Loading...
06-25-01 Town Council Packet �G � � I � ,as� of 1 4 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL 4 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA JUNE 25, 2001 CALL TO ORDER AT 2:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL DISCUSSION AGENDA—2:00 P.M. Item No. : 2:00 — 2:30 P.M. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRESENTATION -- Jack Schroeder. . . . . . . . . Pagel (Tab A) Item No. 3: 2:30— 3:15 JOINT DISCUSSION WITH PITKIN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING ANNEXATION -- Cindy Houben . . No Packet Information Item No. 4: 3:15 — 3:30 BUDGET UPDATE -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4 (Tab B) Item No. 5: 3:30 — 3:50 FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 7 (Tab C) Item No. 6: 3:50 —4:00 BREAK REGULAR AGENDA—4:00 P.M. Item No. 7: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Item No. 8: JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION SNOWMASS CHAPEL EXPANSION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 (Tab D) Item No. 9: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR 06-04-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..Page 44 (Tab E) 06-25-01 tc Page 2 Item No. 10: RESOLUTION 24, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF A PORTION OF THE ECONOMIC RESERVE FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE GENERAL FUND -- Gary Suiter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 51 (Tab F) Item No. 11 RESOLUTION NO SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION°OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE FOR THE REVIEW OF MAJOR PUD APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5-300 (B) (3) OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE -- Chris Conrad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 54 (Tab G) Item No. 12: FIRST READING - ORDINANCE NO. 13. SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ENACTMENT OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE REPAIR, REHABILITATION, DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF UNSAFE BUILDINGS -- Steve Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 61 (Tab H) Item No. 13: MANAGER'S REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 64 (Tab 1) Item No. 14: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 68 (Tab J) Item No. 15: CALENDARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 73 (Tab K) Item No. 16: 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: June 25, 2001 Agenda Item: Presentation of 2000 Financial Statements Presented By: Jack Schroeder, Clifton Gunderson, LLP General Information: The Town of Snowmass Village is required to have an independent Audit conducted every year within six months after the end of the fiscal year. Jack Schroeder is here to present the Financial Report for 2000. Included in your packet is the 2000 Financial Report and the audit letter on practices and procedures. The audit letter on practices and procedures for 2000 introduces the new reporting model to be Included In the Financial Statement for 2003. The Finance Department will be putting together this information over the next two years. Council Options: 1) Accept the 2000 Financial Statements 2) Do not accept the 2000 Financial Statements 3) Accept the 2000 Financial Statements with changes Staff 1) Accept the 2000 Financial Statements ,Recommendation: _ 1 - V6 an Principals Jack V Jack C.Schroeder Larry R. Beardsley chooneveld and Co. Inc. Richard M.Carlson Mark D.Elmshauser Certified Public Awountante Kevin F.Collins February 28, 2001 Town Council Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado " We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado for the year ended December 31„20M During the course of our audit, we noted the following matter which we feel will improve the Town's financial reporting practices and procedures. It does not include our comments on the strengths of the Town's practices and procedures which we also observed. While the matter we mention is not significant enough to change our opinion on your financial statements, it is in need of your attention. " NEW REPORTING MODEL FOR GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The Governmental Accounting Standards Board has issued its Statement No. 34 Basic Financial Statements-and Management's Discussion and Analysis-for State and Local Governments. This statement will significantly change what will be included in financial statements of local governments and how those statements will be presented. Major changes for the Town will include: • Presentation of management's discussion and analysis, which is a written analytical overview of the Town's financial activities • A government-Wide slaternen(oftpet assets(balance sheet) which will include all long-term assets ado abili4s • A government-wide statement of activities which will present the total expense of each function and the expense net of related revenue of those functions • Presentation of both original and final budget amounts in the comparison to actual amounts • Recording all infrastructure assets in the Town's government-wide balance sheet and depreciation of all fixed assets • Presentation of contributed assets as revenue in proprietary funds x - 6000 Greenwood Plaza Blvd.,#110•Greenwood Village,CO 80111-4817 303-779-4000• FAX 303-770.9276•E-mail: vscocpas®vscocpa.com Members:American Institute of Certified Public Accountants-S.B.C.and Private Practice Sections•Colorado Society of Certified Public Accountants Page Two Town Council Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado February 28, 2001 The Town will be required to implement this statement for the year ended December 31, 2003, however, earlier application is encouraged. Implementing this statement will require the accumulation of information well in advan of the imp�emeritation date..We encourage the Town tn to decide when to implement the stateen , consider what'step§"will be necessary to make the conversion,and determine who will accumulate the required data. We would be able to assist you with any phase of the conversion process. We wish to express our appreciation for the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the personnel of the Town during our audit. If we can be of any assistance to you in implementing the above recommendation, or if any clarification of the recommendation is needed, we will be pleased to discuss it with you at your convenience. Certified Public Accountants -3 - TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 25, 2001 Agenda Item: Budget Update Presented By: Gary Suiter/Marianne Rakowski Core Issues: • FTE Reductions • Operational Adjustments • Use of Economic Reserve General Information: Per Town Councils request, I have attached an explanation detailing why the Town has experienced a 3.75 reduction in FTE (full-time equivalent) positions. Staff has also provided explanations as to the affect the FTE reduction will have on their departments' service level. Likewise, an explanation is provided for any operational adjustments that will occur due to the June 4, 2001 proposed budget cuts. Further in this packet, you will find the resolution authorizing the use of the economic reserve to offset sales tax revenues as requested by the Town Council. During the month of July, we will be prepared to discuss possible revenue sources, RETT minimum reserve threshold, whether we have a "new equilibrium" and a brief review of the 2001 Budget Document. Council Options: Requesting feedback. Staff Review and provide feedback to staff. Recommendation: BUDGET UPDATE FTE Explanation and Operational Adjustments Community Development Department The .25 FTE position eliminated from the 2001 budget was for a seasonal.person to assist with summer trails landscape. This position is not currently filled. The benefit is a savings of$4,800 from the general fund. In terms of costs, Craig does not anticipate any impacts on service levels. Public Safety Department The FTE reduction for the Public Safety Department as presented in the latest budget revision represents .75 of the payroll expenses for a Police Officer I. This position has been vacant for most of the year due to a medical leave and the subsequent departure of Bob Hardy from our ranks. To help with the current budget situation,we plan to keep this position open until September and then try to fill it before the busy winter season. As a result of this action, our resources will be stretched pretty thin this summer,but we believe that we can maintain acceptable service levels for this period. If the reduction of this FTE becomes permanent, it will affect our ability to take a pro- active approach to public safety problems and our level of service will be reduced. Public Works Department Solid Waste Division: The .50 FTE reduction in Solid Waste was a result of an unfilled seasonal position during. the winter. During peak demand last winter, overtime was used to cover the vacant Solid Waste shifts. The seasonal Solid Waste position is funded for November and December 2001 and will be budgeted again for 2002. Transportation: The 1.25 FTE(2.5 winter seasonal positions)reduction occurred because of a combination of lower service demand and the inability to fill all of the seasonal driver slots. The reductions in staff resulted in a cut of 16 hours a day of bus service. Eight of the sixteen hours a day was cut from the Rodeo service, which reduced peak hour service from 7 minutes to 10 minutes. The other eight hours of service were cut from Route 1, which services Snowmass Mountain, Woodbridge and Seasons Four. The Route 1 reduction reduced service during the peak hour from 10 minutes to 20 minutes. Neither of these reductions caused service levels to drop below levels published in the Transportation Division map. BUDGET UPDATE FTE Explanation and Operational Adjustments Page 2 Road Division: The 1.0 FTE reduction was a result of an unfilled full-time position in the Division. If the position had been filled, there would have been two nighttime plow and sand positions available during the winter. The loss of one nighttime sand position meant there were not two sand trucks available in the evening on the 20 to 24 occasions there were evening snowstorms. In addition, removal of snow piles from the West Village Roads did not occur in a timely fashion. Since the Road Division is short one position this summer, it has become more difficult to perform street patching, ditch cleaning and other ROW maintenance efficiently. OPERATIONAL REDUCTIONS Road Division: Deicer The original 2001 budget was $95,750 for deicing, of that, $37,750 was for 3/8 sanding material and $58,000 was for a liquid deicer. The reduction for this line item is $40,000. Eliminating the use of a liquid deicer for snow and ice control will increase the use of sanding material,which will result in more PM 10 particles in the air. Signs Reducing our new sign budget by$7,000 means we will defer replacement of signs in West Village. r G low FAMILY AQUATIC CENTER PRELIMINARY REPORT June 22, 2001 Background There is a clear trend in Colorado of constructing family-oriented aquatic parks that include activity pools, leisure pools, lap pools and water playgrounds. They are designed to create fun and entertainment for the entire family. This report provides reconnaissance-level research regarding aquatic parks. It identifies trends and provides 'order of magnitude" numbers as to size and cost. Staff contacted eight local governments that have built and operated aquatic centers within the last ten years. We also looked at aquatic centers in comparable resorts and identified well-known architects and pool designers who specialize in these facilities. Trends There is a clear trend away from competitive swimming facilities (lap lanes and diving wells). The new trend is the creation of family-oriented activity/leisure aquatic facilities. A rule of thumb is that we should not combine both competitive and family-oriented facilities. A decision must be made up front as to whether we are constructing an Olympic style competitive facility or a family and tourist-oriented leisure park. Here is a summary of what we found. • All of the facilities we contacted were incorporated as part of a larger recreation and community center. • The centers also include a full menu of recreation and entertainment facilities such as rock climbing, ice rinks, gymnasiums, tennis courts, racquetball courts and day care. • The aquatic centers contained at least 3 separate pools and a minimum of 2 separate water filtration systems. • Zero-depth leisure pools are a must (as we saw in Whistler). • The recreation centers typically require a tax subsidy. The philosophy is to keep the prices affordable for local clientele. • Cost recovery ranged from 6.0 to 100 percent but was typically In the 70-80%range. This was for the entire recreation center and no one could break out the cost for only the aquatic center portion. • The size of the community/recreation centers ranged from 55,000 square feet to 168,000 square feet. 90 7_ Pool Report June 22, 2001 Page 2 • The size of the aquatic centers ranged from 12,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. • The cost of construction ranged from $55 per square foot to $170 per square foot. • Pools came in three categories — lap pools, leisure pools, and activity pools. • The lap pools were the least utilized of the pool types. • The facilities must provide the means to keep people warm, particularly in mountain resorts. • Outdoor facilities in the mountain resorts are summer only and close early evening, e.g. 6:30 p.m. It simply gets too cold. • All facilities were funded through either property tax or sales tax. I have located several well-known architects and contractors who specialize in these facilities. I suggest you check out the following Web sites: • www.brsarch.com • www.chah2o.com • www.watertechnoloavinc.com Other Observations Carey Shanks did some research on other resorts and resort developers. There seems to be a growing interest in the development community in providing these types of amenities as a key component of the Village Concept. A suggestion is that we wait and have a dialogue with any potential developer regarding this possibility. A draw back to this approach would be a further delay in construction of a new pool. Second, if the Town Council diverts the use of the pool bond money to another location or for something other than a community pool as conceptualized, another election will need to be held. Conclusion and Recommendation In conclusion, it appears that the concept of a family-oriented aquatic center is within reach. Staff recommends a construction cost of $350/sq/ft, not including land. Assuming a construction cost of$350 per square foot and no land cost, a 14,000 square foot facility would approach $5 million dollars. With a tourist ab 8 0 Pool Report June 22, 2001 Page 3 orientation, pricing could be structured to make if affordable for local residents. Cost recovery should be targeted in the 70 to 80 per-cent range, meaning an annual tax subsidy will probably be required. Staff recommends we contact the specialists in the industry and take it to the next level of conceptual detail. This step should be done within the next 60 days. A more detailed conceptual report will then be provided to Council and to the public. This would also allow some time to communicate further with any potential developer to determine feasibility of that approach. Finally the site issue will need to be resolved. We can continue dialogue with the Horse Ranch Homeowners Association or simply use the portion of the Rodeo Lot. If we proceed with a tourist-oriented aquatic center, the facility should be located in the commercial core. Locating a site in the commercial core could take more time. 1 r TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 25, 2001 Agenda Item: Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission: Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan Review Presented By: Chris Conrad, Planning Director for Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Core Issues: Beginning on the third page through the eighth page of the attached staff report, is a list of what staff finds are the core Issues. The purpose of the list is to alert Town Council and Planning Commission of the core issues at this time. The applicant may address some of these items in their presentation. However, a more thorough discussion and resolution of these issues could be deferred to subsequent meetings. General Info: Please find the separate handout of the applicant's proposal in booklet format for your review. The latest submittal was received June 12, 2001. Attached in the front portion of the application booklet is the applicant's response to staff comments provided for your Information. Staff prepared the attached report addressing in detail the Code criteria for Sketch Plans as it relates to the Snowmass Chapel Expansion proposal. The report is provided, as required by Code, for information and reference purposes. However, the main focus at the joint meeting should be on the core issues. Council Options: 1) Identify core Issues of importance; 2) Identify features of the proposal that are favorable; 3) Identify features of the proposal that are unfavorable; 4) Provide direction to the applicant, staff and Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the joint meeting follow the conduct of meetings per the Code as follows: 1) Summary presentation or introduction by staff of the application and the core issues; 2) Applicant's detailed presentation of the proposal; 3) Staff comments, or questions by Town Council and Planning Commission members to staff or applicant; 4) Accept comments or questions from the public; and 5) Schedule item for review before the Planning Commission beginning August 1. _ gyp . \\NT_TOSV\BLO PLANWseNvASnowmass Chapel\PCBTC Rpt.062501 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doc7 Planning Division Staff Report Project Name: Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan Part 1 : Summary of Application and Major Issues Applicant Information: Applicant: Snowmass Chapel and Community Center Owner: Snowmass Chapel and Community Center Contact: Bob Schiller, Cottle Graybeal Yaw Project Summary: • Construct a new 9,451 square feet sanctuary with a steeple cradled closely against the east side of the existing Community Center. The addition includes 7,851 square feet of enclosed space and 6,300 square feet in the lower level totaling about 14,151 square feet of floor area. - Architecturally, the sanctuary is proposed to be clad with stone veneer, glass portals, and diamond-shaped copper shingles on 15:12 stepped roof pitches; - The sanctuary is designed to accommodate 300 persons with additional overflow capacity of approximately 50 persons; - The lower level of the structure is envisioned for meeting rooms, Sunday School classes, lecture rooms, counseling spaces and choral practice space; • A 78-foot high stone and glass bell tower is proposed at the southeast corner of the sanctuary, not including a cross above the roofline. The steeple was narrowed but increased In height by 10 feet; • Increase building coverage 15,000 to 20,000 square feet (as allocated per the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart) or beyond; • Increase maximum height of structures from 40 feet to 78 feet, measured on north elevation (65 feet high measured on south elevation). These heights do not include crosses above the roof line; • Increase maximum average height of structures from 25 feet to 26 feet; • Replace the existing pedestrian bridge with a new 10-foot wide stone bridge; • Expand and rearrange fire lane access to the Community Center and around the east and south sides of the proposed sanctuary addition; • Construct a labyrinth beside the south side main entrance into the new sanctuary • Encroachment of development (steeple, paved access, and bridge) into 25 foot setback from outside edge of Brush Creek or wetland areas; • The maximum driveway and parking coverage will remain at a maximum 8,000 square feet; • Conduct land swap with Snowmass Club Associates and golf course to accommodate the proposed sanctuary between Parcels 7 and 10; and • Relocate golf course restrooms 1! \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useNvASnowmass Chapel\PCBTC Rpl.062501 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doc2 Applicant's R quest: Approval of a resolution for the PUD Sketch Plan and permission to proceed to Preliminary Plan review (applicable Code Sections 16A-5-300(b)(2)(a), 16A-5-300(c), and 16A-5-310), including a height variance, and an encroachment Into the 25-foot setback from the outside edge of Brush Creek or wetland areas. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: According to line item B66 of the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart, Snowmass Chapel and the Community Center were allocated 20,000 square feet of existing/future commercial or other space (Exhibit A). It is the intent of the chart of the Code that the square footage limitation applies to floor area. According to the PUD, however, the maximum limit is 15,000 square feet of building coverage, but it did not address maximum floor area. The existing building coverage is 10,764 square feet. The initial application submittal proposed an increase of 9,183 square feet to a maximum 19,947 square feet of building coverage. However, the revised submittal shows an increase of 9,451 square feet, which will exceed 20,000 square feet. The floor area figures, requested by staff in the Chart on page 2 of the response letter, was not completed. The floor area figures would be helpful in determining the extent of the floor area increase and perhaps used to establish a maximum floor area limit with this application. See the applicant's response to other Comprehensive Plan policies in the letter of response to staff comments (pages 5 and 6 of the letter). History or Background: The latest approval, for the addition of the Community Center, was documented in Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997. The development parameters for the site (Parcels 7 and 8) are outlined in attached Exhibit B. At the pre-sketch joint meeting between Planning Commission and Town Council, decision-makers requested information as to why certain development parameters were established. Attached are copies of the affected Town Council minutes from the discussion of past affected ordinances related to the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center (Exhibit H). Staff was unable to find any specific reasoning why the development parameters were established other than the general compliance standards such as compatibility with surrounding areas, consistency with the master plan, and not adversely impact adjacent properties. Core Issues following Staff Review of Current Proposal: Application Description. As requested by staff, the application now includes a chart (page 2 of the response letter)which shows the existing development standards, the existing conditions, and the proposed standards In table format. The only item missing is the gross floor area. However, a minimum floor area was not established with the last PUD Amendment. Staff believes it would be helpful to have the floor area Information to help evaluate the proposal and to gain a better sense of the scale of the proposal. The new sanctuary includes 7,851 square feet of enclosed space and the lower level contains 6,300 square feet for a total of 14,151 square feet of floor area within the new sanctuary addition. Staff recommends that the floor area Information be provided so a new maximum floor area or FAR could be established with this PUD Amendment. wpm Q dl� \\NT_TOSVIBLD_PLANWseAJNASnowmass Chapel\PC&TC Rpt.0 6-2501 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doc3 • Differences from the Pre-Sketch Submittal. The scale of the addition has changed since the pre-sketch meeting in February. At that time, non-dimensioned reductions of concept plans, building elevations, and scaled drawings were submitted and used to measure the proposed facility. The Sketch Plan application shows that the building footprint has been adjusted and moved closer to the Community Center to accommodate fire lanes and emergency access. The steeple has been narrowed and moved closer to the sanctuary. The proposed height of the sanctuary addition is now 78 feet measured on the north elevation; It is 68 feet high measured on the south elevation, which is the main entry side. The steeple is proposed at 78 feet in height. The addition measures about 121 feet in length by 80 feet in width. The connection to the Community Center has been widened to accommodate a functional nursery space as a result of compressing the addition closer to the existing buildings. • Buildout Analysis. The application requests increasing the maximum building coverage from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. A maximum of 20,000 square feet is allocated for existing and future buildout on the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center site per the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart. It is the intent of the chart and the Code that the 20,000 square feet implies maximum floor area. Staffs finding Is that the 20,000 square feet in this case may have implied maximum building coverage limitation because the previous PUD Amendment noted a maximum building coverage but was moot In addressing maximum floor area. The initial Sketch Plan application noted that there is 10,764 square feet of existing building coverage and that the proposed sanctuary would increase the building coverage by 9,183 square feet to a total of 19,947 square feet. Contrary to the above, and per the revised Sketch Plan submitted June 11 to address staff comments, it should be noted that there are 7,851 square feet of enclosed sanctuary space and about 1,600 square feet of roof overhang space, which totals 9,451 square feet of building coverage. If this figure were used and added to the existing building coverage of 10,764 square feet, it would increase the building coverage beyond the 20,000 square foot allocation. The General Restrictions portion of the Land Use and Development Code states, "No buildout may be permitted to exceed 100% of the maximum number of future lots/units and commercial/other space listed for that subdivision, parcel or other development, except that under unique and exceptional circumstances where it can be sufficiently demonstrated by the applicant that the resulting development will, for good cause shown, exceed the PUD review criteria standards, a reconsideration and amendment of the future buildout analysis chart allocation for that subdivision, parcel or other development may be considered. The Town Council shall then adopt an ordinance, approved by at least 3/, of the members of the Town Council present and voting, amending the future buildout analysis chart and identifying the reasons why the amendment is warranted." In addition, since this application proposes 100% buildout or beyond, the Community Purpose criteria would be triggered. • Usage. Page 7 of the text proposal, under"Proposed Amendment of Final PUD," indicates that"the proposed amendment does not seek to change the permitted uses." However, page 17 of the response letter indicates that, "the existing sanctuary space will be used primarily for lectures, presentations, and meetings. In addition, the existing sanctuary space will be available for use for wedding receptions; events, which can bring substantial economic activity to the Town, In the form of catering and entertainment, lodging for guests, etc." The applicant provided tables, w ch show the parking demand based upon • \\NT_TOSV\BLD PLAN\useNw\Snowmass Chapel\PCs pt.06-25-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doo4 anticipated usage and operation of the facilities. However, staff recommends that all the uses be identified in the existing chapel, the Community Center, and the new sanctuary to verify compliance with the zoning and parking requirements. • Parking. Staff requested that the applicant begin preparing a peak parking demand analysis for the site. The revised application includes a list of anticipated usage and operations within the existing chapel, Community Center, and the new sanctuary. Currently, the worse case parking demand appears to be the proposed sanctuary Itself, which requires 101 spaces. If the new sanctuary operates alone and/or at separate times from the other adjacent uses or uses within the facility, then the current parking lot would technically be adequate. The required minimum number of parking spaces per the existing PUD application is 105 spaces. Page 10 of the applicant's response letter states that, "Applicant has no desire to reduce the parking count below those presently provided." On the other hand, the text of the proposal under the Parking Summary (page 13) indicates that, "Approximately six existing stalls will be displaced by construction of a more attractive and convenient access walk to the new facility." Staff recommends that the minimum 105 parking spaces established with the previous PUD approval be retained with this application. Considering unavailable current parking demand figures from Anderson Ranch, the parking analysis still needs to be evaluated further. Staff also recommends that the existing parking agreement between the Chapel/Community Center, Anderson Ranch, and the Fire District be updated as a result of this proposal to Incorporate the usage, restrictions and identify the location of the 30 off-site spaces, offered by Chaffin/Light Associates, into the agreement. The purpose for the need to update the agreement is because the current agreement only addresses the existing Chapel parking area on Lot 2A (see Exhibit Ej and the use of 10 parking spaces on the Fire District site, which was offered in exchange for an access easement to the parking lot from the Chapel site. Be advised that the access easement to the Fire District site affected three parking spaces in the Chapel lot. • Height Variances and Building Elevations. The maximum height restriction for the site Is 40 feet with an average building height not to exceed 25 feet. The proposed sanctuary and steeple are 78 feet in height, measured along the worse case elevation (north side). This side of the sanctuary is proposed to incorporate a landscaped eight-foot high, off-site berm in an attempt to lessen the perceived height of the structure. The applicant also submitted a volumetric study of the roof forms to determine the average height of the structures with the new sanctuary and compliance with the height variance criteria. The criteria states that Town Council may approve a height variance "provided that at least 50% of a building, structure or group of structure's footprint within the PUD conforms to the height limits of the underlying zone district." Pursuant to the application's volumetric study and figures, the largest roof forms and areas on the sanctuary account for 29% of the total roof area on the site. The remaining 71% are supposedly below the 40-foot limit. It appears, however, that the average roof height was determined using the best-case grade scenario, that being the use of measurements along the south elevation. Staff finds that the average height of the roof, for at least the northern portion of the sanctuary, should be based upon the worse case grade using measurements along the north elevation. The applicant declined staffs request to jWXIde illustrations verifying compliance with the M %WT_TOSVkBLD_PLANWserNYASnowmass Chapelle T Rpl.062501 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doc5 variance criteria with the revised submittal of the Sketch Plan. Instead, the applicant has used the square footage figures in the roof volumetric study to make a case for compliance. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant: 1) illustrate the findings by revising and highlighting the portion of the roof(s) on the volumetric study/plan that are above 40 feet; 2) highlight or illustrate the existing and proposed building elevations that are above 40 feet; and 3) provide a roof plan overlaying the existing and finished grade contour map to demonstrate compliance with the Code for determining building height measurements. Another part of the height variance involves the average height limitation. The current average height is listed at 15.74 feet, probably using best-case grade scenario again. The maximum average height is 25 feet. Including the new sanctuary, the average height is 26 feet, using the same volumetric study. However, the average height could increase if the worse case measurements along the north elevation are utilized. Again, staff recommends that same procedure noted above be used for determining the average height of the buildings. Staffs view is that the steep 15:12 roof pitches on the sanctuary will significantly help the applicant's cause in demonstrating compliance with at least the 50% restriction. The two height variances require % approval of the Town Council identifying the reasons why the height variances are warranted. The height variances also trigger compliance with the Community Purpose criteria. Concerning the steeple and the proposed height of 78 feet, Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, requires the design of a steeple to be proportionate to the building and requires Town Council approval. In contrast from the pre-sketch materials, the steeple was narrowed and increased in height from 68 to 78 feet. • Height Limit Analysis. The application also includes a Height Limit Analysis, following the photo simulations (behind Tab E, "Photos," in the application booklet), showing where the 78 foot height limit would occur If a horizontal line were extend from the top of the roof or steeple to the nearby hillsides. Obviously, if the sanctuary were viewed below the horizontal line, the structure would appear taller than those views above the horizontal view plane. It should be noted that the elevation, which matches the 78-foot height, is 8,233 feet, according to the application. Staff believes the 8,233-foot contour is the height of the sanctuary building measured from the south elevation. The finished floor elevation of the existing chapel and Community Center is 8,167 feet and from reading the floor plans of the proposal, it appears that the new sanctuary level will incorporate the same finished floor elevation. Therefore, 8,167 feet plus the 78 foot high steeple equals 8,245 feet, and as a result, the horizontal line projection would be about 12 feet higher than the red line illustrated on the Height Limit Analysis. Even with the increase, the horizontal view plane from the maximum height of the structures is generally in the vicinity of the 300-foot adjacent owner notification area for those views looking south and west. Again, staff recommends that a roof plan be provided overlaying the existing and finished grades to verify structure heights. • Community Purposes/Bus Shelters/Pedestrian Circulation. In light of the fact that the new sanctuary may provide a necessary and vital cultural facility, creating a visible presence and an architectural landmark for the community as noted by the applicant, staff suggested that the applicant consider participating in construction of a new bus stop shelter and creating improved pedestrian circn and connectivity in and around the site. The ON am \\NT_TOSV�BLD_PLAN\useNw\Snowmass Chapel\PCd P.0625-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doc6 response letter (page 4) indicates that the applicant is not agreeable in participating in bus shelter construction and wishes to not address pedestrian circulation at this time. More specifically, staff finds that a bus stop with shelters, serving both downhill and uphill riders, are needed on Owl Creek Road generally in the area where the access road leads to the Chapel parking area. In addition, pedestrian circulation paths from these bus stops to, from and around the buildings and parking lots, including the 30-space off-site parking area, could be provided to improve pedestrian circulation. The relocation of the golf cart path should also be addressed. Staff would recommend some commitment from the applicant in addressing the need to provide bus shelters and improved pedestrian circulation. • Employee Housing. The employee housing calculations are outlined on pages 14 and 15 of the text proposal. The calculations show that 626 square feet of employee housing is required. In accordance with a letter from the Chapel dated June 7, 2001, SCCC is investigating several option for the provision of employee housing as follows: 1) deed- restricting the unit that already exists on the site, 2) purchasing a free-market unit within Pitkin County and then deed-restricting the unit, or 3) purchasing an already deed-restricted unit in another project. Staff's recommendation is that deed-restricting the current unit makes sense, depending on the size of the unit to fulfill the requirement. However, additional employee housing, beyond the minimum requirement, could be provided to fulfill the Community Purpose criteria. Concerning the second option, staff recommends that purchase of a free-market unit be made within the Town, but not outside Town limits (i.e., in Pitkin County). Concerning the last option, purchasing another deed-restricted unit in another project would not fulfill the employee housing requirement for the Chapel expansion because an existing deed- restricted unit was likely provided to meet the employee housing requirements on another project or fulfill a community need. • RiparianfWetland Setback Encroachment. The application proposes development within the 25-foot setback area measured from outer edge of Brush Creek or a wetland area. Development that would encroach includes the steeple, the emergency access drive and the new pedestrian bridge. According to the Land Use and Development Code, there is a setback reduction exception from the outer edge of the Brush Creek riparian corridor If the reduction is for the purpose of accommodating underground utilities, roads, trails, bridges and similar facilities. A determination needs to be made as to whether the steeple structure, in particular, is considered a similar facility, because the steeple would encroach seven feet into the required 25-foot setback area and also affect the width of the access drive. The applicant needs to demonstrate that, 1) it is necessary and appropriate to locate the structures outside of the setback (thought to mean inside the setback area); 2) any other applicable federal, state and local permits will be obtained; and 3)the installation will comply with all other applicable standards of the affected Code section, including submission of a plan for restoration of disturbed areas. The applicant may be able to address criteria #1 via the fact that the steeple structure is a non-habitable portion of the building. In addition, the response letter indicates that the outer edge of the creek or wetland area may be farther out and the actual location will need to be field verified at the time of the Preliminary Plan review. A Brush Creek Impact Report will be required with the Preliminary Plan submittal, which must specifically address the above-noted criteria. \WT_TOSV\BLD_PLAMuserVYASnowmass Chapel\PC&TC Rpt.06.25-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.dW • Drainage Issues. The revised application indicates that a concave landscaped area at the center of the entry courtyard could receive some or all of the increased storm drainage and slowly infiltrate into the ground. Typically, drainage in detention ponding Is released through a pipe into a storm sewer or other drainage outlet. Detention ponding may also be an issue on the downhill side of the site, north of the sanctuary, perhaps in the area where the berm is proposed. • Utility, Sewer, and Fire Protection. There Is a 15-inch main sewer line, situated beneath the proposed footprint area of the new sanctuary, which will need to be relocated. Water line looping will also be required to meet water pressure needs for fire hydrants located on the east side of the sanctuary. The applicant states that they will work with the Water and Sanitation District along and the Fire District to meet their requirements. • Photo Simulations and Compatibility. Staff requested further photo simulations in order to show the proposed sanctuary against the entire ski mountain in the background, including the mountain top ridgelines. Staff also requested photo simulations from further down valley to gain a better understanding the scale of the facility in relation to more of the surrounding area. The applicant submitted seven photograph simulations in an attempt to demonstrate compatibility. It should be noted that the photos are not precise and some of the more distant views showing the sanctuary location were estimated. • Impacts of Massing, Scale, and Character. Some general observations in favor of the development is that it appears to provides an architectural landmark for the community, it is . clad with a significant amount of stone veneer to create a sense of permanence, and it provides a cultural amenity for the community. Unfavorable comments relate to, but are not limited to, the larger scale and mass of the structure in contrast to other surrounding structures and other existing conditions, the creation of more demand upon the existing parking lot, and its impacts upon adjacent properties (e.g., the golf course, other land uses which utilize the parking lot, and potential impacts to pedestrian traffic circulation and transit usage). • Phasing. Staff commented that we would prefer to see the steeple constructed concurrent with the sanctuary building, if approved. Staff believes the steeple will provide variation in the architectural design and appearance of the facility from surrounding properties. The response letter indicates that it is the applicant's Intent to construct the steeple simultaneously with the sanctuary but would prefer flexibility in order to be fiscally responsible. If this is acceptable, staff recommends that a date certain for the completion of the steeple be stipulated following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the sanctuary. The application also proposes that the interior improvements for the lower level also be phased. The response letter on page 6 and 7 lists the uses proposed for the lower level, which would of course generate more parking demand if these uses operate at the same time as the new sanctuary. Summary of Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the core issues be addressed before the Sketch Plan application proceed to Preliminary Plan review. �n 11NT_TOSV\BLD_PLANWseNw\snowmass Chapel\PCSTC Rpt.0625-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doc6 Part 2: Detailed Case Analysis (for refer nce and informational purpos s only) Public Notification: Legal notice appeared in the Snowmass Sun on June 13, 2001 for the joint Planning Commission and Town Council meeting on June 25, 2001. Verification of certified public hearing notices to property owners within 300 feet of the site and the posting of public hearing signs were not required at this time. Community Referrals: Referral packages were mailed to the following groups and agencies for review and comment: Public Works, Transportation, Building, Police, Town Attorney, Town Manager, Engineering, Snowmass Water and Sanitation, Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, Housing, Landscaping/ Parks/Trails, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, KN Energy, Holy Cross Electric, US West, and AT&T Cable. The Fire District and the Water & Sanitation District responded with written comments (Exhibits F and G). Conformance with Code Criteria: [for reference and informational purposes only] PUD Sketch Plan Process and Review by Decision-Makers: According to Section 16A-5-300(b), Article V, Division 3, of the Land Use and Development Code, a summary of the items the Planning Commission and Town Council should consider in a conceptual manner during review of the sketch plan (depending on the size and complexity of the proposal) include the following: (1) Use. The appropriateness of the use at the location; (2) Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, including the 65% development rule and the appropriateness of the community purposes the applicant proposes to achieve, (3) Architecture and landscaping. Appropriate locations of buildings, compatibility of the mass, scale and density of the building with the character of the community and surrounding buildings, and the adequacy and appropriate locations of common or dedicated open space; (4) Natural resource and hazard areas. Identification of natural resources and hazard areas on the property along with appropriate mitigation; (5) Access and circulation. Acceptability of access and circulation including possible transportation options; (6) Parking. Compliance with off-street parking requirements and provisions, (7) Timetable. The appropriateness of the time table or phasing of the development; and (8) Community welfare. Promotes the public health, safety and welfare. Sketch.Plan Code Criteria and Analysis: Below is an outline of the review criteria (in Italics) applicable to Sketch Plan application per the Land Use and Development Code followed by the staff analysis (in regular font) of each criterion. - I &Gm N NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useNw\Snowmass Chapel\PC&TC Rpl.06-2 5-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.docg General Restrictions Criteria: General Restrictions: The following restrictions per Code Section 16A-5-300(c), generally outlined, shall apply to all PUD's: (1) Compliance with minimum land area requirements, Analysis: There is no minimum land area qualification for this type of PUD due to the uses proposed. (2) Compliance with PUD locational criteria, Analysis: A PUD may develop on any land within the Town. (3) Land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those uses that are allowed, or are allowed by special review, in the underlying zone district, Analysis: Staff recommends that all the proposed uses be identified within the buildings to verify compliance with the zoning and the parking requirements. (4) Compliance with maximum buildout limitations and criteria, including the 65% development rule; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Buildout Analysis and page 2 of the report titled Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. (5) Compliance with the variation criteria concerning dimensional limitations; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Height Variances and Building Elevations. (6) Compliance with the Community purposes criteria for PUD's, if applicable, utilizing the following purposes: a) Provision for restricted housing; b) Encouragement of sustainable development; c) Provision of open space and/or avoiding wildlife habitat, d) Encouragement of better design; and e) Development of necessary public facilities. Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Community Purposes/Bus Shelters/Pedestrian Circulation. (7) Variations of Development Standards Criteria. Any PUD that requests any of the dimension limitation variations authorized in Code Subsection (c)(5) of 16A-5- 300(c), shall also comply with the following standards: a) Height. 50% of the building or structure within the PUD shall conform to the height limits of the underlying zone district; b) Open space and minimum lot area. Variation shall not be detrimental to the character of the proposed development or to surrounding properties, shall include open space for the mutual benefit of the entire development, and the open space that is provided Is accessible and available to at least all dwelling units and lots for which the open space is intended; c) Minimum building setbacks. Adequacy of distance between buildings for necessary fire access and protection, to ensure proper ventilation, light, air, and snowmelt between buildings, and to minimize the effects of transmission of noise between units and buildings.ab R MR \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useryw\Snowmass Chapel\PCBTC Rpt.0625-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doctD Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Height Variances and Building Elevations. The open space area percentage will need to be verified during the review process. (8) Parking. Compliance with the underlying zoning's parking requirements, unless a reduction in that requirement is granted, pursuant to Code Section 16A-4-310(c). Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Parking. (9) Road standards. A PUD may be permitted to deviate from the Town's road standards to generally achieve greater efficiency of infrastructure design or to achieve greater sensitivity to environmental features, when the following minimum design principles are followed: a) Safe, efficient access to all areas of the proposed development; b) Provision for internal pathways to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site; c) Design of roadways to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units, including provision of access easements; d) Acceptable design of principal access points to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic, and to avoid direct access onto highway, arterial, or collector streets from individual lots, units or buildings when other reasonable access options are available. Analysis: Much of the roadway and driveway circulation patterns in and around the Chapel site remain the same, with the exception of creating a fire lane emergency access lane along the east and south sides of the proposed facility. The Fire District also requested fire related items that could be addressed later (Exhibit F). Also see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Community Purposes/Bus Shelters/Pedestrian Circulation. Review Standards: In addition to demonstrating its compliance with the provisions of Section 16A-5-300(c), General Restrictions, and with all other applicable provisions of this Code, a proposed PUD shall also comply with the following review standards according to the Land Use and Development Code Section 16A-5-310: (1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; Analysis: Please see the second page of the staff report under the section titled Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Core Issues section under Bulldout Analysis. (2) Preservation of community character, including consistency with the standards of Code Section 16A-4-340, Building Design Guidelines, in order to be compatible with or enhance the character of existing land uses in the area and not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section under Impacts of Massing, Scale, and Character. - aoNNW \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\useNvASnowmass Chapel\PCBTC Rpt.06-25-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doci 1 (3) Creative Approach. The PUD represents a creative approach to the development and use of the land and related physical facilities to produce better developments and to provide amenities for residents of the PUD and the general public; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section under Impacts of Massing, Scale, and Character. (4) Landscaping. Sufficiency of proposed landscape buffering both within and between the PUD and surrounding lands to minimize noise, glare, and other adverse impacts, create attractive streetscapes and parking areas, and be consistent with the character of the Town; Analysis: The development standards In the PUD don't address a minimum landscape area standard. However, the typical standard for a PUD in the Land Use and Development Code is 25%, which the application should demonstrated by submittal of a detailed landscape plan during the review of the Preliminary Plan application. Staff also requested a plan view and a cross-section of the proposed berm and landscape buffer on the north side of the new sanctuary to show how it would appear next to the proposed sanctuary structure, proposed to be pulled back as indicated on page 9 of the application text. Staff also requested information concerning the golf cart path relocation. The applicant declined to provide information concerning these requests. (5) Compliance with development evaluation criteria of Article IV of the Town's Development Code, including: a) Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; Analysis: The properties involved are not part of sensitive wildlife habitat area. b) Brush Creek Impact Area; Analysis: A Brush Creek Impact Report will be required with the Preliminary Plan review. c) Flood plain and wetland areas, Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section under Riparian/Wetland Setback Encroachment. d) Geologic hazard areas, steep slopes and ridgeline protection areas; Analysis: Not applicable. e) Streets and related improvements; Analysis: Much of the roadway, driveway and circulation patterns on the site remain the same, although a traffic study will be required with the Preliminary Plan application to determine impacts to the area. I) Public trails; Analysis: Public trails are not affected by this proposal, but staff recommends improvement of the pedestrian circulation system on the site. Please see the comments in the Core Issues section under Community Purposes/Bus Shelters/Pedestrian Circulation. ftat \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAMuserVw\Snowmass Chapel\PCBTC Rpt.062601 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.docl2 g) Water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal and utilities; Analysis: Please see the attached comments from the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District concerning the adequate servicing of the site (Exhibit G). h) Fire protection; Analysis: Please see the comments from the Fire District (Exhibit F). 1) Storm drainage; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Drainage Issues. j) Easement characteristics; Analysis: This will be addressed more in detail during the Preliminary Plan application and the review of the subdivision plats for the area, including relocation of the main sewer line, the needed water line looping, and the fire hydrant placements. k) Survey monuments; Analysis: This will be addressed more in detail during the Preliminary Plan application and the review of the subdivision plats for the area, including the implementation of the land swap areas. I) Off-street parking standards; Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Parking. m) Landscaping, grading and other design standards; Analysis: Open space areas are represented on the drawings and appear to be adequately placed. The specific landscape design for these areas, as well as the berm proposed on the north side of the sanctuary, will need to be addressed in detail with the Preliminary Plan application. n) Energy conservation; Analysis: An Energy Conservation Plan will be required with the Preliminary Plan application. c) Building design guidelines to preserve community character; Analysis: Please see the Project Summary and Core Issues section of this report for related issues concerning exterior finishes and building height. p) Restricted housing requirements; Analysis: The calculations in the application reveal that 626 square feet of employee housing is required. Please see the Core Issues section under Employee Housing for a list of options and staff recommendations. Also see the Community Purpose criteria as it relates to proposals requesting 100% buildout or beyond. q) Sign standards. Analysis: Signs can be addressed more in detail during the Preliminary or Final PUD reviews or may be reviewed separately via a Comprehensive Sign Plan. 034;L dop \\NT_TOSV\aLD_PLAN\useNv Snowmass Chapel\PC&TC Rpl.06.28-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.docl3 (6) Suitability of the development, considering its topography, environmental features and any natural or man-made hazards that affect its development potential; Analysis: See the comments in the Core Issues section under Height Variances and Building Elevations, Height Limit Analysis, and Impacts of Massing, Scale and Character. (7) Adequacy of facilities for utility services, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, roads and pedestrian circulation;location of site is reasonably convenient to police and fire protection, emergency medical services and schools; and the accommodates the efficient provision of transit facilities and services, Analysis: Please see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Utility, Sewer and Fire Protection and the attached comments from the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District concerning the adequate servicing of the site (Exhibit G). Also see the comments from the Fire District (Exhibit F). (8) Avoidance of creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services or that require duplication of premature extension of public facilities to achieve roadway continuity and alignment with existing platted streets to create connectivity, and to ensure that water and sewer lines are consistent with the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District's service plan; Analysis: Please see the attached comments from the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District concerning the servicing of the Snowmass Chapel expansion proposal (Exhibit G). Also see the comments in the Core Issues section of this report under Utility, Sewer and Fire Protection. (9) Provision that each phase of development shall contain the required streets, utilities, landscaping and other improvements that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, including trail connections, which are for the benefit of the Town, are constructed with the initial phase of the development or as early in the project as is reasonable. Analysis: Please see the comments under Phasing of the Core Issues section of this report. Attached Exhibits: [for reference and information purposes only] Exhibit A Buildout Analysis Chart identifying the affected parcel Exhibit B Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, documenting the approval of the latest PUD Amendment including the current Development Parameters Exhibit C Map of Anderson Ranch modifications from Town Council Resolution No. 45, Series of 1997, showing location of a future sanctuary Exhibit D Copy of parcel map showing general location of proposed land swap area Exhibit E Current subdivision plat of the site Exhibit F Memorandum from the Fire District received May 7, 2001 Exhibit G Memorandums from McLaughlin Water Engineers and the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District dated May 10, 2001 Exhibit H Town Council minutes of past meetings discussing the Snowmass Chapel 203 \\NT_TOSV\BLD_PLAN\user\Iw\snowmass ChapehPCBTC Rpt.06-25-01 S'mass Chapel Exp.Sketch Plan.doc14 m;m:m.m:m m:mim;m,m a:m:a o;m.m:m:m: m,m:oo;ao: :mm mmy m' :m m: oi��go';�i'S;i°N'iY'.;w1� 0. :(A -4 M:H:S:: ��,N:�:CD;0 CO':-4 01 L CA':��s:�; ExhlbltA @ E ry@ ��pp mm 1q �p qq@Q@@@@ ryR tRp @@ qq EE FF ff £ ff EE EE ff EE EE EE EE FF (( i E 7[ T ; ; y w ; m G ; m m T m r m y ; m mm m ; :0 M 10 0 it r.1. fll pp 'n +� C coo A m m A A y n y A A A z ; w p n A A X M y A z A p R1 pp yC 11��11 p y O C O y O D I D O O 11�12121(4 co m A +p O + + O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + p 0 0 0 0 0 0 4f O N + O p Cp O {{�� ��pp Iy {{3� ��pQ N 11101111,010111 O O OND ID O W p 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 N 0 pp {Aji 0 0 N r v' i0 GWPO zg O + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ± 0 0 0 0 0 0 +p O fJ O N + O O Oi + O O� ONC O + V p p O l O p A 0 0 0 0 N9 � N 0 0 ♦ N A N O OD W N W p O A N V O O O Q O O O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 O }5 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q a 88 bbb 1111100000 0 O O Q O 0 0 O 010 0 O + 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O Exhibit B SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 08 SERIES OF 1997 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO PARCELS 7 AND 8. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1980, previously approved the Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)Plan for the Snowmass Club PUD; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1982, amended Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1980, and established certain development standards and permitted land uses for Parcels 7 and 8 in conjunction with the approval of construction of the.Snowmass Chapel and attendant parking facilities; and WHEREAS, within Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1982, findings were made which found the amendments to the Snowmass Club PUD, (allowing for the Snowmass Chapel development and proposed future phased development of the site) to be consistent with the. Town of Snowmass Village Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center, Inc.(the "Applicant'), has submitted an application to amend the Snowmass Club PUD with a building addition of approximately 4,700 square feet within Lot 1, Snowmass Interfaith Chapel Subdivision as well as additional and reconfigured parking facilities and associated landscaping on Lot 2A, Snowmass Interfaith Chapel Subdivision Replat"A"; and WHEREAS, Section 16-152(c)(3) of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the"Code) provides for Town Council review of a PUD modification; and WHEREAS, Town Council has waived the required application and processing fees; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heard a presentation by the applicant and the recommendations of the Town Staf, and WHEREAS, Town Council determined that the most appropriate parties for notification were those within 300 feet of the subject property in the application; and WHEREAS, in accordance with posted, mailed, and published notices, a public hearing was held before the Snowmass Village Town Council on June 16, 1997 to receive public comment concerning this application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Exhibit B TC 97-08 Page 2 Section One: Findings 1. The applicant has submitted information and designs to permit the Town review of the proposed amendment as required by the Code. 2. All public notification requirements, as specified within Section 16-152 of the Code, have been satisfied. 3. The amendment is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Snowmass Club PUD and does not adversely affect adjacent properties. 4. The proposed conceptual architecture and design of the project is compatible with the surrounding properties. 5. The Town Council has reviewed the application and determined that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Snowmass Village Master Plan. 6. The amendment has been found to be consistent with the applicable review standards set forth in Section 16-152(d) of the Code and should be granted approval, subject to the recommendations and conditions contained within this ordinance. 7. The Land Use and Development Parameters set forth within Exhibit A are appropriate and consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Snowmass Club PUD. 8. Chapter 17, Article II, of the Municipal Code establishes the restricted housing requirements for new development. The Town Council finds that there is no job generation rate for this development and therefore no impact is created. Section Two: Approval of Amended Land Use and Development Parameters The Town Council hereby approves an amendment to the Final Planned Unit Development Plan for the Snowmass Club Subdivision, as described within Exhibit A, subject to the special conditions stated in Section Four and the conditions stated in Section Five below. Exhibit B TC 97-08 Page 3 Section Three: Architectural and Design Approval The Town Council hereby approves the architecture and site design for those additions and alterations shown in the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center application, which application is on file with the Town Planner, and is incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the special conditions stated in Section Four and the conditions stated in Section Five below. Section Four: Special Conditions 1. The Applicant shall.submit a letter of understanding between the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center and the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District agreeing to jointly use the existing trash facilities prior to building l ' permit issuance. 2. The Applicant shall demonstrate, prior to building permit issuance and to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney, that construction may occur within those areas identified as containing easements. Section Five: Conditions 1. The Applicant shall deliver to the Building and Planning Department a Land — Use Plan Amendment in a form suitable for recording in the Office of the Pitldn - County Clerk and Recorder, that is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this ordinance. Said document shall be submitted no later than September 30, 1997. Failure to comply with the foregoing terms and conditions shall cause the terms and conditions of this ordinance granting. approval, to be suspended until compliance with this condition has occurred. 2. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for any proposed exterior fighting for ` the building or parking area prior to building permit issuance. 3. All requirements of the Town, to meet the needs of the Snowmass-Wildcat '_. Fire Protection District, related but not limited to emergency access, hydrant location, and fire suppression systems, shall be satisfied by the Applicant. 4._ All necessary easements, as• required by the Town, shall be provided to accommodate the location and relocation of the utilities, parks and trails located within the subject property. All easements shall be provided no later than September 30, 1997. Failure to comply with the foregoing terms and 0&77 Exhibit B TC 91-08 Page 4 conditions shall cause the terms and conditions of this•ordinance granting approval, to be suspended until compliance with this condition has occurred INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on this 16th day of June, 1997, with a motion made by Council member Burwell and a second by Council member Grenda, by a vote of 3 in favor and 0 opposed. Council member Boineau abstained and Council member Manchester was absent. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED on second reading by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 7th day of July, 1997, with a motion made by Council member Burwell and a second by Council member Manchester, by a vote of 3 in favor to 1 opposed. Council member Boineau abstained. Council member Hatfield opposed. SECOND READING RECONSIDERED, upon a motion of Council member Hatfield and upon the second of Council member , and by a vote of _in favor and _against. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED as amended on reconsidered second reading by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on this 4th day of August, 1997, with a motion made by Council member Hatfield and upon the second of Council member and by a vote of _in favor and_opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL Ted Grenda,Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk do Exhibit B TC 97-08 Page 5 Exhibit A LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS for Portions of Parcels 7 and 8 of the Final Planned Unit Development for the Snowmass Club Subdivision Lot 1. Snowmass Interfaith Chapel Subdivision, aportion of Parcel 7 Permitted Uses: Chapel Public Meeting Rooms Counsel Rooms(4) Daycare Study Kitchen Administrative Offices(3) Residential Unit(Accessory) Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: One unit not to exceed 1,200 sq. ft. Maximum Building Ground Coverage: 15,000 sq. ft. Maximum Parking and Driveway Coverage: 8,000 sq. ft. Maximum Building Height: 40 feet above existing natural grade except at the steeple, which shall be designed in proportion to the building and shall be subject to approval of the Town Council. Average Building Height: 25 feet Lot 2A. Snowmass Interfaith Chapel Subdivision Replat "A". a portion of Parcel 8 Permitted Uses: Parking Trails Minimum Number of Parking Spaces: 105 Maximum Number of Parking Spaces: 120 Non-separability: Ownership of Lot 2A shall not be transferred independently of Lot 1 Exhibit C MI 1; `�......, ` ` ` `�\, ' �`` i , � = ,SCE � y' .(,• :�\ •.4 ; �f 1 ` X11. \` I . r L'•�i i'.Tr�r'Ti.�'r '� r • . j. ill •���-. -N°��:.�.. ..�.,. U30" r I0 4 0 ' a+ _ • E LOT! �• E 4x•11 '! . W 426.9$' GREEK R0. . u 1 t4_•w4rxlxs'E 1/ / ��iuwY'sD' rss�_®__�_'r � � TsNT 42 �. . 6. r AIP G• 24 R•ISS2 135 T • S a C .122 t2Z54' � .' mL b irr, CB •N2r2d4B•E �® CMW-� �•i• t nC To TNS asCap r s¢a Taa,aasM SEA= S FOM SPACE D Cv'YiD0::1fLL'�JS 9 PARCEL t %J0 AC. a, y Y y r �✓ 'OO° PARCEL" a 1 J.0 AG E W SNOWMASS WLDCAT FOE _ BT PROTECTM O s d _ DSTRICT R r STATON FYaE ® PARCEL 6 W BOOK 258 54S • E92 A< L• T.B4D9 ---+'ulE CREEK Q c•e39S R0. OWL GREEK ws�das'h asavlouas o 1 Irnano yQ so=Me Sep�•Sa'I •�y.41 a1.1Q� .O. T NM a.•2yOS'1!• p•24.57'SS• 4•q'07'Q• R •4a10 R •0.168 R:59L R•216.7{ R•220.47• 1 L•290.71 l •94. . L •405W T •&9•r 7 •44.26 T 8149L •4Z9s; 7•2°25, C•2sT T • .x6.92 c •xL40 •S7S•51 C •9370 • •Nat CB •wB1•SS3rw CB• N7 Cs g' Ce Exhibit E P� r, // /, ►`.►~ •cam• '`• ', G0t'F 5E COU Ito %� � a► 'tea i �� ✓\ / /+ay. I \/ � V • ►"''fs fir+' iii ♦ I W 400 / ,.,a d 1� I ►rerioie nnriw mroo6e. :J! .� / LOl t •, it 1,671 \ Y r 1 Z _ •uar�rre 9 Y �04-:►°: It +n - ••-••- - .../// P.rp•" a 166.00' 7.0.21 M• s- 6 6 •. R y.J• e�,..��� 80.61 '0000"0 00 p FOa 46i6 6.N•M67 M.N� Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Exhibit F P.O. Box 6436 Snowmoss Village, Colorado 81615 970-923-2212 REcE4;WID Y 9 2001 To: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner "'r el�yage From: John T. Mele, Fire Marshal , Subject: Snowmass Chapel and Community Center expansion The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District has been working with Otak/Rock Creek Studio concerning emergency access issues for the Chapel expansion. We believe that Otak/Rock Creek Studio has given us other assurances concerning fire and life safety for this project. I understand these assurances to be the following: 1 All existing or new Fire hydrants and Fire Department Connections for the Chapel expansion will need to be located or relocated in accordance with U.F.C. 10.403 and U.F.C.10.501 as adopted by the Town of Snowmass Village. The Fire District will indicate the placement and need for fire appliances. Fire hydrants currently indicated by the planner may not reflect the Fire District's final approved locations. 2. As previously agreed to, by the Otak/Rock Creek Studio planners, the proposed Labyrinth will conform to U.F.C. 10.204 surface requirements so as to provide an unobstructed all weather driving capability for fire department vehicle access. 3. Automatic fire suppression will be required for the proposed Snowmass Chapel expansion. 4. All Fire Lanes will have signage to indicate that no parking will be allowed. We would appreciate the Snowmass Chapel and Community Centers written acknowledgement and agreement to the above life safety issues. As always, we look forward to our continued working relationship with the Chapel on their proposed expansion. Exhibit G McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. �.:i �yw t?N*<ri/.O9i.PWgfN!NMf771,[�R:�:,afm'IRu�w:e'.P.Yrn:.ln nww�r.ana:FNN':.✓r:::vq.?.:n�•:`�M.i i.�.. . ..........i i'.y :. / e+%•-Avt. , Aspon, Co. 81611 FAX TRANSMITTAL: Phone: (303)925-1920 FAX 925-1914 FAX NO. q ,? - OATC: ZZO COMPANY: S/I.FawI�-/tii . pp�/+wN/� 6 C•��„_ �CCiii[. FROM: MME PRO. — Number of pages (total including this sheet) 3 if you don't receive all pages, please contact at our office. Phone (303)025-1920. Thank, You. Comments: C1/17!S - _ �Gn it-c✓75 _cam/ c l r X_�i _�_ ----- /fls G/l r / cis? C Exhibit G M ► iJ • McLAVGblI..1R1 WATER ENGINEERS, ltd. 111 P AAnC ASPLN,COLORADO Bun 1 970-925-1720 9h1-925-1 041ex ma�..prnrr�ivL�wv MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Garcia- SWSD District Manager From: G. Dean Derosicr, P. E. Date: May 10, 2001 RE: Snowmass Chapel - Conceptual Review Comment: G5-150.80 The District System does have the capacity and ability to serve this project for both water and wastewater. This system will be required to be looped to provide adequate fire protection for the new facilities. The.District' existing 15" VCP main collection line will need to be relocated. WATER: The existing 8" DIP water line is located behind the existing building and dead-ends at a fire hydrant located in the middle of the proposed new structure. The existing line will need to be relocated behind the existing and proposed structure. The existing fire hydrant will need to be relocated to the front of the new Chapel. The District will require that this line be extended across Brush Creek and connect to an existing 8" line in Anderson Ranch which dead-ends near the main parking lot. This will provide a looped water system to provide better and more reliable water ser6ce and increase fire protection to both the Anderson Ranch and Chapel. The existing line as installed will not be able to provide adequate fire flows to aervice the new structure. Interconnection of these two lines was included in the original layout of this area. Additiunal casements and/or property will need to be obtained to reroute the water line behind the new building as it will need to cross the property behind the Chapel. New easements will be needed to extend the line to the new fire hydrant location and to the connection with the existing line from Anderson Ranch. The new water line will cross Brush Creek and approvals from the Corps of Engineers for a Nationwide 404 Permit will be required. The Cbapel should contact the Fire Department to obtain the exact fire hydrant locations needed to service the project. All main line water line extensions will be 8" minimum Cl 52 Ductile Iron Pipelines. Service line sizing to the facility is dependent on flows needed. Existing lines may need to be relocated and resized to provide adequate service. avo Exhibit G SF W F.R: The new building is proposed to be located directly overtop of the District's existing IS" VCP main line. This existing 15" VCP line will need to be relocated as part of the project. The relocation will be to the East of the proposed structure. This is the main sewer line from the Village area, Woad Run, Ridge Run, Divido, Center, Etc, and service must be continuously mtimained. New manholes will be required as well as services from the Chapel. The main sewer line relocation will be 15" SDR 26 PVC with standard manholes and the 4" services are tub .-900 CI 150 PVC. G. Rr p er !P CC: Robert Gat•wa - SWSD MWE - Denver Exhibit H 08-04-97.TC Page 3 Item No. 6: 2ND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 12. SERIES OF 1997 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOUNTAIN VIEW EMPLOYEE HOUSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Manchester made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, seconded by Hatfield. Joyce Ohlson explained changes to the Ordinance since First Reading which included; a Condition which states that the outside color and materials will be reviewed by the the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a Building Permit, any new bus stops be covered and lighted, all necessary easements be provided by the Town, and that a reference be made to language in Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1987 which addresses unit density on certain parcels. After further discussion, a role call vote was taken and the motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. illillillillillllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Item No. 7: RECONSIDERATION OF 2ND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 8. SERIES OF 1997 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO PARCELS 7 AND 8 Council member Boineau stepped down from the Council table. Hatfield made a motion to reconsider Second Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1997. Burwell seconded the motion. Ohlson explained that at their meeting on July 21, 1997, Council agreed to reconsider Second Reading of this Ordinance. The applicant's expectation was that the Ordinance be an amendment to the Snowmass Club PUD,not a stand-alone PUD. The motion to reconsider was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council member Boineau abstained. Burwell made a motion to approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1997, seconded by Manchester. Hatfield stated that he is opposed to lack of consistency with the Master Plan's scenic quality goa s an ac o a or a e ousing mitigation. A Role Call vote was taken anrecnsi-der�a'wn3fSecon ea mg o the Ordinance was approved by a vote of 3 in favor to 1 opposed. Mayor Grenda, Council members Manchester and Burwell voted in favor. Council member Hatfield opposed. Council member Boineau abstained. Item No. : 1 ST READING - ORDINANCE NO. 14. SERIES OF 1997 AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING AND REAFFIRMING THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TOWN PURSUANT TO CERTAIN LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES Exhibit H 07-07-97.TC Page 2 Item No. 4: GUEST-MICHAEL ADAMS REQUEST FOR FUNDING-COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES ENTRANCE IMPROVEMENTS Michael Adams stated that Country Club Estates was impacted by the realignment of Owl Creek Road due to the Burnt Mountain development. He said that the Aspen Ski Company and the Snowmass Land Company discussed contribution to upgrade the private entrance of Fairway Drive during the Burnt Mountain review. He explained that since the road realignment the entrance no longer feels like a residential street, tourists attempt to use Fairway Drive as a short cut to the Snowmass Club which increases traffic, traffic speed on Fairway Drive has increased, and the Two Creeks Day Skiers use this street for parking to avoid parking fees. Adams is requesting that $21,000 be allocated from the Burnt Mountain Settlement Agreement mitigation funds for construction of a stone entryway design at the entrance to Fairway Drive. The Snowmass Homeowner's Association passed a Resolution in support of this request. Suiter explained that mitigation monies outlined in the Burnt Mountain Agreement are earmarked for certain impacts that were created by the development. One fund not earmarked was a donation of $250,000 for public improvements. Grenda suggested the Town donate a portion of the costs. Bill Burwell read the Homeowner's Resolution and encouraged the Town to support this request as a community safety issue in a residential area. Marianne Rakowski stated that the funds outlined in the Agreement are allocated for transportation purposes and for public improvements, and cannot be used for private funding. She stated that RETT funds could be used if the property is located in a Town right-of-way. Joyce Ohlson stated that a variance may be required from the Town for this project. Council requested that the homeowners contact Joyce Ohlson in the Planning Department to determine the proper procedure to process the application. Council directed Art Smythe to increase traffic patrol on this road. Item No. 5: 2ND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 08, SERIES OF 1997 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE COMBINED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SNOWMASS INTERFAITH CHAPEL SUBDIVISION. Burwell made a motion to approve second reading of the Ordinance, seconded by Manchester. Lee Alice Johnson submitted revised copies of the Ordinance which included changes since first reading. Johnson explained that since there is no job generation rate, there will not be any impact to emp oyee housing. Manchester requested a eET5—n our,T7, s ou rea , " e app scant s a submit a Tetter of understanding between the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center and the Fire District, agreeing to jointly use the existing trash storage with an increased level of service." Jim Benson i3ai Exhibit H explained the inappropriate uses of the current space in relation to the need for additional space. 07-07-97.TC Page 3 Council requested deletion of Condition No. 5, stating that this issue was addressed during first reading, and approved that Town fees be waived. After further discussion, the motion was approved by a vote of 3 in favor to 1 opposed. Boineau abstained. Hatfield opposed. Grenda, Burwell and Manchester voted in favor. Hatfield stated that he feels there are employee housing issues and that the development does not comply with the Town's Master Plan relative to scenic quality issues. Item No. 6: MANAGER'S REPORT RETT& Sales Tax Revenues Report Suiter explained that 1997 Town revenues may have Tabor Amendment implications. Staff will update Council in August to determine if a 1997 Special Election ballot question is necessary. Comprehensive Plan Suiter explained that this item was placed on today's Agenda as a Council update, and was not intended to bypass the Oversight Committee. Mayor Grenda stated that discussion of this item will be removed from the Council Retreat Agenda since the Oversight Committee would not be able to meet before the Council Retreat. Town Council and Staff Retreat Suiter asked that Council submit any expectations or discussion items to him for the Retreat Agenda. He stated that a Council dinner will follow Monday's Retreat session on July 14, 1997, 6:30 p.m. at the Snowmass Club. The Draw Parcel Suiter suggested that staff move forward with a Feasibility Analysis Study. Grenda stated that Reid Haughey, of A.P.E. (Aspen Pitking Employee) Housing, has asked to be involved in the Draw Parcel discussions. Council members Manchester and Boineau represent Council at the meetings. Vacation Suiter informed Council he will be taking two weeks vacation beginning on July 21. Suiter will be in Town the first week and will attend the July 21 Council Meeting. He will be out of Town during the week of July 28. Pool Committee Suiter stated that he will arrange for a Pool Committee meeting to be held after the Council Retreat. 8-31 • Exhibit H SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 06-16-97 Mayor Grenda called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, June 16, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Ted Grenda, Judi Burwell, Jack Hatfield, Bill Boineau COUNCIL ABSENT: Michael Manchester STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Lee Alice Johnson, Assistant Town Planner; John McCarty, Landscape Architect; Hunt Walker, Director of Public Works; Brian Olson, Sergeant, Police Department; Rhonda B. Coxon,Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Mike McLarry, Jim Hooker, Jeff Tippett, Bob Fridstein, John Wilkinson, Jim Pokrandt, Madeline Osberger,Diedre Boineau, Brent Gardner-Smith, B.J. Adams, Gary Ross, Rick Griffin Melissa Schmidt,Ben Dodge and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. Item No. 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 05-27-97 Boineau made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 27, 1997, seconded by Burwell. Hatfield asked that under the Manager's Report, within the Snowmelt Road paragraph the first sentence be changed to read, "Suiter stated that repairs have been made to damages on the new concrete on Snowmelt Road caused earlier when two vehicles were driven around the barricades and onto the freshly poured concrete, The drivers were issued tickets.......". There being no further discussion, the Minutes were approved as amended by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council member Manchester was absent. Item No. 3: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no Public Non-Agenda items. Item No. 4: PUBLIC HEARING-ORDINANCE NO. 08. SERIES OF 1997 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ORDINANCE NO. O8, SERIES OF 1997, APPROVING THE COMBINED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT _40 Exhibit H DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SNOWMASS INTERFAITH CHAPEL SUBDIVISION 06-16-97.TC Page 2 Mayor Grenda opened the Public Hearing for public comment at 4:03 p.m. Suiter noted for the record that notification and submission requirements have met in accordance with the Municipal Code. There being no public comment, the Public Hearing was closed at 4:04 p.m. Item No. 5: 1 ST READING -ORDINANCE NO: 08, SERIES OF 1997 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ORDINANCE NO. 08, SERIES OF 1997, APPROVING THE COMBINED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SNOWMASS INTERFAITH CHAPEL SUBDIVISION Burwell made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, seconded by Grenda. Johnson noted that the PUD was approved by Ordinance in 1982, and this proposal is within the parameters that were set forth in that Ordinance. Johnson explained three issues need to be discussed today, the Parking Agreement, which needs to be signed by Anderson Ranch, the Fire Department, and the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center; emergency access for the Fire Department, and the utility issue. Hatfield questioned the necessity for the size of the building. Burwell explained the size was determined by need and usage planned for the building. Hatfield requested that staff determine if this project will generate housing. The location o e new grave red, overflow parking lot for the Ftre epartment. ere being no further discussion the Ordinance was approved by a vote of 3 in favor to 0 opposed. Council member Boineau abstained and Council member Manchester was absent. Hatfield voted in favor reluctantly. Item No. 6: RESOLUTION NO. 26, SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION PERMITTING A COMBINED CONCEPTUAL&FINAL REVIEW OF A MINOR DEVELOPMENT & WAIVING CERTAIN SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRACIES CABIN PARCEL Boineau made a motion to approve Resolution No. 26, Series of 1997, seconded by Burwell. Johnson noted that this is a Resolution reviewing the submission process. The • submission will be further reviewed by Council in July. The Resolution was approved by , a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council member Manchester was absent. kl -- �� 97 Exhibit H [because em No. 2: Resolution No. 11. Series of 1997 Discussion and action regarding Resolution No. 11, Series of 1997 recommending conceptual and final approval of a minor PUD modification to the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center. hlson asked the Commission if they had all the packet information as it was distributed in two rts and she apologized for it being distributed that way. hlson stated that the Council made a determination on May 27th that this is a minor application the original Snowmass Chapel and Community Center PUD included this component. his is a modification to the original PUD with some discussion about architecture of style and mpatibility. The square footage was recognized in the original PUD and does not go beyond at. Benson said this is really Phase 2 of this project. Charlie Eckert, Architect for the project, viewed the request for the applicant. Eckert stated that the property is owned by the Snowmass Chapel and they are adding a two story 4400 sq ft community center, all handicapped accessible with an elevator upstairs. A breezeway will be connecting the two buildings. Eckert said the architecture compatibility fits nicely with the existing Chapel, and it will be done in the same siding, roofing, and same color. Also included in this project slight extension and resurfacing of the parking lot which is shared with Anderson Ranch, the Fire Department and the Chapel. It was pointed out that the Chapel owns the parking lot. Eckert reviewed the proposed parking area changes. Ohlson said the Fire Department will be submitting plans in the fall and their plans will dove tail well with the Chapel plan. There was also discussion regarding the dumpster locations. Benson said that the parking lot use between the different entities is reviewed annually. Benson said that no overnight parking or recreational vehicles are allowed to use the lot. There was discussion as to the uses at the new community center. Benson reviewed the landscaping. Pease' suggested additional trees for the area. Huggins suggested putting together a "Jna" landscape plan. Umbreit suggested having a rendering done so that people could have a l concept of what could be done, and felt that it might help get people more excited about g involved in donations. Brady made a motion to approve Resolution No. 11, Series o97. Ohlson suggested two additional conditions. Number 5 would be that the final ordind final land use Plan should specify that the parking lot is a required element of the Chapel lopment and shall not be conveyed or developed separately, and Number 6 that the applicpply revised plans showing the relocation of the fire hydrant, if required by the Fire Depat and that all necessary easements be provided to accommodate the relocation of the sanitlines. Pease wanted to add to the Recommendations that a landscaping plan outlining the ing schedule prior to first reading should be provided. Brady amended his motion to approe conceptual and final approval subject to the addition of the two conditions and landscaping recommendation above. Umbreit seconded. All in favor by a vote of 4 to 0. Be abstained. I Non-Agenda Item Item 1. Complaints. �r (o/LI!e%e- 7.G "4 Item No. 2 : Second Reading of Ordinances Exhibit H a. Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1982 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 1980 , AND APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO THE GROSS PARCEL PLAT FOR THE SNOWMASS CLUB SUBDIVISION APPROVED PURSUANT TO OR- DINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 1980. This Ordinance provides for an amendment to allow a chapel as a permitted use on Parcel 7 and parking require- ments on Parcels 7 and 8 of the Snowmass Club Subdivision P.U.D. Councilmember Tippett moved to adopt Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1982, on second reading. Councilmember Rogers seconded. Rich Linquanti , attorney for the Snowmass Company, ink quirec3 as to w et er or n ase Com an might expect o receive employee housing credit lor the one Unit to -be allowed on arce , prebLullud to be a care aker/ custodian unit or the c a e de en ing u on the res ri ions ace on sai unit in the final pat. Following discussion , Town anner Et ridge was irec ed to follow- up on this issue as part of the final plat process. There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken: Desmond, aye; Francis , aye; Johnson, aye; Kevan , aye; Rogers , aye; Tippett, aye; Wall, nay. The motion to adopt Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1982 , on second reading was carried by a vote of 6-in favor, 1 opposed. Councilmember Wall voted in opposition.. b. Ordin nce No. Series of 1982 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS OF THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE TOWN FOR RESTRICTED (PMH) HOUSING. Councilmember Tippett moved to adopt Ordinance No. 12 , Series of 1982, on second reading. Councilmember Rogers seconded. Councilmember Wall pointed out a correction in the Council vote on first reading. Councilmember Johnson was absent and his absence should be reflected . in the Ordinance copy. There being no further discussion , a roll call vote was taken: Desmond, aye; Francis, aye; Johnson, nay; Kevan, aye; Rogers, aye; Tippett, aye; Wall, aye. The motion to adopt Ordinance No. 12 , Series of 1982 , on second read- ing, as corrected, was carried by a vote of 6 in favor, 1 opposed. Councilmember Johnson voted in opposition. Item No. 3: Resolutions a. Resolution No 4Boo 4190M Series of 1982 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 4, 2001 Mayor T. Michael Manchester called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday, June 4, 2001 at 3:10 p.m. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Douglas Mercatoris, Robert Purvis, Richard Virtue COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Arnold Mordkin arrived at 3:45 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Steve Connor, Town Attorney; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; Craig Thompson, Community Development Director; Marianne Rakowski, Finance Director; Brian Olson, Police Sergeant; David Joyner, Shop Foreman; David Ogren, Solid Waste Foreman; John Baker, Road Maintenance Specialist; Greg Smith, Road Supervisor; Joe Coffey, Housing Manager; Robert Voigt, Senior Planner; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; David Peckler, Transportation Manager; Trudi Worline, Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Brent Gardner-Smith, Madeleine Osberger, Bernie Grauer, Victor Gerdin, Dee Bolina, John Rex and other members of the public interested in today's Agenda items. DISCUSSION AGENDA Item No. 2: 3:00 — 3:30 P.M. 2001 BUDGET STATUS The Town Manager provided an overview of the status of the 2001 Budget, explaining that revenues are lower than expected, projected to be down 5.84 percent, for the 2001 fiscal year. Expenditures have been by 4.09 percent through year-end. In an attempt to balance the budget, staff has -Cry- 06-04-01tc Page 2 met and agreed to leave currently vacant positions unfilled, recruitment for some positions has been put on hold, expenses have been reduced and revenue sources are being re-evaluated. Budget goals are to maximize expenditure reductions while maintaining the high levels of service that provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community. Staff has identified possible additional and more diversified revenue sources and operational adjustments. Also proposed is a transfer from the RETT Fund and use of the Economic Reserve for Village Leadership Forum (VLF) expenses and the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) contribution. Suiter outlined options available for Council discussion and feedback. Council discussed appropriate uses for the Economic Reserve. Rakowski clarified tax revenues and staff explained estimated revenues from licenses, permits, fees and plan check fees. Council requested that staff explore the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund (RETT) for funding additional Transportation Department expenses. They also requested further information regarding budget revision imbalances among the departments and the possible elimination of vacant positions, a cost/benefit analysis including the dollar amount proposed for revenue sources and a list of suggested policy discussion items. Council requested that staff schedule meeting time to further discuss the action items proposed by staff, the appropriate use of Economic Reserve funds, future plans for the Town's economy and provide Council with an introduction to the budgeting system. Council requested that staff provide a Resolution approving use of the Economic Reserve funds for review at the June 11, 2001 Council Meeting. Item No. 3: 3:30 - 4:15 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDING Hunt Walker, Public Works Director, requested Council direction on funding approximately $8M in capital road projects budgeted for construction over the next two years. He explained that Council previously approved the re- construction of Upper Snowmelt Road. The current plan is to create the design in 2001 and implement construction in 2002. At Council's request, staff investigated the possibility of funding the Top of the Village (TOV) Snowmelt as well as Upper Snowmelt Road in the year 2002. At a previous meeting, Council also directed staff to construct the Brush Creek/Highline Roundabout in 2002. Walker presented funding scenarios that included the Roundabout, Upper Snowmelt Road, the TOV Snowmelt and the Elbert Lane Extension. He provided Council with four options to meet the construction needs, along with projected costs using the Road Fund and borrowing from the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund. r 06-04-01 tc Page 3 After further discussion, Council agreed that staff should proceed with construction of Upper Snowmelt Road in 2002, investigate the possibility of constructing TOV Snowmelt at the same time and to further investigate the location and funding for the Elbert Lane Extension. If the location, design and funding are determined, this project could be constructed at the same time as Snowmelt Road. Council directed staff to continue work on all projects and construct as funding for each is identified. Council requested that staff determine the appropriate amount of undesignated RETT funds that should remain in the Fund, and provide additional physical and financial information regarding construction of Upper Snowmelt Road and the TOV Snowmelt Road at the same time, taking cash flow, scheduling and convenience into consideration. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 4: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR 05-21-01 Mercatoris made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 21, 2001, seconded by Purvis. There being no changes or additions, the Minutes were approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. REGULAR AGENDA Item No. 5: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS Dee Bolina requested approval to access Town trails before the trails are officially opened for public use, in order to conduct a Recreational Trails Study in conjunction with the Aspen Wilderness Workshop. The studies are to determine any impacts that recreational trails may have on wildlife communities, specifically the bird habitat. Two of her study sites are located on Government Trail and Anaerobic Nightmare Trail. Bolina's request was to access the trails for one day. Purvis made a motion to approve the request to be supervised by Larry Green, the Town's Wildlife Officer, for one day during June prior to the opening date specified for the trails. Virtue seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 6: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION — RESOLUTION NO. 27, SERIES OF 2001 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ANNUAL TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF FILL DIRT WITHIN AND THE USE OF PARKING q(0/ 06-04-01 tc Page 4 LOTS B AND C AS A STAGING AREA FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL. Chris Conrad, Planning Director, explained that the applicant is requesting the use of Parking Lots 'B" and "C" as staging areas for heavy equipment and materials necessary for a Snowmass Water and Sanitation (SW&S) District project. He further explained that the applicant uses the parking lots for staging construction activities every Summer and is requesting a "blanket" Temporary Use Permit which could be developed for upcoming years and would allow administrative monitoring and renewal each spring. Victor Gerdin, representing the Aspen Skiing Company, explained the project currently in progress and stated that although the contractor would make the final determination, he would make every effort to have the lots available for Summer Concert Series parking. Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 4:57 p.m. There being no comments from the public, the Public Hearing was closed at 4:57 p.m. After further discussion, Purvis made a motion to approve Resolution No. 27, Series of 2001, seconded by Virtue. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Gerdin informed Council that the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District plans to replace a sewer line between the Upper and Lower Edgewood Bridges, affecting use of the trail in that area. Mercatoris requested that the applicant inform the Woodrun V Homeowners Association of the impending construction. Staff will contact the SW&S Manager and inform him of timelines and other appropriate information regarding application submissions. Item No. 7: MANAGER'S REPORT The Town Manager stated that the Employee Housing project formerly known as Parcel "N", has recently been named Daly Townhomes. He informed Council that the water levels and natural springs experienced by the contractor on the construction site have diminished substantially and are no longer a threat to ongoing construction. The Town Manager reported that the owners of Country Club Townhome No. 26 have requested that they be allowed to rent their unit for approximately four months. Council discussed the rental requirements. The Town Manager explained that the Municipal Code specifies that rentals of employee units by their owners require the approval of Town Council. Council requested that staff provide recommended language that would change that responsibility to staff approval. After further discussion Council agreed to allow the request. r ?+ 06-04-01 tc Page 5 The Community Development Director explained that the Landscape Architect has given her approval for a demolition crew to utilize a portion of Slate Trail to position a crane for demolition of the burned Walsh residence. Her approval was conditioned upon approval of the Divide Homeowners Association. The Community Development Director will develop a list of conditions for use of the trail to be provided to the contractor. Burned Structure on Meadow Road Manchester requested an update on the home that burned in Meadow Road. Staff reported that a letter would be mailed to the owner, requesting a schedule, outlining plans to remodel, demolish or reconstruct the structure. Construction Debris The Town Manager reported that he has distributed a memo to all Town employees, requesting that they report any clutter on construction sites. The Municipal Code empowers the Town Building Official to enforce the law to keep construction sites clean of debris. Council directed staff to develop a memorandum to contractors that would be included with Building Permits, as a reminder for contractors to keep construction sites clean and free of debris. Rodeo Sponsorship and Funding The Town Manager stated that he has received a request for Town sponsorship for the Rodeo Company. During prior years, the Town's sponsorship was $1,500 and paid out of Council's Discretionary Fund. The request for 2001 sponsorship is $1,700. After further discussion, Mordkin made a motion to approve $1,700 for Town Sponsorship, $5,000 of in-kind services up front and an additional $5,000 of in-kind services if the owner returns to Council and requests the additional amount. Mercatoris amended the motion to approve $1,700 for Sponsorship and $5,000 of in-kind services. Mordkin accepted the amendment. Purvis seconded the motion to amend. The motion to amend was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. The motion, as amended by Mercatoris, was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. Council Members Mercatoris, Mordkin, Virtue and Purvis voted in favor. Manchester opposed. Council requested that the Rodeo Company provide an indemnification agreement to satisfy the Town's liability for providing in-kind services. Item No. 8: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS/STATUS REPORT - AND - Item No. 9: CALENDARS 01400 on 06-04-01 tc Page 6 ASC Advisory Committee Virtue reported that the next Advisory Committee Meeting is scheduled for June 7, 2001. Employee Housing Open Forum Virtue also reported that the Employee Housing Open Forum is scheduled for Thursday, June 7, 2001 at the Snowmass Conference Center. Brush Creek Road/Highway 82 Intersection The Community Development Director informed Council that landscaping the island at the Intersection of Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road cannot begin until the Pitkin County Commissioners approve the Town's application for the Sign Plan and Landscaping Plan. Council directed staff to remove the weeds, plant temporary landscaping on the island and use the Town's water truck to water the new plantings, until the formal Landscaping Plan is submitted and approved by the County. Council requested that staff provide a recommendation for the temporary landscaping at the June 11, 2001 Council Meeting. Community Pool Mercatoris requested Agenda time be scheduled in the near future to discuss plans for construction of a Community Pool. Soccer Route and Signage Purvis stated that the Public Works Department and Police Department, in conjunction with the United Soccer Club, will work together to clarify driving route instructions and install signage to clarify the direction to soccer games at Community Park. Summer Activities Mayor Manchester encouraged staff to expand the summer activities planning beyond the Fanny Hill tent to locations appropriate to the specific type of activity. Council discussed various activities and appropriate locations for the activities within Town. The Assistant to the Town Manager, in charge of organizing summer activities, reported on the status of his investigations. Water World! Mayor Manchester requested Agenda time be scheduled for the June 25, 2001 Council Meeting to discuss construction of a destination water aquatic amenity as an expansion of the Community Pool construction approved by the voters at the November 2000 Regular Election. He explained that an aquatic center could help draw warm weather tourists to Snowmass Village. 4q 40 06-04-01tc, Page 7 VLF Community Forum The Assistant to the Town Manager stated that a tentative date of June 13, 2001 has been set for a Village Leadership Forum (VLF) Community Forum meeting. Manchester explained that Forum discussions would include Mall area business owners to discuss potential improvements to the business mix in the Mall area and the ability to have a primary and secondary commercial core versus a single commercial core. Purvis suggested that consultants Walter Kieser and Chris Letourneur be present at the Meeting. Manchester stated the need to determine if Mall ownership is interested in re-creating itself. He explained that beyond square footage, the Mall is not a vital, vibrant commercial core for the community. Mercatoris requested close scrutinization of consultant usage and expenses for the VLF process. Council requested that staff provide a scope of work for the project, a timeline of meetings that require consultant support, a set amount of funding for the project to be approved by Council, and the perceived scope of cooperation and teamwork from the players. Merchant's Cup Mayor Manchester stated that the Merchant's Cup Golf Tournament is scheduled for June 13, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. He suggested that staff organize a team of municipal employees for the event. NOTE: The following item was not listed on the Agenda for this Meeting. Item No. 9a: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 6:10 p.m. Mayor Manchester made a motion to convene to Executive Session to discuss personnel issues and land negotiations discussion with the Town Attorney. Virtue seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. At 7:51 p.m. Mordkin made a motion to reconvene the Regular Meeting, seconded by Virtue. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Item No. 10: ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mordkin made a motion to adjourn the Meeting, seconded by Purvis. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. The Meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Submitted By, Trudi Worline, Town Clerk TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 25, 2001 Agenda Item: RESOLUTION NO. 24, 2002, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF A PORTION OF THE ECONOMIC RESERVE FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE GENERAL FUND Presented By: Gary Suiter/Marianne Rakowski Core Issues: • Decline in Sales tax revenues • Consistency with Resolution No. 96, Series of 1989 • Balancing the Budget General Info: This Resolution authorizes expenditure of the Economic Reserve up to $113,500, which is approximately one-half of the projected sales tax revenue shortfall for 2001. The money will be used to offset General Fund expenses. Approval of this Resolution requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Town Council. Council Options: Approve, amend or deny. Staff Recommendation: Approval. 4 f am SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF A PORTION OF THE ECONOMIC RESERVE FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE GENERAL FUND WHEREAS, In accordance with Section 9.8 of the Home Rule Charter, the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council adopted the 2001 Proposed Budget with the approval of Resolution No. 42, Series of 2000; and WHEREAS, The Town of Snowmass Village is dependent upon sales tax as a primary revenue source; and WHEREAS, The Town Staff has reported that sales tax revenues are expected to be less than projected for this fiscal year; and WHEREAS, A combination of low snow years, declining numbers of visitors and increased competition have caused revenue shortfalls in sales tax revenues and other categories; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 96, Series of 1989, established an emergency contingency for the Town of Snowmass Village General Fund and; WHEREAS, The emergency contingency was established for the purpose of meeting "unexpected costs due to low or no snow years and/or natural disasters"; and WHEREAS, The Economic Reserve was established as a part of the emergency contingency for the purposes of meeting TABOR requirements; and WHEREAS, The emergency contingency maybe used only by a two-thirds vote of the Town Council; and WHEREAS, There is currently $378,912 budgeted in the Economic Reserve and this authorization will offset approximately Y2 of the anticipated sales tax revenue shortfall; and WHEREAS, This action is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Snowmass Village and its residents. OM sc� Resolution 01-24 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Authorization for Expenditure of the Economic Reserve. The Town of Snowmass Village Town Council hereby authorizes expenditure of up to $113,500 of the Economic Reserve for General Fund expenses. Section Two: Direction to Town Manager The Town Council hereby directs the Town Manager to administer the budget for the remainder of this fiscal year in accordance with the amended revenue projections, including sales tax, building permit, plan check and RTA revenue reductions totaling ($565,737) and revised expenditures reflecting payroll reductions and operational adjustments totaling $340,938, as proposed by staff at the June 4t', 2001 Town Council Meeting. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on this 25th day of June, 2001 with a motion made by seconded by , and a vote of_ in favor to_opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. MICHAEL MANCHESTER, Mayor ATTEST: RHONDA B. COXON, Deputy Town Clerk r S3 610 TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 25, 2001 Agenda Item: Discussion and Action: Resolution No. 29, Series of 2001, a resolution establishing a schedule for the review of major PUD applications within the meaning of Section 5-300(b)(3) of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code. Presented By: Chris Conrad, Planning Director Core Issues: The Community Development Department has received and is currently processing three (3) major PUD applications. Section 5-300(b)(3) of the Municipal Code permits that only one (1) major PUD may be under review at one time by the Planning Commission or Town Council unless authorized by the Town Council in the form of a resolution. The enclosed resolution contains a development review scheduling scenario for council review. The resolution authorizes the Planning Director to establish the review schedule for the three (3) major PUD's and to schedule future Planning Commission meetings allowing concurrent or alternating review of the subject applications as necessary and appropriate to provide for their expeditious review. Please review Exhibit A and provide direction concerning the scheduling proposed. You may also find it appropriate to consider directing staff to see if the Planning Commission could add an additional meeting during each of the next two (2) months. They could then schedule back, if possible, after these items have been processed. General Info: The Community Development Department ( the "CDD") has received three (3) major development applications, being the Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan, Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plan and Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD. Council Options: Approve the enclosed resolution as may be amended during the meeting, table to July 9 and provide direction for the development of a different review schedule or deny the resolution and staff will proceed without simultaneous or concurrent review at this time. Staff Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution with Recommendation: direction to amend the schedule (Exhibit A) as appropriate. Sq END P:\user\cconrad\MS Word Docs\TC 01-29 Concurrent Review TC Comments 01.doc COMMUNIQUE SUPPLEMENT (]Municipal Code Excerpt) Division 3. Planned Unit Development Sec. 16A-5-300. Purpose; overview; general restrictions. (b) Overview of PUD Procedure. A PUD application shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards of this Section. (3) One (1) major PUD under review. Unless otherwise authorized by resolution of the Town Council,there shall only be one (1) major PUD application under review by the Planning Commission and one(1)other major PUD application under review by the Town Council at any time. The Planning Director shall establish procedures to administer this policy, based on the following provisions: a. Priority to first complete application. Scheduling priority shall be given to the first complete major PUD application received,provided that: 1. Any project that has received sketch plan approval shall receive scheduling priority upon submission of its preliminary and final plan applications; and 2. Any major PUD application that the Town Council determines serves a public purpose shall receive scheduling priority over all other development applications. b. Requests for additional information. In order to allow for development review to proceed in a timely and fair manner, applicants who are requested by the Planning Commission or Town Council to submit additional information or to amend their application which are necessary for the uninterrupted continuous review shall submit a complete package of the requested materials to the Planning Director at least seven (7) days prior to the next scheduled meeting of that board. If an applicant does not submit the requested materials in a timely manner or if the applicant requests that the processing of their application be delayed, the next prioritized application will be scheduled before that review board. However,once the applicant submits a complete package of the requested materials to the Planning Director or the applicant has requested that the review of their application recommence, the application shall receive the next available scheduling priority, as determined by the Planning Director, over all other development applications. The provisions of this paragraph shall also apply to a submission being processed under the provisions of Chapter 16. c. Sketch plan review accommodation. If the processing status of an existing application with scheduling priority allows, the Planning Director may schedule a new sketch plan application for review before the Planning Commission or the Town Council at meetings that do not delay the processing of the existing application. SMISS ago Snowmass Club— Phase II DRAFT Preliminary Plan application Estimated Review Schedule DI MFT June 2001 ..$1463w6T TO fi** &! June 15,2001 -- Estimated submittal deadline June 30,2001 -- Deadline for determining If application Is complete July 2, 2001 -- Refer application to agencies/Town departments, If application is complete July 23, 2001 -- Deadline for agencies/Town departments to deliver comments July 30, 2001 -- Complete coordination of review comments and meet with applicant to deliver comments (must be completed within 30 days of final determination of application completeness) August 1 -- Pre-publish 30-day public hearing notice in newspaper for Planning Commission meeting on September 5(required to be noticed within 10 days after applicant's resubmittal)—notice to adjacent owners also due at this time August 20-- Deadline for applicant to resubmit application addressing review comments August 20-- Deadline for posting 15-day public hearing notice on the site August 30-- Deadline for completing staff report to Planning Commission September 5-- Planning Commission public hearing—Initial meeting September 12-- Pre-publish 30-day public hearing notice In the newspaper for Town Council meeting on October 15, including notice to adjacent owners September 12-- Continuation of Planning Commission review September 19-- Planning Commission wrap up September 26-- Complete Planning Commission resolution for signature and recording September 30-- Deadline for posting 15-day public hearing notice on the site October 11 -- Deadline for completing staff report to Town Council October 15-- Town Council public hearing—initial meeting November 5-- Continuation of Town Council review November 12 -- Town Council wrap up November 19-- Complete Town Council resolution for signature and recording Bolded Items are public notice deadlines for the public hearing meeting dates _S/ TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 29 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE FOR THE REVIEW OF MAJOR PUD APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5-300(13)(3)OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Section 5-230 (B)(3) of Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code(the"Municipal Code")precludes the review of more than one major PUD application by the Town Council or the Planning Commission at any time, unless expressly authorized by the Town Council by resolution; and WHEREAS,the Community Development Department(the"CDD")has received three(3)major development applications being the Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan ("Snowmass Center Plan"), Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plan (Snowmass Chapel Plan") and Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD ("Snowmass Club Plan"), in that order; and WHEREAS,a joint Planning Commission/Town Council meeting occurred on June 11,2001 in order to hear the initial presentation by the applicant of the Snowmass Center Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission began reviewing the Snowmass Center Plan on June 20, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director finds that conducting a Sketch Plan joint meeting as called for by Section 16A-5-320(c)(4), Joint meeting, of the Municipal Code involves receiving an initial presentation by the applicant and does not involve a review of the application within the meaning of Section 5-230 (13)(3) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Section 5-230(13)(3)(c)of the Municipal Code additionally enables the Planning Director to schedule a second Sketch Plan application for review at meetings that do not delay the processing of the priority Sketch Plan submission; and WHEREAS, for this reason, a joint Planning Commission/Town Council meeting occurred on June 25, 2001 in order to hear the initial presentation by the applicant of the Snowmass Chapel Plan; and WHEREAS,subsequent to receiving the aforementioned Sketch Plan applications, the CDD received the Snowmass Club Plan application; and WHEREAS, Section 5-230 (13)(3)(a) of the Municipal Code specifies that the Preliminary PUD submission receive scheduling priority upon its receipt and determination of completeness; and WHEREAS, the Snowmass Club Plan application documents are currently under a. 567 • Town of Snowmass Village Town Council Resolution No.20,Series of 2001 Page 2 review and said determination of completeness should occur on or before June 30, 2001; and WHEREAS,the Planning Director has provided a development review scheduling scenario, attached as Exhibit "A" of this resolution, outlining a tentative program for reviewing all three major PUD applications; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that the Town Council authorize the Planning Director to schedule future Planning Commission meetings allowing concurrent or alternating review of the applications as necessary and appropriate to provide for their expeditious review; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the attached review schedule and finds that it would be appropriate that concurrent review be allowed for meetings when one application is concluding review by the Planning Commission and the next priority application begins; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution Is necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Approval of Concurrent Maior PUD Review. The Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan, Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plan and Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD major PUD applications are hereby authorized to occur simultaneously within the meaning of Section 16A-5-230(B)(3)of the Municipal Code, subject to compliance with the provisions of this Resolution. This concurrent review shall only apply to the Planning Commission review of the aforementioned applications. 2. Scheduling. The Planning Director is hereby authorized to establish the review schedule and schedule future Planning Commission meetings allowing concurrent or alternating review of the subject applications as necessary and appropriate to provide for their expeditious review, including that concurrent review be allowed for meetings when one application is concluding review by the Planning Commission and the next priority application begins. The applicants shall have no assurance or reliance upon the proposed review schedule attached as Exhibit"A". The Town Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Director or at its sole discretion, may modify and change the actual review dates. Until such time as the Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD application has been accepted as complete,the Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan will remain the 1 st priority application and the Snowmass Chapel 58 - Town of Snowmass Village Town Council Resolution No.29,Series of 2001 Page 3 Expansion Sketch Plan will be 2nd priority. On the date the Community Development Department accepts the Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD application as complete: a. Snowmass Club becomes the 1st priority application. b. Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan is then 2nd priority. C. Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan is then 3rd priority. 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 June 25,2001 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member , and upon a vote of_in favor and against. Council member was absent. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk 40D ��• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCHEDULING SCENARIO B7 FIRST PRIORITY AT PLANNING COMMISSION OR TOWN COUNCIL 2 SECOND PRIORITY AT PLANNING COMMISSION OR TOWN COUNCIL NOTE,Snowmass Center EUmlon Sketch Plan Is currently 1 at pidgi ft and Srtorvmass Chanel Exnaosion Sketch Plan is 2nd priority, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAS eumwAee CLUB eueeF n CMCW TIME KE JUNE 11: JOINT PC/TC MEETING. June 15: Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD(SCPII) 1 Joint PC/TC Meeting:Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan was submitted. JUNE 20: REGULAR PC MEETING 1 Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan JUNE 25: JOINT PC/TC MEETING June 30: Deadlme for dehYmining If SCPII application is complete. 2 Joint PCJTC Meeting:Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan July 02: Refer SCPII application to agendesrra n departments. C JULY 11: REGULAR PC MEETING 1 Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan a o JULY 18: REGULAR PC MEETING t7 July 23: Deadline far agendes/Town departments to deliver comments. 1 Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan o x July 30: Complete w inatim of review comments and meet with ^_ N applicant to deliver comments. AUG.01: REGULAR PC MEETING e ~ Aug.01: Pre-pubbsh 30-day public hearing notice in newspaper for 1 1.5 Hrs.Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan(Wrap TC:AUGUST 6 OR y Planning Commission meeting on September 5(required to 2 2.5 Hrs.Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan(Tentative) NEXT AVAILABLE TC r be noticed within 10 days after applicants resubmitla1). MTG.AFTER PC AUG.15: REGULAR PC MEETING RESOLUTION. .y Aug.20: Deadline far applicant to resubmit application addressing 2 Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan N 0 review commrents. ° .. Sept 05: PlannMg Commission public hearing SEPT.05: REGULAR PC MEETING —Initlal meetinglFkst Priority. 2 Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan(Wrap-up) K=> TC:SEPT.3 OR 1 Commence Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD WHF1J SNOWMASS CENTER SIC=TCH On the date of the Txst PC meeting for Snowmass Club Phase II: SEPT.19: REGULAR PC MEETING FINISHF�. a)Snowmass Ckib becomes the 1st priority application. 1 Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD b)Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan is 2nd priority. c)Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan is 3rd priority. OCT.03: REGULAR PC MEETING 1 Snowmass Club Phase II Preliminary PUD(Wrap-up) IE* BECOMES FIRST PRloltm wrrH OCT.17: REGULAR PC MEETING TC AFTER PC RESOLUTION. TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: June 25, 2001 Presented By: Stephen R. Connor, Town Attorney Craig Thompson, Community Development Director Subject: ORDINANCE No. 13, SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ENACTMENT OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE REPAIR, REHABILITATION, DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF UNSAFE BUILDINGS Overview: At the direction of the Town Council, Craig and I have reviewed the provisions of Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code regarding building construction, repair and demolition to determine if a more expeditious procedure for the could be established to cause the repair or demolition of a building that was damaged by fire or other casualty. From our review, we determined the Uniform Code of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings had not been adopted by the Town. The Uniform Code is now adopted as a component of Chapter 18 by Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2001. In addition to the Uniform Code, we felt that a procedure was required that put the obligation to repair or demolish an unsafe building on the owner of the property rather than on the Town to abate a nuisance. The procedure that we have created is simple and not time consuming for Town Staff nor does it require the Town to expend funds for demolition of a building. With the adoption of this Ordinance, the failure to timely obtain a building permit to repair or demolish the building will result in a general Municipal Code violation which is a maximum of $1000.00 and up to one year in jail for each day that the offense continues. Under the provisions of the expanded jurisdiction of the Town Municipal Court, a complaint can be filed for a mandatory injunction requiring the owner to obtain a building permit or for a penalty as a misdemeanor, at the option of the Town. As additional remedies, the Town can still pursue the demolition of the building by nuisance or under the Uniform Code. Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance on first reading. A public hearing may be scheduled prior to second reading if you desire, although a public hearing is not required. elou TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 13 SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ENACTMENT OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE REPAIR, REHABILITATION, DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF UNSAFE BUILDINGS. WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that the expeditious repair or demolition of damaged buildings that are determined to be unsafe benefits the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, when a building is damaged by fire or other casualty, it becomes a hazard to public health, safety and welfare and a visual nuisance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to put the owners of property on notice that unsafe buildings must be repaired or demolished; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the owners of property should bear the primary obligation for the repair or demolition of unsafe buildings; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Chapter 18 Addition. Chapter 18 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following provisions: a. Notice of Unsafe Building. Upon the declaration by the Building Official that a building is an unsafe building within the meaning of Section 203 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code as adopted pursuant to Section 18-41 of this Code, the Building Official will provide the Owner according to the records in the Office of the Assessor of Pitkin County, Colorado with a notice of such declaration by United States Mail, postage prepaid. now b. Content of Notice. The notice shall inform the Owner that a building permit must be obtained from the Building Official to repair, rehabilitate, demolish or remove the unsafe building within thirty (30) days and the penalty for failure to timely obtain a building permit. c. Permit Condition. The repair or rehabilitation of the unsafe building to conform to the applicable provisions of Chapter 18 must be commenced withing thirty (30) days of the issuance of the building permit. The demolition or removal of the unsafe building must be completed within thirty (30) days of issuance of the building permit and the Lot shall be restored to the condition that existed prior to the issuance of the original building permit for the construction of the building. 2. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on June 25, 2001 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of _ in favor and _ against. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on July 9, 2001 upon a motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member and upon a vote of _ in favor and _ against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk do TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GARY SUITER, TOWN MANAGER RE: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: JUNE 20, 2001 SNOWMELT ROAD/ENTRYWAY SCHEDULES Attached are the proposed design and construction schedules for Snowmelt Road and the Roundabout, as prepared by Dean Gordon and Hunt Walker. Staff will present a conceptual plan to Council on Snowmelt Road in mid-July and the Roundabout in early August. Let me know if you have questions. WOODRUN FIVE DUMPSTER SITE The appraisal for the Woodrun Five Dumpster Sites is in progress. This will include both the Village Run Circle site and the existing site. DROSTE LAWSUIT Steve Connor reports that the motion to dismiss the Droste Lawsuit was filed on June 282001. A copy has been emailed to you for your information. ENTRYWAY SIGN Please be advised that the permit application for the Entryway sign has been filed with Pitkin County. The application is scheduled for review by the Commissioners on Wednesday, July 11th. "NOVEMBER ELECTION As you know, Town Council directed staff to coordinate the November 6th, 2001 election with Pitkin County. Every year Pitkin County sends us a questionnaire inquiring about ballot issues and TABOR questions. The questionnaire is due July 13 . It's time for Council to think about potential ballot issues, so that we can coordinate with Pitkin County. I will schedule a Work Session at the July 9th meeting so that we may respond appropriately. If Council has any ballot issues you would like researched, please let me know. As a starting point, some issues might include: a possible re-vote on the pool/aquatic center; a marketing sales tax; Home Rule Charter Amendments (Steve Connor); a RETT tax amendment and extension; or amendments to the spending limitation initiative. Please let me know your thoughts. (py - Manager's Report 6/20/01 Page 2 of 2 GRASSROOTS TV I have been elected to the Board of Directors for Grassroots Television, representing the Town of Snowmass Village. If you have any concerns or suggestions please let me know and I will bring the message to the Board. TIMBERS WETLANDS MITIGATION For your information, we have received a check in the amount of$20,000,which represents the amount required to satisfy the wetlands mitigation for the Timbers PUD. We appreciate the prompt response from the Timbers Club and will use this money to benefit the environment. CML REMINDER A reminder that the Colorado Municipal League Conference is being held this week at the Conference Center. Also, the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) is having a meeting at 4:00 p.m. Thursday afternoon. *AUGUST COUNCIL MEETINGS A reminder that the August Town Council Meetings are scheduled for August 6'h. 13th and 20th. Steve Connor informs me that he will be absent on the 6a'. Does Council wish to change these dates or do we leave them as scheduled? Please let me know. *OLD FASHIONED COMMUNITY PICNIC Bill Boineau and I have been raising the remaining funds required for the Fourth of July Community Picnic. The goal is $6,000. Our thanks to the Snowmass Homeowners' Association ($2,500) and Alpine Bank ($1,000)for their generous donations. Many merchants are donating as well. We are still about $1,000 short. If you know of anyone willing to contribute, please let me know. *Response requested r I �I I � � II110 � � � � � III � � e � � � � i � � � � � � � � ' � � � Please Turn in Your Status Report Updates to Donna J. Garcia by July 3, 2001 at 5 P.M. Status Report Bullets in Italics have been previously listed June 25, 2001 Town Council / Town Manager Manager .Tow{l d r "i ' e ctxi� G s ■r; 41� ain er o el of ' Y Finalizing 200; ;speca(,p"p eQ z 1 A, isli o' 9 r F � . u rR �.ab Ya n p I P An 4 e is Y i Researching Aquatin e� Pre aria Bud et Re Q $f Town Attorney Activity/Staff Manager Status TownAt�tyo'" g'; �tiytl ` "Steve t.` llpr.,, a :`�.o�` on Housing Activity/Staff Mana. • Status Housio " e ct v'i'" + CurrgP11, thg S�pR u�ftsdfp roe Painting SG,�18U4!6 Q-f�1 S 111 �T eHoli n f1a i regular A Parcel N. Employee Housing ■ The groundwater is lower and the retaining wall is being Joe coney constructed. • The Mechanically Stabilized Earth(M.S.E.) wall to raise the bike path is under construction. • Construction drawings have been submitted for a building permit. Finance Activity/Staff Manager Status Flnan e`° _ "` Ac ivi i t�s RgyJewm�emdef lure WorkYoiud�i- SjPn0 pA,S44 0. 20 9 I.S.Update ■ Developing training classes and strategy. Nick Tucker ■ Finished configuring and testing T-1. ■ Finished configuring and testing WAN. ■ Programming a new Web Site wiring T-1 and WAN to Council Chambers. so spa Cog 1 Public Safety Update Project Manager Police D pa jr an :4ctlXftfe ?5 Egforcement,o Tine -„ar 'n ' reStric'o—O' ' �amY3 r e Juf?g1 o-- Public Works Activity/Staff Mana er Status i a' Will p ese l a d a to C "' = Roundabout ■ Will present a draft plan to Council in early August. Hunt Walker WoodF�i' a 6� ” rt " SCffse"ceFi o , o y sK Nan 1'r.3`r, w iN r �o ,Hun R ,,Off• t}oy.�a r s x'- Fa 4;' 4'Km Town Clerk Activity/Staff Manager Status ,Gal to e" aR a is fo out.5 l e 'p�arb4S,e .app, kai$43"WJt�, clCoc't'e B�o • ' %(SuppiemeRt,�l7� ,�r,,`Edibng affil Ug datin'cf Employe'e�Sa(@ A%1 _ { �, piepa[aGon�s.o notijy�q�a cp ' '"c is Lfcensingrequlreme0fs , o - p0iioilatip0'ofa�id e : a �Com 1 ` rc 9z7;P�, f,�ga�g6eckin ',CD; om' o >Snt Community Development Department Activity/Staff Manager Status Cominu'_It elo'` e" " c E t r.; lctivit� ;{1' ( :Graip``'T o Pi��C 0 Co n U. re I u Welcome Cente Major Development Review Update 1980 Seve�aStarRa" o a,.. v GerY.suilar(Ste .Ca Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch ■ Re-scheduled the Joint Planning Commission/Town Plan Council meeting 06-11-01. Jim WBhlsfmm ■ Beginning P.C. review on June 20`" fr Community Enhancement Projects Manager Status Brush Ore Sees, ns 4 Q101, Working on the rest,of tfie ar desi ' C °structiq"" Bemad t el Start Mld"Jun 'n r Wtil start the vegetation rnven ory t s l (re tr ug t �* e ' n^$ rye Ca t nx a, r* ...r i .,tP ,L ■ Will do a folfoyv up meetin�W ours Cq 4Toy1 r, a Homes Board on June 26t�+ rl+ F Park Shelter H ■ Arranging landscape improvements for the construction Bernadette Banhelenghi area the week of June 17th. • Contractor will begin construction June 22nd or 25Th. • Working on punch list items. Golf Course Grey ,Enhancgmets P ■v We did a tour with Npr6posa my Coip o Eng 'ens(AC,P40 . P.F,y o .ta ,A � e o n �, 4rtt v.` z Watershed Plan ■ All reports and samples from the past three years will be compiled into one map/report. This should guide us into a direction for next year. Report will be ready this fall and used strictly as a guiding tool. Bmldln� i i ' ' Wx Contactinq,169 arrc0a 44 Rewe�yjColitm a,,Mal, ( , - . •,, s ..� • ti* Arilici atePlannin "CortimissionRevewo u Sign Code Review ■ Town Council should receive Planning Commission Chns ConradUrn wehistrom recommendation on Jul 9`h (tentative). Plans & Policy Development ActivitylStaff Manager Status L war B`"n dl ° re i 4 Stf wi(I bnoti . W.� r"equest7n lia in'� 7i_ p, Bio-Water Assessment ■ Draft report received this week. Bernadette Barthelen h! MlsctL�iKN` " S(a" �s'walti n Vie`°a e° e F, ea s MIS E Co e MoUnfaiRVie rn o MISC A andsca e e e C c 'cans 1' Lighting ■ Tentatively scheduled to commence discussion with the Planning Division Planning Commission Aug. 181. .W11ii1 ' ce Wit alua t fo ! r � E 1`ie:moda��! Trails Planning ■ Trails Committee met on June 12 at 12:00 to discuss Bernadette Barthelenghi trail construction, maintenance and Mountain Bike Race ■ Trail construction and Maintenance will start June 21 the day the trails open. *7O ' (( 3 • Summer trails maps are completed. • Staff is coordinating with the Forest Service about trail issues for signage closure, dates and future improvement approvals. Planning Div,s o .V6eb Page ■ Sto`ryboard of proposed additions'ap mo�irficatlons!4 u RobedJ. vol rr P .yl ;, Plannm Droision web Ft Inn i nv Di '`-i6n'tA4Y?' Comprehensive Plan Review ■ Initial phase of identifying strategy and procedure for review of the Comprehensive Plan. Minor Development Review Update Project / Manager Update Snowrnas t I ` Re, ule fol,me Joi P o' c L Jm We ,5 P A,06-25 Q � ,• - a p , Sgrlt comments o to a p�lacaff 0 - r I resu6mittedon`June 12 d County Referral Review ■ On-going. Jim Wahlstrom Aspe£1�Skl C K"`Velc k Appllyahosubltted_05 1Q Maintenance acfil a S£atf wijl i u 'co en s t 11vie MInoY'PU'� u�iQ 2 rim wenlstro :r - �•e Tentative)"sche u ed for P C. ;t Administration Modification, SUP, TUP, Variance Project d n n,Jst' t ca o 4 SaoWmass WQ1q Sa i GoverPP7efl1q Lot 68,Woodrun 1 ■ Building height constant outside envelope. "r . ' ;p�ciate a o °` 'iS' f/S'ie e e am"endta Lot 38,Two Creeks ■ Floor area excise tax application. st Va iaftcpa:chang,,_'Itl(n gRY Shadowbrook Condominium ■ Administrative modification, increase F.A.R. Approved. L'Ic�leiigea µti!$#ac�3` ''i .,Sfgr%�Va��?[Lp�1iPffi,.Q. S�� a . 'ss Lot 35, Ridge Run III ■ Building envelope, P.C. 07-18-01. L'ot 'j-'F( �, iVlodi 2t�c4t j Lot 35, Ridge Run III Variance ■ Build outside of the envelope P.C. 7-18-01. L'IcFie�iflearTfiBlanc¢•'"r'', _: i'.t,,rs:; ri. Ide'ntificat(dn'si ns;`P:'Ct�8`61'OTAI NIT ��'�`�i n. . Pendinq UL3date Project I Manager Update -it 1�1_1 A,dml Is{raff."` F£r ur al Thin da J�+ As en C clln Club Race, JJune. 4 Enforcement Update Update Signs at}lie Mj ""` �'�Phptograp§had signs_at thr, a Jim ehls,(mr 6 a'(/C nSC na t y ` ' � of tech ains , tjj 'esif �� ■ Pre IILVId cod fang ge opts n Comp Sign Plan,tbt Villager' i I�C�oissiorio 5 76 e r pre a e �0 �prese �a�op�wi't� am e s,��� t,s4a 4 l Do 6!Y M1 a u�ma0 W all yo p0u ` v h(al o�y e' s and us a t Banrlers.'pt� S e l C`oftimm` oar meeAngs�eg�r Y K k`x•nK Vf2t.Y¢[w Sf,5i9t 4't •,3 Y. Sandwi �O�1d ,gn _ �;resoI t n Q v w0 - - Ciirjs` ap ,;; s , c Rea er � , �.,�.• 9,. .��,,.9 'mend e,� tosig c � � <� ` _ t'P(apmng CQfgmuswtlift]ee(tp �A Entry Columns at Divide ■ Individuals or associations may apply for variance(s), or Chris Conrad/Robert volgt Minor PUD Amendment. ■ Owners of lots where entry columns exceed permitted height to receive letter when time permits. Transportation Update Project/ Manp Project Update Coordination- Gary Suiter 923-3777 ext. 206 Public Works-Hunt Walker 923-5110 Housing-Joe Coffey 923-2360 Community Development— Thompson/StahmanIMichel/McIntire 923-5524 Town Clerk - Trudi Worline 923-3777 Finance - Marianne Rakowski 923-3796 Police Chief-Art Smythe 923-5330 I�°5 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2:00 P.M. 5:30 P.M. T.C.Mtg. Housing Mtg. Conf.Center Kearns Room 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2:00 P.M. Merchants 7:OOP.M. @ T.C.Mtg. Fairway Center Chapel 9:00-2:00 Planning& Design/Lower Benedict 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4:00 P.M. Planning No T.C. Mtg. Commission 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2:00 P.M. CML CONFERENCE T.C.Mtg. 43 - 'JUIY Packet Calendar Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VLF in A.M. (Tentative) Holiday 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2:00 P.M. T.C.Mtg. 29 30 31 7y- � � a„ t l e i1 SNOWMASS CHAPEL SANCTUARY SNOWMASS CHAPEL AND COMMUNITY SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL Prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, Ltd. Ori2001 ginally Revised April 18, 2001 2001 Revised June 11, .. • Community .. 1 ' COTTLE CRAYBEAL Y,AW iJune 11, 2001 Mr. Jim Wahlstrom Community Development Department Town of Snowmass Village •PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: New Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary 1 Sketch Plan Submittal Dear Mr. Wahlstrom: On behalf of the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center(SCCC), we are pleased to submit our response to the Towns' comments on our Sketch Plan Submittal for the new Sanctuary. Attached are fifteen copies of the revised submittal, including responses to the comments and reduced size drawings. Also attached are four sets of large format scaled drawings. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any comments or questions. Sincerely, Bob Schiller 1 Enc. Sketch cover letter 061101.doc ASPEN. hm OIGcc Box 529 Ba,ah.CO 81621 w.cpyart h112O6 QInl X1970.9774975 1ac970917.8578 retail.asOCnl^'ccY,rzhucas coin �� ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL SNOWMASS CHAPEL SANCTUARY SNOWMASS CHAPEL AND COMMUNITY CENTER SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL Revised, Incorporating Response to Town comments June 11, 2001 t 1 1 r ' CONTENTS A TOSV comments with applicant's responses 1-16 ' B Revised Text Materials Sketch Plan Description 1 Response to Sketch Plan Criteria 5 Proposed Amendment of Final PUD 7 Response to Review Standards, per Sec. 16-5-390 8 Sketch Plan Summary 10 Utilities Summary 12 Parking Summary 13 Employee Count Summary 14 Landscape Narrative 16 C Documents Vicinity map Average Building Height Calculation Certificate of Ownership Includes Legal Description Application Form Development Application Fee Policy Parking Lot Use Agreement D Letters ' Letter February 7, 2001 from Kirkegaard & Associates Letter of authorization from SCA (adjacent landowner), March 14, 2001 Letter from Chaffin/Light, June 8, 2001 Letter from SCCC, June 7, 2001 E Photo Simulations & Height Limit Analysis F Drawings: Existing conditions Survey Site Plan Zoning Map Existing Land Use Map Existing Conditions Map Architectural Drawings Floor Plans Elevations Building Sections Response to TOSV Comments 1 June 11, 2001 This response is based upon the document ' "Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan Technical comments May 18, 2001" prepared TOSV Planning Staff. The text of that document is included, with Applicant's responses in italics. Prepared by SCCC, CGYA & OTAK Chapel/padmin/approvals/Sketchresponse06O5OI.doc Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page I of 23 It would be helpful if you included a table in the submittal, which outlines the existing conditions, the existing standards, and the proposed standards following the table format below. Please complete and review the table below for accuracy and include with the next resubmittal. SNOWMASS CHAPEL EXPANSION LOT 11 SNOWMASS INTERFAITH CHAPEL SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF PARCEL T ' Category Existing Standard Existing Condition Proposed Permitted Uses Chapel; Public meeting Same Permitted Uses Same Permitted Uses rooms; Counsel rooms(4); (Note:no daycare operation No daycare Daycare: Study; Kitchen; exists on this site) Administrative Offices(3); Residential Unit(accessory) Maximum Number of One,not to exceed 1,200 s f. Same Same. To be deed Dwelling Units restricted as Employee Housing. Maximum Building 15.000 s.f. 10,764 s.f. existing 20,000 s.t. allowed: Coverage 1 19,947 s f. proposed Gross Floor Area Not applicable Maximum Parking and 8,0005.1. Same Same Driveway Coverage Maximum Building Height 40 feet above natural grade 29.5 feet existing at center 78 feet, including steeple except at the steeple,which clerestory portion of the shall be designed in Community Center proportion to the building and shall be subject to approval of the Town Council Averse Building Hal ht 25 feel 15.74 feel 26 feet maximum Open Space Area 25%t picat standard - 81% LOT 2A, SNOWMASS INTERFAITH CHAPEL SUBDIVISION REPLAT "A," A PORTION OF PARCEL 8 Category Existing Standard Existing Condition Proposed Permitted Uses Parking; Trails Same Same Minimum Number of 105 105 existing Same Parking Spaces 1� Maximum Number of 120 105 existing Same Parking Spaces Non-separability Ownership of Lot 2A shall Same Same not be transferred independently of Lot 1 General: 1. In the general description on page 1, the reference to 7,400 square feet of building footprint for the new addition is inconsistent with the 9,183 square feet represented in the volumetric Study. The written description should explain why the building footprint and height had to increase from the pre-sketch information. Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 2 of 23 The text "approximately 7,400 sf. " on page I of'the Sketch Plan submittal was referring to enclosed space and should have been worded to reflect that. The plans for the Chapel have, at each stage, shown that there are areas under roof, (the insets on either.tide of the sanctuary, the sheltered entry area at the front of the chapel). The Volumetric Sludv, being concerned with roof heights, deals with total roof area, not enclosed space and so is necessarily different. A quick take-off from the most current plans shows approximately 1600 sf of overhangs and covered exterior areas. 11 also shows the enclosed area is currently 7851 sf. (the change is due to the addition of a ramp up to the Chancel and to further development of layout and storage requirements on the Chancel plat'form). These numbers added together equal 9451 sf very close to the figure in the volumetric study, which was done off a slightly earlier set ofplans. A11 these numbers can be expected to fluctuate slightly between the present early stage and completion of design for the project. The actual PUD amendment figures are the ones which, once adopted, will become.fixed and binding. 2. It may be helpful to illustrate on the three vicinity maps the proposed 78-foot height limit from the existing site grade to the matching elevation point on the adjacent hillsides as viewed on a horizontal plane. It might show that the 78-foot height from the existing site grade would roughly stay around or not extend significantly beyond the 300-foot limit to the south and west. Also label the elevation for the new ' sanctuary site and the topo lines south of Owl Creek Road as you did to the west. The point at which the proposed 78 ft. height limit meets existing grade has been marked on the revised Existing Conditions map and the new Height Limit Contour drawing which are enclosed with this response. Compliance with General Restrictions: Uses — • The uses proposed seem consistent with the existing PUD standards. Maximum Buildout— • According to Code Section 16A-5-300©(4) Maximum Buildout under the General Restrictions section, it states that a PUD may develop up to, but not more than 65% of the maximum number of future lots/units and commercial/other space identified for that subdivision or other development in the buildout analysis. The Snowmass Chapel and Community Center (B66 of the chart) is identified as being allowed 20,000 square feet of commercial/other space. The 65% rule would allocate 13,000 square feet without triggering the Community Purpose criteria, which is one or more of the following: a) Provision of restricted housing; b) Encourage sustainable development; c) Provide open space or avoid wildlife habitat; 1 d) Encourage better design; Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 3 of 23 e) Develop necessary public facilities. Y Concerning subsection (e), it appears that this expansion may create additional demand on bus service at Owl Creek Road and Brush Creek Road. Participation in construction of a bus stop shelter at this location would be beneficial to the Town and the mass transportation services. Pursuant to the above comment, the expansion may also increase the pedestrian activity in the area resulting in the need to improve pedestrian circulation around the buildings (north sides) and walkway connections from the parking areas described to the building entries (another walkway along fire lane connection on the east side may be feasible). Staff has asked Applicant to propose how they intend to meet the code requirement that the project respond to Community Purpose Criteria. Applicant believes that this entire project complies with item e) of those criteria, to " Develop necessary public facilities, " in that it provides a necessary and vital cultural facility. The code is written to deal with the majority of building projecis within the town which serve a single owner, or provide space for money making operations. In contrast, the new Chapel is being built to serve the needs of persons already in the community. It will be open to all and does not operate to make a profit, in fact its very operation is the result ofgenerous donations on the part of members of the community. In addition, the new Chapel responds to "d) encourage better design" by its attention to creating a civic presence and a visible landmarkfor the community. It also responds to "c) Provide open space or avoid wildlife habitat, " in that it respects the creek corridor and is surrounded by open space on several exposures. Location of the new chapel as part of an existing complex allows use of existing parking, walkways etc., and minimizes disruption to the surrounding community, landscape and wildlife, as �r opposed to siting it in another undisturbed location. �1 Staff has suggested that the project participate in construction of a bus shelter. ' Applicant believes that this entire project is a contribution to an important Community Purpose and should be evaluated in that light. Staff has requested clarification of pedestrian circulation around the buildings. While we agree that this is a legitimate issue, the design of the project has simply not progressed to the stage of studying all pedestrian paths. Applicant proposes that this issue be addressed at the Preliminary Plan level, when more detailed site designs are appropriate, rather than at this, the Sketch Plan, level. Dimensional Limitations and Standards for Granting Variations — • See the comments under Building Design. Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 4 of 23 Parking — • See the comments under Off-Street Parking Standards. Road Standards— • See the comments under Fire Protection. Compliance with Review Standards: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan — Other information in the Comprehensive Plan the application could address would be: The Community Character and Vision (Chapter 1) — • Significant opportunities for a variety of recreational and cultural activities • Human scale in most of the architecture • The presence of a vital, permanent community Applicant believes that this facility enhances the character and suits the vision of the community in that it provides a significant addition to the recreational and commercial opportunities available in the community. An enlarged sanctuary means that a greater number ofpersons may worship the faith of their choice in greater accommodation. The secular uses proposed will afford all the public, including those who do not choose to worship, an opportunity to witness events which they would otherwise have to travel to witness. These events will not conflict with the commonly recognized recreational and commercial activities of the community but will be added to them. The design of the facility provides an inspiring and appropriate setting for these activities, thereby enriching the lives of those attending. It signifies the presence of a vital, permanent and well-rounded community, uncommon among mountain resorts. Regional and Community Economics (Chapter 3) — • Provide desired services and amenities to residents and visitors through partnerships with leaders of the ski, resort, hospitality, cultural arts, and conference industries, thereby giving people more reasons to stay in Snowmass Village. The new sanctuary will give people more reasons to stay in Snowmass village, not through partnership with the industries noted, but because it represents one of those industries, the cultural arts. Community Services. Facilities and Amenities (Chapter 4) — • Provide for a variety of parks, recreation, housing, educational and cultural activities and facilities, that meet resident and visitor needs • Provide services, facilities and amenities that enhance the community's quality of life • Plan for and support development of visual, musical and performing arts within the community Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 5 of 23 The new sanctuary provides a service,facility and amenity which will enhance the community's quality of life. In addition to its liturgical purpose, it supports development of musical and performing arts within the community. For all there reasons, this project complies with the Review Standards noted by stall. Preservation of Community Character— • See the comments under Building Design. Creative Approach — • The overall design of the facility will need to be further discussed during meetings with Planning Commission and Town Council. Landscaping — • See the comments under Landscaping, Grading and Other Design Standards. Compliance with Article IV— • See the comments below. Suitability for Development— • See the comments below. Adequate Facilities and Efficient Spatial Pattern -- • See the comments under Water Supply, Sewage Disposal, Solid Waste Disposal and Utilities. Phasing — • We would prefer that the steeple be constructed concurrently with the sanctuary . building. We believe that it will provide variation in the design and appearance of the facility from surrounding properties. The phasing in of interior improvements is not as much of a concern, however, you should identify the planned uses at this time for the lower level and the ancillary connection to the Community Center. It is the Applicant's preference and intent to construct the steeple simultaneously with the sanctuary. In order to be fiscally responsive to the timing of donations and possible variations in construction costs however, we ask that we be allowed the flexibility to delay this element if necessary. The primary use planned for the lower level is as accessory support space for the Sanctuary. The Choir room is to be used for choir rehearsals, for robing and warm-up before worship services, and for storage of choir robes and accompanist's instruments. In the revised drawings accompanying this response we have more correctly labeled the other two large spaces on the lower level as Sunday School Rooms, this being their primary use. They will be used from time to time for other meetings of church related Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 6 of 23 groups, other non-profit organizations, or community organizations which do not have meeting space of their own. In addition to these uses, the lower level will contain three (or possibly four) counseling rooms, a relocation of this existing function from the main level of the Community Center to allow better privacy and independent operation of the counseling services. The remainder of the lower level consists of service and storage areas. The space (other than circulation) in the connection to the Community Center is intended to be used as a babysitting room during worship services. Compliance with Article IV: Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas — • There are no sensitive wildlife areas identified for this site per the Comprehensive Plan. Brush Creek Impact Area -- 1. There is a setback reduction exception from the outer edge of the Brush Creek riparian corridor if the reduction is for the purpose of accommodating underground utilities, roads, trails, bridges and similar facilities. A determination needs to be made as to whether the steeple structure encroachment from 25 to 18 feet is considered a similar facility. The applicant needs to demonstrate that 1) it is necessary and appropriate to locate the structure outside of the setback; 2) any other applicable federal, state and local permits will be obtained; and 3) the installation will comply with all other applicable standards of the affected Code section, including submission of a plan for restoration of disturbed areas. The applicant may be able to address criteria #1 via the fact that the steeple structure is a non-habitable portion of the building. We suggest that you discuss these items in a conceptual manner with this Sketch Plan application. At the Pre-sketch plait stage, the design incorporated the required emergency vehicle access by widening the pedestrian access bridge front the parking lot to the Chapel grounds. This resulted in a bridge siguificautly wider than would be customary for pedestrian use. Both the Plait tting and Zoning Commission and the Town Council expressed concern over the increased magnitude of the bridge. In response to these concerns, the applicant evaluated other options and identified the route shown oil tine current Site Platt as a more appropriate and less innpacliug solution. This does require parts o f the paved access route to encroach into lite 25 fool setback. ' Applicant believes this conies within the exception noted above. The intent of the code is to maintain a soft buffer between development and natural waterways for water quality purposes. The design intent is to mitigate the encroachment of hard surfaces by intercepting water runoff front them and routing it through a buffered area that is functionally equal to or greater than that provided by the existing twenty-five foot setback area. As to the building itself, the present plans do show the steeple encroaching approximately three feet into the 25 foot setback, however, based upon site Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 7 of 23 observations, Applicant believes that the true wetland edge (arid therefor the setback line as well) is actually farther south than the drawn line which we have been given. This calls into question the extent of steeple encroachment, if any. Applicant recommends that the actual distance between the steeple and the wetland edge be field verified to confirm arty encroachment. In any case, since run-off froth that part of the steeple which encroaches would be routed to a storm drain or to the catchment area proposed in the courtyard, it will have no negative impact on the wetland area and does not compromise the intent of the buffer zone. ' 2. A Brush Creek Impact Report will be required with the Preliminary Plan submittal, which must specifically address the above-noted criteria. Impact Report will be submitted with Preliminary Plan submittal. Geologic Hazard Areas— • This criterion is not applicable to this site. Streets and Related Improvements— • A traffic impact analysis will be required with the Preliminary Plan application to identify improvements needed to nearby public improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, intersections and bus stops/shelters. This will be provided with the Preliminary Plan submittal. Public Trails — • It appears that this proposal does not impact public trails, but the application should address where the golf cart path will be relocated. Applicant has been working with the owner of the golf course, SCA, on this and other issues. The current proposal is for the nearby green to be relocated to the east, farther 1 away from the new Chapel, as shown on the revised Site Plan included with this response. SCA is currently studying this as part of other extensive revisions to the golf course and anew path location is not available at this time. Details of the resolution should be available prior to consideration of the Preliminary Plan. Water Supply, Sewage Disposal, Solid Waste Disposal and Utilities — • The applicant will be required to work with the water and sanitation district concerning utility services. According to the attached memorandum dated May 10, 2001, a water line must be looped around the new sanctuary and under Brush Creek to Anderson Ranch, and a 15" sewer line will need to be relocated from under the building footprint area for the new sanctuary among other issues. Trash disposal, location and design detailing of a trash enclosure will need to be addressed with the Preliminary Plan application. Applicant is aware of the necessary sewer and water work and will work with the District to facilitate its completion. Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 8 of 23 r Information on trash disposal will be submitted as part of the Preliminary plan submittal. Fire Protection — • See the attached memorandum received May 7, 2001, indicating the need to identify existing and new Fire Department Connections, addressing the type of all-weather surfacing requirements for the Labyrinth, noting fire suppression for the new sanctuary, and the need for signage for all fire lanes. Other fire protection issues, such as the placement of fire hydrants, utility and fire lane easements, the fire line connection locations, at cetera, will need to be addressed with the Preliminary Plan application. ' Applicant has read and accepted the requirements given in the Fire Protection District memorandum received may 7, 2001. Storm Drainage— • It would be helpful to show the location of a proposed detention pond area, which must be within a landscaped area. The applicant is aware of the need to address site drainage. Our intent is to incorporate these types of facilities in a nnanner that they appear integral with the landscape rather than a utilitarian intrusion. The revised Site Plan indicates the preferred location for this function, a concave landscape area at the center of the entry courtyard which would receive some or all of the increased storm drainage and slowly infiltrate it into the ground. Subsurface improuernents may be required to facilitate this function. The suitability of this site will be further evaluated as part of the storm drainage calculations, geotechnical work and Brush Creek Impact Repot for the upcoming Preliminary Plan submission. Should it not prove feasible, other engineering solutions will be considered as well. Other Improvement Standards — • A subdivision plat will eventually be required to document the land swap and identify all existing and proposed easements. Applicant acknowledges that a subdivision plat will be required at a later date. Off-Street Parking Standards -- 1. Identify on the Site Plan or the digital vicinity maps where the 30-space allocation of parking spaces offered by Chaffin/Light Associates is located. Please see revised Existing Conditions Map, which has been modified to show the location of the Snowmass Corp parking and the path from it to the Chapel. 2. We request an executed letter from Chaffin/Light Associates agreeing to allow the Chapel to use 30 parking spaces in their lot during worship services, weddings, concerts, and special events within the new sanctuary. This was noted in the ' Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 9 of 23 ' application, but there is no documentation (such as a letter or parking agreement) that substantiates this statement. Please see letter dated June 8, 2001, from James W. Light, of Chaffin/Light Associates, attached to this response, under the divider labeled "Documents." 3. Will there be private shuttle service provided from the 30-space lot to the main Chapel entrance? iApplicant does not propose to run a private shuttle to this area. OR, if it is close enough, is there a pedestrian path connecting the two facilities? Staff is concerned that this parking area is too far removed from the site making it less desirable for attendees to use. rPlease see revised Existing Conditions Map, which has been modified to show the location of the Snowmass Corp parking and the path from it to the Chapel. 4. How many additional spaces are proposed by the Fire District on their site? Also show the location of these spaces on the Site Plan or the vicinity maps. Since we understand these as future spaces, please indicate when the spaces will be installed according to the district. The Fire District currently plans to add a tniniinum of ten extra parking spaces and o nnaximum of twelve as apart of future expansion plaits. Their location is shown oil the revised Existing Conditions map which accompanies this response. 5. Even though it was not addressed with Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, the original Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1982, for the Chapel site required 1 space for each 3.3 permanent seats and 1 spaces for each 5 temporary seats. Following this formula, we calculate the required parking for the new sanctuary as: 300 13.3 = 91 spaces 50/5.0 (overflow/temporary) = 10 spaces Total required for new sanctuary = 101 spaces Even with the parking required at 101 spaces, staff recommends that the site retain at least 105 spaces as per the previous PUD approval. Applicant has no desire to reduce the parking count below those presently provided. 6. Is there a planned future balcony proposed for the sanctuary? Although not shown on the cross-sections, there seems to be room for one. If this is the case, then future parking requirements need to be addressed for the balcony, unless the 50 overflow ' spaces are part of the balcony area. Please clarify. Inclusion of a seating balcony was ruled out early in design, prior to the Pr-sketch Plan submission. At the Pre-Sketch Plan stage, a small Choir Loft was shown, for Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 10 of 23 use by choir, bell choir or accompanists. This has since been deleted and there is no intention of, nor any provision for, a future balcony in the Sanctuary. ' 7. We also request a peak parking demand information to better explain that the 105 spaces are actually what is required for the site, considering that adjacent properties also use the parking lot. The information should identify the parking demand for all the intended uses at Anderson Ranch, the Fire House, within the existing chapel building, the Community Center, and the new sanctuary, including all the intended uses for the multi-purpose rooms on the lower level of the new sanctuary. The study should also note the times of operation for the various uses and whether there are overlaps in the operations. The most overlapping functions would identify the worse case parking demand for the site. We recommend that a table or matrix format be ' prepared, following the example on the next page, listing the buildings in the column titles and the uses in the row titles, including their operation times. This amount of detail could be provided during the Preliminary Plan review, however, you should be able to generally address the operational needs and timeframes of the various users of the parking lot at this time. EXISTING CHAPEL USAGE (as used as a community room in future) Sunday Weekend Weekday Weekday I x/year Weeklong Mid-day Evening variable timing 1-2 x/year Challenge Aspen 8 cars Music Camp 5 weeknights Vacation Bible School 2 cars + P/up& D/off 5 evenings Piano Lessons 2 cars afternoons Healing Service 30 cars weekday pm Music Club Recitals 15-20 cars Saturday day Peak 3 Ministries 3 cars ' Ski Patrol Meeting GO cars weekday evenings wkday evening Thanksgiving Potluck 95 cars Sunday evenings Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page I I of 23 ' MULTI-PURPOSE ROOMS (includes rooms in existing sanctuary building,community center and new sanctuary) Sunday Weekend Weekday Weekday 1 x/year Weeklong Mid-day Evenings variable 1-2 x/year timing Confirmation Class 4 cars + P/up& D/off Weight Watchers 6 cars Ix/wk Men's Bridge 6 cars lx/wk Meadow Ranch 3 cars Condo Assoc. I x/month Brush Creek Metro 10 cars I x/month Bible Study 8 cars I x/wk winter Watercolor Class 6 cars I x/wk seasonal Brownies/Girl Scouts 2 cars + P'up& D/off 2 x/month Yoga 8 cars 2 x/wk Spirituality Seminar 20 cars Stan Wood 3 cars weekend Health Seminar 6 cars weekend Slide Show 10 cars wkday pm GS Cookie 8 cars Distribution +p/up&d/off ' wkday pm Election 12 cars weekday ' Gala Preparation 4 cars weekday Nature Center Open 8 cars House Sunday day Pitkin Cly Democrats 18 cars wkday pm Special Election 6 cars weekday CMC Graduation 20 cars weekday pm Cranio-Sacral Seminar 6 cars 1 Board Meetings 10 cars 5 evenings 4 x/year weekday Sanctuary Council 8 cars Meetings 8 x/year weekday • Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 12 of 23 Horse Ranch 15 cars Homeowners wkday pm 1 Qi Gong Presentation 5 cars wkday pm Kriya Yoga 8 cars 4 evenings 1 Halloween Party 3 cars P/up&D/off evening General Election 20 cars weekdav Fox Run Homeowners 12 cars wkday 6 cars p Challenge Aspen Staff 6 cars Meeting weekday GS Area Leaders 6 cars ' weekday Bylaws Task Force 5 cars 4 x/year weekdav Aspen Interfaith 12 cars Meeting 4 x/year weekdav Alcoholics Anonymous 6 cars 6 cars 2x/week Ix/week SCCC Committee 3 cars Meetings 20 x/year ' weekdays Nature Center 6 cars Meetings 10 x/year weekdays Parenting Classes 8 cars seasonal lx/week Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 13 of 23 1 1 NEW SANCTUARY USAGE Sunday Weekend Weekday Weekday I x/year Weeklong Mid-dav Evening variable timing 1-2 x/year Sunday Worship 85 cars On-Season 9 am Sunday Worship 30 cars Off-Season 93m ' Catholic Mass 90 cars On-Season 5 pm Hispanic Worship 5 cars (time?) Concerts—Summer 40 cars evenings 3 x/summer Concerts—Winter 40 cars evenings 3x/winter Weddings 40 cars avg. 10 x/year Wedding Rehearsals 7 cars avg. 10 x/year Memorials SO— 100 cars 5 x/year J. Denver Memorial 100 cars I x/year Protestant Christmas 100 cars Eve I x/year Easter 100 cars I x/year Catholic—New Years 90 cars I x/year Catholic—Good Friday 90 cars I x/year Catholic—X-mas Eve 100 cars I x/year Choir Practice 15 cars 4 weeknights Xmas/Easter • Children's X-mas 5 cars Pageant Rehearsal 4 weeknights ' Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 14 of 23 Snowmass Chapel Expansion Peak Parking Demand Analysis Use Anderson Ranch Fire House Existing Chapel Community New Sanctuary Parking Demand Center Meeting) Spaces: Spaces: Spaces: 95 spaces Spaces:20 spaces Spaces:see attached Total Spaces: Conference most needed) (most needed) Rooms Time: (i.e.,8-5 M-F) Time: (i.e.,8-5 M-F) Time: see attached Time see attached Time Time Range: Existing Chapel Usg Mufti-Purpose Usage Daycare Spaces. Spaces: Spaces.NA Spaces.NA Spaces.NA Total Spaces. Center Time. Time Time Time: Time Time Range: 11KCes Spaces: Spaces: Spaces:NA Spaces:4 Spaces:NA Time Time Time Time.all day Time weekdays New N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Spaces: 101 Total Spaces: 101 (worst rase?) Sanctuary Sat times:see attached Time Range. New Sanctuary Usage Sun.times:see attached Counseling Spaces: Spaces. Spaces:NA Spaces:NA Spaces:4 Total Spaces: rooms Time: Time: Time Time Time all day—weekdays Time Range: Multi- Spaces: Spaces: Spaces:20 Spaces:20 Spaces.20(most needed) Total Spaces. purpose (mostneeded) (most needed) rooms Time Time Time:see attached Time see attached Time Range Time see attached Multi-Purpose Usage Housing Spaces: Spaces: Spaces: 1 Spaces:NA Spaces:NA Total Spaces. Units Time: Time Time all times Time. Time Time Range: Cafeteria Spaces: Spaces: Spaces. NA Spaces:NA Spaces:NA Time Time Time Time: Time. Studios Spaces. Spaces: Spaces:NA Spaces:NA Spaces.NA Total Spaces: Time. Time. Time. Time Time Time Range. Other(list) Spaces Spaces: Spaces: Spaces: Spaces:NA Total Spaces: Time: Time: Time-. Time. Time: Time Range. Parking Total Spaces: Total Spaces: Total Spaces: Total Spaces: Total Spaces: 101 (worst ease?) Worst case Parking Demand Time Range: (ie_Fri.6-10 PM. Demand for all uses and Sun.BAM- Time Range: Time Range. Time Range I Time Range: 12PM 85-9 Pm) IlmeS IS spaces. Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Pagc 15 of 23 ' SCCC COMMENTS REGARDING PARKING STANDARD FOR SKETCH PLAN STAGE I. We have contacted Anderson Ranch requesting parking demand information. They are in full support of helping us facilitate our expansion project and will be forthcoming with parking demand information. 2. Based on the parking demand analysis information included here, there is no estimated overlap of events held at SCCC that would require more than 100 spaces. The existing ' Parking Lot Use, Maintenance& Improvement Agreement, executed by SCCC, Anderson Ranch,and Snowmass Wildcat Fire District provides for cooperative management of the parking lot usage(see attached Agreement. Section 3(c)). ' 3. The word "spaces" indicated in all columns refers to spaces required at any given time, not a daily total(e.g., elections may require only 20 spaces at any given time, although a total of 100 cars may make use of parking lot throughout the day). 4. The existing Parking Lot Use, Maintenance& Improvement Agreement does not ' provide parking spaces in the lot for Snowmass Wildcat Fire District(SWFD). Instead. the Agreement provides for a perpetual non-exclusive access easement that allows SWFD to access their future planned parking lot through ours(see Section 3(b) of the attached Parking Lot Agreement). 5. SCCC does not operate a daycare facility. 1 8. Pursuant to the above comments, and in order to maintain a minimum 105 parking spaces required for the site, the Chapel and Community Center should agree in writing, and on the plans, that other uses with the existing buildings, such as the existing Chapel space, the daycare facility, Applicant wishes to clarify that there is not now a daycare center in the facility, nor is one ' intended in the future. The space identified as "Nursery"is simply a babysitting room for very young children during services and occasionally during other events. This is quite different from an actual daycare operation. meeting rooms in the Community Center, and the counseling offices will not be used during the worship service times, weddings, concerts, and other special events in the new sanctuary in order to help relieve the parking demand for the sanctuary addition. In addition, Anderson Ranch and the Fire District should agree not to use the parking area during worship and special event times in the sanctuary. We understand that there is a shared parking agreement in place, and it may need to be modified to provide further restrictions or a better understanding of the use and times of the parking facility by other nearby users. ' Please see parking analysis above. A copy of the original Parking Lot use agreement is attached to this response. ' Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 16 of 23 ' 9. We request that you describe an operational plan for the site, including what is envisioned for use in the existing Chapel space and Community Center once the new sanctuary is built. This should be addressed in the project description and noted that the uses in the existing facilities will operate at separate times from the new Chapel operations, as requested above. Once the new Sanctuary is completed, the existing Sanctuary space will be used primarily for lectures, presentations, and meetings. In addition, the existing sanctuary space will be available for use for wedding receptions; events which can bring substantial economic activity to the town, in the form of catering and entertainment, lodging for guests etc. Since worship services are held on Sunday mornings it is unlikely that these other activities will coincide with them. Sunday meetings, weddings, etc., will typically be scheduled to begin after worship services have ended, in order to avoid conflicts in terms of noise, different attendees, as well as parking. The lower level of the new Chapel is intended to be used primarily for Sunday school classes, which are ancillary to the sanctuary. At other times the school rooms may be used for other meetings, lectures etc., which do not require as much space as the old Sanctuary provides. In all these uses, the focus is on uses by individuals, non-profits, educational and cultural organizations. Fees charged are nominal, mostly covering maintenance, and the intent is not to compete with other, meeting spaces in Town. The existing Community Center building will continue to be used much as it is today, ' primarily for offices of the SCCC staff. The ground floor counseling rooms will be partially taken up by circulation space and the rest converted into a Sunday school room. ' Landscaping, Grading and Other Design Standards -- It would be helpful if a plan view and a cross-section of the proposed berm and landscape buffer on the north side of the new sanctuary would appear next to the proposed sanctuary structure, proposed to be pulled back as indicated on page 9. Please illustrate on the Site Plan and in the affected elevations/floor plans. There ' should be a planned location for the replacement golf cart path too. The site plan and lower level plan, and elevations have been modified to suggest this grading. The revised site Plan shows the new location proposed for the golf green. The ' location of the golf cart path is still being determined by SCA but will be well away from the Chapel, with the possible exception of a spur to allow use of lower level rest rooms. The exact design of this berm will be developed further as the project progresses. 1 Energy Conservation — An Energy Conservation Plan will be required with the Preliminary Plan application. Applicant acknowledges this requirement for the Preliminary Plan submission. ' Building Design -- The building design looks good to staff, but design details may need to be refined or better understood during the Planning Commission and Town Council meetings. Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 17 of 23 1 It Is worthwhile at this point to recount the changes made between the Pre- Sketch Plan and the Sketch Plan submissions in order to respond to comments received from the Town. First, the main emergency vehicle access has been relocated in order to ' allow reducing the size of the pedestrian access bridge. Second, with relocation of the golf green, space has become available to add a landscaped earth berm against the north face of the building, reducing the visible height of this wall, a primary objective of the Town's comments. Third, the steeple had been made smaller and pulled back into the mass of the building, shortening the entire structure by approximately 16 feet and making the whole more compact. Fourth, the new Chapel has been moved approximately 12 feet closer to the existing buildings, reducing site coverage and leaving more open space, as well as moving it farther from neighboring buildings to the southeast. ' These changes reduce the apparent scale of the building without compromising the acoustical requirements which have driven its overall design from the start. ' However, staff does have the following comments concerning the building elevations and the structural dimensions proposed: ' 1. According to the proposed amendment, the application seeks a 78-foot height limit, but the scale of the steeple from grade on the north side of the steeple structure scales at 81 feet in height. The 81 ft. dimension is arrived at by from measuring from the top of the steeple to the bottom of a wall which is about 80 feet north of the steeple. It is not a true dimension. The pre-sketch plan drawings proposed a 64-foot high steeple, not including the cross above the roof line. This should be better clarified and stated in the project description on page 3. The written description should also explain the reasoning why the building footprint and height had to increase from the pre-sketch information, especially since ' there were concerns expressed about the height, scale and massing of the structure at the time of the pre-sketch meeting. The text of the Pre-Sketch Plan submittal notes the height of the steeple spire as 68 feet, not 64 R. as stated. The drawings show it significantly higher than the roof which is noted as 62 feet. Please see further response regarding height under item 5. Below. 2. We question the statement made on page 8 of the project description, which states ' that there is "an allowance in the existing PUD for a steeple or similar feature, which is of unrestricted height." The current PUD standards actually state that, the steeple is excepted from the height restriction but that it needs to be designed in proportion ' to the building and shall be subject to approval of the Town Council. In addition, page 2 should reflect the 78-foot high steeple versus the noted 72 feet for consistency and note that it was increased in height. ' Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 18 of 23 Applicant's statement was intended only to reflect that no specific height limit was set for the steeple under the existing requirements. Applicant acknowledges that steeple is to be in proportion (as the proposed design is) and to be approved by Council. The "approximately 72 feet"on page 2 is indeed an error and has been corrected to ' read "approximately 78 feet"in the revised text which accompanies this response. This is consistent with the proposed height limit requested. The 78 foot height limit also encompasses the main roof, as measured from the lower grade at the north end of the building. Applicant has proposed one height limit for the entire facility but is ' willing to work with separate height limits for the building and for the steeple if desired by the Town. ' 3. The same section should be clarified to note that the 41 foot height for the lowest roof form and the 66 feet (not 65 feet) for the highest roof form is measured from the ' southern grade point and that the highest roof form is 78 feet high from the northern grade point. The text at the top of page 3 of the Submittal does state that the heights are measured "From the entry side." It also characterizes these dimensions by use of the term "approximately," to acknowledge the latitude of adjustments which may occur as the project moves from concept to completed construction documents and the dimensions of structure, envelope, etc. are finalized. The difference between 65 and 66 feet falls into this category. ' As staff has noted, the height from the lower grade at the north end is 78 feet, consistent with the proposed amendment. The pre-sketch plan drawings showed a proposed a 68 building on the north elevation, not including the cross above the roofline. ' Since the Pre-Sketch Plan was described to us as informal and preliminary the drawings we submitted at that time were in reduced format and were not dimensioned. A review of the actual large format drawings from which those reductions were made shows that the highest roof of the Chapel actually scaled 76'from grade at the north end. The two foot difference to the current drawings is the result of slight changes in proportion and allowing for structural assemblies. 4. According to the Code's height variance criteria, "a request to increase the maximum allowable height for any building or structure may be approved by the Town Council, provided that at least 50% of a building, structure or group of structure's footprint within the PUD conforms to the height limits of the underlying zone district." You may be able to use another copy of the volumetric plan study to shade in the portions ' of the roofs which are above the current 40-foot height limit. Please demonstrate with your next submittal. The height variance requires super majority approval by the Town Council. Rather than add another diagram, we looked back to the Average Height Calculations included with the submittal. The only areas of the proposed structure which exceed the present 40'height limit are the three main roof segments of the ' Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 19 of 23 1 1 ' new Chapel and the Steeple. As shown in the calculations, these together have a cumulative area of 5823 sf., or 29% of the total roof area, leaving at least 71% of the roof area lower than 40'. Since the lower portions of some of these roofs are actually below 40 ft., the true percentage of roofs within the existing height limit is something over 71%. 5. Overall, the building is higher than what was represented in the pre-sketch discussion meetings (from 68 feet to 78 feet, without the cross above the roofline). The main change to building height has been to make the steeple more slender and slightly taller, to improve the proportion of the Steeple to the main roofs and allow the two elements to read as more of a traditional "church" image. Beyond this, the main ' ridgeline (as measured from the entry side) has increased from 62 feet, as described in the Pre-sketch Plan submittal, to 65'feet as described in the Sketch Plan Submittal. This minor change is the result of proportional judgements made in ' developing the elevations and allowing for the thickness of structural roof system dictated by acoustic requirements. ' In both submittals, it has been clear that the grade stepping down at the north end of the Chapel results in a higher elevation being exposed there. The Sketch Plan submittal proposes to use an earth berm to reduce this. This is shown on the revised drawings submitted with this response. The requested PUD amendment height limit of 78'will allow the Sanctuary roof line as measured from the north and will also encompass the steeple height. ' In reviewing the proposal against the pre-sketch drawings, the building footprint has been enlarged. Specifically, the width of the connection to the Community Center has increased from about 23 feet to 30 feet, From the Pre-Sketch to the Sketch plan, the new building has been moved quite a bit closer to the existing building, in order to accommodate the Fire District access as it has developed. This move decreased the width of the Nursery which is wedged between the two buildings. To keep this space functional, it was extended in the other ' direction, as noted by Staff. This change takes place in a semi-enclosed area between the two buildings, is nearly impossible to perceive except in plan, and will have very little, if any, impact on the surrounding community. the width of the proposed sanctuary has increased from about 65 feet to 80 feet, A comparison of large format scaled drawings from the two submittals shows that the overall width of the building was 78 feet at the Pre-Sketch Plan stage, and is now 80'-6"at the Sketch Plan Stage. (This increase is due to the addition of a ramp to facilitate access to the raised Chancel Platform, and to a more detailed representation of the thickness of walls required for acoustic and structural reasons. The width of the main Sanctuary space has actually been reduced slightly, from 42'-6" to 42'-0".) ' and the length of the proposed sanctuary stayed about the same at 125 feet. Staff is correct that the length from front overhang at entry to rear wall of the Sacristy has remained consistent at approximately 125'. The Steeple however, which Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 20 of 23 1 had been set well in front of the Narthex (with a coat room in between), has now been pulled back so that its southern face is nearly in line with the entry overhang. This means ' that the overall length of the structure has actually decreased by about 16'from Pre- Sketch Plan to Sketch Plan. Increasing these dimensions appears to go against the Council directive from the pre- sketch meeting as far as trying to limit the perceived height of the building from Brush Creek Road. Your written description should explain the reasoning behind these changes. As explained above, the small changes which have occurred are the result of further design refinement, not any change in intent. The steeple height change has resulted in a more graceful and meaningful relationship of elements. The minor changes which have occurred are consistent with the level of development for a project being submitted for Sketch Plan approval. The most effective means available to reduce perceived height from Brush Creek road, consistent with the purposes of this facility, is the addition of an earth feature, bermed up against the north wall. This reduces the visible height of the wall by approximately eight feet, plus plantings, and is represented on the revised drawings submitted with this response. 1 6. The architectural elevations should call out the dimensions of the building footprint and structure (height, width, and length) as well the steeple. The elevation drawings attached to this response have been modified to add height dimensions. The floor plans submitted for Sketch Plan review already have overall dimensions on them. 7. It would be helpful to provide revised photo simulations of the building from Brush Creek Road showing the entire ski mountain in the background, including the mountain top ridgelines. The photo simulations desired are as follows: Y It will be important to show the relationship of the proposed sanctuary height to ' the highest elevation of Burnt Mountain to gain a better understanding of the proportionality of the structure to the surrounding area to the south. So, photo simulations farther down Brush Creek Road may be appropriate, such as from the west end of the Blue Roof Condos and from the main entrance to the Town at Highline Road and Brush Creek Road. A photo simulation from Melton Ranch located to the north of the site; ' ➢ One from the nearest condominium complex to the west; and Y One from Ridge Run I, up the hill to the south of Owl Creek Road, looking down at the site. ' Photo simulations numbers 1-7 are attached. These have been created by photographing a rough model of the existing and proposed SCCC buildings from various ' angles and inserting the resulting images into digital photos of the site. The portions of the model representing existing buildings were overlaid on their images in the photos to properly orient and scale the new Chapel from each viewpoint. While this provides a useful approximation, it is not represented to be an exact simulation, as lens focal Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 21 of 23 1 ' length, modeling accuracy, infinite variations in quality of light and reflectivity of materials, etc. will all affect the result. The most significant caveat to these images however, is that they are all taken with a camera lens which has an angle of view less wide than human perception. Because of this, every one of these photos has the effect of"zooming in"on the Chapel, making it appear to occupy more of the available vista than it will in reality. The following specific comments apply to each photo: 1. Photo taken from the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highline Road. From this location the Chapel site is not visible, being blocked by the knoll on which the ' seventh hole tees of the golf course are located. Since we cannot see the ground plane or the surrounding existing buildings from here, it is difficult to judge whether the proposed facility will be visible. Based upon the fact that all the surrounding buildings are completely hidden, our best approximation is that the tip of the steeple and the highest ridge of the roof may just be visible over the hill. As the simulation shows, these elements, even if they do project, will be entirely ' inconsequential among the immense and dynamic surroundings visible from this location. 2. Photo taken from the shoulder of Brush Creek road, opposite the entrance to the Blue Roof Condos. This is the landmark view which will has been described elsewhere in this submittal. The earth feature which has been added reduces the visible wall area from this side significantly. It is worth noting that the Chapel and its Steeple do not rise above the wooded lower slopes of the residential area, the upper slopes such ass the big burn, are unobstructed, as is the overall panorama of the valley. 3. Photo taken from the backyard of home at#20 Martingale Lane, Melton Ranch. This is the Chapel's nearest residential neighbor north of Brush Creek Road. As the photo shows, the Chapel will comprise only a small portion of the view from this yard and is well below the most dynamic elements visible here. ' 4. Photo taken from just inside the tree line north of the Blue Roof condos. The proposed chapel is obscured somewhat by trees on the golf course. Since the photo is taken through a break in the line of mature trees and bushes which runs along the north side of the condos, it actually makes the chapel more visible than it will be from within the condos.. Even though the photo is taken from a location somewhat downhill of the chapel, the roofline is still below the distant ridges. ' 5. Photo taken from the condo immediately across Brush Creek road, Unit #153. From this location the new Chapel is partly hidden by the existing buildings. Its roof line and steeple do not rise as high as the distant ridgelines. This photo is ' taken from ground level, the Chapel will have reduced visual impact for the upper levels where the main living spaces of these units appear to be located. 6. Photo taken from outside The Ridge condos, across Owl Creek road. From this nearest vantage point to the south, the proposed Chapel is seen against the open space of the golf course and the slope above Brush Creek road. It does Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 22 of 23 1 1 ! not obscure any scenic elements and encompasses only a small portion of the wide vista. 7. Photo taken from Owl Creek Road,just east of the Red School House. From this location the Chapel is seen as being lower than numerous other structures. Its ' dark roofs will prevent it from jumping out'at the viewer. Here, as at most other locations, the Chapel will comprise only a small portion of the vista available to viewers. Restricted Housing — • The figures you show for employee housing seem reasonable, although the applicant ' should agree as to when this restricted employee housing unit will become available, identify its location, and provide the Town with a copy of the deed restriction for the property. In as much as this project is submitted for Sketch Plan review and is not projected be completed until the end of the year 2003, applicant has not yet determined the exact method of fulfilling the employee housing requirement and does not have a deed in hand at this time. The attached letter dated June 7, 2001, from Heather Gosda, Administrative Director of SCCC acknowledges the responsibility to fulfill the requirement and describes the options currently being considered. Sign Standards — • We recommend that you prepare a sign plan for review with the Preliminary Plan ' application in lieu of waiting until after final approvals. Sign details should also be submitted at that time. Applicant acknowledges the requirement for a Sign Plan and agrees to fulfill it as required by code. End of response to comments. 1 1 Response to comments on Sketch Plan Snowmass Chapel Page 23 of 23 1 SKETCH PLAN DESCRIPTION Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary 04/09/01 Prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, Ltd. Revised 06/11/01 in Response to TOSV comments. In addition to addressing the needs of their ever-increasing congregation, it is the intent of the Board of Trustees and Sanctuary Council of the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center (SCCC) to realize 1 the potential of the proposed new structure as an asset to the community at large. The intent of this description is to illustrate the design and to clarify issues that have led to the architecture and planning being proposed. General The core purpose for the new Sanctuary is that of a worship space to accommodate the expanding church attendance of the community. The Sanctuary and its liturgical support spaces will be designed to accommodate 300 persons in fixed pew seating with additional overflow capacity of approximately 50 persons for high attendance services and community cultural events. The footprint of the proposed structure is approximately 7,400 square feet. Upon completion of the new Sanctuary,the existing worship space will also become a much needed "community hall"for large gatherings and meetings, thus fulfilling the original master plan concept of the SCCC. Of equal importance, the new Sanctuary will add a significant cultural component through its availability to house a wide range of community events. In addition to ecumenical liturgical services and special services such as weddings and memorials, it is envisioned that the new Sanctuary will host ongoing programs including a musical and choral recital series, international organ symposia, the Snowmass concert series, church music work shops, and lectures. A centerpiece of both worship services and music events will be a Fisk Pipe Organ recently donated by a Snowmass Village family. The best of its kind, the Fisk Organ is a hand made instrument custom designed for the Snowmass Chapel. Over one hundred years old, the C.B. Fisk Company makes only three instruments each year, the Snowmass Sanctuary Organ being commissioned last year. Fisk Organs are found in prestigious churches and symphony halls throughout the world. The architectural concept physically connects the new Sanctuary with the existing Community Center building to maximize the joint use of existing space, to minimize redundancy and the expense of duplicate Sanctuary support spaces. A lower level (mostly sub-grade) is planned below the new Sanctuary space. In addition to mechanical support space and toilets, the lower level is envisioned to include meeting rooms, church school rooms, counseling spaces and choral practice space to accommodate future needs of the SCCC. Depending upon need and funding, much of this space may be left unfinished initially, to be completed at some later date.. These functions will be accessed primarily via the stair within the new Sanctuary. Along Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 1 1 with the vacated space of the current worship space, the campus has been designed to fulfill a variety of community service and space needs over the foreseeable future. The architectural and land use planning has been conceived to address three issues of scale: community scale; campus scale; and worship scale. Community Scale The new Snowmass Chapel is designed to reflect the tradition of European mountain village prototypes where the village church is a prominent focal point, source of civic pride and community identity. Those qualities are translated into an architecture which expresses the heritage, history and unique sense of place that is Snowmass Village. The existing campus provides a unique set of natural opportunities for a Chapel structure, expressive of landmark quality and community identity. The landscaped open space of the Snowmass golf course provides a verdant foreground setting as viewed from Brush Creek Road, while the backdrop of the ski mountain and ridges easily accommodates the landmark scale of the Chapel. The positioning of the Sanctuary site relative to Brush Creek Road and the natural topography rising to the shale bluffs on the west create a natural portal giving a sense of arrival and identity to Snowmass Village. It is our hope that placing a visible civic building in this location will help signal to visitors that Snowmass Village is a diverse and vibrant community, in addition to being a thriving resort. Campus Scale While a landmark quality is important from the standpoint of approach and community image, it is equally important that the Sanctuary relate to the campus scale and establish a friendly pedestrian image, in concert with the scale of the existing buildings. For this reason, the major massing of the Sanctuary has been designed as a series of stepped down gable roof, similar in form to the historic Stave Churches of Scandinavia. This form creates a graceful transition from landmark scale (on the North) to pedestrian scale (on the south). An important element of the pedestrian approach to the campus from the existing parking area will be a new stone bridge, replacing the existing footbridge (in order to maintain the current number of stream crossings and avoid necessitating further review bye the Army corps of Engineers). At the lime ofour Pre-Sketch Plan Review Meeting, this bridge was shown wide enough to accommodate fire vehicles. A comment was made in that meeting that this seemed out of scale. Since that time anew access arrangement has been worked out with the Fire District which allows this bridge to be sized Jor its pedestrian function, thus answering the Town's concern on this issue. Envisioned as an important pedestrian arrival "threshold" between parking and the landscaped environs of the Sanctuary and ' campus, the pedestrian bridge will provide a graceful introduction to the campus. A bell steeple (approximately 12 feet square in plan, with a spire rising to approximately 78 feet) is connected to the south entry side of the Sanctuary. By comparison, the steeple of the Aspen Chapel (Prince of Peace) is 118 ft. tall. In addition, the Aspen Chapel's prominent setting atop a small rise Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 2 thrusts the structure and steeple into the skyline, while the proposed Snowmass chapel is nestled in the base of its valley. 1 From the entry side, the lower gable roof is approximately 41 ft. high, the next stepped roof is approximately 54 fl. high, and the northernmost roof is, approximately 65 ft. high. Worship Scale The final and perhaps most important scale of design concern is that of the worship Sanctuary itself. This will result from a balance between the intimacy required of a mountain village chapel and the acoustic volume required to properly present music performed on the pipe organ, as well as accompanying vocal and instrumental music. Architectural Character The design of the new Sanctuary was guided by the wish to create a building clearly expressive of its core purpose as a house of worship. In addition, it is intended to establish a sense of enduring permanence and to reflect the architectural traditions and character of its majestic mountain environment, and to create a distinguished landmark identity for Snowmass Village. The translation of these objectives to architectural form results in a "grounding" of the building by the use of natural stone walls surmounted by the steep pitch of protective roof forms. In addition to a response to scale criteria, the gable roof"steps" permit natural south light to illuminate the interior of the Sanctuary space. As currently envisioned, the interior of the Sanctuary will be characterized by stone, heavy timber and natural light. In one sense, the chapel may be viewed as a man-made sanctuary within the greater"Sanctuary" of nature, calling for a direct visual connection to the landscape and seasonal changes. To accomplish this connection to nature, the sides of the Sanctuary at the ground level incorporate large expanses of glass. These may eventually incorporate art glass along with clear glass, to create layers of interest and perception. Another large art glass element, this one a vertical composition on the north facade, will 1 bring natural light into the alter end of the sanctuary. From the exterior, this will seen at night as a softly glowing lantern, a beacon of warmth and welcome reflecting the community of Snowmass Village. The actual entry to the Narthex(vestibule) and Sanctuary is formed by the lowest of the stepped gable roofs, which overhangs to form a porch for weather and sun protection. Heavy timber elements and glass form a traditional gothic arch within this roof form. The walls forming the Narthex are largely glazed, to create transparency and thus a visual connection between the Sanctuary and the campus green space, as well as to the riparian environment of Brush Creek. Site Plannine Issues The site plan is a response to several practical, aesthetic and regulatory issues. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 3 i Viewed from the Brush creek Road side, the fact that the Sanctuary structure is angled off the rectangular grid of the existing campus buildings creates a somewhat separate identity from the lower scale of those buildings. From the entry side, the physical connection to the existing buildings creates a defined edge to the campus "green". The steeple element has been located at this side both to create a recognizable identity from the uphill (toward the village core) direction and to more strongly define entry to the Sanctuary. The steeple element has been designed of stone with a partial glass surround so the approaching worshiper may both hear and see the church bells, which will be hand cast in England by the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, a world-recognized leader in their field. Fire equipment access has been addressed via the existing culvert crossing East of the building. From here vehicles can pass between the building and the stream to reach a staging area on the plaza, or can proceed north alongside the building to the "Y" turn around. These two locations meet the fire District's requirements for building access and have been agreed to in general, details to be worked out as the design becomes more final. These two routes can also be used for occasional deliveries and to allow handicapped persons to approach the building more closely than the main parking area across Brush Creek allows. In order to preserve the creek corridor, provide required fire District access, and meet the program needs for the building, it has been necessary to extend the building north beyond the edge of the SCCC's current property. In order to allow this, applicant proposes to negotiate a land swap with Snowmass Club Associates (SCA), transferring title to a portion of SCCC land currently used as part of their golf course, in exchange for a similar amount of land to be occupied by the proposed new building. Discussions have commenced and are proceeding amicably toward such an agreement. The architectural design of the building incorporates rest rooms and other features requested by SCA, and talks are currently under way to consider develop measures to avoid any sense of golf play being too close to the building. A letter from the Aspen Skiing Company, sole owner of SCA, giving their consent for this application to consider use of part of their property, is included as part of this application. In 1997, the Community Center building was expanded; a parking lot use agreement was also approved. The number of parking spaces was increased in anticipation of this new Sanctuary. Actual parking figures are addressed in a separate section of this submittal Building construction and site development will respond to the established Brush Creek Riparian setback and criteria established by the Army Corps of engineers. Due to site constraints, a part of the required Fire District access route is located within the setback. This is as allowed under the exception for "necessary structures" (Sec. 16A-4-30(e)(1)b.) Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 4 Specific Response to Sketch Plan Criteria,See. 16A-5-320 I. Use: The proposed use is the same as the existing approved facilities. It is therefor clearly appropriate in this location and is consistent with the intent of the underlying zone districts and the character of surrounding uses. 2. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use is generally consistent with the town's comprehensive Plan in that this site has been designated for community use and the same functions which are proposed. 3. Architecture and landscaping: The building proposed is in the appropriate location, since it is adjacent to other buildings of like function and surrounded by other community uses (golf course, fire station, Anderson Ranch Arts Center). Its mass and scale, are appropriate. While the proposed Chapel is taller than surrounding buildings, this is appropriate for it's function and community landmark status. Its position at the edge of the very large open space formed by the golf course is suited to a large structure. The proposal improves upon the existing campus courtyard, enhancing this already attractive and public open space. 4. Natural resource and hazard areas: The Brush Creek Impact area passes through this site. The majority of the proposed structure has been sited outside of this Impact Area. Due to requirements for fire district access, the proposal does include some pavement within the Impact Area. This is as allowed under the exception for"necessary structures" (Sec. 16A-4- 30(e)(I)b.) 5. Access and circulation: This proposal utilizes the existing access which has proven to be functional and acceptable in the past. 6. Parking: This proposal utilizes the existing access and parking facilities, which have proven to be functional and acceptable in the past. Later in this submittal, Applicant has provided an analysis of current parking usage which demonstrates that sufficient parking is available for normal events. Applicant has demonstrated in the past the ability to use administrative measures (off-site parking, shuttle buses) to address additional short term needs which occur infrequently. 7. Timetable: the proposed timetable is for construction to begin in Spring of 2002 with completion anticipated in Summer of 2003. It is possible that the steeple, nursery and/or some interior work on the lower level, may be scheduled later for financial reasons, however these do not materially affect the project design or impacts. 8. Community Welfare: The concepts contained in the proposal promote the public safety, health and welfare in that the facility proposed serves the needs of community members. The worship 1 services offered in this facility will enhance quality of life, promote better citizenship and address the spiritual, cultural and educational needs of citizens. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 5 The proposed structure complies with the community Purposes outlined in TC Ord. 0015 p. 43 in that it develops a necessary public facility, a place of worship, gathering and cultural enrichment. In addition, the proposal complies with the community purpose to "encourage 1 better design" in that it seeks to simultaneously address landscape scale, campus scale and community landmark scale. The building is also designed specifically to meet a functional need, that of musical performance at a very high artistic level which benefits both individuals and the community. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 6 Proposed Amendment of Final PUD The applicant seeks an amendment to modify, as stated below, the requirements which are included in Exhibit A, Land use and Development Parameters for Portions of Parcels 7 and 8 of the Final Planned Unit Development for the Snowmass Club Subdivision: Lot I- Permitted uses: the proposed amendment does not seek to change the permitted uses. Maximum number of dwelling units: the proposed amendment does not seek to change the number of dwelling units allowed (one unit, not to exceed 1,000 sf.) Maximum Building ground coverage: The proposed amendment seeks to change the maximum allowable building ground coverage from 15,000 sf. to 20,000 sf. Maximum parking and Driveway coverage: The proposed amendment does not seek to change the allowable coverage of 8000 SF. Maximum Building height: The proposed amendment seeks to change the height limit from 40' to 78 feet. This limit shall also apply to the steeple, which is not limited under the current PUD. Average building height: The proposed amendment seeks to increase this from 25 feet to 26 feet. Lot 2 — The proposed amendment does not seek to change any of the parameters applicable to lot 2, unless additional parking shall be required as part of the review process. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 7 Response to Review Standards, per Sec. 16-5-390 ' a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the original PUD: In that it further serves the same function as described in that PUD. The proposed amendment is an enhancement to the original PUD in that it allows the existing facility to grow in correspondence with the community . Without this amendment and the larger facility it will allow, the SCCC will be extremely limited in its ability to serve the community. In addition, this facility will allow the SCCC to broaden its community and cultural offerings, thereby reaching a wider spectrum of the community with a wider range of activities. The amendment being sought is primarily to allow a total floor area in excess of that currently allowed. As stated above, this is required to continue to serve the original function of the PUD as the community, and its need for supporting services, grows. The amendment is being sought also to allow a maximum building height which is greater than currently allowed. This is required in order to meet the programmatic requirements of the facility (sightlines, intimacy, acoustical quality) on a constricted site. There is however, an allowance in the existing PUD for a steeple or similar feature, which is of unrestricted height. The proposed increase in allowable height has not been arrived at lightly or for aesthetic reasons. Rather, it comes about due to the functional requirements of a facility for performance of organ music. The classical organ repertoire is properly performed in a space I having a reverberation time of at least 2.25 seconds, and as high as four seconds or more. Achieving this reverberation time in a space occupied by 350 persons requires a room volume of approximately 150,000 cubic feet. In order to avoid echoes, the width of the main volume has been limited to approximately 45 feet. In order to achieve visual intimacy between persons speaking from the Chancel and those sitting in the Sanctuary, the furthest seats have been held to approximately 55 feet from the pulpit. With length and width established, mathematics determines the height necessary to achieve 1 the required volume. In this case, an average height of approximately 50 feet is required. With the sloping roofs which give this building a graceful proportion, the resulting gable height is approximately 65 feet. This is the height of the tallest roof form measured from the floor of the Sanctuary. Since the site steps down to the north, the height measured there is greater. A letter from the project acoustician, Larry Kirkegaard,which further outlines these requirements, is attached to this application. During the Pre-Sketch Plan review meeting,we were asked to consider depressing the building below grade in order to reduce its height. This concept had been considered earlier and we have revisited it as requested. The main obstacle is the need to provide space for additional functions, such as multi-purpose rooms (used for Sunday School among other things), mechanical and storage space, a Choir Room, etc. The available site does not provide L enough space to locate these functions on the ground level and so they are planned in a basement level. This level is already planned to be twelve feet below the main level, lowering it further would significantly increase cost and would raise ground-water concerns. In addition, there are serious concerns about the image of descending into a place of worship, Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 8 which is intended to be uplifting and light filled. Finally, depressing the main level would complicate access, requiring ramps and/or an elevator,with accompanying additional: cost. For these reasons, the design team and the Sanctuary Council concluded that depressing the 1 Sanctuary is not a satisfactory design solution. Applicant has had several meetings with SCA, owner of the adjacent golf. Current talks center on making internal adjustments to the floor plan to pull the north wall of the Sanctuary back approximately fen feet farther from the golf course. In addition to creating additional clearance to the golf hole, this would allow space for a bermed and landscaped buffer zone between the building and the golf course. As seen from Brush Creek Road the visual effect of this would be to screen the lower six to ten feet of the building, thereby reducing the apparent height of the North elevation. This would significantly address height concerns voiced during the Pre-sketch Plan Review Meeting. Even with the proposed addition, the Overall Average Height for the entire PUD will remain very close to the current dimensional limitation (25.45 ft. actual, vs. 25 ft. allowable). The presence in the existing PUD of an allowance for a taller steeple(of whatever height might be approved) is evidence that the drafters of the PUD anticipated a landmark clement. The current proposal is consistent with that intent,with the variation that the entire facility is designed to act as a landmark, rather than just the steeple. b. No substantially adverse impact: The proposed amendment will not have a substantially adverse impact on the neighborhood, because the proposed facility is of a type similar to those surrounding it. Applicant is working with the owner of land abutting the site to meet their operational and other concerns. c. Not change in character: The proposed amendment does not change the basic character of the PUD or other surrounding areas because the type of building and function it will allow is the same as that allowed by the current PUD. The change is required to suit the physical requirements of the facility (organ acoustics) and the needs of the community ( in terms of attendance at worship services and other community activities in the proposed building). It might be suggested that the size of the proposed building constitutes a change of character. Applicant believes however, that given the broad open space that surrounds the site and the overall scale of the natural setting (the valley) in which the site is located, this is not the case. d. Comply with other applicable standards: To the best of Applicant's knowledge, the proposed amendment complies with of the applicable standards. In summary, the applicant believes that the proposed amendment is in the best interests of the community of Snowmass Village and is consistent with the intent of the original PUD, although it differs in some specific dimensional criteria. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 9 SKETCH PLAN SUMMARY Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary ' I. Type of Structures: The proposal is to construct a Chapel which shall serve both as a place of worship and a public space for cultural and community events (concerts, services, meetings, speeches, etc.). The building is to be located adjacent to the existing Snowmass Chapel and Community Center. A basement below the main spaces will house various support functions as well as multi-purpose meeting rooms (for Sunday school, etc.) and counseling. The new facility will be owned and operated by the Snowmass Chapel and Cultural Center, a non-profit entity which also owns and operates the existing facilities on the site. 2. Size: The overall size of the new structure is approximately 121 ft. long, 80 ft. wide. 3. Floor Area: The proposed structure will encompass approximately 7400 sq. fl. on grade, with approximately 6300 sq. ft. in the basement, for a total of approximately 13,700 sq. ft. of floor area. 4. Population: The Chapel is being constructed to serve the existing population of the Town and the increase in population generated by other factors. Population growth due to this facility is expected to be limited to approximately 2 persons for increased administrative and maintenance 1 of the enlarged campus. 5. Amount of open space: Lot 1: 102,733.16 SF. Total area 83,130.98 SF Open space = 81 % 19,602.18 SF. Parking and Structures=19% Lot 2: 71,040.48 SF. Total area 33,752.03 SF Open space = 48% 37,288.45 SF. Parking and Structures= 52% Combined parcels 173,773.64 SF. Total area 116,883.01 SF. Open space = 67% 56,890.63 SF. Parking and Structures = 33% In addition, the site borders open space along Brush Creek, Brush Creek Road, and the adjacent golf course. 6. The maximum height of all buildings and structures is 78 ft. (as measured from the lower portion of the site which is to the North of the structure). • The average height of all existing and new structures is approximately 27 ft. The number of employees required to operate the proposed development is 8.15, compared to 6 required for the existing development. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 10 i The increased employees generated by this development are anticipated to be housed through purchase of a dwelling unit within the Village which will be deed restricted to use by employees of the SCCC. 7. Water supply shall be by the municipal water system operated by Snowmass water and MSanitation. Sanitary sewer service shall also be provided by Snowmass Water and sanitation 8. Legal access to the property is provided by the current driveway off Owl Creek road,just east of Brush Creek road. This driveway and the parking lot are on the property owned by the SCCC. A description of existing easements and covenants accompanies the Title Certificate for the property. 9. Parking: A separate parking analysis is attached. In short, it states that the number of parking stalls previously approved for the site, along with shared use agreements,coordinated scheduling and other parking management techniques is adequate for the anticipated demand. 10. Off-street circulation patterns and transit facilities. In that this is an addition to an existing facility and that it uses an already approved parking lot, the proposed addition does not change any off street circulation patterns or require any changes to transit facilities. 11. The proposed timetable for the project is to begin construction sometime in the spring of 2002, and to complete construction in the summer of 2003. The intent is to construct the entire facility at one time however there is a possibility that the Steeple and/or the Nursery may be delayed and that the basement may be only partially finished off initially. Any of those items which are delayed would likely be constructed as soon as community needs dictate, and funds ibecome available. End Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 11 UTILITIES SUMMARY - Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary The current intent for services to the proposed facility is as follows: Water Supply — Municipal water service provide by tap to existing Snowmass Water and Sanitation system. Applicant has confirmed with Robert Garcia of SWS that the capacity exists to serve this project, details and fees will be worked out as the project progresses. Sewage disposal —The existing sewer main which runs beneath the proposed site will be relocated by means of `dog-leg' including one additional manhole. The building waste lines will be routed into this sewer through a tap or manhole. Applicant has confirmed with Robert Garcia of SWS that the capacity exists to serve this project, details and fees will be worked out as the project progresses. Fire Protection—The proposed facility will be equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, with water supplied via the municipal water service. Depending upon capacities and code requirements, the sprinkler system may make use of the existing standpipe in the community center or it may have its own standpipe. Fire protection requirements and access are being coordinated with the Fire district. Site Drainage— Landscaped areas are anticipated to drain into the underlying soil. The paved plaza located directly in front of the new facility is to be sloped away from Snowmass Creek, toward the landscaped courtyard. Pending results of soils testing, this courtyard will drain into the native soils, a drywell, or will be piped to discharge into the open space north of the proposed facility and away from Brush Creek. r r r Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 12 -------------- PARKING SUMMARY Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary . Published guidelines list parking requirements for places of worship at I stall for every 4 persons seating capacity. The proposed facility is being designed for a total capacity of 350 persons, which would require 88 stalls at a 1:4 ratio. The Snowmass Chapel and Community Center is served by an existing parking lot which currently has 105 stalls. The previously approved plans for this lot included an additional 15 "future" spaces in areas which are currently landscaped. 1 Approximately (6) existing stalls will be displaced by construction of a more attractive and convenient access walk to the new facility. The site plan submitted indicates how these will be replaced. At this time the Applicant proposes to leave the (15) "future" spaces as landscaping. They will be constructed at such time as demand indicates they are needed. During the Pre-Sketch Plan review, a suggestion was made that the Applicant consider creating additional parking stalls along the sides of the entry drive. A review of survey drawings indicates that 1 this access drive is not on Applicant's property, but on an adjacent parcel of dedicated Open Space land. • The existing parking lot is shared with the Anderson Ranch complex. In general major functions at the SCCC and AR occur at different times of the day and week. In order to maximize use of the parking lot, the administrators of the two facilities compare and coordinate their events calendars each year to prevent double booking. The parking lot is also used by the fire District, under a Joint Use Agreement. The previously approved plans included a separate parking area for the district, however they have not yet chosen to construct this. In addition, Chaffin/Light Associates have offered (30) spaces at their nearby facility for use by SCCC attendees, outside of normal business hours. These spaces are located on the East side of Anderson Ranch, and would be accessed by walking through the AR campus. ' Finally, for occasional large public events (a public memorial service for example), the SCCC has previously arranged for shuttle bus service from off-site parking. The Applicant intends to continue this practice for such events. To date, this has occurred only one or two times a year, and is not anticipated to become more frequent. Conclusion: There are as many as 150 parking stalls available, to serve a calculated need of 88 stalls. Based upon this, the existing and proposed parking, along with demand management measures currently in place, is adequate to serve the proposed facility. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 13 EMPLOYEE COUNT SUMMARY Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary Since the code does not set an employee generation rate for Places of Worship, we propose to calculate based upon the actual employees which SCCC expects to add to operate the new facility. This calculation may be the subject of some negotiation in order to reach an agreement between SCCC and TOSV. The following analysis is based upon information furnished by Heather Gosda, Administrative Director ' for the SCCC. Current employment: 1 Full time employees- 5 Full-time employees Senior Chaplain Assistant Chaplain Administrative Director Receptionist/program Coordinator Property Manager Part time employees— 34 - 46 hrs./wk = 1 full-time employee equivalent Bookkeeper(4-8 hr./wk.) Housekeeper(8 hours/wk.) Administrative assistant (12-20 hrs./wk.) Organist(10 hrs./wk.) Total current employees 6.00 full-time employee equivalents Projected employment: Full time employees- 7 Full-time employees Senior Chaplain Assistant Chaplain Administrative Director Receptionist/program Coordinator Property Manager Property Custodian Administrative Assistant (increases from P/T to F/T) Part time employees —44 -48 ltrs./wk = 1.15 full-time employee equivalent Bookkeeper (4-8 hr./wk.) Housekeeper(20 hours/wk.) Organist (20 hrs./wk., after installation,early 2005) Total projected employees 8.15 full-time employee equivalents Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 14 1 ' Per TOSV Code Section 4-410, the formula shall be: (Proposed jobs x 448 sf x .65) minus (Existing jobs x 448 sf x .65). (8.15 x 448sf x .65) minus (6.00 x 448sf x .65) = 626.08 sf. Thus, the project appears to be responsible for providing 626 sf. of employee housing through one of the measures listed in the code (buy-down, restricted sales, restricted rates and use, land for credits or cash-in—lieu). I Applicant proposes to purchase a dwelling unit within the Town which will be deed restricted to use by SCCC employees. i 1 . Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 15 i LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary 04/09/01 Prepared by OTAK The landscape design objective is to accentuate the natural features that lie within parcel and create a seamless transition from the built and more formal environment around the structures to the indigenous environment along the stream edge. Through thoughtful design outdoor spaces will be created to complement the building's interior activities and functions. These spaces will be located near the buildings and transition into a less formal native landscape when closer to the stream riparian. People ' will be encouraged to approach the stream edge to enjoy and appreciate Brush Creek as it flows through the site. ' All trees and shrubs designed into the landscape will be indigenous. Perennial selections will be a combination of indigenous and non-indigenous species. Care will be taken to not use any non-native species that may pose an invasive environmental nuisance in future years. Turf areas will be established with a bluegrass/perennial rye sod. Turf areas will be limited to areas where people are anticipated to congregate on the exterior grounds. Turf areas will be accented with perennial gardens and shrub beds at key locations around the grounds. Hardscape pavers will be positioned prominently at the entrance to the Sanctuary, which will transition to turf at the edges. Paths will be a combination of concrete and pavers. A decorative and symbolic Labyrinth is envisioned to be installed in the plaza in front of the Sanctuary, this may occur at construction or some time later. Sketch Plan Submission, Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary, 04/09/01 16 1 r Continued ko 4l+ in Inset ' at tight y To J2 Hwy.SY 0 n1r Aapmood an or a �►� ela bpdnba N - 6 5 AM�Cw�ByMJw��rmlwy <. .. ' E E 1 wl�Ii�mm yr,r6 yAr O =` Snowmass Village �y �. N y N rparbp f rah . sM r ] b p 6 G .s r 1 VICINITY MAP SNOWMASS CHAPEL AND CULTURAL CENTER ' SNOWMASS CHAPEL SANCTUARY r m m Iliii m = m om Average Building Height Calculation Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects., Ltd. RAS avhtO AS 04 1092001 Method: break roof plan into segments, calculate area, average height and volume for each segment, total these for each building and campus. Existing Chapel Existing Community Center Av. Ht. Of Segment I X jArea of Segment = Volume(cu. ft) Av. Ht Of Segment IX jArea of Segment 1= IVolume(cu. R) 12.25 x 512 = 6272 11.5 x 192 = 2208 21 x 256 = 5376 11.5 x 528 = 6072 10.25 x 704 = 7216 21 x 784 = 16464 13 x 1320 = 17160 23 x 256 = 5888 22 x 80 = 1760 25 x 336 = 8400 24 x 80 = 1920 11.25 x 84 = 945 15 x 1188 = 17820 21 x 784 = 16464 14 x 676 = 9464 29.5 x 480 = 14160 15 x 686 = 10290 12 x 1248 = 14976 11.5 x 500 = 5750 11.5 x 70 = 805 Total Building Volume = 98809 Total Building Volume = 70601 Total Building footprint = 7320 Total Building footprint = 3444 Building Av. Ht. (Vol.divided by Footprint) (in ft.) = 13.50 Building Av. HL (Vol.divided by Footprint)(in ft) = 20.50 Proposed Chapel Sanctuary Av. Ht Of Segment IX jArea of Segment I=IVolume(cu. ft.) 13 x 624 = 8112 19 x 390 = 7410 Total Campus volume 507,599.50 cu.ft 65 x 1344 = 87360 Total Campus footprint 19,947.00 sf. 11.5 x 168 = 1932 20.5 x 850 = 17425 Av. Ht.Of campus 25.45 ft 28 x 1152 = 32256 62 x 256 = 15872 17 x 640 = 10880 All figures are approximate, based on Schematic Drawings. 18 x 432 = 7776 All heights are from prior-existing grade. 41 x 1660 = 68060 Av. Ht is midpoint between eave and ridge of a sloping roof. 46.5 x 1496 = 69564 67.5 x 171 = 11542.5 Total Building Volume = 338189.5 Total Building footprint = 9183 Building Av. Ht (Vol.divided by Footprint)(in ft.) = 36.83 � ` Irlseb7•s' 33c'Feas' r$aaeid I+rw,+ems 2sc+e z3' j 14'I6�4c•s' L -tLtd eul �-- 51z{P Iz.zs' Hwn 2'f•5' ;± got e41' -151,4d'14' e117I j e7o.g' aa0x�l' 1 90+elz' 9zs�eas' I°Iz a 11.5 14SA e-114' Gyo+e Ir' T � I gd , 115z#e. Z.,b e.y5 6'bGd a i ^Soo'�a II•s' - zsredG' brb+e 14' 13L�+ Ise$¢ ynlvwrigSS GNAPGt. Ra7F JCyy' ZA a r ' CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP rPitkin County Title,Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that SNOWMASS CHAPEL AND COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., is the owner in fee simple of the following described property: rLOTS 1 AND 3, THE SNOWMASS INTERFAITH CHAPEL SUBDIVISION, a subdivision of Parcel 7 and a portion of Parcel 8, The Snowmass Club Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado, according to the Plat thereof recorded August 31, 1984 in Plat Book 16 at Page 55. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO rSubject to encumbrances, easements, restrictions and rights of way of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is famished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: authorized sMCH CERTIFIED T 22, 2001 @ 8:00 A.M. r i 1 r r r r . r Z We 5t4 r;%u322 ".7'T, i Z0S_L_ I " A., �i, (h, r . a[, r 1 , •. i!. rt.,:7 ­11�.! !i") . f1ran-.P1,.l allfr scz i D,)r.t O(Fice 51, 17 J:, ro I or 4 F,16 15 Chn Cr I :I t Ir"i suf f j.- 1-n rr an t m? i S z-wrIo s0 r5 a dss i q na .f ropertv tne "Prapeztvl') ]n14 1 in•; )n thr cwnt�, 0" P i t'<i n ap-3 stil-c• of r �­l In t, V'w Pno,ria,.:e F it.,�r [.iith 0 P%].) i"i-inn, ;a sn',,livi:iJinn of Parro.l 7 and -urtion )e P.Ircel R , -P! .n'�:: nn53 Clun s i o n j. t k i i, C'n li n t o A n r F.Go %^cor ..cto to tht, slat t11ercloC rpcor(7,_-.j Aucurt 31, 1984 in tli<! o'fi.ce Of the Clerk 'ane, z Recorder or PitY.4 -i Coxinty, CalnrziIo in Plat 0 13001t 16, at pai7fO 55 p'_ 2. z 4n1 , em orl t 13 li,rein.i Fter s "Ji.til 17,11 co W crerlitmmeni. anA appurtena.YvIes _t4preunto be.longincl , or in <U ')artaininq., an"i the. ravetlic.)­i ane.1, reversions, rca).'ndar 4 and r -nai neler.,,, rpi-its, issues ariJ ip�cofits G') rent -a nd ill. a.11 th- lit 1, riqht, HtIp, interest, w t cl,wq 'aml -- l * 'c, 1nv1 ' - of -antn , �j tber in Ii Ir 641A-t)� cf , j n; 11,0 til. tjj � bL love E 0 71L1r..jlinn.,1 nrer,is,•q, a arf rip rtsnanresl r pria c M)T, the Prnt,,erty %•il:h thP. '-App.�vl t n o c, imito. rr.,)11 tPQ j t s wN snc.'0s!;0r,, and ilss'igrir .ForelPI3r. awl aqr,-,SIO-ht�,� f or 1"'536 W ��Jl cd t. I im i to or.t-rs of rLcor�l , i ii r.1.it.j j 11 0 s r i-tior.,;. ff T N ^rnnlcor ho. �riusi)ld t1ii .5 neo.rl to nin ;-i- n1 o n.r F.i,ant te 1 wl in e A.r. firm t rl .111 t y r �j t: !,.V w r V an ,r :1.1 t,i re,. rnprQ,;" a J,rt a I 'L Of < 1.,I �11 I I th,�!t thl-v ;:1w., ' 113 1. Lc, 01,1 1n (WAV r in it. naIe.. r STATE DOCUMENTARY rz Itl • 04/04/2001 10:48 9709236092 SNWMS CHAPEL&COWCTR PAGE 04 ' Ba 572 f=1$7 com 00� DSAARTMtl1?Of 6s'wa's CERTIFICATE- 0, - NATALIE MEYER o/ .Male o f lie 9kA o/ "Undo Aole4y eft* WWI the Awt4 o ailed /i 46 rbb� o/ bite oe2i� Acme dean fsc#'lled m mm/A" nm roily lase and aye found to wnlo2m to 4w. �000hdyn��, a undBraiSned, ! rar�lsse Elie aull64 me ,Odin me 4y AUC�, A raauea F CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO SNnWMHSS C:HFIPEL AND C1"MMUNITY CENTER. INC. , FORMERLr' F:NOWF1 AS rwUWr1AS-z� VILLAGE INTERFAITH CHWEL, INC. m � x to O ¢ < W n C A Om m a '*' T SEC:RETARY OF STATE DATEO: MR 1, 1487 rowry of ' SNOWMASS VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Applicant Name: Contact Address&Zip Code:p p,(YI b 7 Phone: Fax&a-mall: �iGGG 6'94CLL• PYLES X,,40v w.A" VIL•c.44C 923-1elg7- qty- bo92_ 1. o t Project Manager(h different): Contact: Address&Zip Code: Phone: Fax&-e-mall. Current Owner(If different): Contact: Address&Zip Code: Phone: Fax&a-mall: Architect(if applicable&not Contact Address&Zip Code: Y•v, S21 Phone: Fax&e-mail: listed above): G�,tA Dub 5&HIt,Lee PiASALT Cu. f6162) 927'9926 R27- Y,57lS IF THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A PLAT APPROVAL: ' Section: NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 114 or SW 1/4 Townshl : Ren e: Assessor's Parcel Number. I Attach Complete Legal Description of Property or Lease Area wc.LLJOCID Site Acreage: List each PUD or Plat se -rate She Address or Address Ren e: if exists Exlslin Pro a Use: CI L Existing number of residential units: unrestricted and restricted Happlicable) Proposed Property Use: h different A+ Existing Zone: If more than one submit documentation for each and list zone areas 9• Proposed Zone: If different. If more then one submit documentation for each and list zone areas)--- reas -U• Proposed Gross Bldg,S .Ft.: I Pro osed#of Lots: I Proposed#of unrestricted unhs: Pro osed 0 of restricted units: APPLICATION LAND USE REQUESTS&FEES TYPE OF LAND USE REQUEST Check all that apply) CASE NAME FEE- LJ Annexation ❑ Amendment to Text of Development Code - ❑ Amendment to Official Zone District Map ❑ Special Review ❑ Variance ❑ Administrative Modification ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Administrative Temporary Use; or ❑Annual ' ❑ Pro-Sketch Plan ❑ SPA or: ❑ PUD; ❑ Minor or: ❑ Major ' etch Plan / sir I v w MASS Gu M16L I�oeo SPA or: WP ❑ Minor or. 5 Major SA,44-fN ARY ❑ Preliminary Plan ❑ SPA or: ❑ PUD; ❑ Minor or. ❑ Major Final Plan ❑ SPA or: ❑ PUD; ❑ Minor or: ❑ Major Amendment ❑ Yes or: ❑ No ❑ Subdivision Final Plat; Amendment? ❑ Yes ❑ No If In amendment,is h? 11 Administrative C1 Minor,or C3 Major Vacatlon of Recorded Plat ❑ Subdivision Exemption ❑ Other Development, Design,or Subdivision Review Not Covered Above Application must have proper signatures prior to riling. Applicant acknowledges that the fees listed on application form are base fees and additional fees will be required per the Town's Fee schedule. Signature-Applicant: Signature-Current Owner: ' Project Name: JOB RESULTS: ❑Approved ❑Approved with Conditions O Denied ❑withdrawn Conditions: (f any) Planning Division Signature: (if administrative) Signature Date: Applicant Notification Date: Planning Commission Meeting Dates: Town Council Meeting Dates: Signed Mylars Submitted Date: PC Resolution No. TC Resolution No. TC Ordinance No. ' File Retire Dale: NOTES: Lest revision 1112101 1 1 1 SNOWMASS VILLAGE tCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Snowmass Village Development Application Fee Policy ' The Town of Snowmass Village has established a fee structure for the processing of lan d use applications as described on the reverse side hereof. A flat fee is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected. Applications will not be accepted for processing ' without the payment of required fee. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for all land use applications. The fees vary dependent upon the land use application type and the complexity of the case. The base fee is not refundable. ' More extensive staff review may be required, beyond the hourly rate and time allotted by the base fee, as the review time is likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff and consultant review time of the application will be charged when the hourly rate and review time exceeds the base fee. A summary report of the charge for review time actually incurred will be provided to the applicant upon request. After the base fee has been exceeded, the applicant will be billed monthly in arrears for actual review time incurred. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will be suspended. An applicant may accrue and be billed additional administrative or review time following the final land use approval up to issuance of a Certificate of Completion or a Certificate of Occupancy. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: t=CtG>C�l -ital�-ltd\ fy�P:, YhD.� F�t�or 'rile'-i-e ZSrl �✓iF'(ri�\ ' Applicant billing address: EotoX 1'1(P 9 Sno t�mass U1 ttaipr- Cc 8"1615 1 1 1 ' p:\user\jw\Reports\FeeAgreement.doc 1 PARKING LOT USE, MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT ' AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 15th day of October, 1998, by and between the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation ("SCCC") and the Anderson Ranch Arts Center("ARAC"), and the Snowmass Wildcat Fire District, a Colorado quasi-municipal corporation ("SWFD"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the undersigned are owners of contiguous parcels of real property located in Snowmass Village, Colorado; WHEREAS, said parcels of real property are served by a parking lot located on SCCC property ("Parking Lot"), accessed by a Town road ("Access Road") currently jointly used according to an Agreement between the parties dated November 1991 ("1991 Agreement"); WHEREAS, the undersigned desire to terminate the 1991 Agreement and establish an updated agreement regarding the common use, maintenance and improvement of said parking lot; ' WHEREAS, this Agreement is based upon pursuit of Option 1 of the Architectural Plan Letter D and the timetable and items under Phasing as indicated by the Parking Lot Meeting Minutes of February 25, 1997, attached hereto as Exhibit "2"; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements hereinafter contained the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Parking Lot. The Parking Lot, the subject of this Agreement, is described as Lot ' 2A presently established and in place and owned by the SCCC, centrally located between the other parties' properties. The deed granting such ownership is attached as Addendum B making it a part of this Agreement in reference. ' 2. Access Road. The Access Road extends off of Owl Creek Road near the intersection with Brush Creek Road, and is on Town of Snowmass Village property. The parties ' hereto agree to the intent of formally having this Access Road declared a public road, to be improved, named and maintained as a Town public road, accessing the multiple properties of the parties. Until such time as the Access Road is in fact a public road, the parties agree to assume ' the responsibility therefor on the same basis as the Parking Lot. 3. Sharine of Costs. The costs, maintenance and improvements for use of the above ' described Parking Lot 2A shall be shared based on the following percentages: SCCC @ 45%; ARAC @ 55% and SWFD @0%. ' (a) Assessment of contributions in the appropriate ratio are allowed to be cash or, if agreed by the other party, in-kind service which shall be given a value as ' mutually agreed upon by the parties from time to time. (b) A perpetual non-exclusive access easement will be granted by SCCC to S WFD to a parking area on S WFD property south of the parking lot as noted in Architectural Plan Letter D ("Parking Lot Plan") in exchange for SWFD relinquishing rights to ten (10) spaces in the Parking Lot. This provision shall not ' be affected by termination of this Agreement. (c) The Parking Lot shall be used primarily by SCCC on Sundays, ' religious holidays and other SCCC related events, which usage will increase upon expansion of the SCCC facility including its proposed sanctuary. The Parking ' Lot shall be used primarily by ARAC on weekdays June through September and for other ARAC related events such as the Annual Art Auction. SCCC and ARAC agree to make best efforts to cooperatively plan peak usages by each organization with SCCC having the primary use on special service days such as funerals and memorials. (d) This Agreement will be in effect for one year at a time, and on or about each anniversary date, the directors of SCCC and ARAC will review, and if necessary and so agreed, modify the Agreement with any substantial ' modifications to be approved by their respective board of directors. These individuals will work cooperatively together to identify peak use times and numbers of vehicles to determine an appropriate use schedule. 4. Improvements. A current plan for improvements to said Parking Lot has been approved with consensus between ARAC and SCCC, with work to begin May 15, 1998, or earlier if weather permits. SCCC and ARAC shall share in the cost of agreed upon improvements of the Parking Lot in the ratio established in the above Paragraph 3. Said improvement plan shall be attached as Architectural Plan Letter D, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "1". 5. Maintenance. SCCC and ARAC shall share in the cost of regular maintenance including snow plowing, grading and graveling, striping, clearing of debris, landscaping and ' insuring the Parking Lot according to the ratio established in Paragraph 3(a). A budget of such maintenance shall be approved in advance of expenditures and any extraordinary expenses of over S 1,000.00 shall be approved in advance, other than for emergency purposes. ' 6. Restrictions. The parties agree that the Parking Lot, as herein described, is for the exclusive use of the parties to this Agreement for the purpose of parking vehicles by the parties ' and their guests and invitees. Limitations on such use are: (a) No overnight parking except as available and with the permission of the Manager. There shall be designated areas for overnight parking for ARAC residents or guests, limited to six (6) spaces located in the north-east corner. For summer use an additional twenty (20) spaces will be available during week days ' only. (b) Vehicles determined by the Manager to be abandoned shall be towed at ' 2 r rowner's expense. r (c) No camping or recreational vehicles shall be left in the Parking Lot for longer than twenty-four(24) hours without prior consent of the parties. (d) Parties shall use best efforts to contact each other in advance of special events or extraordinary use of the Parking Lot. (e) SWFD shall have no right to parking spaces in the Parking Lot, only the access right to its own parking area via the easement referenced in Paragraph 3(b) above. ' 7. Manager. The Director of SCCC shall perform the duties and responsibilities of Parking Lot Manager as described above in Paragraph 3, Use. This Manager will perform these duties as part of his or her job as Director of SCCC and SCCC will be compensated by credit for ran in-kind contribution valued at $780.00 annually. 8. Assessments. SCCC and ARAC shall share in assessments according to the ratio r per Paragraph 3(a) above. The Manager shall provide notice to these parties setting forth the amount owed for expenses pursuant to this Agreement on a quarterly basis. In the event a party fails to pay any portion of expenses, or provide agreed-upon in-kind services, for which such party is responsible within fifteen (15) days after such notice is mailed to the party, the amount due shall bear interest from and after the due date at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum, and the Manager or any of the parties may commence an action for collection of the ' amount due. The defaulting party or parties shall pay all costs of collecting the amount due, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Any failure of the Manager to provide timely notice of expenses owed shall not be deemed a waiver of such assessment. 9. Notices. Notice, as herein required, shall be deemed delivered upon being personally delivered, or placement in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and bearing the address of the party or parties as shown below: SCCC President of the Board Snowmass Chapel & Community Center PO Box 17169 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 ' with a cc: to: Director, SCCC ARAC President of the Board ' Anderson Ranch Arts Center PO Box 5598 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 rwith a cc: to: Director, ARAC 10. Indemnification and Liability Insurance. SCCC and ARAC hereby release, indemnify and hold each other and SWFD harmless from any claims for damage or injury related to the use of this parking lot by guests, agents, licensees or invitees of any party. Each party further agrees to maintain in full force and effect at all times a policy of general liability ' insurance covering the Parking Lot area with each of the parties named as a co-insured, in amounts mutually agreed upon by the parties that the parties acknowledge and agree that SWFD ' 3 1 1 1 shall name the other parties as additional insureds on its policy of general liability insurance to a maximum coverage of SWFD's liability under the provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. In the event a party fails to provide such insurance, the other parties may obtain 1 the coverage and assess the defaulting party for such costs. 11. Amendment and Termination. It is the intent of the parties to create a cooperative 1 long-term relationship between SCCC and ARAC regarding their shared use, maintenance and improvement of the Parking Lot. This Agreement shall only be terminated or modified by mutual written agreement between both SCCC and ARAC. 1 12. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 1 13. Counterpart s. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in several counterparts, each of which shall have the force and effect of one original. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. SNOWMASS CHAPEL AND COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation 1 By: 2&0- r� J es W. Light 1 ANDERSON RANCH AR rSCENTER 1 B . 1 SNOWMASS WILDCAT FIRE DISTRICT, a Colorado quasi-municipal corporation 1 By: 1 1 [Notary blocks follow on next page] 1 1 1 4 02/07/2001 14:50 1 KIRKEGAARD ASSOCIATE PAGE 02 KQt (F AAM &ASSOaATFS consultants in architectural acoustics 7 February 2001 ' Chris Conrad Town of Snowmass Village c!o Cottle Graybeal Yaw 228 Midland Avenue P.O. Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 phone: 970 927 4925 fax: 970 927 8578 Re: Height of Sanctuary Snowmass Chapel in Snowmass Village,CO,Project No. 1929 Dear Mr.Conrad: 1 We understand that the Issue of acoustics-required heigh(for the Sanctuary may come Into question during the Pre-Sketch Plan Review and believe It would be helpful for us to describe the acoustic character of the space in relation to Its height and volume. We have participated in the acoustics design of several hundred new and remodeled churches over the past 30 years, many of which place great importance on music in their liturgy. for the Snowmass Chapel, music in the liturgy and for performances has significance that is most clearly expressed In the purchase of a new C.B.F(sk organ for the space. The character of sound desired for a major Instrument of this type has defined an acoustic character that requires generous height and volume within the space. ACOUSTICS CHARACTERISTICS FOR ORGAN Few people forget the extraordinary thrill of hearing the soaring,uplifting sound of choir or organ In a reverberant cathedral setting. The recent popularity of recordings of monastic chants in reverberant spaces gives Indirect testimony to the power such music has in communicating to the human spirit. Although the Chapel will always be a welcoming and Intimate space as characterized by the name,a similar uplifting acoustics character Is a fundamental goal for this church. Long reverberation for periods of 4 seconds or more describes the acoustic quality that most people Identify with "cathedral sound° and, Indeed,that Is true. The balance of organ and other music liturgy and performance with the Intrinsic acoustic nature of a chapel should not strive for a"cathedral"sound, but it should be strongly supportive of an appropriate range of music repertoire. We have Identified a reverberation time of 2.25 seconds with full congregation present as the minimum goal for this project. It is a modest goal that seeks to balance acoustic character, design intent,construction budget,and the varied worship, performance and community uses of the Chapel. nni wed p,lama [fMPef •tehfb flnnr r6iraun Illinnis 60607 312-441-1980 fax 312-441-1981 www.kirkegaard.com 02/07/2001 14:50 1 KIRKEGAARD ASSOCIATE PAGE 03 KOCECAAM 8►ASSOCLAM consultants In architectural acoustics Snowmass Chapel in Snowmass Village,CO 7 February 2001 Page 2 In a technical sense, reverberation time can be predicted based upon contained volume and extent of sound- absorbing material in the space. in order to maximize reverberation within a given volume,all construction and finish materials must be as solid and sound reflective as possible. With these conditions established,the maximum reverberation time Is dependent upon the minimum amount of sound absorption represented in the space,e.g.the clothing of the people present,the absorption of the myriad of surface finishes, and the absorption of the organ. Our calculations indicate a need for at least 40 feet average Interior height to achieve this criterion. With the pitched roof and stepped configuration of that roof, an interior height of 60 to 65 feet at the peak of the high volume will be needed. The current design is based on that criterion. Clarity Is the other principal acoustic design goal—the intelligibility of both the sung word and the spoken word. This clarity in the presence of strong reverberation needs to be achieved as subtly and naturally as possible. Historically older churches achieved this desired clarity in the presence of reverberation because they were tall, narrow, and long and constructed of heavy materials. These are precisely the descriptors of the design approach we have recommended for the project. The specifics of height,width, length,and mass will be refined by acoustic analyses as the project progresses,but the basic principles have already been established by historic precedent. The architects'design for the Snowmass Chapel responds very favorably to these acoustic design goals. In recent memory,we have built too few structures whose purpose has been to Inspire,to celebrate, and to contribute to the religious and public life in our communities. We have been privi Ieged to participate in the initial design as well as the restoration,refurbishment,and refinement of many churches that similarly serve universal needs and are glad to be involved In this project for Snowmass Village. We welcome any questions and would be glad to speak with members of the community about any Issues 4this of letter ha s not addressed. Larry Kirke7rd Dawn Schuette i 1 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY March 14,2001 Mr. Chris Conrad Town of Snowmass Village P.O.Box 5010 Snowmass Village,Colorado 81615 Re: Snowmass Club PUD Amendment Dear Mr. Conrad: Snowmass Club Associates is the owner of the land in the Snowmass Club P.U.D.,Parcel 10,proposed to be used, in part, for the expansion of the Snowmass Chapel and Community Center (the "Property'). Aspen Skiing Company("ASC')is the sole owner of Snowmass Club Associates. ASC has had ongoing discussions with the Snowm255 Chapel regarding its proposed expansion. ASC consents to the submission of the Chapel's current land use application which contemplates use of the ' Property,and the processing of that application by the Town. If the Chapel's application for expansion is approved, ASC and the Chapel will attempt to negotiate an exchange of the Property to the Chapel in consideration of the exchange of an equivalent parcel to ASC. Nothing in this letter is intended to confer any right,tide or interest in the Property to the Chapel,nor confer any benefit upon any third party. Please call if you wish to discuss this letter or if you have any questions. 1 Very truly yours, 7 '4EeU,f6 , Senior Vice President cc: Don Schuster i Post Office Box 1148•Aspen, CO 81612 970.925.1220 CHAFFIN/LIGHTASSOCIATES JAMES W. LIGHT CHAIRMAN June 8, 2001 Mayor and Town Council of Snowmass Village P&Z Commission 1 Chris Conrad, Town Planner Gary Suiter, Town Manager P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: SCCC Sanctuary Approval/Snowmass Corporation Parking Dcar Council Members, P&Z Commission, and Town Staff: As part of the application by Snowmass Chapel and Community Center(SCCC)to build a new Sanctuary, the Town staff has asked us to review the proposed parking plan. As you probably know, Snowmass Corporation (SC), which is owned by Jim Chaffin and myself, owns the property which is adjacent to the Anderson Ranch Arts Center(ARAC)and within a shell walk of the SCCC property. The SC property includes cabins which are ]eased to individual tenants and a parking lot of approximately 30 spaces. 1 Jim Chaffin and 1 would like to cooperate with SCCC and ARAC in addressing the overall SCCC/ARAC parking needs. We contemplate that SC's 30 spaces may be used to help address the peak needs generated by the SCCC new Sanctuary, which will host Sunday Protestant and Catholic services and periodic community concerts which will occur primarily during the evenings and on weekends. Accordingly, we are willing to commit on behalf of SC the following: I. We will review our parking agreements with the tenants of SC(who primarily use the parking spaces Monday through Frida) during normal office hours)and determine the availability and flexibility of use of the SC parking spaces for use by SCCC and ARAC for peak events. 2. We will work with SCCC and ARAC to supplement or amend the existing SCCC/ARAC joint management agreement by which the main SCCC parking lot and ARAC parking is managed. I look forward to discussing this with you and resolving a cooperative plan which will address the peak use needs of SCCC, the on-going needs of ARAC, and the obligations of SC to our current and FUWre tenants. Sincerely. Jant s W. Light cc: Jim Baker, Edge]I Pyles, Jim Chaffin, Heather Gosda 24398 Hwy. 82 • P.O. Box 620• Basalt,CO 81621 •(970)927-0847• Fax(970)927-8274 S AChW1 cHa June 7, 2001 NATIONAL ADVISORYBOARD Town of Snowmass Village John&Joan Bemis,snavmlecr village Town Council Barbara Burwell.Minneapais Planning Department March Donnell,Al/anra PO Box 5010 Kathryn Finley.Oumgo Jan Kuramoto,Chimga Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Greg Lykins,Clumpaign Barbara Mandrell,/dashrille Subject: Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan Technical Robert McNamara,washrngron,uC Comments—Restricted Housing Jim Raaf,Snma "Kilage Ben Rawlins,Snnamvest 011age Kenn Roberts,AnnaprAs Dear Planning Commission and Town Council Members: Gary Rosena u,swum s 15llage Linda Rutland,ANanea Snowmass Chapel and Community Center, Inc. (SCCC) agrees that a Paul Schorr,111,linroln deed-restricted employee-housing unit of at least 626 sf. must be made Barbara Shepard,ComadoSpnngs available upon completion of the new Sanctuary. SCCC further agrees to ' Jim&Sally Tolley,h' ankBmrh Richard Walsh..Ch Chicrrago provide the Town of Snowmass Village with a copy of the restricted deed Jeff Wandell,Ommpmgn for this employee-housing unit when it is made available. Tom Wood,Carmd.IN Charles Wyly,0&1i At this time SCCC is investigating several options to fulfill this requirement. These include, but are not limited to, deed-restricting the BOARDOFTRUSTBBS unit that already exists on the site, purchasing a free-market unit within ' Bob Beasley Pitkin County and then deed-restricting the unit, or purchasing an already Woody Be°ille deed-restricted unit in another project, which would be available by the Bill Boineau Bill Burwell time the new Sanctuary is completed. 1 Art Cerre John Donnell Sincerely, Joe Farrell Nancy Ferguson Lisa May Howard "Gosda�(Jim Lig ht,Chairman Margo Lykins Heat Guy Rutland,111 Administrative Director Lois Sando Rick Stephens Julie Wood Edgell Franklin Pyles.Ph.D. Srau',Choplam Deaconess Gretchen E. Enoch,A.I.M. Assrslaw Chaplmrr ' Heather Gosda Admmcoranrr Umane P.O. Box 17169•Snowmass Village,Colorado 81615•970/923-6192•FAX 970/9236092•E-mail. scccOasperunfo.com 1 J' rl h u II � I r rh 1 p G. 41 lt9 y rrlllu�y'r4v jM O cc y �Yl 1 a + Jc rilld r� •�" � ilic " � ik!y� u�Cr •.t .,y cu thj'M r� r ' Mwla^ n r I, i„r W v Vyl � 4 �s'f t,ll i yll p`B vwV ” r'9 . A Q) l��p P iF Y W ILL e a�� � �a I Mk I i f♦• F ' '�1 >�IM1�d�q ����Cl�r��16 � iN• O :y L " n T 1 -- 5 ZL~ .mss y: '# ;w. WNW -FA yam• .,_. _a - . .:. • .a �".GR ��i -Y ��•6 .LV�a r, nL. 1. •e � ` y} 's £ ! vj _ r `X-s� �ass-,� '�`� •. r _. ♦ --�,S�yn.'.�t � -y�! tea. � y- - .. 'tom. .'� `• � "i x'41^.' ° • �°.�+'i•�Y a°�" 5 " �♦° rte.•f•� .\/,:r- �l ♦P I. i� f 5 , ,.•- - I.. F.-� ♦ y-w rr -. � . f, •• � to •I'. ' R, ' �' .. e�' - _ - �?..n�c-'�"��,`„' �`� . . . ._ .._ cam._._,,. .___ _ 1'T - 4 r ` iN cwt �LZ'•_+Tq � -=` ten. �v —^' , ��• Jr� t'.� � .�7 yt��. rte+ _ �j� -.. `�. i - � � t p.ql Pok ra�✓IL�� u L I _ . F�ti . ,kI 4PP4, To r. j al r ,' a AL wSf�', T� A��Ypv lv l� �e '�" • h4 rlil�l'"r va IBS "41 YWw'.y. 17v �7����y ��IMI� w� 1. • ^�,'�� not ���,:•S�y'v�1v�Yk � 15. , ru N51. rM po b , L � � �a I e" � 341 ., CFe iy:" 111 5� 5 .,-0y. �W..,,�,I I I" a I N W q��r,w r�.lx 4'���LV 't _ �•.,1 ��wrb:9' � '�.� is M M M M M M w M M M M Snowmass Chapel Height Limit Analysis wp�w.r.�..=.�• � _tea- � a a Height limit contour t � (8233 feet Owl Creek Rd >7 Brush Creek Rd Sa'e vanq�'in IMe p���y�� TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE MONTHLY REPORTS OF: APRIL'01 REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAXES TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE SALES TAXES TOWN'S PORTION OF PITKIN COUNTY'S SALES TAXES EXCISE TAXES PREPARED BY: FINANCE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL NOTES: REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX REPORTS -The Real Estate Transfer Tax Is a land transfer lax upon the transfer of Interest in real property. The tax Is payable from the 1st day of August, 1986, of u one-half of one percent(1/2%)of the consideration for the real property to the 31st day of July, 1991, and from the 1st day of August, 1991, of one percent(1%)of the consideration for the real properly to the 31st day of July, 1996. This tax was extended by a vote of the people until the 31st day of December, 2006. SALES TAX REPORTS PER GENERAL LEDGER reflect sales tax revenue collections for the months as Indicated. Delinquent payment of sales tax will cause fluctuations In monthly totals since months In which delinquent sales tax payments were not made will be understated and months In which delinquent payments are made will be over- stated. Of course, If the total delinquent payments are consistent from month to month, the degree of fluctuation will be lessened considerably. SALES TAX REPORTS PER SALES TAX PROGRAM reflect actual sales tax generated for each month listed. Delinquent payments are posted back to the actual month they were generated, which causes the monthly amounts to continually fluctuate as they are updated. EXCISE TAX REPORTS reflect a limited excise tax on Improvements in excess of the maximum allowable floor area for a lot. Approved by the electors of the Town on November 2, 1999, the tax Is effective on March 23, 2000, and expires March 22, 2010, or on such earlier date as determined by the Town Council. TOWN or SNOWMASS w1LAC TOWN SALES TAX HISTORICAL SUMMARY 2000 2000 MONTH GENERATED 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 VARIANCE VARIANCE PER GENERAL LEDGER ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 3 % _....... ..__ .... ._..__.... ....... ........_._ _...... __..._._.. _.._.__.. ....._.__._ _....__.__._._. Dac.mb..Pub,year $ f S f f f 000% January $ 16933190 $ 174.263.20 S 203,]0543 3 197.379.96 S 189,644.09 S 175.935.64 f 150,071.46 S (25,864.18) 14.70% February S 185.814 11 f 201.45235 $ 206,429.50 f 231,766.31 $ 224.107.65 S 219.443.02 $ 224,56381 S 5,120.79 233% March S 211.813 A9 f 214.131.80 $ 245657.09 S 24,W 1.58 f 240.03].26 S 243.733.47 $ 241,237.54 $ (2,49593) 102% ARN f 65,140.35 S SS,381.02 S 50.752.81 S 72,211.13 S 65.559.95 $ 54,30244 3 57.054.71 S 2,752.27 507% May S 12,911,05 3 12.317.95 S 15.849.15 $ 12.301.13 $ 12.529.33 3 18.063.21 0.00% June f 31.078 87 S 38..41 75 f 42.655.69 $ 47.09567 $ 37.145.11 $ 42.722,60 0.00% July $ 51.223.21 $ 55.769.25 S 66,672.19 $ 74.834.57 3 60,85].55 f S7.707 86 O.N% Auimt 3 51.60978 $ 63.166.65 $ 63.151.63 S 66,129.62 f 61.69541 S 59.54672 0.00% SebMmber f 35.626.70 S 25753.34 S 42.172.31 S 37,75142 f 38,213.50 S 37.222.61 0.00% October f 13.970 67 S 13.312!1 3 20.419.08 S 19,273.33 S 18.75348 S 16.204.85 0.W% November f 16.732 16 S 18.471.95 3 26.17360 S 23,56365 S 18,922.37 S 23,216.1. 0.00% December S 126.458 05 S 138.942.19 S 167.813 AS $ 159.879.39 $ 129.129.27 S 130,123.03 000% __....__ . ..........._... ..._._._._. ....__._._. SR9-Totals $ 961.510.57 f 1,017N4.19 $ 1.151.651.13 S 1.189853.76 S 1.096.78501 S 1.080221 79 3 6]2,927.52 $ (20481.05) 295% Sam,annual Vena.r Fee Rammancea $ 25,61483 S 26.992.69 S 24,536.55 f 26,63502 $ 25,461.04 S 24.604.26 000% From Prtk,n Cry S 6,69393 3 1041977 f 10420.00 3 1042000 $ 10,51400 $ 10.52000 O.N% relay $ 993.819.33 S 1,054,41665 S 1.186707.68 3 1.22690878 $ 1,132.76607 $ 1,115.34605 S 672.921.52 S (20.481.05) 395% COUNTY SALES TAX 2000 2000 MONTH 1995 1996 1997 19% 1199 2000 2001 VARIANCE VARIANCE GENERATED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 3 % _...___.... ._.......... ._........... __....... .... ........... ._.....__... _....._ _.._..__ __..._. __._.. _..._... _.._._. Daeambal-Pnol Year $ 3 $ 3 3 $ 0.00% Jain" S 331,000.39 S 317.67069 S 365.106.37 S 354909.32 $ 375,230.16 $ 34996076 S 322495.51 S (2748..9) 7.85% February 3 360.359.39 S 3]4.359.37 3 372.379.50 S 418.31590 S 411.46648 $ 408.55361 3 410.383.76 3 1.830.15 045% March 3 362.89336 S 417.899.21 3 456801.63 S 44.53]08 S 447.930.07 f 411.662.28 S .22.855.68 S 5.193.40 124% April S 133.964.29 S 111.714.40 S 124.35374 $ 192.944.15 $ 154.610.02 S 151.925.06 S 162.193.77 S 8,26871 5.37% May $ 62.211.80 f 68.709.23 S 62.64]0 f 98.59246 $ 82.43346 3 98,33].25 0.00% June S 109.759 is S 122.08952 S 129.91168 S 1.2,54259 3 140.358.66 S 165.523.18 0.00% July 3 162.010.93 3 170.261.08 $ 193.18763 $ 213.842.13 3 209,145.06 $ 19449691 0.00% Auluat f 169,89040 3 18444603 f 191046.91 f 201.589.31 3 197.461.11 S 216,97646 000% Sabumbar $ 121.069.80 3 112.]24.28 3 129.20148 $ 131.283.33 S 148,932.64 $ 144.4931 0.00% October 3 70.36547 S 72.91389 3 83.23740 S 65.098.29 $ 96.121.94 f 94489.05 0.00% November S 73.051 55 $ 76.74 59 3 61.201.54 S 95,230.4 S 17.781.00 S 103.541,11 000% Dacamber $ 290.269.36 $ 309.548.11 S 34,593.61 S 329.21803 $ 291,75274 S 303.128.58 0.00% _._....___.. . ...._.................... ......... ........... ...._. ....... _... ......_... ........ ._.___..............._....__.. ......_...._...... ............._.. .._. _.__._ J TOTALS $ 2.268.845.91 f 2,339.094.00 $ 2.537.91479 f 2,706.26300 S 2.545.229.51 f 2,651.072.10 3 1.117,92902 f (12,192.71) 092% TOWN OF SNOW WSS MaGE TOWN SALES TAR MONTH GENERATED 1984 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 VARIANCE VARIANCE PER SALES TAI P1pGRAM ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 3 ; ._._.. ....._..... .... "_.._._... _.._._._ _ __.. ......... _._.... ...._......... oe[emp4•Pnw rx� $ $ 3 $ 0008 Lnwry $ ITT ISSW 3 VO,ON.M 3 1708i1.GO 3 1"580.DJ $ 212034.00 3 2OIpDW S 179611.00 3 171.655W 3 (7,926 W) .41% 4pwry $ 181,86300 S 183,12500 3 20 LS9800 $ 203.81900 $ 219.Leal $ 21677100 $ 220.01000 3 205,86)00 3 (14.18300) 6q; Marro S V7.319 OD S 211.58900 $ 21596300 $ 24517300 3 242,16900 S 25356300 $ 242636.00 $ 24081400 f (3.822 GO) 075% Ayril $ 45.60900 $ 8),096.00 $ 54.14000 3 53,517.00 S 76,68300 S 61,88100 $ 59.06200 $ 54.71600 $ (4.346.001 736% MA, f 986900 $ 11.596.00 $ 11.59000 $ I..955W 3 12.317.00 $ 15,90400 S 13.534.00 0co% Jur9 3 33 BOB OO 3 31]29.00 $ 35.24600 3 42,008.00 S 46611.00 $ 39,MOD S 42,224.00 000•{ July 3 59.15500 3 S0,21300 3 50.289.00 S 66,599.00 $ 76,1.DO $ 62,73600 f 58,097.W 000; Au1uU S 57.76700 $ 52224.00 3 ".AM DO 3 63.35800 3 08.035.00 $ 61069.00 f 5997000 000% 64P1wn., S 27]7300 S 35,80600 S 27,960.00 $ 41,x99.00 3 3787900 3 37.45200 $ 37,01100 00055 0[IeCer S 16.027.00 S 11,59700 $ 15,25900 $ 20661 W S 16,65700 3 188910) $ 18.395.00 0 D Nwembr $ 19,81200 3 16,61000 $ 18.136.00 3 26,30100 $ 23.99300 3 20.226 DO 3 2360000 000% Decemltr f 136888.00 $ 125,761 CO 3 14281500 E 163.006.00 f 159.22200 3 12120500 3 129-IOW 000$ Su0-i9b S 14 S 99126000 3 900,78200 3 1022,171.00 5 1.145,326.00 3 1,191 292.00 f 1,11563100 f 1,08354000 $ 673,08200 1 (2627]00) 40353 Semann..I VsMw i4e Rammrtm $ 2577142 $ 25,614 83 3 26.93269 $ 24,63655 $ 26.635.02 $ 2586704 S 24,604.26 000¢ Erp Points S 7,15176 3 6,69393 S 1041971 S 10,820 DO 3 10420.W 3 1051400 3 1052000 000% _._... ......... ............ .......... _..... ......... _ ...... _....... _. . .......... .._ LouM1 S 1026,18316 3 992,690 76 $ 1059,18346 3 1.180,38255 3 1.228,34 702 $ 1,151.61204 $ 1,118.764]6 $ 673,08200 3 (28337.00) 403% TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE WINTER TOWN SALES TAXES TOWN SALES TAX PER SALES TAX PROGRAM 3 MONTH 1996 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 VARIANCE VARIANCE NOVEMBER-Pro9Om Year $ 16.61000 S 18.136.00 $ 26,301.00 $ 23.99300 $ 20.226.00 S 23.680.00 $ 3.454.00 17.08% DECEMBER-Prevlom Year $ 125.74100 $ 142,615.00 S 168.066.00 $ 159.222.00 $ 127.205.00 $ 129,410.00 $ 2.205.00 1.73% JANUARY $ 17B.871.00 S 199.580.00 S 212,034.00 $ 201.833.00 $ 179,611.00 $ 171,685.00 $ (7.926.00) .4.41% FEBRUARY S 201,598.00 S 203.819.00 $ 219.548.00 S 216.771.00 S 220.010.00 $ 205.867.00 S (14,143.00) 6.43% MARCH 3 215.983.00 $ 245,173.00 $ 242.169.00 S 253,563.00 S 242,636.00 $ 2AO.914.00 $ (1.822.00) 075% APRIL S 54.14000 $ 53,517.00 $ 76.683.00 $ 61.881.00 $ 59,062.00 $ 54.716.00 $ (4,346.00) -7.36% TOTAL $ 792 943 DO $ 863 040.00 $ 9".801 00 $ 917.263.00 $ 84B 750.00 S 826 172.00 $ (22.5 76 001 2.66% 'S INC/(DEC) $ 18,379.DO $ 70097.00 $ 81,761.00 S (27.538.00) $ ((58,513.00) '%INC/(DEC) 2.37% 8.84% 9.47% 2.91% 7.47% TOWN SALES TAX PER GENERAL LEDGER 3 % MONTH 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 VARIANCE VARIANCE ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... NOVEMBER-PI/daYl Yew $ 16,732.16 S 18,471.95 S 26,173.60 $ 23,583.65 $ 18.922.37 $ 23.216.14 $ 4,293.77 22.69% DECEMAER-Prevlam Year $ 126.458.05 $ 138.942.49 $ 167,81345 S 159.879.39 S 129.129.27 $ 130.123.03 S 993.76 0.77% JANUARY S 174.263.20 $ 203.705.43 $ 197.379.96 S 169,84409 $ 175.935.64 $ 150,071.46 S (25.864.18) 14.70% FEBRUARY S 203.452.35 $ 2061429.50 $ 231,766.31 $ 224.107.65 $ 219,443.02 S 224,563.81 S 5.120.79 2.33% MARCH S 214,731.80 $ 245.657.09 $ 247.641.58 $ 240.037.26 $ 243.733.47 S 241,237.54 $ (2,495.93) -1.02% APRIL $ 55.381 02 $ 50.752.81 S 72.211.13 $ 65.559.95 $ 54,302.44 S 57,054.71 $ 2.752.27 5.07% TOTAL 791 01858 863 959.27 S 942 986.03 553,011 99 U1,466 21 826 266.69 $ (15,199.521 1 b I 'S INC/(DEC) S 15.364.14 $ 72,940.69 $ 79.026.76 S (39,974.04) $ (61.545.78) e ..%INC/(DEC) 198% 9.22% 9.15% 4.24% .6.82% TOWN SALES TAX COMPARISON BY MONTH,BY INDUSTRY 2000 TO 20)1 VARIANCE 2001/2000 200112000 TOWN SALES TAR By 1999 2000 2001 IS % 1990 2000 2001 S % INDUSTRY JANUARY JANUARY JANUARY VARIANCE VARIANCE FEBRUARY FEBRUARY FEBRUARY VARIANCE VARIANCE LOdpInY $ 117.399.00 S 10185500 S 93.912.00 $ (7.94300) 9.80% $ 129,929.00 S 128872.00 f 120,62800 $ (8.244.00) 640% 4daurod. $ 22.66200 $ 2302100 $ 23.89000 $ 81900 3.55% S 29,889.00 S 30,351.00 f 27 704 $ (2642.00) .872% Send.E4YIP/CblMnp $ 26.18500 3 22.642.00 S 22,51300 S (1340)) .0.59% S 23,223.00 $ 26,11600 S 23,46300 $ (2.65300) 10.16% CMIAIRp Men. S 2.10.00 $ 1.95700 S 1864.00 S (930)1 .4.75% S 2.128.00 S 2,31300 $ 1893.00 S (420 W) 18.16% /eed/PVp/lquw Slere. S 1060).0) $ 12.05200 f 9799.00 S (2,253.0)1 18.69% S 10.706.00 S 11,324.0 S 30.935.0) $ (389.0) 344% G4n47d bIPX S 5,165.0) $ 483100 S 4,264.00 S (62.0)) 139% $ 6902.00 $ 8428 DO S 6.620.00 $ 19200 2.96% UIYBNY S 2822.0) S 7.53800 S 8,091.00 S 553.00 2.34% $ 7.54000 S 2.63800 $ 9.094 DO $ 1,456 00 19.06% AY¢4Yaneom S 4824.00 S 5659.00 f 6,852.00 S 1,193.0 21.08% $ 5.848.00 S 6919.0 $ 5.479.W S (144000) 20.81% TOTAL f 201,83300 S 129.61000 f 121685.00 S (7.925.W) 441% $ 216.770.0 S 220.01100 % 205.866.00 $ (14.14500) 643% 2031/2000 201/2000 TOWN SALES TAM BY 1999 2000 2001 f % 1999 2000 2001 S R INDUSTRY MARCH MARCH MARCH VARIANCE VARIANCE APRIL APRIL APRIL VARIANCE VARIANCE ledglnp $ 152.1220 $ 139.079.0 $ 135.636 00 $ (3.4430)) 248% % 24.595.00 $ 22,086.0 $ 19.23300 $ (2853.00) 12.92% Aobwonl. $ 33.551.00 $ 3389300 $ 33.18800 $ (505.0) -1.50% S 9,612.0) $ 8.763.0 f 8,816 DO $ 5300 0.60% 5R4dY NWF/Cbl6m9 $ 30.369.0 $ 31.08500 $ 29.61500 $ (1.420.W) -473% S 8321.0) $ 2.333.00 f 8,3840 $ 1.05100 1433% CbIMn9 Slw4. $ 2.51300 $ 2.7450 S 2,250.0 $ 5.0) 0.18% S 815.0 S 870.0 S 77300 S (97.00) 11.15% /eed 1CVe9 1Ueuor 51-1 $ 12.041.0 $ 14.499W $ 14.445 00 $ (5400) 0.37% S 5 707 W S 4,20200 f 42800 $ 73.00 174% Genera blPY $ 8.263 DO S 7.16100 S 7,1820 S 21.0) 0.29% S 2,16100 S 1.781.0 $ 2,050 $ 224.00 12.58% WYMIO $ 8,022.0) $ 7.966W f 8,6530 S 68700 8.62% S 8.043.0 S 7.83600 S 8,854.0 $ 1.018.00 12.99% Aprteeoneem S 6633.0 S 6.408 0 S 9,345W $ 2,9370) 45.83% S 2,578.W S 6,1850 $ 2,320.0 S (3.815.W) 61.68% _. _._._._.. _ _._._ __._.._._...__. TOTAL $ 253,56400 S 242,636W f 240,8140 S (1,822.0)) 075% S 61882.W $ 59.06100 f 54.715W S (4.346.0) -2.36% 2001/200) TOWN SALES TAX BY SU&TOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $ % INDUSTRY 1999 200 201 VARIANCE VARIANCE ledpinp S 424,145.0 f 391.892.0 $ 369.409.0 $ (224830) .5.74% Aedaumnl. $ 100.734.0 S 95.828.00 $ 93.598.0 $ (2.28000) .2.38% SPedY E9uW/CNlhln9 $ 88.698.00 $ 87.181.0 S 83.975.0 S (3.20600) .3 M% Cb1Abe Ler.Y $ 7.556.00 f 7,885.0 $ 7.280.0 S (60500) 9.67% /eod/Pup/bluer LOlO S 39.06000 S 42.082.00 $ 39.459.00 S (2.62300) .6.23% GenerdleleY $ 22.4%DO f 20.251.0 $ 20.621.0 S 3200 183% UNB4, $ 31477.0 $ 30,978.00 $ 34.6920 S 3.714.00 11.99% Awcelmeeu. $ 19.86300 $ 25.171.0 $ 24,046.0 S (1.12500) .442% .._ __.._. . ...... ...... __ __._._.. ._ _._..... .. .. ....... TOTAL $ 73x04900 S 701,318.00 S 67305.0 S (2823800) 403% TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE SALES TAX PER GENERAL LEDGER BUDGET TO ACTUAL SUMMARY TOWN SALES TAX MONTH 2001 2001 % TO $ RECEIVED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ..................... ......................... ................ . ...... ......................... ......................... JANUARY $ $ 0.00% $ FEBRUARY $ 185,611.00 $ 150,071.46 •19.15% $ (35,539.54) MARCH $ 231,512.00 $ 224,563.81 3.00% $ (6,948.19) APRIL $ 257,138.00 $ 241,237.54 •6.18% $ (15,900.46) MAY $ 57,289.00 $ 57,054.71 •0.41% $ (234.29) JUNE $ 19,056.00 0.00% JULY $ 45,073.00 0.00% AUGUST $ 86,839.00 0.00% SEPTEMBER $ 62,822.00 0.00% OCTOBER $ 39,270.00 0.00% NOVEMBER $ 19,205.00 0.00% DECEMBER $ 173,098.00 0.00% ..................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... TOTAL $ 1,176,913.00 $ 672,927.52 -8.01% $ (58,622.48) COUNTY SALES TAX MONTH 2001 2001 % TO $ RECEIVED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ..................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... JANUARY $ $ 0.00% $ FEBRUARY $ $ 0.00% $ MARCH $ 360,480.00 $ 322,495.81 -10.54% $ (37,984.19) APRIL $ 420,810.00 $ 410,383.76 -2.48% $ (10,426.24) MAY $ 430,192.00 $ 422,855.68 -1.71% $ (7,336.32) JUNE $ 158,542.00 $ 162,193.77 2.30% $ 3,651.77 JULY $ 101,287.00 0.00% AUGUST $ 170,490.00 0.00% SEPTEMBER $ 200,330.00 0.00% OCTOBER $ 223,485.00 0.00% NOVEMBER $ 148,791.00 0.00% DECEMBER $ 515,035.00 0.00% ..................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... TOTAL $ 2,729,442.00 $ 1,317,929.02 -3.80% $ (52,094.98) TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE • RETT REPORT HISTORICAL SUMMARY 2001 2001 MONTH 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 VARIANCE VARIANCE RECEIVED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL $ % ............................. ................................................................ ........................................................... ........................................................... ............................. .............................. JANUARY $ 107,483.00 $ 236,215.00 $ 100,132.50 $ 133,720.50 $ 93.510.00 $ 163.263.21 $ 69.753,21 74.59% FEBRUARY $ 13.095.00 S 105.043.00 $ 49,723.33 $ 189.180.00 $ 267,712.50 S 279.429.14 $ 11,716.64 4.38% MARCH S 89.226.00 $ 275,115.00 S 115.803.00 $ 131.053.53 S 153.395.00 $ 152.280.60 $ (1.114.40) 0.73% APRIL S 113,677.50 $ 186.820.00 $ 259.090.94 $ 205,845.00 $ 228.920.00 $ 147,430.93 $ (81489.07) 35.60% MAY $ 100.442.72 $ 155,038.44 $ 194.164.00 $ 134,929.85 $ 293.516.25 0.00% JUNE $ 84486.30 $ 146,080.00 $ 437,420.33 $ 306.725.00 $ 89,513.00 0.00% JULY $ 148.510.00 $ 172.914.56 $ 129.165.00 $ 126.485.00 S 243.522.50 0.00% AUGUST $ 38.525.00 $ 123,872.42 $ 106.614.00 $ 122.835.00 $ 322.088.00 0.00% SEPTEMBER $ 176.186.81 S 149,530.00 $ 285,903.50 $ 442373.29 $ 270,895.00 0.00% OCTOBER $ 137,160.00 $ 265.318.00 $ 287,969.00 $ 309,885.00 $ 123.938.50 0.00% NOVEMBER $ 65.607.50 $ 187,308.12 $ 125,045.00 S 200.513.60 $ 298,466.75 0.00% DECEMBER $ 83.630.00 S 151.057.50 $ 132.741.80 S 244.236.00 $ 45.079.00 0.00% _... ......... ..._..................._. .... _..._...._. __._._._.. ............................ ._.._ ........ .._.. ............................ ..............._.. _. .......................... TOTAL S 1,158,029.83 $ 2.154.312.04 S 2.303.7 72.40 $ 2,547,781.77 $ 2.430,556.50 $ 742403.88 $ (1.133.62) 0.15% BUDGET TO ACTUAL SUMMARY MONTH 2001 2001 % $ RECEIVED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ............................. ..... ............................ ............................ ............................ .............................. JANUARY $ 164,000.00 $ 163.263.21 .0.45% S (736.79) FEBRUARY $ 300.000.00 $ 279.429.14 6.86% $ (20,570.86) MARCH S 170.000.00 S 152.280.60 10.42% $ (17.719.40) APRIL S 248.000.00 $ 147430.93 40.55% $ (100,569.07) MAY S 310.000.00 0.00% JUNE $ 109,000.00 0.00% JULY $ 263.000.00 0.00% AUGUST $ 342,000.00 0.00% SEPTEMBER S 290,000.00 0.00% OCTOBER $ 143,000.00 0.00% NOVEMBER $ 308,000.00 0.00% DECEMBER - $ 85.900.00 0.00% ................................... ............................ ............................ .............................. .............................. TOTAL $ 2,732,900.00 $ 742,403.88 15.83% S (139.596.12) ,y TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE EXCISE TAX REPORT HISTORICAL SUMMARY 2001 2001 MONTH 2000 2001 VARIANCE VARIANCE RECEIVED ACTUAL ACTUAL $ % .............................. ................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. JANUARY $ $ 84,788.57 $ 84,788.57 N/A FEBRUARY $ $ 21,450.52 $ 21,450.52 N/A MARCH $ $ 4,167.31 $ 4,167.31 N/A APRIL $ $ (350.00) $ (350.00) N/A MAY $ 0.00% JUNE $ 92,361.30 0.00% JULY $ 412,511.48 0.0070 AUGUST $ 247,102.38 0.00% SEPTEMBER $ 32,971.92 0.00% OCTOBER $ 0.0070 NOVEMBER $ 27,352.72 0.00% DECEMBER $ 0.00% .............................. ..... ............................ ............................ ............................. .............................. TOTAL $ 812,299.80 $ 110,056.40 $ 110,056.40 N/A BUDGET TO ACTUAL SUMMARY MONTH 2001 2001 %, TO $ RECEIVED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE .............................. ..... ............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. JANUARY $ 85,000.00 $ 84,788.57 -0.25% $ (211.43) FEBRUARY $ 83,000.00 $ 21,450.52 .74.16% $ (61,549.48) MARCH $ 83,000.00 $ 4,167.31 .94.98% $ (78,832.69) APRIL $ 83,000.00 $ (350.00) -100.42% $ (83,350.00) MAY $ 83,000.00 0.00% JUNE $ 83,000.00 0.00% JULY $ 83,000.00 0.00% AUGUST $ 83,000.00 0.00% SEPTEMBER $ 83,000.00 0.00% OCTOBER $ 83,000.00 0.00% NOVEMBER $ 83,000.00 0.00% DECEMBER $ 85,000.00 0.00% .............................. ..... ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. TOTAL $ 1,000,000.00 $ 110,056.40 -67.05% $ (223,943.60) ' Ali , �l CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF INTERIOR SKEll �. .• ■ "' ■ mm.M.11111 � -.. rL'-y!"•tea°` °'`'� � s ■ run an swMEN CL RUM In SNOWMASS CHAPEL CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF ENTRY SNOWMASS _ �- �` '=$ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ r � \ � r DO ■■Q�,�u^a13i1 ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■f.f1LY■Yi1■ ■■�s y PLN CH ■■■ ,1 B SUMITTAL iiiiiiiii �e�■ FOR ■ A1 . 1 ■ 1,1,1 FIJ t 4 w � \ b Q �O CEAPFDC SCALE 1p a ♦�� I I Wow R VS IR a � tF h L Legend Wawa.Lww �+ La.AWo Q w / FawM F!w of Ay O W O k stw LWWa 8w i i •�ti Notes: - 1. M IbY1Y O Y61 A wa+Lie4�+a4 � 4 N1pM11 IIC 40Y11 O 6010!M M RIQ. L tO110111 N11MM 0V{L AL{�)war. > owLwau°mom r�urtn;°aal�arnna s aruL I an s RAF w x01oa Iw-auuMr m ws a®a n m Partial Existing Conditions Survey Snowmass Chapel and Community Center Parcel Snowmass Village, Colorado .nom M I , I�1QI0//M O r Mpg �• Ar w.arr / M Inr Aw I s ,w J A i rar:90043-01 DIL SEA w DAR 1 1 V. AEV. �_ [Id�tYq Oal0ltbn��Sumy �.a ltgAODI lDAYA}Sa11m.D1C. GrammM C apd+Catnuiy Grier ytr ELT i i i I GH�PHIf �CPLC� ��� r R,w N�i{YMq y 2• J. � .;4<!f lf��r � Y Note_ w a u .mom / 9' I a� E � �. E k , X1(4 2F 5 P,uNS CL P R=N. V: OF�MN� d � zo v r cn C/) f rd Ihu� �-i6ti r C LG 1 1 � i y i I j _ G/00 t Snowmassh „.Chapel TOSV Existing Land Use M CO � • MF _ CIS N PUB _-- = REC - -- SF 1:2400 1"=200' —= 300-foot buffer around property ^/Chapel property boundary Parcel boundary Coniferous forest NDeciduous forest Structure 10-foot contour `. PATH/Improvements ' map % Wetland Road/Driveway Sand trap ;, we 3s Nu{"V p u p s r.4 t yj, s r r, rt xwa 4 + e v y a k a� rat PR yyyl � 'r $' r+aq yr�� 4W "w y' . r Z u iG yr l�' f y; �y � C}I � � i�{ '� � � v"'1,6� �u 1491 yrY 4 i y w ' o rr y ' irvrYy4e r v N F 'VY gfw Ifa a�'��'w, ra' h4 w���xy ry4 ��.Y':^ rrti"[�i% wr_G'" oil'mi i { mm4 °+u v rr', y„�a'#'? d'.#'"Y' N4' �^ x7 � F u c r. p r a u., �. y i a° 3 t'Jaa�+' � '�,� ✓ ' 'a wF' f JW '1 k S ° ° 1 yf +�� d ^ Ndraikd �ml."rn�WWQ� b �,. f N NP I ," r k f ✓`I ,gAy W M m ; 1 ty "n°rY r4kr I ' ' b4 �4^.w4,� y r k'F'J 2 r� g■ „e�P�p V}.. w � Ni s k EA9'YJd r N b Fiy4 'd'Ir � E A �°aa f'6'I F4A Mc v4 o9�Tf1�� a au V � � '�ti�4 1 i by sx✓P Hw'���G'� ." � Y° v 'C w r Y3 1 °f qx r 1 x�r.l r u r li of ir4� 'h rt "wl� r N„� Z'i 4rc . h C r„r r. u I n b` • a �X SO u Av t ��rb d1 • � t d w �.�y `�d o.. - � Pp 51 . Snowmass,� Chapel,: . _ EWAN i1T3 Anderson Ranch 0000 Ji 1 TOSV Zoning SF-150 ^ St�atlOn � SF-3 T i 4 DU PIT T IIIIV you y'ar�i A rD OS �yMCf , �ti i feyr d, SPA-1 ,�„� 1:2400 SPA-2 PUD 1„_200' IT 300-foot buffer around property N Chapel property boundary Parcel boundary ay� 41rf� '� m �Coniferous forest Deciduous forest — Structure 10-foot contour N F III V PATH/Improvements ARM ;M � �irl�i Wetland Road/Driveway e � Sand trap J �"7 Y \ T , r -A-00-- l �> Al r 1 ♦. `l q f ' 1 , Y i /.- r ' Snowmass Chapel •.. �� as ■ � � , •/ t I• [ to th`*' �^. � i t� r �i �r ' w u�'r'VIIR���� � , �.,, , ..;' i '�� ■ , b /Anderson Ranch�x �.;� :� � � ' �� =� � Existing Conditions r: — w Oss OMCos W,.. rFGrum Hrenousi 4 ,� �„ � (height contour p.nma: JIl (height limit analysis) f4flsper�s StlatlOn w'°�� 300-foot buffer R o a.d around property Chapel property boundary IV Parcel boundary Coniferous forest \ �m ♦ u. ". / q Y �f Deciduous forest Structure / + 10-foot contour ® PATH/Improvements TREE-EDGE TREES ,.'Wetland / Road/Driveway 1:2400 'Sand trap 1"=200 1 % i Golf course Steep Slopes 30% and greater Less than 30% j� i SYMBOL LEGEND sosaRa rocnmr sn .� — s.l.�aa wr � race rm _ ow sa Rzrsm+a 9sa Ina 9.2 BE=Ma 5M canna orwL wt AF MUM=IMAM 4) RamossRVaaa � SCHEM MW NUMB LIVM vow"mm w SNOWM. seas.mw rllm c« MATERIAL LEGEND lmcrm PUN sonWN FUN PRO 001 " OW` WWM ML OWNER CONTRA wrcwn wsmw ® z� mw SANCTUARY COUNCIL 1FEITZ-N mr-0CIRAL7O ssA 9101a 9!® lAla SNOVIIASS CHAPEL k MARX NOR COMMUNITY CENTER 5080 COUN P.O. BOX 17169 GLE"OOD aaa VA&L H H V@ TIM ® SNOOMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ME »� NOUN�1�0 an (312) 573-0335 (970) 945- mum Ym tm (312) 288-0545 FAX (970) 915- WAImW =g mw tCCEM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MECHAf IF= T _ ®n-um.oa Jr OTAK ROCK CREEK S7UD10 BEAUDIN ALMMIM @a ® �(— mwmw mu MD..OR CARBONDALE OFFICES VAIL OFFIC 35 N. FOURTH STREET P.O. BOX am saouaar 11� 19® swa Reouna ® CARBONDALE. CO 81623 VAII, CO 6 A0009a1AL Lagwo ® (970) 963-1971 (870) 919- (970) 963-1622 FAX (970) 948- PLTSwn sss® CAPS* "®" G] A M AIA DCOIEM W YBLIYL L S4OT'O D ' . O W G "ONST Tp."TEST m M wmlp "AD, D.TEx amABBREVIATIONS IVMLdK[NJIE MY[RIO!dT rl!Ov12S O M dIC °' iy q.y D.M CDR14Cr DOLV91ie GPdpi O LK dGIEHBII rl tOCIU1 ND2p M M'EfJYJTIOY.Y0 M DII.YeC r� v.v _ dlE WO4MINt 4O CPrrN10�l.ELIR EDY.l1ED r �ti !�YjO IEepLW.ELY f}LED M INY O(O M DDLVBIre I �-v�� r pE p1RRD Ae TtlYM ILLLY Dphl®N dLL IM n D�lDR7•Ir TO EETElN M OS� REE. OTpID IEA'XIED LD 1rE W VRCL MIDYTELY. EE G ILL ECIK W4L CP1"LY YM.LLL OidR NO LQ-AL qp CIpNYY(p,ND W4LL EF PF4QE8D LO TC L � ATE TRADES. Et•OY.V10ERpl O M �v D.TEIE DOOlER!N!NTDDED LO N0.10E M1 LAd wtinTr wVr^ y+ r1 LSOI".EaWrPTr40eERNfl11EaDED TO r^� r dLL LLC9.DEIQIEO r T rr p TI!IEM a TIM 1 M.v Oy rr+v TE f1 !TiO Gq l0 ENM"TO M dTrMpl O irE I ti r�r' Yry CODRiOA YNICl1 YLL NT'EW1R f�UTRCTID! WC 14GM LIE MMVAO TO DOUfEMT rEYCTIONS '6 T,E AICIIITECT To PNT'Q:!oErd w �r` EXACT (Ma ITIC45 Y ceN(N N Y D T u GLT p p+ yy� Ex�prND CPpILIOL'CR YEIE IEGLECIED N 1rE 0.'Y Lrr orr•�w. r� uwya E µrW E IM MdTETSeLS AiTCCFD M9 WCariMKN O T,tl!! TEE TO GY TRpDE ILYE M LIEK TIM R£DL It TE elCiaTELr QJIWD By TIM Cp1R .`..'L-.. ,••r••,••.•w „`^+�„`^" -e+:L eienrt aaxce ulEx icanEO e.nE a�i �yyrtr rp'I"e� Yp 111 p1U1 eN S%bYLL EE NEVELED eY TK a .ev4s- nYr r MI TIE YC1e:leP SOW D. YYN rUer T IENELFD aYVlEa dVY SOW UC Li1 IIC W b CCNT ,Mry r. W. pE RV'vED MD IERdfED YTM YLYiCIIS C-0" �,r vm COI+R/G10Ya E WDYE. NDLPRPALTCR!NYLL Y! �r �ru,rwyv u m y yp n w SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL u.l aT11>amt 61 AOTY Iav6 RAI COTTLE GRAYBEAL A&3 mu Lmo.Ma TAU Tlb YAW A&4 war rbx ARCHITECTS N.1 13SE171w Lm "A WATIM 510 L Uw ATL M1 WATIM WIN.W.alai] iITECTURAL 0L m M am " 1'IC DOCUMENTS ' =T°' m� a Va. FOR F'riolLn-iw 1 .SS CHAPEL �a -an r.om IV NORM N R. mLOtl06,w.1165 r 170 aES/ ^^--1�.,,-- _ T ILO 7d E� PAM 6T7 vu?toMMNo Avo.M.u® i Imp e-ieie .CT DIRECTORY OR ARCHITECT IRIS C077LE GRAYBEAL SNOWMASS YAW ARCHITECTS CHAPEL, ROAD 154 P.O. BOX 529 ,XNGSr CO 81601 228 MIDLAND AVENUE BASALT, CO 61621 no (970) 927-4925 41 FAX (970) 927-8578 FAX :AL & ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL 4NZE ENGINEERS MONROE & NEWELL ENGINEERS 70 BENCH MARK ROAD SUITE 204 8 AVON, CO 81820 SNOWMASS 08 (970) 949-7768 VILLAGE, 59 FAX (970) 949-4054 FAX COLORADO IERAL NOTES JGr I &Tb b 6 Es ro 12vCW TW M bOEAAL FART EpO IOR WBI"M R7YYW IILZTTt OR1 ARE MC D VIM "TK Y fl lT !TO ONE TLDf N 1DEGMa TIEYMT lO D81T,4MCNF.VJ!" !! •. YCr ONYFYiE YWL OF ENLtPR®TO M MWTICT NJI, 1CV lab Qr uR RMW YOQ C41ID N1 YINIR!N MEE L4VlOR0. IEVEW WLLL CE NILE CT M AKJYT[R f1ET� N. WM bCEIIII Mp EL'C'TO CCllObl TO MUMDND YCF DRMIY. NGELf iO IERA@ER Y REOLIRED N F.M.YIIMI[.�. 4 M NLDM I4,WCTOR YYLL W NOTFNED DT M W1 IOR ?! M0 MW b WED OF IAFECTKN A!ELLR®BY M fl WFGRT IYIrLD.G CW!W YLT LOL.LL CLC!LR ORDNAEYE N MCOIT Oft LNREIR l"TW WETT 4D CAIb OF MJA FRCI wvl D~U TRCTN fCR •TE GOELIMLZ VN IEME A STATE OD IQ4L<TI . YD N E M O T ROM016.N1 11JNC IML rt b OELhEIffD -TCCr L4TLETED TO M ONEER DU11N BV, M I. ALL DlpLN00 NJIEO T Fl@fE l W TO IDLED. Da41bCN,OfrD 4TN T(tA'DDYITE!Kli TO YILE TIT n!. J. CCMR/LTOR WI. KRFT ND L0.-IAMdiF ALL OF ITECT -LFNID RN'.Fl.CEIL,Gf.Y0 ILLYL!W TN 4L MCMIIILTAIAL. L OE STRLMAL,tEC4ANNCµ.RVBOG dIO FL[CIPoCAL DRNYIGI. A K LLMRKTpi WLL A WO518kl 61TE9 ROI TECT WSO NN gG iK ENRE N LL A1 .0 . +� cgjF•ud i i 4nA.'Y :Y ♦d- 1 14' fan K11LL W�� AI I I I I I I L Roil —em t e,uG ea. —MI.a.elan F Irs •-snc' —sm Mm v rte. 61Ce1 P en -1575 rD Ber mm TRIOM CO.414M _,.-0 n I leleYra m r-.. PAJM cm ,-�- 6 vox,CO.-151 �- __.-._ Irfopu-5555 r(rmp,e--see i 4 y ,n COLCQ2Ab0 00 \l4-i J H— � L 61. MOR PJx A 3 . 1 r � 90 0 0 , , — GRAYBBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS ® ,TD 510 M erv,n A9Pa,w.Bleu 11 P(IMIeri-tool rAkm'AL r vm a-me p Bee�,n. R9R7.CO.Biel Pl mmrpv 1575 O 55u P(I15IIZ1AM P.OJM w in mom im ST. GUM.CO.014M P(fmli2o m t Bm -$n I I r.omB 05n I � fl%1 W HI I.RR 700 MT M. I� �I v�v opu iiie I� SNOWMASS CHAPEL CHAPEL �1 —luC3 I I mw I I I I I I —----- 3NOWMASS I I I VHdAGE, I I I I COLORADO p a amen M II II 1l o Am I A ED •1 FLOORFLOOR P A3.2 ,w av vwn w cmm r co"-qd --i--� 7T- aff \ 1 , ti - p_.-. 1].-.-._LL._._LL._- -------- COTTLE GRAYBEAL II ARCHITECTS Mlm.co.Bleu tK0 I tyAe7$-79$e in Hs 1141. —T I UMLLY�,0Yl.eletl Fom �elepll-lert 107s i T11111111119.Co.Ito F MUM in3Mus m Bart w Ivox. mp p.1111111)IAmpu-uii .•re1 J I I I It � li it I II I II i I li II li SNOIIMASS u CHAPEL m�iwa.leu-- •------- I I I I 1 i I i I „ i yl I i I I i ----------------- —.� SNOWMASS ,,,,e J----------I -----�' I VILLAGDO E, COLORADO — I .•.roer�.oe vwrae i� ............._. — i i A3.3 loop-ua� f � 1 i \ � i \ f , ` 1 - rr I� r .-._ -.-.-.-.�._ i y i ii COTTLE Y AYBEw i i I ARCHITECTS LTD I _ 5110 9.ffz0s-AL T i�Wio°pa-w II m nwxn en. —i LL/LLT1.eCo.91621 I I p AMPn amn Tor emem m er. mLu®s,Co.tress e N Ino1r r vm me ine7irs IM 17 m i e0.?a�.um I i�i opu-ieie I I I L— — SNORNASS CHAPEL � Ii i I c.,. I I VILLAGE, COLORADO i I —— ---------...... — ——o I I 1 1 A3.4 _ ,wa.,wawm,a A ROXIMATELY 65 FEET DFIROXIMATELY 54 FEET OXIMATELY 41 FEET i I i j I i I l i i i i � I 1= � fi i 1 i � Ic i i � I APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET l _ o i,r,il�ji•L,h,ji i''I'I. IU d11 IP , n• II t11J1 111,11111JJI�IIiI. • i'�III,�I�II•,�I�II r dlrl:dl. ' 11111� 1,1!11 �11_ dill-.�lilhr!lill;. _ � IIj1�I�i1;I1111;I1�Pr,,�, � Ip IU Ip d� ' u `• .Illrr Illir Illp Illir '11111 . .. 111 11111,111111 tlllpll�llll l�llll ll�llll r�r :I'll ml� del IUL' IUI lul ' Ip 'ur .ti I Y•r I lir •I I,r •,I�ii �11„ '.I�ir 111rr Jllir:.r.. ,� III '1111 I;Ihl I 'Ihl'I�!UJ I 'Ihlll!Ihl I 'Ihl'il;Ivl'b,telh O 1 .d� -r�lllllllllllllllllll�lllllllllllllllllll��llllllllllllllllllll� II I I ■11i,r •,111;-���� d 1 111J 1. 11,1 6111,1 L!IId l 11hf G!1h11 )IIJI'.I�1 .I'J�I:i' O .1�Iljl l 11111�Iljl I�II11 I�Iljl I;Ilr/' � / ��11 '11111• :I'll �1,�11•'-d.1'-.•r. �I 1111 x111111 Mir r G 1;1� 6!!III; I III • ---• �-2:) 4- - 1 11-1-T-TTTTT■ ■■' i i■■■■■■�ii■i it ■■ f ir Pal Roil PW Iw■ ■ ■■Y■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■■ w■e�■I�■■ ■■■■■■■r.�n■■-e■ ■■■ �■r�■I�■■ � ■■■■■■■I•I■■7■ ■■ 9■■■■■■'r.■■■■■■■■■L'7■■■■ _ ■■ A■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t°1■■■■ ■■ f ■ ■ ■■■[11■■■■ ■ ■ ■f■ I I 1 I I I I i II e I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I 1334 SL k-T31VWIXONck4V COO llk F; G BEAL H P,7:C1;3'PkC:•• I-ti l- `1 are L nWl in H y am.M.81111 H H� Boo.CD.eior `J P Iwmr-16 r IN -PM ?AM ON i�m�er PDT an IRK ■1t! r P'n■ 111S ■ o c s • P ■n Isis SNOWMASS CHAPEL F llu U- r Ill SNOWMASS VILLAGE. COLORADO X sensrONS: j[ 1I I RARM OEM \ AGU*T MCC Q BUILD■ 6 CA" CHECM o nI A4.2 `.wruwarem _ own :d lMfN DOW AMAMT I FACE of MUCON9 -------- -------- -----°— L r E � 4 ' APPROXIMATELY 41 ET APPROXIMATELY 54 FEET APPROXIMATELY 65 FEET APPROXIMATELY 16 FEET ® I - - ]-11 1 [ 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11.1 1 L Ott is'gaQ _ 17 11 i_1 1f11 11 I [ III_I I I eam r� 0 o CR088 8SCIRON I COTTLE YRAA1IYB� ARCHITECTS LTD ele 6.IITW en aver,a.ueu r rro mm r e7a�a-me m e®nrn en. MU T,CO.Moil 4 q ;om35a IV m mr i i mm I'll ynwm CO.uw ; � resat an W.wme p ap. em IF IMI-Ris una m I + I I sCs SNOWMASS COLORADO � rsow nea�Zeom Q q q i i i &MW ME i �C7 ■ i COTTLE i ■ GRAYBEAL ■ i ARCHITECTS ■ LTD sic L VIM AM ■ i i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ o i '• i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ — ■ iii PAM m SNOWMASS MA PEL SS - i � �r•�� �f �i i r��i� �.� r �.r{■yam r,j�■ C��� A'J'.�a.. S _ SNOWMASS OLORADO � S■r 1 ■I■■-III' �^7■■■■■■■ L:.N 102—■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ 1T.f17.(0'ii7■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ BA .71]♦■■Dina■■■■■■■■■■■n)■■■■■■3�m�a■■■■■