Loading...
02-18-14 BV PUD Appeal of Comm. Devel. Dept. • • sci>,_afi,,---7-/eDie'L -§0 beap '8 i'lligir ., --. \ . 2 ...... &/)01 6 - 1___ � � iEECaiii/p/5Aa , r_ ---' ', u J imi- ,et, ♦ et -,ij, Jar n }y yr. ... * LY S �.�s,,..� ,.` �� i s ..' jj •id ,�, „ "'� 4 • .. ,,, - :sir "„ ,ate /�- 114k :,r fa , lot 4r I 1, Base Village PUD Appeal of Community Development Department Determination of Application February 18, 2014 r RELATED TOSV Criteria for Classification of PUD Applications • SVMC Section 16A-5-300(b)(1 ) "Major or minor PUD. The procedures applicable to a particular PUD are dependent on whether the project is classified as a minor or a major PUD. The criteria for classifying projects as major or minor are described in Table 5-3, Criteria for Classifying PUD's as Major or Minor. If a proposed development activity does not fit within the criteria listed in the table, then the Planning Director shall determine whether the proposal should be classified as a major or minor development, taking into consideration whether or not it would be beneficial for the the Town to review a sketch plan of the proposed development." 2 RELATED . . TOSV Criteria for Classification of PUD Applications Table 5-3 Criteria for Classifying PUD as Major or Minor Major PUD Minor PUD A major PUD is a project that meets any A minor PUD is a project that meets all of of the following criteria: the following criteria: New Development Contains more than four (4) dwelling/ Contains no more than four (4) dwelling/ hotel/lodge or other residential units. hotel/lodge or other residential units. Contains more than four thousand (4,000) Contains no more than four thousand sq. ft. of nonresidential space. (4,000) sq. ft. of nonresidential space. Additions/Re-Development Adds more than six (6) dwelling/hotel/ Adds no more than six (6) dwelling/hotel/ lodge or other residential units. lodge or other residential units. Increases the existing floor area or the Increases the existing floor area or the footprint of a nonresidential building by footprint of a nonresidential building by no more than ten percent (10%). more than ten percent ( 10%). 3 flRELATED Basis of Appeal • Community Development Director's decision is inconsistent with applicable provisions of the Land Use and Development Code. • Application does not meet any of the "bright line" tests set forth in Table 5-3. • Sketch plan review would not be beneficial to the Town. • The totality of the circumstances of the proposed amendment does not provide support for a long drawn out review of already entitled buildings and mitigations as no changes are proposed other than phasing. 4 r R ELATED Responses to TOSV Staff and Planning Commission comments 5 G RELATED Minor PUD Amendment Step 1 — Initial Vesting Deadline extended to May 3, 2016, conditioned upon completion of the following : Public Improvements Private Improvements Brush Creek Roundabout Building 5 - 102-key Limelight Hotel Upper Wood Road overlay, and Building 4 & 5 - Free market installation of curb and gutter as well residential units as bus shelter and pullout areas near the Enclave �� J Snowmelt system at entrance/exit to Building 5 - Limelight Bistro parking garage off Wood Road Restaurant Access to an additional 232 Building 4 - Rental/Retail Center Residential and Commercial/Day Skier Parking Spaces 11 0`L° New events plaza Building 5 - Snowmass Mountain Club \(); 6 11 RELATED Minor PUD Amendment Step 2 — Initial Vesting Deadline extended to May 3, 2020, in order to complete Buildings 6, 7 & 8 and Aqua Center. * Overall Vesting Deadline Unchanged - November 3, 2024 7 I: R ELATED Minor PUD Amendment • Applications are separate but linked • Aspen Skiing Company and Related (SAC) both require stability and certainty for future entitlements • Uncertainty and lack of stability will most likely result in no debt or equity financing • Together these applications provide the catalyst for completion of Base Village • Project schedules require final approval by June 2014 8 r RELATED - � <ip -%,,.1 ...... \ / if,) ...;\ , 4,..-",.-; ' 4 I- THE , (....t, JACiVEj. ._ Jll*11111.411 Jy ' t \ N ILO .'4 ,'*. gs- id J r � Com' 1116. + ...): .w 2,4 \\ Alive / J . or , � , . , ,, ir _ #1,,,„,,..rir:.t. J ?j 'Ml! J �/'h` may, . ' 4;4tri : %, if '�1110 ` ,7,4 ,:I • : • '• 416 It*:":4 .‘ 'ter. ' ...tr, i • . •,, ' , '''.4 J • • • - 7 ', ` = ►.mss 1 r-, 1 1`\ + : M36lmi wj/�*ally'' i ir;i ..I T 941.4, �_ �:* ' AA &AL.. ... .,.,,A47,11,,,,. .4.,„, J.7&,4 0„.‘‘` 1 0• a i ejji. 011 %kit .08111... .off•• • �}ta.!` 7 -i jka .A 1.,11---).-14o11''''"-- •4 i��R�� ir ti, .:. �') + •• • Base Village PUD Appeal of CommunityDevelopment Department Determination of Application February 18 , 2014 rai RELATED 1.cejaJi-71-ko SLP Rhonda Coxon From: Mel D.Blumenthal<melpaull@earthlink net> C9//8//� Sent: Tuesday,February 18,2014 10.37 AM To: Bill Boineau;Markey Butler,Fred Kucker;Jason Haber,Chris Jacobson Cc: Gary Suiter,John Dresser,Mark Kittle,Rhonda Coxon,Dwayne Romero Subject: SAC's Appeal of CDD's Determination that SAC's Application for a PUD Amendment is a Major Amendment Council Members, On behalf of the Enclave Homeowners Association I would like to express our support for the Community Development Director's determination that the subject application be treated as a Major Amendment. In various sections of the SAC's appeal the applicant states that"The changes are very minor and will not have a substantially adverse effect on the neighborhood surrounding the land where the amendment is proposed,or have a substantially adverse impact on the enjoyment of the land abutting or across the street from the subject property,and will not change the basic character of the PUD or surrounding areas." The Enclave is both adjacent and across the street from SAC's development project. Without the advantage of the full review that will occur in connection with a Major Amendment we cannot agree with the applicant's blanket statement of no substantial adverse impact. This is particularly true since as part of their Minor Amendment application we will not see the full plan for the completion of Base Village that SAC promised to present to TOSV prior to the end of 2013. Please enter this email into the official record of the Town Council meeting Respectfully, Mel D Blumenthal,President Enclave Homeowners Association 1 James Herrel PO Box 5004 Base Village SMV, CO 81615 Monday, February 17, 2014 Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Snowmass Village Community Development RE; Vesting Rights Extension Lot 2 PUD Amendment involving Lot 2 Vesting rights are a poor idea as the potential holders of title, and the ways in which the property is held are subject to change. The rights, once extended, carry obligation by the town included in the transfer of the property, creating a liability to the town. If the original vested property is foreclosed, debts may be reduced in the sale, however the granted vested rights transfer and their value move with the property. Amendments or extension are frequently sought as economies or ownership forms change and we, the community, are deserving of greater flexibility then this poor idea of VESTED RIGHTS. Please eliminate the use of vested rights in the future and allow no extensions to the present. If Snowmass Village Community Development, in its wisdom, feels a change is required, it is my hope that a different and flexible device that will serve all of the community will be used. Page 1 of 3 It is Full time, year round residents who are vital to what the EH program was developed to facilitate. These are the people who volunteer and participate in government, vote, raise children, keep small business and provide for the major cooperation's needs in Snowmass Village. 3. Don Schuster, Skico representative, commented that Skico alone has the infrastructure to support the planned hotel:the off site management, the resource of the ski hill and the expertise to manage a seasonal hotel. As Skico was instrumental in developing plans this is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that so many years after plans were developed and approved, the original developer is petitioning Snowmass Village Community Development for amendment. They in turn are seeking citizen comment. When the vote for Base Village was being marketed and campaigned, Jim Crown told the voters there would be no amendments to the Base Village proposal. My comment is, incredible. 1y` Ja es Herrel CC:Mayor, Town Council,Village Pla/ in,. Commissioners Page 3 of 3 g in `ff fat 116 9 iJ• R E SNOWMASS Kaye Efficiency and Renewables winamina_mma What Makes " Cents" for Snowmass Update on RFP Process February 18 , 2014 Where we started . . . • The 2013 Strategic Plan included the following Council goal: "Reduce carbon emissions generated by the Town of Snowmass Village by 20% by 2020 from the baseline year of 2009 moving the Town toward a vision of net zero carbon emissions." How We Got Here • 2009 carbon inventory revealed great opportunities to start reducing emissions in our own facilities • Set an example/start with what we can control • Save money on costly and energy intensive systems • RFP issued and three shortlisted proposals rose to the top • Conventional wisdom to start with efficiency first • Council voiced desire to quantify return on investment before making any additional expenditures UtilityCost Summary • Town's total utility costs in 2012 : $441 ,528 • Top expenses: • Snowmelt (all 4 boilers) : $ 253 ,597 • Recreation Center: $ 81 ,444 • Public Works Ops Facility: $44,949 • Town Hall: $40, 148 • While Nick Reitter and SGM have made great progress toward reducing the Town's energy costs and carbon emissions, there are savings still on the table, which can be achieved through advanced monitoring and controls Case in Point. . . . • Carbondale Recreation Center: Opened March, 2008 • Designed as a LEED building. Features 288-panel PV system, water efficient toilets, efficient skylights, recycled finishes, and other state of the art systems • Spring 2010: Realized building was using more energy than expected. $5,000 in electricity • Identified lighting, HVAC issues. Changes made to settings and software. Shows importance of advanced monitoring • Saved more than $10,000 in annual energy costs as compared to doing nothing. Now hooked up to Energy Navigator and expect even greater savings • "In commercial buildings,just one electricity demand spike can result in high costs for an entire billing month." By tuning the building HVAC software further, we hope to warm up the building on cold mornings using only natural gas heat, avoiding costly electricity spikes."— Mike Ogburn, CLEER Snapshot : R01 Scenarios Desired Desired Annual Total Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Energy pay- projected investment invest- savings back savings ment period 10% '- 5 years . 44 152 ,_, , _ $ 220,760 $ 150,00 $ 70 ki I mow* 1111 20% r 5 years $ 88 , 305 $441 , 528 $ 150,00 $ 85k $ 85k $ 85k $ 36. 5 0 k These ROI scenarios apply to a project that would tackle ALLTOWN SYSTEMS currently on our utility bills. This includes all primary facilities and our snowmelt systems. Utility costs in 2012 totaled $441 , 528 . * All are approximations Snapshot: ROI Scenarios Desired Desire Annual Total Yr 1 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Energy d pay- projected investme invest- savings back savings nt ment period 10% 5 ears $25,359 $ 126,798 $ 126,798 _ Liiii 20% 5 years $50,719 $253,597 $ 150,000 $85k $ 18.6k --- --- These ROI scenarios apply to a project that would pursue efficiency improvements on the town's four snowmelt systems. Utility costs for these systems in 2012 totaled $253,597. * All are approximations Comparing our options and The Impacts on the Holy Cross Comm . Enhancement Fund $1,000,000 $900,000 . . $800,000 ■Five-year investment $700,000 $600,000 ■10-year savings $500,000 ■Holy Cross Balance impact $400,000 $300,000 ,. . ... $200,000 ' . $100,000 0 Holy Cross Balance impact $0 10-year savings 10%snowmelt 0%all Five-year investment 20%snowmelt 20%all Final Thoughts • Five-year payback is a very strong return on investment • Case studies abound regionally with quantified savings • Leaves significant remaining Holy Cross Community Enhancement Funds for future projects to continue to move Town toward our goal • Conversations with Sol Energy will continue. Efficiency is the necessary first step to ensure that investment is properly pursued • Protect the Town from rising energy costs, and volatile natural gas costs • Leadership Next Steps : • Return to council with a funding request James Herrel PO Box 5004 Base Village SMV, CO 81615 Monday, February 17, 2014 Jim Wahlstrom, Senior Planner Snowmass Village Community Development RE; Vesting Rights Extension Lot 2 PUD Amendment involving Lot 2 Vesting rights are a poor idea as the potential holders of title, and the ways in which the property is held are subject to change. The rights, once extended, carry obligation by the town included in the transfer of the property, creating a liability to the town. If the original vested property is foreclosed, debts may be reduced in the sale, however the granted vested rights transfer and their value move with the property. Amendments or extension are frequently sought as economies or ownership forms change and we, the community, are deserving of greater flexibility then this poor idea of VESTED RIGHTS. Please eliminate the use of vested rights in the future and allow no extensions to the present. If Snowmass Village Community Development, in its wisdom, feels a change is required, it is my hope that a different and flexible device that will serve all of the community will be used. Page 1 of 3 The petition for amendment involving Lot 2 of Base Village deserves scrutiny. There are three salient areas that concern me. 1. The applicant is petitioning for a reduction in parking allocations. This may reduce the applicant's cost liability to Base Village Metro District but it does not reduce the cost to the metro district or the owners in Base Village. In a front page feature of the Aspen Times, on January 15, , James DeFrancia, an executive at Destination Snowmass Services, which was appointed as a receiver, is quoted, "They are causing the metro district and owners considerable harm, I don't think it is very ethical business behavior." Owners in Base Village pay a 43.500 mill levy for Base Village Metro District 2. An extraordinary amount! Moreover, there has been a recent increase in capital bond debt for Base Village What is more extraordinary is the limited to no voice owners have in the operation of this Metro District. Developer and major tenants hold board chairs and our voice is limited to... Comment. This is an injustice, and I ask that it be corrected before considering any amendment to Lot 2, PUD. 2. Applicant petitions for a reduction of employee housing mitigation to a seasonal designation and the subsequent reduction in size for these units. This should not be allowed. Page 2 of 3 It is Full time, year round residents who are vital to what the EH program was developed to facilitate. These are the people who volunteer and participate in government, vote, raise children, keep small business and provide for the major cooperation's needs in Snowmass Village. 3. Don Schuster, Skico representative, commented that Skico alone has the infrastructure to support the planned hotel:the off site management, the resource of the ski hill and the expertise to manage a seasonal hotel. As Skico was instrumental in developing plans this is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that so many years after plans were developed and approved, the original developer is petitioning Snowmass Village Community Development for amendment. They in turn are seeking citizen comment. When the vote for Base Village was being marketed and campaigned, Jim Crown told the voters there would be no amendments to the Base Village proposal. My comment is, incredible. Ja es Herrel CC:Mayor, Town Council,Village Pla I in,. Commissioners Page 3 of 3 r