Loading...
11-19-01 Town Council Packet � � � K� I - I � - dl 2)/eOO4wg- + SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL m ck r REGULAR MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 19, 2001 CALL TO ORDER AT 2:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL DISCUSSION AGENDA Item No. 2: 2:00 — 3:00 TIMBERLINE PRE-SKETCH - TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING -- Chris Conrad............................ Page 1 (Tab A) Item No. 3: 3:00 — 3:15 RESOLUTION NO. 53, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION AUTHORIZING CONCURRENT REVIEW OF THE SNOWMASS CENTER EXPANSION AND SNOWMASS CHAPEL SKETCH PLANS PURSUANT TO SECTION5-300 (B) (3) OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. -- Chris Conrad............................ Page 8 (Tab B) Item No. 4: 3:15 —4:15 SNOWMASS CENTER SKETCH PLAN RESUBMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -- Jim Wahlstrom......................... Page 13 (Tab C) Item No. 5: 4:15 — 5:45 SNOWMASS CHAPEL DISCUSSION -- Jim Wahlstrom......................... Page 22 (Tab D) Item No. 6: 5:45 — 6:00 SNOWMELT ROAD ELECTION -- Hunt Walker............................. Page 37 (Tab E) Item No. 7: 6:00 — 6:20 DALY TOWNHOMES OWNER DISCUSSION -- Joe Coffey................................ Page 38 (Tab F) (See attachment "A" at back of packet) BREAK 6:20 — 6:30 P.M. REGULAR AGENDA— 6:30 P.M. Item No. 8: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS (5-Minute Time Limit) 11-19-01tc Page 2 of 3 Item No. 9: SECOND READING - 2001 REVISED BUDGET — ORDINANCE NO. 25, SERIES 2001 SECOND READING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET FOR ALL FUNDS FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE -- Marianne Rakowski....................................... Page 39 (Tab H) Item No. 10: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND 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 Wahlstrom .............................................. Page 41 (Tab 1) Item No. 11: FIRST READING — ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 2001 FIRST READING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE CODIFYING THE TOWN COUNCIL SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURES -- Steve Connor ................................................ Page 64 (Tab J) Item No.12: RESOLUTION NO. 51, SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ROBERT VOIGT TO THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE ARTS ADVISORY BOARD -- Gary Suiter.................................................... Page 67 (Tab K) Item No.13: MANAGER'S REPORT -- Gary Suiter.................................................... Page 69 (Tab L) Item No.14: DISCUSSION COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL COMMENTS /STATUS REPORT........................................... Page 73 (Tab M) Item No.15: CALENDARS .......................................................................... Page 75 (Tab N) Item No.16: EXECUTIVE DISCUSSION Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b) Snowmass Village Municipal Code Chapter 2, III, Section 2-45(c)(2) AT THIS TIME IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC MEETING CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS AND CONVENE AN 11-19-01 tc Page 3 of 3 EXCUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WILL BE CLOSED, TO THE PUBLIC. THE TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE PRIVILEDGED ATTORNEY CLIENT MATTERS. HOWEVER, NO ADOPTION OF ANY PROPOSED POLICY, POSITION, RESOLUTION, RULE, REGULATION OR FORMAL ACTION SHALL OCCUR AT ANY EXECTUIVE SESSION. Item No.17: 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 19, 2001 Agenda Item: Timberline Pre-Sketch: Lot 13 Maintenance Facility Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Discussion Presented By: Chris Conrad, Planning Director Core Issues: Please first review "General Info." below for background. • Since the request concerns the employee housing required to mitigate last year's athletic club addition, the individual bedroom unit size and dormitory style housing concept should be discussed. The unit mix, size and type of mitigation housing required of a developer is typically determined by the Town Council when considering the development proposal. Is this dormitory style housing generally acceptable or should consideration be given by the applicant to create studio or one (1) bedroom units? • The applicant is proposing to ultimately deed restrict the dormitory units in order to satisfy the employee housing mitigation requirement for last year's athletic club addition. The building within which the dormitory will be created is subject to a lease with the Town and the building may, at some time, either be transferred to Town ownership or be removed. Unfortunately, pursuant to the lease, the interior improvements may be removed by the lessee prior to transfer of the structure to the Town. This issue does not need to be explored during Pre-Sketch but would need to be discussed during any landowner's discussion. • The only available parking would be within Lot 13. Discussion should occur regarding how the applicant intends to manage or restrict tenant vehicles and/or whether resident parking permits should even be considered in this case. P:IusarlcconradWS Word DocsWimbedineft-Sketch Timberline Maint Fadlity Hsg Memol)2.doo General Info: Don Quast, General Manager of the Timberline Condominiums, has submitted this Pre-Sketch application in order to have an informal discussion regarding a proposal to add a third floor to the Timberline Maintenance Building located within Town Parking Lot 13 for the purpose of creating eleven (11) units of dormitory style employee housing. A packet of 11" X 17" drawings have been placed in the Town Council boxes and copies are available for review at the Community Development Department. Background: Approval was granted on June 19, 2000 to permit the construction of a 12' X 22' addition on the parking lot side of the subject building to provide an equipment facility for AT&T Wireless Services. The building is located on ground owned by the Town and the original 1986 lease was amended at that time to include the addition. The two (2) story structure currently includes a three (3) bedroom employee unit, involves 2,227 sq. ft. of ground coverage and is 4,253 sq. ft. in size. The employee unit is not deed restricted and would be removed to provide a kitchen and day room for the dormitory tenants. Another approval was granted to the Timberline on May 30, 2000 to permit a 1,512 sq. ft. athletic club facility addition, including laundry room, mechanical space and meeting room, adjacent to the Timberline Condominium pool area. The employee housing mitigation provision for that project required that Timberline either deed restrict the existing studio units 113, 114 and 213, within the Timberline Lodge Condominiums, for employee housing or pay a cash-in-lieu amount of $57,524.00 for the project. The three (3) existing studio units, while never having been deed restricted for employee housing, have historically been used for that purpose. The mitigation requirement for the athletic club facility addition calling for them to be deed restricted at this time was intended to preserve their historic use but did not actually create new housing. The studio units have not yet been deed restricted. This Pre-Sketch proposal involves selling the above mentioned studio units as free market units and to P:Iuser,000nradlMS Word DocslTimtudinelPre-Sketch Timbedine Maint FacOity Fisg Memo02.doc utilize those funds to construct the proposed dormitory housing as well as perform a major upgrade of the condominium project. creating new employee housing. The three (3) bedroom unit within the Lot 13 maintenance building and three (3) studio units within the condominium project will be lost but eleven (11) dormitory units, being approximately 150 square feet in size each, will be created. The eleven (11) dormitory units will then be deed restricted employee housing to satisfy the mitigation requirement for the athletic club facility addition. Council Options: Pre-Sketch applications involve non-binding informal discussion regarding development proposals. In this case, the feedback received will assist the applicant in determining whether to: 1) further develop the dormitory proposal for discussions with the Town Council as landowner and to make land use application; 2) deed restrict the studio units; or 3) pay the cash-in-lieu amount of$57,524.00. Don Quast should decide what course of action he intends to pursue and contact the Town Manager within ten (10) days of this meeting to schedule land owner discussions if needed. The Community Development Department could then receive direction whether to: a) proceed with requiring, pursuant to their building permit, that the studio units be deed restricted or cash-in-lieu be paid; or b) to bring to the Town Council a resolution extending the athletic club employee housing mitigation requirement until the landowner discussions have occurred and dormitory land use application has been processed. Staff No action is required by the Town Council when Recommendation: discussing Pre-Sketch applications. Staff would likely have concerns regarding parking management and the visual impact of the third story addition that would need to be addressed when considering any land use application. The applicant intends to present visual imagery and to discuss these issues as part of his presentation. 3-- NuseAcoonradNS Word DocslTimbedineTre-Sketch Timbedine Maint Facility Hsg Memo02.doc SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT PUBLIC MEETING PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC MEETING WILL BE HELD BEFORE A JOINT MEETING OF THE SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND AND COMMENT WHEN: November 19, 2001 WHERE: Snowmass Village Town Council Chambers 2nd Floor, Snowmass Center 0016 Kearns Road, Snowmass Village WHY: To receive public comment regarding a Pre-Sketch application submitted by the Timberline Condominiums Association for an informal discussion regarding a proposal to add a third floor to the Timberline Maintenance Building located within Town Parking Lot 13 for the purpose of creating dormitory style employee housing. CODE: This application will be processed as a Pre-Sketch Plan, pursuant to Section 16A-1-55 of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. TIME: AT A MEETING WHICH BEGINS AT 2:00 P.M. Contact the Town Clerk at 923-3777 prior to the meeting for scheduling information. INFO: A copy of the plans and application information is on file and available for review in the Snowmass Village Community Development Department at the above address. For further information call 923-5524. Submitted by: Rhonda Coxon,Deputy Town Clerk Published in the Snowmass Sun on November 14, 2001 H:\Wpdata\Planning\Phnotice\Snow ass Center Sketch Plan Joint TC-PC PHNotice0l y410- TIMBA A, A, ERLINE C O N D O M I N I U M S October 8, 2001 Town of Snowmass Village and Planning Commission P.O. Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Re: Pre-sketch Application Dear Town Council Members and Planning Commission: The Timberline Condominiums Association is hoping to add a third floor to our support building. Currently that building has a 3-bedroom unit used to house Timberline employees. By adding a third floor to that building The Timberline would create 11 (eleven) dorm style units to include private bathrooms in each unit. The existing 3-bedroom unit would then be converted to a kitchen and a day room to be used by the employees that would be housed in the new dorm style units. The Timberline Condo Association owns three Timberline studios that are currently deed restricted units. Those studios can accommodate up to 3 employees total. To finance the support-building project the Timberline would like to sell those units on the free market. This plan would allow the Timberline to increase the total number of employee accommodations from six beds to eleven. Between the front desk staff and bell staff the Timberline employs 10 (ten) seasonal employees. This new housing plan would allow all of those employees to have on site housing as well as enable the Timberline to house a full time, on site maintenance person. In addition to the above-mentioned plans, since we currently do not have private parking, if this project is approved, I would have no problem restricting employee parking. The Town currently has an outstanding free shuttle system that the employees would be encouraged to utilize. We are also requesting, if this project is approved, that the Town waive the housing mitigation fees payable to the town since we are increasing the number of employee housing units that we currently have. Sncerely, �c _Si _ Donald B. Quast RECEIVED General Manager OCT 0 8 2001 Snowmass Village Community Development CCI. Ros L' Snrncma>.\'illacc,CCl tilLli 070)9211,4000 �► ��� Rrsrn-a❑„n+ I-�N`7"_-�Cil F;i%(`)72)`7`i-;036 R � y ii I/ r - lTr, a I� I LC;F all ---------------------------------- : : ml � : : : : - - Timberline Housing Proj U U U LIJ ❑❑❑❑ 0000 0000 1 Noft Ekvmtm -------- - - TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Agenda Item: Resolution No. 53, Series of 2001: a resolution authorizing concurrent review of the Snowmass Center Expansion and Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plans pursuant to Section 5-300 (b)(3) of Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code. Presented By: Chris Conrad, Planning Director Core Issues: • Approval of this resolution is necessary in order to enable the presentation of the amended Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan proposal at this meeting. The applicant was assured during the September 4 meeting that favorable consideration would be given to recommencing review of their application once they returned with an improved project responding to the issues discussed. • Staff believes that the modifications are significant and that allowing the presentation is warranted in order to better direct staff regarding how the amended application should be processed. • Section 16A-5-300(b)(3)(b), Requests for additional information, provides that once the Snowmass Center applicant submits the information requested during the September 4, 2001 meeting their application may recommence review and that the application receive scheduling priority. In this case, the Snowmass Chapel application had already been continued to this meeting prior to staff receiving the Snowmass Center amended application. • Technically, the Snowmass Center has scheduling priority over the Snowmass Chapel at this time provided the Planning Director.and Town Council finds that the information requested on September 4 has been satisfactorily provided. Staff has not received building elevations yet but 3-D imaging will be presented at the meeting. General Info: Section 5-230 (b)(3) of Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") p recludes the goo Nuseiwconrad\MS Word DocslTC Reso 07-53 Concurrent Review TCMernoftdoc / S review of more than one (1) major PUD application by the Town Council or the Planning Commission at any time, unless expressly authorized by the Town Council by resolution Town Council last reviewed the Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan ("Snowmass Center Plan") on September 4, 2001. The applicant has now submitted an amended development proposal in response to direction given at that time and has requested the opportunity to present their proposal for discussion during the November 19 Town Council meeting. The adoption of this resolution is necessary in order to allow both the Snowmass Center and Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plan proposals to be discussed during this meeting. Staff will present an overview of scheduling options for these and all other major land use applications at the meeting. We did not include an agenda schedule in the packet as we anticipate receiving the Snowmass Club Phase II Final PUD November 16 and a Pre-Sketch application concerning Base Village on November 19. The review schedule presented at the meeting will involve all applications actually received prior to the meeting. Council Options: Approve the resolution in order to permit both items to be discussed, or deny the resolution and direct the Planning Director to reschedule the Snowmass Center at such time as the building elevations are provided. Staff Staff recommends approval of the resolution in order to permit Recommendation: the Snowmass Center presentation. The December 3 Town Council agenda may not be available. Pluserl000nrad\MS Word DocsITC Reso 01-53 Concurrent Review TCMemo0l.6oc � ' TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 53 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONCURRENT REVIEW OF THE SNOWMASS CENTER EXPANSION AND SNOWMASS CHAPEL SKETCH PLANS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5-300 (13)(3)OF CHAPTER 16A OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Section 5-230 (b)(3) of Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code') precludes the review of more than one major PUD application by the Town Council or the Planning Commission at any time, unless expressly authorized by the Town Council by resolution; and WHEREAS, Town Council last reviewed the Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan ("Snowmass Center Plan") on September 4, 2001; and WHEREAS, during the meeting, the Town Council expressed concern regarding the applicant's proposal to construct a driveway across thirty percent (30 percent) slopes in order to access the eight (8) single family lots within Parcels H and H-1, Faraway Ranch Gross Parcel Plat; and WHEREAS, due to the statements made by the applicant during the meeting that the driveway access could only be provided if generally aligned as proposed and that the residential lots were intended to be the financial mechanism necessary to support the redevelopment of the Snowmass Center as proposed, the Town Council suggested that the applicant investigate a number of opportunities including: 1) a possible relocation of the unit allocation for the single family lots to the Snowmass Center by increasing the density and structural height above and/or behind the existing Snowmass Center structure; 2) an alternate parking plan involving a reasonable reduction in the number of spaces per unit from what is required by the Municipal Code in order to accommodate additional units proximate to the Snowmass Center; or 3) consider other alternatives involving the single family residential units in an attempt to avoid the need for construction on thirty percent (30%) slopes; and WHEREAS, the applicant has now resubmitted an amended development proposal for discussion during the November 19 Town Council meeting; and WHEREAS, Section 16A-5-300(b)(3)(b), Requests for additional information, states that once an applicant submits the information requested I�O � Resolution No. 53,Series of 2001 Page 2 during the September 4, 2001 meeting it may be requested that the review of their application recommence and that the application receive the next available scheduling priority; and WHEREAS, the Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plan (Snowmass Chapel Plan") is currently under review by the Town Council and was scheduled for further discussion during the November 19 Town Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director reviewed the amended Snowmass Center proposal and determined that it would be appropriate to give the applicant the opportunity to present the modified proposal to Town Council and to receive direction as to whether: 1) the amended proposal sufficiently responds to the direction given at the September meeting; 2)the changes are significant enough to warrant referral to the Planning Commission; or 3)the amendments should be allowed and staff should schedule the item for the next available Town Council meeting; WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that it would be appropriate to permit concurrent review of the Snowmass Center Plan and Snowmass Chapel Plans during the November 19, 2001 as necessary and appropriate to provide direction to staff for their expeditious review; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution is necessary to preserve the public health, safety and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Approval of Concurrent Maior PUD Review. The Snowmass Center Expansion Sketch Plan and Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plan major PUD applications are hereby authorized to occur simultaneously within the meaning of Section 16A-5-230 (b)(3) of the Municipal Code during the November 19, 2001 Town Council meeting. 2. Scheduling. The Planning Director shall then proceed with processing the two (2) Sketch Plan applications in accordance with the direction given during November 19 Town Council meeting in accordance with Section 16A-5-300 (b)(3)(c), Sketch plan review accommodations,of the Municipal Code or as further authorized by the Town Council. 3. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect << . Resolution No.53, Series of 2001 Page 3 any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on November 19, 2001 upon a motion by Council Member the second of Council Member and upon a vote of in favor and_against. Council member was absent. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk �� 2 I TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Agenda Item: Discussion Item: Snowmass Center Redevelopment and Expansion Sketch Plan P.U.D. Review -- Resubmittal of new information received November 13, 2001 Presented By: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Core Issues: • Acceptability of four single-family homes, relocated access drive, parking and detention pond in the draw area behind Woodbridge Condominiums; The size of the single-family units equates to 18 unit equivalents (The Buidout Analysis Chart allocation for this area is 30 units); • Acceptability of increasing unit count behind Snowmass Center from 31 to 36 units with underground parking (The Buildout Analysis Chart allocation for this area is 30 units); • Acceptability of increasing residential building height behind the Center from three to six levels of livable space; • Acceptability of increasing residential unit count at the Center from 20 to 27 units (The Buildout Analysis Chart allocation for the Center site is 15 units); • Acceptability of replacing Building D, on west end of center, with new Building E with four levels of residential units above the commercial/office space; • Acceptability of remodeling the middle portion of the Center without additional levels above the current three levels; • Acceptability of separate new Building F, located east of the center with two levels of offices space and underground parking and service areas, plus two to three levels of residential units above that and connected to the mid-portion of the Center; • Acceptability of new retail space in front of the center; • Acceptability of cantilevered parking deck in front of the center; • Acceptability of reducing the parking ratio from 1:300 to 1:350 for commercial and office space areas; • Acceptability of reducing the parking ratio for residential units from one space per bec1room to 1.4 spaces per 2-bedroom unit, 1.7 spaces per 3-bedr000m unit, and 2.0 spaces for 4-bedroom units; • Acceptability of realigned access road off Brush Creek Road; • Acceptability of widened access road to 24 feet on the west side of the Center; • Acceptability of relocated people mover station and shuttle stop. General Info: Handouts: • Letter of description and justification dated November 11, 2001 from applicant regarding the new information in the resubmittal; • Site Plans and Floor Plans of the new information in the resubmittal. \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useNw\Snowmass Center\TC Memo 11-19-01 s,mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doc op' 60000, 1 Attachments: • Tables showing the before and after figures from last proposal compared to new proposal; • Summary notes derived from the tapes of the last Town Council meeting of the discussion considering the Snowmass Center Redevelopment Sketch Plan on September 4, 2001; and • Excerpt of Town Council meeting minutes from September 4, 2001 concerning the Snowmass Center Sketch Plan. Council Options: 1) Schedule for further discussion before Town Council in mid- December or early-January following full evaluation of the revised application by staff; 2) Refer to Planning Commission in mid-December or early- January following full evaluation of the revised application by staff; 3) Direct staff to advertise and schedule a joint Planning Commission and Town Council meeting for December 10 with either subsequent review by the Planning Commission or Town Council following a full evaluation of the revised application by staff. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the meeting follow the conduct of meetings per the Code as follows: 1) Summary introduction by staff of the application; 2) Applicant's presentation of the proposal or detailed aspects of the design; 3) Questions to staff or the applicant by Town Council members with subsequent response by applicant and/or staff; 4) Accept comments or questions from the public; and 5) Provide direction to the applicant and staff considering the options noted above. \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useryw\Snowmass Center\TC Memo 11-19-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doc 2 SUMMARY NOTES DERIVED FROM THE TAPES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 CONCERNING THE SNOWMASS CENTER REDEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION The applicant needs to demonstrate that the development in the draw area behind Woodbridge Condominiums is unable to avoid the steep slopes in the area. Find another way to get project started and which makes sense economically in order to get the redevelopment of the Center going. Provide information as to how else could a "seed" be germinated to economically get the Center redevelopment started. Transfer of the development rights in the draw area behind the Woodbridge Condominiums to another area is desirable. In other words, can the single-family area be avoided? Applicant raised questions as to whether the height of the Center area could be increased and the possibility of renegotiating the parking ratios. Town Council will consider the unique character of the site and consider possible height increases and reductions in parking ratios at the Center site. Applicant indicated they would study these options. It was further stated that Town Council would rather deal with height variance and reduction of parking ratios on the Center site versus dealing with the road on 30% slope areas. A Woodbridge Condominium representative stated preference for no development behind their site in the draw area. If development is proposed, they'd prefer single-family homes over multi- family development. If single-family development is proposed, they'd prefer less single-family homes than the 8 units proposed. Drainage problems also need to be addressed. A Snowmass Mountain representative stated the acceptability of the single-family development, and preferred single-family versus multi-family development, but with less single-family units. They are concerned about the lighting and traffic impacts associated with multi-family development. Town Council members expressed the following observations: • The road cut on 30% slopes has too much of a visual impact. • Council is concerned about the extent of the development in the draw area behind Woodbridge Condominiums; • It is far better to create additional density, scale and character on the Center site similar to how Base Village might develop, provided there are good connections between the two sites. This is better than cutting a road across 30% slopes to access the proposed single- family area. • Overall, there is a question as to the appropriateness of single-family housing on the draw site behind Woodbridge Condominiums. Concerning the Center site: • Parking is a huge waste of money and space. • Connection and mobility to the Base Village site and the Town Core area is important. \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useryw\Snowmass Cenler`TC Memo 11.19-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doc / 3 The applicant slated that there is a possibility to create a mixed-use project with an economic engine, similar to the single-family homes, and create it at the Center. The applicant stated that the plan may get consolidated, but that the height restriction, parking ratios are an impediment, including a certain amount of employee housing. The applicant is willing to explore. There is a need to evaluate mass, scale and architecture with the increase of density at the Center site. If the proposal is for 100% buildout or beyond, then employee housing may come into play as a Community Purpose benefit. The Center has priority with the current Sketch Plan applications in process. Re-notice of public hearing will be eventually required. rl6' \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLMuseNw\Snowmass Center\TC Memo 11.19-01 S'mass Ctr Sketch Plan.doc 4 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Item No. 8: PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 34, SERIES OF 2001 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION PUD SKETCH PLAN AUTHORIZING PROCEEDING TO A PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMISSION TO REDEVELOP AND EXPAND THE SNOWMASS CENTER; PROVIDING OFFICE SPACE, INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA AND PARKING FACILITIES, AND ADDING RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE CENTER, BEHIND THE CENTER, AND TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE CENTER ONTO THE FARAWAY RANCH NORTH PARCELS B, F, H and H-1 Mayor Manchester opened the Public Hearing at 6:07 p.m. Wahlstrom stated that all Public Hearing Notification and submission requirements have been met according to the Snowmass Village Municipal Code. He provided information related to previous discussions on this submission held on August 13 and 20, 2001. Manchester stated that a Resolution was approved earlier during this Meeting, which allows concurrent reviews of this application and the Snowmass Club application for this Meeting. Richard Shaw of Design Workshop, provided information related to the Comprehensive Plan and the area proposed for redevelopment. He provided Comprehensive Plan maps of the Town Core, Future Land Use and Faraway North CIP and identified existing inconsistencies. Manchester, reporting that he was involved in the most recent Comprehensive Planning process, provided background on the intention of Council for this site at the time of the Comprehensive Plan adoption process. Council discussed the proposed access to Parcels H and H1. Shaw requested a straw vote for construction of the access road, which he explained to be the only available access to the proposed single-family housing units, and which is proposed for construction on 30-percent slopes. Due to the statement made by the applicant that the residential construction would be the economical factor necessary to support the remaining redevelopment proposed, Council suggested the applicant investigate a possible increase in structure height at the current Snowmass Center location, an alternate parking plan or a reduction in the number of residential units in an attempt to avoid the need for construction on 30-percent slopes. John Dresser, representing the Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners Association, stated that his client would be in favor of additional density within the Snowmass Center area to provide the economic engine needed by the developer, and requested that no development occur on Parcels H and H1. In light of the owner's right to develop, he stated a preference for single family �17� housing construction, although a lesser number than proposed, rather than multi- family housing in the area of question. Dresser also stated that regardless of development, the Association stresses the need to address the drainage problem in that area. Jerome Simecek, representing Snowmass Mountain Condominium Homeowners Association, stated that his Association prefers construction of single family homes rather than multi-family structures, although has concerns regarding the location of the settlement pond in relation to Lots 7 and 8 in parcels H1. He stated that multi-family dwellings would increase light pollution and ridge height would be increased. The Association has expressed their desire to work with the landowner regarding alternative access to the residential area through Snowmass Mountain's driveway. Shaw explained that the offer from Snowmass Mountain was for the applicant to provide additional parking spaces for Snowmass Mountain residents along the road, which when studied, would create an unacceptable demand on the roadway and access would still have an impact on 30-percent slopes. The Planning Director stated that the upper two residential building locations encroach onto Open Space land. Mayor Manchester stated his concern regarding the proposed location of the access road, visual impact, retaining walls, as well as the construction of and number of single-family structures. He stated the need for a relationship between this development and the Base Village area, envisioning a similar architectural scale, density and character anticipated for the Base Village area. He also stated his willingness to work toward making this project a more acceptable proposal. Purvis questioned if the applicant would be willing to investigate an alternative plan which would address Council's concerns. Shaw stated that there may exist the possibility to study a project whereby the applicant could identify creation of an economic engine for the project generated at the Center, and attempt to resolve the access problem or eliminate it. He proposed a tentative date of October, 2001 to meet with Council and further explore the ideas in an attempt to make it a workable redevelopment program. In response to an inquiry from Shaw, Mercatoris stated that in all probability, there would be additional threshold issues to discuss when the entire project is reviewed by Council. Manchester stated that he felt parking to be a waste of space and suggested that the applicant investigate a means for alternative mobility, which may eventually be tied to the Base Village area as well as to existing shops and restaurants. Conrad outlined the schedule for review of PUD applications in October and assured the applicant of their ability to resume "high priority" status for review of a revised plan at that time. Virtue expressed Council's appreciation and stressed the importance of the Center's commercial area to the Town. Wahlstrom requested that the Public Hearing be closed and re-noticed ten days prior to the Meeting date when Council will review the revised plan. Mayor Manchester closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Snowmass Center Redevelopment Additional Information Program Analysis Single-Family Residential USE Sketch Plan Additional Information March, 2001 November, 2001 # LOTS E.U'S # LOTS E.U'S SF Lot with 4,500 sf house 6 18 2 6 SF Lot with 5,500 sf house 2 12 2 12 . w'.o: w~✓:... ;<axx<x:..k;.,;..';Y:SY:..>:CL`»:,�.... :.:::.:k.... .:e>rm;>ii»:>.".....:maz>xiyy>wy:;x»:i'z_^:"F:it os�<t;e`:ww >,. '� ;:n..::. �]�j':.")..°..e'..,J4:> x.:x>:.i� '.@� o :«. s.:.ao......e>,..:Y......<..,•'<.«x:< ...«.... e::e:.<..-•.v"v'ro2�»:$�;, <w52�ES.�� <y€°' ;.. � ..... O>em .4.:. ... xJa.. ♦j ....�$;.)'.:�...:: .^:>r..k � bti' :b>A'>:.x &:<. k;:>• �kWT >:G.a:::n.�... Parking for Condominiums 0 Spaces 48 Spaces E.0 = Equivalent Unit Ratio Snowmass Center Redevelopment Additional Information Program Analysis Multi-Family Residential USE Sketch Plan Additional Information March, 2001 November, 2001 # UNITS E.U's # UNITS E.U's 1 Bedroom Unit 8 4 0 0 2 Bedroom Unit 33 30 6 3.66 3 Bedroom Unit 10 11 33 34.92 4 Bedroom Unit 0 24 38.82 . .... E.0 = Equivalent Unit Ratio 0 Snowmass Center Redevelopment Additional Information Program Analysis Commercial and Office Uses USE AREA IN SF Existing Sketch Plan Additional Information Center March, 2001 November, 2001 Commercial 32,114 42,680 44,384 Office 20,970 18,119 29,319 ....::«.:... .. <a... :... .......;.. p?µ'....'�.....�.....,`, < .... .... .::.:...:: ..e. .:«..e:5 Y NOW 3:roc;'<'<o:'. tJ Gondola 0 3,165 3,500 TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19,2001 Agenda Item: Discussion Item: Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan Review Presented By: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Core Issues: At the two meetings on October 15 and November 12, Town Council focused on 1)the core issues related to differences in the plans from the Pre-Sketch meeting in February,2)the usage planned for the addition and existing buildings, 3)Comprehensive Plan issues related to the Buildout Analysis Chart allocation of 20,000 square feet of floor area, employee housing requirements, and Community Purpose compliance, and 4)architecture, mass, scale, height variance and ridgeline protection issues. Please see the attached summary list of findings and conditions understood by staff. Staff plans to use the language when preparing the draft resolution for presentation before Town Council at a public hearing on December 3, 2001. Below is a list of remaining issues that have yet to be discussed: Landscaping—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—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—p. 7 of PC Res*. a) New bus shelter needs b) Improving pedestrian connections in and around site Parking, Traffic, Transportation—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 Timetable—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—p. 8 for findings in PC Reso. a) Relocation of 15-inch sewer line b) Water line looping requirements for fire protection • Miscellaneous—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. r 1111P \\NT_SERVER\BLD PLN\useryw\Snowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-19-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 1 General Info: Please reference the previous handouts as follows: • 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. • 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. The resolution included exhibits of the most updated plans and building elevations that were presented to the Town. • The staff report with attachments of letters from citizens provided at the November 12 meeting. This report updated, organized and addressed the core issues as well as summarized the staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Staffs understanding is that Council desires demonstration by the applicant that all other design alternatives have been exhausted to justify proceeding with the current design and height proposal. Staff has suggested the attached options for consideration by the applicant. The options are also attached in the form of sketch drawings. In addition, staff recommended that the applicant explore other mitigation techniques to demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies outlined in the attachment. Attachments to this report: • Summary of findings and conditions thus far • Design options as referenced above Council Options: 1) Continue to identify core issues of importance, including findings and any conditions which Council finds are appropriate; and/or 2) Provide direction to the applicant and to staff to prepare a draft resolution for Town Council review at a public hearing on December 3, 2001. 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 remaining 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 of core issues and/or the review of the draft resolution at a public hearing on December 3, 2001. ,z 3 ' \\NT_SERVEROLD_PLN\useNMSnowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-19-01 Vrnass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 2 Summary of Findings and Conditions thus far concerning the Snowmass Chapel Expansion Sketch Plan November 19, 2001 -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY- Findings: 1. It is the Town Council's understanding that the lower level of the proposed addition will be used for Sunday School classes, counseling services, a choir room, meeting rooms for community and church related groups, mechanical and storage areas, and restrooms which will be shared by golfers and the general public. 2. The addition will seat 300 with overflow capacity for 50 additional people. There will be no balcony placed within the addition. 3. The existing Chapel will be used as a 175-200 seat community hall for public and private meetings or functions, lectures,and wedding functions once the addition is constructed. 4. The existing residential unit of 692 square feet within the existing Chapel building will be deed-restricted to meet the employee housing requirement of 626 square feet for the addition. 5. At this Sketch Plan level of review, the'rown Council finds the increase in floor area from the current 11,715 square feet to a maximum of 28,000 square feet,which is above the 20,000 square foot allocation per the Comprehensive Plan's Buildout Analysis Chart, to be generally acceptable. 6. The Community Purpose criteria is being met because, 1)the development is seen as akin to a public facility in that it is consistent with the Town's goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan of providing services,facilities and amenities for the community and the resort, enhancing the community's quality of life, and supporting the development of visual, musical and performing arts within the community;and 2)the development is seen as encouraging sustainable development in that it is providing a sense of place and personal services for the general public and visitors to the community. 7. The architectural design of the addition is acceptable and provides a high quality character of space which will benefit the community. 8. The steeple height of approximately 78 feet from existing grade is proportionate with the building addition. 9. TO BE DETERMINED: The applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that a reverberation time of approximately 2.25 seconds is needed which necessitates a volume requirement of 150,000 cubic feet to accommodate the custom organ in the building addition. 10. TO BE DETERMINED: The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the building addition height, between approximately 68 to 78 feet, measured from existing grade along the north side of the building, is needed to accommodate the proposed organ and the uses planned in the lower level portion of the building addition. 11. Concerning the ridgeline protection provisions in the Municipal Code,Town Council finds that the main issue is whether the building addition fits in with the surrounding area rather than the visual impact from Brush Creek Road. 4 00 \\NT_SERVER\BLD PLN\useNmsnowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-19-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 3 Conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide assurances that the development will remain akin to a public facility and not be used exclusively for church-related functions in order to meet the test of compliance with the Community Purpose criteria as a "Necessary Public Facility" as specified in the Municipal Code. 2. The applicant shell investigate every mitigation technique possible, including but not limited to berming and dense landscaping, to lessen the visual impact of the building height from surrounding areas. This will be a significant issue during the Preliminary Plan review. zs000, \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useNvASnowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-19-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 4 OTHER DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE SNOWMASS CHAPEL EXPANSION SKETCH PLAN PUD November 19,2001 Some other layout options which may be able to be incorporated as part of a site plan redesign include but are not limited to the following: Option 1: Lowering the basement level another 10'-12', which would require fill to be exported off the site or used for berms and/or embankments up against the building. Effects of this option: There would no longer be a walk-out basement level. Golfers would need to enter the building from main level and walk downstairs to use the restroom facilities. It would also create the"sinking"effect explained by the project architect as one enters the worship space from the south. This approach would allow berming or embankments around the north,west, and east sides of the building which would tend to lessen the perceived height of the building. Option 2: In conjunction with above idea, lower the south fire lane and labyrinth area by terracing the grade down on the north side of Brush Creek and redirecting drainage around the addition; This may have a "sinking"effect as one approaches the building from the outside, but not as one enters the auditorium. Effects of this option: The building, fire lane and labyrinth area would have to be shifted 10-20 feet to the north to accommodate a steep terraced embankment immediately along the north side of Brush Creek. By shifting the building north, it would encroach farther onto the adjacent property and a greater amount of land swap area would need to be negotiated. Drainage would somehow need to be conveyed around the south and east/west sides of the building addition. This approach would also allow berming or embankments around the north,west, and east sides of the building which would tend to lessen the perceived height of the building. Option 3: Widen the addition in an effort to increase the volume on the lower main level which may permit the main roof height to be lowered and the upper portion to be narrowed, and which may allow an increase in the height of the side windows in the roof structure; Effects of this option: The widening of the building by roughly 20 feet is also reflected in the other options. The fire lane on the east side of the building would be more constrained due to the location of Brush Creek. However, the perpendicular handicap parking could be reoriented parallel to the fire lane. The wider building could result in the acoustical requirements for the custom organ not being met. Option 4: Reverse the main entry from the south to the north side; or Effects of this option: The stepped roof form would work better with the grade of the site. If the addition was connected to the Community Center, then patrons would likely need to enter the Community Center to access the main entry into the building addition or walk around the east side of the building to access the main entry area. The shadow effects would likely create ice and snow buildup at / the entry area. 2 \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useryw\Snowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-19-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 5 Option 5: Reorient the building east to west with the main entry/labyrinth on the west side. This approach may allow the building to be sunk into the ground without creating the"sinking" effect as one enters the worship space. Effects of this option: The arrangement seems to have some merit in that the steeple would be placed on axis with the new pedestrian bridge, it would have a direct connection into the Community Center from the narthex area, and the bulling could be sunk into the ground without creating a"sinking"effect as one enters the worship space. Sun would also filter through possible stained glass on the east elevation during morning services. The front of the building would not be as visible from Brush Creek Road. Embankments or berming could be created along the north side elevation of the building lessening the perceived height of the structure as viewed from the side. The length of the current addition would encroach into the wetland setback on the east side. By decreasing the depth of the addition,to avoid the wetland setback, it may impact the acoustical requirements of the custom organ. The Fire District would still likely require access around the east side of the building further complicating the length of the addition. Perhaps Brush Creek could be relocated to accommodate this building arrangement and fire lane. Option 6: Reorient the building east to west with the main entry/labyrinth on the east side. This approach may allow the building to be sunk into the ground without creating the"sinking"effect as one enters the worship space. Effects of this option: Staffs view is that this would be less desirable than the east-west orientation with the main entry on the west side. In order to not orient the front of the building toward the Community Center, the building would have to be angled so it faces Brush Creek Road and to avoid the wetland setback on the east side. This approach would create encroachment farther onto the adjacent property. The main entry would be located away from the courtyard area currently in front of the existing Chapel and Community Center. The pedestrian orientation and connectivity on the site would be disjointed,which staff finds unfavorable. This orientation would make the building even more visible from the surrounding area than the current building orientation. Option 7: Relocate the building addition southwest of the existing Chapel. Effects of this option: Staffs view is that the location is more constrained than the area east of the Community Center. It would be less accessible for fire emergency vehicles. It would have a greater visual impact along Brush Creek Road. It will have a greater impact upon the ridgeline because it isn't set back as far as the other site located east of the Community Center. However, a land swap would likely not be needed with this arrangement. In addition, the area east of the Community Center could be used for a one or two-story addition to replace the space on the lower level of the sanctuary addition. This would allow the sanctuary addition to be lowered another 10 to 12 feet, or more if sunk Into the ground. The tightness of this building arrangement, even if 40 or 50 feet in height,would still have a visual impact along Brush Creek Road. Relocation of the underground utility line may prove more difficult as well. 41 \\NT_SERVER\BLD PLN\useryw\Snowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11.19-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 6 In addition, it seems that Council requested additional options concerning other mitigation techniques that could be used, other than landscaping and berms,to help lessen the impact of the building height proposed and to demonstrate consistency with some the Comprehensive Plan policies (Chapter 6, pp. 19&20). These policies include but are not limited to: • Mountain architecture should reflect the surrounding natural environment; • Structures should not overwhelm our connection to the mountain environment; • Avoid the monumental; • People spaces should respect human scale; • Avoid the"wall"effect; • Mountain buildings should be sheltering, warm and intimate; • People will perceive public space as more comfortable when the design includes sensitive building massing and scale,facade and roof configurations,varied setbacks, setbacks of upper stories,variations in grade level,floor plane and wall textures... Other ideas to demonstrate consistency with the above policies include but are not limited to the following: 1. Use of roof dormers to help break up the roof mass viewed from the side; 2. Vary the ridgeline of the main roof even more; 3. Redesign the building so it is more rectangular in shape, similar to the existing buildings on the site,versus pyramidal or triangular in shape; 4. The applicant needs to demonstrate that reducing the size of the organ in order to reduce the height and cubic volume of the addition is not a viable alternative; 5. Sink the building into the ground,with or without the lower level area, and create additional berming and embankment up against the building to lessen the perceived height of the structure. \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useryw\snowmass Chapel\TC Memo 11-19-01 S'mass Chapel Exp Sketch Plan.doc 7 o..r:w .' / .� ,� � • � 1.\� Jis l.-"' .,•--Brrr I.CpA ���/ FM!rlOOro Al ea ? 1, !1 SNVN'N..4S�S,w,,,� c ' - _, / •n.r ! I ^•�• / I II� C� •iif' / I � 1 y a•J'MOG&tu • : I ,C3� •t:LO% Z.4 111 11 i' >.6_2 AC/Qv I 1 , y 1 1 .✓ / ^1 I� .� ! � / ter.--"• 1 -- r ( sD ✓,/. .•' '•.' ': Vii: .J.A '� erg.� /. .'�� �' �' . ` •,` ,\ a � 1�-"'' `a•�~/ �- ♦ rev/.tNee f— _^- i ' es Qy /no� r'0 / . WW VVVWii' f.-N+r �. ..__ `v�..♦•J•�v tv.�� � - 1 P O r /�' • • j I 111 1 � � F' ,a;: �� a :eate.r .-nw w��• � ` �•� , la ✓i [ eP^9ovin�iy Vl ,+ 17 I� I(` ❑2. AL/S'YY ,✓{1V♦1\+ O\ f f 1 , 1 1 1 ,. ,^I ±_� la Yie L 1 � 1 •T1 I ii i ice/ ^,�.;.�; • ' •1. T /. s _ / Av.. a I�[L\l L \ ?O� �£. •..•..�y.w icy. '/ , wn..v w.�.r c�.rr` / f rl 1 .� n�1's �,� ro. .aax� .�.+�w.�.�ww.,.R.�'•a,NL �� } I• • `£s£ It .�r 2A /�'� ' L6_T1 ACA�S� T 11 111 � � � 1 1 .�1 �_• �- r .1i, c�.--�-�.,:�-•;rte =�M'�, '''rl��~� �I■/ �.`� tY.•-_ .,,a �� i�GI.�� ��� rift . }, \�1�\•.�j IS . .t'�+lr:: Gal �. ..,. ter. s�l�y_ firma :io��• -�rae„I xa� 6 CHI fn+l 447 ••! ` °� � \ � V � 9 1•• I _'-rte� rr � I 1.3 AikfQ�' or It\o\ ' 1 1 1 jr 2A 691 3 03 �:: y� ere.•..... � �\� . fir' l� A~ftm ✓''}`f['.— !� \ �� ^n-,e '.'0 cr / ' s....,.tom. '� -irr rw,•s m�trr i / �� p. MWtr• � wf•.rNFIN>M��li. •, �? !w c\'� � AG'Fr \ a\ t t 1 1• I fi" Ig 7- 24 � y '"",. ! •�."' 7.6_?? ACiQ :- ''"- AIL+- - ! ���% � ��/J ` ,t • ' ' '�. : ;i-i'' ' aJ / e q q I r , 1 � ¢ � I•cr) 1 I io b Orr / l ;I 1 �'i/' �YV � �...(.-,MI%if ~ �MMbMSM. �14�1,' - /♦ Iw I 1..d ACR; l< C ' _ �� ///// il" � -/ \ ,,�'.1, �1.'•i ',�"-=,1''11" `' �_.1--•-�. v C (sD S/✓OWA/.A$',�•„/w. 1 _ d ` _ / s•uwT 1 Y/ /� /' \ •,<. , � /pier mx // � / �, — S,.�r'yt owl 1 , �. � TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Agenda Item: Snowmelt Road Election Presented By: Hunt Walker Core Issues: • Should the Council create an ordinance exempting certain types of projects (road and housing projects, for example) from the Spending Limitation Ordinance? • Should the Council schedule an election for the 2002 Snowmelt Rd. project? General Info: On September 17, 2001, Council approved the scope of work for the Snowmelt Road Project that includes Upper Snowmelt Road, Top of the Village Snowmelt, and the upper Village ramps. The estimated cost for the project, including soft costs, is $5.2 million. The project is scheduled for the Spring of 2002, and will be funded through the Road Fund. Since the project cost exceeds the approximate $3.82 million project spending limitation, the Council needs to decide to schedule an election or create an ordinance which will at least exempt road projects from the election requirement. If the Council decides to create an ordinance that would exempt road projects from the project spending limitation, citizens could still challenge the ordinance. To help determine if an election is necessary it would be prudent to find out if a challenge to an exemption ordinance is likely. Steve Connor will be at Monday's meeting to answer questions about this issue. Council Options: 1. Schedule an election for the Snowmelt Road Project. 2. Create an ordinance exempting road projects. 3. Schedule an election and create an ordinance. Staff Option #2, if it can be determined the ordinance will not be Recommendation: challenged. If there is a chance the ordinance will be challenged, staff recommends scheduling an election as well, Option#3. OOP 3 07 ' TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Agenda Item: Daly Townhomes Presented By: Joe Coffey, Scott Smith and Bob Sprague of Weitz-Norris Core Issues: * Redesign of Building One Unit 5. * Elimination of additional construction expenses to construct the soil nailed retaining wall as originally planned. * Unit 5 redesign will allow construction on Building One to proceed within days instead of a month or more with the original plan. General Info: Due to circumstances at the project site related to difficulties with the site-shoring wall,we are proposing a minor modification to Building One. Both the shoring contractor's engineer and soils engineer for the Town (CTL Thompson; John Mechling)have agreed that due to conditions encountered at the site, elaborate additional measures would be needed (i.e.: additional wall piers and dewatering wells)to construct the shoring wall per the original design. The cost for these additional measures has been estimated to be about $160,000 by the contractor. In an effort to avoid these excessive cost claims and delays to the project,the architect has proposed a revision to the floor plan of Unit 5 which would allow the construction to continue without the costly shoring wall piers and wells. By pulling the exterior foundation walls for Unit 5 4' and 8' further away from the shoring wall, and raising the finish grade against these walls,the additional piers and wells can be eliminated (The shoring wall engineer and CTL Thompson are in agreement with this). Implementing this revision would have very little affect on the original building design. In some ways it may actually improve Unit 5 by providing better window access to living areas and direct access to the garage. This revised rear portion of the building is being pulled further away from the wall and adjacent Ridge Condominiums. And while the southwest portion of the ground floor will extend a little further out, it should have minimal impact, as it will continue to be a one-story element. The building height will not change. Council Options: Approve or deny the Building One Unit 5 redesign. Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed redesign to reduce construction costs. 3 IT. SEE ATTACHMENT A TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Agenda Item: SECOND READING — ORDINANCE NO. 25, SERIES OF 2001 SECOND READING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET FOR ALL FUNDS FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Presented By: Gary Suiter, Town Manager Core Issues: ➢ NO CHANGES FROM FIRST READING 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 . 3q 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 Mercatoris and seconded by Virtue and by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 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: Trudi Worline Town Clerk OOP , � O TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Agenda Item: Second 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 when the Town Council voted to approve 5-0 the First Reading of the Ordinance, as amended. General Info: Attached is a copy of the amended Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2001, outlining the findings and conditions pursuant to the discussions as understood by staff at the meetings on October 15, 2001, November 5 and November 12, 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. Note: Staff did not receive the revised site plan showing the 50- foot setback from the northwest property line in time for the report. Therefore, staff noted a condition that the setback shall be 50 feet from the northwest property line. Staff will replace the exhibit once we receive it from the applicant. Council Options: 1) Approve the second reading of the ordinance; or 2) Approve second reading of the ordinance with modifications and/or further conditions; or 3) Deny the second reading of the ordinance; or 4) Table the item for further discussion or review. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Town Council approve the second reading of the ordinance, as amended, pursuant to previous discussions. \\NT_SERVER\BLD_PLN\useNw\ASC's VMF\TC Memo 11-19-01 ASC's VMF Minor PUD Amdt..doc 1 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. 8 9 WHEREAS, the Aspen Skiing Company ("Applicant") has land use and lo 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 39 pablisatier�was published in the Snowmass Sun on October 24, 2001 concerning 40 the Minor PUD Amendment for the public hearing scheduled on November 12, 2001; 41 and 42 43 WHEREAS, the applicant submitted verification that a public hearing notice 44 was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of property and that the site was 45 posted with public hearing signs following the procedures outlined in Municipal Code I �/ TC Ord. 01-16 Page 2 of 9 46 Sections 16A-4-560 and 16A-5-60. 47 48 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town 49 of Snowmass Village, Colorado: 50 51 Section One: Findings. Based upon the information submitted and testimony in 52 the record, the Town Council finds as follows: 53 54 55 56 aj11The Divide(Road improvements which include 20 feet of pavement width and 57 varied locations of two-foot gravel shoulders on both sides of the road are 58 acceptable__ ' 59 . 60 61 b.)2L It is acceptable to have cut and fill 62 locations along the Divide Road improvements. 63 64 PlaR6 E;hGW that 2A t9 4.5A GIGPGG Will 198 GF9ated and F9V999tated far the FRAM 65 66 67 The Divide Road improvements were 68 unable to avoid the steep slopes in the area due to the requirement to widen 69 and create adequate two-way traffic movement per Town Code. The 70 engineer's opinion that the ° this 71 development Mated that the slopes in the area are not prone to instability or 72 failure and that the proposed development will not cause greater slope 73 instability or increase the potential for slope failure, and that there will be no 74 significant risk that damage to adjacent property will result from the proposed 75 road construction. is acceptable. 76 77 78 79 80 site- 81 82 4)jL Both Sskier and vehicular accessibility to the 83 Krabloonik site is important to the Town. 84 85 86 44 87 6j5)N_ q3 ' TC Ord. 01-16 Page 3 of 9 88 89 The Town Council pFefeFG the PF9PG inds go the landscape plan,_ as alternative screening, to be acceptable. 91 92 Fi}6) 93 A height variance is necessary to provide the six 94 additional employee housing units in Phase I, in addition to the three employee 95 housing units in the future Phase II facility. The height variance from the previous 96 limit of 36 feet to a maximum of 43 feet 5 inches above existing grade and 37 feet 97 5 inches above finished grade is feuHd4e be acceptable. 98 99 100 101 102 103 . 104 1o5 7) The additional deed-restricted employee housing of 4,800 square feet within 106 the Phase I portion of the VMF facility shall satisfy the 4,124 square feet of 107 employee housing required for the Snowmass Club Phase II development 1oa pursuant to Town Council Resolution No. 36. Series of 2001 fsubheading 11 titled 109 Restricted Housing, subsection d on page 191. The balance of 676 square feet is 110 considered a Community Purpose benefit for the height variance. 111 112 ght+a�The a+ eu+at—elighting, the *RtGRGity 9f the llghtiRg, and th9 113 will not pose a glare problem for residents down the hill 114 in Snowmass Creek and in the surrounding neighborhood. 115 116 9) 117 The written consent from the adjacent property owners 118 concerning the off-site road improvements, infrastructure improvements, grading, 119 drainage, erosion control and detention ponding located within their property, is 120 sufficient. 121 122 8j10 123 tThe proposed Minor PUD Amendment for the Vehicle Maintenance Facility on 124 Divide Lot 44 complies with the a#fested-applicable review criteria specified 125 within the Municipal Code. 126 127 128 129 '�� ' TC Ord. 01-16 Page 4 of 9 13o 48}11 The application has been submitted and reviewed in accordance with the 131 provisions of Section 16A-5-390 of Municipal Code. 132 133 44�12LThe application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plane MineF 81-19 134 , the 135 General Restrictions (Municipal Code Section 16A-5-300 (c)), and the Review 136 Standards (Municipal Code Section 16A-5-310). 137 138 139 Section Two: Action. The Town Council hereby approves, with conditions, the 140 Minor Planning Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment to the Aspen Skiing 141 Company's Vehicle Maintenance Facility ("VMF") on Lot 44 of the Divide 142 Subdivision, specifically as follows: 143 144 1) The Minor PUD Amendment Development Standards, Provisions and PUD 145 Guide: Town Council hereby approves the amended PUD standards, 146 provisions and PUD Guide for Lot 44 of the Divide.; The zoning and land use 147 parameters includeing but are not limited to the total building area, maximum 148 building height, floor area square footage, allowable floor area, minimum 149 employee housing, and the minimum amount of parking spaces.;The Divide 150 Development Standards. Provisions, and PUD Guide for Lot 44 approved as 151 part of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1989, are described within page 1 of afe 152 hWeby aMGRded to Fead as paFt ef attaGhed Exhibit °A." 153 154 2) The Minor PUD Amendment Development Plan. The Town Council hereby 155 approves the Aspen Skiing Company's Vehicle Maintenance Facility 156 development plan for amendffleat OR Lot 44 of the Divide Subdivision as 157 described in: 1) The site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, floor plans 158 attached herewith as part of Exhibit A of this ordinance; 2) The packet 159 information received October 10, 2001 by the Community Development 160 Department, including the original application materials dated May 10, 2001, 161 the supplemental and updated package dated July 9, 2001, the geotechnical 162 report dated August 23, 2001, the road width variance and the off-site road 163 improvements, the road construction specifications, grading, drainage and 164 erosion control plans (subject to the Town Engineer's and Public Works 165 Department's review and approval prior to permits), and the off-site 166 improvements as consented by the affected adjacent property owners. 167 168 3) Height Variance: The Town Council hereby grants a variance by a vote of_ 169 in favor and _against from the dimensional limitations of the Municipal Code 170 for the purpose of allowing the height of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility to 171 exceed the previous limit of 36 feet to a maximum 43 feet 5 inches from / if TC Ord. 01-16 Page 5 of 9 172 existing grade and to a maximum of 37 feet, 5 inches from finished grade as 173 specified in part of attached Exhibit°A.° 174 175 4) 30% Slopes: The Town Council hereby grants a variance by a vote of in 176 favor and _ against for the purpose of allowing the development and Divide 177 Road improvements to encroach into 30% slope areas as specified in part of 178 attached Exhibit"A." 179 - - 180 181 Section Three: Conditions. The authorization of the Minor PUD Amendment 182 shall be subject to the following conditions: 183 184 1) The Divide Road improvements shall be seleFy-maintained to Town standards, 185 including snow removal, by the applicant, successors and assigns from the 186 ridgeline to the west end of Lot 44, the VMF site's access point. The Town 187 accepts no responsibility for maintenance. 188 189 2) The road construction specifications for the extension of Divide Road shall 190 be to Town standards or subject to approval by the Town's Public Works 191 Department. The standards for the road are a cross 192 section of 20 feet of pavement width plus two-foot graveled/graded 193 shoulders (no shoulders in locations to protect existing evergreen trees), a 194 eight-inch base, and two inches of asphalt, designed for 250-800 VPD and 195 a suggested speed of 25 MPH. Any modification shall require further Town 196 Council approval. 197 198 3) There shall be no retaining walls involving the Divide Road improvements 199 with the exception that some boulders may be used to retain 2:1 to 1.5:1 200 slopes. All affected areas shall be revegetated to the satisfaction of the 201 Town's Planning Director prior to occupancy of the vehicle maintenance 2J2 facilit . 203 204 4)4)--The applicant shall coordinate the provision of an easement dedication, when 205 deemed necessary by the Town, to accommodate access through the 206 maintenance yard or a possible access drive directly off of Divide Road 207 extended to a possible new Town parking lot. A written agreement defer 208 this reservation right shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. 209 210 211 212 }3eFF it. 213 ��' TC Ord. 01-16 Page 6 of 9 214 5) The existing Krabloonik access easement shall be released and a new one 215 rededicated within the VMF yard following the new driveway location from 216 Divide Road to the Krabloonik site, Lot 45, prior to the issuance of a building 217 permit. 218 219 6) The applicant shall coordinate appropriate access provisions with the 220 Krabloonik land exchange application (currently in the review process as of the 221 writing of this ordinance), aG Reeded, subject to maintaining 30 parking spaces 222 on the Vehicle Maintenance Facility site. 223 224 7) By mutual agFGewm4#4Ihe applicant shall 225 te-create skier access and connections from the relocated Ditch Trail ski 226 easement to the Krabloonik restaurant and the Snowmass Ski area 227 obtaining an agreement with the affected property owners prior to the issuance 228 of a Certificate dOccupancy. 229 230 8) There shall be no permanent, outside storage as noted on the plans, and any 231 outside temporary storage shall be no more than 15 days for unused 232 equipment per the Municipal Code_. 233 234 235 9) The existing trees on the northwest side of the site must be preserved The 236 237 238 t'GR6. The minimum building setback from the northwest 239 property line shall be 50 feet. 240 241 10)The dog sled run along the northwest edge shall be varied in width, subject to 242 review by the Planning Director, in an effort to preserve the existing evergreen 243 trees. 244 245 11)The applicant will provide bin walls, described as stacked boulders around 246 existing trees, as needed, for protection purposes. Review and approval of 247 these bin walls shall be made by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of 248 a Certificate of Occupancy. 249 250 12)The facility shall be further shielded with the planting of additional evergreen 251 trees if, during subsequent review by the Town's Planning Director a#ef 252 prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, 253 it is determined that additional trees are necessary. 254 255 13) i �f� TC Ord. 01-16 Page 7 of 9 256 257 258 259 260 261 height Yaraaase- Employee housing shall be deed-restricted and conveyed for 262 the benefit of the Town. 263 264 14)Up to six of the 24 larger, 12-foot high Spruce trees shall be planted on the 265 north side of the facility to provide further buffering and screening the facility 266 from the Snowmass Creek area. Proposed locations for the trees shall be 267 staked for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the planting of 268 the trees. 269 270 15)Planted trees shall be under warranty for two years, from the date of the 271 issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, and replaced if dead or dying as 272 determined by inspection of the Planning Director. 273 274 16)Lighting shall be limited to two to three footcandles utilizing motion detectors 275 on the building. There shall be no site lighting. Exterior wall-mounted lights or 276 any other exterior light source shall be placed on the lower level of building and 277 shielded to direct light downward for the primary purpose of hiding the light 278 source from view. 279 280 17)There shall be no ceiling lights within the employee housing units located in the 281 upper level of the building. 282 283 18)ln the event of possible nighttime use of the maintenance area, the glass 284 garage doors shall be shaded on the interior to prevent off-site lighting glare 285 intrusion onto adjacent properties. Task lighting shall also be used versus 286 overhead lighting, where applicable, to prevent unnecessary light glare from 267 the facility. 288 289 449L)19Z_ 290 seasi'#ered 4 If in accordance with the Planning Director the lighting intrusion 291 poses a problem, 292 screen fencing on the northwest side of the site shall be provided. #4eweveF, 293 294 295 2-4)2P LA minimum of 30 parking spaces shall be provided on the site, in addition 296 to the loading spaces. There shall be no outside storage that reduces the amount 297 of required parking without further Town approval. A temporary parking area of ir e TC Ord. 01-16 Page 8of9 298 approximately 10 spaces, or as deemed necessary by the Planning Director, shall 299 be provided on the Phase II site if, in the future, the Town determines that the 3oo number of parking spaces on the Phase I site is not adequate. 301 302 2442!LThe Town Engineer shall review and approve the final drainage, grading 303 and erosion control plans for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. 304 305 2-,L)22LThe applicant, in coordination with the Town, shall conduct a three-year 306 revegetation check from the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, 307 to determine if terracing is needed for the off-site grading located to the north of 308 the4a_G&tysite. 309 310 X231 The Planning Commission and Town Council shall review the amended 311 plans in the future for the Phase II facility. No construction is permitted for Phase 312 II without review in accordance with the applicable Municipal Code provisions in 313 effect at the time application is made. 314 315 24424LIn lieu of utilization of a written subdivision improvements agreement and 316 the pledge of security, the applicant and the Town Council agree that the following 317 provisions shall constitute and substitute for the required subdivision improvement 318 agreement in the Municipal Code: 319 320 a) The off-site Divide Road improvements, all associated infrastructure, 321 grading, drainage and the detention pond shall be completed prior to the 322 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the VMF. 323 324 b) The Divide Road improvements shall be borne by the applicant. 325 Subsequent road maintenance to Town standards, including snow removal, 326 shall be borne by the applicant, successors, and assigns. 327 X28 c) Landscaping shall be installed in the spring or fall of the affected year 329 following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the constructed VMF 330 facility. 331 332 333 Section Four: Recording. 334 335 Upon execution, this ordinance with exhibits shall be filed and recorded by the 336 Town, at the applicant's expense, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and 337 Recorder. 338 339 ggor TC Ord. 01-16 Page 9 of 9 340 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, as amended by the Town Council 341 of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on November 12, 2001 342 upon a motion by Council Member Mercatoris, the second of Council Member 343 Virtue, and upon a vote of 5 in favor and 0 against. 344 345 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town 346 of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on November 19, 2001 upon a 347 motion by Council Member , the second of Council Member 348 and upon a vote of in favor and _ opposed. 349 350 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 351 TOWN COUNCIL 352 353 354 355 356 T. Michael Manchester, Mayor 357 358 ATTEST: 359 360 361 362 363 Trudi Worline, Town Clerk Development Standards, Provisions and PUD Guide 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, supply storage, ski but not limited to, access roads, fuel storage and dispensing, p arts and 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 I-------------Amended---------------- Major Structures Phase 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 37-5 rK -,1•t Max r um building square footage 36 ft --!b \ Maximum builidng height 34 ft N."• 6'u'S�'mIG G+� Average building height na na Maximum number of dwelling units/acre 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 •-. - W / y. - `.'ii t r _ ASPEN �A �� SICIDIG -------Eki!04 'Ski EoSenseat"- ""`COMPANY _lsy h� " :1?� ; ; Theodora K Spy Q m - 89843 X r sedto't E ,iki EaseWent {C _. AMCwtrs PC _ +l Architects And CO v StnxtuMEngimers __X or -_898p V'/ ` - r �� ..t/ - ��� f v rte'\ , Y4. : zuao TM.a:n.oma 0. W U __ _ r•I BOjy'day . - 00' — / audr.Cebado etiiti 8960 - 0�O --- - _ , ♦ ;" ;,- y,y ,:.. � ,f• ter• c844�7 C LOfi - , >� "P ' ' '' '� f• ® r�.datd ® N,,Pmd Road -a940 / /�/-',. J \` \\ . '' ✓�w..r '' O Deaidu Tray - .. 0 5 Z ' -fit• - )C'8931 S - - '; / r .�-�• /f _ ��� \\�i /',f')' , �' i'�-I ® Coniferous Trm 89 A .., ..-;ocD >"8Q20_ X O ' ✓'/// fir// `'+.'✓ mow^-_ � �// f �'4��!� ; r ;^e bout on I 1 ' Z L , Sh'Receiving ---- ---- Main? ______ ______ 8309 yR 8886.8 .c / . � Proposidpl 65o�'Sled 1V'grzss' Divide -------- ,O C Maintenance F yip z& 44 Center ;•P.Qrcel,C snowmossV;noge Acre Colorado J I j • , I ' , ,, _ - ✓/� 8847.9 X ✓/✓s �pP rr, '' '` '`Y / Site Plan X // o __ �`` �.: �: / (includes Phase I d M 89049/ 8844.6 1 1 'r ''^�° All / , ass jr�\ �� �:� Notes Illustration 88#0 ,' '' 4 ' ,' , %' ; . � `/ �j`_ .;��'�' ; � ; , . �*p6 pyw�r aufaida nrferid staraga ar reyoMworh W''Mt�� ar-•.,o %' .' �/ ° � •' '' y,' _' i An yord Paving vAU lob pl000 as post of%me I. . , Pkas Ored Yorree'Akm t ion C'fw ea.enrnf daft and rablooni ,..' .w�.reaad.r,._ / . EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 01.16 Page 3 of 13 i i 9 wcne°wa i i I Iff9 lit c i � I i, Li ll- . � /f f3 t ° I iilil 8 fill lit d oil;I 1 y � n .I I EXHIBIT A TIC Ord. 01 A6 S ® yj' ® ® ❑® f Page 4 of 13 nIlis E3 V n l I i I t I I ! JIV c'V ❑' I � lP, iii l i , I � i.• L. I � , ' ! !i i oa I �i ® \ �II r d,l � 7 a I I �I ilk r ! !! 3; t it l THEODORE K GUY ASSOCIATES PC ARCHITECTB AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 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 Propane] Brown, Graphic color is PANATONE Warm Grey 11 U 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. RECEWED OCT 3 12001 Snowmass Village Community Development TKG/tkg 00'00132 M1 23260 TWO RNERS ROA: RO BOX 1040 BASALT. COLORADO 81621 I970I 0273167 / EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 13 5. cn CD ^ {, , dto, ; H� ; EX BIT A ' TC Ord. 01.16 ' Page 7 of 13 1 Jr , ♦ \ v 11 a ♦ a 1 T\ `�: a /a i , `i{ , 111 1' ♦��t'1 J , , i ; 1 1 cx`( As I ol '♦� '`�.: ; I�''' .�,1 ,,, , � .11 .1 III 1`;' Q��♦ ,`, � � I ,`,. ; � '�✓r, - ,`♦ J ¢ \l_.. 1'. �� _ It try I ,.-11 j '\li' ♦ al, ,, ,,. ,,IV v. `, , 1 1 , 1 , ♦l S, , h I , , a ♦ C. , 1 qq* ,. `, `, `♦ i `al`, `,�.. I � � l � i;� II i % , A m, y1 i !�. ` ` `♦ a ♦ `♦.�. -. ` ' e S' III t ) 1 � n '1\.� 4 `pplw��^•5 ae ` ♦ • ` ♦ ` ♦ ..- I , , . , .11 '1''; , ` ;xIFI la'�S 'F�k RPI i l a l �\l , ,'_� \� -"L. 1 •1 , I ;'), 1 - ; ' f i♦JJaIY s'� s Lit. . ',l , ♦ ♦ t♦ �.f I�I� - � , r 1 , !�{1 !�d `�,�, .�♦l , �1 ••`♦ ,4` a `, t '! -'I 1, �' ., �II•�)) ; ;fI /' Ed 4 Si �y T ♦l♦a ` ♦', ♦ ♦l � \ Y.. 40 I � I' '/Fbr•I I , / " , t Yf� � ° fin.` `�` ♦ `,,.` ` a ` , `` `� �' I v r//� • I �. , ytr/R� ,F� ) 7t"% ♦l; .a ♦ a*t♦`,`a t��`�a `' ♦ :��� � ,,a � \�� , � i��}Y'r'�}''+'� !,, .,1, Ikk .� f x, � y♦ ��ff ♦ �♦ . .. • a ♦ Via,,, " `• �♦ ♦`� ` ♦`; ♦ 111 , ,' 'F 11'AN. 4T 4 �.f' �C�'�'Uliv= \ \ ♦ '♦ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ ` \ a t 1\ \\) W♦ `. 1, .` \ ni �a 1, Yl�. � . , • ♦l ♦,♦�� �" ,♦ l\ .Q� t'�� `�`=�:` `� Q•< i i 1 i i Ix f� yY y 1 1 1 1 1 � m > � 4 O g 5 i i i i i IE Ggfa 7 3 I I I 1 1 9 ? I I I 1 1 1 11 1 1 I •••i -txist Asr>N e A SKDNG COMPANY opos _ot E Ski Easement - ---- �i..� ♦' e�Bou � ` : �% x'10 °, Theodore KSW '00, 1 orY `: Associate PC rol ' Architects And II H .�. �`�'�✓� - - 'r '( 10.� Structural Engineers co E _.2 0 w / 7 ma.ivm�iaz ai C `X $9d0 Pa.d aid _ f ,y "kusmd N.,P dnod 8'3]0 <. ® . ` �, Sic 1 �� ewar.. ® co,a.re.,:T•.. �.r— ����.��.� ice/ ��- . - � I,♦ �� " , ' !.�; ® van.a..a i •t�'�- ., .. ' .'_�' ♦ l♦ �J DaM 0aunption -8900 -- ` �. r �s> ---------- t e`y F. . ' -------------- _.. .. . - c_ti �'_. .-^r _ ♦r�`){�` ' .�_�.J �` -------------- --- ♦' - - �. i+'.v}�, '' - "; � I-•'—,r ' •' A . --------------- ♦ i 1 , Divide 0p' • "` >' �� it ` ' • �� '�" Maintenance ,�. Center t� c't ..! '' SnoWTa55 Village ♦f.F!e67r '{�[+� `�E��i>13�. .JILr "'2s,S_ Colorado O • Y, - Landscape Plan Illustration K - ----------- ------'--' .�,'." "*" ..r rair: .� Y , srs r.,,• NZ v ><Qtr % ASPEN ----- ° SKNG COMPANY T/ • I r sed Uit E ,Ski EaserfenJ k) Th=KW c K buy w . `,iO O _ _ -. r A `�, • '._, i ' , ASSOC101C5 PC f --- /�/ �` : _-t f And _ •a m '-B9g0 _ tructural Engineers X O a - } ;Rol Architects ' f rA..W 1610 W 4 - -- - - �LO fit` r..a �m.a /i _ +� i� u� Cff ♦ -y -' -.r �rj`-j ,,j. � ♦ i -� z.-f'.,T�iy ra.ts a io� u ° =t ;' :` i ® rand Read /.>< -♦ /..,� ' ® N.-Pd Rd Q _ - _ pp�{j- • :!� ao.e•w,ai' ♦ ` . ._"�'�\ '.�`�lY: �' fir=. Dee dwu-tree ' 3,Z9 'Vt 8920 //� `�1A � / /- !'1. "�.,..-. v„-..::' .ice '� - - .�y-""� •f-., , � ,/1 '. y� O�^'-i',\ i / ��/.I .� U _ a :` �s1C` `� , � r co.s oa.a•Pria, /�� ,-4 "' 1' s. __ •fie. y+ K NdvdM f,�� f/ - -------------- •�, `^� �/'�' '' - ^�,.' ', V r sSgerfir / (' } ! -------------- -------------- ' 1 ` ?top6*ddDps 51ed liF•gress' Divide '' � ,,; a .�-=�,- f '- •. � Maintenance �- Center n ,'' •. - I: Snowmass Village d. - ... , ` ;` ♦1 •' _ - /` ` . • , _ Colorado /0 s �c 41 Skier Egress Plan J %/ I t'. ' A Illustration L + I � - I- py +I rablooni e �. L• lc' y mow-(• I ASPEN t Q r �J c C G ANY c., g0 - r 0. v h'--h X - Theodore K buy -X O ; ro�F 8964 3 !�? r sed LY�t E Skr Easement Associates PC W F a r *`yL�!(ta. fF i f Architects And .. ._ - _ 8960 E - ..,�-^> r ~ _ n9) -' „�. � Structural Engineers `� P2 2!0•w Yn.+ y. :• /•/// �°17re7.. 0°/1y^,'J r--. w.a.aw.me arezr L-6 .000 .. - `�...1 i' -r... . " - .,•;�\ w,s-�sf�� w(via)sn-.eu _ � ' •' r is 6q' 99 X6942 -- p Lot E p. s va..d Road f r �� � L __i'l cs ,•eo�y racy- . �/ \ r•• Nonvavad Road - ✓ o+"��°�p.',•Gp '�✓�!'` ; 01 Tres (� - Lq�O .Q Jam/ ',.trA �,vr7 ar?•,�.,����'"� ' /•�'i'' �`�4 L LO' x ;�•' '' - 6900.... CL r Peek — w v:��• ° -. '`^!`` x 1 ..-vsh( a'^^'v� : y ------------- - . . / Proy�Noun re xCC` 608$ amp r �° � •C3>i ! Yom. i __. — � � 88868 x ��; ' .�.o proposed poi 5ted: gress Divide .. © R' f ' Maintenance 01y.� 4 Center 5rowmass village j Ur 1 , • . �`� ' ;> % 2.8 %Acres { Colorado r 8847.9 x r / Road Aligmment I r ' �, �4• n s •' k yr } __ 9��, ! -86446 {;� . O _ \\ Illustration M 88$0.7 •f t rr ra1 .�'tS, - > vi - " :wt' .c'�•�y�� `'' ; J - f y ` /./ {f�1�1W J .� ?a�l�"^�"a- � .h— a+T'/'--`L�YZ Seri:••O' 1 it L F'� �'/ �y Y� .aL` 14 "�-`Yi�`J' +S£jjh� jv$t f[�i.L3 L �Y•� (� /rablooni 21Na,..� ,, ��t ..rtaaaadR r. � `} ^ 4 . EHe� A TC Ord. a4■ page ii of q ■% — � ( � � � � \ . \ \ � . § | \ . : . . : . \ : � w : . . . . . . 2 | ` | � at EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 01A6 Page 12 of 13 k � t � f ti w mom g MUM���� aag t gg mill E a EXHIBIT A TC Ord. 01-16 Page 13 of 13 miki — �of S�E Gr v g 9 Y :✓, � t i y e(itf »`�#yp xJi �• ry � l 3 v_;ry Y�x �!.;,, Ol '' co <•. / ry++X r- i p;.n f� a wnri wa�.lryY.rn�r{?' N � 3sop TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Presented By: Stephen R. Connor, Town Attorney Subject: ORDNANCE No. 26, SERIES OF 2001 A ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURE FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL AND AMENDING AND RESTATING SECTION 2-46 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE Overview: Section 4.1 of the Home Rule Charter requires that the Town Council meet at least twice monthly on dates designated by resolution. Many resolutions have been adopted by the Town Council since the inception of the Home Rule Charter establishing and modifying the dates of regular Town Council meetings. By Resolution No. 18, Series of 2001 the Town Council established a regular meeting date schedule to be the first, second and third Mondays of each month. There is no Municipal Code provision that codifies the regular meeting schedule of the Town Council. By adoption of this Ordinance and its companion Resolution, the latter is scheduled for adoption of December 3, 2001 the date of second reading of this Ordinance, a Municipal Code section will be created setting forth the regular meeting schedule, the procedure to change the date of regular meeting automatically if it falls on a Town observed holiday and the procedure to add additional regular meetings in any month. Once codified, the meeting procedure will be easily found in the Municipal Code rather than in resolutions that are not codified. Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance on first reading. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL ORDNANCE No. 26 SERIES OF 2001 A ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURE FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL AND AMENDING AND RESTATING SECTION 2- 46 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 4.1 Regular Meetings of the Home Rule Charter states in part as follows: The Council shall meet regularly at least twice each month at a day and hour to be fixed by resolution. Notice of all regular meetings shall be posted permanently in at least two locations in the Town ordinarily used for public notices. The agenda of each regular meeting shall be posted in a public place within the Town at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of such meetings; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to establish a codified schedule for regular meetings within the meaning of Section 4.1 of the Home Rule Charter; and WHEREAS, to promote efficiency in government the Town Council has determined that designated days of the month for regular meetings is beneficial; and WHEREAS, by designating three regular meetings each month, the Town Council finds that it will be able to address matters that are not on the agenda and approve ordinances on second reading, thereby allowing greater flexibility to conduct the business of the Town Council in a more efficient and expeditious manner; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: 1. Regular Meeting Schedule. Section 2-46 Organizational meeting of new Town Council is hereby amended and restated as follows: 2-46 Town Council Meetings. Regular Meetings of the Town Council will occur on the first, second and third Monday of each month. In the event that the date of a regular meeting occurs on a legal holiday as oowI,S Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2001 Page 2 defined in Section 1-21, then the meeting shall occur on the Tuesday immediately following the Monday that is the legal holiday. The Town Council may by Resolution change the date for a regular meeting, or designate additional meetings. 2. Conflict Resolution. In the event that the provisions of this Ordinance are in conflict with the provisions of any other Resolution adopted by the Town Council, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be controlling. All conflicting provisions are hereby rendered null and void and of no effect. It is the intention of the Town Council that this Ordinance accomplish the designation of regular meetings required by Section 4-1 of the Home Rule Charter. 3. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Ordnance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and,to this end,the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on First Reading on November 19, 2001 upon a motion by Council Member ,the second of Council Member , and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village on Second Reading on December 3, 2001 upon a motion by Council Member ,the second of Council Member , and upon a vote of_ in favor and _ against. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE T. Michael Manchester, Mayor ATTEST: Trudi Worline, Town Clerk I TOWN COUNCIL COMMUNIQUE Meeting Date: November 19, 2001 Agenda Item: Consideration of Resolution No. 51, Series of 2001, appointing Robert Voigt to the Town of Snowmass Village Arts Advisory Board (AAB). Presented By. Gary Suiter, Town Manager Core Issues: I. Vacancy has occurred on the Board with the resignation of Kathy Hanson. 2. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993 states that the Arts Advisory Board shall consist of not less than five (5) nor more than twelve (12) members. 3. Current number of members on the AAB is fifteen (15). 4. Term of this seat will expire in January 2002. General Info: Robert Voigt has expressed an interest and submitted an application to serve on the AAB. Council Options: Approve or deny Resolution No. 51, Series of 2001, appointing Robert Voigt to serve on the AAB. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 51, Series of 2001. /10x1 , SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 51 SERIES OF 2001 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ROBERT VOIGT TO THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE ARTS ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, Section 8.1 of the Home Rule Charter states that members of all boards and commissions shall be appointed by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993 states that the Arts Advisory Board shall consist of not less than five (5) nor more than twelve (12 members; and WHEREAS, one vacancy is available on the Arts Advisory Board, due to the resignation of Kathy Hansen; and WHEREAS, Robert Voigt has applied for and expressed an interest to serve on the Arts Advisory Board; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado: Section One: Appointment and Terms That the following citizen is hereby appointed to serve as follows: ARTS ADVISORY BOARD 2-YEAR TERM Robert Voigt 11/01 — 11/02 INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, Colorado on the 19th day of November 2001 with a motion made by Council Member and seconded by Council Member and by a vote of_ in favor to_ opposed. TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE ATTEST: T. MICHAEL MANCHESTER, Mayor TRUDI WORLINE, Town Clerk 00 6% TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GARY SUITER, TOWN MANAGER RE: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2001 BRUSH CREEK ROAD MEDIAN Staff and some Councilmembers visited the site to look for an alternative solution to the proposed curb cut, which is to be used for parking egress from Cozy Point north. It was recommended that the curb cut be moved further west, towards Snowmass Village, approximately sixty feet. This recommendation was brought before the County Commissioners Wednesday of last week. The Commissioners approved the X-Games permit and directed the County Engineer, the Aspen Skiing Company and the Town to work toward an acceptable solution. I am told that the County Engineer does not agree with moving the curb cut sixty feet. We will keep you posted. NATURAL GAS RATE REDUCTION We have received a notification from Kinder Morgan regarding a substantial reduction in natural gas rates statewide. The lower rate reflects an expected decrease in projected market costs compared to the beginning of 2001. Western Slope customers can expect to see a thirty-four percent (34%) decrease in the natural gas portion of their bill. The new rates officially took affect November 1s` and will show up in the next billing cycle. HOUSING VIOLATION It has come to our attention that a resident of Mountain View no longer resides in his unit. We have contacted the owner by certified mail, notifying him that the unit will be offered for sale unless he becomes a full-time resident. We await a reply. On a separate note, we have scheduled the first Housing Policy Discussion for the December 3`d meeting. At this meeting, staff will identify those policy issues that should require little discussion and can be implemented soon. We will also propose a timeline for discussion of the more difficult issues. MONTHLY OPERATIONAL INDICATORS Attached are the operational indicators for July and August. You will note that Town sales tax revenue is up for both months but remains flat with last year. County sales tax shows a more significant decline, due in part to the new RTA funding formula. General Fund Operating Expenditures are up nearly 200% in August due to a $1.14 M transfer to the Daly Townhome project. Ridership on Bbl e Manager's Report 11/16/01 Page 2 of 2 the Village Shuttle continues to outperform last year, while the FAR Excise Tax received an infusion of$325,000 in August. TRAINING SCHOLARSHIP I would like to thank the Colorado Municipal Clerks' Association for awarding a $200 scholarship to Trudi Worline to cover expenses while attending the Fall Conference. I appreciate Trudi's efforts to pursue other sources of funding for travel and training during these tight budget times. *PARCEL F PARKING LOT Craig Thompson informs me that the Snowmass Land Company is not ready to make a decision on the proposed Tom Blake Trailhead parking lot at this time. They would be willing to revisit this issue in the future but feel the Town should explore other parking/access options in the meantime. This effectively exhausts all of our options for trailhead parking at this location. We will continue to block access to the area and ticket or tow cars that insist on parking there. Let me know if you have other suggestions. *DIAL-A-RIDE We have negotiated an agreement with High Mountain Taxi to provide Dial-A- Ride service from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the ski season. Fares will be $2 per passenger and High Mountain and the Town will share promotional and advertising expenses. This will result in substantial capital cost savings to the Town, since we avoid purchasing two vans. Please let me know if you have questions or would like additional detail. *TRANSIT DIVISION "FINE-TUNING" I've met with the Transit Supervisors and Management staff to evaluate additional fine-tuning that might occur within the Transportation Program. Although I have ideas on how additional efficiencies might be gained, I have elected to not implement significant changes to the management structure this close to the beginning of the ski season. As discussed last week, timing and risk weighed in on my decision. Any changes to the structure and operational system will be considered following the ski season. Meanwhile, I will spend some time becoming more familiar with the day-to-day operations. Transportation staff is implementing other typical cost-saving measures. The most significant is the delay in the opening of the Rodeo Lot. This will save about $630 per day, starting on Thanksgiving. Let me know if you have additional questions. *Response requested 000? SNOWMASS VILLAGE MONTHLY OPERATIONAL INDICATORS JULY 2001 ACTUAL CUMULATIVE Versus Calendar 2000 Year Versus Versus Operational Indictator Jul-01 2000 Year To Date To Date Prior Year Budget Sales Tax Revenue: Town Sales Tax $67,653 16.45% $806,018 $815,174 -1.12% -8.63% County Sales Tax $177,558 -8.71% $1,424,110 $1,788,480 -20.37% -22.69% General Fund Operating Expenditures $522,836 -11.61%, $5,040,750 $4,121,623 22.30% -14.68% RETT Revenue $153,846 -36.82% $1,102,290 $1,370,090 -19.55% -29.52% Excise FAR Tax 4300 -100.07% $161,310 $504,872 -68.05% -72.33% Building Permits: Number 13 -48.00%, 115 157 -26.75% Valuation $2,923,300 -46.30% $20,160,578 $26,709,360 -24.52% Village Shuttle Passenger Count 32,265 11.26% 509,670 475,821 7.11% Parking Counts: Rodeo N/A N/A 11,995 14,295 -19.17% Base N/A N/A 32,823 33,481 -2.00% Two Creeks N/A WA 18,426 14,105 23.45% ` Solid Waste: "V Waste(tons) 337 3.69% 2,179 2,156 1.07%, Recycle(tons) 38 31.03% 279 253 10.28% ` Volume of Water Treated(Million Gallons) 74 -10.84% 302 369 -18.16% Snowfall(inches) N/A NIA 102 126 -23.53% Guest Parking Permits N/A N/A 6,028 6,817 -13.09% SNOWMASS VILLAGE MONTHLY OPERATIONAL INDICATORS AUGUST 2001 ACTUAL CUMULATIVE Versus Calender 2000 Year Versus Versus Operational Indictator Aug.-01 2000 Year To Date To Date Prior Year Budget Sales Tax Revenue: Town Sales Tax $61,342 2.29% $867,360 $875,144 -0.89% -8.19% County Sales Tax $166,722 -23.16% $1,590,832 $2,005,456 -20.67% -22.99% General Fund Operating Expenditures $1,918,814 198.23% $6,959,564 $4,765,016 46.06% 2.90% RETT Revenue $149,040 -53.73% $1,251,330 $1,692,178 -26.05% -34.35% Excise FAR Tax $324,967 31.51% $486,277 $751,974 -35.33% -26.99% Building Permits: Number 19 -40.63% 134 189 -29.10% Valuation $1,480,150 -79.36% $21,640,728 $33,879,670 -36.12% Village Shuttle Passenger Count 26,626 8.58% 536,296 500,344 7.19% Parking Counts: Rodeo N/A N/A 11,995 14,295 -19.17% Base N/A N/A 32,823 33,481 -2.00% Two Creeks WA N/A 18,426 14,105 23.45% _ ♦ Solid Waste: Waste(tons) 345 8.15% 2,524 2,475 1.98% Recycle(tons) 36 9.09% 315 286 10.14% Volume of Water Treated(Million Gallons) 52 -35.80% 354 450 -21.33% Snowfall(inches) N/A N/A 102 126 -23.53% Guest Parking Permits N/A N/A 6,028 6,817 -13.09% PLEASE TURN IN YOUR STATUS REPORT UPDATES TO DONNA BY 5:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 28, 2001 STATUS REPORT November 19, 2001 Town Council/Town Manager Orro ec0M KONNOWY, Uodaf4 $ ` VLF/Forward Plan ■ Drafting the Forward Plan. Gary Sufter Job Description/Performance ■ Adopted and implemented. Standards Gary Sufter Rodeo Acquisition ■ Closing set for January. Town council ■ Preparing for bond sale. ■ Lease needs to be finalized. Public Works Pro e� .IN a Snowmelt Road ■ Reviewing cost estimates. Hunt walker ■ Council to discuss election. Housin F a . Daly Townhomes ■ Building"B"wall construction continues. Joe Coffey Housing Committee ■ Future Council Meetings are scheduled for December 3rd and 10"to review the recommendations. Finance rd 2001/2002 Budget ■ Adopted. Marianne Rakowski Public Safety Pro f.J" da# Town Clerk ,Piro ectlMa . . , �tl at Business Licensing ■ Preparing Business License/Sales Tax Trudi wodine License delinquent notices. ■ Preparation for Sales Tax requirement mailing/notifications to homeowners regarding Town rentals in progress. Community Develo ment De artment Entryway Sign ■ Sign and base complete. Lighting to be Craig Thompson installed. Sign Code Review ■ Planning Commission to discuss following Chris conrad/RObert Volt slate of the Comprehensive Plan Process. Code— Building Height ■ Planning Commission discussion held on Chris Conrad November 14, 2001. ovo OW Major Development Review U date State Of Comprehensive Plan ■ Commences with Planning Commission Chris Conrad/Jim WahlslronVRobert Voigi review on Nov. 141". Report to be presented to Town Council Jan. 2" . Snowmass Center Expansion/ ■ Sketch Plan resubmittal to be discussed at Redevelopment Sketch Plan 11-19-01 T.C. Meeting. Jim WOWS( M Snowmass Club—Phase II ■ Done. Preliminary Plan ■ Final PUD tentatively scheduled for Public Chris Conrad/Jim Wahistrom hearing and First Reading 12-17-01. Minor Develo ment Review U date Snowmass Chapel Sketch Plan ■ Next Town Council review scheduled for 11- Jim Wahistrom 19-01 T. C. Meeting. Public Hearing on 12- 03-01. Aspen Skiing Company—Vehicle ■ Second Reading scheduled for 11-19-01 T. Maintenance Facility At The Divide C. Meeting. Minor PUD Amendment Jim Wahlslrom Offices At Snowmass Minor PUD • Second Reading of Ordinance for Minor PUD Amendment amendment and Resolution finalized 11-05- Jim Wahistrom 01 Community Enhancement Pro. ects pro t1 � Krabloonik Land Exchange Proposal ■ Tentative Town Council review 01-07-02. Minor PUD Audit Chris Conrad Parcel F — Parking Lot ■ Will take site plan to Land Company. Bernadette Barthelenghi ■ 11-13-01 staff met with Land Company and is waiting for a reply. Golf Course —Trees ■ Completed 11 trees planted at Creekside, 3 Bernadette Bartheienghl at Daly Townhomes and 11 at the Commun ty Park. Project Update Coordination - Gary Suiter 923-3777 ext. 206 Public Works- Hunt Walker 923-5110 ext. 201 Housing-Joe Coffey 923.2360 ext. 10 Community Development-- Craig Thompson 923-5524 ext. 247 Town Clerk -Trudi Worline 923-3777 ext. 202 Finance- Marianne Rakowski 923-3796 ext.241 Police Chief-Art Smythe 923-5330 ext. 217 ' 76/00 �November Packet Calendar 2001 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3:00 P.M. Election Day T.C.MTG. Arty 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 1 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu--]Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2:00 P.M. T.C. MTG. 9 ]0 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 op ATTACHMENT A AWN WAM VIV P,I 'Id or ................... ........ ..................... ............... --................ .. ......................... ............ ............ ... ............ .................... .......--.......... .......... ........ ............ ......... ......... .......... .................. ...... ... '5-A1/E E3MTlN&'TfRtF ---------- ........ .............. LED PLANTING T5 L2 4 L3 �V PLANTING 4 LB INS ONE FOR Pf 5r T 5K BUILVINS IV Ino \Jv 110 4 Q 5 6 �-, /Ns wwu 1 7 7, 3 BEDROOM UNIT A' NL tM�o� ON/T G �r_)JRer/C I __ _=-_ aJNIT� � CRAW/L SPAC€ CRAWL SPAC(E o-a .�1T�HEN oo P fL G TORAGETfzy STORAGE ORAGE p i - - - - - —G RAG )..C.. -1 oz � -m2 12 4 x 10 1 :1 (UPPE NIT) IT 10 104 IT 4 16 oz T (up up ENT _102 -10 -101 CKABO E GA RA +53 111/ -+5 -111 RAGE 71 — x2 00- - 101. -t✓ — 4L 100 Eli+53'-7'1/2" ?.,'` EL-454-7\ " AN IT E> PtAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1 '-011 7 - i � � pooi i PATIO I 24. RE IIX 0 0 eAT* G d i W. BR I2x 14- • �3x 6 �� 5-100 0 o;; — 8 7 CEDAR SHAKES i i T.O_ PLATE - - EL:= 82'-71/8" - - - - SYNTHETIC'STUCCO' ® !, '•�' ' T.O. FLOOR - - - EL:= 74'-6" T.O. FLOOR i i UNIT PR ' UN 5 8 ����'�� � - # - � L >✓1✓ATt©N v\l IT p Q . lrrl_ r,rrarlii�i�n rrrnTiirii+l�ilririTirlur, i■,r,■�■rr,ri■Irr■i■rrwriur ■rlr,■�ru�nwn�,rwn■.n�n�,rwnrr■w■.�uwn�nrn�,■w /q.4■■rlwt■�,tr+i■■+Irrl�,tw�i■I,r4lt■tY■P�rlwt■�+tr■1Yirlwt■�■tr■1■r■plt■�■tw,■rgwtn 1.1 rllltl,rwlrirlwt■tMMw1Y�.lrt,r■r!�Ir�l.lrt,r■rwlYi.lwt■�,rwlri■1 rt,r■rwl ri■Irur■rwirrt ���l rl����11■11:�rplijiri�1,.11��i�1 r:1Y� �,r11 Yr�1Y,11p�i�,wp�lr��%w1Y�Uw,''IIr II�III��I Ii�I`tY�ryNi��pill.tllpiry�NipI�I 1rp�lryi�yl�pi���m1r''IirII�I` IIIIII�IIIIIII��III��I��I�IIVI��IIV�III��IiIIII���I�II��lll�l�llll��ll!IIIUI�lullui■err�.�.w�n: [image,r1Y `, �!I�ullll�l!IIII�I�IIII�II�IIIII�I�milli I�I�II�IiIiIII�IIIN��II�IIIIIIIINI�INamu!�WIIV�I1.r,�- ,r.■wl.�nn�nrinr � III III VIIIII IIffIIIIIIIIII I .li � V����WI�I�b ,IIIINI�IIII�II�II9IIIINI�IIII�III i I rrl. niur,lnrultln.eru . .,ri,r.r . r�.■r■rrn�r■.Wir;wl�l �'- ' ��.IIrUrUl►.v. nw■■ ,.wurnwlwnwnruw,rnn+tll;IIIiII,II ■� ■,■� L� I�I,II,LIl;lrwn .■Ir♦,r..r•\r,..r,1.,rrinr•n.rlrt,ra■■�■■�n�■■�■.�n ■■ ■■r■■rn�■.�.■.�uru■■�n�.■�■.�q�r■�.Pr,. r:-n+r a.lnl.r,rrnir,wnrrrwre■r.,v �r!1l l rr,+r+liririril.liiwir��iliiiilii ,i?rr• / �■rw!,+.,w�rr,rw�,rlr?wig t,.IS .el,arl,r �+pi■urt,i■r �uwnrurwnru�lno- /r■i .��'�'t�r. ■rte-rinri■f.■.�a�:•n: 6Et 7?!Ftii►' �. �n'�1►. .�� .•. •- r --\....r .�..r..�r+• r0'..S~�,.�•;�12.�'i� /� \Ci="y�„Ji rrin 1■14 ��+.��..,.iC�`..�:. G tlil7l�tl!�� ���wlriaruirir/ .a�a�t+�\•S+��r� `+ir,�irir..r:■n � H IIII � � ��ill'�II�III�'I:I�IIIII�� t�II � i� �!n,rt !w � t�tttlt�rrtr �■ i CI G O I I 1 w 41 � 1 JAN tT `7- I fgevr 5- 4y4 u N rT '�3 I i . i LL T CZ Lcl1�LL- v! ��1 It ,^ / 1 Oil i � � II 4 5 6 8 7 5.1 3 BEDROOM UNIT 'A' 3 BEDROOM UNIT 'A' a' 2 BE[ — - - - - — I — - — - — - — - — - sns '� s1a4 'r' 1'I s1o3 °F` BATH KITC E 0 s11s 'I i slos 5-110 _ — DIN NG _________ I 6-104 5- c 108 5-107 x { CRAVIL SPAO� CRAWL SPAgE LIVING IT 5 ® 6-1 STORAGE ENTRY BATH s101 5-107 STORAGE ORAGE 6-103 L L G .RAG 102 -102 12 X t t 6- IT Ina (U PPE NIT) ur . oz T uP uP ENT •t0 -lot ! 102 CKA80 E GA RA +53 111/ +5 -111 RAGE —42)t2 0- 101 100 ' 1tlo a tot, +54'x-1611/2" � < � -100 EL-/+54'-7 N,2" I - - - - ,2'-f j __ - I , 3 I 4 _20'-0" 4.1 I 20=0"_. 20--0-1 4.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-011 8 OOM UNIT 'A' 5,02 sna LI OF _ - - _ = BEDR06M 1 BU DING 12 x 1 —513 AS VE C < 5-,13 CRAWLSPACE &112 ACCESS : _ _ � n N ��-j CRAWLCCESS ® R 3_ x_108 ACCESS 5.101 MASTER 1 13'-6 x 12 5-108 I , STORAGE MECH1 � o 10'—Xi OM-1 p I '- EL-+55' 01 GA G 12X2 WO (LOWE UNIT) STOR.7 67X�l D CK ABOV T RS 5.100 000p S . 14'-4" SNOWMASS CHAPEL Snowmass Village,Colorado 11/19/01 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW architects Vlf COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW a r c b i t e c t s November 19, 2001 Mr. Jim Wahlstrom Community Development Department Town of Snowmass Village PO Box 5010 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 via hand at Town Council Meeting Re: New Snowmass Chapel Sanctuary Sketch Plan Submittal Dear Mr. Wahlstrom: This letter is written in response to questions raised in Monday's Council meeting and numerous conversations or correspondence we have received since then. As requested,we have prepared a number of additional model/photo simulations to convey the approximate appearance of the finished building. These will be reviewed in the presentation, and copies are attached. The following comments relate to information in the Staff package received Friday afternoon. A. Regarding Town"Option 1", Lowering the main level into the ground: 1. This separates the chapel from the existing building by a level change, defeating the idea of creating a unified campus of buildings which can function as one. It will require additional building space and cost of stairs, ramps and/or an elevator and will cost staff time for the life of the facility due to inefficiency and travelling back and forth between levels. 2. If done in the context of the existing site plan, it creates a depressed entry area which would be isolated and unattractive (photo illustrations). Below grade areas tend to contain cold, moisture and litter, making them difficult to maintain and unattractive, especially as the front entrance to a facility. If the entry were recessed only 2 feet or so, it might be acceptable, but that would do very little to decrease the visibility of the building. If any more than that,we believe it is a serious 1 ASPEN: Post Office Box 529 Basalt,COB 1621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW arcbitrcts design and functional compromise. 3. If we move the building north to allow a series of terraces for a more attractive approach,we further divorce it from the existing buildings. Also, to the extent we move closer to Brush Creek Road, we increase the degree to which a building of any particular height will block the ridge behind (see diagram). Put a different way, whatever height the building is will be less obtrusive if we keep the building where it is than if we move it toward the road. 4. Also, if we move the building further onto the golf course: in order to maintain the same distance to the golf green, we need to swing it toward the northwest. Where currently the building is seen formally, on centerline, from where it first is visible on Brush Creek Road, now it would be seen at a random angle, not nearly as attractive for a landmark. 5. A related suggestion was lowering the entire building, including lower level, another 10 to 12 feet into the ground. This would greatly increase cost, due to excavation,the shoring of such deep excavation, and the need for additional egress stairs. It would also push the building down lower relative to the creek and might require adding under-slab drainage and/or a sump-pump system. This would be on top of adding ramps, stairs and/or elevator to access the lowered Sanctuary. This additional cost is difficult to assess but would probably be on the order of magnitude of$100,000 to $200,000 or more. Again, this added cost is paying for a decrease in the accessibility, graciousness and function of the building. 6. To depress the sanctuary by ten feet will require that we provide an accessible path of entry to this lower level. A ramp to do that would need to be at least 100 feet long,plus at least one 5' landing. If done in a straight line, it would stretch across the courtyard and across the Brush Creek footbridge. Since this is not possible (we can't ramp down into the creek) we would bend or fold the ramp into some kind of a switchback arrangement. If designed as the main access for all persons this ramp would have to be at least 8 feet wide and would take up an area of at least 25' by 40', or 1000 SF. of additional site. If we minimize the ramp to 4 feet wide and provide a graceful stairway down to the lower level, it would improve function but not reduce the space requirement a great deal. 7. Another alternative is to use steps down to the Sanctuary (which would still require a significant amount of space) and add an elevator for accessibility, a significant cost impact. In any case,the labyrinth can probably not be built as intended, since it must be all on one level. A portion of the labyrinth is serves also as fire vehicle 2 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW arcbitrcts access sand staging area and so needs to remain at the upper level. If the entire area of the labyrinth were at that level however, it would severely restrict the ability to make a graceful and attractive entry stair, and would result in level changes with railings and drop-offs, not at all the contemplative and inspiring forecourt which the sanctuary deserves. 8. As mentioned in the meeting, we feel that a below grade location is simply not appropriate to the purposes of the Chapel. At a memorial service for example, a procession down into the sanctuary calls up unfortunate images of interment, rather than suggesting departure to higher realms, as would an elevated sanctuary. A wedding party, departing after the ceremony,would be faced with walking up a flight of steps into the surrounding guests, feeling confronted rather than acclaimed as they would if they were descending from an elevated level. For every occasion, be it religious or secular,the need to move large numbers of people in and out of the building in a short time argues for at most a level change of a few feet, not enough to make a difference in the overall visual image. This would happen at the loss of an important spiritual quality and the imposition of a disconnect from the natural environment of the campus. 9. The comment was made that there are churches where the sanctuary is not on the ground floor. This is certainly true. It is also true that one can find all sorts of situations in existing buildings which one would not chose to recreate in a new facility,built for the purpose,with high aspirations, as is the case with the new Snowmass Chapel. 10. Another factor unique to the proposed Chapel is that it is to become the focal point of a campus which includes two existing buildings. Locating the main level of this new building substantially lower than the existing buildings seriously confuses way finding and the identity of the various buildings, as well as diluting critical working relationships. B. Regarding town"Option 2", lowering the south courtyard and labyrinth to provide a forecourt to a lowered sanctuary: 1. This would still require steps and a ramp at added cost and site coverage. In addition, these areas are very close to the creek and its groundwater. 2. Even if a retaining wall were provided to hold back the creek,there would be a likelihood of groundwater seeping up from below,with associated costs and maintenance/durability concerns. 3. Although this would allow a more generous forecourt it would still effectively separate the new Chapel from the existing buildings and the natural environment and would place it in a depression, diminishing the significance and presence of the most important building on the site.. 3 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW arcbitects C. Regarding Town "Option 3",widen the chapel to reduce its length: 1. The desire of the Chapel client group was to design a traditional space with the audience(congregation) in a frontal position to the pulpit and Chancel, rather than a more contemporary arrangement where the congregation fans out in front of a smaller Chancel. Widening the space goes against this design directive. 2. The basic shape of the Sanctuary space has been developed from recommendations given to us by Larry Kirkegaard. Among the most basic directives was that the audience space be rectilinear,with substantial side walls that contain sound energy and allow it to bounce toward the rear without focusing or distortion. He has given 45' as maximum distance between these parallel side walls in order that sound bouncing the p between them is not delayed enough to reduce the ability of speech sounds to be understood or to be perceived as an echo. If we widen this, we must do one of two things. Either we must splay the walls,which adds costs, does not provide the same beneficial concentration of sound energy, and does not fit the client's design intent, or we must add absorptive material to avoid rather than reflect sound which hits the side walls. Since the calculation for reverberation time is room volume divided by absorption, adding absorption means we would need a larger room volume to keep the same reverberation time, going directly against our present goals. 3. The main roofs of the proposed design span the Sanctuary from side to side, its shorter dimension. For any given roof design and slope,widening the space would actually raise the ridge height. If the goal is to bring the roofs down, we would be better served to look at changing the roof slopes than increasing their span. D. Regarding Town"Option 4", changing the plan of the building so that the entrance is on the north end,thereby allowing a grade level entry at a lower elevation than the current design: 1. This would increase the distance from the nearest part of the parking lot to the entrance, from an already considerable 190 feet to approximately 410 feet. This is not an acceptable distance for a facility to be attended by persons of all ages and abilities, in all kinds of weather, often dressed for the occasion, not for hiking. Consider brides in gowns, the elderly attending church or a concert, or a memorial procession bearing a casket. 2. Second, this would put the entrance to the Chapel at the opposite end from the existing buildings, destroying the concept of a campus of buildings. 3. This would put the chapel entry on the shady, icy, cold north side, a significant design flaw. 4. This would put the tallest roof at the south end,the end from which pedestrians approach the building. This goes against the design intent of creating a smaller human scale where people are close to the building and allowing the larger landmark scale to exist where the building is seen from a distance across a large open space with a monumental scenic backdrop. E. Regarding Town"Options 5 & 6" changing the design so that the building runs from east to west, rather than from North to South: 4 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w ,cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW arcbitects 1. The current design expresses a formal relationship with the direction of approach, the front door opening into the Narthex (foyer or lobby), the Sanctuary and the Chancel all on the same centerline. This processional relationship is appropriate to the nature of a Chapel. This is a more functional and symbolically desirable relationship than entering the Narthex from the side or through the existing Community Center. This change would be a significant design compromise. 2. By itself,turning the building to an east/west orientation would not reduce its height. If the chapel floor level is 10' lower than the bridge and entry plaza the same problems exist as in Town"Option 1". 3. The north/south orientation allows us to use gentle, consistent, north light above the Chancel, with strong south light from high windows on the centerline and east and west windows primarily for view out, not daylighting. An east/west orientation would result in stronger sidelighting and greater variety of light levels over the course of the day and year, or an asymmetrical window arrangement which is not in keeping with the traditional intent of the Sanctuary. 4. Where we have carefully oriented the building to showcase the narrow end elevation,this orientation would put the larger side elevation facing Brush Creek Road,resulting in a more massive appearance when seen initially and a far less attractive landmark for the Village. 5. The Fire district will definitely still have the same requirements for fire vehicle access to the north side of the building,meaning that a roadway must be fit between the structure and bush Creek to the east. The suggestion of moving the creek would lead to serious regulatory issues,great increase in costs and disturbance of wetland and riparian areas. Thus it increases,rather than decreases, the overall impact of the project. F. Regarding Town "Option 7",relocating the building southwest of the existing Chapel: 1. This places the building closer to Brush Creek Road, meaning it that, for any given height and mass, its visual impact will be greatly increased. 2. The area available for building here is less than that in the present site, meaning the building would have to be several levels to meet the program. G. Another suggestion we received was to move the building or the lower level spaces out onto the adjacent golf course: 1. If we move the entire building,this increases the walking distance over the present 190 feet. In addition it divorces the Chapel from the other buildings. It also moves the building closer to Brush Creek Road, increasing the degree to which a building of any given height blocks the mountain to the south. 2. If we keep the Sanctuary where it is, delete the lower level and construct the present lower level spaces on the present golf course to the north of it, aside from the issues associated with depressing the Sanctuary, we have greatly increased site coverage. Since we would need to get fire vehicle access to the farther north side of the new, larger footprint,have increased both paved area and cost. The 5 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927,8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW architects currently proposed lower level space takes advantage of the roof of the space above it and excavation necessary to remove unsuitable soils; it is inherently less expensive than building the same space as a single story building or wing. As a rough estimate, 5000 SF of lower level space, constructed as ground floor space at a $50/sf premium over the cost of basement space,would add $250,000 to the cost of the project,while providing a decrease in accessibility and convenience and an increase in site impacts. 3. While a small northward move of the building to accommodate a minor level change (on the order of 2 ft..) down to the Sanctuary might be acceptable; anything more would represent a serious compromise of design and function at an added expense. H. Regarding deletion of the lower level of the proposed new Chapel building: In addition to the valuable program space which would be eliminated,we ask that Council consider the following: 1. If the entire lower level were deleted it would become necessary to create grade level space for mechanical and boiler rooms, rest rooms to serve the entire 350 seat capacity, choir preparation and storage, and at least some additional storage space for the Sanctuary. We estimate that this would increase the lot coverage of the new building by more than 2000 SF.,with consequent loss of open space and landscape screening.. There are numerous site constraints which will make it difficult to add this grade level area. Brush Creek,with its associated wetlands and setback area eliminate a significant portion of the site. The Fire District requires that their vehicles be able to get within a short distance of all sides of the new facility,further restricting building placement and size. The proposed site plan puts the building where it has the least visual impact, the best access and a proper formal relationship to the existing buildings. The open spaces which remain on the site other than the proposed building location are closer to Brush Creek Road and farther from parking,thus increasing both visual impact and access problems. It has taken a lot of work to develop the current site plan and satisfy all the requirements without having a building surrounded by pavement, increasing the footprint will only make that more challenging. If, instead, these spaces are retained beneath the sanctuary and only the program areas deleted, it would not be possible to lower the main level without pushing the excavation deeper into a site which already has serious soil and potential water problems affecting foundation design and costs Adding another story to either of the existing buildings to gain program area would pose extraordinary structural problems and cost as they were not designed for such a load. Those buildings are of wood frame, on relatively simple spread foundations, over soils with poor bearing capacity. Even if it were possible,the addition of upper level space, 6 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW arcbitects with attendant needs for fire egress and handicap access, would be very expensive and would increase the height of these buildings, which are closer to Brush Creek Road than the proposed Chapel location. Taking space out of a basement and putting it in an upper level goes against the current coal of mitigating height. If the lower level space were to be built as a separate addition to one of the existing buildings, we would be presented with access requirements for fire vehicles which would add more paved area and reduce open space and landscape screening. This would also increase project cost quite significantly. 4. Finally, the maximum change to building height which would be achieved by deleting the lower level is ten feet. The simulation of View# 9 which we presented on 11/12 shows that the building would still break the ridgeline from some angles and would still have substantially the same visual presence as it does at the proposed height. We feel that this presence can be addressed much more successfully by the addition of carefully located landscaping to frame the building and reduce its prominence as we have demonstrated, without compromising the program and character of the Chapel. I. Regarding the list of design criteria: 1. reflect the surrounding environment 2. not overwhelm our connection to the mountain environment 3. avoid the monumental 4. people spaces respect human scale 5. avoids the wall effect. 6 sheltering warm and intimate on the south side where it is approached by humans. 7. includes sensitive massing and scale, etc. The proposed design meets all these through its steeply sloped roofs (like mountains) use of natural materials (stone cladding, dark roofing of weathered copper or shingles) and arrangement of lower elements at south side for the pedestrian approach and larger elements at the north where they are viewed from a distance and surrounded by open space. It avoids the wall effect by facing its narrower elevation toward the primary public view, rather than the longer side view. The proposed design includes stepped roofs, arcades,timber detailing etc., which will make the public spaces comfortable and delightful. As this is a Sketch Plan submittal these features are still subject to further development and are not fully depicted. J. List of additional design suggestions 1. Add dormers: In the Snowmass village context, dormers are heavily associated with residential construction. It is the intent of the Chapel users and the designers that this building not look like a giant house. 2. Vary the ridgeline more: The ridgeline is already varied in proportion to its scale and the spaces which it houses. In considering whether we could lower the highest 7 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fai 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW arcbitccts roof the design team has had to look for ways we could increase room volume elsewhere to compensate. This argues for reducing or eliminating roof steps, rather than increasing them. 3. Make the building rectilinear rather than triangular: The building is rectilinear,not triangular. We have chosen to bring the roofs down close to the ground to reduce the visible wall area, and therefor the perceived mass. This is appropriate to the goals we have been asked to meet. Reducing the roofs and increasing the wall areas will tend to make the building more boxy in appearance, not more rectilinear. 4. Reduce the size of the organ to reduce the required room volume, and therefor height, of the Chapel: as explained in Larry Kirkegaards's letter(dated 7 Feb.2001 and included in our original Sketch Plan submission)the requirement for a certain reverberation time is a function of the type of music to be performed and the number of persons being accommodated. It is not dependent upon the size, number of pipes, keyboards or registers of the organ. Reducing the size of the organ would not change the design parameters of the building, other than a few feet of actual floor space under the organ itself. 5. Sink the building etc.: this has been addressed in the options above. K. We were also asked to perform another calculation of percentage of roof areas above the current 40' height limit. To recapitulate these calculations: If we consider the campus as a whole, both new and existing buildings, approximately 26% of the total roof area is above 40 feet. We have not calculated the percentage for the whole campus, only above the footprint(deleting overhangs, etc.)but estimate it wold be in the range of 305 to 35% For the new construction only, approximately 46%of the total roof area is above 40 feet. For the new construction only, approximately 53%of the roof area above the footprint (deleting overhangs etc., and not including the steeple because it is subject to separate consideration) is above 40 feet. In closing, it is true to say that the proposed design is not the only possible design for this project. There are always alternatives to any design, and it is logically impossible ever to say one has examined or exhausted every possible alternative to a complex design problem. What is equally true is that the present design is the product of months of work between a team of committed and experienced professionals and a diverse and equally committed client group. It represents the balancing of many constraints of the site and the requirements of a complex program and group of users. We firmly believe that it is the best design for this project. 8 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW arcbitects Thank you for the opportunity to provide these observations. Very trul yours, Bob Schiller Enc. Wahl stromI I1601.doc 9 ASPEN:Post Office Box 529 Basalt,CO 81621 w .cgyarchitects.com tel 970.927.4925 fax 970.927.8578 email:aspen @cgyarchitects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL 4028 ABOVE 40' HIGH 1�4-1 1151 BELOW 40' BEL � 136 sf ABOY 40' ROOF +4E IG J ANAL�I 615 PORTION OF NEW ROOFS ABOVE FOOTPizINT AND ABOVE X1.0 ' - GC�`1'A 11/18/f�l C. B . Fisk , Inc. Designers and Builders of Pipe Organs, 18 Kondelin Road, Gloucester, MA 01930 USA 978/283-1909 FAX 978/283-2938 email: cbfisk@cbfisk.com To the Town Council, Snowmass Village I am writing in support of Snowmass Village Chapel's position that a variance allowing for a taller building is essential to the construction of an excellent liturgical and concert space. As the organ builders for the planned Chapel, we at C. B. Fisk were gratified to have been brought into the project early enough to join with the architect and the acoustician in creating a first class place to worship and experience music. Perhaps the acousticians, the highly respected firm of Kirkegaard and Associates, can speak more properly to the physical details of the acoustical issues, but from our perspective and experience it is clear that reducing the volume of the chapel will directly and adversely affect its suitability. Since the footprint of the building is limited by lot line setbacks, it is also clear that the height of the building as designed is the only way to get the interior cubic footage required to support the necessary reverberation. The organ planned for Snowmass Village Chapel is special in many ways, not least of which is the concept of its dual uses. In planning the specification for this instrument, we were always aware that it must not only play a 400-year repertoire of sacred music and support congregational singing, but that the organ will also be used as concert instrument for a prestigious organ recital series, requiring resources within the organ for the great secular literature for solo organ. The question has been raised whether the organ could be made smaller and not require such a grand acoustic, but a smaller organ would suffer as much if not more if the building, and therefore the acoustical response, were reduced. An even larger issue is the usefulness and appropriateness of the space for all music; chorus, quartets, soloists, and orchestras—as well as the spoken word. C. B. Fisk, Inc. is now entering its 40th year, and enjoys the reputation of having built some of the world's best organs in those decades. Our academic instruments include Harvard, Stanford, Rice, and Wellesley; we have built organs in symphony halls at Dallas, Seattle, and Yokohama; our church organs are found from St.James's in Richmond to St. Matthew's in Pacific Palisades, House of Hope in St. Paul to St. Andrew's in Tampa. All these instruments share an utter dependence on the acoustics of the buildings they inhabit. It is our desire and our plan to build an organ in Snowmass Village that will put the town in the first rank of organ venues, a place organ aficionados will detour to experience. This organ, our Opus 125, will be the only Fisk organ for 750 miles in any direction. We expect the chapel and the organ to serve the town for inspiration and meditation and to become a Mecca for music lovers internationally. Opus 125 will reach its full potential only if the building and its acoustics match these lofty goals,to reduce them now will handicap the project at the outset. Sincerely, Gregory Bover Vice President for Operations SNOWMASS CHAPEL Snowmass Village,Colorado 11/1901 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW architects View # 2 Landscaped and treed berms added as a result of Planning Commission meetings j View # 10 O f • �f Areas of possible d `� Additional Screening ' 00, View # 9 Landscaped and treed berm added in Sketch Plan submittal LANDSCAPE SCREENING CONCEPT PLAN �. t _ �- d• .�- .. '. �_ 4 + � .. '.�' r "r.. t� _ _ _ ::- ...: � r �. �.... � � . ,.� � _ ��t � �� �' +lti �lw b ~�{' T- } 4 � � rr ti - fir.. 'Y � � ��� q�� ,� ��\ ` - +�. _ I, .' I� *„��^A _ ry ys. � . � - '. .._ sad 1- _ _ _ ..... �K � � a � a .-- r-,�-��' t>_ �... ,� _ ... :-r'”" - 4 P s 4 . swY Py f IN Skr � 1M � !. "N.�� �..�� h�,!yam �yri�../�T �`9\wti+l�~.s. ♦.,�§^�� �` e�4 �`. �TM• f .1 h ' Ryas.. <�. ' �4�• I I k � t .1�.;\AZT tt.y �"•"I. Y TOSV VIEW # 14, SAME LOCATIONAS ZOOMED 1 x- !^ >t" . .,� t,°M/ itl* a[.:� sC "= �f .: �,+F - � ���w'���"3utlAr �• .. �•!+0,. .•� r 1 �,� � Tf �\ •' � `mow , r'` r'I -4.,tit e - * �- lvy yr. _Yl Ir too ♦ r ' � � y !__ _ 'w s e• � •^ 4nW rr ',rY `, yea •s•� �' x �' 1 ' 1 +s p,J� -$.fit• MnIF '-� ,ii Ar'11 �5 A . . RYAS`".f" '! _ Tit Yt '`�tit� ..�yWLl"-Ii, � -t'l„n r.•i - �fc .'_.�y ... t 'pY•y SyII � t,• -y..Y »�``le. a'§y� ., •'^ '+ '� F"! I..T"f� qtr.,,'- a „ '�'� .�' � �� ..,� .•?�jC—"��., �- w«4'f♦ �' lam; ` A.'Y` ` �'qr T ti( y�.r� �A't"n.rw�'F��� ,si. } • tom( - ♦ +'M' 4 .r it YKr: v �w �.,yJ �d-�Y'1."♦y,,( r- �- w �r #.,r y_�+ `, � k:.ltal N � �.\'r "'_ , r;'L,Z '., :•l L -:r'a-�.. 'i"` .-•_-�'•♦ a'"H' ,w-♦• yy.J �'1��y�pyy,w;y�1r.�,`.�� y .. Crti.w •eit': r..wh�cvL.�[f� �A ff�•ti• +y_`^i.p"t a •— �y alb. "L•^';C .: �y..-.-.p i fat ;kZm ON s c ' n �,•... ,#,��+St°.'fi Y-xNV�Y .Ryys�,€s e{iar r,Fter. ° K \ ,�.. . '+ ` ,.rte �. � � �` Y•��� ~w�` '�' x.t F � : - . n ,.tip r �_ �.r « * � - .. a- .. � :� � ,.. . - ,.,-. ,.� 6 _ � � T `r< 1 i�. _ � .` _ b r ka * r -� ,.Cn y. .. € _ ° � � 2 1 �' ( ' 1 '� r. f`r �': K s 7. 4v.a. ky 'i4 S � i �. �.. F t.� � vI r �� �� b � ;as�� Aga;�- -r.:r � — � -.. � � ,- �"t -, -- - -- - y}-�.. " e ...--- --- � . . , � � i � . � .y �: � �"e '� `w. •4' ,y. sad♦:. ♦ &. v, '� :�, h ':+ *' x x � 5F'. n "^. ��� .a .• s.� `�- � ash„r-:a lift f a� rt x':r � � .v•: w .aY°'�' ss-�„ Zvi { - -. s � M •_ IC�� 7MT . 'E YJ c sti♦.. �i*\ I e � r .h � t � ,� _ "�8 t .-ham • .T �•'.F } � i i pp � ll i t A � •Y`Y : r t •3 J .y-}5t �..,A t- '.�^ $ ^'f"i ?Fx`# .,.ti +�` sn Steer rFy^, K• i' d�#4tlffS.� YY���i�Y ,yL'�Ity �G �`1iR�� '♦� 1��� t je MY.'a#i � �;QIttM\M � 1 ♦ , '�4`.. A Y �. .ham. .A i. TA ♦ 1 l", - ta,'fit. '�{T� t • i � s' x w t"i t*r M� T.. {Y` I View # 2 Landscaped and treed berms added as a result of Planning = Commission meetings View # 10 Areas of possible Additional Screening0 O -•'—� �' View # 9 CAVM Landscaped and treed berm added in Sketch Plan submittal LANDSCAPE SCREENING CONCEPT PLAN SNOWMASS CHAPEL Snowmass Village,Colorado 11/19/01 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW architects ZT Z7 \ . � s . y` y,, 11'x+. .• .y.n-:.f x "` ,��_ ' p r _ a.._a- 1L F r __ ,•yf w..:: I�,,dta .• i .s 'Y�, �crj �* } low, yy15[�:4s ice* a i VLL � P` tn. � r1 y�4Y8✓e�Er��w'�".+'Or++^ >�fAr , € � ,.✓�,f '. a (4EE, r:•.i��. � •+4„ "y�."' a a�ec +� . s ♦ j Z C ._1 VIEW FROM A DEPRESSED ENTRYWAY (,•` ply f" � r ..�. L',. rt 1 r d at 'r w'+�++t;� •�� -ale--•til.\-=± .� .�.: �.ss �� - - 1.mdK.\��` _ `•�_ �'� •tom;= _--- VIEW FROM ELEVATED ENTRYWAY - �::•C� iii \ ` � a�! )F � t�•k; �, ir4S �J• a t � a r y.' �'�� -.�?• .r•. "c _ _ i,. r •s to '� qr '_F �'W��«`�•il'Y�'yk�}a�i 4"�''t� tt'"��yF`i �'. ' °`a" r F�.n. i � j {. +, �`. .. �r 7 77 - C s r tih i i { 1 f , . .j,t Iw ! `tom .' lik 4 ,� •J.Aw�i �O Y GR¢EK PSInG.• �!� Go�►41 AnIT HT. .MoVC0 GLcv C R fe GRI"�IGhL vlE�.rl.14 Io,,IT I,4CALme,615 PE(tG¢1vE)- HT. GP-9 E 6 K 'roHAilKItAIJ SAME fE2cCIvE4 Hi, "4• MU4l 66 LoNWM-g9 IS Mo 9f) i0wARo GRIiIGwL .vlEwla4 PoINI? EFFECT OF MOVING BUILDING TOWARD BRUSH CREEK ROAD ti ,s .r �nniiH Imfln'