Loading...
05-18-09 Town Council Packet (2)SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA MAY 18, 2009 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE — ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5-minute time limit) Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Item No. 4: CONTINUATION OF: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION — SNOWMASS CHAPEL: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RE- ZONING TO 'MIXED-USE-1' (MU-1), TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS FOR LAND EXCHANGES AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, PLUS A FINAL RE- PLAT OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN EXISTING LOTS 1 AND 2A OF THE SNOWMASS CHAPEL INTERFAITH SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 10 OF THE SNOWMASS CLUB SUBDIVISION, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED SNOWMASS CHAPEL EXPANSION PROJECT FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) INVOLVING REQUESTED BUILDOUT AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS. (Time: 1.5 hours) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review application and provide directive in crafting findings and conditions for a subsequent ordinance and resolutions. Jim Wahlstrom ............................ Page 1 TAB A) AT 6:00 P.M. BREAK (GID WILL CONVENE DURING BREAK) Item No. 5 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION: SNOWMASS CLUB CIRCLE A re-zoning to 'Multi-Family' (MF), and a revised Minor Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Amendment regarding the proposed Snowmass Club Circle development project. Time: 5 Min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider applicant's request for a continuation of the public hearing. Jim Wahlstrom .......................... Page 49 TAB B) Item No. 6: RODEO PLACE PHASE II UPDATE Time: 30 minutes) 05-18-09 Page 2 of 2 ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide Direction to Town Manager on whether he should sign a contract with Rudd Construction on Phase 2A. Russ Forrest, Bob Kaufmann, Mike O'Connor Page 54 TAB C) Item No. 7: MANAGER'S REPORT Time: 10 minutes) Russell Forrest............................ Page 62 TAB D) Item No. 8: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page 65 TAB E) Item No. 9: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 9. 12007. FEBRUARY 17, 2009 AND MARCH 16, 2009 Page 67 TAB F) Item No. 10: COUNCIL COMMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS/CALENDARS Page 98 TAB G) Item No. 11: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes (excluding items 1-3 and 7 —11) 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. J MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: May 18, 2009 (Note: Same report from the May 4, 2009 meeting) SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION — SNOWMASS CHAPEL: Regarding proposed re-zoning to 'Mixed-Use-l' (MU-1), together with associated subdivision exemptions for land exchanges and a lot line adjustment, plus a final re-plat of the property within existing Lots 1 and 2A of the Snowmass Chapel Interfaith Subdivision Re-plat "A" and a portion of Parcel 10 of the Snowmass Club Subdivision, that were submitted in association with the proposed Snowmass Chapel expansion project Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) involving requested buildout and height variations. The applications are being processed pursuant to Section 16A-5-220, Amendment to the Official Zone District Mao, Section 16A-5-360, Final Plan, Section 16A-5-400, Subdivision Regulations, and Section 16A-5-500, Subdivision Exemptions, of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code. The property on Lots 1 and 2A encompasses 3.99 acres, not including the impacted area onto Parcel 10 (golf course) of the Snowmass Club Subdivision. Applicant: Snowmass Chapel, Inc., formerly known as Snowmass Chapel and Community Center, Inc. Applicant representative: Doug Dotson Planner: Jim Wahlstrom 1. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED. Purpose: The purpose of the meeting would be to: 1. Hear a presentation of the applications by the applicant; 2. Open the public hearing and consider public comments; 3. Begin the review of the core issues of the applications; and 4. Determine if additional information is desired to adequately review the applications. Action: There would be no decision-making action on an ordinance or resolutions at this meeting; however, staff recommends that the Town Council review the applications and provide directives to the applicant and to staff for the preparation of findings and conditions to be placed in a subsequent ordinance and the resolutions for consideration at a subsequent meeting. II. BACKGROUND. On September 5, 2006, Town Council accepted, via Resolution No. 9, Series of 2006 Resolution 9), the modified Preliminary Plan application for the Snowmass Chapel, including the intended 'MU-1' zoning district, and authorized the applicant to proceed to a Final PUD application. The action section of that resolution concerning the proposed rezoning specifically stated: IIPagc The Town Council accepts the rezoning of Lot 1 and Lot 2A of the Snowmass Chapel Interfaith Subdivision and on that portion of Parcel 10 of the Snowmass Club Subdivision involving the land exchange area of approximately 8,400 square feet to 'MU-1,' as now proposed in the amended application by the Applicant, and authorizes the Applicant to formally request such rezoning together with a Final PUD application for possible ratification with a Final PUD ordinance, subject to the applicant completing a land exchange agreement and subdivision exemption plat with the adjacent owner." After the granting by the Town Council of a few extension requests from the applicant for the submission of a Final PUD, the Final PUD application was submitted on December 11, 2008. Following a couple of staff conducted completion reviews, the application was deemed complete and referred for review on February 18, 2009. As the proposed rezoning requires ordinance action, such formal application request first required review and recommendations from the Planning Commission (see Attachment 1 for their resolution). In addition to the rezoning, the applicant submitted a Final PUD, subdivision exemptions for land exchanges and a lot line adjustment, and a final plat that require Town Council action by ordinance or resolutions. The Town Council did not direct in 2006 that the Planning Commission review the Final PUD, and the Code does not require review of subdivision exemptions and final plats by the Planning Commission. However, with the applicant's proposed changes to the maintenance building and other minor changes, staff felt it appropriate that the Planning Commission could provide their recommendations on those portions of the Final PUD application involving changes. On March 18, 2009, the Planning Commission provided their recommendations on both the proposed rezoning and the changes in the Final PUD, in particular the maintenance building, in the attached resolution (Attachment 1) provided for the public record. The Planning Commission recommendations are also included in the various sections of this staff report for easier reference. As a matter of information, the rezoning or Final PUD application, either separately or in combination, were referred on February 18, 2009 to Town Council members, Planning Commission members, Planning Department staff, Town Manager's Office, Town Attorney's Office, Economic Resources, Town Clerk's Office, Building Department, Housing Department, Transportation Department, Public Works Department, the Town Engineer, an Environmental Consultant, the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Comments were due March 16, 2009. Comments received were from the Planning Department, the Town's Environmental consultant, the Town Engineer, and the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District mainly on the Final PUD and Final Plat portions of the applications (see Attachment 2). A majority of the initial review comments were issued to the applicant on March 20, 2009. On April 6, 2009, the applicant submitted supplemental packages of updated information and plans in response to the initial review comments. On April 13, 2009, these packages were referred to Town Council members, affected staff and the referral agencies that previously responded. See Attachment 3 for the second round of review comments received on the applicant's supplemental materials. 21Pa .- c III. SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SITE OR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, AND THE PROPOSED FINAL PUD PROJECT. The affected site is currently zoned 'PUD' and includes the Snowmass Chapel, administrative offices, counseling services, meeting rooms and public use spaces, one accessory dwelling unit, a parking lot, open space, and a public trail and landscaping. As a matter of information, the Town Council's Preliminary Plan Resolution No. 9, Series of 2006, in summary approved: Increasing the building ground coverage on the campus from 9,725 to 20,465 square feet; Enlarging the floor area as measured by Code from 11,338 to 29,583 square feet to house within the main building addition a 300-seat auditorium with additional overflow capacity of approximately 50 persons; Increasing the maximum building heights for the proposed addition to 58 feet on the north end and 46 feet on the south end with a maximum ridge height elevation of 8209.3 feet, subject to a height variation approval; Allowing a steeple height of 69.5 feet with a condition that the proposed 5-foot tall cross be included under the maximum elevation of 8232.7 feet to meet the proportionality test; and Permitting 118 on-site parking spaces, subject to a parking management plan. For reference purposes, the Final PUD application dated December 11, 2008 in summary proposes: Increasing the building ground coverage from 9,725 to 19,837 square feet; Modifying the plan from a Special Review process for a future maintenance facility of 800 square feet to a proposed design for a two-level maintenance building of 1,697 square feet per the updated floor plan (1,652 per the Final PUD Guide); Enlarging the campus floor area from 11,338 to 29,635 square feet (or 29,680 SF per the modified maintenance building noted above); Placing within the main building addition a 320 fixed-seating auditorium (up from 300) with additional overflow capacity of approximately 30 persons in temporary seating (down from 50); Keeping the buildout variation request at a maximum 29,700 square feet; Maintaining the maximum building height requests for the proposed addition to 58 feet on the north end and 46 feet on the south end with a maximum ridge height elevation of 8209.3 feet, subject to a final height variation approval; Retaining the proposed steeple height of approximately 69 feet at an elevation of 8232.7 feet, not including a cross mounted on top of the steeple but rather as a design appurtenance to the north and south building elevations; Permitting 121 on-site parking spaces, subject to a parking arrangement; and Provision of an employee housing unit of a minimum 620 square feet. IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. Rezoning to MU-1. According to Municipal Code Section 16A-5.220, Amendments to the Official Zone District Mao, under subsection (e), 'Review Standards,' it states: An application for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map shall comply with the following standards and, whenever applicable, shall also comply with the standards of Section 16A-5-220(f), Review Standards for Rezoning of Lands Zoned Open Space or Conservation. 3 1Page 1) Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment shall be consistent with the Town of Snowmass Village Comprehensive Plan. 2) Consistent with purpose of zone district. The proposed amendment shall be con- sistent with the purpose of the zone district to which the property will be designated. 3) Compatibility with surrounding zone districts and uses. The development permitted by the proposed amendment shall be compatible with surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood character and shall result in a logical and orderly development pattern within the overall community. 4) Necessary circumstances. The applicant shall demonstrate that the following cir- cumstances exist: a. Error. There has been a technical error in the boundaries shown on the Official Zone District Map; or b. Changed conditions. There have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel and the surrounding neighborhood that justify the proposed amendment; and c. Community need. The proposed amendment addresses and helps to resolve a community need that is documented in or is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Final PUD. The Final PUD must comply with the same Code review criteria as for Preliminary Plan application, such as Section 16A-5-300(c), General Restrictions, Section 16A-5-310, Review Standards, in addition to whether the final plan is consistent with the approved preliminary plan; and when applicable, the decision maker's recommendations or conditions. In the case of the proposed changes to the maintenance building, the affected development evaluation standards should be considered in Article IV of the Municipal Code. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A-5-390(1)c, the review standards for a 'Major Amendment' to a Final PUD 'shall be considered,' but 'not be bound by' such criteria, which in summary are: 1. Consistency with the original PUD; 2. No substantially adverse impact; 3. Not change character; and 4. Comply with other applicable standards. Staff advises that draft findings addressing these criteria could be stated in a subsequent ordinance for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Public Notification. A public hearing notice was printed in the Snowmass Sun's April 1, 2009 issue to meet the Municipal Code's 30-day notice requirement for the proposed re- zoning application and final re-plat. The applicant submitted signed affidavits for the mailing and posting of the public hearing notice. The mailed notice was sent to approximately 125 owners. Please note that the Municipal Code does not required public hearing notifications for Final PUD and subdivision exemption applications. However, these applications were noted in the public hearing notice as being in association with the proposed re-zoning and final re-plat. 4 1Page V. DISCUSION ITEMS: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS INCLUDING SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Staff has reviewed the proposed Final PUD application with the rezoning request pursuant to the existing Municipal Codes, including the associated applications for the subdivisions exemptions involving land exchanges totaling approximately 8,400 square feet of area and a lot line adjustment between the Chapel property and Parcel 10 of the Snowmass Club, together with a final re-plat. ANALYSIS OF REZONING TO MU-1: Please be advised that the former PUD approval allowed the following uses: Chapel Public meeting rooms Counsel rooms (4) Daycare Study Kitchen Administrative offices (3) Residential unit (accessory) A rezoning application is required to allow the proposed expansion, because the current zoning of 'PUD' is no longer recognized as a viable zone district according to the Municipal Code. The Applicant felt that the mixed-use zoning was most appropriate for the variety of uses on the site. The Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map designates the Chapel site for 'Public' purposes. The 'MU-1' zone district for the proposed project was advised over the previously proposed 'MU-2' zoning during the Preliminary Plan review, because the latter district listed retail sales establishments, business/professional offices and personal services as allowed uses. However, Staff believes that the administrative and counseling offices on the property, in addition to the conference and public meeting rooms, could and should operate as secondary or accessory uses that support or serve under the primary uses allowed on the property. Despite these uses being previously allowed, further restrictions were recommended and placed into the Preliminary PUD Guide due to the fact that the facility's floor area proposes to be tripled in size and the seating capacity more than doubled, while at the same time understanding the limited capacity of the parking lot. Similar restrictions appear to have been carried over into the Final PUD Guide text or the proposed agreements related to proposed community purposes, parking arrangement, and employee housing commitments. The Final PUD Guide identifies the primary and accessary usages for the site, a list of prohibited uses, the capping of square footage sizes on building coverage and floor area despite the buildout variation request, and a proposed parking management plan and overflow parking commitment. Intent of Zone District: According to Municipal Code Section 16A-3-40, Statement of zone district intent, 'the intent of the 'MU-1' zone district is to provide visitor services, community and visitor low- impact recreation and open space. Limited permanent residential uses may be included, if deemed appropriate to the site and compatible with the character of the surrounding 5 1 P a -e area." Staff believes the proposal more closely follows the majority of the 'MU-1' zoning intent description, rather the originally envisioned 'MU-2' zone intent, considering the uses previously planned for the site. In the end, of all the zone districts listed in the Municipal Code, the 'MU-1' district appears to be closest or most appropriate zone district category for the existing and proposed uses and expansion thereof. The uses allowed under the 'MU-1' zone district include: Multi-family dwellings Lock-off room Manager's unit/restricted employee housing Accessory building and use Day care home Group homes Indoor recreation facilities Pedestrian trails Forest, meadow and open space Surface water storage facilities and features Special Review uses in the 'MU-1' zone district include: Conference facilities directly associated with a hotel/lodge or multi-family use Antenna reception or transmission devices Group care facilities Educational facilities (both public and private) Public utility uses, services and facilities Major or minor/accessory community facilities (as restricted by PUD Guide or Special Review) — Note: see definition further below Commonly owned above grade parking structures. General services Commercial or public parking lot Commercial or private recreation facilities Open use recreation uses and facilities Indoor entertainment facilities Prohibited uses in the 'MU-1' zone district include: Hotel/lodge room or suite Time share unit Dormitory Cemetery Retail sales establishments Business/professional offices Personal services Restaurants The application's proposed Final PUD Guide specifically lists the following uses, which are similar to the accepted Preliminary PUD Guide: Proposed Principal Allowed Uses on Lot 1 A (building site): 1. Chapel and church services and related activities and programs 2. Community Center 3. Special community events and gatherings 4. Picnic areas 5. Walkways and trails 6 1 P a e 6. Open space and passive recreation Proposed Allowed Accessory Uses on Lot 1 A (building site): 1. Seminars, conferences and study related to the Principal Allowed Uses 2. Community-oriented cultural activities and programs 3. Small classes, workshops space and meeting rooms for the Principal Allowed Uses 4. Counsel Rooms/Office, non-profit or private practices under the auspices of SCI 5. Study 6. Kitchen 7. Administrative Offices 8. Residential Dwelling Unit 9. Library 10. Accessory maintenance building, which may include the golf course restroom restrooms added) — Note: added as an allowed use without a Special Review. Principal Allowed Uses on Lot 2A (main parking lot area): 1. Parking 2. Trails 3. Open space Prohibited Uses: 1. Retail sales establishments 2. Commercial lodging 3. Commercial education institution 4. Other professional business offices not specifically described as an Allowed Accessory Use 5. Commercial catering 6. Any other use allowed in the MU-1 zone district that is not identified as an allowed use in the PUD Guide According to the definitions section in the Municipal Code, a 'Community facility, major' means public and quasi-public institutions, educational facilities, fire station, community center, church, library, museum, town hall, conference facilities not directly associated with lodges/hotels or other facilities, information centers and major public transportation and maintenance facilities that may include terminals, parking areas, service buildings and major shelters." Staff finds that such definition generally describes the proposed primary or principal allowed uses for the existing facilities and proposed building additions. Even though the "Major Community Facility' use is listed as a Special Review use in the Mixed-use zoning districts, Staff's interpretation is that such use was previously contemplated and established for the site under the former PUD approval. Other uses proposed in the application could be interpreted as accessory to the primary or principal uses. Planning Commission (PC)findings and recommendations summary related to the proposed rezoning pursuant to Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009: 1) The proposed "Mixed-Use-1" zone district seems appropriate for the site as it prohibits commercial type uses, such as retail sales establishments, business/professional offices, personal services, restaurants and commercial 7 1 P a e lodging. Those proposed uses, not specifically listed with the "MU-1" zone district land-use table, could be considered accessory uses as previously recommended during the preliminary plan stage, provided they are clearly and specifically noted and listed in the Final PUD Guide as accessory permitted uses under the control of the Applicant/owner rather than as primary permitted uses for the site, which appears to be the case pursuant to the proposed Final PUD Guide. 2) Pursuant to the finding/recommendation above, the Final PUD Guide appears to acceptably and definitively list the primary and accessory uses separately, indicating that the accessory uses, such as the administrative/counseling offices, small classes or workshops space and other meeting spaces, shall be operated under the control or auspices of the applicant or the owner of Lot 1 versus being leased to private entities or individuals in order to comply with Table 3-1, "Schedule of uses" in the Mixed-Use-1" zone district via Municipal Code Section 16A-3-50. 3) As previously recommended during the Preliminary Plan review, the Final PUD lists commercial lodging as a prohibited use, among other commercial or retail type uses. 4) The Chapel is an allowed use pursuant to the past PUD or PUD Guide approvals in Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1997, and a Special Review application for such a use is not required in accordance with Table 3-1, "Schedule of Uses," in Municipal Code Section 16A-3-50. 5) Pursuant to the above noted findings and per Municipal Code Sections 16A-5- 300(c)(3) "Uses," under the General Restrictions, the Applicant's proposed "Mixed- Use-1" zone district, appears to meet the following criteria in accordance with Section 16A-5-220(e), "Review Standards" of the Amendments to Official Zone District Map, as follows: a) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; b) Consistency with the purpose of the zone district; c) Consistency with surrounding zone districts and uses; and d) Necessary circumstances such as changed conditions or a community need as part of the consistency with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendations: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission findings and recommendations. Continued on following page... 8 1 P a a c Development Parameters: The development parameters for a MU, MU-1 or MU-2 zone district, in relation to the previous approvals and the current standards in the PUD Guide are: Development Parameters by zone district, previous approvals and current proposed Final PUD Guide Standard MU, MU-1 & Previous Preliminary Proposed MU-2 Approval PUD Guide Final PUD Guide Per Ord. 97-6 TC Reso 06-9 Minimum lot area: 3,000 sq.ft. Not indicated 102,845 sq.ft. 105,023 sq.ft. for Lot 1; for Lot 1; 71,089 sq.ft. 71,089 sq.ft. for Lot 2A for Lot 2A Minimum lot 50 feet(unless Set by PUD Set by PUD Set by PUD width: set by PUD) Minimum building Set by PUD Set by PUD Set by PUD Set by PUD setback: plan Maximum building Not applicable Not applicable 20,465 sq.ft. 19,945 sq.ft. ground coverage: including including maintenance bldg) maintenance bldg) Maximum height 38 ft. 40 ft.58 ft. Same of principal from finished grade building: on north end of building; 46 ft.from finished grade on south end of building; 69 ft.for steeple with 5'tall cross on top) Maximum height 18 ft. Not addressed 18 ft., but north Approximately 16 ft. of accessory but average elevation may on south end and 25 building: height must be exceed this amount ft. on north end as 25 ft.) depending on viewed in elevation for sloping grade proposed maintenance bldg. Minimum percent 25% Not addressed 80%or 81%or open space:but building 82,590 sq.ft. 85,211 sq.ft. ground see above see above regarding coverage regarding building building ground limited to ground coverage) coverage) 15,000 sq.ft. and parking/ driveway coverage to 8,000 sq.ft. Maximum floor 1:1 Not addressed 29,583 SF 29,635 or 29,680 SF area: but Comp Plan per land use code per land use code Buildout Chart measurements;measurements; denotes 20,000 Maximum 29,700 Maximum 29,700 sq. sq.ft.) sq.ft.on Lot 1 per ft. on Lot 1 per buildout variation buildout variation request.re nest. 9 1 P a a e Previous Planning Commission (PC) recommendations summary via Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009, regarding development parameters: As the "Mixed-Use-1" zone district allows a 1:1 FAR in the Table 3-2, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations" of Municipal Code Section 16A-3-50, the Final PUD Guide appears to acceptably restrict the maximum floor area to the previously accepted buildout variation of 29,700 square feet, if ratified by ordinance. Staff Recommendations: Even if the property is zoned to a 'MU-1' zone district, the Final PUD Guide, as an incorporated exhibit to a final approval document, would control the principal, primary and accessory allowed uses and the development parameters on the site. This would include the limitation of the maximum FAR to 29,700 square feet if the buildout variation is granted, rather than an FAR of 1:1 per the 'MU-1' zone district that could potentially allow 105,023 square feet. The buildout variation request requires ratification by a super-majority vote of the Town Council via an ordinance. A finding could be made that a proposed rezoning to 'MU-1' meets the review criteria for amending the official zone district map; Reason being is that many of the uses proposed in the zone district are outlined in the application's Final PUD Guide that have been accepted during the Preliminary Plan stage, including the development parameters, subject to limiting certain uses as a result of the proposed expansion of the facility. ANALYSIS OF FINAL PUD: According to Municipal Code Section 16A-5-360(a), Purpose of a Final plan, the applicant did appear to submit plans consistent with the preliminary plan approval, including a list of proposed Community Purposes, parking arrangements and employee housing provisions in a development agreement together with a guarantee of public improvements in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (see Attachments H and J, respectively, in the original Final PUD application, together with an update of the development agreement in the supplemental applicant binder dated March 30, 2009 in response to staff review comments). A Final PUD Guide is also included in the original Final PUD application (see Attachment F of the application), and an updated one was provided in the supplemental set dated March 30, 2009, also submitted in response to staff review comments. Following the Municipal Code's 'Review Intent and Issue' questions below for Final PUD applications, staff has identified the following core issues that Council may wish to further discuss or provide direction on: 1) Response to preliminary plan conditions. Has the applicant provided detailed, sufficient and appropriate responses to each of the conditions identified applied to the preliminary plan? The applicant did respond to each of the conditions in the Preliminary Plan approval, beginning on page 8 of the original Final PUD application. See further comments and staff recommendations below. IOJPage 2) Agreements and guarantees. Has the applicant submitted an adequate subdivision improvements agreement and pledge of security to guarantee the performance of any public improvements required by the Town? The applicant submitted an SIA for review that would incorporate the civil drawings, the bridge details, the transit waiting shelter plans, the Brush Creek enhancement plans, and the construction management plan (CMP). The SIA should also include or make reference to the final landscape plan and related off- site easements for the proposed construction staging, landscaping and access. 3) Other plans and documents. Has the applicant submitted other such documents final development plan, final utility plan and final architectural plan) that set out the specifications for all relevant features of the development proposal? See the core issues below that also generally follow the conditions of approval during the preliminary plan stage review. Summary of Core Issues: In general terms, and at minimum, the Town Council should be satisfied that the following summary of core issues have been acceptably addressed or implemented: 1. The Preliminary Plan conditions of approval, and the applicant's responses or implementation thereof; 2. The Rezoning to 'MU-1' and the Final PUD Guide list of uses and development parameters; 3. The Final PUD plans' consistency with the Preliminary Plan drawings; 4. The maintenance building and the proposed changes thereto; 5. The proposed variations or the modifications thereto (e.g., buildout, height, and the Brush Creek wetland/riparian setback reductions); 6. The development agreement outlining the proposed community purposes, parking management arrangement, and the employee housing provisions; 7. The proposed community purposes and the operational management or restrictions thereof for the 4,000 square feet of space proposed; 8. Parking provisions on-site and the management thereof, together with the off-site overflow parking commitment; 9. The employee housing commitment, the restrictions thereto, and the referenced deed restriction for the existing unit; 10. The proposed 10-year vesting in a separate development agreement; 11. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA), including the appropriate exhibits, such as the final civil drawings, the transit passenger waiting shelter, the Brush Creek restoration and enhancement plan, the final landscape plan and the comprehensive version of the construction management plan (CMP); 12. The subdivision exemptions for the proposed lot line adjustment and the land exchanges; 13. Proposed off-site easements or locations for construction, landscaping and access; 14. The final re-plat of the property, including newly placed easements for utilities and emergency/public access; and 15. The proposed exemption from the renewable energy offset program. 11 I P a c Details of Core Issues, with Staff comments or recommendations: a) Mass, scale and height. The proposed building heights in the main addition are the same as what's noted in the preliminary plan approval, even though the basement level was raised by six inches. There are also a few differences in the measured heights at certain points due to slight modifications in the final grading around the main building addition or the raised basement level. b) Total building square footage allowed. A 29,700 square foot (SF) buildout variation is maintained, as calculated per the land use code and subject to ratification, but the floor area square footage was adjusted for the campus as a whole. Currently, the proposal includes 11,338 SF of floor area in the existing buildings, 16,645 SF in the proposed main building addition, and either 1,652 SF (per the Final PUD Guide) or 1,697 SF in the maintenance building per the updated Final PUD floor plans. This would provide a total floor area, as calculated per the land use code, of either 29,635 SF or 29,680 SF. The applicant should clarify the proposal. c) Maintenance building. The maintenance building was previously limited to 800 SF and subject to Special Review. The applicant now proposes a final design with the Final PUD application at either 1,652 or 1697 SF. See the section further below under the analysis of the maintenance building. d) Golf course restrooms. The applicant has implemented one of the conditional options with the Preliminary Plan approval that combines the existing golf course restroom with the proposed maintenance building. The design of such combined structure is now intended to blend more with the Anderson Ranch campus rather than the main Chapel building addition, although the roofing material would match the proposed main building addition. The maintenance building meets the 18-foot height limitation for accessory buildings measured from existing and finished grades. However, the north elevation will appear as two-stories as viewed from the golf course or Brush Creek Road, but the building's design steps back and up the hillside, also fulfilling one of the previous conditions. e) Variations. All the previous and currently proposed variations or modification thereto, need to be acted upon or ratified by ordinance. The height variation would require a simple majority vote as the most of the building addition complies with the previously established 40-foot height standard on the property. The buildout variation together with the Brush Creek setback reductions require super-majority vote. See the analysis further below for the maintenance facility concerning the Brush Creek setback reduction proposed. f) Parking management. The applicant has provided an update to the proposed development agreement which appears to outline the majority of the parking provisions or arrangements per the Preliminary Plan together with the conditioned 'enforcement mitigation fee.' See the supplemental binder dated March 30, 2009. Staff position is that these provisions should be placed in, or at minimum referenced in, the Final PUD Guide, as that would be the controlling zoning enforcement document. In addition, the contingency parking plan language should be added to the development agreement pursuant to the Preliminary Plan PUD language in Exhibit 8, Parking Management Plan (PMP). g) Overflow parking deed restriction. The applicant has provided a letter from the property owner of the off-site parking lot on Parcel 6, now reduced from 32 to 26 spaces and for usage by adjoining property usages, as an 121 Pale amendment to a 1998 parking agreement between Snowmass Chapel and the Anderson Ranch Arts Center (See Attachment G of the original Final PUD application). Such amendment should at minimum be recorded and referenced in the Final PUD Guide and in the development agreement as a means to enforce the parking management provisions or arrangements on the site. The parking agreement in the updated development agreement does not appear to make a specific reference to the off-site overflow parking provision or commitment. h) Additional parking spaces. The site and landscape plans now show the planned locations for the expansion of the main parking area on Lot 2A by at least 12 spots pursuant to the previous Preliminary Plan PUD Guide. The applicant states that existing trees will be retained as shown and labeled on the landscape plan. i) Development agreement - community purposes, parking agreement and employee housing. As mentioned in the parking comments above, the applicant provided an updated version of the development agreement outlining the proposed community purposes, the parking management arrangements, and the employee housing commitment. Under Section (3)(a), it appears the applicant now proposes to charge fees to the users of the Community Purpose space for the usage of it, in addition to fees for damage and/or cleanup deposits. The agreement related to the parking management has been expanded to incorporate a majority of the provisions outlined in the Preliminary PUD Guide. The agreement also incorporates the employee housing provisions making reference to a deed restriction for the existing unit. Either this agreement or the deed restriction appears to have covered the restrictions outlined in Preliminary PUD Guide. j) Deed Restricted Residential Unit. The applicant continues to propose restricting an existing 647 SF residential unit. The housing provision are outlined in the development agreement and a deed restriction /agreement document incorporates the previous condition regarding the rental of the unit or meeting the Town's housing requirements in Chapter 17. k) Development agreement for vested rights. Per the March 30, 2009 supplemental binder, the applicant updated the vested rights development agreement draft to state a requested duration of 10 years versus 7 years in the previous agreement in the Final PUD application, although it was noted as 10 years in the application description text. Staff has had communications with application representatives stating the desire to begin construction this summer. If the case, it would appear that the State's typical vesting period of three years might be adequate. Staff is concerned that the construction sequence for utilities and site work prior to the issuance of a building permit could potentially lag for a long period of time, depending on the amount of financing or funds secured by the applicant. Per the Code, the extension may be granted by Town Council at its sole discretion considering both the needs of the Town and the property owner and may include conditions. I) Landscape plan. The final landscape plan submitted appears consistent with the Preliminary Plan drawings. According to the applicant, the tree locations have been staked on site, and there needs to be a determination made whether a site visit is needed to observe the locations. In addition, a landscape easement should be provided for the off-site plantings proposed on Parcel 10 near the Blue Roofs/Snowmass Villas property. Additional evergreen trees were added on the east side of the main building addition, per previous recommendations, but a gap area is proposed to accommodate 131Pagc a required water line loop to serve for adequate water pressure and fire protection. All other previous conditions appeared to have been acceptably addressed. m) Lighting plan. An updated lighting plan was not provided with the applicant's supplement beyond that provided in the original application. The application now proposes additional lighting for the covered walks on both sides of the main building addition. This is in addition to the lighting at the side entries to the building represented during the Preliminary Plan review. The details of the lighting do not appear to be addressed in the architectural set that staff received as stated in the lighting consultant's letter in the March 25'h application supplement. n) Final Grading and Drainage plan. The applicant has responded to the Town Engineer comments (see Attachment 2) with updated civil drawings and a response from their engineer (see supplemental binder dated March 20, 2009). The updated materials have been forwarded to the Town Engineer for a second round review. See their second round review comments dated April 22, 2009 (Attachment 3). The Town Engineer comments should be resolved prior to commencement of construction. o) Bridge design. The application now proposes an actual bridge versus a culvert made to look like a bridge, for access to additional parking spaces, the maintenance building and for emergency access purposes along the east and south sides of the proposed main building addition. Staff finds this to be an improvement over the previous proposal, subject to the resolution of outstanding comments from the Town Engineer and the Fire District Attachment 3). p) Fire District requirements. See the initial comments from the Fire District dated March 11, 2009 (Attachment 2). The civil drawings and final plat show a looped water line as previously requested along with replacement easements on the Final Plat for utilities and access purposes, which would need to be acted upon by separate resolution. The applicant's updated responses and civil plans were forwarded to the Fire District for a second round review, including the latest comments from the Town Engineer concerning the bridge loading issue (again, see Attachment 3 for the latest comments). q) Wetland disturbance. A restoration plan has been provided as shown as an exhibit to the SIA together with a construction management plan. Staff has request that the scope of work illustrative be clarified as to more precisely show the location of the restoration work or scope of work area. r) Army Corps of Engineers approval. The Preliminary Plan condition should be carried forward that requires Army Corp permit approval on the wetland / riparian disturbance areas prior to commencement of construction. s) Subdivision Improvements Agreement. An SIA was provided, and the only comment at this time pointed to an incorrect reference to Brush Creek Road in lieu of Owl Creek Road for the sidewalk extension and transit shelter proposed. The applicant has agreed in writing to revise the language, but staff has not yet seen an update of the SIA. A letter of credit is proposed to guarantee public improvements. t) Agreements with the Snowmass Club. See the section below addressing the proposed subdivision exemptions involving the proposed lot line adjustment and land exchanges. These items would need to be acted upon by a separate resolution versus the ordinance for the rezoning and Final PUD pursuant to Code requirements. The adjusted lot line falls between the 14 1Pa e existing golf course restrooms and the proposed maintenance facility (to be combined), and the restrooms are proposed to be remodeled to complement the architectural design of the maintenance structure. The owner of Parcel 10 will need to sign the exemption plat. u) Off-site easements. The off-site easement agreements are proposed with adjacent private property owners in efforts to assist with implementing the construction staging, utility work, the construction of the buildings and planting installations. The applicant should submit signed, recorded versions of these off-site easements prior to execution and recording of the final plat, or at minimum, prior to commencement of construction. v) Exemption from Renewable Energy Offset program. The application and request for snowmelting beyond the 200 sq. ff. exemption (per Ordinance 08- 11) was referred to the Town's Economic Resources for review and comment. No review comments were provided as of the writing of this report. However, Town Council will need to make a finding of community benefit or public safety need, also per Ordinance 08-11. Keep in mind however that the plaza faces south, appears to have positive drainage flow, and the walkway on east side appears to be covered for the most part or protected by the building. On the other hand, several people would be mingling in the area during events. There may be questions as to whether the snowmelt system could be powered by solar panels. There may also be a question as to whether the intended garage usage in the maintenance building would be acceptable, including whether heating of such space would be needed if a boiler room for the snowmelting system would be placed on the lower level. The boiler room may provide enough ambient heat to warm the two levels in the maintenance building. w) Trail operation during construction. The Construction Management Plan, attached to the SIA, addresses the trails and operation thereof. The same or similar condition with the Preliminary Plan approval could be carried forward into the Final PUD ordinance concerning the continued operation of the trail during the construction period. x) Construction Management Plan. A comprehensive version of the construction management plan is planned for attachment to the SIA. Be advised that Sheet C1 Demolition Plan of the civil drawings shows and notes removal of a few existing trees. However, it is the CMP's intent that a majority of the existing trees and vegetation on or around the campus would be preserved. Per the attached Environmental Consultant comments, the applicant via the supplemental binder dated March 30, 2009 agreed to provide a fugitive dust control plan and a hazardous chemical spill plan. The attached comments from the Town's Environmental comments dated April 17, 2009 on the applicant's supplemental response indicates that the environmental impacts and mitigation issues have been addressed. Also, please be advised that a majority of the construction staging areas would be placed between the existing campus and Brush Creek Road, thus making the construction activities, material /equipment storage visible from Brush Creek Road despite the perimeter 8-foot tall screen fence proposed. Continued on following page... 151Paae Planning Commission (PC) recommendations summary via Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009, regarding some of the changes from Preliminary Plan in the Final PUD application: 1) The application does not appear to conflict with other goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the Buildout Chart (Line B66), mass, scale and height variation issues, and the applicant represented that the buildout variation of 29,700 square feet, that was accepted with the Preliminary Plan via Resolution 9, would not change or increase. 2) The Applicant requests a variation from the Town's 25-foot wetland/riparian setback established by Municipal Code Section 16A-4-30(e)(1), "Setback Standards," under the Brush Creek Impact Area. The Applicant's proposed changes in this area, now include the proposed maintenance building, in addition to other development such as underground utilities, roads, trails, bridges and similar facilities that appear as excepted items pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A-4-30(e)(1)b, "Exception for other necessary structures;" and, concerning the maintenance building in particular, the proposed encroachment into the 25-foot wetland/riparian setback appears to have less of an impact that the other surface development impacting the setback area, and the Town Council has the option of accepting other types of development by super-majority vote via an ordinance including reasons why its unable to avoid the encroachment, pursuant to Section 16A-4-30(e)(1)d of the Municipal Code. 3) The changes to the seating counts in the main building addition from 300 to 320 permanent seats at a ratio of 1:3.3 and a decrease of temporary seat from 50 to 30 seats at a rate of 1:5 seems to insignificantly increase the parking requirement from 101 to 103 spaces, and the application appears to acceptably show the proposed expansion of the parking provided on Lot 2A by at least 12 spaces as previous recommended during the Preliminary Plan review, thus increasing the overall parking provided on site from 106 to 121 spaces together with handicap parking provisions; and, as the additional off-site overflow parking has been reduced from 32 to 26 spaces, the net cumulative difference between parking requirements and parking provisions appear negligible when compared to what was proposed during the Preliminary Plan review. 4) Planning Commission, however, finds that it would be preferable for the overflow parking to not occur off the site on a frequent basis, and the applicant should strive to meet parking requirements or demands from their facilities or events on their site. The applicant appears to have acceptably designated a parking space for the residential unit on the site. 5) There are minor exterior finish changes on the main building elevations together with height measurement changes, as they appear resulting from minor final grading changes, but the maximum building height elevation for the main chapel addition remains the same and the maintenance building heights appear to acceptably meet the maximum 18-foot height limitation as measured from existing and proposed finished grades. Continued on following page... 161Page ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING IN THE FINAL PUD. See the Final PUD application text (pp. 15, 26 and 21) describing the proposed changes involving the maintenance building and golf course restrooms. The previous Special Review process standards for the maintenance building per the Preliminary Plan PUD Guide in Resolution 9 stated: Prior to the application for a building permit for the Accessory Maintenance Building, SCI shall submit to the Town for its review and approval the final plans for the Maintenance Building. The application shall include final architectural plans illustrating the various building elevations, the materials and color scheme to be incorporated, a site plans showing the location of the building, grading and drainage improvements required to accommodate the building, and landscape plan for the area immediately surrounding the building. The purpose of this special review shall be to determine that the proposed building and its surroundings are consistent with the design of the Sanctuary building and that the site immediately surrounding the Maintenance Building continues to comply with the overall grading, drainage and landscaping plans submitted for the Sanctuary building." Once the Planning Director determines that the above plans have been submitted and are complete, then the Director shall cause a public notice to be published, in accordance with normal Town policies, that the Town Council will consider the approval of the Special Review Use at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Town Council, to occur at least 10 days following the date of the published notice. At such meeting, the Town Council shall consider the application for the Special Review Use and will approve the use, by resolution, provided that the Town Council finds that the substantial consistency exists between the Accessory Maintenance Building and the new Sanctuary building, the use and Dimensional Limitations, and all other applicable standards set forth in this PUD Guide. The Planning Director or the Town Council may request additional information, as they deem reasonably necessary, to adequately evaluate the Special Use." The following development parameters were applied to the Maintenance Building in the Preliminary PUD Guide: A. 'The Accessory Maintenance Building can include up to 800 square feet of enclosed space; B. The maintenance building will be located at the north end of the hammerhead turnaround on the east side of the new Chapel Sanctuary building. The building will not exceed eighteen feet in height above the adjacent driveway grade. The height of the north elevation of the maintenance building may exceed this amount, but only to the extent necessary to,account for the north sloping grade; C. SCI and the owner of the golf course may agree, before the construction of the maintenance building, to relocate the nearby golf course restroom into the lower level of the maintenance building. The restroom square footage will be exempt from the floor area allowance of this PUD Guide; D. The detailed plans for the maintenance building will be considered under the Special Review procedure set forth in this application." (see above). 171Paae Planning Commission (PC) recommendations summary via Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009, regarding the maintenance building changes: 1) The Applicant earlier confirmed that the proposed future maintenance shed, to be located on the east side of the proposed building addition, is intended to house maintenance equipment such as mowers, trimmers, snow removal machinery and tools. 2) The proposed maintenance facility would double in size from the previously recommended 800 square feet to approximately 1,628 square feet; however, the maintenance building, now on two levels, appears designed to work with the grades by incorporating a basement level while at the same time attaching the facility to the existing golf course restrooms that would be remodeled to acceptably blend with the maintenance facility design, thus appearing to meet one of the previous Planning Commission recommendations and Town Council conditions of approval during the Preliminary Plan stage. Since the final design of the maintenance building is now being proposed, it seems reasonable to review that portion of the application together with the Final PUD versus by separate Special Review application as previously noted in the Preliminary PUD Guide. 3) The applicant should further demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town Council that the exterior finishes proposed on the maintenance building would match the exterior finishes on the proposed main building addition or employ a complementary palette of materials, including a complementary treatment of the exposed foundation walls of the maintenance building, for purposes of aesthetic compatibility. Staff Recommendations: As the above review standards were stated as part of the Preliminary PUD Guide, they are not regulations yet until adopted by ordinance. However, the applicant proposes to double the size of the maintenance building and has submitted a specific design proposal for it among other related changes with the Final PUD application. Therefore, Town Council may wish to introduce conditions, in consideration of the Planning Commission and staff recommendations, concerning the modifications involved with the maintenance facility, including whether it seems acceptable to double the size of it from the previous understanding during the Preliminary Plan review. However, a design of the maintenance facility to incorporate the golf course restrooms into one building versus two separate buildings might be of some benefit and appears to respond to one of the earlier conditions of approval by the Town Council during the Preliminary Plan review. A determination should be made whether the proposed usages in the maintenance building have been defined or restricted acceptably in the Final PUD Guide, including whether it could partly house garage space for storing maintenance or snow removal equipment/vehicles. Be advised that the Council's Preliminary Plan resolution did not specifically approve of a Brush Creek wetland / riparian setback reduction for the maintenance building, since a footprint was not established on the site plan for the Preliminary PUD Guide for such building; although, previous iterations of the plans may have shown a general location for such maintenance building. 181Paac The Brush Creek setback reductions granted were for the development on the south side of the building addition, such as the pedestrian plaza, the fire lane and the culvert/ bridge /driveway areas. The setback reduction proposed for the maintenance building, from 25 to 13 feet, would be of less impact than the ones granted during the Preliminary Plan stage, although the Town Council should indicate the reasons why such a reduction is acceptable if granted pursuant to Code Section 16A-4-30(e)(1)d, Exception for other types of development, subject to a super-majority vote. There should also be discussion as to whether the maintenance building could or should be designed to complement the Anderson Ranch buildings more so than the Chapel's main building addition. Staff initially recommended that all exterior finishes should be noted as matching the proposed main building addition. However, the applicant's supplement of March 30, 2009 states that the intent of the design of the maintenance building is to relate it to the Anderson Ranch buildings, not so much the Chapel. The applicant feels such building relates better to the Ranch buildings. Staff does not object to this concept proposal. However, native stone veneer for the exposed foundation walls should be considered versus concrete walls, unless acceptably painted, textured or clad to also complement the color of the stone cladding or other exterior finishes on adjacent buildings. There should be adequate detail provided of the potential chiller on the east side of the maintenance building including the buffering or screening of it to the satisfaction of Council. The maintenance building does not need a height variation from the maximum height limit of 18 feet for accessory structures per the proposed MU-1 zone, as measured from existing or proposed finished grade and as illustrated in the application's drawings. The uses within the proposed maintenance facility should be verified, which could be more specifically noted in the Final PUD Guide, including whether partial usage of the building as a garage might be acceptable. If the garage within the maintenance building is heated, it would likely be subject to fees per the building efficiency standards in Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2008. ANALYSIS OF SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS: The applicant has addressed the Municipal Code's subdivision exemption review standards in Attachment M of the original Final PUD application. Staff sent technical related review comments dated March 18, 2009 to the applicant for follow up. The Aspen Skiing Company/ Snowmass Club Associates, LLC have consented to the applicant and would be required to execute the exemption plat. The proposed exemptions were proposed, explained and accepted by Council during the Preliminary Plan review, but the exemption plan itself was never consummated. The exemption plat would require separate resolution action by the Council to formalize and finalize the process. As of April 24, 2009, the applicant submitted updated subdivision exemption drawings in response to previous staff review comments. These updates have been referred for a second round review. 191Page ANALYSIS OF FINAL RE-PLAT: The applicant has addressed the Municipal Code's amendment to a final plat review standards in Attachment M of the original Final PUD application. Staff sent technical related review comments dated March 18, 2009 to the applicant for follow up. The final plat would be for the purpose of incorporating the lot line adjustment and the land exchanges into or as part of the applicant's property. The final re-plat would also require separate resolution action by the Council. The Planning Department, and the Fire District may as well, have the following concerns that should be completely verified or understood on the final re-plat: 1. The shared access and emergency access drives through the parking area and over the bridge need to be noted as being maintained as private drives by the owner of Lot 2A and Lot 1. The Town should not have the responsibility of maintaining these driveways, even if noted for public access or emergency access purposes. 2. A note should be added to clarify which users of lots, or the identification of the adjacent lots or legal descriptions, would have shared access to the driveways (e.g., users of the Fire District, Anderson Ranch Arts Center [ARAC], and Lot 1 and Lot 2A of the applicant's site). As of April 24, 2009, the applicant submitted updated final re-plats in response to previous staff review comments. These updates have been referred for a second round review. According to the re-plat, replacement access, emergency access and utility easements, or combinations thereof, are shown and labeled on the drawings, and the access easements are assumed to be shared. The following notes are shown on the latest re-plat: A. "ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. ALL ACCESS AND/OR UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE GRANTED TO THE PERPETUAL USE OF ALL UTILITY COMPANIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING, CONSTRUCTING, REPLACING, REPAIRING, AND MAINTAINING UNDERGROUIND UTILITY AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, INCLUDING (BUT NOT LIMITED TO)WATER, SEWER, ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE AND TELEVISION LINES; TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTTON, REPLACMENT, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UTILITY COMPANIES EXERCISE THE RIGHTS HEREIN GRANTED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ENJOY THE GRANT HEREBY MADE." B. "EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT. A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS PURPOSES AS SHOWN HEREON IS HEREBY GRANTED TO AND ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDERS OVER AND ACROSS THE EMERGNCY ACCESS EASEMENTS WITHIN SNOWMASS INTERFAITH CHAPEL SUBDIVISION:' Continued on following page... 201Page VI. REFERENCE MATERIALS. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009; 2. Initial review comments received from Town Department, districts or outside referral agencies on the original Final PUD application; 3. Second round of referral comments on the applicant replies in response to the initial review comments; and 4. Public comments received as of the writing of this report. Note: For background information, please reference the previously referred Town Council Resolution No. 9, Series of 2006, including the Preliminary PUD Guide, which granted the applicant permission to proceed to a Final PUD. Separate handouts previously issued: Original Final PUD and associated applications dated January 26, 2009 and referred on February 18, 2009; Supplemental binder packet of replies from the applicant dated March 30, 2009, received April 10, 2009 and referred on April 13, 2009 with updated information or plans in response to the initial referral comments. VII. NEXT STEPS. Next Steps include: Continue the public hearing and item to the next meeting; Indentify whether there is a need for further information, review or follow up; and Direct if desired that the staff prepare an ordinance and resolutions for consideration at the next meeting. 21jPage 1 ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Snowmass Chapel Item PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10 SERIES OF 2009 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN COUNCIL CONCERNING THE SNOWMASS CHAPEL FINAL PUD REZONING APPLICATION. WHEREAS, the Snowmass Chapel, Inc., formerly known as Snowmass Chapel and Community Center, Inc., ("Applicant") initially submitted on December 11, 2008 as updated for completeness on January 26, 2009 and formally submitted on February 2, 2009, a completed Final PUD application that together includes a formal requested to rezone the property to "Mixed-Use-1" and a subdivision exemption for lot line adjustment a planned land exchange with an adjacent property owner, and a final re-plat involving Lots 1 and 2A of the Snowmass Interfaith Chapel Subdivision Re-plat "A" encompassing 3.99 acres ("Application"), not including the impacted area onto Parcel 10 (golf course) of the Snowmass Club Subdivision, incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also requests by modification or ratification of the variations from dimensional limitations in the application, including exceeding maximum building height, the maximum buildout, and seeking approval for development encroachment into the 25-toot wetland setback area next to Brush Creek; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed extensively the Preliminary Plan application in 2004 and 2005, including the rezoning information that was required by the Municipal Code, and previously provided their recommendations on the preliminary plan application and related rezoning information via Resolution No. 16, Series of 2005; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 9, Series of 2006 (Resolution 9), the Town Council permitted the applicant to proceed to the Final PUD stage and waived further requirements for an air quality analysis and a fiscal impact report with the application, unless deemed necessary during the Final PUD application review; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 9, the Town Council deferred the final plans, material color samples or photographs of the exterior finishes for the maintenance building with a future Special Review application, which provisions are outlined in the Preliminary PUD Guide; and WHEREAS, the Final PUD application has submitted the final design plans for the maintenance building that removes the Special Review provisions for such building in the proposed Final PUD Guide; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 9, pursuant to Section 16A-5-360(c)(4) of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), the Town Council did not require that Planning Commission review the Final PUD, but that the formal rezoning portion of the application required review by the Planning Commission pursuant to Code Section 16A-5-220, Amendments to Official Zone District Mao; and PC Reso 09-10 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to the above rezoning review, the Planning Commission could consider and review at their option the related minor revisions to portions of the Final PUD application, including the final design plans for the maintenance building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was scheduled to review the rezoning portion of the application on March 18, 2009, and to consider and act upon this resolution on April 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed and processed in accordance with the provisions outlined in Sections 16A-5-220 and 360 of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows: Section One: General Findings and Recommendations. The Planning Commission hereby generally finds or recommends that: 1) The submission requirements for the official application to petition for re-zoning of the property to 'Mixed-Use-1' together with the related minor changes to the Final PUD, mainly regarding the maintenance building, were adequately provided pursuant to Sections 16A-5-220 and 360 of the Municipal Code, and included written and graphic materials in sufficient detail to deem the application complete for review. 2) The application does not appear to conflict with other goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the Buildout Chart (Line B66), mass, scale and height variation issues, and the applicant represented that the buildout variation of 29,700 square feet, that was accepted with the Preliminary Plan via Resolution 9, would not change or increase. 3) As the "Mixed-Use-1" zone district allows a 1:1 FAR in the Table 3-2, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations" of Municipal Code Section 16A-3-50, the Final PUD Guide appears to acceptably restrict the maximum floor area to the previously accepted buildout variation of 29,700 square feet, if ratified by ordinance. 4) The proposed "Mixed-Use-1" zone district seems appropriate for the site as it prohibits commercial type uses, such as retail sales establishments, business/professional offices, personal services, restaurants and commercial lodging. Those proposed uses, not specifically listed with the "MU-1" zone district land-use table, could be considered accessory uses as previously recommended during the preliminary plan stage, provided they are clearly and specifically noted and listed in the Final PUD Guide as accessory permitted uses under the control of the Applicant/owner rather than as primary permitted uses for the site, which appears to be the case pursuant to the proposed Final PUD Guide. 5) Pursuant to the finding/recommendation above, the Final PUD Guide appears to acceptably and definitively list the primary and accessory uses separately, indicating that the accessory uses, such as the administrative/counseling offices, small classes or workshops space and other meeting spaces, shall be operated under the control or auspices of the applicant or the owner of Lot 1 versus being leased to private entities or individuals in order to comply with Table 3-1, "Schedule of uses" in the Mixed-Use-1" zone district via Municipal Code Section 16A-3-50. PC Reso 09-10 Page 3 of 5 6) As previously recommended during the Preliminary Plan review, the Final PUD lists commercial lodging as a prohibited use, among other commercial or retail type uses. 7) The Chapel is an allowed use pursuant to the past PUD or PUD Guide approvals in Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1997, and a Special Review application for such a use is not required in accordance with Table 3-1, "Schedule of Uses," in Municipal Code Section 16A-3-50. 8) Pursuant to the above noted findings and per Municipal Code Sections 16A-5- 300(c)(3) "Uses," under the General Restrictions, the Applicant's proposed "Mixed- Use-1" zone district, appears to meet the following criteria in accordance with Section 16A-5-220(e), "Review Standards" of the Amendments to Official Zone District Map, as follows: a) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; b) Consistency with the purpose of the zone district; c) Consistency with surrounding zone districts and uses; and d) Necessary circumstances such as changed conditions or a community need as, part of the consistency with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 9) The Applicant requests a variation from the Town's 25-foot wetland/riparian setback established by Municipal Code Section 16A-4-30(e)(1), "Setback Standards," under the Brush Creek Impact Area. The Applicant's proposed changes in this area, now include the proposed maintenance building, in addition to other development such as underground utilities, roads, trails, bridges and similar facilities that appear as excepted items pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A-4-30(e)(1)b, "Exception for other necessary structures;" and, concerning the maintenance building in particular, the proposed encroachment into the 25-foot wetland/riparian setback appears to have less of an impact that the other surface development impacting the setback area, and the Town Council has the option of accepting other types of development by super-majority vote via an ordinance including reasons why its unable to avoid the encroachment, pursuant to Section 16A-4-30(e)(i)d of the Municipal Code. 10) The changes to the seating counts in the main building addition from 300 to 320 permanent seats at a ratio of 1:3.3 and a decrease of temporary seat from 50 to 30 seats at a rate of 1:5 seems to insignificantly increase the parking requirement from 101 to 103 spaces, and the application appears to acceptably show the proposed expansion of the parking provided on Lot 2A by at least 12 spaces as previous recommended during the preliminary plan review, thus increase the overall parking provided on site from 106 to 121 spaces together with handicap parking provisions; and, as the additional off-site overflow parking has been reduced from 32 to 26 spaces, the net cumulative difference between parking requirements and parking provisions appear negligible when compared to what was proposed during the preliminary plan review. 11) Planning Commission, however, finds that it would be preferable for the overflow parking to not occur off the site on a frequent basis, and the applicant should strive to meet parking requirements or demands from their facilities or events on their site. The applicant appears to have acceptably designated a parking space for the residential unit on the site. PC Reso 09-10 Page 4 of 5 12) The Applicant earlier confirmed that the proposed future maintenance shed, to be located on the east side of the proposed building addition, is intended to house maintenance equipment such as mowers, trimmers, snow removal machinery and tools. 13) The proposed maintenance facility would double in size from the previously recommended 800 square feet to approximately 1,628 square feet; however, the maintenance building, now on two levels, appears designed to work with the grades by incorporating a basement level while at the same time attaching the facility to the existing golf course restroom that would be remodeled to acceptably blend with the maintenance facility design, thus appearing to meet one of the previous Planning Commission recommendations and Town Council conditions of approval during the preliminary plan stage. Since the final design of the maintenance building is now being proposed, it seems reasonable to review that portion of the application together with the Final PUD versus by separate Special Review application as previously noted in the Preliminary PUD Guide. 14) The applicant should further demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town Council that the exterior finishes proposed on the maintenance building would match the exterior finishes on the proposed main building addition or employ a complementary palette of materials, including a complementary treatment of the exposed foundation walls of the maintenance building, for purposes of aesthetic compatibility. 15) There are minor exterior finish changes on the main building elevations together with height measurement changes, as they appear resulting from minor final grading changes, but the maximum building height elevation for the main chapel addition remain the same and the maintenance building heights appear to acceptably meeting the maximum 18-foot height limitation as measured from existing and proposed finished grades. Sectlon Three: Actlon. The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council grant the petition request to rezone the property to "MU-1" together with the approval of the minor changes in the Final PUD application, including the maintenance building proposal, subject to Town Council's comprehensive review of the Final PUD application and its accompanying subdivision exemptions and final re-plat applications and associated agreements. Section Four: Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the Town of Snowmass Village on April 151, 2009 upon a motion by Planning Commission Member Yocum, the second of Planning Commission Member Aiken, and upon a vote of 6 in favor and 0 against (Commission Member Sirkus abstained). PC Redo 00.10 Page 8 of 5 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE PLANN INGO MMISSIO Bob Purvis,Chairman ATTEST: rl olliday.Planning mmisslon Secretary ATTACHMENT 2 Snowmass Chapel Item INITIAL REVIEW COMMENTS SNOWMASS CHAPEL FINAL PUD AND RELATED APPLICATIONS DUNLOP ENVIRON'IMENTAL CONSUETING, EN(;. Environmental and Public Health Planning for the Rvore. 1luuna+S.llunlnp March 9,2009 Presldcm Town of Snowmass Village Jim Wahlstrom, Sr. Planner RECEIVED PO Box 5010 130 Kearns Rd MAR 0 9 2DO9 Snowmass Village, CO snov,massvµlage 81615 Community Development Re: Snowmass Chapel Final PUD and Related Applications Dear Mr. Wablstrom: Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. (DEC) has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV) under authority of the Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code (Code) .Chanter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code, and other sections of the Code and offers the following comments to this application. Project Description The project includes an expansion of the existing Chapel and community building at the approximate location northwest of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road. A new sanctuary building, mulit-purpose meeting spaces and a maintenance facility to serve the existing and new facilities is proposed. General categories of concern during construction and post-construction for this project are: water quality, construction management, air quality, noise management, and compliance with other environmental health laws,rules and regulations. The scope of this review is to determine the applicant's response to a review performed by DEC on June 23, 2005, and to the transfer of these findings into Resolution 06-9 passed by the Town of Snowmass Village Council. Findings As a general comment, it is the opinion of this reviewer that the applicant has done a thorough job of adequately responding to concerns and issues requiring clarity. It is not necessary to recite the conditions outlined in Resolution 06-9 as they are available as a companion document to the packet distributed to referring agencies. 1 Post O(fie(..liox 6339 o Snmun:+ V'rllage,Cnlorulo S IGl i 1;51 Office and 1su (')7()) )Z3-i82p n pno:rt m:ionrYCµcop Site drainage: The applicant has committed to comply with rules identified by the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES). This permit is designed to protect water systems such as Brush Creek. Wetlands: The applicant has committed to seek and receive a U.S. Corps of Engineer permit prior to a building permit being issued. The applicant recognizes the need to apply to the TOSV for a variance to encroach into the 25 foot setback required from wetlands. Storm Water: The applicant has committed to obtaining a State of Colorado Storm Water Management permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. It is not offered, but it is recommended the applicant supply a copy of this permit to the TOSV prior to a building permit being issued. Air Quality: The applicant mentions measures such as wash racks and possibly using sweepers to keep fugitive dust under control. It is recommended that the applicant formalize the dust control measures by submitting a fugitive dust control plan. This allows a more comprehensive approach to be taken as each control measure is spelled out. This is not a complicated or time consuming exercise and DEC is available to the applicant to make this request easily accomplished. A full air quality analysis and fiscal impact report has been waived by Town Council. Noise: The applicant has committed to comply with the TOSV standards regulating noise and the hours of operation allowed under the municipal code. Hazardous Material Handling: The applicant commits the general contractor to respond to spill conditions.This point is not well developed in the construction management plan. DEC is available to assist the applicant in a more complete response to this point. An example of expanding the point is determining the credential of the responsible party and, perhaps as part of the site safety plan, what specific action will take place if a spill occurs. This concludes findings of this review. Please contact me with further questions or clarifications. Sincerely, RECEIVED Thomas S. Dunlop, MPH, RE ITS MAR q g 2009 Snowmass v•uage Community Development 2 SCHMUESER 1, GORDON I MEYER GLENWOOD SPRINGS ASPEN CRESTED BUTTE E N G 1 N E E R 5 S S U R V E Y O R S 11 B W. 5TH, BumE 200 P.O. Box 21 55 P.O. Box 3066 GUMNAOOD SP. .CO B 1601 ASPEN, CO B 16 1 2 CRESTED BUTTS,CO B 1 224 970-945-1004 970.925.5727 970-349.5355 M 970945-5946 M %70-925-4157 sx: 970-349-5356 1 MEMORANDUM i DATE: March 24, 2009 TO: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner iimwahlsttom()tosv.com FROM: Dean Gordon, Town Engineer i Richard Goulding, SGM RE: Snowmass Chapel Final Plan Application Please find herein my comments on the above-referenced application. I will use my previous comments as a basis of reference. The original memo is dated April 25, 2009 and the subsequent memo is dated October 11, 2005, both are attached. Also used are the Sopris Engineering drawings with latest revision date, 11/10/08 labeled Bid Documents, and the Final PUD application dated January 26, 2009: My comments on the Traffic Plan are deferred to the Town's traffic consultant for items 1 and 2. Items 3, 4 and 5 have been addressed. Item 6 has not been addressed. As part of a Final Plat submission, an analysis will be required to show the routing of a 100-year storm on site and comments on the potential property impacts. Swales are graded around the building that demonstrate the direction that runoff is intended to Flow. However there is no calculation in the current package as to sizing of the swales to contain a 100-year event. If the flow in the Swale were to exceed capacity excess runoff would drain on to the golf course to the North. Please include a statement that the 100-year event can be contained in the swale or include calculations and cross sections to that effect. Some of the swale contours do not tie back to existing grade. Item 7 concerning guardrails has been addressed by removing the guardrail detail from the previous application and including a poured concrete wall detail. This form of guardrail is satisfactory. Item 8 has been addressed in a letter dated May 23, 2005 from Applicant's engineer. A Nyloplast sand/oil filter will be installed in the inlets to address water quality issue from runoff in the paved areas in front of the new structure. Item 9 with respect to on-site culverts; the onsite 12" culvert has been eliminated from the design. 1\199119/00AEWnsw 18-S, sC1upeB9N7 revised memo 0 Wahllt ndx I SCHMUESER GORDON I MEYER ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYORS Items 10, 11,',12 and 13 have been addressed. I Item 14 and Item 15 have been addressed by a supplemental version of the Applicant's report entitled, Brush Creek Impact Report, dated September 29, 2005. I i i Additional Comments The plans are labeled bid documents which is acceptable but they need to be stamped for both structural and civil if this is a final submission. More erosion mats should be added to the steep area downstream of the proposed bridge on C14 until vegetation is established. I The runoff from the curb and gutter on the bridge drains directly in the creek with no erosion control. Rip rap could be added to mitigate the runoff. The proposed bridge is designed for H-20 loading, this equates to 40,000lbs. When I checked with Wildcat Fire District the required loading was a HS-20 which is about 72,000lbs. Their ladder truck is in the 70,0001b region. The bridge is under designed from a shearing standpoint in the concrete girders if both of the rear axels are on the bridge at the same time. The foundation may also be under designed in this scenario. The water surface level and freeboard should be shown on the bridge cross section. Micro-piles were used as opposed to a spread footing as recommended by the Geotech report in 2008. Please include a statement stating that these are an equal alternate. The proposed retaining walls are 7-8' high. No information was provided as to the surcharge loading on these within the parking lot and where the fire truck would turn. around. The work around manhole SHM 0-13B is in close proximity to the wetlands and is 10' deep. It is also close to the creek and some methods should be developed as to how to deal with possibility of the creek flooding the dig during construction. The parking stalls should be 9'wide not 8'. Swale Flow lines would help the contractor construct the swales as intended. Please call if you have question if you have any questions on the above comments v RBG Lp99119r0001E1Pnnea t8-Snommev Chepeh114-09 mvixd memo m Wahlslrom.Eac I j SCHMUESER GORDON I MEYER GLENWOOD SPRINGS ASPEN CRESTED OUTTE V7 E N O, N C E R S S S U R V E V O R S 11 B W, CTH, SUITE 200 P.O. eoz 2 i OS no. Boa 0088 PEIIM>vo SPR..CO B,501 SPEN.CO B I a 1 2 CRESTED BUTTE.CO B 1 224 970-045-1004 970925.6727 970349.5355 970-045-5946 PI: 49.535 I MEMORANDUM c5 DATE: Revised October 11, 2005 TO: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner imwahlst FROM: Dean Gordon, w I i i RE: Snowmass Chapel dif d Preliminary Plan Application Please find herein my comments on the above-referenced application. I will use my previous comments as a basis of reference. I have also used the Sopris Engineering drawings with latest revision date 8/24/05, and the Applicant's "Response to Previous Staff and Consultant Review Comments' as a basis: My comments on the Traffic Plan are deferred to the Town's traffic consultant for items 1 and 2. Items 3, 4 and 5 have been addressed. Item 6 has not been addressed. I have met with the engineer on this issue. As part of a Final Plat submission, an analysis will be required to show the routing of a 100-year storm on site and comments on the potential property impacts. Item 7 concerning guardrails has been addressed by removing the guardrail detail from the previous application and including a poured concrete wall detail. This form of guardrail is satisfactory. At time of Final Plat, that wall will have final detailing and must include an allowance for impact loading consistent with CDOT design standards. Item 8 has been addressed in a letter dated May g3, 2005 from Applicant's engineer. Item 9 with respect to on-site culverts, contrary to the Applicant's response, this was not addressed. I have discussed this with the Applicant's engineer and it will be addressed as part of the Final Plat submission. Items 10, 11, 12 and 13 have been addressed. Item 14 and Item 15 have been addressed by a supplemental version of the Applicant's report entitled, "Brush Creek Impact Report", dated September 29, 2005. 1:11 9 911910 0 91EIPhaae18•5w mnsC]10pe01O-11-05memdmE NWO131 m.dw I : I l SCH4MUESER + GORDOI N I MEYER ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYORS I Revised October 11, 2005 Mr. Jim Wahlstrom Page'2 I I I I i i i Prior to preparation of the above, I did have an opportunity to meet with the Applicant's engineer. I was able to meet with the Applicant's representative to discuss my comments as well. ) DWG lec\91004E-18 I ' 1:119911919941E1p9asa 18-SnOmass O,apWn 1145 revised memo to WNhIstrwn Eoc J SCHMUESER GORDON I MMR GIKNw000 sPaI.rs AsvEN CRESTED BUTTE VE N O I N E E R S S SURVEYORS I I a W. 5TH. SUITE 200 v.o, .0. 21 55 r.o. eox 3088 GLEINpp SPPNOi,0081801 A PEN. CO B 161 z CAS TED OVRE• CO B 1 2 24 970-945-1 004 e7o-e25-5727 970-349-5355 FR: 970-945-5946 W770 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2005 TO: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior P er iimwahlstrom(catosv.com i FROM: Dean Gordon, Town Engin er j RE: Preliminary Plan Application, S wm ss Chapel and Community Center Review Comments I have reviewed Ithe application package as transmitted by your April 7, 2005 memo. Comments are as follows: The Applicant states under the "Wavier of Submission Requirements"that"...traffic analysis will identify any additional levels of impact that might be expected and measures, if needed, to mitigate such impacts". The use of the site will increase by more than 50% from an immediate seating capacity, while the facility itself will more than double in size. The access point onto Owl Creek Road is in an awkward location, being very close to the Brush Creek road intersection and on a shaded grade. The Owl Creek Road/Brush Creek Road intersection currently functions at an unacceptable level. There will intuitively be increased impact to Owl Creek Road and the Brush Creek Road intersection. The Applicant's traffic engineer indicates that all intersection points will function adequately upon the expansion and that, with a roundabout built at the Owl Creek Road/Brush Creek Road intersection, the access point onto Owl Creek Road will continue to function adequately. My observation is that neither of these locations functions adequately now and with increased activity from the Chapel, as well as a new roundabout, users of the Chapel site will be impacted negatively. The Applicant by submittal of his report is on record as saying that such impacts are acceptable and that any changes will be acceptable to them. Grading and Drainage Plan, Sheet C-2. It appears there is an encroachment in the wetlands, both sides of the access road. This will require a 404 Permit or the impact to wetlands needs to be removed. Provide erosion protection from the outlet of the culverts (two locations) between end of pipe and wetlands. Design for both erosion control and energy dissipation. CHMUESER I' GORDON I MEYER ENGINEERS b SURVEYORS I April 25, 2005 Mr. Jim Wahlstrom Page 2 I I I o Provide permanent water quality control on discharge of storm sewer system associated with access roadway. None provided on drawings. o The apparent design basis for the drainage is a 25-yeasr storm. Provide an analysis of where a 100-year storm will go. What damage will occur to any property or improvements and whether it is appropriate to provide mitigation. o The guardraillMSE wall detail on Sheet C-6 is inadequate. The guardrail as shown will not meet CDOT requirements or standards of the industry. If it is the intent that the MSE wall be designed by a structural engineer, then those details will be required as part of Final Plat. If the MSE wall is to be designed/built by contractor, then it should be so designated and those details would not be required at Final Plat. Drainage Study A conclusion is reached that there will be no adverse impacts to the Brush Creek 100-year floodplain as a result of the increased rate of runoff; therefore, no detention of stormwater flows is proposed. Provide a basis for that conclusion in terms of how much the 100-year storm runoff rate would increase and what the potential raise in floodplain will be. Provide a statement that there is available excess capacity for the increased runoff in downstream structures. The basis of design of the 12"CMP north of the building was provided, but the basis of design for the storm sewer was not included. While all runoff is collected from the hard surface paving areas, there are no water quality treatment facilities indicated on the drawings. The Applicant needs to provide a BMP Water Quality Treatment Plan prior to discharge to Brush Creek. The current gravel access road across the creek does not meet water quality standards. The addition of water quality treatment from the paved access road will correct that deficiency. The entire site is treated as a single drainage basin, however, there appears to be a few as three and as many as five sub-basins. It appears that the basis of design of the storm conveyance facility is based on the more conservative assumption of a single drainage basin. If that is the case, sub-basin designation will not be required; if not, sub-basins will need to be designated and the calculations adjusted accordingly. I SCHMUESER1 CORDON I MEYER EfNGINEERS SURVEYORS I i April 25, 2005 Mr. Jim Wahlstrom Page 3 Construction Management o On Page 5 of 10, the plan states "...will direct general contractor to correct Stormwater Management measures within one week of reporting". That is too long a period of time to correct any Stormwater Management deficiencies. That paragraph should be amended to read, "...will direct general contractor to correct Stormwater Management measures within 24 hours of identification of a deficiency". On Page 7 of 10, the plan states, "Washed rocks shall be utilized on Snowmas,s Chapel property and, thus, street cleaning by skid steers will not need to be utilized during construction" It has been our experience that washed rocks have modest success in preventing debris from being tracked onto public roadways. It is also the Town's position that the Contractor needs to be prepared to use a street sweeper in the event that tracking is taking place. This plan needs to be amended to include the following: "In the event that mud or debris is tracked onto a public roadway, the Contractor shall remove such mud and debris within four hours of notification by the Town Public Works Director or his authorized representative and, in no case, no later than the same working day. Removal shall be by street sweeping". No access is shown directly off Brush Creek Road to the north of the site. Such access would not be allowable. Access for construction and delivery purposes shall be from the existing access road and parking lot. Brush Creek Impact On Page 2, the report indicates that because increased runoff will be detained and treated on site, there is no impact to Brush Creek. However, that is in direct conflict with the drainage report, which indicates that no detention will take place and, further, there is no proposed water quality treatment indicated. The author of this report should review the engineering drawings and review his conclusion on Page 2 accordingly. On Page 3 in the summary, the report indicates that, because the site will maintain historic stormwater runoff rates and groundwater recharge rates, there will be no impact to Brush Creek. However, the drainage report proposes that there will be no detention on site and, therefore, the historic runoff rate will increase. Further, I see no indication on the drawings where any consideration of maintaining groundwater recharge rates is proposed. Therefore, it would appear that the summary and conclusion reached is not based on facts consistent with the drainage study. The author should review the engineering submittal and revise this summary section accordingly. SCHMUESER GORDON I MEYER CNOII HOER S 6 SURVEYORS I April 25, 2005 Mr. Jim Wahlstrom Page 4 i i Many of my comments can be addressed as part of the Final Plan process. i DWG I lec/911004A-78 cc: Hunt Walker hwalker(a)tosv.com I I Transportation Department Comments March 25, 2009 Snowmass Chapel Final PUD Jim, I believe you are correct on all the issues in your email. David From: Jim Wahlstrom Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:59 PM To: David Peckler Cc: Chris Conrad; Russell Forrest; John Dresser Subject: Chapel Final PUD - SIA&Transit Waiting Area David, Your office may have seen the attached agreement or referenced drawing in the Snowmass Chapel Final PUD application under the SIA agreement section. In the SIA, under subsection (viii)for the Transit Shelter et cetera, It indicates that the sidewalk extension occurs on north side of Brush Creek Road, but the attached drawing seems to illustrate a walkway extension on Owl Creek Road. Was there ever a desire during the preliminary plan stage or afterwards to ask for a connecting walkway between the existing bus shelter on Brush Creek Road and the proposed one on Owl Creek Road? If there wasn't, 1 believe the reference in the SIA to the walkway installation on the north side of Brush Creek Road is incorrect. The SIA also makes reference that the Town would pick up the remaining cost difference to install a full-sized transit shelter over that mid-size shelter approved as a Community purpose item with the preliminary plan. The applicant is increasing the floor area for the proposed buildings a bit from 29,583 to 29,611 sq. ft., but they would stay within the previously designated buildout variation limit of 29,700 sq. ft. supposedly accepted during the preliminary plan resolution subject to ratification by ordinance during final stage. I'm not certain there is another variation or modified variation that you might be able to hang your hat on in efforts to encourage the applicant to up the community purpose offerings. Also, I'm providing to you all a Word document of the SIA(should be duplicate of the pdf file) dated early January that I received that incorporates updates (same language as in application) pertaining to our completion review comments. Please use it to provide me your office's comments in redline format if you wish. I plan to follow up soon regarding my comments on the other agreements in the application. Thanks, Jim Transportation Department Comments Snowmass Chapel Final PUD April 1, 2009 Dean, Thanks for the information. I would agree with your observations on the Owl Creek Rd intersection. Do you have any comments on the location of the bus stop? Is the bus stop creating some of the impacts to the wetlands that you observed? David From Planning Department to Town Engineer and Transportation: Concerning the traffic related comments, Town Council made the following findings during the Preliminary Plan stage review in Resolution 06-9 FYI: a. Traffic impacts. The background traffic figures in the Traffic Impact Analysis in the application included the existing facilities, but it did not assess the traffic impacts and parking demand from the adaptive re-use of the existing facilities. Tripling the size of the building complex and floor area, and the potential doubling of the seating capacity, will likely increase traffic and parking impacts. There might be overlap in the usage of the facilities in the complex, and 300 people seated in the community facility spaces in the existing and proposed buildings would be roughly equivalent to 300 people seated in the proposed building addition during peak parking demand. Such impacts have been adequately addressed by the Applicant pursuant to the Preliminary PUD Guide use restrictions and parking management plan (Exhibits V and V of Attachment °A"). in addition, the planned roundabout in the capital improvement plans, and as a recommended policy in the Comprehensive Plan, would relieve traffic impacts from the proposed development at the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road. b. Streets and relatedandrelated improvements. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A-4-210, and per the finding above, the Applicant did not provide a fully complete or comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis that addressed: L the Town Council Condition #11 of Resolution No. 14, Series of 2002; ii. the trip generation analysis pursuant to Code Section 16A-5-340(c)(2)o concerning the requirement for: 1) daily peak hour traffic counts during AM and PM peak hours, and 2) anticipated transit ridership and potential costs for service, including the affects on the other criteria and required information stated in this Code section; iii. an analysis of the cumulative impact based on daily volumes and peak hour turning movements; and iv. how a reduction in the number of trips might be achieved pursuant to Code Section 16A-4-210(1)d1. During the review of the Preliminary Plan application and modifications thereto, such traffic impact related information is no longer needed to adequately evaluate the proposal as a result of the use restrictions and detailed parking management plan provided in the Preliminary PUD Guide (Attachment W). In the end, it came down to the applicant demonstrating adequate management of their uses on the site and the parking demand situation. Jim From: John Mele Umele @swfpd.coml Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:57 PM To: Jim Wahlstrom Cc: Steven Sowles' Subject: RE: Snowmass Chapel Final PUD Jim, As of today I still have not received a return call from Doug Dotson concerning the Chapel application and some questions I had concerning emergency access. Also late last week, Bruce Mckinnon from Chaffin Light Associates stopped by and was to schedule a meeting concerning this application and our 2006 Access Agreement between our property and the Chapel/Anderson Ranch parking lot. According to Bruce we were to meet sometime earlier this week but that has not happened as of yet. Needless to say we have some unfinished items on our list and are available to meet when the Applicant sets up an appointment with us. Our comments are being requested by your Planning Department by Monday, March 16th so we are running very close to deadline. I am sure that eventually all concerned parties will gather but I do not wish to wait until the last minute as I have other projects that are pressing. In short, we can not support the Chapel Application until these additional matters have been discussed and mitigated. John T. Mele Fire Marshal- Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District 970) 923.2212 imele @swfod.com ATTACHMENT 3 Snowmass Chapel Item SECOND ROUND OF REVIEW COMMENTS ON SNOWMASS CHAPEL FINAL PUD SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION DATED MARCH 30, 2009 DUNLOP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Environmental and Public Health Planning for the Future Thomas S.Dunlop April 17, 2009 President Town of Snowmass Village n r i T Jim Wahlstrom, Sr. Planner i L A it PO Box 5010 APR 17130KearnsRd 2009 Snowmass Village, CO bnuwmass vwage 81615 Community Development Re: Snowmass Chapel Final PUD and Associated Applications Dated March 30,2009 Titled: Snowmass Chapel Final Planned Unit Development Plan Subdivision Exemption, and Final Subdivision Plat Dear Mr. Wahlstrom: Dunlop Environmental Consulting, Inc. (DEC) has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV) under authority of the Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code (Code) .Chapter 16A of the Snowmass Village Municipal Code, and other sections of the Code and offers the following comments to this application. Project Description The project includes an expansion of the existing Chapel and community building at the approximate location northwest of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road. A new sanctuary building, mulit-purpose meeting spaces and a maintenance facility to serve the existing and new facilities is proposed. General categories of concern during construction and post-construction for this project are: water quality, construction management, air quality, noise management, and compliance with other environmental health laws, rules and regulations. The scope of this review is to determine the applicant's response to a review performed by DEC on March 9,2009. Findings The applicant has appropriately responded to the following concerns mentioned in the March 90'review: Storm Water Management Plan Fugitive Dust Control Plan Hazardous Spill Control Plan 1 Post OBlce Box 6289 • Snowmass Village,Colorado 81615 USA * Office and Fax (970) 923-4820 0 pdnled oa,ccyckd paper This discussion can be found under Attachment B in the March 301'submittal. The applicant also recognizes the need to possibly change conditions of the Construction Management Plan as construction progresses. This is important as unforeseen events might require construction updates between the Town and the Chapel team. This concludes findings of this review. Please contact me with further questions or clarifications. Sincerely, Thomas S. Dunlop, MPH, REHS 2 SCHMUESER GORDON I MEYER GI-ENW000 SPRINGS ASPEN CRESTED DUTTE ENGINEERS S S U R IV E Y O R 5 11 8 w. OTN. SURE 200 P.O. Sox 2 1 55 P.O. eon 3088 GUDRRCCO SPRINGS,CO 13 1001 ASPEN.CO 0181'2 CRESTED lUtl[, CC 81 224 070 943-1004 97O-B25 8727 870-349-5355 870645.5948 M: 97P925-4167 M! 970349.5358 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 22, 2009 TO: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner iimwahlsttomCo tosv.com FROM: Dean Gordon, Town Engineer Richard Goulding, SGM RE: Snowmass Chapel Final Plan Application Please find herein my comments on the above-referenced application. I will use my previous comments as a basis of reference. The original memo is dated April 25, 2009 and the subsequent memo is dated October 11, 2005, both are attached. Also used are the Sopris Engineering drawings with latest revision date, 11/10/06 labeled Bid Documents, and the Final PUD application dated March 30th 2009: My comments on the Traffic Plan are deferred to the Town's traffic consultant for items 1 and 2. Items 3,4 and 5 have been addressed. Item 6 has been addressed in the March 30,2009 package by a memo from Sopris Engineering Item 7 concerning guardrails has been addressed by removing the guardrail detail from the previous application and including a poured concrete wall detail. This form of guardrail is satisfactory. Item 8 has been addressed in a fetter dated May 23, 2005 from Applicant's engineer. A Nyloplast sandloil filter will be installed in the inlets to address water quality issue from runoff in the paved areas in front of the new structure. Item 9 with respect to on-site culverts; the onsite 12" culvert has been eliminated from the design. Items 10, 11, 12 and 13 have been addressed. Item 14 and Item 15 have been addressed by a supplemental version of the Applicant's report entitled, Brush Creek Impact Report, dated September 29, 2005. 1:1199MIGMEIPIUx 18-S wmmu ClwpsM-27-08 mvoatl memo a wellk:Inn.mc Additional Comments i I e The plans are labeled bid documents which is acceptable but they need to be stamped for both structural and civil if this is a final submission. The applicant has agreed to stamp the final drawings I , More erosion mats should be added to the steep area downstream of the proposed bridge on'C14 until vegetation is established. The applicant has agreed to add this to the final drawing i I e The runoff from the curb and gutter on the bridge drains directly in the creek with no erosion control. Rip rap could be added to mitigate the runoff. The applicant has agreed to add this to the final drawing i e The proposed bridge is designed for H-20 loading, this equates to 40,000lbs. When I checked with Wildcat Fire District the required loading was a HS-20 which is about 72,000lbs. Their ladder truck is in the 70,0001b region. The bridge is under designed from a shearing standpoint in the concrete girders if both of the rear axels are on the bridge at the same time. The foundation may also be under designed in this scenario. The water surface level and freeboard should be shown on the bridge cross section. The response is acceptable but is based on the statement that the trucks the Wildcat Fire Department use are similar to Denver fire trucks. When I spoke to the Fire Department it appears they had a larger heavier truck. The response should be forwarded to the Fire Department to ensure they agree with the assumptions on the size of their equipment The issue of the water level at 100 year flood In has been addressed by Sopris Engineering. I would request the information is added to the structural section for the final drawings. e Micro-piles were used as opposed to a spread footing as recommended by the Geotech report in 2008. Please include a statement stating that these are an equal alternate. The response is acceptable e The proposed retaining walls are 7-8' high. No information was provided as to the surcharge loading on these within the parking lot and where the fire truck would turn. around. The response is acceptable e The work around manhole SHM 0-13B is in close proximity to the wetlands and is 10' deep. It is also close to the creek and some methods should be developed as to how to deal with possibility of the creek flooding the dig during construction. The response is acceptable e The parking stalls should be 9' wide not 8'. The response is acceptable. The painted area between the spaces and the at grade plaza could be used to accommodate larger vehicles e Swale Flow lines would help the contractor construct the swales as intended. 1:1199119100MEWhu.18.Snowmass Chapella•22-09 revved memo m Wahlsuomdoc I I I The response is acceptable and more detail is to be added to the stamped set. I I I i I i I ' Please call if you have question if you have any questions on the above comments RBG I I 1'.F199119100e1E1Phese 18-Snow sss ChapeM-32-09 reM,W memo to Wchls1rpmdo Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District April 23, 2009 Jim, I have reviewed Dean Gordon's statements as well as a copy of a letter that the Chapel engineers Monroe and Newell) have documented to Cottle Carr Yaw Architects. I must take the Town Engineers statements very seriously as our truck does in fact weigh closer to 78,000 Ibs and not the design load of 40,000 Ibs Dean states. I thought that this fire truck weight was made clear from the beginning but apparently this is not the case. Weight considerations should also be assured for the circle emergency access that is located in front of the Chapel. To date,the Chapel has not met with us despite the fact that we have expressed a need to discuss a specific lot line issue and other concerns that the fire department's future improvements might have. Unfortunately the Chapel cancelled the one meeting that they initiated and have not rescheduled any future meetings between us. Our attempts to schedule a meeting with them, so far, have gone unanswered. We are of strong opinion that the Chapel project should not move forward until the above concerns are addressed. Please advise us once again as to the date and time of this Town Council meeting item so that we may come and state our position in person. John T. Male Fire Marshal- Snowmass Wildcat Fire Protection District 970) 923-2212 imele @swfod.com ATTACHMENT 4 Original Message----- Snowmass Chapel Item From: Allison Renshaw[mailto:alliart@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:29 PM To: Rhonda Coxon Subject: Snowmass Chapel Dear Snowmass Village Town Clerk, I am writing this letter in response to the public hearing notice I recently received in the mail with regards to the Snowmass Village Chapel, Inc.'s proposed re-zoning. As a part-time Snowmass resident living in Season's Four Condominiums right across the street from the Chapel and a past resident of Anderson Ranch, I would like to voice my concerns and opposition to the proposed expansion and re-zoning. My family and I went to an event at Anderson Ranch last week and the parking lot was so crowded because of a concurrent event taking place at the chapel. That in and of itself is no reason to deny the chapel expansion, but it seems as if the whole area can't really support any more traffic or parking. There is something to be said about the quaint, village feel of that whole area surrounding the Ranch and my fear would be that expanding the chapel would take away from that feeling. Without being able to view the exact plans, perhaps the expansion wouldn't change the area too much, but I would hate to see anything bigger and taller be put in place. I already feel as if Snowmass has become a vastly different place with all of the base-village expansion. It would be nice to hold on to some small town charm. The atmosphere surrounding Anderson Ranch and the wide expanse that exists because of the golf course make that area between Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek feel like the "old" Snowmass. It is such an atmosphere that made us buy.property right there in Season's Four. Sincerely, Allison Renshaw 760) 809-3448 hftp://www.allisonrenshaw.com MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: May 18, 2009 SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION: A re- zoning to 'Multi-Family' (MF), and a revised Minor Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Amendment regarding the proposed Snowmass Club Circle development project. The application involves a proposed redevelopment of Parcel 10, Filing No. 1, Lot 1, of the Snowmass Club Subdivision (the old golf clubhouse building site) involving 0.4 acre located on the south side of Snowmass Club Circle across from the Snowmass Club. Applicant: Bear Realty, Inc., represented by: Stan Clausen/Patrick Rawley, Stan Clausen Associates, Inc. Owner: Snowmass Club Associates, LLC Planner: Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner I. PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The purpose of the meeting would be to consider the applicant's two concurrent requests per the attached letter dated May 5, 2009 (Attachment 1). The two requests are: 1) To amend the proposal from three (3) residential units to a duplex, as the applicant states was a result of Town Council comments received earlier; and 2) A request to continue the public hearing to July 20, 2009. For appropriate action, please reference the staff recommendations section below. II. SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. Previous proposal: In referencing the previous application materials that were referred on November 7, 2008, that application proposed a triplex development, which included: 1. Re-zoning the Property to "Multi-Family" (MR, 2. Amendina the existing PUD, which involved a Preliminary Plan, proposing a triplex with condominium ownership, and two-car garages for each unit; 3. A parking variance to allow 10 surface and garage parking spaces in lieu of the required 13 spaces; 4. A buildout variation to allow a residential buildout increase from 0 units to 3 actual units with a unit equivalency of 18.0 UE; 1 5. Developing into the Town's 15-foot wetland setback requirement, for both the existing pond and the replacement pond. In addition, any approval of the proposed buildout variation and the encroachment into the 25-foot wetland setback requirement would have required approval by at least three quarters (3/4) of the members of the Town Council present and voting. Amendment proposal: The only information offered at this time for the proposed amendment is that it would be a proposed residential duplex. Considering the type of land use application involved, there may be a need for supplemental information in order to adequately evaluate the amendment proposal. Be advised that no information has been provided at this time concerning whether a rezoning change is proposed to a 'duplex' district, the modified building coverage, floor area ratio, unit size, heights, any variations, accompanying site plans, buffering treatments, building elevations or perspectives. Ill. BACKGROUND The previously revised application was presented to the Town Council on February 17, 2009. At that time, there were public and Town Council comments that indicated an unfavorable reaction to the proposal. In the end, the applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to May 18, 2009 to consider a redesign of the proposal. IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The following Municipal Code sections apply to the consideration of the applicant's two concurrent requests: 1. Section 16A-5-340(k), Amendments, of the Municipal Code states: If an applicant wishes to amend a submission after a Planning Commission recommendation thereon, such request shall be made in writing and presented to the Town Council during the public hearing. The Town Council shall consider and make a determination as to whether the changes alter the nature of the project from that described in the original submission to such an extent that: 1) The amendment should not be allowed; 2) The amendment should be allowed, but the Planning Commission should have an opportunity to review the amendment and make a recommendation thereon; or 3) The amendment should not be allowed, and the application should proceed without additional hearings or consideration thereof. If the amendment is not allowed, the Town Council shall continue to consider the application without amendment in accordance with the provision of this Section. If an additional Planning Commission recommendation is to be made, the Town Council 2 may, at its discretion, table the application until it has received the Planning Commission's recommendation on the amendment." Section 16A-5-340(1), Remand, of the Municipal Code, states: "An application may also be remanded to the Planning Commission when the Town Council determines that the application has otherwise been altered in a significant manner following the Planning Commission's action on the Preliminary PUD. The Town Council shall table the application until it has received the Planning Commission's recommendation on the changes. 2. Section 16A-5-70(2)d, Continuance of public hearing, of the Municipal Code states: The body conducting the public hearing may, on its own motion or at the request of the applicant, continue the public hearing to a fixed date, time and place. An applicant shall have the right to request and be granted one (1) continuance. All subsequent continuances shall be granted at the discretion of the body conducting the public hearing only upon good cause shown." V. DISCUSION ITEMS WITH STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant has made two concurrent requests for this meeting; one being the proposed amendment and the other a continuation of the public hearing. Proposed amendment. Concerning the proposed amendment, the applicant has met the intent of the Code by providing at minimum a written description, albeit brief, of the amendment, but certainly due the type of land use application proposed, additional information might be need to be provided to the satisfaction of the Town Council in order to property evaluate and determine whether to accept the amendment via a resolution and in order to allow continued referral and review of said amendment. Unless Town Council desires a comprehensively updated application, the information that may be of importance at the very least in evaluating the amendment might be: a) whether a change to a different zoning category is proposed, such as a 'Duplex' district that has a height limit of 28 feet and a maximum floor area of 4,500 sq. ft. versus the previously proposed 'MF' district that has height limitation of 38 feet and a maximum F.A.R. of 0.75:1 or 13,068 sq. ft. of floor area for the site, b) accompanying modified site plans, c) setbacks and buffering treatments, d) building elevations and/or perspectives, and e) appropriate data such as building coverage, floor area ratio, unit sizes, heights, and any variations. At this time, Staff does not have any observations or comments to offer concerning core issues or review involving the proposed amendment until the amendment request is formally accepted by resolution. If subsequently accepted, including a determination whether the amendment or portions thereof should be remanded to the Planning Commission for review, then the revised application should be referred to applicable Town Departments, districts or referral agencies for review and comment. Afterwards, a detailed Staff report 3 would be prepared and a subsequent hearing or continued hearing would then be scheduled before the Planning Commission or Town Council to evaluate and consider the revised proposal. Request for continuance of the public hearing. Staff recommends that the Town Council accept the applicant's request for continuance of the public hearing to July 20, 2009 without formally considering or acting upon the amendment request at this time, provided good cause has been shown to the satisfaction of the Town Council. It is apparent per the applicant's attached letter that additional time is needed to complete the redesign and to provide the supplemental information necessary to adequately evaluate the amendment proposal. VI. OTHER HEADINGS RELATED TO THE TOPICS Attachments: 1. Letter from applicant dated May 5, 2009 as received by the Planning Department on May 7, 2009 4 i r ATTACHMENT 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC Snowmass Club Circle itemlandscapearchitecture.planning.resort design pu North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 8t6u L970/925-2323 f-970/920-t628 Info®scaptanning.com mmscaplanning.com 5 May 2009 RECEIVED Town of Snowmass Village Town Council MAY 0 7 2009 c/o Chris Conrad Stfosanass VillaPlanningDirector e9 130 Kearns Road Lor11tf1UflitIf Development Snowmass Village, CO 81615 RE: 300 Snowmass Club Circle/Amendment to Preliminary Plan Application Greetings: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. represents Bear Realty in connection with their Preliminary Plan Application for a Planned Unit Development of property located at 300 Snowmass Club Circle. i On behalf of Bear Realty, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.requests that the Preliminary Plan Application be amended to provide for the construction of a residential duplex. This amends the previous application which provided for the construction of three (3) residential units. This reduction is a result of the comments received from the Town Council during the previous hearings held on this matter. Concurrently,we wish to request a continuance of our Town Council hearing originally scheduled for 18 May 2009. We request that the hearing be continued until the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting on 20 July 2009. We will be present at the meeting of 18 May 2009 to receive any comments that the Council may have regarding this request. Supplemental information will be submitted to your office upon completion of the redesign to assist in the review of the amendment. It is our understanding that supplemental application materials will be needed to be submitted by 26 June 2009 in order to provide for your review and Council packet deadlines. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. I Very truly yours, Stan Clauson STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Cc: S.R. Mills, Bear Realty MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Housing Department/ Russ Forrest DATE: May 18, 2009 SUBJECT: Rodeo Place - Phase II I.PURPOSE AND ACTIONS REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is requested to provide direction on next steps for Phase 2 of the Rodeo Place Housing Project. The primary question at hand is whether there is sufficient market demand to move forward with authorizing the Town Manager to execute a contract with Rudd Construction for phase 2A. Staff will email the number of qualification letters the Town receives on May 15th to the Town Council. II.BACKGROUND The table below summarizes the existing approved project for Rodeo Place. Single Duplex units Triplex Units Total dwelling Family units Units Phase 1 11 4 0 15 Phase 2 10 0 3 13 Square Footage 50,200 4,844 3,900 Total Square Footage 1,636 — 1,211 1,300 Range for unit 2,967 type The Town has paid for the design (soft) costs, land costs, and infrastructure costs for phase I. In addition, the Town has completed the infrastructure for phase II as approved and described in the table above. It was originally contemplated that the perspective homeowners in phase I were to pay 100% of the hard costs. The Town chose Roaring Fork Custom Homes as its General Contractor in 2006 and utilized estimated pricing from this General Contractor for the lottery of phase I in the summer of 2007. The Town discontinued its relationship with Roaring Fork Custom Homes after the completion of lots 5, 6, & 7 and engaged Rudd Construction to complete phase I. The Town received new prices for lots 8 - 15, 2 (a & b), and 3 (a & b)that reflected a higher price than the original lottery price. The Town agreed to pay 90% of the increase in price or 25% of the total cost) that occurred for phase I. Phase II utilizes many of the same house designs from Phase I and the infrastructure (roads and utilities) are in place to build Phase II as approved. In December of 2008 the Town Council requested that staff evaluate whether additional units could be effectively integrated into the phase II development. Coburn Development, Inc. (CDI) has been the architect for the project and Resort Opportunities and Investments, LLC (ROI) have been the Owner's Representative for the Town on Phase I. Rudd Construction, Inc. (RCI) is completing the construction of phase 1. These three entities worked collaboratively to evaluate whether additional units could be added to phase II using the following criteria: Cost effectiveness in utilizing the current investment in both infrastructure and in the design of the homes. Maintaining a similar mass in scale to achieve a highly livable family oriented development. Maintain view corridors that were a consideration in the Rodeo Place project. Provide a variety of unit type and sizes. The Town Council directed staff at the February 2, 2009 meeting to look further into the opportunity for additional residential units in Rodeo Place. The Town Council authorized $28,000 that would be applied towards the Exemption'Plat Budget. Since the February 2, 2009 Council meeting, the Project Team has refined the Exempt (Revised plan referred to as Option 2 below) Site Plan, developed 3 new unit plans and exterior elevations, met with the two modular manufacturers involved in Phase I, refined Project Budgets, and held an open-house to review the project with the community. On April 6, 2009 the Town Council authorized the expenditure of up to $85,000 to prepare Construction Documents for units 16, 17, 18, and 19. In addition, on April 20th and 27`" staff had additional discussions with the Council on the appropriate subsidy and completing the entitlement process for Lots 1 and 4 . Of the $85,000 previously approved, $15,000 will be spent on entitlements Lots 1 & 4 based on Council's direction . Council also directed staff to match the price for the first four homes in phase 2A to phase 1 prices. The table below reflects the subsidy directed by Council. The maximum subsidy the Town would budget for is $476,084. Q'D"$ 513,118 i 16(9) $434,187 $572, 247.42 $201.81 $138,336 $434,187 $78,931 $434,187 24.2% 15.4% 17(11) 412,821 512,526 466,416 199.89 168.21 99,706 $412,821 53,596 $412,821 19.5% 11.5% 18(9) 434,187 572,523 513,118 247.42 201.81 138,336 $434,187 78,931 $434,187 24.2% 15.4% 19(11) 412,821 512,526 466,416 199.89 168.21 99,706 $412,821 53,596 $412,821 19.5% 11.5% 1,694,014 $2,170,098 $1,959,0681 1 476,084 $1,694,014 $265,054 $1,694,014 III. DISCUSSION POINTS A. Schedule of Next Steps for Phase IIA Staff began advertising for phase 2A during the last week of April. The Town has requested all interested and qualified lottery participants to obtain pre qualification letters from their lending institutions based on a price range for the first 4 homes by May 15th. Complete applications will be required by the end of May. Staff would propose holding a lottery once a signed contract is received from Rudd and then hold the lottery for lots 16, 17, 18, and 19. Once a lottery occurred and potential buyers were secured then the Town would sign the contract provided by Rudd for Phase 2A. The schedule below is intended to balance both market risk and the risk of price escalation or time delay. Date: Action 4/6 Approval from Council to proceed with Construction Drawings (Not to exceed $85K) 4/20 Council Meeting to review questions mentioned above. 4/8 -5/14 Coburn completes Construction Drawings for 2A 4/21- 5/15 Pre Qualification Letters Due 5/15-6/3 Subcontractor Bidding, Negotiate GC Contract 5/18 Review pre qualification numbers with Council and updated budget for phase 2A. Council will be requested to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Rudd upon receiving adequate lottery winners (Council would be asked to state the conditions for moving forward). Staff will also review the Soft Cost budget for the Design Phase for 2B and 2C and determine if Council is comfortable with moving forward with soft costs for the next two phases. 6/4 Receive Signed Contract from Rudd. 6/4 Hold lottery and assign winners if there are four or more qualified lottery winners. 6/5 If there are sufficient lottery winners based on the direction from Council on 5/18, the Town Manager will sign the contract with Rudd. B. Updated Budget for the first four homes Based on the discussion from April 6`", Phase II is proposed to be broken into three sub-phases: Phase Lots Phase 2A Lots 16,17,18,19 Phase 2B Lots 4 (Requires approval of SF home), 22, 23 24 Phase 2C Lot 1 (Requires approval for 2 duplexes), 20, 21 Exhibit A summarizes the budget for 16, 17, 18, 19 assuming a maximum subsidy to match the Purchase Price of Phase 1. C. Demand for Phase 2A/Authorization for the Town Manager to execute a contract with RUDD Construction. On May 15`", staff will receive prequalification letters from individuals interested in Phase 2A. Staff will forward the number of individuals or families that are interested in phase 2A to the Town Council via email prior to the May 18'" meeting. Individuals providing pre qualification letters will also be providing a $1000 earnest payment to the Town. Based on the interest in phase 2A, staff will request the following authorizations: Approve the Phase 2A Budget to Not to Exceed $2,510,409 attached), this includes the $58,000 was already approved on 4120 15,000 allocated for Lots 1 & 4 will be allocated to Phase B & C). The budget includes a 5% contingency for both Soft and Hard Costs. Authorize the Town Manager to sign a contract with Rudd Construction not to exceed $2,203,098 if there are 4 or more lottery participants on June 4`h. Authorize the Town Manager to sign contracts with ROI and Coburn Design for the remaining scope of work in Exhibit A and B (Grand Total for Soft Costs is $340,311 of which $85,000 has already been authorized). o If Council feels there is sufficient demand, approve Phase 2B Soft Costs of$77,000. It is also possible based on demand that staff may recommend waiting until June 1 to make the above mentioned decisions. If there are less then four prequalification letters, the Town Council may choose to stop further work on Rodeo Place. If this were the case, the Town would retain ownership of the completed construction drawings for the lots in phase 2A that could be built in the future. Another procedural question to consider for phase 2B and/or 2C is whether to advertise for Pitkin County employees simultaneously with a Snowmass lottery. Typically the Town has done this sequentially i.e. first having a lottery for Snowmass Employees and then if there is inadequate demand from Snowmass employees having a 2nd lottery that is open to Pitkin County Employees. It would be possible to advertise two tiers simultaneously acknowledging that Snowmass employees have the first pick and then Pitkin county employees would have the next priority to participate if there is inadequate demand from Snowmass employees. D. Timeline for Phase 2113 and 2C The timing for Phase 2B and 2C is attached (Exhibit B). It should be noted that pricing for these phases would need to be confirmed at the time a contract is received from Rudd. The estimated overall budget for phase 2 is attached for reference only(Exhibit C). This process contemplates a sequential approach. Attachments Exhibit A Budget for Phase 2A— Lots 16,17,18,19 Exhibit B Schedule for Phase 2 and estimated soft costs for the Phase Exhibit C Phase 2 Budget T:\Snowmass Projects\Housing\Rodeo Phase 11 proposal\April 20, 2009\Phase II Memorandumfinal420.doc Exhibit "A" Rodeo Place - Phase 2A Page 1 of 1 S 0:51 AM9:57 AM Lots 16-19 Preliminary Budget Cost to Cost to CONSULTANTS Estimated Budget Date Complete 1 Architect-Planning 0 0 0 2 Architectural Building Design -CDI 38,337 0 38,337 3 Structural Engineer-Maggert 17,480 0 17,480 4 Soil/Geotechnical Engineer-HP Geotech 5,750 0 5,750 5 Civil Engineer-SGM 460 0 460 6 Snow Shed Consultant 4,025 0 4,025 7 Specifications Consultant 3,450 0 3,450 8 Legal-HOA Documents-7BD 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 S'utit'ota6s 691502 10Sf69r502 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 10 Building Permits 0 0 0 11 Water and Sewer-Tap Fees 44,174 0 44,174 12 Water and Sewer 0 0 0 13 Electric -Holy Cross Energy 0 0 0 14 Telephone -Owest 0 0 0 15 Gas -Source Gas 0 0 0 16 Cable -Comcest 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 Obtolals 14451.7.4f i{'H x$10 L44 1r74 SITE AND CONSTRUCTION 18 Sump Pumps(Lots 22 a 23) 0 0 0 19 Unsuitable Soils(Lots 4,22,&23)0 0 0 20 Fill Import/Export 3,000 0 33,000 21 Road Repair 0 0 0 22 Re-vegetation 19- 0 0 23 Home Construction 0 2,170,098 24 Lot 1 -Storm Drain 25 Lot 1 -Retain a Wall&Foam Blocks 0 0 LIM-1 Sutitot'ala7 Sf2!203r0aa 10 62t203 098 OTHER 26 Builder's Risk Insurance 2,000 0 2,000 27 Warranty 4 6,000 0 6,000 28 0 1 0 sutitotais aloOOltr$io 141000 Subtotals 2,324,774 0 2,324,774 29 Owners Representative 66,473 0 65,473 CONTINGENCY 30 Contingency-Consultants&Dev.Charges 5.0% 9,007 0 9,007 31 Contingency-Sae&Construction 5.0%110,155 0 110,155 32 0 0 0 subtotals ,w $ 185 635; 0 106,636 Gross Sales Revenue 1,694,014 Subsidy per Home- Avg.(1) Total Soft&Hard Cost Subsidy 816,396 204,099 Soft Costs Subsidy z''r .°' 3'O;r3`1 85,078Y Hard Cods Subsidy 119,021 816,395 N21M 1. Does not include Land Cost,or allocation of Infrastructure Costs paid for in Phase 1 Fib:PfWmmery Project Budgets 4-1a-09 Resod OppoftmVes a drvesbeents,LLC RODEO PLACE - PHASE 2 5/ 11/ 2009 Abbreviated Development Schedules / CDI & ROI Cost Estimate EXHIBIT B OPTION 1-" Stay the Course" ESTIMATED- Cost to Design prior to a constract with RUDD( s) May 15th A 16, 17, 18, 19 4 SF Jun. 4th 58, 000 43, 000 15, 000 Jul. 15th 1,2, 4,5 B 4, 22, 23, 24 4 SF Aug. 3rd 77, 000 54, 000 23, 000 Aug. 21st 2,3, 4,5 C 1, 20, 21 6 Duplex, SF Sept. 8th 99, 000 73, 000 26, 000 14 234, 000 170, 000 64, 000 LESTIMATED- Total Soft Cost during Construction A 78, 473 27, 000 51, 473 B 67, 000 31, 000 36, 000 C 80, 000 36, 000 44, 000 225, 473 94, 000 $ 131, 473 Project Totals 459, 473 264, 000 $ 195, 473 ASSUMPTIONS:1. Council authorizes Team to move forward with CDs on May 18th. (+/- 21 days for Marketing Materia, 30 days for CDs) m k 2. Clear direction on entitlement process/ timing from Planning Dept. on May 13th. c 3. Council authorizes Team to move forward with CDs on or before June 22th. (+/- 30 days for Marketing Material, 30 days for CDs) r r•rt 4. Could move Lot 4 into Phase C and Lot 21 into Phase Bif entilement process is drawn- out. F, S. 21 days for Rudd to Price. W 6. Revised from 4/ 20 Council meeting. Old esitmate was for$ 356, 000. Geotechnical testing not included. Resort Opportunities& Investments, LLC Exhibit "C" Page 1 of 1 Rodeo Place - Phase 2 101SAa w:,s Arn Current Plat - 2 Duplexes - 14 Units Preliminary -Project Budget coat to cost to CONSULTANTS Estimated Budget Date camplete 1 Architect-Planning 10,000 0 10,000 2 Architectural Building Design -CDI 163,776 0 163,776 3 Structural Engineer-Maggert 50,706 0 50,706 4 Soil I Geotechnical Engineer-HP Geotech 18,688 0 18,688 5 Civil Engineer-SGM 11,180 0 11,180 6 Snow Shed Consultant 12,075 0 12,075 7 Specifications Consultant 3,450 0 3,450 8 Legal-HOA Documents-TBD 20,000 0 20,000 9 0 0 0 S'utitotalsMM$f289r874j 10 128918T.4 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 10 Building Permits 0 0 0 11 Water and Sewer-Tap Fees 143,000 0 143,000 12 Water and Sewer Relocates 54,000 0 54,000 13 Electric Relocate-Holy Cross Energy 0 0 0 14 Telephone Relocates-Owest 0 0 0 15 Gas Relocates-Source Gas 0 0 0 16 Cable Relocates-Comcast 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 S'utitotels fE19.7/OOOI 10I 11971000 SITE AND CONSTRUCTION 18 Sump Pumps(Lots 22&23) 9 0 9,850 19 Unsuitable Soils(Lots 4,22,&23)0 0 0 20 Fill Import f Export 88.000, 0 88,000 21 Road Repair 0 0 0 22 Re-vegetation 7 800 0 7,600 23 Home Construction 0 6,253,376 24 Lot 1-Storm Drain 20 25 Lot 1 -Retain a Wall&Foam Blocks 98, 96 0 198,296 Subtotals 16!577dt1.22 S 0 316M57k122 OTHER 26 Builders Risk Insurance 5.500 0 5,500 27 Warranty 14 21,000 0 21,000 28 0 0 0 UdWtals 126150 10 126'50A Subtotals 7,090,496 0 7,070,496 29 Owners Representative 195,473 0 195,473 CONTINGENCY 30 Contingency-Consultants 8 Dev.Charges 7.5%51,176 0 51,176 31 Contingency-Site&Construction 7.5%493,284 0 493,284 32 0 0 0 Subtotals ',•$739 933 0 739,933 Subsidy per Home-Avg. (1) Soft Costs 1 577 053 112,647 Hard Costs 6 2) Notes; 1. Does not include Land Cost,or allocation of Infrastructure Costs paid for in Phase 1 2. Hard Cost subsidy per home based on Purchase Price. Resort Opportunities& Investments, LLC TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: RUSS FORREST, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: MAY18, 2009 EOTC Summit Meeting The EOTC summit has been proposed for Thursday August 20'h. It is anticipated that this would be an all day event. The purpose of the day would be to develop a strategic direction for the EOTC. Aspen and Pitkin County have indicated that this date works for them. Does this date work for the Snowmass Town Council? Staff anticipates discussing a potential agenda for this summit with Council in the several months. The Rodeo Work on the Rodeo grounds has commenced. After clearing the contestant parking beside the Rodeo after the Winter Season, staff found a new opportunity to locate the BBQ tent on the North side (or inside) the berm. This will both minimize the visual impact of the tent from Brush Creek Road and reduce the cost of locating the tent. Summary of Ongoing and Pending Strategic Actions Last Updated — May 8, 2009 Staff Action Status Date to follow-up w/ Contact I I I Council Land Use Comp. Plan Comprehensive The Planning Commission met on February Will be scheduled Team Plan Update 18th 2009 and unanimously voted via a with Council until resolution to recommend approval of the draft approved. Ongoing comprehensive plan to the Town Council. The Town Council now needs to determine how they would like to move forward.with a review. Staff would like to make an initial presentation to summarize the formatting changes staff made with the Planning Commission and highlight the substantive changes made to the policies in the document. Chris Conrad Local Retail Tool Council asked that an ordinance be prepared May 18, 2009 Box & Demolition to provide a period of time to review demolition permits before demolition of a building occurred. Council agreed that staff should develop language for future PUDs to identify critical integral components of a PUD that must continue to exist over time. In addition, John Wilkinson requested that staff bring back a land mark ordinance for discussion in the future. Russ Tree Ordinance Frame goals and provide alternative June 15th approaches to tree protection. Staff has several ordinance examples available for Council. Trees on single-family lots are protected through the Snowmass HOA, which does regulate tree removal. Most PUDs in Snowmass have Landscape Plans that provide some level of protection from tree removal. Other Land Use Other Land Use Code Improvements should Code Issues also be considered with the completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would recommend having a work session with Council to review potential code changes. Housing Housing Draw Site/Land June 1 2009 Department Inventory On February 17'" the Town Council asked that a Land Inventory to identify potential housing sites be completed after the Town completes is June budget review. Housing Housing Lottery/ Develop a committee to review housing Staff will solicit Department Guidelines guidelines and lottery process. names for a housing committee to review the lottery process Housing Housing Policy The consultant has completed a rational Department nexus study and can begin to work with the Town on a new housing policy. The Planning Council has asked Commission is also reviewing housing goals that this occur after as part of the Comp. Plan review. Staff will the Council schedule two agenda items based on the input completes review of from Council on October 6 (these could be on Comp. Plan or at the same dates) which would be 1) policy least the housing discussion to modify the current land use code chapter. related to affordable housing; and 2) a review of deed restriction policy. Joe C Natural Disasters On 11/3 Council asked that staff further June 1, 2009 Terri and Cost evaluate criteria for allowing some costs from Everest) Recovery in Deed property damage incurred by natural disasters Restricted For in deed-restricted homes to be recovered Sale Housing upon the resale of the home. Examples of criteria discussed included: cap on recovery based on a % (percent) value of the home and requirements for comprehensive insurance. Budget/Finance Finance Monitoring Staff is carefully monitoring revenue and June 1, 2009 Department Revenue projected revenue by: Reviewing projected occupancy and Staff is also yield in the next 4 months in scheduling a meeting Snowmass Village with FAB Monitoring sales and lodging tax Monitoring parking and transit usage Regular communication with ski company, lodges, retail businesses on business activity Marianne Discussion of Council requested a direct discussion with May 4, 2009 hours with stakeholder(Aspen Skiing Co, West Pac stakeholders on Related, Staff, merchants) on hours of skittles lift summer operation for the Skittles. operation Envi ronment/Sustai nabi lity Jason Haber Review of REOP On October 20, 2008, Council passed a October 2009 fee schedule motion directing staff to schedule this review for March 2, 2009. On March 2, Council asked that the fees and language for PUDs be reviewed prior to November 2009. Other Projects Art Smythe Incident Invite Ellen Anderson to do a 1-hour overview After the BOCC Command of ICS for Council. meeting the Council System asked that Art do an ICS training session. David Free Transit Prepare a letter to Jack Hatfield on Free Peckler Service Transit Service P:\MANAGER.XSC\Managers Report 09\05-18-09final.doc 2ND DRAFT SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA JUNE 1, 2009 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE — ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5-minute time limit) Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Item No. 4: RETT AND GENERAL FUND BUDGET UPDATE Time: 120 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and discuss contingency plan Marianne Rakowski/Russ Forrest Page (TAB--) Item No. 5: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 6. SERIES OF 2009 AMENDING THE 2009 BUDGET Time: 15 minutes) ACTION REQUESTEDOF COUNCIL: Approve, Modify or Deny First Reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2009 Marianne Rakowski................... Page (TAB--) Item No. 6: CONTINUATION OF: PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION — SNOWMASS CHAPEL: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RE- ZONING TO 'MIXED-USE-1' (MU-1), TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS FOR LAND EXCHANGES AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, PLUS A FINAL RE- PLAT OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN EXISTING LOTS 1 AND 2A OF THE SNOWMASS CHAPEL INTERFAITH SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 10 OF THE SNOWMASS CLUB SUBDIVISION, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED SNOWMASS CHAPEL EXPANSION PROJECT FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) INVOLVING REQUESTED BUILDOUT AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS. (Time: 1.5 hours) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review application and provide directive in crafting findings and conditions for a subsequent ordinance and resolutions. Jim Wahlstrom.............................Page (TAB --) 06-01-09tc Page 2 of 2 Item No. 7: PROPOSED MARKETING, SPECIAL EVENTS AND GROUP SALES DEPARTMENT NAME CHANGE Time: 20 minutes) ACTION REQUESTEDOF COUNCIL: Approve a name change that is consistent with the marketing logo and best serves the resort's tourism goals Susan Hamley Item No. 8: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — CHAPTER 7 BUILT ENVIRONMENT Time:45 minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and provide feedback on Chapters . Comp Plan Team (Russ Forrest, Chris Conrad, Lesley Compagnone, Jason Haber, David Peckler) Page (TAB --) Item No.9: MANAGER'S REPORT Time: 10 minutes) Russell Forrest.......................... Page (TAB--) Item No. 10: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page (TAB--) Item No. 11: APPROVAL OF MEETING MNUTES FOR : AND Page (TAB--) Item No. 12: COUNCIL COMMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS/CALENDARS Page (TAB--) Item No. 13: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Aaarox 2 hours and 30 minutes (excluding items 1-3 and 7-10) 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. 2 SNOWMASS VILLAGE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Mayor Mercatoris called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town on Monday, July 9th, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Item No. 1 ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Douglas Mercatoris, Sally Sparhawk, ReedLewis, John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All council members were present. Russ Forrest, Town Manager; John Dresser, Town Attorney; Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner; Chris STAFF PRESENT: Conrad, Planning Director; Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk; Bob Nevins, Town Planner; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Jason Haber, Economic Resource Director Mak Keeling, Steve Alldredge, Colleen Doyle, Mery Butler, Ellen Klein, Aiden Klein, Mel Blumenthal, PUBLIC PRESENT: Dave Bellack, Leslie Bethel, Don Schuster and other Members of the Public interested in today's Agenda items. Item No. 2 PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS Ellen Klein a part time resident of Snowmass Village asked if there was any ordinance in the Town of Snowmass Village relating to the concerts on Fanny Hill. She stated that recently they have been going until 10:00 p.m. Mayor Mercatoris noted that the Town does have a noise ordinance although the concerts are approved by a Temporary Use Permit issued by the Town and the agreed time for this past weekend was 10:00 p.m. The Police Department is looking into why the music went later on Sunday night. Aiden Klein, a third generation part-time resident of Snowmass Village, asked if Base Village has a water quality program and if monitoring is being done. 07-09-07TC Page 2 of 7 Mayor Mercatoris stated that there is monitoring in place for air and water quality and he also suggested Mr. Klein speak to Chris Conrad or Russ Forrest for further information. Item No. 3 COUNCIL UPDATES Fire Danger Council Member Lewis asked that all homeowners keep up with overgrown brush that needs to be cleaned and discarded to help prevent forest fires. Bus Staging Council Member Lewis also noted that buses are staging on Brush Creek Road across from Creekside for longer than 10 minutes and there should not be any idling in a residential area at night. Council Member Mordkin wanted to let the viewing public know issues he would be addressing later in the meeting have to do with; recycle bins in the front of the grocery store, dust on Wood Road, private concerts on Fanny Hill and RFTA bus service from Snowmass to Aspen. Real Estate Offices Council Member Sparhawk would like to be sure the Town Council has the discussion of real estate offices on the first floor of the mall areas which have been dedicated to retail space. Town Manager Russ Forrest will bring something back to Town Council. Blast the Mass Council Member Wilkinson noted that Blast the Mass cycling event is back in Snowmass this weekend. Share the road and watch for bicycles. Burn calories not carbon! CML Conference Mayor Mercatoris read a letter from Sam Mamet the Executive Director of CML commending Snowmass Village for the successful conference they had the end of June. He thank everyone for their hard work and a special thank you to Rhonda Coxon who worked directly with CML to make their experience in Snowmass a great one. Item No. 4 CONSTRUCTION UPDATE Economic Resource Director Jason Haber noted that today's construction update is through June 20, 2007 and the items discussed included, general construction issues, right of way impacts, new ordinances and a weekly report from the Construction Coordinator Dave Shepherd. Haber also reviewed complaints, comments and violations with Town Council. Mak Keeling from Related WestPac reviewed the road closures, lane shifts and detours throughout the Base Village construction area including Brush Creek and Kearns Road. 07-09-07TC Page 3 of 7 Mel Blumenthal, a part-time resident of Snowmass Village, had questions regarding the de-watering process, excavation and concerns to the many piles of dirt throughout the Base Village site. Council Member Lewis expressed his concerns and frustration with the construction issues and Related WestPac. Council Member Mordkin commented on a developer's construction contact person, PM10 concerns, construction trailers and suggested a very specific Construction Management Plan to address these issues. Council Member Wilkinson expressed the same concerns as Council Member Mordkin. Item No. 6 ENTRYWAY SIGNAGE PLAN Leslie Bethel and Julie Findley were present to discuss the Entryway Signage Plan. Findley, TOSV's sign consultant from Esse Design, has been refining both the specific sign locations as well as the detail of the signs. The proposed package includes signs on Brush Creek Road and individual signs for Town Park Bus Depot and the Recreation Center. Council Member Mordkin does not like this type electronic neon block variable message signage in Snowmass Village and requests that we do whatever possible to soften the appearance of this sign. Town Council also asked that the signs be consistent with the current signs in the Village with the cedar posts and cap. Mayor Douglas Mercatoris made the motion to approve the sign concepts that were presented today, taking in to consideration the comments from Town Council. Sally Sparhawk seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Douglas Mercatoris, Sally Sparhawk, Reed Lewis, John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. Voting Naye: None. Town Council took a 10 minute break at this time. Item No. 7 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING - SNOWMASS MOUNTAIN - ORDINANCE NO. 08, SERIES OF 2007 At 6:19 p.m. Mayor Mercatoris opened the continuation of the Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2007 pertaining to the Snowmass Mountain. 07-09-07TC Page 4 of 7 At 6:20 p.m. there being no Public Comment at this time Mayor Mercatoris continued the Public Hearing to the August 6th, 2007 Town Council Meeting. Mayor Douglas Mercatoris made the motion to approve second reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2007. Reed Lewis seconded the motion. Senior Planner Jim Wahlstrom stated this particular application is a Minor PUD Amendment to the Snowmass Mountain Amendment pursuant to Section 16A-5- 390, Amendment of final PUD, of the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use and Development Code, to request a one year extension of the deadline to complete the Sam's Knob replacement restaurant, located in the summit of Sam's Knob on Snowmass Mountain. Today's meeting is to consider and take action upon the second reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2007, the changes from the first reading are included in today' packet. Aspen Skiing Company Planning Director, David Corbin, stated to date they do not have proper permits or approvals from the Forest Service and seeking approvals from many jurisdictions has created the need for an extension. He stated that they agree with the recommendation and language suggested by staff. Arnold Mordkin made the motion to table to the August 6, 2007 Town Council Meeting. Mayor Douglas Mercatoris seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Douglas Mercatoris, Sally Sparhawk, Reed Lewis, John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 8 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 2007 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES GREATER THAN THIRTY PERCENT (30%) WITHIN LOT 28 PARCEL G-THE PINES, EAST VILLAGE PUD Planner Bob Nevins noted that the applicant is Mr. Sanford Miller and representing the applicant is Thomas Epps and Craig Burger. Pursuant to Section 16A-4-50 of the Municipal Code; Geologic hazard areas, steep slopes and ridgeline protection areas the applicant is seeking approval to construct a single-family residence on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) within the platted building envelope of Lot 28, Parcel G-The Pines, East Village Planned Unit Development. He stated that since steep slopes are prone to erosion and soil instability, they are difficult to re -vegetate and may also be subject to geologic hazards. Municipal Code Section 16A-4-50 ensures that development does not occur on slopes that are 07-09-07TC Page 5 of 7 excessively steep, unstable or hazardous. The current Municipal Code prohibits development in slopes greater that thirty percent (30%), except in certain circumstances. Development may be allowed on lots and within approved building envelopes containing area of slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) if the lot was subdivided prior to January 1, 1987 or other circumstances. Lot 28, The Pines was platted October 15, 1994 and the building envelope contains slopes thirty percent 30%) or greater. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A-4-50 (d) (4) Other circumstances, Town Council may authorize development on slopes greater that thirty percent (30%) for this type situation. The owner of Lot 18, The Pines is seeking authorization from Town Council to construct a single-family house within the existing, platted building envelope on slopes thirty percent (30%) or greater. Mayor Douglas Mercatoris made the motion to approve the first Reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007, regarding thirty percent (30%) slopes for Lot 28 Parcel G-The Pines, East Village PUD. John Wilkinson seconded the motion. After a lengthy discussion by Town Council in regards to the applicant buying this lot in 2005 knowing that you can not build on 30% slopes, Council would like to speak to the owner of this lot to have some of their questions answered. After discussion the Town Council consensus was to table this item so the owner of Lot 28 could attend the Town Council Meeting or have a representative available to answer questions from the Council. Mayor Douglas Mercatoris made the motion to table the First Reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007 to August 6, 2007 Town Council Meeting. John Wilkinson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Douglas Mercatoris, Sally Sparhawk, Reed Lewis, John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - STEERING COMMITTEE SELECTION Russ Forrest Town Manager stated that staff is requesting that the.Town Council appoint two members of the Council to join the three members of the Planning Commission to form a steering committee for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Town Council is comfortable with the concept of the steering committee and will be comfortable with the Planning Commission's decision on the three members, and that decision will be finalized at the next Planning Commission meeting. Town Council consensus was to appoint John Wilkinson and Arnie Mordkin from the Council to sit on this committee. 07-09-07TC Page 6 of 7 Mayor Douglas Mercatoris made the motion to approve appointing John Wilkinson and Arnie Mordkin to the Comprehensive Plan steering committee. Reed Lewis seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Douglas Mercatoris, Sally Sparhawk, Reed Lewis, John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 10 MANAGER'S REPORT Attainable Housing Meeting Resort Growth Strategic Plan Marketing Strategic Plan Russ Forrest Town Manager wanted the Town Council to be aware that the Marketing, Special Events and Group Sales Board met to discuss the goals for the Resort Growth Strategic Plan which will determine current and future market needs. Attainable Housing Meeting Mayor Mercatoris will continue to attend these meetings. Council Member Lewis cautioned the Council about building employee housing outside the community. CML Conference Russ Forrest and Mayor Mercatoris thanked all the staff that helped with the CML conference and special acknowledgement to Rhonda Coxon Town Clerk and her staff. Item No. 11 COUNCIL COMMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS/CALENDARS Trash at the Snowmass Center Council Member Mordkin spoke to the trash that appears on Wednesday with the inserts to the newspapers. He asked that the Town Manager get a recycle bin in this area to alleviate this problem. Easement for Private use of Public Property Council Member Mordkin would like a discussion in the future regarding private concerts on public property and thanked Peak Productions for their cooperation with the past performances. RFTA Bus Service Council Member Mordkin would like to bring up the issue of free RFTA bus service at the next EOTC Board meeting. Construction Update on Gap Section Mayor Mercatoris asked for a staff update in the Gap Section at a future Town Council Meeting. 07-09-07TC Page 7 of 7 Town Council Packets Town Council would like the Town Manager look into producing the packet earlier to allow the Town Council more review time. Five o'clock on Friday requires reading during their weekends. Item No. 12 ADJOURNMENT At 7:43 p.m. Reed Lewis made the motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Monday July 9, 2007. Sally Sparhawk seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Douglas Mercatoris, Sally Sparhawk, Reed Lewis, John Wilkinson, and Arnold Mordkin. Voting Naye: None. Submitted By, Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009 CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Mayor Boineau called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on February 17, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. Item No. 1 ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All council members were present. Russ Forrest, Town Manager; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; John Dresser, Town Attorney; STAFF PRESENT: Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner; David Peckler, Transit Director Mel Blumenthal, Paul Eckel, Greg Rulon, Katie Redding, George Huggins, Edward Rimland, Dwayne Romero, Scott Stenman, Mak Keeling, Jim PUBLIC PRESENT: D'Agostino, Molly Donnelly, Joe Krabacher, Catherine Lutz, Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson, Steven Strickland, Steve Alldredge, Linda Gerdenich and other members of the public interested in today's agenda items. Item No. 2 PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS George Huggins, a resident of Snowmass Village, spoke to the noise in Base Village, specifically about an event on December 22, 2008 and the concert on February 15, 2009 that were held in the plaza at Base Village. The noise is pointed right at the condominiums in Base Village that are occupied by guests. He also stated that the speakers at Liquid Sky and Junk are very loud. Huggins inquired about a noise ordinance and the special event process. 02-17-09tc Page 2 of 10 Planning Director Chris Conrad stated there were provisions for Special Events in the plaza area in the PUD approval. Town Council asked that Conrad bring those back to Town Council in the future for review. Mel Blumenthal A part time resident of Snowmass Village spoke to the new lawsuit against Related WestPac. We may want to look at the $8 million guarantee relating to the lawsuit. Item No. 3 COUNCIL UPDATES Housing Policy Council Member Lewis asked that we look at our housing policies sooner than later so we do not fill all our housing with Pitkin County workers when we still have Snowmass families needing housing. Council Member Butler feels that the number of years for qualification needs to be discussed and possibly consider reducing the three years to one year employment within the Village. Council noted they may need to put together a citizen task force to work through these issues. Council Member Wilkinson is not willing to open sales to businesses owning the employee housing. Council consensus was to look at the qualifications for Snowmass Village at this time. RFTA Council Member Wilkinson attended a RFTA meeting. With the sales tax revenue being down, RFTA may look at cutting the free bus service and the RFTA/Base Village function. Town Manager Russ Forrest stated that staff had a site visit with RFTA and is working towards a solution. Nordic Race Council Member Wilkinson announced there is a Nordic race in Leadville this weekend and the Aspen team is hoping for a big win. Dial-A-Ride Council Member Butler stated that her neighbor called High Mountain Taxi for a Dial- A-Ride service and was told they no longer service this area, she asked that staff look into this. Rotary Poker Run Council Member Butler announced that the Rotary Poker Run was a huge success and thanked everyone who helped or participated. Little Red Schoolhouse Mayor Boineau spoke to the Little Red Schoolhouse wanting to use the,pool and Recreation Center in July for a fundraiser. It appears that the request made of Town Council and to staff is not completely clear. Staff will contact the Little Red Schoolhouse to work out a solution. Public Works Director Hunt Walker reminded Council this facility was not built as a "community center." It was built as a recreation facility. He noted that this community chose the Snowmass Chapel as its 02-17-09tc Page 3 of 10 community center" and the Recreation Center is for athletic events that do not disrupt the day-to-day operations of the Recreation Center. Council Member Butler offered to help the Little Red Schoolhouse on its fundraiser. Town Attorney John Dresser commented that Town Council may want to establish a policy for this type of request. Item No. 4 DRAW SITE UPDATE/INVENTORY OF HOUSING SITES Town Manager Russ Forrest stated that the purpose of this discussion is to review the preliminary design work completed by Design Workshop to evaluate the Upper Draw site for the potential for affordable housing units. Council is requested to review the presentation and provide direction on the next steps. Dating back to 1985, the Draw property has been designated as a site for employee housing. The construction of the Town Hall building changed the amount of developable land remaining. In 2008, the Town Council asked the Housing Department to evaluate the site for affordable housing. Design Workshop was engaged to develop several alternative concepts that are summarized in the attachments. Richard Shaw of Design Workshop reviewed the four alternatives with Town Council. Staff would recommend that a land inventory be completed prior to spending any additional funds on the Draw site. With the apparent infrastructure costs of developing on the Draw site, staff believes the Town Council should examine several different ideas for housing projects that the land inventory could evaluate. Attached is also a proposed scope for conducting a land inventory from Design Workshop. The Town could also do a competitive Request for Proposals for this scope. To be consistent with recommendations for other new actions/projects, staff would recommend that any new actions be reviewed and considered in the May time frame when staff anticipates giving Council a comprehensive budget update. Council Member Wilkinson feels the housing needs should catch up with the inventory before moving forward with this project. Council Member Mordkin stated that this area was always meant to be a pedestrian housing development. He encouraged Design Workshop to think outside the box and produce a development without car access. Council Member Butler asked about actual costs and Council Member Lewis stated that if voting today, liked alternative three and agrees with Council Member Mordkin about thinking outside the box. He prefers to see dorm style living with the no car scenario. Town Council consensus was to direct staff to provide the land survey to them and to do as much work in house as possible. Town Manager Russ Forrest will discuss with staff and report back. 02-17-09tc Page 4 of 10 Item No 5 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 2, SERIES OF 2009 BUILDING 8, BASE VILLAGE PUD Town Council took a 10 minute break at this time. At 5:40 p.m. Mayor Boineau opened the continuation of the Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2009. Senior Planner Jim Wahlstrom stated the purpose of this meeting is to conduct the continued public hearing and follow up on the review of the proposed changes in Building 8 via a Minor PUD Amendment application dated November 18, 2008 in conjunction with considering the second reading approval of the enclosed ordinance, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16A-5-390, Amendment of Final PUD. Dwayne Romero from Related WestPac spoke to the Transit Center and clarified some items that were discussed at the last meeting. He stated that Related is willing to support a $20,000 donation for public art within the transit area. Joe Krabacher Attorney for Related WestPac spoke to questions from Town Council regarding the Performance Bond. The Town Council reviewed the Development Agreement and there was a very lengthy discussion with the staff and applicant in regards to the language in the ordinance in number 9 on lines 564 - 569 regarding the second escalator. Council also commented on the facade, hardy board, the amount of the public art donation, the employee housing HOA assessments and community purposes. At this time the Town Attorney John Dresser requested that Town Council enter into an Executive Session for a conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice. At 6:29 p.m. Mayor Bill Boineau made the motion to enter closed session for conference with Town Attorney. Reed Lewis seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: and John Wilkinson. At 6.55 p.m. Markey Butler made the motion to approve reconvening the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on February 17, 2009. Reed Lewis seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 02-17-09tc Page 5 of 10 Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. Mayor Boineau asked if there was any public comment at this time. Hearing none, the Town Council reviewed the ordinance page by page and made changes. Some of the language changes were in the areas of unit equivalency numbers, employee units, floor area ratio for lot split, certificate of occupancy under parking for employee units and the language for section 9 (Additional Circulation). Section 9 will be discussed by the Town Attorney and the applicant and will bring back language to Town Council later in this meeting. The applicant stated they were willing to contribute $50,000 to the public art and they would include the benches, trash cans and bike racks but not out of the public art money. Mayor Boineau continued Item No. 5 and Item No. 6 to a later time in the meeting and the Public Hearing will remain open. Item No. 7 PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION SNOWMASS CLUB CIRCLE PRELIMINARY PUD AND REZONING Senior Planner Jim Wahistrom stated that this is a Public Hearing and all posting, mailing and publishing requirements have been met. He stated this a re-zoning to Multi-Family" and a revised Minor Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Amendment regarding the proposed Snowmass Club Circle development project. The application involves a proposed redevelopment of Parcel 10, Filing No. 1, Lot 1, of the Snowmass Club Subdivision (the old golf clubhouse building site) involving 0.4 acre located on the south side of Snowmass Club Circle across form the Snowmass Club. Stan Clauson and Patrick Rawley from Stan Clausen Associates provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Town Council. Clausen went through the staff report and provided additional information on some of the staff comments. Clauson stated the original proposal was submitted to the Town Planning Department in March of 2008. At the August 20th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested continuation of the hearing to the November 19, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. The purpose for the continuance was to provide the applicant time to rework a major redesign of the proposal as a result of the public testimony received at the Public Hearings, staff recommendation for denial, and disapproving remarks for the Planning Commission. He reviewed the changes from the original submission which included reduced mass, set backs and reduced roof lines of the building, consistent with surrounding 02-17-09tc Page 6 of 10 buildings, commitment to making this a LEED certified building, shadow studies and view planes. Jim Johnson from JG Johnson Architects commented on the revision of the project and stated it has been redesiged based on the comments heard from the neighboors and the Planning Commission. Clauson stated that there are five community purposes listed on packet page 169 in Exhibit "C", which include, provision of restricted housing, encourage sustainable development, provide open space and/or avoid wildlife habitat, encourage better design and develop necessary public facilities. He stated that the applicant would also like to donate $50,000 for the Town Hall Art project shortfall which is not listed in this exhibit. S. R. Mills with Bear Developments is looking forward to working with staff and the Planning Commission and providing a development everyone can be proud of. Town Council Comments: Council Member Butler asked a few questions related to the public comment letters that were included in the packet. Council Member Lewis has concerns with employee housing, width of the Nordic Trail, parking and run off of the water feature. Council Member Wilkinson commented he felt three units on this site is too much, Council Member Mordkin comment on the size of the project, employee housing mitigation, parking mitigation and the Nordic trail. He stated his appreciation for the art donation. Council Member Mordkin does not feel this project should go any further due to the density and he feels this project will have an impact on the community and the change in the parking ratio is not acceptable. He stated he does not feel this is the proper location for this type of development. Planning Director Chris Conrad noted the $50,000 public art donation would need to be included in Exhibit "C" as a community purpose. He also clarified the uses for the parking across from this development. At 8:40 p.m. Mayor Boineau opened the Public Hearing for public comment. Lenny Oates an attorney representing the Simmons/Lee family, the owners of 1101 Club Villas, agrees with the conclusions of the Planning Commission that there is too much bulk and too much mass and scale. He explained that the statute clearly states a PUD may not be amended if it adversely affects the neighbors and he feels it does. He also noted he sent a letter dated August 6th and he did not see it in today's packet. Michael Hoffman from Garfield and Hecht, representing the Club Villas Corporation, stated they are in support of the project. They opposed the first proposal but feel this is a much better proposal. 02-17-09tc Page 7 of 10 Town Council consensus was the project is too big and they would like to see employee housing and parking issues resolved. The applicant would like to continue the Public Hearing to the second meeting in May which would be the 18th. Item No. 5 PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 2, SERIES OF 2009 BUILDING 8, BASE VILLAGE PUD Town Council took a 10 minute break at this time. The applicant presented the Town Council with a revised development agreement for review. Town Council reviewed page by page and the changes were in red. Mel Blumenthal a part time resident of Snowmass Village, complimented the Planning Commission, Town Council and Related WestPac for their hard work. Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve all the amendments that were discussed for Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2009. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: and Reed Lewis. Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve second reading with a roll call vote approving Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2009. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 1 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: and Reed Lewis. Item No 6 RESOLUTION NO. 4, SERIES OF 2009 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT 3, BASE VILLAGE Arnold Mordkin made the motion to approve Resolution No. 4, Series of 2009 Subdivision Exemption Lot 3, Base Village. John Wilkinson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. 02-17-09tc Page 8 of 10 Town Attorney John Dresser addressed a request made by the applicant to condition 7. Arnold Mordkin made the motion to amend condition 7. John Wilkinson seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. Item No.8 RESOLUTION NO. 7, SERIES OF 2009 LIQUOR TERMS Reed Lewis made the motion to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 2009 clarifying Liquor Board terms. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 9 MANAGER'S REPORT EOTC (Elected Officials Transportation Committee) Town Council consensus was to have the EOTC on April 16th versus April 9th. Carbon Monoxide Town Council directed staff to place this Ordinance on the next Town Council agenda. Nordic Trail Plan Town Manager Russ Forrest stated the issue of enforcement has been resolved so this plan will be on the next agenda. Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission has finished up the last chapter, a Resolution will be crafted and staff will come before Town Council on a future agenda. Item No. 10 AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Council Member Mordkin would like to see more items under the consent agenda. 02-17-09tc Page 9 of 10 Item No. 11 APPROVAL OF MEETING MNUTES FOR JANUARY 20, 2009 AND MARCH 19. 2007 Reed Lewis made the motion to approve the Minutes as amended for January 20, 2009. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. John Wilkinson made the motion to approve the minutes as amended for March 19, 2007. Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, and Arnold Mordkin. Voting Naye: None. Opposed: Mayor Bill Boineau, Markey Butler. Item No. 12 COUNCIL COMMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS/CALENDARS Council Member Mordkin and Wilkinson inquired about the Horse Corral and the Shepherds Building and when they would be replaced. Council Member Lewis would like to have a future discussion regarding the pedestrian traffic from the Viceroy and he would like to know when the Owl Creek Trail above the Sinclair Meadows project will be open. Council Member Wilkinson inquired about no-smoking signs by the Transit Center or at the RFTA bus stop. He would like to see some signs there was a consensus from Town Council. Council Member Mordkin asked when the discussion of alcohol at the Summer Concerts will be brought back to Town Council. He is looking for an opinion from the State Authority not the Local Authority. Staff will schedule as soon as the State Authority has been contacted. Item No. 13 EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:40 p.m. Town Council will now meet in Executive Session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6402(4) and Snowmass Village Municipal Code Section 2-45(c), to specifically discuss two items 02-17-09tc Page 10 of 10 Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, instructing negotiators pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6- 402(4)(e) and Snowmass Village Municipal Code Section 2-45(c)(5); and Conferences with an attorney for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(c) and Snowmass Village Municipal Code Section 2-45(c)(2); John Wilkinson made the motion to approve convening to Executive Session to specifically discuss two items. Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: None. At 9:44 p.m. Reed Lewis made the motion to approve reconvening to the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on February 17, 2009. Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 14 ADJOURNMENT At 9:45 p.m. John Wilkinson made the motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on February 17, 2009. Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Naye: None. Submitted By, Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk SNOWMASS VILLAGE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2009 Mayor Boineau called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council at 4:00 PM. on Tuesday, March 16, 2009. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis and Markey Butler Arnold Mordkin arrived at 6:36 P.M. STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest, Town Manager; Chris Conrad, Planning Director; Jason Haber, Economic Resource Director; Lesley Compagnone, Public Relations; John Dresser, Town Attorney; David Peckler, Transportation Director; Mark Kittle, Chief Building Official; Bob Nevins, Town Planner; Hunt Walker, Public Works Director; Susan Hamley, Marketing Director; Brandi Lindt, Assistant finance Director; and Donna J. Garcia-Spaulding, Deputy Town Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Michael O'Connor, Leslie Lamont, Steve Novy, Jeff Dahl, Bob Kaufman, Dan Rotner, Steve Eldridge, Donna Aiken, Mary Lou Farrell, Eric Rudd, Mark Prabylski, Linda Chapdelaine, Tom Sherlock, Pat McLernon, Mak Keeling, Jim D'Agostino, Dan DiMaria, Geneva Templeton, Tom Yocum, and other members of the public interested in today's agenda. Item No. 2 PUBLIC NON-AGENDA ITEMS Nothing for discussion at this time. Item No. 3 COUNCIL UPDATES RFTA Meeting John Wilkinson reported that there was a RFTA retreat last week with interesting conversations relating to continuing services within the Valley with voter approval of BRT to be completed by 2012. Snowmass Village Buses When Sold Wilkinson and David Peckler discussed what happens when Snowmass Village buses are sold. The Town logo is not necessarily painted over at the time of sale and what happens after the sale is left up to the new owner. 03-16-09tc Page 2 of 14 Item No. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 9, SERIES OF 2009 - APPOINTING NEW MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Reed Lewis made the motion to approve Resolution No. 9, Series of 2009. Markey Butler seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mordkin had not arrived the Town Council meeting yet. Voting Aye: John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 10, SERIES OF 2009 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BUDGETED FOR GRANT CONTRACTS TO THE CHARITABLE AND HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS Reed Lewis made the motion to approve Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009. John Wilkinson seconded the motion. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Butler, the Chair for the Citizen's Grant Review Board (CGRB) Mary Lou Farrell and CGRB Member Donna Aiken explained that the criteria for the decisions for organizational funding were based on what impact they served to the Snowmass Village community. Farrell further explained that the CGRB omitted grant requests from the cultural Arts organizations, since they are well funded and made recommendations for the Charitable Service organizations. Butler expressed her gratitude towards the CGRB's decision to include the youth and elderly service organizations. Mayor Bill Boineau stated that he does not have any concerns with the CGRB's recommendations and is in favor of the Board recommendations. John Wilkinson reported that he was contacted by the Aspen Valley Ski & Snowboard Club, who wondered why they were not included in the recommendations. Farrell explained that this organization falls under the Arts type organizations and are very well funded and that the CGRB had only $61,000 worth of funds and wanted to make a greater impact with other organizations. Wilkinson stated that the money budgeted for the CGRB was based upon preliminary budget information and inquired if the Town had more money available. In response, Farrell stated that the Board did not address that possibility and stayed focused on the 61,000 that was approved. 03-16-09tc Page 3 of 14 There being no further discussion, the motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. Council Member Mordkin had not yet arrived the Town Council meeting. Voting Aye: John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 6 COUNTRY CLUB TOWNHOMES MINOR PUD AMENDMENT Council Member Wilkinson stated that he is an insurance agent for the Country Club Townhomes "though I feel it would not conflict any decisions I might make I do not want to taint the public process" therefore he recused himself. Town Attorney John Dresser reported for the Record, that the Town of Snowmass Village now owns two units within the Applicant complex and this would normally require recusal of the entire Town Council. However, when Council is recused, making a decision is impossible. State law allows the Council to remain in judgment concerning this review. Because John Wilkinson's recusal is specific and relates to another item not common to the entire Council, it must remain. The Town Planner Bob Nevins stated that the County Club Townhomes contains approximately 27.4 acres and is currently zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). Country Club townhomes includes 90 townhomes with a mix of 2, 3, 4, and 5-bedroom units contained within eighteen (18) two-story buildings with loft areas; seventy-nine 79) townhome are free-market and eleven (11) townhomes are deed-restricted employee units. Nevins further stated that there are a total of 253 bedrooms with 323 on-site parking spaces or 1.28 parking spaces/bedroom, and a maintenance building containing 1,487 square feet is located between Phases 3-4, which is north of Snowmass Club Circle. Nevins stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to initiate the public review process by having the Applicant's Representatives give a presentation that outlines the scope of the project. Based upon tonight's discussion, staff is prepared to address the applicable Review Standards and draft an ordinance that outlines Town Council's general findings, action and conditions regarding the Minor PUD Amendment and Rezoning application. Nevins stated that included for review by Council are the minor amendments to the Final PUD and Rezoning application, Planning Commission's Resolution No. 06, Series of 2009, recommendations to Council, and the tabled 5-3 criteria/classification PDs as a major or minor, as well as the Municipal Code Section 16A-5-390 (3) Review Standards. The Applicant Representative Leslie Lamont from Lamont Planning Services, LLC 03-16-09tc Page 4 of 14 and Jeff Dahl from Greenline Architects stated that they are present at today's meeting to address questions or comments from Town Council. They then provided Council with a PowerPoint presentation Town Council, the Applicants and staff began the process of questions and answers relating to particulars with regard to the packet of information and the PowerPoint presentation provided by the Applicants. Council Member Butler stated that her focus is on school bus stop safety and families. After further discussion, Town Council directed staff to draft the ordinance for First Reading, with conditions specified during today's meeting. NOTE: Town Council took a 15-minute break and reconvened at 6:13 P.M. Item No. 7 RODEO PLACE PHASE II ALTERNATIVE(S) Resort Opportunities & Investments, LLC (ROI) and Coburn Development Project Managers Michael O'Connor, Bob Kaufman and Dan Rotner, were present to answer questions that Town Council might have. O'Connor provided Council with an update since the February 2, 2009 Council meeting with regard to additional funding, as well as current and revised sketch plan developments. The Project Team provided Council with a PowerPoint presentation depicting budgetary goals, decision to stay the course or move forward, a revised plan, procurement process, next phase versus negotiating, cost effectiveness, maintaining mass and scale, current plat design and breakdown to date, current proposed build out matrix, and maintaining view corridors. Council Member Butler requested that the Project Team provide Council with a copy of hard costs comparisons. Arnold Mordkin arrived at 6:36 P.M. O'Connor explained the Preliminary Development Schedule included in today's packet of on page 48, titled Exhibit I. He stated that he is looking for cooperation from the Town's Chief Building Official, Mark Kittle and from the Planning Director because they need to get moving on lots 1 and 4. O'Connor reported that they want to build from the inside out to have less of an impact on the community, since there will be a lot of work going on simultaneously. He stated that they would like to start their construction process as early as May 2009. For further information pertaining to this discussion please refer to packet page 51 regarding the Contractor Procurement Process. 03-16-09tc Page 5 of 14 The Town Manager clarified that the Town would not be conducting a lottery until the design is completed and a contract is signed and in hand. Local Resident, Steve Parmalee Commented on building to actual community needs and use tax payer's money wisely and housing Snowmass citizens should be the Town's first obligation. Parmalee stated that recently at the Daly Townhomes, there have been at least two sales to non- Snowmass people. He understands that there is a third one. He stated that there are a lot of free market units available for rent. As the ski season ends there is probably going to be a flood over other units and it is important to spend the Snowmass tax money wisely and build a product and it doesn't seem that building fourplexes or multi-family units if we can't sell or rent what we have now. He stated that "We need to stick to the original single-family that Joe Coffey supported last year. He stated that we have other products coming online including the employee housing units at Capital Peaks Lodge. He supports the project however, due to the "knowns" and "unknowns" it makes sense to not rush into authorizing building projects now, rather to wait until July because we also have the project coming online behind the Little Red Schoolhouse so what he is saying is to do it wisely and make sure that the entrance to Snowmass is not cluttered up with kayaks, motorcycles and all kinds of stuff put in the weeds because of inadequate storage. He stated that the Town should make an effort to comply with their own rules with regard to parking. Lastly, he stated that the costs are extremely high and unjustifiable. Rodeo Place winner Tom Sherlock Stated that he sees some validity in duplexes at Rodeo Place, there is value in "Less is more" and this is the last chance to have a single-family house development in Snowmass and losing it really needs to be considered. Based upon the packet information there is 394 units in Snowmass and 50 of those are single-family houses and 394 is a lot of employee housing. He suggested that maybe a way to get the price down is to get rid of those units that are going to cost $276 per square foot to build. He stated that the standards for employee housing in Snowmass needs to be reconsidered to relax for a couple of years in an effort to keep Snowmass employee housing in Snowmass and reevaluate income levels and people working here for a year to get into the lottery. He pointed out the aggressive schedule the Project Team has in place and basically what it means is "You have a 50/50 chance of getting the work done - who knows what obstacles will be there." With regard to budget he stated that with the economic market of things the Town Council needs to consider the opportunities of contract negotiations and suggested that the Town talk to RUDD Construction about working with the current budget with a cost plus scenario of taking bids and presenting the best ones instead of going for fixed-price bid. 03-16-09tc Page 6 of 14 There being no further public comment, the Town Manager Russ Forrest stated that he really could argue both sides of this issue and stated that "Stay the course" was the predominate expectation and he would be apprehensive about putting a Town product out there this year, however a single-family product is in demand particularly looking to the future. A point to be made is one of our challenges is thinking long term with the economic challenges across the country but if one believes that the economy is going to get better "I can guarantee you that we and every other mountain resort will be back to the same situation in terms of not having enough affordable housing." Something the Town has been discussing with the Financial Advisory Board (FAB) with regard to how to bid out projects and look at builder's and developer's work quality and track record as well as the pricing. Council Member Wilkinson stated that he wants to hold off from any further construction based upon the findings within the survey regarding income levels that indicated most people would have problems making a mortgage payment of this size. Another concept for the developers to consider is having the ability of people that have single-family homes, who bought them originally with children that have now grown up and are off to college and give these families the ability to downsize to a duplex unit. This would make room for families who want to have a single-family home. As far as staying the course he is for having more density on the site with a pause at this point and wait for the economic market to recover. Mayor Bill Boineau commented on the subsidy amount and stated that the subsidy should be consistent with the housing in the first phase. Council Member Butler requested more data before she would be able to comment on the subsidy issue and stated that she likes consistency because it brings integrity into the discussion. Council Member Butler summarized some of the thoughts that came from the public sector and reported that as she listens to what is happening at Sinclair Meadows, What we are doing is bringing into our community more multi-family units such as duplexes, townhomes and yet we have no idea how well these will go from inventory to purchase." Butler stated concern with the difficulty of getting the Daly Townhomes properties sold. The ratio of the single-family homes versus the number of rental properties/multi-family properties and she stated that "This is our last time to have single-family homes." She does not understand why we would want to increase the cost of the infrastructure and this is spending that she is not going to support, since she is a believer in single-family homes and if we don't go in this direction then we go on hold; if we do go with single-family she wants to see a schedule. She further stated that she consistently worries about children walking down streets to get to the school bus stops and she does not want to see more density that is going to put more cars on the roads. Relative to the survey, she stated that she feels that the survey does have some 03-16-09tc Page 7 of 14 validity and if we are going to do a survey we need to do something that expands marketing that gets more people involved. Council Member Lewis stated that he is supportive of waiting a little bit and as we move into the future the more families that we can house the better and this is a chance for people to have a yard near the park. Mayor Bill Boineau stated that we should stay the course, since this is one of the last appropriate locations where we can potentially build single-family homes. In response to an inquiry by Mayor Boineau, O'Connor stated that if things are put on hold the upside would be nobody wants to build a product that can't sell, rent or service the community properly. The challenge of not moving forward means that we would wrap up phase I, demobilize and finish the landscaping, clean the site up in preparation for when the time comes to proceed. The downside would be that taking advantage of the financial market and availability of contractors could change from the current case, which is "A lot of people are starving for work and we now have the ability to look at every bid and end cost closely." Council Member Butler requested a better demand analysis be conducted for single- family units in the surrey. Looking at the consistency of subsidy that was done before and what financial impact that would have on the Town and have more community input. The Town Attorney John Dresser stated that with regard to the downside of not proceeding at the entrance of Snowmass you have a half finished project. Dan DiMaria with the Rodeo Place No. 14 Stated that one reason that the 30% subsidy was granted was that it was ridiculous to use the same house plans three or four times with different home values. DiMaria reported that they moved into their home this past Wednesday and he is so grateful for his new home and the privacy that comes with having your own home. After further discussion, John Wilkinson requested that staff provide Council with a subsidies report to the other projects for their review. He needs to take another look at those numbers as a basis of the percentages of the sales price and he needs to see a budget to build this project and what are the potential risks. He requested more solid numbers with regard to the survey and asks people on the survey if they were unable to qualify for a single-family home would consider applying for a duplex unit. The Mayor announced that further discussion and decisions would be engaged during the next Town Council meeting scheduled for April 6, 2009. 03-16-09tc Page 8 of 14 O'Connor stated that he would like to sit down with Rudd Construction and Dan Rotner and discuss the desirable square footage and cost feasibility. The Town Manager reported that the FAB will be forwarding the Council with a recommendation including major capital projects and one of the recommendations centers around project management and often a Director or Senior Staff person may take on that responsibility, which could require 50% of that person's time. He stressed how valuable ROI's presence is to be our eyes and ears on the construction site. Local Resident Geneva Templeton Stated that when the decision was made last summer she was not really in favor of hiring an owner's representative however, she has become a believer since especially considering the issues that have come up with the duplexes and she can not imagine being able to call a large construction company such as RUDD to fix some of the issues, nor to call and meet with her. Rudd Construction Representative, Mark Prabylski Stated that working with Michael O'Connor and Bob Kaufman has actually made his job easier so that Rudd can get things done quicker. Prabylski also stated that O'Connor and Kaufman kept the project moving along at a faster pace, which could have taken the Town a little bit longer to get where we are today. Item No. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 06 SERIES OF 2009- SPECIFYING PERIODS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE LIMITED OR PROHIBITED Reed Lewis made a motion to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009, and Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The Economic Resource Director Jason Haber stated that this resolution was first considered by Council at it meeting of March 2, 2009. It is presented in consideration of SVMC Section 18-10.2(d)2, which states that the Town Council may choose to further prohibit, or otherwise limit excessive noise-producing construction and vehicle activity, including road and lane closures, or other construction -related activities from occurring during Peak Seasons including winter and summer, major special events and other holidays throughout the year. He stated that the Council resolution shall determine specific dates defining these periods and days on which such activities are prohibited or limited. In order to provide adequate notice and clear expectations to contractors and developers, such resolution should be adopted prior to March 1st of each year however, Council shall retain the right to alter or amend such resolution at any time as deemed necessary by the Council. Related Westpac Representative Jim D'Agostino explained that both the spring and the fall compresses construction times to accomplish certain types of road activity by 03-16-09tc Page 9 of 14 41 days. He stated that his major concern is the last day for paving is October 15th which compresses the schedule from September 21St for the road work that needs to be done in.front of the Viceroy Hotel, which is not nearly enough time to accomplish this task, as we need a full five or six weeks. He also explained that right after ski season there may be heavy rains during the spring time, that at produces mud, which could be an issue. He stated that last year Related worked with the Town very closely when it came to any type of special events and therefore he is asking for consideration of the exact time periods relating to the shoulder season versus the peak season. After further discussion, the Council consensus stated that they would adopt the dates within the resolution with the idea that the Applicant would come back to Council and ask for extension of time on an individual project basis, thereby giving the Town control over their own destiny. The Town Council, staff and the Applicant began the process of amending the resolution as follows: Line 62 that would state ending the summer peak season on September 7th; Line 64 the fall shoulder season begins on September 8th Haber explained that according to Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2007 Related is able to request work to be conducted outside these time frames through their project approval, which they have submitted their Construction Management Plan for this year and upon Council's review of this document Council could allow them to move forward. The other opportunity is to have the Applicant submit another request 21 days prior to the requested work date and that does need to be approved by Council resolution. The Town Attorney John Dresser pointed out that we are talking about delays with rain and pushing it out however, they can't' push beyond October 15th. The Applicant is here today asking to be able to start delivery of asphalt after the Labor Festival event omitting the weekend of the Balloon Festival and Wine & Jazz Festival. If we don't give them the date they are asking for, which is September 8th and remembering that all the asphalt comes from two asphalt two factories and the Applicant is in competition with these factories. Dresser stated that "To my mind he's in here right now asking for special consideration to compete in the market to get that asphalt in here but if he doesn't start until September 21St he does not have the dates on the back side." Arnold Mordkin stated that Council could amending the resolution by permitting limited road work on Wood Road. Dresser suggested that language be added to the end of Line 62 as follows: . . .accepting asphalt construction work on the Wood Road Right-of- Way may be permitted and include an outlined drawing of limitations within the CMP. Reed Lewis made a motion to approve as amended Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009, Arnold Mordkin seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor 03-16-09tc Page 10 of 14 to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 9 SECOND READING OF CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR ORDINANCE NO. 1, SERIES OF 2009 Reed Lewis made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2009, Markey Butler seconded the motion. The Chief Building Official Mark Kittle stated that the Building Department has submitted this ordinance regarding carbon monoxide detectors for review by the Town of Snowmass Village for review by Town Council. Kittle reported that the following changes have been made to First Reading of this ordinance as per Town Council's request as follows: Line item 18, the word nationally was added; Line Item 21, "Serious health" was replace with Potential; Line item 94, "with" was replaced with by the owner of the structure; Line Item 106, "with" was replaced with by the owner of the structure; and Line item 211, "misdemeanor" was replaced with municipal violation. The Town Council and staff began the process of discussing the ordinance line by line. After further discussion, the motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 10 COMP PLAN REVIEW The Town Manager Russ Forrest and Town Council discussed when it would be appropriate to have more discussions regarding the Comp. Plan Review and determined rather than planning extra Public Hearing meetings they would begin further discussions with the April 6`h Council and the public would be invited to those discussions. In the future Council would include time for further discussions during the next few meetings to completion. Reed Lewis commended staff and everyone who worked on the Comp. Plan materials as it is very well written. 03-16-09tc Page 11 of 14 The Town Public Relations Officer Lesley Compagnone clarified that when referencing format and content we have not lost anything such as public comment, by content changes we just mean reduced redundancy, ambiguous charts and graphs - "we didn't seek the public's input and then go behind closed doors and change everything." Local Resident Steve Parmalee Stated that he has a series of comments to make and referred Council to packet page 81 assumptions, page 82 forecasting, page 83, and page 84 all of which require valid discussions. Item No. 11 MANAGER'S REPORT Credit Rating Upgrade Forrest stated that the Town recently received a Standard and Poor's upgrade of the Town's general credit rating to AA. This is great news and put Snowmass Village on a credit level right up there with Grand Junction, Aspen and Vail as there are few AA credit ratings on the western slope. He explained that this upgrade is in part due to the economic growth over the years, the Base Village and Entryway developments and successive town leadership, managers, and Finance Department having been highly credit conscious. Packet Delivery to Council Forrest inquired of Town Council how they liked the packet, since this was the first time that staff has delivered the packet to them a full week earlier and staffs intent would be to continue doing this. Council consensus stated that they do not want that policy changed and that they appreciated receiving the information early. CBS News Coverage Dresser reported that our Town Manager made local news trumpeting the fact that Snowmass is still alive and well. He reported that CBS News out of Denver preceded Forrest's piece negatively on how things were in Vail, that they are laying off employees and our Marketing Department was happy to receive that kind of press that Snowmass Village is forging on and the background shots were awesome! Dresser invites everyone to check out the news coverage on the Town web site at: www.tosv.com Item No. 12 AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Staff and Town Council began discussing item arrangement for the next Agenda and requested that the following items be added: Brush Creek trail maintenance; a placeholder for the Comp. Plan review; bus services; Country Club Townhomes - 03-16-09tc Page 12 of 14 requested by the deed restricted homeowners; and Item No. 5 the demolition subject would be shifted to the April 20th meeting. Item No. 13 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 21, 2008 Reed Lewis made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for April 21, 2008, seconded by Arnold Mordkin. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. Voting Aye: Arnold Mordkin, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Markey Butler, and Mayor Bill Boineau. Voting Naye: None. Item No. 14 COUNCIL COMMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS/CALENDARS Excise Taxes Wilkinson requested expansion of the excise taxes to other than residential properties. Dresser reported that this has been our "To do" list since the election and he has been waiting for the Housing Manager's input. Bud Lite Concert Series Mordkin stated that he has noticed in the paper some ads about the Bud Lite concert series having been moved down to the Base Village location. He wondered who is paying for.it and what the mall merchants are saying about the move? Forrest reported that there was a decision to spread events around so that there is something for everyone to be involved with and benefit from. He further stated that Aspen Skiing Company is paying for it and promoted by the Town Marketing Department. CAST Mayor Bill Boineau reported that a few weeks ago some of the Council Members and the Town Manager met with the Colorado Association of Ski Towns to network with a number of other resorts and it seems that we all have similar issues across the west. They did find out that Granby have been dealing with the pine beetles for going on ten years. The pine beetle is a growing concern we are going to have to deal with possible water shed damage and we need to get in front of this potential problem. Butler commented on the presentation regarding economic opportunity with the wind generation on top of the mountain and if the Town could partner with the ASC we might 03-16-09tc Page 13 of 14 be able to grab some federal money. She requested that Jason follow-up on the federal grant monies. Grand Junction - Business Closures Mayor Bill Boineau stated that he was recently in Grand Junction and noticed that there are a number of businesses that are losing employees and shutting down. Forrest explained that the next economic report from the Town would be during the second meeting in May when we will be looking at a potential 75% reduction in RETT to date. Rodeo Place Mordkin reported that he received a significant communication from a Rodeo Place Lottery Winner regarding how (in this person's opinion) Town staff failed to follow through adequately and timely with things they should have done. In response to what happened and why, Mayor Boineau stated that Council did discuss this issue at the meeting last week and determined that there were some issues that she had misconstrued some direction on things she wanted to have happen. Staff worked as closely as they could with her specifically on a contract date that the Town was not ready to give. She talked to the builders and asked them when they would be finished and it was at that point she took that date as her moving in date. Boineau reported that the Town Manager and Town Attorney are trying to get things straightened out and gain an understanding of how timing could have worked differently. The Town Manager Russ Forrest reported that he has been focused on the Certificate of Occupancy (COP) for individual units and for the duplexes and it should be toward the end of this week. The challenge hasn't been completing units, rather the all of our lottery winners who have received a contract are taking longer to go through the lending process. The original thought is how to deal with duplex unit and the Housing Manager determined that having a Party-Will Agreement in terms of having legal documentation. The Town Attorney and he discussed the best way to deal with a duplex in deed restricted affordable housing units. It was the desire of Council to have a condominium association and we did move forward and obtained a condominium map. Dresser is working with that in terms of the legal documentation. After further discussion, Council directed staff to be more pro-active about delays within the project staff needs to reply back as soon as possible. the Town Attorney explained that the Town can not give out a contract without knowing what the legal ramifications are and what the premises described are that are going to be conveyed to someone. Friday at 4:30 p.m. of last week I received the Condominium Map, the Planning Director commented on it today and tomorrow I am meeting with the surveyor but up until then I didn't have a legal description to keep them in the affordable housing." He further explained that "you can't separate the phases of subsequent happenings down 03-16-09tc Page 14 of 14 there because if we lose declarant control under Colorado Common Interest Act so we had to comply with that Act and without jeopardizing our ability to amend the single- family declaration to remove lots from that while still maintaining our ability in the new condominium regime to add new lots depending upon Council's decision here tonight." Butler stated that this has been a learning curve for all of us and we need a road map from lessons learned once this project gets done. Item No. 15 ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, Arnold Mordkin made a motion to adjourn the Regular Town Council meeting of March 16, 2009, seconded by John Wilkinson. The vote was approved by 5 in favor and 0 opposed. The meeting ended at 8:45 P.M. Voting Aye: Mayor Bill Boineau, John Wilkinson, Reed Lewis, Arnold Mordkin, and Markey Butler. Voting Nay: None. Respectfully Submitted By: Donna J. Garcia-Spaulding, CMC Deputy Town Clerk Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Memorial Day TOWN CLEAN UP DAY! Ile 31 1 1 rE I Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3' 4 5 6 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. N. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Town Council CML -VAIL CML -VAIL CML -VAIL CML-VAIL Meeting a m. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30