Trail corridors shall be obtained through acquisition of public right- of-way or securing continuing legal easements. Trailheads, if any, will be associated with potential park or other public development sites. It is recommended that the managing agency allow no new ground level easements or leases of this land except' required utility easements. Current private crossings, such as access lanes and ' driveways, should be permitted to remain across the trail corridors. Future private crossings should be minimized. Any wetlands, riparian areas, or sensitive wildlife habitat should be protected. Any trail construction damage to such areas should be repaired, including any required mitigation measures. Riverbank access is intended to be for fishing and passive ' recreation. Any other uses should be discouraged. ' Equestrian Trail Management Management of the equestrian trail requires all users and the managing agency to cooperate in enforcing proper trail use and in routine maintenance and improvement efforts. Within all areas designated as part of the Brush Creek Trail Development Plan, a separate equestrian trail should be constructed wherever ' possible. Bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian travel may be parallel or immediately adjacent for short distances provided the shared use is clearly signed. Sign should establish basic rules of etiquette and grant horses the right-of-way in instances of potential user conflicts. Where the multiple use pathways and equestrian trails must be immediately adjacent, the soft surface shoulder should be inspected and maintained regularly to avoid potential danger to pedestrians and bicyclists from rutting or dislodging of ' surface materials by horses. During periods of soil saturation, use of these shoulder Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 39 x:vnmecrvxmwm..+...w ti.w..-.� ouaw otek areas by horses should be discouraged. Any erosion resulting from equestrian use , should be repaired immediately. Manure must be kept at a minimum for the benefit of residents adjacent to the , trails and other trail users. Areas of accumulation should be removed regularly. ' Organized Events Organized events will be allowed with written permission of the managing agency. ' Application for a permit must be made for each event and the trail system will not be closed to the public during the event. , Maintenance Priorities The primary goal will be maintaining the trail surfaces, stable trail shoulders, and , to ensure public safety. Any hazardous conditions will be dealt with immediately. ' Inspections and maintenance shall conform to the checklists and schedule established in the Trail Design and Management Handbook prepared by the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Program. , Control of non-native plant species should be the primary weed control and restoration of native plant communities. Brushing should be done at least twice per ' year to keep trail surfaces and the shoulders free from obstruction. All weeds warranting removal should be removed mechanically wherever possible, and spraying where necessary should be limited to the use of systemic products. , Spraying within 50 feet of streams, wetlands, and other natural water bodies should be limited to herbicides specifically approved for use in these areas. Bridges and Overpasses ' All bridges and overpasses should be inspected annually for structural integrity. , Painted surfaces should be maintained and repainted as needed. Fencing, Bollards, Gates, and Signs ' Regular inspections should include fences installed along the trails, bollards, or , access control gates and all directional or informational signs associated with the Brush Creek Trail Development Plan. These should be repaired, repainted, or replaced as needed. Any damage posing a threat to public safety should be dealt , with immediately. Signs should be repainted and kept in good, legible conditions, and updated to reflect any change in the rules of use. , 40 Brush Creek Trail Developmeni Plan , otek 1 Trail Management Continued Authorized Motor Vehicle Use ' Except for the designated roadway bike lanes, Brush Creek Valley trails will be closed to motorized use except for the following: ' Police officers Fire department personnel • Contractors and utilities authorized by the managing agency ' All other motorized use will be allowed only with the written permission of the managing agency and holders of leases and easements. Every effort should be made ' to keep motorized vehicles off of the trails. ' Implementation Adoption of the Brush Creek Valley Trail Development Plan is a first step in providing a network of recreational trails and alternate transportation opportunities for the Town of Snowmass Village and the Brush Creek Valley. The recommended alignments are preliminary and subject to refinement through final ' design for each trail or trail segment, as well as roadway improvements for Brush Creek Road and potential development of a fixed guideway transit system. ' Final design of the trails should be preceded by negotiation of trail easements through private property where suitable public easement or right-of-way exists. 25 ' feet is the recommended minimum width for easements in which trails up to 10 feet wide will be constructed. In some cases, easements may already exist that preclude development of a public trail, necessitating negotiation of a new easement ' agreement. It may also be necessary to undertake design at a schematic or preliminary engineering level in order to accurately locate and legally describe easements for trail construction. ' Existing driveways or utility easements that may cross the trail easements will not be affected. Their legitimate and legal uses should be continued. However, once the ' trail easements have been established, new driveway crossings or utility easements should be discouraged. ' While trail construction is underway no construction activity, side casting of excavated material, or staging areas should be allowed outside the easements. ' Access to trail easement areas by way of private driveways or across private property will require a right-of-access agreement with the property owner. Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 41 xv�ccr�ew.wr�o.+vo... n..v....re oiaaw otak 1 1 1 1 1 1 Section 5 — Development Cost ' Estimates 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Brush Creek Valley Corridor Transportation Study Trail Development Plan Planning Level Cost Estimate Single Track Bike Trail Mobilization (6%) $1,920 ' Clearing/Grubbing $9,000 Rough Grading to Natural Surface $11,500 Special Conditions Allowance (1) $15,000 Trail Signs& Gates $2,500 Landscape Repair of Construction Damage $10,000 1 Engineering & Contingencies (30%) $14,976 Cost Escalation @ 4% per Year ' 2000 Total Cost $67,500 2001 Total Cost $70,200 2002 Total Cost $73,000 ' 2003 Total Cost $76,000 2004 Total Cost $79,000 Cost Estimate Notes: 1. Slope retention or structural surfacing at selected locations Valley Trail ' Mobilization (4%) $25,100 Clearing/Grubbing $20,000 ' Rough Grading $30,000 Asphalt Multi-use Surface $400,000 Crusher Fines Soft Surface Allowance (1) $65,000 1 Footbridge, Wood Glu-lam $50,000 Special Conditions Allowance (2) $20,000 Trail Signs& Gates $2,500 ' Landscape Repair of Construction Damage (3) $40,000 ' Engineering &Contingencies (30%) $195,780 1 Brush Creek Trail Development Plan 43 ' otak N:VRPIfk IYeW VeBOwTr,M�aMeM.vk� Cost Escalation @ 4% per Year 2000 Total Cost $882,300 ' 2001 Total Cost $917,500 2002 Total Cost $954,200 2003 Total Cost $992,400 ' 2004 Total Cost $1,032,000 Cost Estimate Notes: ' 1. Riparian loop constructed initially as natural surface and upgraded to crusher fines surface if level of use warrants. 2. Special conditions allowance for trail construction and slope retention ' under new Brush Creek Road bridge and Highway 82 pedestrian underpass. 3. Includes allowance for revegetation of trail corridor at selected locations. 4. Not costs associated with bridge construction or roadway improvements ' are included. ;I uestrian Trail ' Mobilization (6%) $8,460 ' Clearing/Grubbing $15,000 Rough Grading to Natural Surface $17,000 ' Crusher Fines Surfacing with Geotextile Allowance (1) $20,000 Footbridge (Glu-lam wood) $50,000 Special Conditions Allowance (2) $22,500 ' Trail Signs&Gates $2,500 Landscape Repair of Construction Damage $14,000 Engineering & Contingencies (30%) $44,838 Cost Escalation @ 4% per Year 2000 Total Cost $202,000 2001 Total Cost $210,000 2002 Total Cost $218,500 ' 2003 Total Cost $227,250 2004 Total Cost $236,500 Cost Estimate Notes: ' 1. Crusher fines surfacing allowance for 5-10% of trail. 2. Slope retention along trail. t 1 i q+ Brush Creek Trail Development Plan ' otsk Y March 23, 2001 Mr. Hiram Champlin, SVRA Board President and SVRA Board Members C/O Chisolm Trail Broadcasting P.O. Box 952 Enid, OK 73702 Dear Hiram and Members of the Board: After having several preliminary discussions with Jim France on the proposed restructuring/refinancing of Snowmass Village Resort Association (SVRA), the Town Council felt it appropriate to make you aware of our questions, concerns and interests on this matter, in advance. Before moving forward on this restructuring proposal, the Town Council would like to gain an understanding of three fundamental issues surrounding SVRA, as follows. GOVERNING STRUCTURE First,we would like to better understand the roles, relationships, and authority distribution under the current organizational structure. Simply put, how does your system of governance work? The current Board of Governors numbers 14 voting governors each having one vote apiece for the purpose of conducting business as a member of the Board of Governors and 3 ex officio members. Below please find the paragraph Section 7.5 as outlined in the Declarations: 7.5 Board of Governors: The affairs of the Association shall be managed by a Board of Governors which may, however, by resolution, delegate any portion of its authority to an executive committee, or an executive manager or director for the Association. Members of the Board of Governors, other than those to be designated by Declarant, shall be elected by Owners in accordance with the By-Laws of the Association. Member may be elected to staggered terms, and election shall be held at the annual meeting. (Copies of these documents will be sent to you.) What are the voting rights of the members? How is the power distributed? (In response to this, Michael, let me quote the paragraph in the declarations 7.6) 7.6 Votin.q of owners: Each owner shall have one vote for each unit existing with respect to the Site of such Owner which is within the class of units entitled to a vote. Each Unit shall be within the class entitled to vote for members of the Board of Governors, other than those to be designated by Declarant, and to vote on matters relating to that Special Cost Center. In all voting, cumulative voting and voting by proxy shall be allowed and permitted.(Copies of these documents will be sent to you.) What are the executive limitations of the president and the responsibilities of the Board? The president has been appointed by the Board of Governors to manage, direct and oversee in a professional,fiscally responsible and forthright manner the operations of The Snowmass Village Resort Association (SRA). Cash management, cash supervision, revenue accumulation and expenditure approval are some of his responsibilities. There are no limitations to expenditures within the confines of the approved budget. However, controls on expenditures come in to force when revenues do not meet expectations. Some items are governed at the Committee level. For example, Executive Committee, Finance Committee, Marketing Committee, Special Events and Activities Committee and Public Policy Committee. Agreed upon projects at these committees are incorporated in to the management goals of the SRA. Similarly, Board direction based on voting, is given to the president. A perfect example is the investigation of the refinancing of the conference center. We are currently researching the availability of a top-notch full service advertising agency. There is an advertising sub-committee to review the various companies. When we start the refurbishment of the conference center, I am sure there will be a small architectural/interior design committee probably numbering d people. BUSINESS PLAN Second,we would like to see a near-to-mid term business plan in order to fully understand the future direction of the SVRA. Developing a one-to-five year plan could provide assurance to the Town that the SVRA is moving in a direction to resolve historical issues, and remain a viable business enterprise. This has been done. Mary Ann Rukowski and Gary Suiter already have copies of the plan. However, it will be included in the package, which Russ Caldwell of Kirkpatrick Pettis will present at the Town Council meeting and at The Board of Governors'meeting. In addition, it is our plan to meet with the SRA Finance Committee prior to the Town Council and Board meetings to receive their evaluation and input. In addition,what alternatives, if any, have been evaluated for a possible restructuring of SVRA? Have your essential functions been evaluated? Can any of them be outsourced? What resources are available to ensure the long-term viability of SVRA's essential functions? This question is only half answerable. Yes, these various functions have been evaluated. For example, it is realized that we have a revenue shortfall for the year 2001. We are currently three sales people, a Reservations Manager and a Special Events assistant short. Outsourcing at this stage is being investigated although we have come to find that the commissions for outsourcing are substantially greater than we charge. As a result, acceptance by the rental properties is seen as a major challenge. However, we have and are doing in-depth investigation into upgrading the hardware, software and telecommunications devices for the SRA. The refinancing will determine whether or not we may be able to improve these products. The goal would be to obtain software which not only makes it easy for the properties to download information, but also makes the reservationist's job booking function a whole lot easier. In addition, our goal is to make it web-based so that one may book online. There are also potential revenue returns from some of the companies who manage and store this software and the databases. We believe that the opportunities of taking the Central Reservations Service to greater heights is a viable option. Software, which makes everyone's life,faster and easier is out there and also includes complicated things such as package compilation, which are in fact easy to use. DEBT PICTURE Finally,we would like a better understanding of your current debt picture. Please advise us as to the nature of your debt, the term, amount, and any foreseeable requirements for additional debt. There are currently two outstanding debt structures. The first is the bonds at some 5800,000 per annum. This year, the outstanding owed amount as of today is approximately$645,000 on a debt of$3,100,000. There is also a S1,000,000 loan from Alpine bank, which is currently being repaid to the tune of some 59.000 per month or roughly 5108,000 per annum. There are no other outstanding debts. Debt restructuring: The plan in rough terms is as follows: Restructuring of bonds 53,100,000 over 15 years reducing annual debt to 5580,000 from the current 5800,000 Refurbishment Refinancing will provide 52.300,000 divided in to three parts- SI,000,000 to refurbish the Conference Center, $1,000,000 to pay off the capital improvement loan from the Alpine Bank. And$300,000 for hardware. software, telecommunications, cabling etc. Before detailing the debt restructuring cash flow process, let me say that for .'hese many years, the common assessments received in the current year but which are in fact the 1 following year's assessments, have been used to pay the bills of the current year. This must stop. Since these assessments come in during September and October, they will become a balance sheet entry until the beginning of the new fiscal year, which is November 1. My proposal to the Finance Committee will include this recommendation and that the assessments be placed as income monthly in equal proportions throughout the year. What does all of this do for us? With the change in accounting principles of the assessments, we are forecasting an operating loss prior to amortization ofsome 5600,000 evidencing a similar shortfall in cash flow for the fiscal year 2001. With the restructuring of the debt,four things will happen. 1. We will be in a roughly even cash flow situation by the end of the fiscal 2001, which is October 31 since we would not have to pay 5500,000 of our 5645,000 obligation on the bonds debt this year. We will pay one payment in October of 5145,387 50 We are attempting to make things even by cost reductions. 2. The change in assessment accounting will give us a positive addition to cash flow in the year itself of some 5500,000. 3. The debt reduction will add some 5220,000 to cash flow. 4. Our current advertising budget is some 5600,000. TVe would hope somehow to get this up to roughly 51,500,000. As an aside, we are also attempting to eliminate as much as possible, the several hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorships the SRA provides to a variety ofgroups. Our goal is REPLACE our commitments with outside commercial sponsors in order to further increase our sales, marketing and advertising budgets. Advertising would include the one media we most need and that is television. I am certain you can appreciate our need for a better understanding of these issues as part of any consideration to incur additional debt against a town asset. We would very much appreciate the above information, in anticipation of the April 16'h meeting to discuss restructuring/refinancing. If you would like to discuss any of the above items in more detail, feel free to call me at 970-923-4411 at your convenience. Sincerely, T. Michael Manchester Mayor c- Commercial Square Footage- Snowmass Village Food& Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Sllvertree Retail 4,867 15,775 20,642 O 20,642 OA of Subtotal 15.68% 3.70% 11.98% of Total 10.07% 2.37% 7.69% 01 �•• 0.00% Timbermlll Building 3,260 4,372 7,632 O 7,632 °/e of Subtotal 5.80% 2.48% 3.32% :0. ,• . Weo/Total 3.72% 1.59% 2.13% „0.00% e :..::.::...... ., . . .....:.:..._ .. , ., o Snowmass Mall 11,513 32,653 44,166 11,249 55,415 °/• of Subtotal 33.5596 8.75% 24.80% M EN Ba '. . h• of TaGI 27.02% 5.61% 15.92% ;, 8 ... ........... xm.n..8.. 5.99% Gateway Building 7,653 10,730 18,383 4,114 22,497 •/a of Subtotal 13.96% 5.81% 0,15% °/e of Total 10.97% 3.73% 5.23% 2.01% ......::.:.......:..:.:.:..1. .: .. . .. Snowmass Center 2,975 19,766 22,741 23,542 46,283 •/e of Subtotal 17.27% 2.26% 15.01% •/e of Total 22.57% 1.45% 9.64% ¢�� 11.48% ....:......................:...:..... . . . .:.. .. .... Snowmass Club 3,519 2,853 6,372 0 6,372 ./6 of Subtotal 4.84% 2.67% 2.17% We of Total 3.11% 1.72% ' 1.39% 0.00% Stonebrldge Inn 3,100 0 3,100 0 3,100 of Subtold 2.35% 2.35% 0.004b +�$i=” of Tots 1.51% 1.51% 0.00% i 00.00% k Offices at Snow am 0 0 0 10,492 10,492 °h of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% , W.of Total 5.12% 0.00% 0.00% 5.12% Offices Next to Anderson Rench 0 0 O 7,077 7,077 %of Subtotal 0.000 0.00% 0.00% %of Total 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% :::::::::,..,......:....... . ,_. . .. . B)Adams Offices 0 0 0 2,147 2,147 °h of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% g -A of Total 1.05% 0.00% 0.00% I.OS% .:...:.:....... ....... . . .... Alpine Bank Building 0 0 0 6,364 6,364 •ho/Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% We of Total 3.30% 0.00% 0.00% 3.10% Misc. 6,464 2,147 8,611 8,446 1 17,057 •/e of Subtotal 6.54% 4.91% 1.63% of Total 8.32% 3.15% 1.05% Total 43,351 88,296 1��3,gg1,�°647 73,431 205,078 °/•of Subtotal 32.93% 67.07% j . :y:�; R. . . °b of Total 21.14% 43.05% 64.19% 35.91% T.O.S.V.Sales Tex Collected In 2000 $85,486 $274,029 $359,35�g1,�5.y5. $10,133 $369,648 %of Subtotal 23.78% 76.22% c� 3Y'o __ 0/b of Total 23.13% 74.13% 97.26% 2.74%� $ Per Square Foot $1.97 $3.10 $2.73 $0.14 $1.80 Snowman village 412101 W ah Sales Tea Input 1 Planning Division Commercial Square Footage- Primary Ground Oriented Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Sllvertree Retail 0 15,775 15 775 O 15 775 N.of Subtotal 11.98% O N% 14.77% of Total 7.69% 0.00% 10.58% Fn'1 �.'•. IDDD% .....i>>..... Tlmbermlll Building 3,260 4,372 7 632 7 632 %ef Subtotal 5.80% 3.05% 4.09% of Total 3.72% 2.19% 2.93%Snowmass Mail 11 513 28 007 39 520 40 657 of Subtotal 30.02% 10.78% 26.22% k-.'.°h of Total 19.83% 7.72% 18.76% '1 Gateway Building 1,369 4,567 5 936 1 809 7 745 °/°of Subtotal 4.51% 1.28% 4.27% °h of Total 3.78% 0.92% 3.06% �` 1.21% S. FB?<.B.:F«<8;:1?:>i:.•'`.�i.� U .fig: Snowiness Center 2,97S 19,766 22,741 7 954 30 695 Wo of Subtotal 17.27% 2.78% 18.50% °hof Total 14.97% 2.00% 1336% 5.33% Snowmasu Club 3,519 0 3 519 0 3 519 %of Subtotal 2.67% 3.29% 0.00% °/oaf Total 1.72% 2.36% 0.00% 0.00% Stonebrid a Inn 3,100 0 3,100 0 3 100 of Subtotal 2.35% 2.90% 0.00% # of.Total 1.51% 2.08% 0.00% Offices at Snowmen O 0 0 10,492 10 492 of Subtotal 0.000h 0.00% 0.00% SF %9f Total 5.12% 0.00% 0.00% 7.04% Offices Next to Anderson Ranch O 0 0 7,077 7,077 %of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% °h of Total 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 4.75% :.::$m MR,� a B]Adams Offices 0 0 0 1,472 1,472 a.of subtotal 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% °h of Total 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.9996 pm m Alpine Bank Building 0 0 01 3 872 3 872 -/6 of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.009b A: %of Total 1.89% 0.0096 0.00% 2.60% ;NU MI". i 6,464 2,147 8 611 8 446 17 057 of Subtotal 6.54% 6.05% 2.01% °hof Total 8.32% 1 4.34% 1.44% 5.66% Total 32,200 74,634 106,834 42,259 149 093 mm%of Subtotal 30.14% 68.86% �. °h of Total 21.60% 50.06% 71.66 0h 2834%, T.O.S.V.Sales Tax Collected In 2000 $79,173 $243,745 $322,918 $10,133 5333,051 %of Subtotal 24.82% 75.48°.6 _ Wo of Total 23.77% 73.19% 96.96°h $ Per Square Foot $2.46 $3.27 $3.02 $0.24 $2.23 Snowmass vill", 412MI Wah Salss Tax Input 2 Planning Dhblon Commercial Square Footage- Secondary Non-Ground Oriented Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Sllvertree Retail 4,867 0 4 867 0 4 867 / of Subtotal 370% 000% y;.x &^ / of Total 237% 000% $+"C*,g t3 ,. 0.00% 3x3:..%'- 'A. %" . . .r€$..7$.:M.R`:?$. . .` .: Tlmbermlll Bulldln O 0 0 O 0 W.of Subtotal 000% 0.00% 050% V.of Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% :. 0.00% 'ts3F a$ . . :313 .`,.... .. ONE Snowmass Man O 4,646 4,646 10,112 14 758 / of Subtotal 3.53% 000% 18.72% $o sc0. a F MORE'� ^/o of Total 7.20% 000% °8.30% Z � 18.06% .n n�.' a=0§11K%",.,..,,. •• 3 .,�.O is$":F:Y€i Gateway Building 6,284 6,163 12 447 230S 14,7521 0/0 of Subtotal 9.45% 25.33% 2984% ��3r V.of Total 7.19% 11.22% 11.01% '�'x.':3; 9 4.12% <{• Snowmass Center 0 0 0 15 588 15 588 Me of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.009b W.of Total 7.60% 0.00% 0.00% 27.84% Snowmass Club 0 2,853 2 853 0 2 853 V.of Subtotal 2.17% 0.00% 11.50% :n •/.of Total 1.39% 0.00% 5.10% 1 'x $" 0.00% o ` w,..,.Stonebrld a Inn 0 0 0 O 0 W.of Subtotal 0.00% 0.0096 0.00% 9"x' O',.' •/.of Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.0095 3: 0.0044 s Offices at Snowmass 0 0 01 O 0 1/.o/Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% - ` N.of Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.0045 F . R9992=0 Offices Next to Anderson Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 V.of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% %o/Total 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9 3$�•>'.3.$a. 84a. ;.$!.a.$`.15`.1$x`..' 3 B7 Adams Offices 0 0" 0 675 675 •h of Subtotal 0.000h 0.00% 0.00% of Total 0.330lb 0.00% 0.00% 1.21% Alpine Bank Building 0 0 O 2 492 2 492 W.of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% Dim?'.;FE W.of Total 1.22% 0.00% 0.00% 4.45% misc.• 0 0 0 0 0 V.of Subtotal 0.00% 0.0096 0.00% ?v' -A of Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ' 0.00% Total 11,151 13,662 g 248113 31,172 55 985 1/o of Subtotal 49.94% 55.06% °h of Total 19.92% 24A0% 44.320A 55.68% T.O.S.V.Sales Tax Collected In 2000 6,313 $22,284 $28,597 $0 528,597 %of Subtotal 22.081/6 77.921/. MOM MOM` ` ' 9b of Total 22.08% 77.920)6 100.00% - 0.00wo $ Per Square Foot $0.57 $1.63 $1.15 $0.00 50.51 Snowmass Village 412A7 W hh Sales Tax Input 3 Planning Division Commercial Square Footage-Total Mall Area Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Silturtree Retail 4,867 15,775 20,642 0 20,642 %of Subtotal 22.73% 5.36% 17.37% %of Total - 18.910/0 4.46% 14.45% 0.00% Timbermill Building 3,260 4,372 7,632 0 7,632 %of Subtotal 8.40% 3.59% 4.81% %of Total 6.99% 2.99% 4.00% 0.00% Snowmass Mall 11,513 32,653 44,166 11,249 55,415 wM .. w... .: ...... %of Subtotal 48.63% 12.66% 35.95% %of Total 50.75% 10.54% 29.91% 10.30% Gateway Building 7,653 10,730 18,383 4,114 22,497 %of Subtotal 20.24% 8.43% 11.81% ; of Total 20.60% 7.01% 9.83% 3.77% " Snowmass Real Estate Offices 0 w 0 0 3,000 3,000 Mo of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°,6 %of Total - 2.75% 0.00% 0.00% 2.75% V " Total 27,293 63,530 90,823 18,363 109,186 °Yo of Subtotal 30.050)b 69.95% ' d�, %of Total 25.00% 58.19% 83.18% 16.82% T.O.S.V.Sales Tax Collecbed in 2000 $59,060 $185,241 $244,301 $10,133 $254,434 Of Subtotal 24.18% 75.82% %Of Total 23.21% 72.81% 96.102% 3.98% Via, $ Per Square Foot $2.16 $2.92 $2.69 $0.55 $2.33 Snow[tnass Village 4I2101VAth Sales Tax Input 4 Planning Division Commercial Square Footage- Primary Ground Oriented Mall Area Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Silvertree Retail 0 15,775 15,775 0 15,775 %of Subtotal 17.37% 0.00% 22.91% %of Total 14.45% 0.00% 21.09% 0.00% Timbermill Building 3,260 4,372 7,632 0 7,632 %of Subtotal 8.40% 4.730/. 6.35°k °h of Total 6.99% 4.36% 5.04% 0.00% Snowmass Mall 11,513 28,007 39,520 1,137 40,657 of Subtotal 43.51% 16.72% 40.67% %of Total 37.24% 15.39% 37.44% 1.52% Gateway Building 1,369 4,567 5,936 1,809 7,745 %of Subtotal 6.54% 1.99% 6.63°h %of Total 7.09% 1.83°k 6.10% 2.42% <..... .. .. .....otal............... ... ... ... . ...... _.._. Snowmass Real Estate Offices 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 c/o of Subtotal 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00°k : TEL ` ? :• .`*. ter•: %of Total 2.75% 0.00% 0.00% 4.01% Total 16,142 S2,721 68g63 5 946 74 09 %of Subtotal 23.44% 76.560A xecuw�w:cm.• %of Total 21.58% 70.47% 92.05% T.O.S.V.Sales Tax Collected in 2000 $52,747 $162,957 $215,704 $0 $215,704 %of Subtotal 24.45% 75.SSwe "i°'H` •" ` ""'"""" • '""' ' No Of Total 24.45% 75.55% 100.00% 0.00% $ Per Square Foot $3.27 $3.09 $3.13 $0.00 Snowiness Village 417l0t With Saks Tax Input 5 Planning Division Commercial Square Footage-Secondary Non-Ground Oriented Mall Area Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Silveltree Retail 4,867 0 t4,�S 0 4,867 %of Subtotal 5.36% 22.16% 0.00% %of Total 4A6% 14.16% 0.00% 0.00% ,r,`�%'M ' • •; Timbermill Building 0 0 0 0 a/o of Subtotal - 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°k „&� ... .... � .-,_. .:.a• .r�s:<•• e,xvzan„ %of Total 0.00% 0.00°k 0.00% 0.00% ixa Snowmass Mall 0 4,646 4,646 10,112 14,758 Me of Subtotal 5.12% 0.000/0 21.16% . %of Total 13.52% 0.00% 13.51% 29.42% Gateway Building 6,284 6,163 12,447 2,305 14,752 Mo of Subtotal 13.70% 28.62% 28.06% ` °m; " • x ``" %of Total 13.51% 18.280/0 17.93% 6.71% Snowmass Real Estate Offices 0 0 0 0 0 %of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 'WO.T; '..-•...;- • ." ::: . ...`:� Sm %of Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% •� g Total 11,151 10,809 21,960 12,417 34,377 %of Subtotal 50.78% 49.22% •�m �`"� m . a: %of Total 32.44% 31.44% 63.88% 36.12% T.O.S.V. Sales Tax Collected in 2000 $6,313 $22,284 $28,597 $10,133 $38,730 -R ... T. , ,.�N %of5ubtotal 22.08% 77.92% ".;,... _.. ..„_.•,y .. ., Ems %.Of Total 16.30% 57.54% 73.84% 26.16% ac $ Per Square Foot $0.57 $2.06 $1.30 $0.82 Snow pass Village 412/01WIth Soles Tax Input 6 Planning Division Commercial Square Footage-Total West Village Food& Building/Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Slivertree Retail 4,867 15,775 20,642 0 20,642 %of Subtotal 21.14% 4.98% 16.15% " `��'.''=� %of Total 17.79% 4.1916 13.60% 0.00% Tlmbem110 Building 3,260 4,372 7,632 0 7,632 %of Subtotal 7.81% 134% 4.48% � �I `" .d�G".'•a "'• %of Total 658% 281% 3.77% 0.00% ..::..:..�... ........ . •w.....:.. .. .. . .... .. .ca.. M1 Snowrross Mall 11,513 32,653 44,166 11,249 55,415 %of Subtotal 45.22% 11.79% 33.M% = �'' `. " 'r•^-. ::. •�.'x .. %ei Total 47.76% 9.92% 28.14% 9.70% m•; Gateway Building 7,653 10,730 18,383 4,114 22,497 %ef Subfotal 18.82% 7.80% 10.9916 `Ly: %al Total 19.390/o 6.60% 9.25% 3.55% Snaanr6ass Real Estata offices 0 0 O 3,000 3,000 %ef Subtotal 0.00% 0.OD% O.OD% ... .":o"„`a, ..�::•�'.:.... %of Total 2.59% o.m% 0.00% - 259% m, Stonebridge Inn 3,100 0 3,100 0 3,100 %of Subtotal 3.17% 3.17% 0.00% '=°;' •• •;' %efTotal 2.67% 267% 0.0016 0.00% ey. Butch's Lobster Bar 1,428 0 1,428 0 1,428 %of Subtotal 1.46% 1.46% 0.0096 %o/Tetal 1.73% 1.73% 0.00% 0.00% CAN Roar 2,310 0 2,310 0 2,310 of Subtotal 2.37% 237% O.W% .•."'Sy. k;.� '•:s::::£"�i.'r.L�:""` :�??:°. %of Total 1.99% 1.996 0.00% 0.00% �'xv;xcj :. Total 34,131 63,530 97,661 18,363 116,024 %of subtotal 34.95% 65.05% %of Total 29A2% 54.76% 84.17% 15.83%� •n T.0-S.V.Sales Tax Collected in 2000 $76,586 $185,241 $261,8271 $30,133 $271,960 %of subtotal 29.25% 70.75% rW„`F,.,<„:,NW5 'W4$;.„•„m�. ;w`. ....••.�; %of Total 28.16% 6&11% 96.27% 3.73% $ Per Square Foot $2.24 $2.92 $2.68 $0.55 $2.34 9lewmess Village 471701Wet Selas Tex Input 7 Kenning Division commercial Square Footage-Primary Ground Oriented West Village Food& Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Sihrertrea Retail 0 15,14� '- 75 0 15,775 %of Sabtatal 16.15% O.00% 20 . ii3cY...... '� .of Total 13.60%a O.W% 19OW%TlmbertMl Building 3,260 4, 32 0 7,632 %of Subt4Ta1 7.31% 4.31% 5of Tatal 6.58% 3.99% 5 QOD% Snounr9ass Mall 11,513 28, 20 1,137 40,657 %of SUbbbl 40.47% 1521% 37 ` M.%af Total 35.04% 14.10% 3x 1.39% ..` ::,,. Gateway Building 1,369 4,567 5,936 1,809 7,745 %uf subtotal 6.08% 1.81% 6.03% %of Total 6.68% 1.6896 5.59% 223% M.. Snownlsss Real Estate Offices 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 %of Subbbl 0.00% O.OD% O.OD% • ' .,, of Total 2.59% 0.W% D.OD% 3.67% - Stonebrldge Inn 3,100 0 3,100 0 3,100 %of Subtotal 3.17% 4.10% O.W% %af Tebl 2.67% 3.80% O.W% 0.0096 Butch's Lobster Bar 1,428 0 1,428 0 1,428 %af Sebbbl 1.46% 1.89% O.OD% ;`�"P-••`„5;,:^` 'is'i:°:ti, Y: %of Total 1.23% 1.75% 0.00% 0.00% Cafe ROBE 2,310 O 2,310 0 2,310 %of Subtotal 2.37% 3.05% 00096m:'N.: %ofTebl 1.99% 283% 0.0096 O.OD% Total 22,980 52,721 75,701 5,946 81,647 %of Subtotal 3035% 69.64% %of Teral 28.15'%. 6457% 97.77% 7.28% T.OS.V.Sale Tax Collected In 2000 $70,273 $162,957 $233,230 $10,133 $243,363 %of Subtotal 30.13% 69.87% `Y.° „u:'e,�yry:.;. „ ; •�•+ ..:.� %of Total 28.88% 66.96% 95.84% 4.16% $ Per Square Foot $3.06 $3.09 53.08 $1.70 $2.98 Snowman Y41ege 4 lMh Sales Tex Input 8 Rannlrg DWWb n Commercial Square Footage-Secondary Non-Ground Oriented West Village Food& Building/Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total SBvertr i a Retail 4,867 0 4,867 O 4,867 of subtotal 4.98% 22.19% %of Total 419% 14.19% 0.00% 0.0096 x.. ......... .. . ..._ .Timbsnill Building 0 0 0 0 0 %of S.Inotal 0.00% 0.00% O.OD% %el Total 0.00% O.W% 0.00% �.` 0.00% Snovrnlass Mall 0 4,646 4,616 10,112 ... 14,758 % Subtotal 4.76% 0.00% 21.19% %of Total 12-72% O.OD% 13.51% ... •. ..29.41% zm': .:... ..: ..... ........ .. : :. ..:.... Getewa Y Building 6,284 6,163 12,47 2,305 14,752 %.f Subtotal 12.75% 28.62% 28.0696 ` •"`" ` Of Total 12.71% 1828% 17.93% 6.71% Snoxrmasa Real Estate Offices 0 0 0 0 0 of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00% 0.0096 %of Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.0696 0.00% z Sbonebrldge Inn 0 0 0 0 0 %of subtotal 0.00% 0.00% O.W% "."" '":. ?✓y': ';', ' %of Total 0.00% 0.0096 00D% r 0.00% :`"4P` '`m`• ._.... . . .r Butch's Lobster Bar 0 0 0 0 0 %ef 9a1M1otal 0.00% o.00% o.ao% of total 0.00% 0.09% ...eo% . '.. .•.. . Cate Rolff 0 0 0 0 1 0 %of Subtotal 0.00% 0.0096 0.00% .�',. `.` '`%`.+"•':`�'`�:ri .y�, ?3;m� .` N,of Total 0.009'0 0.0096 O W% "..o. 00016 �'�` `•�Y"N.`.� Total 11,151 10,809 21,960 12,417 34,377 %of Subtotal 50.78% 49.22% �' row_ ia,Y1S, � '�.,MEMO• ate:... %of Total 3244% 31.47% 63.88% 36.12% T.OS.V.Sales Ties Collected In 2000 $6,313 $22,284 $28,597 $0 $28,597 %of Subtotal 2208% 77.92% . .,:: :,„ e<ri'>r`ci ' ``uxsx``'`""a•.:am .. %of Total 2208% 77.92% 100.00% 0.00% $ Per Square Foot $0.57 $2.06 $1.30 $0.00 $0.83 Snoam Village 4l 1Mh Sales Tu Ineel 9 Kenning OMebn Commercial Square Footage -Total Snowmass Center Area Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Snowmass Center 2,975 19,766 22,741 23,542 46,283 .w. %of Subtotal 91.37% 11.95% 79.42% �: - :�• .�. .W z`°: �°'� %of Total 81.28% 5.22% 34.71% 41.34% "A B]Adams Offices 0 0 0 2,147 2,147 %of Subtotal 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% 0/e of Total 3.77% 0.00% 0.00% 3.77% a Alpine Bank Building 0 0 0 6,364 6,364 0/e of Subtotal 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% ` "G•`SITY:mY: %of Total 11.18% 0.00% 0.00% 11.18% Conoco 0 2,147 2,147 0 2,147 %of Subtotal 8.63% 0.00% 8.63% n°y° %of Total 3.77% 0.00% 3.77% 0.00°r° M. ,.; , Total 2,975 21,913 24,888 32,053 56,941 of Subtotal 11.950/e 88.05% a :', ? 0-" " c 0/e of Total 5.220/0 38.48% 43.71% 56.29% .a�m�.;- . T.O.S.V. Sales Tax Collected in 2000 $8,900 $88,788 $97,688 $0 $97y,6w 88 a/o of Subtotal 9.110/0 90.89% a�%Of Total 9.110/0 90.89% 100.00% 0.000/e � $ Per Square Foot $2.99 $4.05 $3.93 $0.00 $1.72 Snowmoss Village 4a/07wlth Seim Tax Input 10 Planning Division Commercial Square Footage - Primary Ground Oriented Snowmass Center Area Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Snowmass Center 2,975 19,766 22,741 7,954 30,695 %of Subtotal 91.37% 11.95% 79.42% %of Total 53.91% 7.79% 51.76% 20.83% " B]Adams Offices 0 0 0 1,472 1,472 °/a of Subtotal 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% 0/6 of Total 2.59% 0.00% 0.00% 3.85% Alpine Bank Building 0 0 0 3,872 3,872 of Subtotal 0.000/0 0.00% 0.00% %of Total 6.800/6 0.00% 0.00% 10.14% Conoco 0 2,147 2,147 0 2,147 of Subtotal 8.63% 0.00% 8.63% " .`" %of Total 3.77% 0.00% 5.62% 0.00% Total 2,975 21,913 24,888 13,298 38186 of Subtotal 11.95% 8&05% c;�` %of Total 7.79% 57.38% 65.180/0 34.82% T.O.S.V. Sales Tax Collected in 2000 $8,900 $88,788 $97,688 $0 $97,688 of Subtotal 9.11% 90.89% %Of Total 9.11% 90.89% 100.00% 0.00% $ Per Square Foot $2.99 $4.05 $3.93 $0.00 Snowmass Village 4r2101with Sales Tax Input 11 Planning Division Commercial Square Footage -Secondary Non-Ground Oriented Snowmass Center Area Food & Building/ Owner Beverage Retail Subtotal Office Total Snowmass Center 0 0 0 15,588 15,588 %of Subtotal 0.00% #DN/0! 0.00% `d M—IM .. r ,�.°u'x.. . . %of Total 27.38% 0.00% 0.00% 83.11% B3 Adams Offices 0 0 0 675 675 /o of Subtotal 0.000/0 #DN/0 0.000/0 %of Total 1.190/0 0.00% 0.00% 3.60% Alpine Bank Building 0 0 0 2,492 2,492 %of subtotal 0.000/0 #DN/O! 0.000/0 0/6 of Total 4.38% 0.00% 0.00% 13.29% Conoco 0 0 0 0 0 %of Subtotal 0.000/0 #DN/0. 0.000/0 ;�. ���s•�' •:.:;�.; ',.��!�;:.wn ��: ' �Paa`°"ilx Mo of Total 0.000/0 0.00°k 0.00% .. . �.. . n .. 0.00% ;;'„•°'�i:�:.:�:•.. . Total 0 0 0 18,755 18,755 .:. %of Subtotal 0.00% 0.00^/0 .....mac„ %of Total 0.00% 0.000/0 0.00% V 100.000/0 T.O.S.V.Sales Tax Collected in 2000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 of Subtotal 0.00% 0.000/0 " '"`:”"� ,..:.� • . , %Of Total 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% $ Per Square Foot $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Snowiness Village 4WOMiith Sales Tax Input 12 Planning Division Primary and Secondary Commercial Space Silvertree Retail Location a Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary Hotel Restaurant Food No YES YES Conservatory Beverage No YES YES Leaseable Commercial Space Retail Yes YES YES Note: Caberet Room Not Included Timbermill Building Location N Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary Aspen Sporting Goods Retail Yes YES YES Cirque Beverage Yes YES YES Popcorn Wagon Food Yes YES YES ;r Note: Ski School&ASC Skier Related Services Not Included Snowmass Mall Location Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary ; Breeze Ski Rentals Retail No YES YES 11 Poggio Food Yes YES YES Mountain Dragon Food Yes YES YES Snow Beach Retail No YES YES Sunset Retail No YES YES Snowmass Resort Association Office No YES YES Snowmass Tech Office No YES YES Snowmass White Water Office No YES YES Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Office No YES YES Vacancy Office No YES YES Vacancy Office No YES YES Christy Sports Retail Yes YES YES Collections Retail Yes YES YES D-&-E Retail Yes YES YES Gene Tayior Retail Yes YES YES Bright and Shiny Things Retail - Yes YES YES Timbers Club Office Yes YES YES Shirt Off My Back Retail Yes YES YES Short Sport Retail Yes YES YES ` Snowmass Pizza Food Yes YES YES a Steins Retall Yes YES YES s Stew Pot Food Yes YES YES a ° Tower Restaurant Food Yes YES YES Snowmass Village 412101WIth Sales Tax Input 13 Planning Division Primary and Secondary Commercial Space Gateway Building Location � a N Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary ; g = ,� g Cable Car Food No YES YES ' " RDR Office Office No YES YES ;." Paul Bancroff Office No YES YES Storage Unit Retail No YES YES . Village Liquors Retail No YES YES Surefoot Retail No YES YESh Challenge Aspen Office No YES YES " SM General Store Retail No YES YES Mayfair Deli Food No YES YESi: a. LaBoheme Food No YES YES Zane's Tavern Beverage No YES YES Vacant Retail No YES YES ^r Vacant Retall No YES YES Challenge Aspen Office No YES YES RM Chocolate Retail Yes YES YES Sunglass Panache Retail Yes YES E Sidewinder Sports Retail Yes YES Incline Retail Yes YES Incline Retail Yes YES S/M Club Office Yes YES B'Jammin Food Yes YES Stephens Retail Yes YES Alpine Bank Office Yes YES Murphy's NY Deli Food Yes YES Snowmass Center Location Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary Aspen Sports Retail Yes YES Aspen Sports Retail Yes YES Wildcat Cafd Food Yes YES A&C Pro Print Retail Yes YES Sundance Drug Retail Yes YES Village Market Retail Yes YES Village Market Retail - Yes YES US Post Office Office Yes YES Vectra Bank Colorado Office Yes YES Vectra Bank Colorado Office Yes YES CRW Property Management Office Yes YES CRW Property Management Office Yes YES CRW Real Estate Office Yes YES CRW Real Estate Office Yes YES Aspen Sports Retail Yes YES JML Fam Rest/Mangla Mangla Food Yes YES Cleaner Express Retail Yes YES CRW Property Management Office Yes YES Post Office Office Yes YES Snowmass Village 4/2/01WIth Sales Tax Input 14 Planning Division Primary and Secondary Commercial Space First Choice Properties Office No YES Herschel Ross Office No nia�r YES Aspen Medical Care Office No YES Alpine Property Management Office No YES Alpine Property Management Office No S.MM YES Alpine Property Management Office No ° ` YES Alpine Property Management Office No YES Vacant Office No YES Vacant Office No YES Snowmass Sun Office No OWN11 YES Mary Welch Accounting Office No ^r YES Town of Snowmass Village Office No �` `• ° YES Town of Snowmass Village Office No Town of Snowmass Village Office No YES Town of Snowmass Village Office No YES Town of Snowmass Village Office No YES Town of Snowmass Village Office No YES Town of Snowmass Village/Mayor Office No &?E •" YES Town of Snowmass Village/Storage Office No YES Snowmass Club Location Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary ; g = A 4 Restaurant Food Yes &., Bar Beverage Yes Gift Shop Retail No Stonebridge Inn Location R Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary Restaurant Food Yes YES . .F Offices at Snowmass Location Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary Offices Office Yes Offices next to Anderson Ranch Location Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary o Small Building Office Yes Large Bullding Office Yes Snowmass Village 4/210iWIth Sales Tax Input 1s Planning Division Primary and Secondary Commercial Space B7 Adams Offices Location Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary i °g lower Office Yes YES upper Office No jfflWM-MWJM YES Alpine Bank Building Location Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary ; g mezzanine office Yes YEs main office Yes YEs lower lounge office No YES Offices(basement) office No YES Misc. Location I 1 .2 ! A ® Lease Holder/ Establishment Type Primary ft 9 SI S 1 Snowmass Real Estate Offices Office Yes YES YES Snowmass Conoco Retail Yes YES Krabloonik Food Yes Clinic Office Yes Cafe Rolf Food Yes YES Snowmass Land Co. Offices Office Yes Butch's Lobster Bar Beverage Yes YES Snowmass Village 4/2I01WIth Sales Tax Input 16 Planning Division ST/WW/YPM EXEC . ID :9709235185 MAR 26 '01 12 : 15 No .001 P .01 UL11 III] Dick Virtue 970-923-8835 Bill Burwell Silvertree Hotel 970-923-5185 970-923-8205 March 26, 2001 Cover+1 Dear Dick, I wanted you to have the letter to the editor which will become the basis of our press release, before you read it in the paper. This is going to be delivered tomorrow morning unless there is basis for a constructive meeting sooner. Bill The Silvertree Colorado's Ski-in Ski-out Hotel sM SNOWMASS 1111)AGE AT ASI'ElY HOTEL • LODGE* CONDOMINIUMS The Rodeo Company P.O. Box 5oo9 •snowmass village,(:o 81615•(970)923-3520•( call.800)525.9402 Reservations ST/WW/VPM EXEC . ID :9709235185 MAR 26 '01 12 : 15 No .001 P .02 March 26, 2001 Carolyn Sackariason Editor, Snowmass Sun Dear Carolyn, Last week we read in the Snowmass Sun and were later delivered a letter from the Town Manager that the Townn of Snowmass Village has decided to purchase the Rodeo parcel. The purchase contract that the Town sent to us is very clear that"the Town has the power of cininent domain,but the seller is willing to sell . . . in lieu of condemnation to avoid litigation and the costs and expenses associated therewith." The Snowmass Sun article also quoted Michael Manchester as saying that the Town cannot continue to wail 1br negotiations and must proceed with the purchase to ensure preservation of the Rodeo. Michael Manchester's anxiety came as a surprise to us as we have been working with Arnic Mordkin and Dick Virtue, who represented themselves as the Town Council Commitleo dealing with the Snowmass Recreational Land Company,for the past three months on Rodeo issues. Also, on Monday,March 19'", we announced to the Nil Town Council at a work session that we had proceeded with a plan to develop a conservation casement to the Town's benefit. Now that the Town has surprised us with a specific course of action for its condemnation of the land,we are unable to proceed with running the rodeo this year. It is impossible to enter into contracts for stocks,with announcers, or for any other personnel or goods, when we have no idea as to what day the Town expects to take over the property through their condemnation. We are very sorry that we cannot continue to produce the summer Snowmass Village Rodeo series, but we hope that the Town Council will hold true to their implied promise of preserving the Rodeo. Cordially yours, Bill Burwell Snowmass Recreational Land Company