Loading...
11-12-01 Town Council Packet PYT 4 �v94 ci i 4 e T AGENDA SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 12, 2001 CALL TO ORDER AT 2:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL DISCUSSION AGENDA Item No. 2: 2:00 — 3:00 HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS -- Joe Coffey................................ (Tab A, page 1) Item No. 3: 3:00 — 5:30 SNOWMASS CHAPEL SKETCH PLAN REVIEW -- Jim Wahlstrom ......................... (Tab B, page 10) BREAK 5:30 — 5:45 P.M. REGULAR AGENDA— 5:45 P.M. Item No. 4: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) Item No. 5: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING - ORDINANCE NO. 16 SERIES OF 2001 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND SECOND READING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY'S VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY ON LOT 44 OF THE DIVIDE SUBDIVISION. (First Reading of this Ordinance tabled from 11-05-01) -- Jim Wahlstom................................................ (Tab C, page 30) Item No. 6: PUBLIC HEARING - 2002 ROAD MILL LEVY TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE ROAD MILL LEVY FUND FOR THE YEAR 2002 -- Marianne Rakowski ....................................... (Tab D, page 53) Item No. 7: PUBLIC HEARING - 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE YEAR 2002 -- Marianne Rakowski ...................................... (Tab E, page 54) 11-12-01 tc Page 2 Item No. 8: FIRST READING - ORDINANCE NO. 25, SERIES OF 2001 FIRST READING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET FOR ALL FUNDS FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE -- Marianne Rakowski ....................................... (Tab F, page 55) Item No. 9: RESOLUTION NO. 41, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR EACH FUND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ROAD MILL LEVY FUND AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2002 AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2002. -- Marianne Rakowski ....................................... (Tab G, page 57) Item No. 10: RESOLUTION NO. 42, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES, IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSE AS SET FORTH BELOW, FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO FOR THE 2002 BUDGET YEAR -- Marianne Rakowski...................................... (Tab H, page 66) Item No. 11: PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 49, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONCERNING AN ANNUAL TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO PERMIT CHRISTMAS TREE SALES AT THE WESTERLY END OF THE TOWN RODEO LOT. -- Chris Conrad ................................................. (Tab I, page 70) Item No. 12: APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR 07-26-01 AND 09-28-01.................................... (Tab J, page 76) Item No. 13: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS Item No. 14: CALENDARS .......................................................................... (Tab K, page 79) Item No. 15: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923-3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 12,2001 Agenda Item: Housing Advisory Committee Recommendations Presented By: Barbara Lucks, MaryBeth Bassett and Rick Griffin Core Issues: Seniority Owner Qualification Ownership of Other Property Bequeathing Employee Housing Rental Within Owner Units Maximum Resale Value vs. Current Resale Value Upkeep of Employee Housing Units Standard Contract Application Process Persons Per Bedroom Disabled Priority Units Pets(Owner Units) Pets (Rental Units) Smoking (Owners Units) Smoking(Rental Units) General Info: The Housing Advisory Committee's seven members are MaryBeth Bassett,Barbara Lucks, Marci Jennings, Mark Hogan, Rick Griffin, Keith Kamin and Mark Stout. This committee is very dedicated to the Town's housing program and they have spent many hours together working on the recommendations they will present today. The Town is very fortunate to have these citizens who sincerely care about the housing program. The Housing Advisory Committee understands that some of the recommendations are controversial and may require additional council meetings to discuss these recommendations. Council Options: * Approve or deny the Housing Advisory Committee recommendations. * Schedule future work session time to review selected recommendations. * Direct staff to provide Council with code changes to match committee recommendations. Staff Recommendation: Some H.A.C. recommendations may not require additional discussion and the Council should direct staff to change the Housing code right away. The Council may want to select certain recommendations and review these in future work sessions to better understand these issues and how the committee formed their recommendations. November 7, 2001 TO: The Mayor and Town Council Members FR: H.A.C. Members RE: Final Recommendations INTRODUCTION The Housing Advisory Committee was formed to evaluate the existing housing program, to identify specific issues and to make recommendations to the Town Council. After months of meetings and several public forums, the Housing Committee has identified several important issues in the housing system. They were culled from the results of public forums and from the weekly meetings of the Committee. The Committee's mission was to listen to the public comments, discuss the issues as a Committee and make clear recommendations to the Town Council. Additionally, the Committee set out to uncover inequities within the system and make recommendations to the Council which would allow for more consistency. The following recommendations consider the intent of employee housing which is to attract and retain a broad employment base. We feel the recommendations are reasonable, fair and take into account the changing demographics of Snowmass Village. SENIORITY Current Policy: Section 17-3 of Snowmass Village Municipal Code: The priority for each qualified purchaser shall be determined by full-time employment history as follows: Category 1. Greater than fifteen (15) years. Category 2. Greater than ten (10) years to 15 years. Category 3. Greater than five years to ten years. Category 4. Greater than one year to five (5) years. Within each category, priority shall be determined by lot. Rationale: The committee wishes to change the system from an entitlement system to a system which will capture and keep the broadest and best employment base. All members of the committee agree that a weighted lottery system can accomplish this goal. However, the committee was split on how exactly the categories and numbers of chances would work. Below are some samples of a weighted lottery system: Recommendation: • The Housing Committee recommends a weighted lottery system • For these examples, a person can claim a dependent if the dependent lives at his or her home for 183 days or more per year. SAMPLE I* Years Employed With Dependents No Dependents 3-6.99 years 7 chances 5 chances 7-10.99 years 12 chances 10 chances 11+ years 17 chances 15 chances _ a00� *This sample eliminates the 15+ years category giving those with 11 or more years the most priority. SAMPLE II ** Years Employed With Dependents No Dependents 3-6.99 years 7 chances 5 chances 7-10.99 years 12 chances 10 chances 11- 14.99 years 17 chances 15 chances 15 + years 22 chances 20 chances **This sample keeps the 15+ years category SAMPLE III *** Years Employed No Dependents 3-6.99 years 5 chances 7-10.99 years 10 chances 11+ years 15 chances ** This sample does not give extra chances to those with dependents. Instead, it relies on the new recommendations found under "Persons Per Bedroom" to accommodate those with dependents. For your information, the Pitkin County weighted lottery system is broken down into four- year categories: 4-8 years, 8-12 years, 12-16 years and 16-20 years. Each jump in category entitles the applicant to one more chance. OWNER QUALIFICATION Current Policy: Section 17-5 Mandatory Resale "If the principal place of residence of the owner is not maintained at the housing unit then the owner shall immediately offer the housing unit for sale in accordance with the provisions of 17-4. For purposes of this Section, principal place of residence requires the owner to be in physical residence in the housing unit for a minimum of eight (8) months each calendar year." Rationale: The residential requirement for ownership of employee housing is not strictly enforced. The Committee feels that owners of employee housing should not only live in their units for eight months per year, but must maintain the employment requirements mandated in the initial qualification process (40 hours per week, eight months per year). Recommendation: • The Housing Committee recommends that employment and residential requirements be contained in an affidavit which must be completed and signed by employee housing owners and remitted to housing office on a biannual basis • This will include proof of employment and proof of residency (Colorado driver's license) • All owners of employee housing must meet employment requirements until the day they receive social security benefits as prescribed by the Federal Government. At that time, only the residency requirement must be met - 3 � • Due to the limited supply and great demand for employee housing, individuals, not businesses or corporations, must meet the above requirements in order to purchase employee housing • While the committee does recognize that the Town holds the title to two units, it is our recommendation that businesses be encouraged to purchase free-market housing or develop their own housing to accommodate their employees OWNERSHIP OF OTHER PROPERTY Current Policy: The policy is a restriction in the application packet. It reads: "If the applicant owns housing within the Roaring Fork Valley, the applicant must agree to list his or her unit or home for sale, for a price comparable to other similar units or homes offered for sale in proximity to their property prior to closing. The unit or home shall remain listed for sale until sold. A bonafide effort must be made to sell your unit or home within 24 months. If your unit or home has not sold within the 24-month time period you will be required to sell your employee housing unit or home as a result." Rationale: It is our feeling that those who own employee housing do so because there are limited opportunities for free-market home ownership in the Village. It is unreasonable for someone who owns employee housing, which is need based and subsidized through the Town of Snowmass Village, to own other free-market property within the areas defined below, concurrently. Recommendation: • Town's code be immediately changed so that at the time of qualification for employee housing and at any time thereafter, the purchaser may not own or purchase property— commercial, residential or vacant land — anywhere from Rifle to No Name to Independence Pass and including the Roaring Fork drainages within. • The Committee also recommends that language to that effect be contained in all contracts for future employee housing purchases. • Those who presently own property within those confines shall be forced to sell said property or vacate their employee housing units BEQUEATHING EMPLOYEE HOUSING Current Policy: 17-10 of Snowmass Village Municipal Code: "A transfer by operation of law, by will or inheritance, by a public trustee deed or a sheriffs deed pursuant to a foreclosure sale shall be exempt from the procedures set forth in Section 17-4, (resale & seniority) provided written notice shall be provided to the Housing Manager providing information to support that an exempt transaction has occurred." Rationale: The Housing Committee would like to see that all occupants of employee housing meet the qualifications for ownership. Recommendation: • Section 17-10 shall be changed to a life estate which will make the property one's own (and the owner's current spouse's) for no longer than the term of their lives. y^ RENTAL WITHIN OWNER UNITS Current Policy: Section 17-7 paragraph (c) states: Without the approval of the Town Council, the owner of a housing unit of at least two (2) bedrooms may rent one (1) bedroom to a maximum of two (2) people. Provided, however, the owner occupant must reside in the unit at all times, must occupy a bedroom in the housing unit and must receive prior approval for any such rental from the association in which the housing unit exists. Rationale: The benefits of maintaining a rental pool through owners' units outweighs the negative impacts of congestion, noise, and increased traffic. The rental pool among employee housing owners' units should mirror that of the employee housing rental units as far as qualification and cost of renting. Recommendation: • The owner shall register his or her tenant with the Housing Office. • Each tenant must meet current employment and residential requirements. • The owner shall not charge more than the fair market value for a comparable space within the employee housing rental pool as prescribed by the housing office. • Disputes between owner and tenant are the sole responsibility of the owner and tenant or their homeowners associations, not the housing office. MAXIMUM RESALE VALUE vs. CURRENT RESALE VALUE Current Policy: (see Section 17-3 under Article I Permanent Moderate Housing. It will be attached to Town Council packet) Rationale: Currently, there are 16 units operating under the current resale value system — 10 units in the Creekside complex and 6 in the Country Club Townhome complex. Recommendation: • The Housing Committee recommends that all owners of deed restricted housing be treated consistently. • Owners of those 16 units be contacted, their units inspected and that they be compensated for improvements to date (as prescribed by Section 17-3) once their unit is sold. • As of January 1, 2002 all employee housing units operate under the same maximum resale basis. UPKEEP OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS Current Policy: Section 17-3 paragraph (6) "Maximum resale price shall only apply to a housing unit that has been maintained in a clean and orderly condition, normal wear and tear excepted..." Rationale: The Housing Committee is concerned that some units are turning over which are substandard. Due to the nature of the Snowmass Village employee housing, since demand heavily outweighs supply, these below-par units will always get the maximum bid. r� .50�� There needs to be a system to insure the delivery of resale units which meet minimum standards of quality. Recommendation: • Amend above ordinance to ensure that all present owners of employee housing meet minimum standards prescribed by the housing department. • These standards will be determined by the housing manager and independent inspection agencies. • All units which are put on the market shall be inspected by an outside firm. • If the unit is deemed unacceptable the owner will have one month to make the necessary improvements or the buyer will receive a credit for the fair market value for the improvements. • The inspection shall be paid for by the seller. • These stipulations will be contained in a standard contract which will be used for the buying and selling of all employee housing units as of January 1, 2002. STANDARD CONTRACT Current Policy: Presently, prospective home buyers are given the Colorado state contract for real estate transfer. Rationale: The contract does not contain such stipulations as residency and employment requirements or minimum standards for upkeep of units and other issues specific to employee housing. Recommendation: • Members of Town Council shall meet with the Town's attorney and another attorney contracted by the Town of Snowmass Village to draft an addendum to the standard contract which will include residency and employment qualifications • The amendment shall create the necessary language between buyers and sellers in order for full disclosure (including a disclosure of the condition of properties) APPLICATION PROCESS Current Policy: Each time a unit is up for bid, an interested purchaser must fill out the application and pay $10 to the housing office to be included in the lottery. Rationale: As of now, the application process represents a snapshot as to one's present financial and employment situation. Recommendation: • The application shall last for one year from the time it is turned in to the housing office. • The application shall be updated each year with current copies of tax returns to determine one's financial and employment history. • The applicant must pay $25 per bid and complete a bid sheet for each unit he or she wishes to bid on. PERSONS PER BEDROOM Current Policy: Section 17-4 sub paragraph b. "For a three-bedroom condominium unit or house a single parent with a minor dependent child who resides with the parent for a minimum of 183 days each calendar year or two (2) or more persons shall be designated the first priority qualified purchaser irrespective of full-time employment history, after a person granted priority under the provisions of subparagraph (a) ..." Rationale: The current system does not make the best use of the number of bedrooms in employee housing units. The larger units and the homes at the Crossings were built with the intention to house Snowmass Village families. Recommendation: • A single may bid on a studio or one-bedroom unit. • A couple with no dependents may bid on a studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom unit. • A couple with one dependent or a single parent with one dependent may bid on any size unit up to and including a three-bedroom unit. • A couple with two or more dependents or single parent with two or more dependents may bid on any size unit . • In these instances, the dependent children must reside with the parent for a minimum of four months each year. DISABLED PRIORITY UNITS Current Policy: There are a limited number of units which are specifically designed to accommodate those with a mobility disability. Rationale: Those who need units which are designed for those with mobility disabilities should have first priority for these units. Recommendation: • As disabled units come available, those with proof of a mobility disability be given thirty days to apply for the unit. • After the thirty days, the unit shall become available to all qualified Snowmass Village employees. There was a strong minority opinion that disabled Pitkin County employees be allowed to bid during the initial thirty-day period. PETS (OWNER UNITS) Current Policy: According to the Department of Wildlife, Mountain View owners may not own dogs. Other employee housing complexes have left the pet ownership decisions to their respective housing associations. Rationale: Employee housing homeowners associations should decide the pet-ownership policy and their resolutions should be included in their declarations. 00� 17 A- Recommendation: The Housing Committee recommends that the pet ownership policy remain the same. PETS (RENTAL UNITS) Current Policy: According to the Snowmass Village Employee Housing Tenant Qualifications sheet, "No animals shall be permitted in any rental unit for any reason. Violation of this regulation will result in cancellation of the lease." Rationale: The nature of the renter is that he tends to be more short-term in the Village than an owner. Rental units turn over more than owner units and are required to be cleaned and sometimes painted before new tenants move in. Recommendation: • The Committee recommends to keep the policy as is due to the following: the increased damage to Town of Snowmass Village property,harm to the complexes' common elements, the increased maintenance needs in units where there are pets, the increased burden on animal control officers and housing department staff, and the potential health problems (such as pet allergies)to those who move in to units where there were pets. SMOKING (OWNER UNITS) Current Policy: There is no policy banning smoking in owner-occupied employee housing units. Matters related to smoking are handled by individual homeowners associations or by the Housing Office staff. Rationale: There are few complaints about smoking. Most have been handled with a phone call or by speaking to the offender. Recommendation: The Housing Committee recommends matters regarding smoking be handled as they are now. No change is recommended. There is a strong minority opinion that smoking be banned in all owner-occupied employee housing units due to the fire and health hazards of smoking. SMOKING (RENTAL UNITS) Current Policy: There is no policy banning smoking in renter-occupied employee housing units. Matters related to smoking are handled by the Housing Manager. Rationale: The town of Snowmass Village passed an ordinance last year which bans smoking on public property. The employee housing rental units are considered to be public property. Recommendation: Smoking should be banned in all rental units. imam g _ • Smoking poses the threat of fire which could destroy town property and displace employees. • Those units which are occupied by smokers require more maintenance at the time of turnover. • Smoke cannot be contained to the smokers' units and negatively impacts surrounding tenants who do not smoke _ q40000 TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 12, 2001 Agenda Item: Discussion Item: Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan Review Presented By: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Core Issues: Below is a suggested discussion agenda of core issues for the 2.5 hours allotted at the November 12, 2001 Town Council meeting concerning the proposed Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan PUD: • Usage (10 minutes)—pp. 3 &4 of attached PC Reso. for findings a) Differences in the plans since the Pre-Sketch meeting and the Joint meeting on June 25 b) Planned usage for all buildings, including lower level of sanctuary • Comprehensive Plan (20 minutes)—pp. 7& 8 of PC Reso. a) Buildout Analysis Chart and the provision for a floor area limit b) Acceptability of building coverage area above the allocated 20,000 square feet(eventually requires%approval by Town Council) c) Community purposes(if over 20,000 square foot allocation) d) Employee housing requirement of 626 square feet—acceptability of deed restricting current unit or other options proposed • Architecture (20 minutes)—pp. 1-3 for findings and pp. 11 & 12 for conditions In PC Reso. a) Design,scale and mass of the proposed facility b) Ridgeline protection provision c) Height variance from maximum 40 feet and average of 25 feet (eventually requires%approval by Town Council) • Landscaping (20 minutes)—pp. 11 & 12 of PC Reso. for conditions under Height Variance a) Identify landscaping desired around the site b) Land exchange effects on golf course, restrooms, and cart path • Natural Resource & Hazard Areas (15 minutes)-p. 8 for findings and p. 12 for condition in PC Reso. a) Encroachment within the 25-foot riparian/wetland setback area b) Drainage conveyance and storage on the site c) Provision of Brush Creek Impact Report with the Preliminary Plan • Access and Circulation (15 minutes)—p. 7ofPCReso. a) New bus shelter needs b) Improving pedestrian connections in and around site • Parking,Traffic, Transportation (20 minutes)—pp. 4-6 for findings and p. 12 for conditions In PC Reso. a) Worse-case peak parking demand b) Verification of actually parking to be provided c) Need for updated parking agreement between Chapel/Community Center,Anderson Ranch and the Fire District am—/40 do� \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLMuseNw\Snowmass Chapel\TC Mena 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc I • Timetable(10 minutes)—p. 13 for condition In PC Reso. a) Acceptability of deferring steeple construction to later—date certain b) Construction schedule of interior improvements to lower level • Community Welfare(5 minutes)—p. 8 for findings In PC Reso. a) Relocation of 15-inch sewer line b) Water line looping requirements for fire protection • Miscellaneous (15 minutes)—pp. 6-9 for findings and p. 10 for Preliminary Plan submission requirements in PC Reso. a) Need for applicant to prepare a detailed Transportation Impact Analysis, Fiscal Impact Report, and Air Quality Report with the Preliminary Plan PUD application. General Info: Please reference the previous handout of the applicant's proposal in booklet format that was supplied for Town Council's review at the joint meeting on June 25, 2001. The latest submittal was received June 12,2001. Included in the front portion of the application booklet is the applicant's response to staff comments provided for your Information. Also reference the previous staff report and Planning Commission Resolution No. 14, Series of 2001,from the October 15 report,for recommendations concerning the Sketch Plan application. However, staff revised portions of the report(attached)in an attempt to organize and address the core issues as well as summarize the staff and Planning Commission recommendations following the order of the core Issues listed above. Other Attachments: • Letter received October 30,2001 from Nancy Declarer • Letter dated November 6, 2001 from Dick and Barbara Moebius • Justification Letter dated November 8,2001 from applicant(Note: Since this letter was submitted at the report deadline, staff did not have the time to respond to it, but will respond to the items mentioned In the letter at the meeting). Council Options: 1) Identify core issues of importance, including findings and any conditions which Council finds are appropriate; and/or 2) Provide direction to the applicant and staff to eventually prepare a summary of the findings/conditions for review by Town Council on November 19 and to eventually prepare a draft resolution for review by Town Council at the public hearing scheduled for December 3. Staff Staff recommends that the meeting follow the conduct of meetings per the Code Recommendation: as follows: 1. Summary introduction by staff of the application and the core issues; 2. Applicant's follow up presentation of the proposal and changes since the last set of meetings; 3. Staff comments, or questions by Town Council to staff or applicant; 4. Accept comments or questions from the public; and 5. Schedule application for further discussion and summary review of the findings/conditions for November 19 (Note:the public hearing and review of the draft resolution are now scheduled for December 3 because the newspaper did not publish the public notice in last weeks'edition). %\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN%useNMSnowmass ChapehTC Memo 11-72-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Pian.doc 2 Analysis of Core Issues and Summary of Recommendations Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan Use Issues: 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, but increased in height by 10 feet to 78 feet. 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 into the narthex. The steeple is proposed at 78 feet in height measured from grade on the south end of the building site. The steeple will appear taller than the sanctuary building because the site slopes downward toward the north side of the building addition area by roughly 10 feet. The addition measures about 121 feet in length by 80 feet in width. The connection to the Community Center has been widened as a result of compressing the addition closer to the existing buildings. The change would also accommodate a functional nursery space within the connection space. Staff Recommendation: Staff offers the following comments, both favorable and unfavorable, for consideration: The Snowmass Chapel site is located on the fringe of or near the entrance Into the Town Core area. Considering how towns, villages and cities have developed over time, including the middle ages, places of worship were traditionally the taller, most dominant structures and central focus of communities and villages. Today, central business districts (CBD's) incorporate the tallest of buildings In towns or cities. These CBD's tend to serve as the main focus of a town or city, which identifies the city center for visitors. Once a Town Core is developed for Snowmass Village, it may lessen the perceived height of the Chapel. Nodes of higher density, increased FAR'S and taller buildings throughout a community also improves the service of and justifies the need for mass transit, which in turn could operate more efficiently due to increased ridership. Aspen seems to offer good examples of these scenarios. Not to say that 80-foot tall buildings are appropriate in all locations, but perhaps Snowmass Village has evolved from a rural area, to a village, to a Town, and perhaps now to a point where it warrants a visible Town Core area which clearly identifies the center of the community. The Chapel building could define the entry for the Town Core area. As this relates to the Chapel application, the proposed addition incorporates heights and roof pitches of 14:12 which are unlike most building heights and roof X .0— \\NT_SERVER\BLO PLNWserVvASnowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 3 pitches throughout Snowmass Village, with the exception of another visible icon, the tower at the mall. The proposed addition could provide an architectural landmark or sense of identity for the Town Core entry area, it is clad with a significant amount of stone to create a sense of permanence, and it would provide a cultural amenity for the community. Contrary to the above comments, the proposed building addition would be in contrast to the mass and scale of other nearby structures, including residential structures, non-residential buildings and institutional campus buildings. It will be a dominant structure that will stand out against the mountain backdrop as one approaches the Town Core area. The proposed addition would penetrate the ridgeline as seen from Brush Creek Road, setting an unprecedented standard for this size of a structure in Snowmass Village. The additional facility will more than likely create an increase the amount of automobile traffic, albeit primarily on weekends. Therefore, the provisions for convenient shuttle service, nearby bus shelters to serve the patrons of the facility, and an updated, shared parking agreement will be important to address. In addition, it seems that this amendment provides the Town the opportunity to create additional parking to better meet the demands on the site. The addition will create foreground view impacts from adjacent properties. The break up of the roof massing would be important to address if the building height isn't lowered. Perhaps the lower portion of the roof could be widened while narrowing the upper portions of the roof structure, including the addition of side windows and/or the increase in height of the side windows as recommended by the Planning Commission, without compromising the volume required for the custom organ. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission was in favor of having "signature" church architecture near the Town entry area, generally meaning the fringe entrance into the Town Core area. The Planning Commission recommended changes or agreed to some of the changes in the architecture in order to address the roof mass issue. Please see the comments below under Architecture and Height Variance. Building Coverage/Floor Area Issues. As requested by staff, the application now includes a chart (page 2 of the response letter in the application booklet)which shows the existing development standards, the existing conditions, and the proposed standards in table format. However, please reference Exhibit J in the previous report packet showing a revised table, which includes the floor area information. A minimum floor area was not established with the last PUD Amendment, and staff believes a floor area maximum should be established with this application if approved. 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. Overall, the proposal would increase the total gross floor area from 11,715 square feet (including the exterior covered walkways)to 27,890 square feet (also including the exterior covered walkways). aw r 3 WJT SERVER\BLD PLN\usa vASnowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doo 4 Staff Recommendation: Considering the previously approved building coverage of 15,000 square feet and the 40-foot height limit, one could assume that the floor area for a two or three story structure would amount to 30,000 square feet or more. Therefore, if the proposal is acceptable, staff recommends that a floor area limit of 28,000 square feet, including covered walkways, be established with this application. Planning Commission Recommendation: At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated that the existing chapel would become a 175 to 200 seat community hall, once the building addition is completed, and would be used primarily for public and private meetings or functions, and wedding receptions. It was stated that two counseling rooms in the Community Center would be converted to serve as the connection to the building addition. The lower level of the sanctuary was described for use as Sunday School, counseling services, mechanical and storage rooms, and restrooms which may be shared by the general public and golfers. Planning Commission noted these items as findings in its resolution and felt that a suitable plan should be established which satisfactorily addresses the on-site overflow parking needs regardless of the use and transit service to and from the facility. See pages 3 and 4 of the resolution for specifics. • Floor Plan 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." Page 17 of the applicant's 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 by wedding receptions and other 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, which show the parking demand based upon anticipated usage and operation of the facilities. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended 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. If conference uses are established, for example, it could have a significant impact on the parking. Planning Commission Recommendation: See the findings under Building Coverage and Floor Area issues above. Comprehensive Plan: • Comprehensive Plan and Buildout Analysis Chart. The application requests increasing the maximum building coverage from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. Again, 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 on the Buildout Analysis Chart, in this particular case, may have implied maximum WOOD/fle.m=% \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLMuseNvAsnowmass ChapePTC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 5 building coverage limitation because the previous PUD Amendment noted a maximum building ground coverage of 15,000 square feet but was moot in addressing maximum floor area. If one assumes that two-story structures could occupy the permitted 15,000 square foot building coverage area, up to approximately 30,000 square feet of floor area could be developed. Three story structures could allow up to 45,000 square feet of 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%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. Staff Recommendation: The lower level space in the building addition may prove useful as convenience ancillary space during special events and concerts. The lower level could also be used for ancillary space to support concerts or events in the new building addition. In this case and as previously stated, if the proposed floor area of 27,890 square feet is favorable to Town Council, staff recommends that a floor area limit of 28,000 square feet be established with this application. Community purpose criteria should also be addressed. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission found in favor of establishing a new maximum building coverage of 20,000 square feet, not including 1,600 square feet of roof overhang area, and a maximum of 28,000 square feet of floor area for the site because, 1)the approximate 7,500 square feet of floor space on the lower level is mostly below grade, 2)the existing Chapel and Community Center are also partially below grade, 3)the site is constrained leaving limited areas where uses could be located, and 4)the purpose of the facility is unique to Snowmass Village and is an important community facility,which benefits both residents and visitors of the community. The facility is also distinguishable from other private commercial and residential uses. Planning Commission found that the proposed.facility in itself Is a community benefit. See page 7 of the resolution for details. wow./�� Iww� \WT_SERVER\BLD PLNWseNvASnowmass ChapehTC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doo 6 Employee Housing. The employee housing calculations are outlined on pages 14 and 15 of the text proposal. The calculation shows that 626 square feet of employee housing is required. In accordance with a letter from the Chapel dated June 7, 2001 (behind Tab D in the application booklet), SCCC is investigating a few options 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 Recommendation: Deed-restricting the current unit makes sense because the unit size of 692 square feet fulfills the requirement(see Exhibit D of the attached Planning Commission resolution). 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 is 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. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission found that deed restricting the current unit would be acceptable to meet the employee- housing requirement. Planning Commission also found the options, explained at their meeting, to either purchase a free-market unit to deed restrict for employee housing or purchasing a deed-restricted unit elsewhere within the Town for use by Chapel employees would also be acceptable. See pages 7 and 8 of the attached resolution for details. Architecture: Impacts of Massing, Scale, and Character. Some of staffs 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, potential impacts to pedestrian traffic circulation and transit usage, and potential visual impacts). Staff Recommendation: See previous introductory comments under Differences from the Pre-Sketch Submittal. Planning Commission Recommendation: Based upon the architectural concepts presented, Planning Commission found that the architecture could be further refined during the Preliminary Plan stage to better create traditional 1\NT SERVERtBLD_PLNWserwsnowmass ChapePTC Memo 11-12--011 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 7 church architecture as presented in the sample European village photographs. Planning Commission also found that the addition of side windows to create a stepped roof was a substantial step in mitigating and address the height and roof mass concerns. However, the Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to further explore other means of mitigating the height impacts, including increasing the vertical dimension of the side windows. In addition, Planning Commission desired side windows for the lower roof area on the side elevations. See pages 11 and 12 of the resolution for details. • Height Limit Analysis. The application also includes a Height Limit Analysis, which is located in the application booklet behind Tab E—"Photos" and the photo simulations. The analysis shows 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. in addition to this analysis, it was confirmed during the site visit with Planning Commission that a portion of the proposed structure would be visible above the mountain ridgelines to the east of the site as viewed from Brush Creek Road. According to the Code, "No development of new structures shall be designed or located in such a way that it will appear to penetrate above the ridgeline as seen from Brush Creek Road." Staff Recommendation: Staff believes the 8,233-foot contour is the height of the sanctuary building measured from the south side floor 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 have 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. Staff believes that a roof plan overlaying the existing and finished grades may be necessary to verify structure heights, perhaps during the Preliminary Plan review. Concerning the ridgeline protection provision, perhaps the Code should be revised to incorporate an exception for exceeding the ridgeline provided certain criteria were met, similar to the Code's other dimensional variance criteria, such as the type of use proposed or a significant community purposelbenefit it provides to the community. In addition, motorists would be required to remove their focus from road to view the protrusion above the ridgeline. The roof peak would drop rapidly as one travels up Brush Creek Road, or vice versa, due to the steep grades in the area. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission also found that the building addition should be excepted from the ridgeline protection requirements due to the type of use proposed. Also see the summary of the recommendations above under Impacts of Massing, Scale and Character. �t 07 \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLNWSeryw\snowmass ChapeKTC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 8 • Height Variances and Building Elevations. Per the current PUD standards, the maximum height restriction for the site is 40 feet with an average building height not to exceed 25 feet. The proposed steeple and sanctuary are 78 feet in height, which for the sanctuary is 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 the 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 above the previous 40-foot height limit. 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 Recommendation: 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. Instead, the applicant used the square footage figures in the roof volumetric study to make a case for compliance (see Exhibit C in the Planning Commission resolution previously supplied). Staff believes a roof plan overlaying the existing and finished grade contour map to demonstrate compliance with the Code for determining building height measurements may be necessary during the Preliminary Plan review. If the building height is reduced by 10 feet, it may mitigate the visual impacts upon the ridgeline from motorists along Brush Creek Road, but It won't significantly reduce the roof mass and volume due to the 14:12 roof pitch. The height variance will require compliance with the Community Purpose criteria. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission found that the height variance may be justifiable due to, 1)the results of the roof study, 2) the volume needed for the custom organ, 3)the roof pitch of 14:12, 4)the modified roof form to incorporate clerestory side windows, 5)the projected vertical element on the north elevation, and 6)the landscaped berming in front of the addition. See pages 2 and 3 of the resolution for details in these findings. Per the conditions, landscaped berming incorporating a mix of trees, shrubs and grasses, extending from Brush Creek Road to the base of the building should be installed. Older plant material should be preserved and located along Brush Creek Road to provide further buffering. See pages 11 and 12 of the resolution for details. Planning Commission also found that the proposed facility in itself is a community benefit. • Average Height Limitation. 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. Gomm / 00 dWNW� \\NT SERVER\BLO PLN\useNw\snowmass Chapel\TC Menlo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 9 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. Staff Recommendation: Again, staff recommends that the same procedure noted above be used for determining the average height of the buildings. Overall, staffs view is that the steep 14:12 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 by ordinance 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: Staffs opinion is that if the building addition height is acceptable, the steeple should be constructed simultaneously with the addition to provide variation in the appearance of the facility from adjacent properties. Planning Commission Recommendation: See the summary of the recommendations above. Landscaping: Affects of proposed addition. There will be minimal impacts to existing landscaping as a result of the proposed addition. A majority of the planned building site is located in a disturbed field with minimal landscaping. Staff Recommendation: There should be a good mix of trees, mainly of the year round variety to buffer and mitigate the height of the structure. The applicant should coordinate logistical details with the adjacent owner as soon as possible concerning the land swap, the replacement of the restroom facilities on the golf course, and any off-site improvements related to berming and landscaping, as recommended by the Planning Commission, especially since the redesign of the golf course is underway. Planning Commission Recommendation: See the previous related Planning Commission recommendations under Height Variance and Building Elevation issues. Natural Resource and Hazard Areas: RiparianMetiand 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, per the revised plans, includes the labyrinth, the emergency access drive and the new pedestrian bridge. 00- t I ea ' \WT_SERVER\BLD PLN\useNw\Snowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11.12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doo 10 The revised plans show that the steeple will not encroach into this setback area established by the Town. Staff Recommendation: 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 Brush Creek Impact Report will be required with the Preliminary Plan submittal. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission found that the steeple no longer encroaches into the Town's 25-foot wetland/riparian setback but that the encroachments of the new pedestrian bridge, labyrinth and fire lane were acceptable as they are allowed per the Code specifications. See page 8 of the attached resolution for a detailed set of findings. • 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. Staff Recommendation: The Preliminary Plan application should address the locations of detention ponds and address mitigation techniques to protect Brush Creek and to lessen the impacts from any drainage into Brush Creek. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission determined that drainage should be directed away from the buildings while ensuring that the Brush Creek riparian zone is adequately protected. See page 12 of resolution for condition. Access and Circulation: • 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 circulation and connectivity in and around the site and to the new shelters. The 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. Staff Recommendation: 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 (maybe along the entry drive)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, although the existing a0 SOM \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\userVw\Snowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.tloc 11 path in Yarrow Park may be adequate. However, a walkway along the driveway entrance may be important if parallel parking is permitted in this area. The relocation of the golf cart path should also be addressed. Overall, staff recommends a commitment from the applicant in addressing the need to provide bus shelters and improved pedestrian circulation. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission felt that there was no need for additional trails and transit facilities in the area and determined that there are an adequate number and distribution of public trails and transit facilities to provide access and service to the site. Concerning Community Purposes, Planning Commission found that the proposed facility in itself is a community benefit. They also found that detailed studies relating to traffic impact, air quality, and fiscal impact might not be necessary. See page 7 of the resolution for details. Parking: Required and Provided 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, events 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 (using a 1:3.3 ratio for 300 fixed seats plus a 1:5 ratio for the 50 overflow unfixed seating). If the new sanctuary operates alone and/or at separate times from the other adjacent uses or the other uses within the facility, then the current number of spaces in the 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." Also, considering unavailable current parking demand figures from Anderson Ranch, the parking analysis should be evaluated further. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the minimum 105 parking spaces established with the previous PUD approval be retained with this application and that the maximum 120 spaces be provided on the site. 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 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. 1 _ \\NT_SERVER\BLD PLMuserNvASnowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 12 Staff also believes there is an opportunity to create additional parking for this site to better meet the parking demands of the uses that share the facility. It seems that the location of the current parking area is ideally suited to accommodate a two-level parking structure, which could be constructed in phases. The current parking area is surrounded by building and plant material which adequately screens the vehicles and the parking area. With a little design creativity, the lower level of a parking structure could be depressed or cut into the ground and the upper level concealed by perimeter landscape berming or embankments created from the removed material to make the cut. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission finds, 1) that the existing parking lot has functioned successfully for many years, 2)that the applicant has committed to providing a minimum of 105 spaces, but not exceed the previous limit of 120 spaces, 3)that 30 off-site spaces will be made available for overflow parking, 4)that a procedures should be established to use Town parking lots for overflow parking during major events, and 5)that parallel parking could be allowed along the entry drive. A backup transportation and parking mitigation plan was recommended to be provided during the Preliminary Plan stage to address major overflow parking events. See pages 4, 5 and 6 for a detailed list of findings in the resolution. Per the conditions, the amount of parking that should be supplied was identified (120 on the site and 30 off-site), a shuttle service should be provided from the off-site parking area, and a shared parking agreement should be updated. See page 12 in the resolution for specifics. Community Welfare: • 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. Staff Recommendation: The Preliminary Plan application should show the proposed relocation of the sewer line and the new water line loop, in conjunction with the fire hydrant placements, as coordinated with the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District and the Fire District. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission found it acceptable that the applicant continues working with these districts to address the utility requirements. Timetable: • Phasing. The application states that the steeple and the lower level of the sanctuary would be constructed or improved at a later date. 001P " 00� \\NT_SERVER\BLD PLMusoNw\Snowmass ChapeRTC Memo 11-12-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 13 Staff Recommendation: Staffs preference would be to see the steeple constructed concurrent with the sanctuary building, if approved, or that a date certain be established for the construction of the steeple. 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. Concerning the lower level improvements, staff also recommends that a timeframe be established for completion of these improvements, especially the restroom facilities if they are intended to replace the facilities on the golf course. Planning Commission Recommendation: It was stated in the conditional section of the resolution that if the steeple construction is deferred, then a date or time frame should be established to complete such improvements. However, the resolution did not address the timing for the replacement restroom facilities. Miscellaneous: Detailed Studies: The applicant raised an issue during the Planning Commission review of the application about whether the Preliminary Plan would need to provide a detailed Transportation Impact Analysis, Air Quality Analysis, and a Fiscal Impact Report. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Code procedures for submittal requirements be followed. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission found that detailed studies relating to traffic impact, air quality, and fiscal impact may not be necessary. The traffic impacts were summarized in the resolution, as explained by the applicant, and the summary was felt to be an adequate substitute for a detailed Transportation Impact Analysis. See page 6 of the resolution for the detailed description of traffic impact summary. Planning Commission also found that the existing transportation infrastructure of the Town was adequate to accommodate the facility. Concerning the need for a detailed Air Quality report, Planning Commission finds that, based upon the operating history of the site and the surrounding area, there will not be the typical air quality issues in this project compared to ones on residential and commercial sites. Further, the operation of the facility will occur primarily during times when traffic volumes are lower on the Town's street system. See page 9 of the resolution for further detailed reasons. Lastly, Planning Commission found that a detailed fiscal impact analysis might not be necessary due to the unique nature of the use and due to the immeasurable intangible benefits such a facility may provide to the community. See pages 8 and 9 of the resolution for further reasoning. woo ;� 3 UNT_SERVER\BLD_PLNWseryw\Snowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-12,01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doo 14 PO Box 5919 Snowmass Village , CO 81615 October 26, 2001 Town Council PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Dear Members of the Town Council: It is my understanding that the plans for the new Snowmass Chapel building and bell tower are now being considered by Town Council and the planning department. I would ask you to consider very carefully before approving the plans as submitted. I am most concerned about the height of the structures which far exceeds the current regulations. I think many will find this height obtrusive and will destroy the mountain views of many residents. These views, after all, are an important part of living in Snowmass Village. (Has anyone seen Avon, CO lately?) I am also very concerned that making an exemption on the height restrictions for the Chapel may well come back to haunt us at some later date. I fear it is setting a bad precedent and surely will make it much more difficult in the future to enforce height restraints on other construction projects. Thank you for your consideration. Nancy Declarer RECEIVED OCT i, 2001 srrowrnass Village CaMnunity Development OOP ; A*WW The Moeblus P O Box 5430 Srawrresa Vllage,CO 81815 Phone 970 923-2334 Fax 970 9234318Em81 dmoeQMf-nst November 6, 2001 11r1 NOV -6 2001 i ` To: Snowmass Village Town Council From: Dick And Barba ra Moebius 9 4- Subject: Chapel approval Dear Council we will be out of town when you vote on the Chapel's approval . We strongly recommend that you approve the Chapel plans as submitted. The Chapel will be a great asset to our Village . It will be one of the most outstanding Chapels in the world. It will draw visitors to our Village for many reasons and it will cost the town nothing. We need this asset. We urge you to approve the submission. Sincerely, Dick and Barbara Moebius RECEIVED NOV 0" 2001 Snowal m Wage Colrto maq oevelopment SNOWMASS CHAPEL Vision 10 Campaign November 8, 2001 "CEIVED SANCTUARY COUNCII. Via Hand Delive ry NOV 9 2001 Rod&Barbara Burwell Jim&Dianne light Truck&Adrienne Morrison Mayor Manchester and Town Council Snowiness Village Guy&Linda Rutland y Community Development Tom&Lots Sondo Town of Snowmass Village Jim&Sally Tofrey Snowmass Village, CO 81615 ENDOWMENT FUND Woody BevlBe Re: Snowmass Chapel Land Use Application David Bork Jim Light Guy Rutland ear y D Mayor Manchester and Town Council Members: Tom Sanao This letter is on behalf of the Snowmass Chapel and Community ORGAN CommrrrEE Center regarding the pending application for a new Sanctuary. The Chapel is Hal Laster in a unique position as a land use applicant for a special structure. Like other Lou Guthrie P David id Bork chapels, churches, synagogues, and cathedrals around the world,ours is a true Adrlanne ClIngan symbol of community—a place where residents and guests come to use the Adrienne Morrison space, attend all types of functions,and participate in a variety of community BOARD OF TRUSTEES and religious programs and events. Several questions and comments have Bob Beasley been offered during our land use review process,from members of the Council Woody Bovine Bolnoau Bill and public, which we wish to address. Bill Burwell Our proposed building is a structure designed(a)to provide correct Art Cerro J«Farrell acoustics for a world class pipe organ that will not only be important to the Na Light, Chapel's religious worship goals,but also will provide a community asset of Chair Margo Lykins nonreligious musical events; (b)to provide needed space for other programs Guy Rutland,III essential to the Chapel's religious exercises, such as choir and Sunday School Lois Sanao rooms; and (c)to provide space for the growing counseling program. Rick Stephens Julie Wood g recognize we Although nize that the size and height of our building is necessary to accommodate both the organ and the downstairs space,we believe these are SCCC STAFF important elements in the life of the Village. We feel it is important to Edgell Franklin Pyles,PhD. p Chaplain consider the long-term vision and needs of the community. The Chapel has striven to meet its growing needs since it opened its doors 13 years ago, and is Deaconess A. MGretchen Enoch, planning for space and programs to continue to serve the families and guests Assistant Chaplain of this Village and Valley for many years to come. All of the existing space on Heather Gosda site is now fully occupied by Chapel and Community Center needs, and we Administrative Director anticipate that these, along with the new spaces,will continue to be frequently used in many diverse ways. The Sanctuary Council has been extremely cooperative with the Town Planning Department, Planning &Zoning Commission, and Town Council in providing additional drawings, simulated photographs, and an on-site crane to --,26 W. PO Box 17169 Snowmass Village,Colorado 81615•Phone 970/923-6192 a FAX 970/923-6092•&mail:accc@espeninfo.com November 8, 2001 Page 2 indicate how the proposed building will fit in its surroundings, at significant additional costs to the Chapel. We satisfied all of the concerns of the P&Z members,who unanimously recommended approval to the Council. Yet,there appears to be public sentiment that the Chapel has not been responsive to Community concerns, asking that the Chapel offer a compromise. We wish to remind those who have been following our process, and point out to those who have not,that the Chapel has already made significant compromises to address various concerns and requests,including the following: Between Pre-Sketch meeting and submittal of Sketch Plan,we 1. Relocated the main emergency vehicle access to reduce the size of the footbridge and impacts on the stream corridor; 2. Added a landscaped berm against the north wall of the building to reduce the visible height of this wall; 3. Made the steeple more slender and pulled it more into the mass of the building, reducing the overall length of the building by approximately 16 feet; 4. Moved the new sanctuary building approximately 12' closer to the existing Community Center building, reducing site coverage and leaving more open space; 5. Removed a cross from the ridge of the north elevation facing Brush Creek Road and substituted a modest cross on top of the steeple. Additionally, during the Sketch Plan review process we 6. Added a step in the highest roofs,with clerestory windows,to reduce visual mass and give a more "inhabited"feeling to the upper part of the building; 7. Modified the north wall to create a projecting bay on columns, avoiding the appearance of a sheer wall; 8. Added horizontal banding to the stone veneer to create a less vertical appearance to the building; 9. Have proposed adding several berms with substantial trees on the margins of the golf course to frame the desirable frontal view of the new Chapel and to screen it from other perspectives; and 10. Are proposing additional trees along the margins of the site and Brush Creek road to soften or screen the building from oblique viewpoints where it would break the ridgeline. low November 8, 2001 Page 3 We hope that these compromises and responses will be acknowledged and will assuage any remaining concerns. We greatly appreciate the burden you have as a Council to make a decision that is fair and in the best interest for all of Snowmass Village. It is our understanding that the Code does allow for flexibility and specifically that, "[t]he purpose of the planned unit development(PUD)process is to permit variations from the strict application of certain standards of the Town's zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby,to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of this Development Code." (Snowmass Village Land Use Code,Division 3. Planned Unit Development, Sec. 16A-5-300.)We believe our proposal, including the height variance request, is a reasonable one, particularly in light of the fact that the Chapel's PUD was designed to allow flexibility and even anticipated a height variance for at least a church steeple. With regard to the issue of a ridgeline variance,we question the intent and purpose of Sec. 16A-4-50, Geologic hazard areas,steep slopes and ridgeline protection areas,of the Code as it applies to the Chapel's application. The stated purpose of that Code provision is as follows: "Purpose. Steep slopes are prone to erosion and soil instability, are difficult to revegetate and may also be subject to geologic hazards. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that development does not occur on slopes that are excessively steep,unstable or hazardous. Applicants are also referred to Section 16A-4-320,Landscaping,Grading and Other Design Standards,to ensure that development which is permitted on slopes that are more stable is done in a manner that minimizes environmental and aesthetic impacts on the Town."It is apparent from this language that the intent of this Code Section was to address development on slopes and the ridgeline provision was a subsection providing one of many standards for review. The Ridgeline Protection Areas contemplated in that Code provision appear to be areas on the"steep slopes"referenced in the Section's purpose statement. We believe that the intent of that provision does not apply to the Chapel's location,a low-lying property without steep slopes.Further, any ridgeline penetration is insignificant because it appears for only a short distance/time from Brush Creek Road as it passes the Chapel property.This does not appear to have been the intent of the Code provision.In fact,this provision was apparently deemed not to apply or be significant in a recently approved project where the buildings,when viewed from the adjacent Brush Creek Road,penetrate the ridgeline. Some people may not be aware of how the November 8, 2001 Page 4 ridgeline provision is applied or relates to the original intent of protecting steep slopes from development, and few, if any would realize that the ridgeline provision would prohibit many landmark buildings in the Village, such as the Hoagland Bam(Alpine Bank),that penetrate the ridgeline when viewed from Brush Creek Road. There is a very large and growing participation by many Village and Valley residents and guests in the Chapel's religious and community programs and activities. Some have been signing petitions and writing letters to the editor to express their support of the Chapel's application. We hope you give them careful consideration and realize the swell of support is real and sincere. In your decision-making,please weigh all of these comments and the steps we have taken to make this Chapel Sanctuary a wonderful addition to our community. Please let us know if we can provide any additional information to you that will assist you in your review of our application. Sincerely, Jim Light Chair of Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary Council and Board of Trustees c: The Snowmass Sun TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2001 LOCATION: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 0016 KEARNS ROAD 2ND FLOOR SNOWMASS CENTER BUILDING REASON: TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON: ORDINANCE NO. 16, SERIES OF 2001, COSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY'S VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY ON LOT 44 OF THE DIVIDE SUBDIVISION. TIME: AT A MEETING WHICH BEGINS AT 2:00 P.M.EXACT TIME OF THE HEARING WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE AGENDA. INFO: TELEPHONE: 923-5524 INTERNET ACCESS TO COUNCIL E-MAIL: http://www.tosv.com CITIZEN FEEDBACK HOTLINE: 922-6727 Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk Posted and Published in the Snowmass Sun on October 24, 2001 clerk @tosv.com http://www.tosv.com 30 TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 12, 2001 Agenda Item: Public Hearing and First Reading—Ordinance No. 16. Series of 2001: Aspen Skiing Company's Vehicle Maintenance Facility at Divide Lot 44 Minor PUD Amendment Presented By: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Core Issues: Town Council reviewed the core issues on October 15, 2001 and November 5, 2001, primarily focusing on suggested language for the resolution concerning access issues, usage and operations, architecture and height variance issues, other off-site impacts, and miscellaneous items concerning the Minor PUD Amendment to the Skico's Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Town Council tabled the first reading of the ordinance from November 5 to November 12. Staff prepared a revised draft ordinance documenting the results of the discussion from these meetings and have incorporated many of the Planning Commission recommendations. General Info: Attached is a copy of the revised draft Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2001, outlining the findings and conditions as understood by staff at the meetings on October 15, 2001 and November 5, 2001. Attached to the ordinance are the exhibits, which generally describe the proposal. These exhibits include a site plan, a landscape plan, building elevations, the height variance study, and a cross section illustrating the relationship of the building to the surrounding forest areas. Council Options: Consider comments from the general public during the public hearing and then: 1) Approve the first reading of the ordinance; or 2) Approve first reading of the ordinance with modifications and/or further conditions; or 3) Deny the first reading of the ordinance; or 4) Table the item for further discussion or review. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Town Council approve the first reading of the ordinance after conducting the public hearing and schedule the second reading of the ordinance for November 19, 2001. 03 \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useNw\ASC's VMF\TC Memo 11-12-01 ASC's VMF Mina PUD Amdt..doc ] 1 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL 2 ORDINANCE NO. 16 3 SERIES OF 2001 4 5 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 6 AMENDMENT TO THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY'S VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 7 FACILITY ON LOT 44 OF THE DIVIDE SUBDIVISION. a 9 WHEREAS, the Aspen Skiing Company ("Applicant") has land use and 10 site development approval to construct a Vehicle Maintenance Facility ("VMF") 11 on Divide Subdivision Lot 44 (the "Site") per Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1989; 12 and 13 14 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1989, acknowledged and 15 approved the establishment of vested property rights in the Divide Final PUD 16 and detailed Final Plat; and 17 18 WHEREAS, imported fill was permitted to be placed on the Site by approval 19 of an Annual Temporary Use Permit per Planning Commission Resolution No. 22, 20 Series of 2001, in order to adequately prepare the site for the VMF as shown in 21 Exhibit "A"; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the Applicant would like to receive approval of the Minor PUD 24 Amendment for the VMF to commence construction and move operations from the 25 administrative building located at the base of Fanny Hill on the Base Village site; 26 and 27 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application on July 25, 29 September 5, and September 19, 2001 and heard the recommendations of the 3o Town Staff and public comments and presented its findings and conditions in 31 Resolution No. 26, Series of 2001; and 32 33 WHEREAS, the Town Council reviewed the application on October 15, 34 2001 with the first reading and public hearing of the ordinance scheduled for 35 November 12, and the second reading scheduled for November 19 to consider the 36 recommendations of Town staff, Planning Commission and public comments; and 37 38 WHEREAS, a required 15-day public hearing notice will be scheduled for 39 publication in the Snowmass Sun on October 24, 2001 concerning the Minor PUD 4o Amendment for the public hearing scheduled on November 12, 2001; and 41 42 WHEREAS, the applicant submitted verification that a public hearing notice 43 was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of property and that the site was 44 posted with public hearing signs following the procedures outlined in Code Sections 45 16A-4-560 and 16A-5-60. 3OZ TC Ord. 01.16 Page 2 of 8 46 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town 47 of Snowmass Village, Colorado: 48 49 Section One: Findings. Based upon the information submitted and testimony in 5o the record, the Town Council finds as follows: 51 52 1) Divide Road Improvements. 53 54 a) The road improvements which include 20 feet of pavement width and varied 55 locations of two-foot gravel shoulders on both sides of the road are 56 acceptable if constructed per Town standards or per approval by the 57 Town's Public Works Department. 58 59 b) The road cross-sections and plans reveal cut and fill locations, but no 60 significant retaining walls will be required, with the exception of some 61 boulders to retain the slopes. The plans show that 2:1 to 1.5:1 slopes will 62 be created and revegetated for the most part. Town Council finds these 63 changes acceptable. 64 . 65 2) Thirty percent slopes. The project and the Divide Road improvements were 66 unable to avoid the steep slopes in the area due to the requirement to widen 67 and create adequate two-way traffic movement per Town Code. The 68 engineer's opinion concerning the 30% slope areas affected by this 69 development stated that the slopes in the area are not prone to instability or 70 failure and that the proposed development will not cause greater slope 71 instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that there will be no 72 significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed 73 road construction. The Town Council accepts these findings as consistent with 74 the requirement of Code Section 16A-4-50. 75 76 3) Access Provisions to Krabloonik site. The location of a new access driveway 77 and easement to the Krabloonik site needs to be provided through the VMF 78 site. 79 8o 4) Skier access easements. Skier accessibility to the Krabloonik restaurant 81 during lunchtime hours will be provided generally along the dog sled run via a 82 dedicated easement recorded separately with the County. 83 84 5) Screen Fencing. The screen fencing previously approved for the site along the 85 road is an artificial element and would not provide effective screening due to 86 the grade changes around the site. The Town Council prefers the proposed 87 landscape plan as alternative screening. - 33 - TC Ord. 01-16 Page 3 of 8 88 89 6) Height Variance. Subject to the conditions mentioned further in this ordinance, 90 the height variance from the previous limit of 36 feet to a maximum of 43 feet 91 5 inches above existing grade and 37 feet 5 inches above finished grade is 92 found to be acceptable, because the heights of the trees in the nearby forest 93 substantially screen the facility and that said height is necessary to provide the 94 six additional employee housing units within the Phase I facility plus the three 95 future employee units in Phase II. The employee housing provided is in excess 96 of the previously approved three employee housing units noted for the entire 97 project and partially serves in complying with the Community Purpose criteria 98 in addressing the height variance. 99 loo 7) Lighting. The amount of lighting, the intensity of the lighting, and the 101 downlighting as proposed will not pose a glare problem for residents down the 102 hill in Snowmass Creek and in the surrounding neighborhood. 103 104 8) Off-Site Improvements. The applicant has provided written consent from the 105 adjacent property owners concerning the off-site road improvements, 106 infrastructure improvements, grading, drainage, erosion control and detention 107 ponding located within their property. 108 log 9) Compliance with Minor PUD Amendment Criteria. Town Council finds that the 110 proposed Minor PUD Amendment for the Vehicle Maintenance Facility on 111 Divide Lot 44 complies with the affected review criteria in that the application 112 is generally consistent with the original PUD, it will create no substantial 113 adverse impact, it will not change the character of the area as previously 114 envisioned, and will comply with other applicable standards in the Municipal 115 Code. 116 117 10)The application has been submitted and reviewed in accordance with the 118 provisions of Section 16A-5-390 of Municipal Code. 119 120 11)The application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Minor PUD 121 Amendment review criteria (Municipal Code Section 16A-5-390(3)), the 122 General Restrictions (Code Section 16A-5-300 (c)), and the Review Standards 123 (Code Section 16A-5-310). 124 125 MOM 3Y- TC Ord.01-16 Page 4 of 6 126 Section Two: Action. The Town Council hereby approves, with conditions, the 127 Minor Planning Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment to the Aspen Skiing 128 Company's Vehicle Maintenance Facility ('VMF") on Lot 44 of the Divide 129 Subdivision, specifically as follows: 130 131 1) The Minor PUD Amendment Standards: Town Council hereby approves the 132 amended PUD standards for Lot 44 of the Divide, including but not limited to 133 the total building area, maximum building height, floor area square footage, 134 allowable floor area, minimum employee housing, minimum amount of 135 parking spaces, are hereby amended to read as part of attached Exhibit A. 136 137 2) The Minor PUD Amendment Development Plan. The Town Council hereby 138 approves the Aspen Skiing Company's Vehicle Maintenance Facility 139 amendment on Lot 44 of the Divide Subdivision described in: 1)The site plan, 140 landscape plan, building elevations, floor plans attached herewith as part of 141 Exhibit A of this ordinance; 2) The packet information received October 10, 142 2001 by the Community Development Department, including the original 143 application materials dated May 10, 2001, the supplemental and updated 144 package dated July 9, 2001, the geotechnical report dated August 23, 2001, 145 the road width variance and the off-site road improvements, the road 146 construction specifications, grading,.drainage and erosion control plans 147 (subject to the Town Engineer's and Public Works Department's review and 148 approval prior to permits), and the off-site improvements as consented by the 149 affected adjacent property owners. 150 151 3) Height Variance: The Town Council hereby grants a variance by a vote of_ 152 in favor and—against from the dimensional limitations of the Municipal Code 153 for the purpose of allowing the height of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility to 154 exceed the previous limit of 36 feet to a maximum 43 feet 5 inches from 155 existing grade and to a maximum of 37 feet, 5 inches from finished grade as 156 specified in part of attached Exhibit A. 157 158 4) 30% Slopes: The Town Council hereby grants a variance by a vote of in 159 favor and _against for the purpose of allowing the development and Divide 160 Road improvements to encroach into 30% slope areas as specified in part of 161 attached Exhibit A. 162 163 164 Section Three: Conditions. The authorization of the Minor PUD Amendment 165 shall be subject to the following conditions: 166 167 1) The Divide Road improvements shall be solely maintained to Town standards, 3 `� 6000 TC Ord.01.16 Page 5 of 8 168 including snow removal, by the applicant, successors and assigns from the 169 ridgeline to the west end of Lot 44, the VMF site. The Town accepts no 170 responsibility for maintenance. 171 172 2) The road construction specifications for the extension of Divide Road shall 173 be to Town standards or subject to approval by the Town's Public Works 174 Department. The standards for the road are understood to be a cross 175 section of 20 feet of pavement width plus two-foot graveled/graded 176 shoulders (no shoulders in locations to protect existing evergreen trees), a 177 eight-inch base, and two inches of asphalt, designed for 250-800 VPD and 178 a suggested speed of 25 MPH. Any modification shall require further Town 179 Council approval. 180 181 3) The applicant shall coordinate the provision of an easement dedication, when 182 deemed necessary by the Town, to accommodate access through the 183 maintenance yard or a possible access drive directly off of Divide Road 184 extended to a possible new Town parking lot. A written agreement shall be 185 provided prior to building permit issuance. 186 187 4) The applicant shall execute an access agreement with the owners of the 188 Krabloonik site, Lot 45 of the Divide Subdivision, prior to issuance of a building 189 permit. 190 191 5) The existing access easement shall be released and a new one rededicated 192 within the VMF yard following the new driveway location from Divide Road to 193 the Krabloonik site, Lot 45. 194 195 6) The applicant shall coordinate appropriate access provisions with the 196 Krabloonik land exchange application (currently in the review process as of the 197 writing of this ordinance), as needed, subject to maintaining 30 parking spaces 198 on the Vehicle Maintenance Facility site. 199 200 7) By mutual agreement, the applicant shall work with affected property owners 201 to create skier access and connections from the relocated Ditch Trail ski 202 easement to the Krabloonik restaurant and the Snowmass Ski area. 203 204 8) There shall be no permanent, outside storage as noted on the plans, and any 205 outside temporary storage shall be no more than 15 days for unused 206 equipment per the Municipal Code (Section 16A-4-320(c)) and to also avoid 207 use of a screen fence as required by the Code for permanent outside storage. 208 209 9) The existing trees on the northwest side of the site must be preserved. The � 3G � TC Ord. 01-16 Page 6 of 8 210 applicant will increase the building setback from 40 to 50 feet from the 211 northwest property line in an effort to preserve the existing trees from grading 212 and construction operations. 213 214 10)The dog sled run along the northwest edge shall be varied in width in an effort 215 to preserve the existing evergreen trees. 216 217 11)The applicant will provide bin walls, described as stacked boulders around 218 existing trees, as needed, for protection purposes. Review and approval of 219 these bin walls shall be made by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of 220 a Certificate of Occupancy. 221 222 12)The facility shall be further shielded with the planting of additional evergreen 223 trees if, subsequent review by the Town after completion of the facility, it is 224 determined that additional trees are necessary. 225 226 13)The additional deed-restricted employee housing of 4,800 square feet within 227 the Phase I portion of the VMF facility shall serve as a credit for the 4,124 228 square feet of employee housing required for the Snowmass Club Phase II 229 development pursuant to Town Council Resolution No. 36, Series of 2001 230 [subheading 11 titled Restricted Housing, subsection d on page 19]. The 231 balance of 676 square feet is considered a Community Purpose benefit for the 232 height variance. 233 234 14)Up to six of the 24 larger, 12-foot high Spruce trees shall be planted on the 235 north side of the facility to provide further buffering and screening the facility 236 from the Snowmass Creek area. Proposed locations for the trees shall be 237 staked for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the planting of 238 the trees. 239 240 15)Planted trees shall be under warranty for two years and replaced if dead or 241 dying as determined by inspection of the Planning Director. 242 243 16)Lighting shall be limited to two to three footcandles utilizing motion detectors 244 on the building. There shall be no site lighting. Exterior wall-mounted lights or 245 any other exterior light source shall be placed on the lower level of building and 246 shielded to direct light downward for the primary purpose of hiding the light 247 source from view. 248 249 17)There shall be no ceiling lights within the employee housing units located in the 250 upper level of the building. 251 � 3 TC Ord.01-16 Page 7 of 6 252 18)ln the event of possible nighttime use of the maintenance area, the glass 253 garage doors shall be shaded on the interior to prevent off-site lighting glare 254 intrusion onto adjacent properties. Task lighting shall also be used versus 255 overhead lighting, where applicable, to prevent unnecessary light glare from 256 the facility. 257 258 1.9)Contingency screen fencing on the northwest side of the site shall be 259 considered if lighting intrusion poses a problem following a site visit in the 260 future, as deemed necessary. However, natural buffering is preferred over 261 screen fencing. 262 263 20)A minimum of 30 parking spaces shall be provided on the site, in addition to the 264 loading spaces. There shall be no outside storage that reduces the amount of 265 required parking without further Town approval. A temporary parking area of 266 approximately 10 spaces, or as deemed necessary, shall be provided on the 267 Phase II site if, in the future, the Town determines that the number of parking 268 spaces on the Phase I site is not adequate. 269 27o 21)The Town Engineer shall review and approve the final drainage, grading and 271 erosion control plans for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 272 273 22)The applicant, in coordination with the Town, shall conduct a three-year 274 revegetation check to determine if terracing is needed for the off-site grading 275 located to the north of the facility. 276 277 23)Planning Commission and Town Council shall review the amended plans in the 278 future for the Phase II facility. No construction is permitted without review in 279 accordance with the applicable Municipal Code provisions in effect at the time 280 application is made. 281 282 24)ln lieu of utilization of a written subdivision improvements agreement and the 283 pledge of security, the applicant and the Town Council agree that the following 284 provisions shall constitute and substitute for the required subdivision 285 improvement agreement in the Municipal Code: 286 287 a) The off-site Divide Road improvements, all associated infrastructure, 288 grading, drainage and the detention pond shall be completed prior to the 289 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the VMF. 290 291 b) The Divide Road improvements shall be borne by the applicant. 292 Subsequent road maintenance to Town standards, including snow removal, 293 shall be borne by the applicant, successors, and assigns. � 03 TC Ord. 01-16 Page 8of8 294 295 c) Landscaping shall be installed in the spring or fall of the affected year 296 following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the constructed VMF 297 facility. 298 299 300 Section Four: Recording. 301 302 Upon execution, this ordinance with exhibits shall be filed and recorded by the 303 Town, at the applicant's expense, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and 304 Recorder. 305 306 307 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the Town Council of the Town 308 of Snowmass Village on First Reading on November 12, 2001 upon a motion 3o9 by Council Member , the second of Council Member 310 and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. 311 312 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town 313 of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on November 19, 2001 upon a 314 motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member 315 and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ opposed. 316 317 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 318 TOWN COUNCIL 319 320 321 322 323 T. Michael Manchester, Mayor 324 325 ATTEST: 326 327 328 329 330 Trudi Worline, Town Clerk � 3q � EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 01-16 Existing Approvals vs. Proposed Amendment Page 1 of 13 Permitted Use Comparison The Divide Vehicle Maintenance Facility was approved in Ordinance 16 of 1989 with the following uses permitted by right: - Ski area maintenance shop and equipment storage facilities. - Ski area operational and supervisory Offices- -Receiving and storage for ski area restaurant equipment and supplies. -Employee housing. - Accessory uses and facilities related to any of the above uses,arts and supply storage, ski but not limited to, access roads, fuel storage and dispensing,p pp Y g patrol locker area and multi-purpose room. Lot 44 is 2.65 acres more of less,*and this development comprises a 25%FAR. Following is a list of the approved use area sizes compared to the proposed amended use area sizes. The quantities are in square feet: Approved ---------Amended--------_- Major Structures Approved -----------Amended---------- 1 Phase 2 Total -Two pnmary buildings for allowed uses. .Summary structures for trash and fuel storage. -Anticipated program by type of use: 28,850 14,810 14,000 28,810 a. Total building area 18,405 3,870 7,600 11,470 b. Snowcat storage and maintenance 4,320 4,620 - 4,620 c. Restaurant receiving 3,917 1,520 4,800 6,320 d. Ski patrol and multi-purpose 2,208 4,800 1,600 6,400 e. Employee housing Land Use Parameters 28,850 sf 28,810 37 al r -Max—� x=unt but'ldmg square footage ,8 ft `� \ �1 & f +K-6 -Maximum builid ex ng height -�' 34 t3 N... rF'*Wx -Average building height na na -Maximum number of dwelling unitslacre 0.25 -Allowable F.A.R. 29 spaces 30 spaces -Minimum amount of parking spaces 0 acres -Minimum amount of open space -Minimum number and minimum square footage of up to 3 BR up to9 BR' Restricted housing units Ago i � �a 1C J.- "0 NI N :i-Ka It X Xi 1ck I'. "N' '41.1 44 x 1 It, Is. /C 0.0 q EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 01.16 Page 2 of 13 '40;Se 01' v. ro x It M x L-6 A NH o m (A 10 III It .It M .11C to (A Ogg , Hill HUF 1+m I A (/.00v 3. !w-11 ; _ EXHIBIT A TC Ord.01-16 Page 3of13 I 9 it Iii I np I --= J IT UI A rill g - it'll Itill a flit ° i ( j I i o �a U Ai 4 I: � Iia�9dx��0°a°Oc��469gllil'I�Id{i+ °dla�Idl3�°�1�ill�l��6�i1 fill l ff it I t : T !i '�I � d>i EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 0146 Page 4 of 13 •� '7 � .�`— lid IiIJ..h �, I Ill � i r m , li! +�• III fill 113 M E3 i ' f III ) 7 7d IINI��yi�. , II ' F IIFR d it r till Y" III.I � •': "�' w A i II iii i• lul,,� � � k�� F" I ,-Y' P tl t t! ! ! !t3 i i � I 0 3 a THEODORE K GUY ABSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENOINEERS EXHIBIT A Memorandum TC Ord. 01-16 Page 5 of 13 To: Town of Snowmass Village Victor Gerdin, Aspen Ski Company From: Ted Guy, THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC Date October 3, 2001 Re: Divide Maintenance Facility colors The graphics provided to the town are based on the following products and colors Grey Siding Sample is Propanel Grey, Graphic color is PANATONE Warm Grey 3U Brown Siding Sample is Propanel Brown, Graphic color is PANATONE Warm Grey 11U Bronze Roof Sample is Berridge Dark Bronze, Graphic color is PANATONE 462U HardieBoard Siding Color is Cabot Stains "New Redwood" 0117, Graphic color is PANATONE 7511 U Concrete Masonry Unit Sample is split face black , graphic color is dark grey from std palette. 'R JIVECEWED OCT 3 1 2001 Snowmass Village Community Development TKG/tkg 00132 M1 23290 TWO RIVERS ROAD �O. BOX 1640 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 ,1701 OR7.3167 Lot E i H j! ra •; I � i� =- � I I! la }?� ~ m Cc onik z Z- }142001 JOB NO 563-6.4 1 CHECKED BY:JMC REVISIONS: SCALE:1'= 70' >OU RCE DIVIDE MAINTENANCE CENTER SHEET ASPEN SKIING COMPANY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1 of 2 EXHIBITA ' • j•, / oo TC Ord. 01.16 V % IV 00 I leg, IV ., 1. , =;' ,;�� � �� ,`,, :`,� `;��;;\\fir•'•.. ; Q ', .�� ;1 ; `;' ,';,'°•I If lb , 1, , 1 <3' ♦ `, If 4 t If it IV if , Jp , A if ♦ i.it , a A , i I. , IIyqW . zQf,jtSys'- } "i a, �♦ , .,t� �,y4 lr. . `,', `;. 1 `„ 1 �`• j�.�! �Y,�fy•+.� 1 � K�ts'�'<,. : I ♦ as � , .'.,, t, a ,:�+ , , ` Y'. a \�. Na .. , i �!` i ; .. ,. �, Zy , , P I wK �,I/Of,Y� ,,qq''{{ Riyf ' �, , .. , Y, ,a�� `` ,,, ,,�, ` `IIa��` a,;,"`\ I i ''1,1 • -� 4. . , . �•)e'a�"1't Lix:d #'1 � ,a,',i �,a/"'•'CV"L.,,L�y/•�w-,�lv�Y.Y,,;,,, t,a ` ,\ ,a• � �.,,� \`r`i.+ r �`�' ', `• ``(`. \ ��`-, `, 'i:. .',, ,,;,Y, ,, `, ',�,a,i • ` a\ ,` ,per "��� vt, •, ., \ , , ' , p tit ,<,^..i a.? e '-� "7` a .,,11g '_r. , ♦ `� ...li, \ � 'h.1 , n ` ♦,.-♦ } , ♦a� to 4 a`t ,\ �r tt, ..�.\;,! . 611 €^^ IIIII •' I / ?t y�� '• n -ErisetnerVlt'-' ASM COWAW A SUNG E Ski Easement ! �, ' . . � _ - o •. ------ doe •_ .i , '-,. 'L t; TleadweKSW ---.-'-'- '' " Y `S Q�. r Amodates PC m 1 .r'�'-/� �! ♦' �' -------- '-- - . - `r-,;'1( ! Architects And o `o c- _ ! / Structural Engineers O r/ CM)92)416) LL, KW- 894 - -' ;; ` ♦ �' , /. , PAW OWRO Rwid Rapes' (i{ � � \ ® n.wa w ama t} -— \\ Etla�af 40; - ♦ ® Cmi.T. 892 .... .,. Yom'- ` }/� .iml ���� i i iI attiosmos-m ,. ♦ , • , 7 . �j'^'• �'r , � � ♦� ix 0700 ♦" ,�.,'.iLa... ' ♦ �/ ♦ y —___ __--- --� t.. °. .. - ♦, :,, Divide 64p _ , � F`"- I .' % .+' " Maintenance Center Snowmass Village LI Prdpo! e9 Oq E¢il E -ES - +ol�orod�o .S Landscape Plan Illustration K ITI Lk ''/ S ��0�' �- .-`L -' s' e' ,� °q'rd",.w. 'ei�f�{•d s� ♦ ''' _'♦�' I • _ - ----- _ -7* ... , . . . ASPEN Ski Eaeetneat' r Y 1~ ;' p <1 A SKENG e COMPANY Q fO 3 __ - - -- sed L6t E ,Skf casenfent` '' ` , � Associates PC O p ra Architects And Z. StructuralErgineers to W U a ---- ' ----------- ..! • "^�++. `O'- i',�,�.' Ndt.fahade 61623 \'°,.�:��� ;- men.(sm)iz1a16T - - - � SY � ���.�.- -c f�:�/I�� , �:,_ • "'--s: r Fa.lsro)sn.u16 V a Pawd R.W i ,4� _ L'• y i �- 1' - ® 3�1611'P66id nOOd 0CF $4iU aI s'S / _ � s _�+�.•� s .ja4r6�.�6atwesl' ♦ ' \\ :^' ✓rrv.r`, , '. Q D.elA101bt TrY 1 1 0 � �TeraR Ms T -� LOO O o" / I! 8900 IL _______________ Y ") --------------- I l rr'•4 VI/ �'a i r.J: , - , , \ I ,, , 4 ' .i • , ' w ': 5 _______________ ;`,* "� ,. •:.� ti !! , P1 opad Efs 5led,i£9ress, Divide Maintenance Center Snowmass Villa" y Colorado f _--'' < / ../ Skier Egress Plan Illustration L , , • {� fb° • ft '' / I I' -_8�''_ / ! �dam' • .� •�/ '' i� ._ . ' rablooni g#' !uoolqv EM, . ......... MOB umpapnIII 6'* x avid 6UIPDJ9 V 4W.Pukily pwa X FIM > opojolol If 16011LA .7 4:1 -VV 4-ul- Y. 20UDU24.u!vw 2P!AIQ W9888• od� k we Ole il -SM p IW 11;'73-A 0068 x V� OW �.L.mnp.mq V.-; WAS, ... ...... . .. . ........ 0.1 P-vp--a .... ... ........ ........... -------------------- ............. W�Lm cow-9 0 % �=Mm ..:.. ... I ., " . - :*::::���'......... . ............. -------- -- -------- sjam!6ua IVJ4"4s PUY ---- - -------------- .......... --------------- 0 c . ........ . . . Ang)I ajaposU 1 x AI w �+ . — 0: . ...... ... ........ ------ .00 03 - - - ... ........ ANVdWOMJ ...... > DbmA . . .. .... ..... .. N3M '__. ..n . ....... ... . ... ... . . ...... .... ........ ----- ..... ........... ..... ...... u EXHIBIT A TC Ord.01-10 Page 11 of 13 a 21 i A Ella dill i . �R 0 EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 01-18 Page 12 of 13 • mom 3 q pF N M � � qgg N 6 s U1 � I it j ull EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 01-16 Page 13 of 13 s L k r xx�n 7y IF P, Y�hrrT..kjj .y—.. .•nr a� t I4.y 0 0', 1�yy�}.�'i'T.I:MI"4 "1 �•� ® W4�4Y i �� r t nrd)''pp}�'.,, `f�L• Yi�i;. �� rn tt Hs+ •�.t rrrfee / i'F' r� l INlY4Y^Y Y} f�y.A ANS S• .�,L 43 W!\{j.L � 4 � f fir+ � r.,y�.r�, t 111 r >: q� ;p ;.:rc V L.•Ci itt r ,t ... t • ♦<': Y �•YtSi%fr -n Sr[���f��P��t s i + _tT t "•A�'�it�r'��i�'�"x S '{.1��'; 15 A X�f �� *!.�� °fib a1 1 7 �"?,�ij, c 5 {e li f{c�d•�'r�r�.t�"QY C 4 S`i� !,' a Ip5066j ItX Ip,w�'t1'�h '.a Y. fn�l� x {1 • !�Tu> t �` c s M: t +k } '&w�xS-dAh: c {• r9a. ;,: MUM. "nr[ , lt xyirF t t d3 wow TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING WHEN: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2001 WHERE: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 0016 KEARNS ROAD 2ND FLOOR SNOWMASS CENTER BUILDING WHY: TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE ROAD MILL LEVY FUND FOR THE YEAR 2002 TIME: AT A MEETING WHICH BEGINS AT 2 : 00 P.M. THE EXACT TIME OF THE HEARING WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE AGENDA. INFO: 923-3777 Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk Posted and Published in the Snowmass Sun on October 25, 2001 clerk@tosv.com http: //www.tosv.com -S3 Asom TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE LEGAL NOTICE Public Notice is hereby given that the Town of Snowmass Village has prepared a proposed budget, including the Road Mill Levy Fund, for the year 2002 . The Town Council of Snowmass Village will consider the adoption of the budget at a Regular Meeting scheduled to be held on November 12, 2001 . The proposed 2002 budget is open for inspection by the public at the Town Offices located on the 3rd floor of the Snowmass Center, 16 Kearns Road, Monday - Friday from 8 :00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. Any interested elector may inspect the proposed 2002 budget and file or register any objections thereto at any time prior to the final adoption of the budget . Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk Posted and Published in the Snowmass Village Sun on October 24, 2001 Clerkmtosv.com http: //www.tosv.com � �I TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 12, 2001 Agenda Item: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 25, SERIES OF 2001 FIRST READING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET FOR ALL FUNDS FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Presented By: Gary Suiter, Town Manager Marianne Rakowski, Finance Director Core Issues: o Direct revenues decrease by $27,480, mostly due to an adjustment to budgeted county sales tax revenues o Direct expenditures decrease by $16, 375 due to fine- tuning expenditure numbers General Information: Per the Home Rule Charter, the Town Council adopts the budget by resolution, but any amendments to the original budget must be made by ordinance. This ordinance amends the 2001 budget and authorizes the appropriation of those funds. Council Options: ➢ Adoption of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001 ➢ Reconvene budget meetings for further discussion. Staff Recommendation: Adoption of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001 00W s7ralp SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.25 SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET FOR ALL FUNDS FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE. WHEREAS,the Town Manager,has caused to be prepared a 2001 Revised Budget;and WHEREAS,the 2001 budget,revenues and expenditures have varied from budgeted amounts; and WHEREAS,sales tax revenues came in lower than budgeted,excise tax revenue was lower than budgeted,and building revenues are revised lower than budgeted. General Fund expenditures were revised downward due to lower than expected general fund revenues;and WHEREAS,the Town of Snowmass Village Home Rule Charter requires adjustments to the budget when circumstances change relating to the budget. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village,Colorado: Section One: Revised Budget That the Town of Snowmass Village 2001 budget be adjusted to the 2001 revised budget, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto. Section Two: Appropriation That the 2001 revised budget revenue is hereby appropriated for expenditure during the 2001 budget year. Section Three: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption in accordance with Article X, Section 9.11 (e)of the Home Rule Charter. INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED on first reading by the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 12th day of November,2001 with a motion made by and seconded by and by a vote of_in favor to_opposed. . INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED on second reading by the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 19th day of November,2001 with a motion made by and seconded by and by a vote of_in favor to_opposed. A roll call was taken,those in favor were those opposed were TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T.Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Tmdi Worline Town Clerk sow TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 12, 2001 Agenda Item: RESOLUTION NO. 41, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR EACH FUND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ROAD MILL LEVY FUND AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2002 AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2002. Presented By: Gary Suiter, Town Manager Marianne Rakowski, Finance Director Core Issues: o The 2002 budget incorporates: ✓ The productivity challenge ✓ The expenditure changes per the budget meeting ✓ The transportation challenge numbers ✓ The cost recovery amounts for planning fees, building fees and solid waste fees o The Funds Available in the General Fund is budgeted to be at $93,107 at 12/31/02. o Direct Revenues have increased by $245,643 from the 10/29/01 budget meeting. A downward adjustment was made to county sales tax revenues and the cost recovery figures were added. o Direct Expenditures increased by $248,372 from the 10/29/01 budget meeting, mostly due to adding back the front line staff per Council's direction. General Information: This resolution adopts the 2002 budget and summarizes the revenues and expenditures in each fund. A copy of the budget is available for public review. Council Options: ➢ Adoption of the resolution ➢ Reconvene budget meetings for further discussion OW' ,.WW Staff Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 5 9'. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 41 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR EACH FUND AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2002 AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2002. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village has appointed Gary Suiter, Town Manager to prepare and submit a proposed budget to the Town Council by December 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, Gary Suiter, Town Manager has submitted a proposed 2002 budget to the Town Council on October 29, 2001; and WHEREAS, projected expenditures have been budgeted with projected revenues so that the budget remains in balance, as required by law; and WHEREAS, the 2002 Highway User Tax and County Road and Bridge Funds will be expended on road projects in the Public Works Road Division; and WHEREAS,upon due and proper notice,published and posted in accordance with the law, said revised and proposed budget was open for inspection by the public at the Town Clerk's office, a Public Hearing was held on November 12, 2001, and interested taxpayers were given the opportunity to file or register any objections to said revised and proposed budget. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: That the estimated expenditures for 2002 for each fund are as follows: General Fund $8,915,512 Housing Fund 1,027,801 Debt Service Fund 1,818,339 Mountain View Fund 907,592 Lottery Fund 12,695 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 2,374,481 Road Mill Levy Fund 5,553,888 Mountain View Phase II Fund 203,422 Daly Townhomes 7,155,349 Total Fund Expenditures $27,969,079 �59 . 01-41 Page 2 Section Two: That the estimated revenues including carryover for each fund are as follows: General Fund $14,774,475.00 Housing Fund 2,208,364.00 Debt Service Fund 2,610,186.00 Mountain View Fund 2,336,754.00 Lottery Fund 12,796.00 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 5,088,571.00 Road Mill Levy Fund 4,201,997.00 Mountain View Phase II Fund 282,994.00 Daly Townhomes 7,197,864.00 Total Fund Revenues $38,714,001.00 General Fund Carryover $ 5,383,845.78 Sources other than property tax 9,158,159.00 General Property Tax 232,470.00 Total General Fund $14,774,475.00 Housing Fund Carryover $ 1,116,589.00 Sources other than property tax 1,091,775.00 General Property Tax -0- Total Housing Fund $ 2,208,364.00 Debt Service Fund Carryover $ 783,414.00 Sources other than property tax 801,665.00 General Property Tax 1,025,107.00 Total Debt Service Fund $ 2,610,186.00 Mountain View Fund Carryover $ 1,397,144.00 Sources other than property tax 939,610.00 General Property Tax -0- Total Mountain View Fund $ 2,336,754.00 01-41 Page 3 Lottery Fund Carryover $ 101.00 Sources other than property tax 12,695.00 General Property Tax -0- Total Lottery Fund $ 12,796.00 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Carryover $ 2,992,487.00 Sources other than property tax 2,096,084.00 General Property Tax -0- Total Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund $ 5,088,571.00 Road Mill Levy Fund Carryover $ 2,403,814.00 Sources other than property tax 103,792.00 General Property Tax 1,694,391.00 Total Road Mill Levy Fund $ 4,201,997.00 Mountain View Phase II Fund Carryover $ 73,064.00 Sources other than property tax 209,930.00 General Property Tax -0- Total Mountain View Phase II Fund $ 282,994.00 Daly Townhomes Fund Carryover $ 2,976,695.00 Sources other than property tax 4,221,169.00 General Property Tax -0- Total Mountain View Phase II Fund $ 7,197,864.00 01-41 Page 4 Section Three: Direction 1. That the 2002 Town of Snowmass Village Budget be adopted , a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto. INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 12th day of November, 2001 with a motion made by , seconded by The motion was approved by a vote of_in favor to_ opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk -6.� loop TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE GENERAL FUND REVENUES $12.00 1 i $10.00 0.65 i $0.88 2.03 $800 $1.33 $1.83 c ■Car orward from previous year $6.00 ■Indirect Revenues 1 0 Direct Revenues $4.00 $6.63 $7.01 7.66 $6.76 $7.11 I i $2.00 — i J 1999 Actutal 2000 Actual 2001 Adopted 2001 Revised 2002 Proposed Town of Snowmass Village General Fund Expenditures $12.00 --- i $10.00 2.03 $8.00 $0.93 $1.54 ' q e $6 ■Indirect Expenditures ®Direct Expenditures L I i $4.00 8.06 $7.08 $7.46 $7.01 i I $2.00 - $- 1999 Actutal 2000 Actual 2001 Adopted 2001 Revised 2002 Proposed TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Flow Chart for Appropriations/Reserves 2000 2001 2002 Description Ending Balance In-Flow Out-Flow Ending Balance In-Flow Out-Flow Ending Balance Inventory $ 151,927.37 $ (11,927.37) $ 140,000.00 $ 140,000.00 Prepaid Expenses $ 190,185.49 $ (140,185.49) $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Economic Reserve $ 387,527.90 $ (8,615.90) $ 378,912.00 $ 378,912.00 Emergency Contigency $ 212,472.10 $ 8,615.90 $ 221,088.00 $ 221,088.00 Capital Equipment Reserve $ 2,643,097.00 $ 800,496.00 $ (644,598.00) $ 2,798,995.00 $ 648,906.00 $ (615,950.00) $ 2,831,951.00 Community Park $ 110,000.00 $ (110,000.00) $ - $ - Holy Cross Enhancement Reserve $ 30,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ (33,897.48) $ 41,102.52 $ 45,000.00 $ 86,102.52 A T&T Enhancement Reserve $ - $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Toilet Replacement Reserve $ - $ - $ - Swimming Pool $ 410,000.00 $ 410,000.00 $ 410,000.00 Housing Reserve $ 953,026.83 $ 527,559.00 $ (1,772,933.24) $ (292,347.41) $ 250,000.00 $ (42,347.41) Open Space Reserve $ 1,562,527.31 $ 58,977.32 $ 1,621,504.63 $ 48,645.14 $ 1,670,149.77 Funds Available $ 427,821.78 $ (433,230.74) $ (5,408.96) $ 98,515.86 $ 93,106.90 Total Appropriations&Funds Available $ 7,078,585.78 $ 1,460,648.22 $ (3,155,388.22) $ 5,383,845.78 $ 1,091,067.00 $ (615,950.00) $ 5,858,962.78 1 TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 12, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 42, SEREIES OF 2001 Agenda Item: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES, IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSE AS SET FORTH BELOW, FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO FOR THE 2002 BUDGET YEAR. Presented By: Gary Suiter, Town Manager Marianne Rakowski, Finance Director Core Issues: Allows for the expenditures to occur in 2002. General Information: This resolution appropriates the expenditures and reserves per fund. This allows for the actual expenditures to occur according to the budget in 2002. Council Options: ➢ If Council adopted Resolution No. 41, then adopt Resolution No. 42. ➢ If Resolution No. 41 was not adopted, then do not adopt Resolution No. 42. Staff Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution No. 42, Series of 2001 66 - SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.42 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING SUMS OF MONEY TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND SPENDING AGENCIES,IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSE AS SET FORTH BELOW, FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE,COLORADO FOR THE 2002 BUDGET YEAR. WHEREAS,the Town of Snowmass Village has adopted the annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law,on November 12,2001. WHEREAS, the Town of Snowmass Village has made provision therein for revenues in an amount equal to or greater than the total proposed expenditures as set forth in said budget;and WHEREAS,it is required by law,and necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below,so as not to impair the operations of the Town of Snowmass Village. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: That the following sums are hereby appropriated from the revenue of each fund,to each fund,for the purposes stated: General Fund Operating Expenditures $ 8,170,976.00 Capital Purchases 744,536.00 Capital Reserves 2,831,951.00 Economic Shortfall Reserve 378,912.00 Swimming Pool Reserve 410,000.00 Emergency Contingency 221,088.00 Open Space Reserve 1,670,150.00 Holy Cross Enhancement Fund 86,103.00 A T&T Enhancement Fund 20,000.00 General Reserve 93,107.00 Total General Fund $14,626,823.00 Housing Authority Fund Operating Expenditures $ 471,145.00 Debt Service 551,131.00 Capital Purchases 5,525.00 Bond Reserve 300,000.00 Apartment Interior Reserve 151,186.00 Capital Reserve 275,930.00 Unappropriated Reserve 453,447.00 Total Housing Fund $ 2,208,364.00 - 67 - 01-42 Page 2 Debt Service Fund Debt Service $ 1,816,339.00 Debt Service Reserve 791,847.00 Operating Expenditures 2,000.00 Total Debt Service Fund $ 2,610,186.00 Mountain View Fund Operating Expenditures $ 232,897.00 Debt Service 604,645.00 Capital Outlay 70,050.00 Bond Reserve 680,000.00 Capital Reserve 215,127.00 Unappropriated Reserve 511,688.00 Total Mountain View Fund $ 2,314,407.00 Lottery Fund Operating Expenditures $ 12,695.00 Total Lottery Fund $ 12,695.00 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Operating Expenditures $ 110,000.00 Capital Purchases 2,264,481.00 Project/Maintenance Reserve 700,000.00 Undesignated Reserve 642,090.00 Total Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund $ 3,716,571.00 Road Mill Levy Fund Operating Expenditures $ 43,888.00 Capital Purchases 5,510,000.00 Undesignated Reserve 20,109.00 Total Road Mill Levy Fund $ 5,573,997.00 Mountain View Phase Il Fund Operating Expenditures $ 45,782.00 Debt Service 157,640.00 Capital Reserve 35,465.00 Unappropriated Reserve 24,107.00 Total Mountain View Phase Il Fund $ . 262,994.00 01-42 Page 3 Daly Townhomes Fund Operating Expenditures $ 3,000.00 Debt Service 4,453,009.00 Capital Reserve 2,699,340.00 Unappropriated Reserve 42,515.00 Total Daly Townhomes Fund $ 7,197,864.00 INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village,Colorado on November 12,2001,with a motion made by ,seconded by The motion was approved by a vote_in favor_opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T.Michael Manchester,Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline,Town Clerk mom -6 TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 12, 2001 Agenda Item: Public Hearing and Action: Resolution No. 49, Series of 2001, a resolution concerning an Annual Temporary Use Permit to permit Christmas tree sales at the westerly end of the Town Rodeo Lot. Presented By: Chris Conrad, Planning Director Core Issues: . The subject property is owned by the Town. Condition No. 12 requires landowner authorization prior to commencing operations. The Town Council may wish to grant this approval at this time and provide the Town Manager with authority to prepare written authorization and a lease or use agreement concerning the Applicant's use of the property. Staff recommends that council consider amending the hours of operation to require closure at 8:00pm or 9:00pm (see Condition 1 of resolution) and that Condition No. 3 remain but be amended to require that the string lights be shut off when the operation closes at night. • The favorable staff recommendation is based upon the belief that the proposed operation should have minimal effect on the day skier parking operations this year due to the expected reduction in visitors; however, the Applicant may need to investigate a new location for 2002. Any renewal of this application for this location next year may need to be referred to the Town Council for determination based upon skier projections next year. It was recommended by the Horse Ranch Homeowner's Association that an alternative location within the Rodeo Lot be found that would be further away from Horse Ranch Drive. Three (3)factors come into play: 1) electrical power needs to be obtained from the Rodeo Lot Bus Depot (approval has been granted from Aspen Skiing Company); 2) proximity to the porta-potties adjacent to the depot; and 3)the location cannot interfere with day skier parking. Staff believes that the proposed location will be an acceptable site for this year but that the operation be monitored and possibly an alternative location should be found for next season. Further comments from the association may be available for the meeting. 000 �p sow PAuser\cconradNS Word Docs\TC O1-49 ATUP 2001 Xmas Tree Sales Rodeo Lot TC Comments 01.doc General Info: Steve Henley ("Applicant") has requested Annual Temporary Use Permit approval to operate a Christmas tree sales lot within the skateboard park area of the Town rodeo lot between the hours of 9:00am and 10:00pm from November 20 until December 25. He previously operated the sales lot located at the fire station. This permit also includes a request to: 1) locate a TX 15' trailer adjacent to the tree lot; 2) place a free standing sign by the Rodeo Lot entrance not to exceed 4' X 8' in size; 3) place a freestanding sign at the fire station not to exceed four (4) square feet in size; and 4) place a 4' X 12' banner on the trailer. Planning The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request Commission: and their resolution included the conditions contained within the enclosed resolution with the following exceptions: 1. The Planning Commission does not believe that the Christmas string lighting and/or small spots will be an issue that would adversely affect surrounding property owners and would be comfortable with having Condition No. 3 removed from the final Town Council resolution. They do believe that the operation should be limited to 9:00pm at night. 2. It was recommended that a $200.00 cleanup and damage deposit be required of the Applicant to ensure that the permit area is satisfactorily cleaned at the conclusion of the event. This could be added to Condition 11 of the resolution or included as part of any lease or use agreement. Council Options: Approve the enclosed resolution as may be amended during the meeting, table to November 19 or deny the application. Staff Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution with Recommendation: direction to coordinate with the Applicant regarding the signage and lighting. NuserlcconradtMS Word Docs1TC 0149 ATUP 2001 Xmas Tree Sales Rodeo Lot TC Comments 01.Ooc now d;7/ dow I TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 23 5 SERIES OF 2001 6 7 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING AN ANNUALTEMPORARY USE PERMITTO PERMIT 8 CHRISTMAS TREE SALES AT THE WESTERLY END OF THE RODEO LOT. 9 10 WHEREAS, Steve Henley ("Applicant') has requested Annual Temporary Use 11 Permit approval to operate a Christmas tree sales lot within the skateboard park area 12 of the Town rodeo lot, as shown in Exhibit"A"; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the Applicant has operated a tree sale lot at the Snowmass- 15 Wildcat Fire Station the previous eleven (11)years; and 16 17 WHEREAS; said operation will be conducted between the hours of 9:OOam and 18 10:00pm from November 20 until December 25, 2001; and 19 20 WHEREAS, the Town of Snowmass Village owns the land and has consented to 21 this application being processed; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application on October 31, 24 2001 and unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions contained within 25 this resolution; and 26 27 WHEREAS,a public hearing was held before the Town Council on November 12, 28 2001 to receive public comment; and 29 30 WHEREAS,at that meeting the Town Council received public comment and heard 31 the recommendations of Town staff. 32 33 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the Town 34 of Snowmass Village, Colorado: 35 36 Section One: Findings. Based upon the information submitted and testimony in the 37 record, the Town Council finds as follows: 38 39 1. The application has been submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 40 16A-5-260 of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code 41 (the "Municipal Code"). 42 43 2. The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed Christmas tree 44 sales operation will comply with the Review Standards for approving an Annual 45 Temporary Use Permit contained in Section 16A-5-260(d) of the Municipal 46 Code. 47 48 3. The recommendation of staff is that the proposed operation should have 49 minimal effect on the day skier parking operations this year due to the expected SOW ZZOW TC Reso 01-49 Page 2 50 reduction in visitors; however, the Applicant may need to investigate a new 51 location for 2002. Any renewal of this application for this location next year may 52 need to be referred to the Town Council for determination based upon skier 53 projections next year. 54 55 Section Two: Action. The Town Council hereby authorizes the issuance of an Annual 56 Temporary Use Permit to Steve Henley to allow him to operate a Christmas tree sales 57 lot within the skateboard park area of the Town rodeo lot, as shown in Exhibit"A". This 58 permit also includes approval to locate a 7' X 15' trailer adjacent to the tree lot, a free 59 standing sign by the Rodeo Lot entrance not to exceed 4'X 8' in size, a freestanding 60 sign at the fire station not to exceed four (4) square feet in size and to place a 4' X 12' 61 banner on the trailer. Said approval shall be subject to satisfying the following 62 conditions. 63 64 Section Three: Conditions of Permit Approval. The authorization of the Annual 65 Temporary Use Permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 66 67 1. The term of this permit shall be from November 20 until December 25, 2001. 68 The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. 69 70 2. The operation shall not generate debris, excessive music or noise which will 71 adversely or unreasonable affect surrounding properties. Lighting shall be 72 limited to low wattage Christmas string lighting not to exceed nine (9)feet in 73 height above grade or small spots directed downward and shielded such that 74 the spotlight filament is not visible from surrounding properties or roadways. 75 76 3. The string lights shall be turned off at 10:00pm and small spotlights may 77 remain on only as necessary to provide security through the night. The 78 location, number, direction of illumination and height shall be reviewed by the 79 Planning Director and adjusted as necessary during the term of this permit to 80 minimize visual impact through the night. 81 82 4. The free standing sign to be located at the Rodeo Lot entrance shall be 83 submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval as to size and 84 location. Said sign is not to be illuminated unless approved by Town Council. 85 86 5. A small non-illuminated sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet in size, may 87 be placed at the fire station to inform the public that the tree sales operation 88 has been relocated to the Rodeo Lot. Said sign and it's proposed location 89 shall require the review and approval of the Town fire chief and planning 90 director prior to installation. 91 92 6. Due to the fact that this will be the first year this operation will be operating at 93 this location, certain impacts associated with this activity which may affect 94 surrounding properties or Town parking lot operations may not have been 95 apparent at the time application was made. Failure by the applicant to woo ?U? am TC Reso 01-49 Page 3 96 demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to resolve a significant 97 majority of complaints received shall be cause for revocation or modification 98 of this permit as determined by the Town Manager. 99 100 7. The Applicant shall be responsible for discouraging any parking along Horse 101 Ranch Drive by persons coming to the tree lot. People seen coming from 102 that direction will be directed to move their vehicle to the Rodeo Lot. 103 104 8. All requirements of the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire District Chief and Town 105 Police Chief, or designees, whether imposed prior to or during the term of 106 this permit, must be satisfied and shall be considered conditions of this 107 permit. 108 109 9. The Applicant shall promptly notify the Snowmass Village Community 110 Development Department of any additions, modifications, or amendments to 111 this permit or proposed use of the subject property. Any such changes 112 should not be in conflict with the findings and Review Standards relative to 113 this Annual Temporary Use Permit and may be permitted with written 114 approval of the Planning Director or referred by him to the Town Council for 115 review and final determination. 116 117 10. Applicant shall adequately supervise the operation so as to ensure 118 conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 119 120 11. All affected areas shall be restored to their pre-event condition within two (2) 121 days of the conclusion of this permit. The Town Manager shall then be 122 contacted and an inspection may be required at his discretion. Any damage 123 to Town property shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 124 125 12. It shall be the responsibility of the Applicant to obtain the written authorization 126 of the land owner, necessary electrical permit, sales tax or business licenses 127 prior to commencing operations. 128 129 INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 2001, on the 130 motion of Town Council member and the second of Town Council 131 member by a vote of_in favor and _against. 132 133 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 134 135 136 137 ATTEST: T. Michael Manchester, Mayor 138 139 140 141 Trudi Worline, Town Clerk —•;7YOW 7895.4 — / BAIL PARK EXHIBIT "A" TC Resolution No.49, Series of 2001 i (Page 1 of 1) X�X�x /�� a - -� y Fx _ '11RL� lgi.ES / 23 x 7 X 8 -YPLAY6R9JND x 7883.9 / x/Y. 7877.5 7900 p i rn / \\� i 7950 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA (WORK SESSION) 07-26-2001 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor T. Michael Manchester, Robert Purvis, Richard Virtue, Douglas Mercatoris and Arnold Mordkin COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: No Council Members were absent. STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Jose Santiago The Meeting began at 8:30 a.m. Council made the determination that this Meeting would be a Work Session rather than a Special Meeting. DISCUSSION ROLE OF STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS Jose Santiago, Consultant employed by the Town, met with Town Council and the Town Manager to discuss the roles of staff and Council Members. Santiago reviewed several concerns identified by Town Department Heads. During further discussion, Council voiced a reply to the issues expressed by staff members. Council stated their appreciation for honest feedback from staff, agreed with the identified concerns and to work toward solutions for the issues. The Meeting ended at 11:00 a.m. Submitted By: Rhonda B. Coxon, Deputy Town Clerk 76 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 2001 Mayor T. Michael Manchester called to order the Special Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on September 28th, 2001 at 9:12 a.m. COUNCIL PRESENT: T. Michael Manchester, Arnold Mordkin, Robert Purvis, Douglas Mercatoris, Richard Virtue VLF MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat O' Donnell, Don Schuster, Bill Kane, Brett Huske, Greg Rulon, Mary Harris, Barbara Lucks, Jim France, John Norton, Jim Horowitz, John Francis, Maureen Stapleton, Chris Nolen, Bill Burwell, Jim Baker, John Humphreys PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT Mark Stout, Bob Fridstein, George Huggins, Jim Gustafson, Doug Faurer STAFF PRESENT: Gary Suiter, Town Manager; Carey Shanks, Assistant to the Town Manager; Art Smythe, Chief of Police; David Peckler, Transportation Manager INTRAWEST STAFF: Paul Shepperd, Gary Raymond, Paul Belserene, David Kleinkopf, Michael Coyle, Paul Smith, Alex Gabriel PUBLIC PRESENT: Kristen Skirkanich, Dale Fulbank, Jen Uncapher, Shelley Marks, Deidre Boineau, Jullie Schopper Mele, Tom Rockwell, Marc! Jennings, Carolyn Purvis, Bruce Bauman, Rob Robinson, Robert Sinko, Jeremy Assalone, Sally Sparhawk, Phyllis McFillen, David Myler, Madeleine Osberger, John Rex, Nancy Shalen, Mary Lupo, Nick Coates, Sardy Ferlison, Piper Heger, Sandra Francis PRE-SKETCH MEETING WITH ASPEN SKIING COMPANY AND INTRAWEST This Pre-sketch Meeting was combined with a meeting of the Village Leadership Forum (VLF). Mayor Manchester opened the meeting by briefly explaining the Pre-Sketch application process to the VLF members and the public. The Pre-Sketch process allows Town Council to hold an informal non-binding discussion with the applicant. Ono 77. Mayor Manchester introduced Jose Santigo, the VLF Process Consultant. Mr. Santiago outlined the agenda for the day including the process for VLF input and public participation. He explained that the meeting consisted of three parts, including VLF business and discussion about the Planks, a presentation by Intrawest, and discussion among the public, the VLF and Intrawest. Bob Purvis provided a brief history of the VLF, the importance of the VLF Aspiration Statement, the individual Planks and how they interrelate, and the purpose of the Economic Model to form a strategic Forward Plan. Michael Coyle of Intrawest then introduced the other Intrawest staff. He also briefly explained the Intrawest envisioning process. Gary Raymond of Intrawest provided an overview of his background and experience. He explained how Intrawest develops resort villages. He gave statistics on the impacts of resort development upon regional economies. A question and answer session followed among VLF members, the public and Intra West officials, regarding impact upon existing properties, the overall resort experience, and the integration of Mall businesses and resort markets, in general. A fifteen-minute film was then shown defining the Intrawest Resort Village. The film explained the total resort experience, including the Intrawest Resort Creed. It also explained the complicated nature of Resort Villages and provided information about Intra West's master planning design philosophy. Michael Colye of Intrawest, facilitated a group session including all present in order to identify influences that would create character for Snowmass Village. A scribe and reporter were appointed for each group and each group reported their findings. The groups were then asked to identify six specific things that Base Village could be famous for. The groups reported their lists of references. The four groups were asked to suggest names for Base Village and reported out accordingly. Finally, the groups were asked to draft a 125-word essay describing the Village in the year 2010. The groups explained their visions, which were noted by the Intrawest storytellers. The Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Gary Suiter, Town Manager r—?'4r- November Packet Calendar 20 � [Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3:00 P.M. Election Day 4:00 P.M. T.C.MTG. EOTC @ . X v Aspen City �} Council may. 1 U Chambers 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10:00—12:00 Budget Wrap Up 2:00 P.M. T.C.MTG. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2:00 P.M. Thanksgiving T.C.MTG. 25 26 27 28 29 30 0�07?gap Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2:00 P.M. T.C.MTG. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2:00 P.M. T.C.MTG. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2:00 P.M. T.C.MTG. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Christmas 30 31 New Years Eve Offft g� soft Chris Conrad From: bill cuiza [billcuiza @hotmail.com) Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:27 AM To: cconrad @tosv.com Cc: Dgr1942 @aol.com; psmith @sopris.net; R3smiths @aol.com; NONNIECOOP @aol.com; jk @rof.net Subject: Skate board park Christmas tree sales Chris: Thank you for sending the proposed resolution. I wish that we had been given more time for the Horse Ranch Board of Directors to consider this. For the information of the other members,you and Dale and I had a brief discussion about the fact that the fire department needs all of its parking space and will not allow tree sales there this year. Our suggestion was that the lot be put onto the rodeo parking lot to eliminate concerns about traffic,parking and safety on Horse Ranch Drive. Speaking individually, I believe that Horse Ranch residents will want to cooperate for the benefit of the entire community and I offer the following comments.1.In your November 2 phone call to me and in your Nov.9 fax you stated that this use will be for this winter only--on a trial basis. However,your communique to the council and the proposesd Resolution make repeated references to an"Annual Temporary Use Permit". The use of those words together implies a temporary use on an annual basis. Without further input and opportunity for discussion of future plans,and without a trial basis I have to ask that the word"Annual" be deleted from the Resolution. Therefore, I request that paragraph4 of Section one of the Resolution be modified to require that an application for this location next year"must",instead of"may", be referred to the Town Council for determination based upon skier projections next year"and the effect of the operation upon traffic, parking and safety on Horse Raanch Drive and the effect upon the owners of neighboring properties". 2)ln our phone conversation you suggested that the lights should be turned off at 8PM not 10PM as stated in the Resolution. 3]I request that paragraph 7 of Section 3 provide that town police will enforce the existing "No Parking"signs along Horse Ranch Drive. I think it un-likely that the operator will adequately prevent people from parking there.4)lt would seem that locating the sales area at the north end of the rodeo bus depot the same distance as the skate board park is from the depot would not un-reasonably affect access to electrical power,parking or potties. but would have the advantage of eliminating traffic ,parking and safety concerns on Horse Ranch Drive.As one resident and one board member I gladly will cooperate for the benefit of the community. I hope that these suggestions will be helpful to all residents and visitors. I am sorry for the poor construction of this e-mail OlV ftczse-QAivaH gcvne but I am unable to get my keyboard to do what I want it to do ill Clar . OWVV�M-I. F}ssoc. Bof>¢D or— -DrRfaGTrs>✓s Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at hftp://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp t G) O 0 0 m 0 Cn � CD Sy CD CD c� � `�: 9 0 C/) Q 7 '''' � =3 N `G O CD CD cn O O CL N v CD F v. 0 v C r q. r--l- < 3 CD CD U w CD O CD Cn CD CD The Process Developed a questionnaire Interviewed 18 of the21 Managers and Supervisors identified in the Span of Control Chart Reviewed Job Descriptions and Salaries Reviewed Organizational Charts Weighed findings against Goals & Objectives Findings and observations Most Departments have reduced.operational expenses and cash purchases to the point where the only place left to reduce expenses is in personnel. , The organization has responded reasonably well to the flat.economy over the last two years. There is a significant amount of cross-training in the organization. Many positions are interchangeable, performing both administrative and front-line tasks, depending on demand. This collaboration creates strength, flexibility and consistency in the organization. Some surplus capacity is systemic. Some +1 s in the Span of Control Chart perform 85% or more front-line work and were misclassified. The Transit operation needs the current number of bodies to operate efficiently, but not necessarily the number of "layers". There appears to be some surplus capacity between the recently created positions of Assistant to the Town Manager and the Community Development Director. Landscape Design and Parks & Trails Maintenance functions should be consolidated under one Department. Nearly all of those interviewed had additional cost-saving ideas! Available Options Demote two Transit Foremen to Lead Bus Drivers OR Eliminate one Transit Supervisor position. Eliminate Assistant to the Town Manager position and assign those responsibilities to Community Development Director OR Eliminate Community Development Director position and reassign functions within that department to Assistant Town Manager and other departments. Put Landscape Architect under Public Works Department OR Put Parks/Trails Maintenance under Community Development Department. Recommendations r Eliminate Transit Supervisor position. Eliminate Community Development Director position and reassign functions within that department to Assistant Town Manager and other departments. Put Landscape Architect under Public Works Department to work next to Parks and Trails Maintenance crew. Put Planning Division under the supervision of the Town Manager. Increase 2002 year-end carryover by $102,047. Fine Tuning, <�% Split full-time secretarial position between Public Works and Building Program <1 FTE>. Evaluate moving Parking Permit Sales to Court Clerk's office at the Snowmass Center. Eliminate seasonal Solid Waste worker. Split existing Mechanic's time with Solid Waste Program. Contract the Wildlife position. Reduce Transportation Secretary to 1 /2 time. 0 -- �- Current Org Chart FEW EW Y I Proposed Org Chart Risk Analysis Positive Effects: Favorably positions the Town in the event of a continuing flat economy. - Organizational changes are easily restored or modified. Employees will "work smarter' After transition "dip", productivity usually increases. Year-end carryover will increase by $102,047. Risk Analysis Potential Negative Effects: Temporary instability will probably occur in those areas where functions were transferred, while employees and supervisors adapt to the new situation. Low morale in demoted or transferred employees. "Domino Effect" - other employees quit. Trust levels need to be restored. Timing could be bad. ORGANIZAT N L aq 9 fie Town e ¢ � 3 y ,.� IH